Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by presenting a number of petitions on the real horror that the so-called medical assistance in dying regime in this country has become. We have seen how this is really a matter of national shame. In debates in parliaments around the world, Canada has been identified as a cautionary tale of what can happen when things go wrong in the health care system as a result of an out-of-control, poorly managed and poorly regulated system of so-called medically facilitated death. I am thinking in the context of this petition on MAID coercion, particularly the story of Brigitte Stegemann, an 83-year-old woman who was killed under very suspicious circumstances. The Belleville police are investigating. This story has not been covered in any mainstream media in Canada. People have to go to British newspapers to read about it. This is the horror that the system has become, and it is not being discussed nearly enough in this country, but I am pleased to be able to bring the voice of petitioners to the House on this issue through a number of petitions that draw attention to this problem. The first petition highlights, in particular, the situation of the disability community in this country and how choosing so-called MAID due to a lack of available services or treatments is not a real choice, that allowing facilitated death for those with disabilities or chronic illnesses who are not dying devalues their lives and tacitly endorses the notion that life with disability is optional. Petitioners call on the government to make incremental reforms to this regime to protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying for those whose prognosis for a natural death is more than six months. We have also, incredibly, heard proposals even in the House to extend facilitated death to children. I have a second petition that calls on the government to not ever legalize the killing of children within our medical system. There was a proposal made by Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians, incredibly, to legalize the killing of infants with so-called severe deformities and very serious syndromes. With these kinds of proposals, it is no wonder that the British Parliament, on all sides, has called Canada a cautionary tale—

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am tabling highlights the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in the People's Republic of China at the hands of the CCP. It notes that the CCP has been engaged in a multidecades' long campaign to promote the eradication of this peaceful spiritual movement, a movement that is simply focused on truthfulness, compassion and forbearance. At a time of so-called strategic partnership between Canada and the government of China, petitioners want to see the government publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability for CCP officials and proxies responsible for these human rights violations, and to take stronger measures to protect the community from foreign interference.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. Members are studying a very lengthy piece of legislation. I want to ask the member about the messages the government is sending now, relative to messages the government has sent in the past. Under the Liberal government, there was the passage of Bill C-69 and C-48, which are government bills that really obstructed the development of anything in this country, certainly the export of natural resources. Now we hear the government at least saying some good things. It is saying that we should be selling our resources to the world and that we should be developing and building things. I wonder if the member will acknowledge there is some change. Is there some recognition that big mistakes were made in the last 10 years in this regard?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that affordability is the best it has been in over a decade. He could not be more out of touch. The latest National Payroll Institute survey shows that more than a quarter of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque and more than half of Canadians are spending all of or more than their net pay every single month. Liberals are just not delivering results for everyday Canadians. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians can save money and afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are so out of touch. Let me tell members about a Canadian named Mark. Mark has made promises to his employer that he just cannot keep. He has had to compromise all of his beliefs in order to keep his job. Mark has so little faith in the Canadian economy that he has put almost all of his investments in the United States. Mark is focused on his European retirement plans, which now seem in jeopardy. How can Canadians like Mark actually deliver the changes they promised?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House tonight. I want to start my remarks by talking about the kind of society we have been and the kind of society I would like us to be. I recall that when I was elected in the 2015 election, which was right on the tail of the Harper years, various indicators showed that our country was doing well. At the time, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had won the election on the promise of “Well, maybe things are good, but we think we can do even better.” At the time, I recall making an argument in the House about the strength of our society being shaped so much by our commitment to equality of opportunity and by the fact of Canada's combination of the policies we had and being a society where taxes were low, development was encouraged and economic activity could be pursued. It was also a society where there was a baseline of social programs in areas such as health and education that were available to everybody. This combination of a baseline of social supports and an environment in which new ideas, new investments and new businesses could start and grow was the right combination for facilitating a high degree of social mobility. Somebody who came from a less privileged background could still reasonably aspire to be among the most successful in our country. This potential, this hope, could animate the dreams and imaginations of the next generation. This was a source of strength for our country, of prosperity, of opportunity and also of social cohesion. People saw themselves as having a kind of equal opportunity, an equal ability to pursue the Canadian dream, regardless of the