Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I spent the summer travelling the communities of Moose Jaw, Lanigan, Watrous and Outlook and everywhere in between, listening to the people I am honoured to represent. In those conversations, I heard the same thing over and over again: Canadians are tired of watching Liberals spend on insiders and pet projects while families struggle to make ends meet. Farmers are struggling just to break even. I am back in the House, ready to fight for the communities of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. That means standing up for the agriculture sector, which feeds this country. It means demanding that the Liberals focus on what matters to Canada, and it means defending the institutions that are important to Canadians, like the iconic Snowbirds, grounded by the Liberals, who are spending on everything but our nation's priorities. I will keep fighting for the best interests of my people and their communities and demanding better for our country.

Mr. Speaker, one thing I have noticed is that some of the policies the Liberals are bringing out now are obviously Conservative policies, but the difference is that when Conservatives were conceiving these policies, they were for a vision to insulate us from the issues and challenges that we are facing today. Would my colleague agree that it is too little too late from the Liberals, whereas if a Conservative government had been voted in, we would have solved these problems before they were even on our plate?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the aisle mentioned the former leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, Mr. Joe Clark. I actually have interactions with a former Liberal minister, Mr. Dan McTeague, who said that he did not leave the Liberal Party but that the Liberal Party left him. I think there is some give and take here. I would like to know what my colleague from Winnipeg North's opinions are on Mr. McTeague. I feel as if the Liberal Party has lost its compass. It is way off and seems to be getting into everybody else's business instead of looking after the business of looking after Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed my root canal today. I want to talk about my colleague across the aisle's saying that he has recognized the economy. The Liberal Party has failed Canadian people for far too long. The Liberals had this opportunity 10 years ago, but they are just recognizing it now. The failures have prevented Canadians from being insulated from the challenges we are facing globally. I have just never heard such drivel in my entire life. The Liberal government has failed and has missed opportunities, and it is like a brand new thing to them. It is unbelievable. This should have been done 10 years ago. Canadians would not be in food lines. In my own riding, people are now being interviewed to go to the food bank. How has the government insulated and prevented Canadians from going through that? It is an economic mess.

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this motion. It is a very important subject, not only to my riding but to me personally, and I would like to share the reason. Before I kick off my speech, I would like to thank my colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane for his speech and for his passion and leadership as the critic for veterans affairs. I have learned quite a bit from him. I appreciate his dedication to veterans and what he wants to do with this particular board. I would like to to give a bit of background about why I am so passionate about this, and why I am here. My family, as I have shared numerous times, came from Scotland, but during World War II, they were living in Scotland. My grandfather, who was on the offensive during World War II, was in a café. He was drinking, having a few libations with his fellow British soldiers. All of a sudden, Canadian soldiers came rushing in and started screaming “retreat, retreat, retreat”. There was a German offensive, and they did not have enough firepower to have a counteroffensive, so the British soldiers started throwing on all their gear. While they were doing that, the Canadian soldiers looked at the wall that had all these bottles of booze and started shooting at them, like it was a western. My Scottish grandfather, who liked his odd tipple, was horrified and started screaming “ceasefire, ceasefire, ceasefire”. Finally, the Canadians stopped. My grandfather went up a Canadian sergeant and asked, “What are you doing?” The Canadian soldier looked at him and said, “If we're not drinking it, they're not drinking it.” My Scottish grandfather fell in love with Canadians. What he witnessed was the bravery of those soldiers overseas, which was so important. At home, my grandmother and my mother, who was a very small child, witnessed the generosity of the Canadian soldiers. These soldiers came overseas, volunteered, and brought with them things my grandmother could not get, like baked goods, and shared them with generosity. That was why my family decided to move to Canada. It was because of what they witnessed at home and what they witnessed overseas, the bravery. We cannot forget that. That is the whole point of having an independent military review board, to recognize the bravery and the sacrifice of our Canadian soldiers. Not only is this important to my family, but it is important to my riding. I know that MLA Blaine McLeod has been here, to Ottawa, advocating for recognition for Jess Larochelle and the bravery he displayed while he was overseas. He was doing what the soldiers in World War II were doing, in Afghanistan. Our foreign policy and our international recognition are based on the blood and sacrifice of Canadian soldiers overseas. Those in Europe get to see the gravestones every single day when they drive by, because our soldiers went overseas. Fortunately, we have not had that much conflict here in Canada. We had little skirmishes very early on in our history. Our sacrifices made overseas are something Europeans witness every single day. It is hard for Canadians to reconcile that. That is why we have to make that extra effort within the House of Commons to recognize those who have advocated on our behalf and made that sacrifice. They have gone overseas and said, “Yes, I'm going to go,” not just to save the democracy within this country but to preserve democracy around the world. I am passionate about this subject. I am passionate about our military, and I am passionate about our veterans, who deserve more. We keep failing them. There is a continual failure to support our veterans, those who have said, “Yes, send me. I will go.” Madam Speaker, you will have to give me a second here because sometimes, in my passion, I have to kind of chill out a bit. I feel like we have done a great disservice to Canadians and to veterans, who just want some basic, simple things like care, and we are failing in our duty to support them. I witness that every single day, whether they are reservists or full-time veterans. We do not understand sometimes what they have gone through and the sacrifices they have made, but they deserve better. That is the whole point of having this independent review board. It would recognize people who have slipped through the cracks. It is so important for us to pause, have a reset and make sure things do not slip through the cracks for our veterans. I also want to go back, while I have the opportunity, to the recognition of veterans who served but did not come back. Europeans can drive by gravestones and see the maple leaf on them. They get to witness that every single day. As I have said, we do not have that recognition of the sacrifice here, but we do get to see the professionalism of our serving members when we witness the Snowbirds. That is why I find it disappointing that the Liberal government wants to cancel the Snowbirds after this season. For Canadians who do not get the chance to go overseas or witness the sacrifices by Canadians, it is a way for us to see the professionalism, excellence and unity of our Canadian Armed Forces. People in Canada now have a connection with their military. They have a connection with the history of our military and the sacrifices that our military has made. It is so important. When we erode these things, we do a disservice not only to our nation but to our ally nations around the world that rely on a strong partner in times of need. We have always been there, but when we cut these things, we are sending a message that we are weakening our position. We are weakening ourselves, and we are not being there for our allies and neighbours. I am speaking in support of the motion. This independent review board is necessary. It is necessary not only for our nation but for the people in my riding, because they believe in it.