background they came from. I believe it is so important that we be, and restore our commitment to being, an opportunity society where people of all backgrounds and of all ages, particularly young Canadians, regardless of the family they came from and regardless of the circumstances, can have big dreams and can make those dreams a reality. However, what I hear today when I talk to young Canadians is a great deal of frustration, loss of hope, and a sense that we have become divided as a society. We have become on the one hand a nation of people who already own their home, and on the other hand a nation of people who have no hope that they will ever own their home. We have become a nation of, in some cases, people who are doing well and who respond to our social media posts about people struggling by saying, “Well, I'm not struggling”, but then there are many Canadians who are struggling and who do not see the hope or the possibility of getting ahead anymore. This is because 11 years of government policy has favoured elites and favoured incumbent holders of power at the expense of the people striving to get ahead. It has also pushed jobs and home ownership out of reach for more and more young people. We have become less of an opportunity society, and as a result, we have become more divided between those who are already at a certain level or position economically and those who struggle to even imagine that they could achieve the basic things that we associate with being able to achieve the Canadian dream. The basic things that a young person seeks from a material perspective starting out are to be able to have a good job and to be able to afford a home. That foundation of job and home is the basis on which people are able to start a family and achieve those not just material but also critical personal goals in terms of having the children they want to have, building the life and setting up the future they want to be able to provide for the next generation. However, more and more young people struggle to find a job, cannot afford a home and are delaying family formation. Now we see that this is leading to a failure, in many cases, for people to achieve the family goals they want. If we look at this statistically, the number of children people say they want on average compared to the number of children people are having on average demonstrates that many young Canadian families are not reaching the goals they have identified as wanting to pursue, which is much more than a material tragedy. It is something much deeper and more profound that is being lost. We see frustration, anger, hopelessness and increasing division as a result of the way we have declined in being an opportunity society. The hope of the Conservative Party is to fight for those who are struggling and give voice to their concerns, but also to propose constructive policies that will restore the sense of hope and opportunity that has defined our country. We are shaped in every region of the country by a certain frontier spirit, a sense that through struggle and striving, an individual should be able to get ahead, have a home, have a job and provide the beautiful and simple things that their family is seeking. While saying that there is so much more to do to restore that opportunity society, I note that the debate tonight highlights some areas in which Conservatives are winning the debate about key issues facing this country. Conservatives have for 10 years made arguments about the need to build nation-building infrastructure and about the destructive implications of the carbon tax, and we have won those debates. It does not mean that our proposals about repealing unjust taxation or building nation-building infrastructure have been fully implemented in government policy. We are still seeing many failures in terms of government action, but it is clear from the conversation, from the things being said back and forth, that we have won those debates. We have also won important cultural debates. It was not that long ago that Liberals were constantly running down our heritage and history, attacking figures like our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. Stephen Harper's celebration of the Canadian victory in the War of 1812 was criticized by the Liberal establishment as promoting extreme militarism or some nonsense like that. Today, the government is saying more that recognizes the positive legacy of people like Isaac Brock and Sir John A. Macdonald. We can see that on some cultural issues and economic issues, Conservatives have been winning debates and advancing arguments. I welcome that. Sometimes Liberals talk as if it is some big political win that they have conceded major arguments that Conservatives have been making, but I am proud of the fact that on economic and cultural issues, Conservatives have been making the arguments and moving the ball forward. We are doing it on the affordability issue as well. Conservatives have put forward proposals for tax relief for Canadians in terms of gas taxes, and tonight we are debating government legislation through which the government is saying, although not quite directly but by implication, that Conservatives were right. These are the kinds of measures they are putting forward because we have won those debates. Conservatives can take pride in the fact that we are winning these arguments, but also recognize that there is more work to do, because the government, although piecemeal in conceding certain arguments, continues to have a broadly statist agenda when it comes to development. The Liberals continue to think that the big ideas, the big initiatives, the big push to get things done must be controlled through the centralizing power of government, whereas Conservatives believe in unleashing opportunity for everyone. We believe in rebuilding the opportunity society. For instance, we supported the idea of having some exceptional circumstances for major projects to be able to move forward. However, what we proposed as a better path was reforming the impact assessment process in general so that proponents of projects large and small did not have to come cap in hand to government, and anyone with a big idea could see a path to getting it done. While we are seeing some Conservative victories in terms of winning these arguments, there is so much more work that needs to be done to undo 11 years of damage under the Liberal government and to restore the opportunity society that all Canadians, particularly Canadian young people, are seeking.

Mr. Speaker, I will just point out to the member that our job in this House is to have substantive conversations about substantive issues. He may take pride in particular by-election results. In my 11 years in this place, I can say that those are the kinds of results that we see ebbs and flows in. What Canadians will ultimately judge members of Parliament on are the results they see. It will not, in the final analysis, be on the big speeches, the promises, the meetings and the summits. Those things can be steps towards the implementation of concrete policy changes, but in the final analysis, Canadians will ask, am I better off or worse off as a result of the decisions of the government? That is the question.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a great point in terms of debates that Conservatives have won, which I was talking about in my speech. When Stephen Harper took office, we were very limited in our free trade agreements. We had free trade in North America and were very limited beyond that. Stephen Harper subsequently negotiated trade deals with countries representing over 60% of the world's GDP with a massive expansion of our trading relations with like-minded democracies in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific. That was a huge step forward in terms of diversification and reducing our dependence on the United States. However, in 11 years of Liberal government, we did not seize on that opportunity because roadblocks were put in the way of infrastructure projects and of other kinds of developments that would have allowed us to seize the opportunities presented by these new trade deals. Diversification in terms of strengthening partnerships with like-minded democracies is a great concept. It is not new. It is just that we have lost 11 years of what could have been progress.

Mr. Speaker, in terms of who is going to be there or not there, I want to respectfully say to this member that I know she was an NDP member of a provincial parliament previously, and that she referred to the Liberals as being “untrustworthy”, “conniving” and “the surest path to greater evil”. I wonder if this member would speak openly about some of the policy decisions of the government now and whether she is comfortable with them. It is amazing to see how so many Liberals have swallowed themselves whole. I am glad we are winning the debates on things like cutting taxes, but it is hard to understand how those members reconcile—

Mr. Speaker, August job numbers delivered more challenging news for the Canadian economy. Some 42,000 jobs were lost, and there was a further increase to the youth unemployment rate. The youth unemployment rate now sits at 12.9%. Job numbers for August are calculated for the reference week of August 9 to 15, before trade talks broke down with the United States. While tariffs and countertariffs will impose costs, Canada lost 42,000 jobs before these talks broke down. That is the result of domestic policy choices that are making it harder for all Canadians, particularly young people, to find jobs. For a year, Conservatives have been promoting our constructive jobs plan: unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. We need an economic action plan to strengthen our country and restore jobs and opportunity for the next generation. We cannot control what happens beyond our borders, but we can reverse the policies that have been hurting jobs in our economy here at home for the last 11 years. Let us get to work so Canadians can as well.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the work he has done over the years supporting reconciliation and economic development for indigenous peoples. There is a certain irony in the approach of the government, because we have a Prime Minister who has not shown much respect for Parliament. He ignored our calls to reconvene Parliament to discuss the crisis involving Canada-U.S. relations. He has not been forthcoming with Parliament about various issues. However, we have a bill where he is proposing an additional separate bureaucracy that would oversee the government's action in the context of modern treaties. It strikes me that the government could and should respect the accountability mechanisms we already have in place. It could be more engaged with the work of Parliament. It could be more present in Parliament and more willing to provide information to Parliament about what it is doing as it relates to modern treaties and also about a broad range of other domains. I wonder what my colleague thinks about this: instead of the government's creating an additional separate bureaucracy, its actually being more engaged with and more forthcoming with the mechanisms and institutions we already have that are designed to promote accountability.

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has certain obligations in relation to the treaties it signs. It is the responsibility of the prime minister, the ministers and all our institutions to act in a way that responds to those obligations. This legislation would create an additional commissioner office with staff, without binding powers over government action. It seems to me that the core of accountability is the decisions of government in response to these obligations. What prevents the government from simply fulfilling its obligations, from listening to indigenous nations directly, from using the existing institutions we have and from putting these resources into things that actually concretely and positively impact the lives of indigenous people?

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to be back in the House with my colleagues and to have the opportunity to discuss the major global issues and serious challenges that our country is currently facing. Today, we are here to discuss Bill C‑10. Bill C‑10 proposes to create a new officer of Parliament, a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Their role would be to assess whether the terms of modern treaties are being met and to report their findings to Parliament. By conducting audits and reporting their findings to Parliament, the new commissioner would be able to highlight areas where the federal government can improve its performance in modern treaty implementation. There is common ground when it comes to the core principle that treaty rights must be respected and that the process of reconciliation must move forward. The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. They also recognize that much work remains to be done to advance those rights, including self-determination and self-government. What the Conservatives disagree with is the mechanism proposed in Bill C-10. The Conservative Party believes that, rather than creating more bureaucracy, the ministers and departments responsible for negotiating and implementing treaties should do their jobs. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts regular audits of modern treaty negotiations, self-government agreements, implementation and treaty land entitlement. The Conservatives firmly believe that the ministers and departments responsible for treaty negotiations and implementation should simply fulfill their responsibilities rather than creating a new position. The projected cost for the office of the commissioner for modern treaty implementation is $10.6 million over four years, with approximately 15 full-time employees. The debate on Bill C-10 is about how to ensure the implementation of modern treaties and hold the federal government accountable. The importance of this accountability is clear: All commitments made under modern treaties must be honoured. The Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The disagreement is not about the goal, but rather how to achieve it. In conclusion, the Conservatives believe that the solution is not to create a new body or add a new bureaucratic structure. The Office of the Auditor General already conducts audits on modern treaties and their implementation, and several federal initiatives and offices already exist in this area. Rather, the responsibility lies with the ministers and departments already in charge of negotiating and implementing the treaties. They need to step up and do their job. That is why the Conservative position is to oppose Bill C-10. I hope that was clear. My French is a bit rusty, so I will continue a bit in English. That was not the conclusion of my speech; it was just the conclusion of the French part. I am sorry to get members' hopes up. It is good to be back in the House, the people's House, during what is certainly a tumultuous time for our country and for the world. We are discussing Bill C-10, which deals with modern treaties but which also speaks to the kind of architecture we use as a country to hold the government accountable and to challenge or constrain government decision-making. I think this is an important conversation to be having now in the context of broader debates about the nature of our institutions and how we use them. Of course, we are having this debate in the context of an escalating trade war between Canada and the United States. It was in the context of the further escalation of that trade war that Conservatives called for the early reconvening of Parliament so that we could come together and work through, debate and discuss the issues that were before the House and that are before the country. We would have brought what was clearly the business of the nation before the House. Unfortunately, the Liberals chose not to do that, but that underlined, I think, a difference in philosophy about the role of Parliament in response to these events. In the context of threats to our country, there are obviously the fundamentals on which all of us agree. I guess we do have, respectfully, some separatists in the House, but most of us are here out of a devotion to the strength and unity of Canada. We are here because we love Canada. We disagree about the mechanisms, the processes and the policies that are in the national interest, but most of us are here because we deeply love this country. As I think about the idea of love and of loving one's country, I am drawn to that famous line from The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky reminds us that “love in [reality] is a harsh and dreadful thing compared with love in dreams.” There are many different things he means by that, but centrally I think he means that our love for our country requires sacrifice from us. It requires hard things. It also requires us to challenge decisions out of a desire to strengthen and to prod our country in a positive direction. The engagement of parliamentary institutions, the use of parliamentary institutions, is the tool by which we are able to draw on the ideas and experiences not just of members of Parliament but, through them, of all of their constituents. We spend time in our ridings hearing from Canadians about their priorities, their concerns and how they would like to see us respond to the issues of the day. Then we come together here in the central chamber of Canadian democracy to propose constructive ideas, to challenge each other and to hold each other accountable, especially to hold the government accountable, for the decisions we make, all with the goal of positively prodding our country in a constructive direction. Socrates used to describe himself as the gadfly of Athenian democracy. Canadian democracy needs its share of gadflies to—