Madam Speaker, I have to say that sometimes we get things wrong, and we witnessed that recently. We witnessed the Liberal government's parading out the Snowbirds and then basically telling the pilots that they are going to be losing their jobs. Then, at the Afghan monument, there was no, or very little, presence of our veterans. We have to reverse the roles. We have to recognize when it is due and treat our military properly. I think the committee makeup has to be of people who actually recognize and understand the sacrifices made by our vets and have an inside perspective but who are also very neutral, so their own passions are not—

Madam Speaker, I have to point out that I have not seen my colleague in the gym for a while, so hopefully I will see him next week. We as Canadians are very humble in the way we carry ourselves, so it is very hard for us to accept recognition for the sacrifices we have made. However, it is so important now, when we are being challenged globally, that we recognize the sacrifice made by the people who are willing to leave their family and to miss birthdays, weddings and anniversaries to go help someone else. The sacrifice is not just by the person who is going overseas. It is also by the family, and we have to recognize that. What makes our nation such a strong and powerful nation is that we are willing to make those sacrifices, and one cannot put a recognition on that.

Mr. Speaker, after much hype, the Minister of National Defence paraded the Snowbirds in front of the media for all of Canada to see. He then shamefully announced that the Snowbird team was grounded after the 2026 season and that the people behind them were losing their jobs. Which Liberal government was wrong, the one that spent $30 million to keep them flying or the one that is prematurely grounding them? Both L3Harris and Magellan Aerospace, who inspected the jets, say the Tutors are safe to fly until 2030. Was the squadron ever asked if the team could fly until 2030?

Mr. Speaker, if they are safe to fly now, why are they not safe to fly next year? The Liberal government took over a decade to sign the F-35 contract, which is now under review and delayed. If the Snowbird replacement follows that timeline, the team will not fly again until the 2040s. For 55 years, the Snowbirds have been a jet team. The replacement the minister has announced is a propeller aircraft. Who made the decision not to pick jets?

Mr. Speaker, on May 19, the Minister of National Defence came to Moose Jaw, home of Canada's Snowbirds. He paraded the Snowbirds team out in front of the media and used them as his backdrop. Then he announced that the team were now losing their jobs. This is one of the most un‑Canadian things the people of Canada have ever witnessed happen to our military, and Canadians are disappointed with this behaviour. The Liberals have sat on this file for over a decade. The Tutors are being grounded after $30 million was spent to keep the jets flying until 2030. Both L3Harris and Magellan Aerospace have said the Tutors are safe to fly. Now, out of nowhere, the minister has announced a replacement aircraft that has propellers but with no timeline, no number of planes, no in-service date. The Snowbirds Alumni Association calls this profoundly disappointing. So does Moose Jaw, and so does Canada. Canadians deserve a jet team. The Prime Minister can make this happen by reversing his decision.

Mr. Speaker, CTV has confirmed from two sources that the Snowbirds are not scheduled for their 2027 shows. For generations, the Snowbirds have been inspiring and uniting Canadians. The minister said Canadians will enjoy the Snowbirds “for generations to come”, but how many generations will it take to revive the iconic Snowbirds after the Liberals cancel them? How many generations will miss out being inspired by looking to our skies?

Mr. Speaker, well, the question comes up. Is that never? We never got an answer. Why not answer now? Why do you not answer right now? Are you keeping the Snowbirds flying? Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been inspired by the Snowbirds, an incredible symbol of strength and sovereignty. Now, more than ever, we need them. On what date will the iconic Snowbirds return to the Canadian skies?

Mr. Speaker, air show organizers across North America are quietly being told that this is the final season of the iconic Snowbirds. I wrote the Minister of National Defence almost six months ago, asking about the future of the Snowbirds. There was no reply. Senator Batters did the same in the Senate. Crickets. Tomorrow is the Snowbirds “acceptance show” in Comox. Why will the Liberals not come clean about their decision to cancel the iconic Snowbirds and when will they reverse this terrible decision?

Mr. Speaker, jet noise is the sound of freedom, not white noise. Canadians want to be inspired by other Canadians. Do members know how we got the second female Snowbird pilot? It is because a flame was planted in her heart at the age of 12 when she saw the first female Snowbird pilot. Why are the Liberals hiding the fact that they plan to cancel the Snowbirds after the season, and why will they not immediately reverse this terrible decision? It is SOS time: Save our Snowbirds.

Mr. Speaker, I went to Moose Jaw the way a lot of people do, through the Royal Canadian Air Force, and I decided to plant my roots and build my life in that community. The men and women I served alongside understood something fundamental: Discipline, sacrifice and excellence are not words on a page, but daily choices. Today, we welcome the Royal Canadian Air Force to Parliament Hill for Air Force Day on the Hill. I think of the instructors, technicians, aircrews, medics and support personnel at 15 Wing who keep our proud nation alive. NATO allies have sent their pilots there because Canada's training standard is considered the best in the world. Our air force is one of Canada's most vital national institutions, and the people who serve in it are among the best this country has to offer. To everyone serving, past and present, we see them and we are grateful. Per ardua ad astra.

Mr. Speaker, I was actually going to ask my colleague a question there. I did my officer training in her riding of Saint-Jean. It is a beloved area in my life. Some of that I wanted to forget, because of the gruelling training, but I do appreciate my colleague's speech, her passion for our military and her passion for Quebec. The motto of la belle province is Je me souviens or I remember. I apologize about my French, but I am practising and I have to overcome my own fear. I will do that by speaking with my French colleagues. I want to talk about what the Minister of National Defence tabled last week, and why it matters to people who trusted the House to get it right. The minister tabled report stage amendments that would undo months not just of Conservative work but of committee work. Bloc and Conservative members of the Standing Committee on National Defence sat together, listened to witnesses and built something worth passing. The minister swept it away. Not satisfied with tabling the amendments last week, the government has now moved time allocation to limit how long the House can even discuss them. Survivors came forward twice and made themselves vulnerable twice. I have been asked to speak to the bill because of the work I have done on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. In the last Parliament, ACVA undertook the largest study in its history. It held 23 meetings, with nearly 100 witnesses, with respect to the experience of women veterans. In Parliament we are studying suicide prevention, and in many meetings, MST surfaces as a driver for suicide. The two files are not separate. As part of both studies, the committee undertook dedicated work on trauma-informed practices, what trauma does to memory, to reporting and to the way survivors present themselves in institutional settings. I do not raise this to claim expertise. I raise it because I find myself wondering whether the officials who drafted these report stage amendments, or the members now standing to defend them, have spent comparable time in those rooms. Many of the women who spent months testifying before the veterans affairs committee later came before the national defence committee to speak directly to the bill. They showed up twice. They made themselves vulnerable twice. The minister's amendments are his response. The cross-party amendments to clauses 7 and 8 would give survivors the right to choose which justice system handled their case, military or civilian. That reflected what witnesses asked for directly. Donna Van Leusden told the committee: For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill...survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor‑centred. She is right, and she is not alone. The provost marshal general testified that over the last five years, 270 out of 735 files stayed with the military police because victims specifically asked for them to stay there. That is more than one-third of all cases. These are real people making an informed choice. The minister's amendments would eliminate choice entirely. Regarding civilian capacity, the picture is equally concerning. Sexual assault cases exceeding the Jordan framework deadline limits rose from just over 15% in 2016-17 to more than 30% in 2022-23. Nearly half of those cases were stayed or the files withdrawn. The civilian system is struggling with its existing caseload. The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police was direct in its written submission. It said that the proposed provisions would deny victims the ability to express a preference as to how their complaint is investigated. This departs from the victim-centred and trauma-informed principles that underpin best practices in policing. CACP recommended maintaining concurrent jurisdiction. The people who would be executing this mandate said it would not work. The minister made his amendments anyway. It is worth noting what the minister acknowledged at committee: He has not spoken to Justice Arbour, Justice Fish or Justice Deschamps on this file. When asked how many victims his office consulted when drafting the bill, he said that he would have to get back to the committee. He had not spoken to any provincial justice ministers since taking the portfolio. Jordan framework delays were not in his briefings. He would be implementing a mandatory jurisdictional transfer into a system he has not even consulted, without the resources to support it and over the explicit objection of survivors, the director of military prosecutions and the chiefs of police. There are real consequences to getting this wrong, and they are playing out right now. A decade ago, the Canadian Armed Forces set a target of 25% women in uniform by 2026. Today, after 10 years of stated commitment, the number sits at 16.7%. The recruitment commander said last week that the target is now impossible to reach. In the past fiscal year alone, 1,070 women left the military, the highest rate in five years, despite pay increases. We cannot recruit and retain women in an institution where they know before they sign up that if something happens to them, the system will not put their choice at the centre. That is precisely what Bill C-11, as the minister has now amended it, would fail to do. The government set a target of 25% women. It could not reach a force of 67,000. What exactly is its plan for half a million? When I spoke to the bill at an earlier stage, I said that I hoped that by the time my daughters are adults, parliamentarians would not still be debating how to get this right for people assaulted in the forces in which they choose to serve. I am standing here at report stage, and nothing has changed. If anything, I am less optimistic than I was then. However, I have not stopped believing it is possible. The committee did the work. The result was something worth passing. What the minister tabled last week is not an improvement. It is the government's substituting its own preference for that of survivors. That is paternalistic. It is further disenfranchisement of the people who have already been rendered powerless once. Conservatives will continue to fight to restore the amendments. The provisions about choice must stand. Civilian capacity must be resourced before jurisdiction is transferred. Survivors who came forward twice, who trusted twice, deserve better than this. We can do better than this. As I said, I am the father of two daughters, and I hope and pray that the work we have put in to make their lives better would be heard by members on the other side of the aisle. We can do better. We owe it to the next generation. We owe it to those who want to join.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from across the aisle ran out of time and did not get to ask a question, which is surprising. Here is what I have seen in the last year. The Liberals are pounding their chests, saying that the forces have had over 7,000 applications, but that does not show how many have not made it through. It does not show the failure rate that has happened within the military, nor what the Liberals are doing to fail women who need options and choices when travesty happens to them in the military.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. Yes, absolutely, we need to go through this with a fine-tooth comb. My colleagues have already done the heavy lifting. They have already come forward with recommendations that are being ignored, and that is how the victims feel. They feel ignored. That is what the Liberal government is doing to them: ignoring their pleas and the challenges they have faced. It is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, it comes down to victims' having the choice. They need to feel safe. They feel betrayed. They want to have options, because they want to be heard. This is what I am saying: The Liberal government is ignoring and shutting them out, and they have already been traumatized. We have seen that time and time again, not only in the defence committee but also in the veterans affairs committee. It is not time to shut people out. It is time to give them options. It is time to let them be heard.