Mr. Speaker, some members across the way say they would like me to meet an end similar to that which Socrates met, but I know that is meant in good humour. He saw himself as a gadfly at the hindquarters of Athenian democracy, which meant he was biting away, annoying the great beast that was Athenian democracy, in hopes of prodding it in a constructive direction. Sometimes during times of national crisis the role of the opposition is challenged. People ask why it does not just agree with everything the government says, but it is out of love for this country and out of loyalty to this country that those who have been directed by the voters into this role of opposition challenge the government in a positive, constructive direction, at least as they see it. Of course, there are going to be different views about what that positive, constructive direction is, but we deeply revere in our tradition this idea of a loyal opposition. This is why I think it would have been the right decision for Parliament to come back early, to identify the many areas that we agree on in terms of Canada's national interest and also to ask the government questions about its strategy, about its priorities and about the choices and trade-offs it is considering. It is also why we have asked for more information about the nature of negotiations, about the things that were on the table and about the costs associated with countertariffs. When more parliamentarians have that information, when the public has that information, it allows for constructive deliberations about the choices and trade-offs that are involved. It is not because we do not share an ultimate objective. Of course, in many respects we do share an ultimate objective. However, this institution exists so that we can challenge each other based on our shared love for this country. In the face of these challenges, I would encourage the government to recognize the importance of Parliament, to share information with Parliament and to bring these issues to Parliament for a thorough discussion and debate, because this is how and where the best decisions get made. I say this because I think there is some evidence to suggest that the Prime Minister would prefer a kind of corporate governance model to a parliamentary democratic model for shaping the direction of the country. He would prefer to tell parliamentarians in his own caucus, as well as in other parties, to just trust him about the decisions he is making because, as chairman of the board, he is going to make those decisions and why not let him do it. Our parliamentary democracy exists for a reason. It exists because the prodding, directing, encouraging, challenging and accountability are part of the process of getting to good decisions. Parliamentarians are not just individuals putting our own ideas forward. We are reflections of the values, objectives and ideas of our constituents. That is why Parliament matters. That is why it is important. That is why we should resist efforts by the Prime Minister to shift us from a parliamentary democracy model to a model of corporate governance. I would remind the House that parliamentary democracy is also essential during times of crisis. We have a record of many of Winston Churchill's great interventions in the House of Commons. He felt the importance of coming to the House, even during Britain's darkest hour. In the face of these challenges, again, this institution is important. Members across the way are eager to hear about how these points relate to Bill C-10. Bill C-10 is actually another example of the government trying to alter the structure and directions of our institutions in ways that move us away from the focus on parliamentary and ministerial accountability. It wants to see this proliferation of external new bodies that do not really have any powers. They would have the power to criticize or commend the actions of the government in relation to modern treaties, but this obscures the fact that the responsibility for implementing these treaties, for acting in accordance with the treaties, is the responsibility of the government and of the ministers charged with implementing them. The House of Commons, as well as its committees, is the place where members of Parliament can and should challenge the government on its actions with respect to our adherence to those treaty obligations. Therefore, the best thing for accountability and for ensuring that action is taken in accordance with these treaties is not the proliferation of external bureaucracy with, frankly, limited tools and a limited capacity to hold the ministers accountable, but for the government to actually take Parliament more seriously, for ministers to provide substantive responses to substantive questions, for ministers to make themselves more available at committee, and for the Prime Minister to address the Canadian House of Commons as soon as possible after a breakdown in negotiations with the United States, not to address the European Parliament before addressing the Canadian Parliament. I think it is great for the Prime Minister to be engaging internationally, but the fact that he addressed these issues at a foreign parliament before addressing them at the Canadian Parliament demonstrates why it would have been so much better if the Canadian Parliament had been convened—

Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the member is a new member in the House. He is not as new as he once was. I do welcome him back. On a serious point to that member, I heard from some of his constituents about a private member's bill that I put forward in the House. It is Bill C-290, on the theft of religious items, because I know there have been some thefts of mezuzahs. There has been real concern in the Winnipeg Jewish community about that, so I have been meaning to call him about it. I would recommend he have a look at Bill C-290. I hope that the bill, which seeks to address the issue of theft of religious items, is something that could be an area of cross-party co-operation. That definitely is not related to Bill C-10. What I am underlining in this speech is simply that, in the midst of challenging times for our country, in a context where it is important for us to come together and agree on the fundamentals of defending the Canadian national interest, the robust debate that happens in Parliament, the requests for information and the process of holding government ministers accountable are important processes of helping us collectively make better decisions. To love this country is also about loving and working through its existing institutions and recognizing the value of the heritage we have in the establishment of these institutions. As it relates to Bill C-10, it is about saying that the core of accountability is not external to Parliament; it is right here in Parliament. It is the obligation of ministers to uphold our obligations under modern treaties and other treaties. It is to come before the House to defend their actions, to respond to questions from opposition members about them, to do so here within the House and to do so before its committees. We need to have a strong Parliament, a strong Parliament for a strong Canada and a united Canada in the face of various challenges. I was thinking about these challenges just today, looking at the news and comments from the American administration about buying potash from Belarus. This was really striking to me because Belarus is systematically involved in the theft of children from Ukraine. It has been well established by human rights groups that Russia and Belarus are involved in stealing children from Ukraine. This is actually an issue that the first lady of the United States has been quite active in and vocal on, trying to get children who have been stolen from Ukrainian families returned to their families. How in the world did we get to this point where the American administration is talking about buying potash from Belarus instead of trying to restore the relationship with Canada? This is a baffling point to be at. It underlines the need for us to bring the case directly to the American people, to say that we need to have partnerships among like-minded democracies. This ridiculous economic attack on our country makes no sense from a strategic perspective for the United States. Why would we want to buy potash from a regime that is intentionally and systematically stealing children? These are the challenges we face. These are the kinds of challenges that need to be addressed in our Parliament through debate, through discussion, through collaboration and also through disagreements, but to defend the interests of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I think this makes it clear that we generally all share the same goal when it comes to advancing indigenous rights. However, we disagree on this bill. Conservatives do not believe that this is the ideal mechanism for advancing and defending the rights of indigenous peoples. Instead, we should be focusing on existing mechanisms, namely accountability within the parliamentary context.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the commissioner would not have the power to ensure that the government's actions are consistent with its obligations. Other mechanisms already exist, such as the courts, for example, where indigenous peoples can demand that the government comply with the agreements. In my view, this is a fundamental problem with Bill C-10. How can the government justify a commissioner position? He will not have the powers needed to guarantee results. What, then, is the purpose of creating this post?

Mr. Speaker, that is another excellent point from my colleague. This is precisely the issue. Through this bill, which sounds nice on the face of it, “Oh, we are creating this new commissioner,” the structure of the new position is to try to reduce the accountability, the pressure and the demands on the shoulders of the minister, while not really giving the commissioner the power to address the issues that are brought before him or her. It is kind of a diffusion and a weakening of the accountability structures that are supposed to exist within our system. Sometimes with this kind of legislation, when there is a nice-sounding top line, we have to look underneath it and ask, “What is this bill actually doing? What are the effects of it going to be?” As my colleague illustrates, this reflects a kind of preferred corporate governance-oriented model that the Prime Minister wants to apply to this country that in fact weakens the structures of our parliamentary democracy as they are supposed to exist.

Mr. Speaker, objectively, Conservatives have a much stronger record when it comes to signing modern treaties in government than the Liberal government does. The numbers are very clear on that. The failure of the government on many fronts has led to pressure for other accountability mechanisms and has led to the government trying to diffuse accountability mechanisms. Again, our view is that the response to these failures of the government should be holding ministers accountable for their decisions and for their failure to make decisions in certain cases, and that the government has a responsibility to expose itself to debate in Parliament and to questions at committee, so that we can work through these crucial issues of the national interest, of nation-building and reconciliation, so that we can do that as the leaders who are responsible here in Parliament for making the decisions that shape the future of our country.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there. Oftentimes what we see with the government is efforts to defer things that it is responsible for to external bodies when the authority and the ability to act is in the hands of ministers. Again, I would say the issue here is whether the government has fulfilled its obligations. There is a lot of consensus that the government has failed in this regard. Rather than fix the fundamental problems, the government is offering to create another commissioner, who is not actually going to have the power to solve these problems but who is going to do studies. It is this constant sort of Liberal industry of wanting to fund external activism or external review rather than actually fixing the core problems that the government has the power and responsibility to fix. That is the issue.