Madam Speaker, you are looking well and it is great to have you in the chair. I want to talk about a principle most Canadians would consider common sense: If someone owns something, they should be able to fix it. Canada has already done meaningful work on this file. Bill C-244 and Bill C-294 removed copyright barriers that were being used to block repairs on digital devices. The member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, a close friend of mine, introduced Bill C-294 specifically because he understood what those restrictions were doing to agriculture, mining, construction and forestry industries in Saskatchewan. He named them explicitly. Those bills were real, they targeted action and they deserve credit. I want to thank the member for Bourassa for bringing this bill forward. He has identified a genuine problem and put in the work to bring it here. The frustration behind this bill is legitimate. Canadians should have better options when the products they own break down, but this bill is not the right answer and I will explain why. When governments get the right to repair right, they act where the need is greatest. They create actual rights, not frameworks and not consultation processes, but rights. In 2023, Colorado became the first American state to pass an agricultural right to repair law, the Consumer Right to Repair Agricultural Equipment Act. It guaranteed farmers and independent mechanics access to the software and repair materials needed to fix tractors and other agricultural equipment. That was a law. It created real rights in one day. The Federal Trade Commission then filed an antitrust lawsuit against John Deere in January 2025, alleging the company had monopolized the repair market by withholding diagnostic tools. Earlier this month, a class action lawsuit against John Deere settled for $99 million, with a 10-year commitment to make diagnostic tools available to farmers and independent shops. There are now 16 states that have active agricultural right to repair legislation. American farmers running John Deere equipment now have legal tools their Canadian counterparts do not. This is a competitive disadvantage baked into the regulatory gap. Prairie producers are already carrying cost pressures their American competitors do not face in the same way: industrial carbon pricing, fertilizer costs, higher fuel costs and input costs that cannot be passed down to a buyer who sets the price on global commodity markets. Canadian farmers are price-takers. They absorb every additional cost at the farm gate. This is one more structural disadvantage stacking up. My riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan is bigger than Switzerland. It is five square kilometres bigger than Switzerland, with 41,290 square kilometres of agricultural land, rural communities and some of the most productive grain and canola in Canada. Across the entire riding, there are three authorized John Deere service locations. Colorado figured out how to give its farmers real options. This bill would not give the farmers in my riding any. I want to be clear this is not a criticism of equipment dealers. They serve their customers well and are part of the communities I represent. They play a vital role. The problem is the software lock. A farmer near Craik or Tugaske cannot hand their local mechanic the diagnostic tool they need because the manufacturer controls access to it. If someone has the right software, the repair takes an afternoon. Without it, they wait for the one authorized technician who has the key. In Saskatchewan, harvest windows are measured in days, not weeks. A two-day repair delay is not an inconvenience; it can be a crop. The agriculture sector made exactly this case during the government's own right-to-repair consultations in 2024. The National Cattle Feeders' Association told ISED directly that farmers face an uncompetitive scenario and are forced to accept the costs and repair schedules of manufacturers. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture called for legislation compelling manufacturers to provide access. Alberta Grains, representing over 18,000 wheat and barley farmers, submitted that producers were so frustrated with repair monopolies that some would rather operate less advanced equipment they could actually fix. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada held its own targeted round tables specifically on farm equipment and interoperability. The sector showed up. The government ran dedicated round tables on the exact gap this bill would leave open, and the bill before the House today does not contain the word “agriculture”. The bill before us has two problems. The first is what the bill fails to do and the second is what the bill would do. On the first point, the bill's scope is explicitly for electronic products and essential home appliances, defined as devices intended for regular household use. That definition closes the door entirely on agricultural equipment. A framework covering dishwashers and smart phones but not combines is not a right-to-repair framework for the producers who feed this country. On the second point, this bill would not just address repairability. It would establish minimum durability standards and a federal regulatory framework over consumer product design and manufacturing. I understand the consumer appeal of that. Canadians are right to be frustrated when products are built to fail, but we need to be honest about what this bill would be. It would be a new federal regulatory layer over a broad category of consumer products on top of provincial consumer protection regimes that are already moving on this file. Quebec's Bill 29 is active. Ontario is advancing its own legislation. The provinces are acting. Ottawa adding a parallel federal durability standards framework on top of that provincial action is not simplification. It is duplication. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business just released its report entitled “Canada's Entrepreneurial Drought”. Canada is in a sustained period where business exits outpace new entries every single quarter. In Saskatchewan specifically, net business creation has been negative for most of the past decade. Regulatory compliance costs Canadian businesses $51.5 billion annually, with nearly $18 billion of that attributed to pure red tape. About 87% of small business owners say that excessive regulation significantly reduces their ability to grow. This week, leading Canadian industry groups told the Financial Times that federal red tape is costing the country more than Trump's tariffs. Nutrien, headquartered in Saskatchewan, chose to build a $1-billion port in Washington state over Canada's west coast, citing Canadian regulation as a key factor in that decision. This is not the moment to add another federal framework to the pile. I cannot support this bill. It is not because the right to repair is wrong, as it is not. It is not because the member for Bourassa's concern is misplaced, as it is not. I oppose this bill because it would deliver a new regulatory framework when the provinces are already at work.

Mr. Speaker, no one thought it possible to outspend Justin Trudeau. This Liberal Prime Minister has somehow managed to. He has added $90 billion above the Trudeau-era levels in new spending and nearly doubled the deficit. Operating costs are up 9% in under a year. Two-thirds of that new spending goes to day-to-day operations, not investment. The result is the worst grocery inflation in the G7 and Canadians putting their own bills on credit cards are going to food banks. When will this Liberal Prime Minister end his costly credit card budgeting so Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, I have sat on the veterans affairs committee and heard, during the women's study, the traumas that many have endured. They want justice. When I hear what is being proposed by the Liberals, all I hear is downloading and sending victims to overloaded courts. I ask my colleague from across the aisle, why are you doing this? Why can you not come up with something that is sound and reasonable for the victims and for those who serve in the military?

Mr. Speaker, in 1991, Canadian men and women in uniform answered the call to defend Kuwait. Operation Friction deployed nearly 4,500 Canadian Forces members to the Persian Gulf. They served with distinction alongside coalition partners to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation. For the first time in our history, women served alongside men in combat roles. Canada would answer that call again after 9/11. There were 158 Canadians who gave their lives in Afghanistan before the combat mission ended in March 2011. For many who returned from both conflicts, the battles continued at home as recognition of service-related illnesses and access to veterans benefits remained an ongoing struggle. On these important anniversaries, we honour every Canadian who served in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan wars. We remember their sacrifice. We acknowledge the challenges they faced upon return, and we reaffirm our commitment to never leave those who served and their families behind.

Mr. Speaker, that answer does not deal with the crisis of bad Liberal policies in my province. There is an emergency. Farmers across my riding have been sounding the alarm bell for years. The ban on strychnine has led to uncontrolled gopher populations devastating crops. The Government of Saskatchewan, rural municipalities and farmers have called for emergency access to strychnine. The Liberal minister committed to farmers in my province that he would support emergency-use application. Will the government listen to farmers and for once keep its promise?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac, who is diligently working on his speech right now. The government will say it has a revenue problem, and it does. It will say it has a spending problem, and it does. What it will not say is that it has a priority problem. I served. I know what it means to trust that one's country has one's back. Bill C-15 is where we find out what that trust is actually worth. It is 600 pages that inflate savings that do not exist, that retroactively change the law to avoid compensating veterans who were quietly overcharged for decades, and that demand repayment from disabled veterans who can least afford it. Serving this country is not a liability to be managed, but this bill treats it like one. I want to mention that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is currently studying barriers to entrepreneurship among veterans. That study will likely conclude with a recommendation for a new grant program. That is the predictable result. However, while ACVA studies barriers, the $6.6-billion defence industrial strategy, the largest defence investment in a generation, contains zero veteran business set-asides. There is not a single line. In the United States, veteran status opens economic doors. The GI bill's boots to business program, a 3% federal contracting carve-out for veteran-owned businesses, is a deliberate policy choice. Deliberate policy choices are important. Canada is studying barriers while actively building new ones. We do not need a new grant program. We need to treat the veterans who built this sector as qualified and important partners in its future. The government is now claiming that Bill C-15 will generate $4.23 billion in savings by reducing cannabis reimbursement rates for veterans. Let us look at the actual numbers. VAC spends roughly $200 million a year on medical cannabis. The government is cutting the reimbursement rate by about a quarter. That is roughly $50 million in annual savings. Even over many years, the math does not come close to $4.23 billion. It would take over 30 years. The government has not explained the gap. We have asked and veterans organizations have asked repeatedly. The $4.23-billion figure relies on public sector accounting that recognizes estimated life savings all at once today. Many veterans will face higher out-of-pocket costs for products currently covered under their plan. If the government is willing to present inflated numbers when it benefits it so that it looks like it is doing what it says it is going to do, veterans and Canadians should ask what else in the bill is being measured the same way. While this bill was being drafted, thousands of veterans were receiving letters from the government telling them to repay immediately. We are not talking about small amounts. My colleagues have documented cases exceeding $100,000 being demanded from disabled veterans. The government is clawing this money back directly from disability pensions and other payments. These are not veterans who cheated the system. My office heard from one veteran directly who has 21 years of service, a 100% disability designation and a spotless record with VAC going back a decade. When he applied for the income replacement benefit in 2015, he declared every source of income on his application, including his military pension. VAC reviewed it, accepted him into the program and sent him a letter confirming it had accounted for that pension. He kept every document. In January of this year, the veteran received a letter from VAC telling him that he had failed to report that same pension and that he now owes over $42,000. He and his wife live on that pension income. His words to my office were that he is afraid they are going to lose their house. He is not alone. Veterans across this country have contacted MPs to report the same pattern of repayment demands for income they had properly disclosed, with VAC's own acceptance letters sitting in their files as proof. This is not an overpayment recovery program, but an administrative failure being downloaded onto the most vulnerable people in the system. The government is demanding repayment from disabled veterans who received benefits in good faith while at the same time refusing to pay veterans who have been overcharged for 28 years. This is not fiscal policy. It is a double standard. It never ends with the Liberal government. For nearly 30 years, Veterans Affairs Canada overcharged veterans in long-term care across the country. What was the error? When calculating care rates, VAC excluded the territories from the formula. The Interpretation Act is explicit: The definistion of province “includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut”. VAC ignored this, which affected the formula applied to veterans, wherever they live, by roughly $260 per month, or $3,130 per year, for nearly three decades. A class action lawsuit was launched in October 2024 on behalf of veterans and their survivors. Bill C-15 would make that lawsuit go away. I want to highlight that, on December 8, 2025, the Senate Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs heard testimony from VAC officials on exactly that issue. Senator Patterson asked a simple question, knowing that costs increase significantly the further north one goes, she said, “So can we not include ‘and territories’?” The VAC official answered plainly, “That would change the intent of the program.” Senator Patterson's response was, “Wow. Thank you.” In my experience working with Senator Patterson, I have learned that she is a strong advocate for veterans and serving members. Her response says it all. She cannot believe it. Bill C-15 makes this dire situation even worse. Sections 373 to 375 of the bill do not fix the problem, but erase it. The government is using budget implementation legislation to retroactively rewrite the law back to July 15, 1998, making that VAC deal legal in hindsight. This is not an administrative correction. Parliament is being asked to authorize the government to keep money it should never have collected from veterans in long-term care, some of whom are no longer alive to see it returned. The Veterans ombud, retired Colonel Jardine, testified at the Standing Committee on Finance that she wrote directly to the minister on this issue calling for her to admit the mistake. She correctly points out that the bill is unprecedented, patently unfair and is calling for amendments to Bill C-15. The minister could not find the courtesy to reply to the ombud, but her department found time to write collection letters to thousands of disabled veterans. The real issue here is that these veterans are not in their prime. They are often in long-term care. They are elderly, disabled and at their most vulnerable. They were overcharged because their government misread its own law. They had no way of knowing it. They had no way of fighting it. A class action lawsuit was their only recourse. The bill closes that door. The question is not whether the government can find the money, but whether the people who wore the uniform deserve to be treated fairly for the country they served. This bill answers that question, and the answer is no. This is a shameful use of Parliament's powers. When one serves, they learn that the person beside them will not leave them behind. That is not a policy, but a promise. Veterans deserve better. I will not be supporting this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, and let us state the facts, that many of the offices were streamlined into Service Canada offices and were not closed, as my colleague has said. We are putting veterans here. The questions I am getting from veterans are not from 2014; they are from now. The questions I am getting are from now, and the Liberal government is in power. It has had 10 years, almost 11 years, to fix the problem, and it has done nothing. It has ignored the problem, and now it is trying to hide it.

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is a hot button for me because I have seen the carbon tax being downloaded to provinces in hospitals when we were having a health care crisis. I have seen it downloaded to provinces when we have had an education crisis, where school boards are struggling to make ends meet. I have also seen it downloaded to municipalities when kids are going to learn how to swim, where the recreation fees are going up and parents are drowning in taxes. This is what I have seen from the Liberal government. Money is not getting to the people it needs to get to, and that is just wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I have visited the base in my colleague's riding, and I know there are a lot of veterans who are retiring in his area. I thank them for their service. It is true that Conservatives are getting phone calls. Even the Liberals are getting phone calls about veterans and the way they have been treated. It is being ignored and can no longer be ignored. As the Conservative Party, we need to be raising the standard for veterans and letting them know that we are here to support them and that they deserve the basic rights they are entitled to. They should be allowed to have that money. It should be flowing into their accounts. They should not be getting letters in their mailboxes telling them that they owe $42,000 and that their homes are on the line. That is not the way a country repays its veterans for the freedoms we have in this nation.