Mr. Speaker, the jobs numbers that have just come out reveal 42,000 jobs lost in August. Of course, in the context of the escalating trade conflict, we are expecting to see challenges as a result of tariffs and countertariffs, but the important thing we need to understand about these latest job numbers is that they come from the reference week of August 9 to 15. The job numbers are based on a reference week. That reference week was prior to the breakdown in negotiations, a time when positive public signals were being sent by both the Canadian and American sides. These 42,000 jobs lost in August are from before the escalation we have seen. It underlines that we are seeing job losses in this country, and we are seeing an increase in youth unemployment as a result of domestic policy decisions and a failure of action on the part of government to respond to these challenges. Again, it is simply clear from the timing of these job losses. The increase in the youth unemployment rate to 12.9% was before the latest escalations. Conservatives have taken a very constructive approach on the jobs issue. We presented the government with our Conservative jobs plan last fall, with specific concrete proposals that would address the unemployment crisis, especially that which is acutely facing Canadian young people. Our priorities and proposals were in the areas of unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are. With regard to unleashing the economy, there is a lot of discussion about major projects today, and I think major projects are extremely important. This is why Conservatives have long called for, for instance, the repeal of Bill C-48 and Bill C-69. We do not need a piecemeal approach that allows the government to pick a few favoured projects, but a general approach that fixes the systematic problems in the impact assessment process. Moreover, it is not just about the big projects. It is also about the ability of small businesses to exist in an environment with low taxes, low red tape and much shorter permitting timelines, where someone with a big idea can make a go of it without being gummed up by the pressures associated with high taxes and high red tape. We propose specific, concrete proposals around unleashing the economy, such as, for instance, not paying capital gains tax on dollars immediately reinvested in this country. We need to be unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, addressing the misalignment between our immigration system and the needs of our economy, training Canadian young people for the jobs that exist here in Canada, offering relatively more generous grants to students pursuing opportunities in areas where there is labour demand and aligning training with the needs of the labour market. Liberals have gone in the opposite direction by cutting off many colleges' and non-university vocational institutions' students from being able to get those dollars. We also need to be building homes where the jobs are, making it easier for people to relocate to areas where the jobs are. This is the constructive content Conservatives have been putting into the discussion, which Liberals have failed to implement, and that is why we continue to see challenges. When will they take our constructive ideas to help young people get back to work?

Mr. Speaker, my friend across the way spoke with great gusto and passion about his good intentions. He said, “We in the government want good things. That is what we want.” I did not come here to debate their intentions, actually. I came here to debate the results. Good intentions are not going to feed or clothe anyone in this country, and the government will be judged by the results. It will be judged by the concrete outcomes. I spoke about jobs and the 42,000 jobs lost, and the member tried to refer to global events. Again, I made this very clear. The government will always try to play with the timelines, but this was before the escalation in the trade conflict. We had lost 42,000 jobs beforehand. The government will be judged by the results. The Prime Minister has said that affordability has never been better. Canadians are experiencing it differently, and it is the results that are going to matter for the government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my best wishes for the summer to all colleagues from all sides. We have fought hard for our constituents, for our convictions and to advance the common good of this country. I want to share my best wishes with all colleagues, as well as the various staff and people in this institution who support the important work that we do. In addition to thanking and wishing best wishes to all colleagues and support staff here, I want to note that this will be a very important summer in my province because we will be discussing and debating the question of Alberta's place within Confederation. I can tell the House that I firmly believe in the importance of a strong Alberta within a united Canada. I believe that is the position held by the majority of my constituents. I look forward to talking to people and listening to them over the summer. I would encourage colleagues from all parts of the country to also listen to, respect and try to understand the concerns Albertans have. Many Albertans, including those who support a united Canada, have concerns about the way our federation has operated and want to look for opportunities to improve things for the good of the whole country. Coming back to the question I had originally asked and that I am following up on, I am deeply concerned, as we go into the summer, about the challenges facing young Canadians and young Canadian families when it comes to finding employment, starting out in life and believing they can have a better future and that they can pass a better future on to the next generation. We have a worsening employment crisis. It is getting increasingly harder for young people to find their first job, and for young families to afford their first home and be able to afford to take those critical steps forward in life. In recognition of that problem, and in an effort to be constructive, we have, as the Conservative Party, put forward constructive proposals to try to make life better for young people seeking jobs and for young families. Last fall, we announced the Conservative youth jobs plan to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. This plan, if implemented by the government, would help young people have hope that they can have jobs and opportunity going forward, afford homes and have the standard of living their parents had. We have also released a work and family life plan to support young families. This plan includes vital reforms to parental leave to make it easier for parents who are trying to start a family, maintain a connection to work and earn an income at the same time. I am very proud of the work we have done as a Conservative opposition, focusing on what matters to Canadians and on putting forward constructive proposals to make people's lives better. We have asked the government, in a spirit of goodwill and co-operation, to take these ideas forward and adopt our Conservative youth jobs plan and the parental leave reforms we have put forward. Unfortunately, in many cases, we have seen the government choose to move in the opposite direction, for instance, by defunding grants to students at vocational institutions who are trying to gain the vital experience they need for jobs. We have always sought to be productive and constructive by putting forward these good ideas and asking the government to adopt them. Therefore, as we face these ongoing challenges, an affordability crisis and a youth unemployment crisis, will the government take a serious look at what we have put forward, including the Conservative youth jobs plan, parental leave reforms and the need to reform training to connect Canadian young people with Canadian jobs? Will the government look at our ideas, take them seriously and consider implementing them as part of the budget so we can finally reverse the trajectory that we have seen and give young people hope for jobs, homes and opportunity in the future?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. Indeed, I would welcome him, and all members of this House from all parties, to come to Alberta this summer. Let me know. I would be happy to host. Members could spend some time talking to people in our province to understand some of their concerns. These are precarious times, but youth unemployment is very high here compared to in peer countries, and compared to what we have seen historically. I would draw the attention of the government to the 10th report of the human resources committee. It is a unanimous report that identifies specific policy problems in this country that need to be addressed, including high taxes, high red tape, hiring costs and failures in immigration policy and training policy. These are things we need to talk about. When folks on the government side talk about this, they often highlight the continuing existence of programs that have already existed for a very long time. What we need are new solutions, like the Conservatives' youth jobs plan that would make a difference. I would encourage the member to refer to that report.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑290, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (theft of property of cultural or religious significance). Mr. Speaker, today I am tabling a new private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding theft of property of cultural or religious significance. Canada's current laws on theft are based primarily on economic notions of value. Stealing an item worth over $5,000 can carry a heavier sentence than stealing an item worth less than $5,000. However, economic value is not the only or the most important concept of value. Things can be valuable for reasons that have nothing to do with their weight in economic exchange. Our current laws on theft do not incorporate other, higher concepts of value than the purely economic. This problem became evident to me when St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Catholic Forane Pilgrim Church in Scarborough was targeted in the theft of a sacred relic. It was not worth much in dollars and cents, perhaps, but was of immense value to the community. Today I am introducing a bill that would create a separate offence for the theft of religious or culturally significant property. Essentially, it would apply the same level of seriousness and the same sentencing range for theft of religious and culturally significant property as are applied to the theft of items worth over $5,000. This law would help protect religious communities but would also support local museums, indigenous nations and all ethnocultural communities that pass their traditions through culturally significant property. While I am on my feet, I want to thank all those who advocated for giving us the opportunity to table private members' bills today so we can do our jobs as members of Parliament. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, first, I would put to the member that the Orthodox Jewish community and the religious leaders within the Jewish community are overwhelmingly opposed to the removal of the religious exemption. I would encourage the member to take their concerns seriously. Moreover, the idea that a statute that denies religious freedom and attacks freedom of speech is not a big deal because the charter protects religious freedom is not great comfort to most people. It may be that this law could be found unconstitutional, if a person who is charged then addresses the issue of religious freedom through the courts and eventually gets a remedy for that, but that is a long and difficult process for an individual to go through. It would be better if we did not pass laws that violate religious freedom in the first place, therefore not requiring that kind of charter action. Why is the member proceeding with this in light of those obvious concerns, especially from the Orthodox Jewish community?

Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who is really eroding the foundations of our parliamentary democracy. He is never here, yet he is imposing some of the most draconian measures on parliamentary debate. The motion before the House would impose on Bill C-26 that there would be one more speaker for each party at second reading, and then after the vote at second reading, it would be deemed adopted at all stages, with no committee study, no report stage debate and no third reading debate.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Whitby is saying, “perfect”. This is what Liberals want. They want to shut down debate. This would not just be closure of debate at a stage. It would be shutting debate down at all stages, with no possibility for committee study or amendment. This is just an unconscionable attack on the processes that are supposed to defend the rights and liberties of Canadians and to defend good decision-making. How can the minister, if he really thinks this is a good bill, justify the most draconian use of shutting down a procedure that we have ever seen in the House, shutting it down not just at one stage but at all stages, with no possibility for debate, study or amendment?

Mr. Speaker, in response to what the parliamentary secretary just said, it is important for Canadians to know that there is a big difference between using closure or time allocation at one stage of a bill in the House and shutting the bill down at every stage so there is no possibility of committee study. On Bill C‑5, we moved it forward, but we had detailed committee study and amendments from the Conservatives that improved that bill. In this case, the bill is being shut down at all stages with no committee study, no report stage and no third reading debate. I think it is because, in part, the housing minister is afraid to come to the human resources committee, where we sit—

Mr. Speaker, the member is blowing that off. I will ask the minister a simple question. This motion is going to pass; they have their majority, so it is going to pass. Will the minister agree to come to the human resources committee, even for one hour, to talk to us about the bill? The human resources committee is supposed to be studying housing. We have two studies going, one on housing starts and one on homelessness. We have not heard from the minister. We also have this bill going through on housing. The minister is trying to skip coming to committee. Will he come to human resources committee for an hour to talk about this bill, yes or no?

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of the trades. In 2006, Stephen Harper brought in grants for trades workers. In 2009, the same Conservative government brought in completion grants. One of the first acts of this Prime Minister was to cancel grants for trades workers and completion grants. The government also pulled student grants for students studying at vocational institutions. Now, after a lot of advocacy from Conservatives, as well as from unions, we were pleased to see the partial restoration of grants to trades workers. This is something we and unions had advocated for. I want to ask the minister, number one, why did the Liberals cancel these grants in the first place? Second, why are they still denying student grants to those studying at vocational institutions?