Madam Speaker, I would like to share with my colleague from Foothills that the thoughts and prayers of those in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan are with him and his riding. During his intervention, my colleague was talking about the increased cost of food, and I just received an email from someone in my riding, saying that their old age pension went up by $2.43 a month, which is $29 a year. Their question was how they could get by, given all the increases that they have. We have talked about the carbon tax. The carbon tax is embedded in the costs that are throughout the food supply chain, so I would like for my colleague to just share a little more. Would he agree with me that maybe those costs should be revealed to the people of Canada who go to the grocery store, so that when they see the labels, they understand where the taxes are going and what—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for what he shared. It was very provocative, and it brought back some memories. Normally when we get up to speak, we try to give the interpreters a bit of a heads-up of what we are going to say, but his intervention hit home for me. It reminded me of my childhood growing up below the poverty line under Trudeau senior. It was a time when my mother and I had to go to the Salvation Army to get a $10 food voucher, which back then was a lot of money. We did not have a car. We did not have a TV. We struggled to put food on the table. There were times when we did not have much in the cupboard. By the miracle and grace of God, someone would show up in our driveway with a bunch of groceries. I may have moved on, but I know that these are the types of people I represent in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, and the generosity of those people is second to none. When I say this hits close to home, it is because the Moose Jaw & District Food Bank is just a few blocks away from my riding office. Last week, the executive director, Jason Moore, made it clear what families in my riding are facing. He said about this government's grocery benefit, “It'll help, but it's not going to be a fix everything solution for food banks.” Mr. Moore understands what many working families in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan know all too well, which is that even those earning modest incomes often fall through the cracks. Their household incomes put them above the benefits threshold, but they are still struggling with bills that have become unaffordable. This reference is to those who have access to food banks. What about those who do not have the access to food banks in their communities, like my mother? Conservatives will support Bill C-19, because families need help right now. We will let the bill before us pass, because every dollar matters when families are choosing between groceries and other essentials. However, let us be honest about what this is. It is a band-aid solution that barely covers a few trips to the grocery store. This is a recycled Trudeau-era policy that would provide temporary relief without addressing the fundamental problem of driving grocery costs through the roof. I have heard my colleague from Winnipeg North from across the way say that the Prime Minister is focused. He will keep saying that, and he will repeat it, but the Prime Minister is looking at life through a straw. He needs to take the straw away, open up his eyes and see the problems. The Liberals need to take the focus off trying to make themselves look good and focus on the root issues, the root problems that we are facing and that every household in Canada is facing. We are supporting families in this crisis, but we refuse to pretend that the bill would fix anything. While the government offers handouts with one hand, its policies continue to drive up costs with the other. If it wants to be transparent, then disclose all the taxes that go into something. I remember doing that as the mayor of my city of Moose Jaw. In their tax roll, we showed everyone where their taxes were going, and we should be able to do that for the constituents of our ridings when they are going to the grocery store. They should understand where their taxes go so that they understand the costs that are being driven up by the Liberal government. The government consistently dismisses Conservatives' concerns about taxes driving up food costs. When we point to the industrial carbon tax, clean fuel regulations and regulatory burdens throughout the supply chain, the government claims that food inflation is simply a global issue affecting everyone, but the facts tell a different story. Canada now leads the entire G7 in food inflation at 6.2%. This is worse than the United States at 3.1%, worse than the United Kingdom at 4.2% and worse than Germany, Japan, France and Italy. Food policy experts confirm that most of Canada's food inflation is now policy-induced, with carbon pricing embedded throughout the supply chain. If food inflation is truly a global problem, as the government claims, why does Canada have the worst food inflation in the G7? What is the government doing differently that is making groceries more expensive for Canadians than they are for families in every other major developed economy? The answer is clear. It is a policy failure. While other G7 nations manage global pressures, Canada has added layers of domestic costs that make us uniquely uncompetitive. Saskatchewan feeds Canada. We are one of the world's largest producers of wheat, canola and pulses. When policy costs drive up input costs for Saskatchewan farmers, those costs do not disappear. They show up in the grocery stores across the country. The industrial carbon tax affects every stage of food production: the fuel for tractors and combines, the transportation to move grain, the fertilizers to grow crops and the processing facilities that turn commodities into food. Clean fuel regulations add another seven cents per litre on the diesel and gasoline that farmers depend on. These are not abstract policy debates; they are direct cost increases that get passed through the supply chain. When it costs more to grow food in Saskatchewan, it costs more to buy food in grocery stores from Victoria to St. John's. The cruel irony is that working families in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan pay the higher grocery costs caused by policies hitting their neighbours' farms, but many earn just enough to be cut off from the grocery benefit. They face policy-driven food inflation without getting the government's band-aid solution. We cannot tax the people who grow the food, process the food and transport the food, and then act surprised when food becomes unaffordable for families. Instead of addressing Canada's position as the G7 leader in food inflation, the government offers temporary handouts while doubling down on policies that are driving costs higher. Real food affordability requires addressing root causes by removing the industrial carbon tax burden on farmers, processors and transporters; eliminating the clean fuel regulations that add seven cents per litre to agricultural food costs; and cutting the regulatory red tape that makes Canadian food production less competitive than our G7 counterparts. However, the government will not do that. It would rather give families a few hundred dollars to pay for the inflated grocery bills its policies created. It is like breaking someone's leg, offering them crutches and expecting them to say thank you. It is more than breaking a leg; it is breaking people's spirits. Conservatives will support Bill C-19 because, when families are struggling, we will not play politics with their grocery bills, but supporting temporary relief does not mean accepting permanent policy failure, and we will continue to point that out. The government must acknowledge that Canada does not lead the G7 in food inflation by accident. We lead because of policy choices and bad governance. Families in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan and across Canada deserve better than recycled band-aid policies. They deserve a government that makes food affordable by making food production competitive. It is time to stop taxing food and start feeding families.

Mr. Speaker, when I speak to farmers, one of the biggest challenges they have dealt with is drought, but that has happened throughout their farming history. In fact, if we go to the University of Regina and look at the history of drought, it has happened since 1902. There are large periods within our history that show that there have been droughts. One of the things that the Liberal government could do is step up to the plate, partner with the provincial government and help with the Upper Qu'Appelle water program to actually help farmers and contribute. What would actually happen is that there would be sustainable crops, and there would be a better return on investment. With the carbon tax, we do not know where the money goes. It is like a slush fund for the Liberals. I appreciate the question that has been brought forward, but I have never met a farmer who did not know how to recycle and did not know how to look after their land better than the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, earlier on, I talked about pride. One of the things that someone wants to be able to do, as a father or mother, is provide for their family. When people cannot provide for their children because the Liberal boot is on their throats and the Liberals then turn around and say they have started up a food program, I think parents would prefer to be able to send their kids to school with food that they have provided for them as opposed to a program initiated by the Liberals. As I said, I faced challenges growing up and lived below the poverty line. It was not until the mid-eighties when the Conservative Party got into power that we really started to flourish and jobs and growth in this country really started happening. It was a great day to see former prime minister Trudeau walk in the snow and the Conservatives have a seat at the table.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleagues have been sharing today. It seems we are the only ones who are standing up for Canadians and the travesty of this budget. We are facing the greatest peacetime fiscal crisis in a generation and it did not have to be this way. The Prime Minister broke every promise he made just six months ago. This is a Prime Minister Canadians simply cannot trust. He promised a $62-billion deficit and delivered an over $78-billion deficit. That is $16 billion in broken promises. He promised to spend less. He is spending $90 billion more, which is $5,400 more in inflationary spending per household. He promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. He is raising both debt and inflation. This budget adds $10 million to our debt every hour. That is $240 million every single day. The federal debt is now over $1.3 trillion, a number so large most Canadians cannot even comprehend it. Let me be clear about the Liberal pattern. Stephen Harper left the government a balanced budget, achieved through disciplined spending and sound fiscal management. In 2015, Justin Trudeau promised modest deficits and told Canadians that budgets balanced themselves, which is perhaps the most economically illiterate statement in our political history. In 2025, the current Prime Minister presented himself as a fiscal hawk, the supposed adult in the room who would restore fiscal responsibility. The reality is that he will add over $320 billion to the federal debt over five years, more than twice what Trudeau would have added. The fiscal hawk was a fantasy. I know something about fiscal responsibility under pressure. As the mayor of Moose Jaw during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, I refused to raise property taxes, despite unprecedented challenges. While other governments used COVID as an excuse for unlimited spending, we found efficiencies and maintained financial discipline. I have balanced budgets at the municipal level and fought for fiscal responsibility in the House for four years as an MP. I have managed 120 million dollars' worth of infrastructure projects and brought over $1.3 billion in economic investment to my community while keeping taxes low. I know what real fiscal leadership looks like. This is not it. The fundamental truth the government refuses to acknowledge is simple: It cannot spend its way out of debt; it cannot borrow its way out of debt. Let me put this fiscal disaster in terms that every Canadian can understand. The debt interest will be $55.6 billion this year. That is over $3,000 per Canadian household. The Liberals talk about making tax cuts, but just add it on. It is nothing but a shell game. They are taking from one hand and giving to another. When the Prime Minister told Canadians to judge his government by their experience at the grocery store, he set the standard. Seven months later, families are paying almost $1,000 more per year on food, with costs more than doubling since 2015. Record food bank visits and 85% of Canadians citing food affordability as their biggest concern shows he has failed that test. Eighty-six per cent of Canadians are eating less meat, not because they are vegetarians but because they cannot afford it. Families are compromising nutrition for cheaper options. From strawberries up 51% to ground beef climbing 14% since March, no family is immune. We are spending more on debt interest than health care transfers. We are spending more on debt interest than we collect in GST. Every dollar the Liberals collect in GST goes to the bankers and bondholders, not doctors, not nurses and definitely not veterans. These are the Liberal priorities: bankers first; health care second. Veterans get $185 million over four years, while bankers get $55.6 billion every single year. The government has turned Canada's federal budget into a wealth transfer system, from Canadian families to banks. When I was mayor, every dollar we saved on interest payments was a dollar we could invest in water infrastructure, in community development and in services residents actually needed. These Liberals have reversed that priority. They have made debt payments the largest line item in the federal budget while telling Canadians that there is no money for the services they need. I will talk about two different approaches to crisis leadership. In 2020, as the mayor of Moose Jaw during the worst pandemic in a century, I faced the same pressures every leader did. The easy path would have been to raise property taxes and blame COVID for the burden on taxpayers. Instead, I chose fiscal discipline. We found efficiencies. We prioritized spending, and we refused to raise taxes despite unprecedented challenges. That is what real leadership looks like under pressure. The Liberal government chose the opposite path. The Liberals used COVID as an excuse for unlimited deficit spending, and that reckless approach continues today, five years later. The difference is clear: Real leaders find efficiencies during crises. Liberal leaders find excuses to spend. When in leadership, one has to make tough decisions. Nowhere are the government's misplaced priorities more obvious than in its treatment of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan taxpayers are funding the Prime Minister's $321.7-billion debt explosion while receiving one copper mine project in return. Our farmers face 100% Chinese tariffs on canola, while the Liberals add $10 million to our debt every hour. For years, I have advocated in the House for the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project, a ready-to-proceed initiative that would generate massive economic returns. This project would create jobs and an economic return in one of our most important industries. As I have said repeatedly in Parliament, if the government were serious about helping the agriculture sector, it would continue with projects like the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project. However, the Liberal response was to ignore it for a decade while spending billions on boat-buying schemes. While canola exports dropped 17% and Chinese markets closed completely, the Prime Minister prioritized $5,400 per household in new spending over agricultural support. The industrial carbon tax remains in place, adding costs to Saskatchewan farmers already devastated by trade wars. The contrast is staggering. The Lake Diefenbaker project represents a $4-billion investment that would transform Saskatchewan agriculture, create thousands of jobs and create revenue for generations. Let us stop using announcements as a substitute for achievement. I have spent four years in the House fighting against the government's spending addiction. The math is simple, the choice is clear and the time for excuses is over. The Liberals cannot spend their way out of debt. They cannot announce their way to prosperity. They cannot break every promise and expect Canadians to trust them with their future.

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting perspective. What I am fighting for is the financial independence of taxpayers, choice for taxpayers. The choice that the taxpayers of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan want is financial freedom. They do not want a heavy boot on their neck. They do not want to be paying taxes that are going out the window like the Liberal spending, which is just throwing money on fire. They want their independence.

Madam Speaker, I always look at it from the perspective of what the taxpayers in my riding care about. I think about the farmers in my riding, and I have never met a farmer who did not know how to recycle or did not know how to take care of the land better than anybody else. They are getting a heavy boot put on their neck by the Liberal government with all these policies and all these taxes that are being downloaded onto them and now passed on to the consumer. Saskatchewan is known for its food, fuel and fertilizer, and we need to export that. It is important to recognize the gifts that we have been given in our ridings and to be able to export them, because they are what the world needs.

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. People do not seem to understand the negative consequences of the carbon tax. It has a trickle-down effect, and it is trickled down onto provincial levels of government. I have seen it affect the local school boards, where there was a $2-million deficit. The school boards were promised they were going to get that money back from the federal government, but they never got it back, even though we are going through an education crisis. There is the downloading of carbon tax onto the hospitals; we are going through a health care crisis, but we never get that back. It is happening to everybody. It is happening to our farmers, and it is being passed on to the consumer. It is a bad tax.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague, whom I have a lot of respect for. I like his choice in ties. We have a heritage commonality, which brings up the fact that we are discussing trade with the U.K. I know one of the member's previous files, which he holds near and dear and close to his heart, is agriculture. I would like to hear his thoughts on the imbalance of trade between Canada and the U.K. with regard to the exports of beef and pork. We are hearing there was $30 million in imports in the first half of this year, and last year Canadians were allowed to export only $25,000. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke. The subject of Bill C-13 is near and dear to my heart. My parents, who passed away last year, were both from the U.K., both from Scotland. They would have said that there was a negative trade balance when they moved over here, but they always reminded me that I was made in Canada with Scottish parts and that it is a great country to live in here. I want to be able to say today that Conservatives support free trade because Canada is a trading nation. While the current government was busy with photo ops and virtue signalling, eight of our CPTPP partners were busy doing business with the world's sixth-largest economy. Yes, I said “CPTPP”. It is a difficult acronym, but I got through it on the first round, so hopefully I will get through it for the rest of the speech. They were dealing with the sixth-largest economy, and Canadian businesses were left waiting at the dock. Having studied at King's College London in the U.K., I understand first-hand the deep economic and cultural ties that bind Canada and the United Kingdom. The U.K. is not just another trading partner. No, it is one of our oldest and most reliable allies, which makes the government's fumbling even more inexcusable. Today, I will outline three critical failures: one, the economic opportunity cost of Liberal delays; two, the damage to Canada's international credibility; and three, the pattern of trade negligence that is hurting our exporters, in particular my own riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. The numbers do not lie. The U.K. is the world's sixth-largest economy, and it is the first European country in CPTPP. Eight countries are already trading under new terms while Canada waits and waits, and Canadian exporters are losing the competitive advantage. However, there is an even more troubling pattern here. Under the trade continuity agreement, the U.K. has not been acting fairly toward our pork and cattle producers. The U.K. objects to carcass washes applied at Canadian slaughter plants and opposes the use of growth promotants in beef and pork production. The trade statistics tell the real story of the Liberal government's failure to stand up for our producers. Britain exported over 40 million dollars' worth of beef into Canada in 2024 and nearly 30 million dollars' worth in the first half of 2025. In comparison, Canada exported to Britain just 25,000 dollars' worth in 2024 and, to date, has no beef exports in 2025. For those who are watching, that is 25,000 dollars' worth in 2024, which is unbelievable. This is not fair trade. This is a one-way street that favours British producers, while our farmers and ranchers face non-tariff barriers designed to shut them down. As a mayor, I learned that economic development happens through work, not announcements. We attracted major investment to Moose Jaw by rolling up our sleeves and delivering results, $1.3 billion of results in six years, not by staging photo ops but by standing up for our community and for our businesses. The government has forgotten that lesson. The U.K. and Canada share more than just a monarch; we share values, institutions and centuries of partnership. From Vimy Ridge to Afghanistan, we have stood together. Now, when it comes to trade, we are making them wait while we sort out our bureaucratic mess. During my time at King's College London, I witnessed Britain's commitment to innovation, enterprise and global engagement. The U.K.'s decision to join CPTPP represents exactly that forward-thinking approach. Meanwhile, Canada is dragging its feet like we are still debating whether trade is good for the economy. Canada held the CPTPP chair in 2024 but failed to lead. Other nations celebrated at the Vancouver meeting while Canada remained uncommitted. Given the Prime Minister's close relationship with the U.K. Prime Minister, one would have thought they might have used this opportunity to advocate on behalf of our agriculture producers. How can we lecture other countries about trade rules when we cannot even ratify agreements on time with our closest allies? Real leadership means delivering results, not just good headlines. As a mayor, I did not cut ribbons until the projects were actually built. The government announces everything and delivers nothing. The minister needs to answer some tough questions: Why have the Liberals not secured any benefits for our cattle producers? How do we prevent this embarrassment with our allies again? At the municipal level, we understood that investors have options. If we did not act quickly and professionally, they would go elsewhere. The same applies to international trade. Our partners will not wait forever for Canada to get organized. When Conservatives form government, we will not just talk about trade; we will deliver results. We will restore Canada's reputation as a reliable partner to allies like the United Kingdom. We will negotiate to allow fair market access for Canadian products and stand up for our industries and our agriculture producers. We will put Canadian exporters first, and we will remember that our friends deserve better than bureaucratic delays. Having experienced both British excellence in education and the practical demands of municipal leadership, I know what real partnership looks like. It is built on reliability, competence and mutual respect, qualities the government has forgotten. This bill should have been passed months ago. The Liberals' delays have cost jobs, hurt our reputation with a key ally and weakened our position in the fastest-growing region in the world. As Conservatives, we intend to support the expansion of trade markets for Canadian products. Canadian businesses and our British partners deserve leaders who act with urgency, not a government that is always a day late and a dollar short, or maybe I should say a pound short. We will continue to point out the government's failures to secure wins for Canada, its producers and those who are relying on the Prime Minister to keep his promises. I would be very happy to take any questions, and I am very interested in further discussion with regard to British pensioners. As I mentioned earlier when I started off, my parents were both immigrants. They came to this country to start a new life, but they also helped build Britain after the Second World War.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out that Canada is obviously a global trading partner. However, we have had a relationship with the U.K. that has been broken, and it should not have been. The problem is not new. The problem is the fact that we did not address trade with the U.K. years ago. Therefore this is not a new opportunity; it is just an opportunity that we need to capitalize on, which should have been done years ago.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague again on his private member's bill that passed earlier today. It is very touching, and it does show we can get work done here, whether it is with help from across the aisle or on our own. Local producers are very disappointed. They feel left out. They have had their challenges over the years, and they feel they have been ignored and neglected by the Liberal government, not only in this trade deal but for years on end. I heard earlier a colleague from across the aisle talking about how Canadian pork producers were able to sell pork in the Philippines. That is great news, but the thing is that we need to be trading globally. The problem is that we are importing from the U.K., not exporting to the U.K., and that is where we should be going.

Madam Speaker, first I would like to help my colleague with directions. Britain is that way, and the Philippines are the other way, or maybe it is the other way around: east and west. Let us talk about the Ukraine deal. We put ourselves at a negative because we were adding carbon tax, and now the Liberals are pulling out of carbon tax. The reason we voted against the deal is that they do not know how to trade, and that is the problem; that is why we are here. The Conservatives are always going to advocate for Canadian businesses and for fairness in trade deals. That is what we are—

Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with my colleague's community. I was there this past summer, riding through there on the 400. It never disappoints. Unfortunately, he was not there at the time. My colleague spoke about action. One concern I have is with regard to convictions. He spoke about someone in his community being arrested and released 17 times but never convicted. What is falling short in the Liberal bill that the Conservatives are suggesting should be adopted by the Liberals? What are his thoughts on that?