Mr. Speaker, as we approach the end of the parliamentary session for this spring, it is important to highlight the ongoing jobs crisis facing young people, and the constructive measures that Conservatives have put forward. We are here in Parliament working late, but we are blessed to have the opportunity to work on behalf of Canadians. Meanwhile, there are many talented young people with skills and passion that they want to put to work but have not been able to. There are the top‑line unemployment numbers. Underneath that, there is declining labour force participation for young people, and there is the reality that many young people are not able to work in the field they have studied in. They have been encouraged to go in one direction in terms of their studies, yet they are not able to find employment that aligns with that area of study. Over the course of the spring session and the previous fall session, as we have been highlighting the youth unemployment crisis in this country, we have always been very constructive in our approach, putting forward specific policy proposals to address that crisis and inviting the government to embrace those proposals. We have highlighted four key areas as we have advanced our youth unemployment strategy. The first is unleashing the economy, addressing major concerns that small businesses have around the cost of hiring and around red tape and regulation, by having incentives, tax cuts and reduced bureaucracy that encourages investment in Canada. Second, we need to fix the immigration system. When it comes to immigration, we hear a big focus from the government on attracting foreign talent, but not enough focus on deploying the talent that is already in this country. There are so many young people with talent, training and passion who want to get to work. We should be focused on deploying the Canadian talent to give young people opportunities. We need to fix our immigration system so that the people who come here are able to have their credentials recognized so they are not competing for entry-level jobs, and so that we are clearly identifying where the skill gaps and needs are. The first two areas are unleashing the economy and fixing immigration. Third, we need to fix training. The government is going in the opposite direction. It is pulling funding for student grants for students in vocational programs. We should be celebrating and recognizing the value of different kinds of post-secondary options, including vocational programs that provide practical, job-ready skills for young people. We need to be training young people for Canadian jobs. We know there is a desire for skilled workers. The response to that should be to train young people to be ready to fill those skilled positions, yet there is a specific attack on vocational institutions by the government. Fourth, we need to build homes where the jobs are. Conservatives are proposing constructive policies to support labour mobility so young people can take up opportunities that may exist outside the region they live in. We have very high unemployment in larger centres, and we have many opportunities in rural and remote areas to seize opportunities for young people who are able. However, when I talk to young people about whether they think they would be able to seize those opportunities, transportation and housing are major concerns if they are moving to an area that is unfamiliar. That is why we have included in our jobs plan incentives to make it easier for employers to offer workforce housing. We need to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. That is our constructive Conservative plan to address the youth unemployment crisis. It is offered in good faith. Would the government take those good ideas that we have put forward?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from that response that the government has nothing new to offer. The parliamentary secretary spoke about programs that have existed since the 1990s and their rebranded Canada strong program. Here are the facts: Conservatives introduced grants for trade workers in 2009 and 2006: 2009 were the completion grants, 2006 were the other grants introduced for trade workers. The Liberals cancelled those grants. The Minister of Jobs and Families defended the decision to cancel those grants, and then, in the face of significant advocacy from unions, as well as Conservatives and other organizations, the government chose to restore funding that the Liberals had cut. Restoring something that they cut and giving it a new name is not doing something new. We absolutely need to support trades workers. They should not have cut those grants in the first place, but they also should not be cutting grants for vocational training. The fact is the government has nothing new. Why will the Liberals not adopt our Conservative youth jobs plan?

Madam Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. We are glad to see that more Canadians are working this month than last month, but we are down over 20,000 jobs since the beginning of this year. We are still expecting negative growth, and we have the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Simply put, we are comparing to a worse baseline. This should not be the new normal for this great country. Why is Canada the only G20 country in a recession?

Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that it is good news that more Canadians are working this month than last month, but we have to be honest about these numbers, because the government House leader is eager to cherry-pick. We have 24,500 fewer Canadians working today than were at the beginning of the year. Compared to pre-pandemic averages, unemployment is up by 0.6% overall and over 2.5 points for youth. Under this Liberal Prime Minister, we have the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Having the best job numbers in Canada should not be like having the best bobsledding team in Jamaica. Canada is the only G20 economy in a recession.

Madam Speaker, the so-called “recession crowd” is literally the analysts at Statistics Canada. Here is the fact: Canada is in a recession under this Liberal Prime Minister. Let us talk about youth unemployment. The pre-pandemic average for youth unemployment was 10.8%. We are 2.5 points above the pre-pandemic average. The question for the government is this: Is this the new normal? It should not be the new normal; we should be back to where we were. A recession is not success. Canada is the only G20 economy in a recession, objectively. Why?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table four petitions. I am, first off, very pleased to be tabling a petition in support of Canada's energy sector. Petitioners highlight that Canada holds vast reserves of oil and gas that could stabilize global markets, support our democratic allies and power Canadian paycheques, but only if these resources can reach tidewater and diversified world markets. They highlight that global energy markets are now in acute disruption due to the war in the Middle East and threats to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, leaving our allies urgently searching for secure supplies from friendly democracies. The Prime Minister, petitioners say, has promised to move with unimaginable speed to build now and to approve major projects quickly, yet his government has not approved a single new pipeline or major energy project, despite having been given exceptional powers by Parliament to do so. Petitioners observe that instead of delivering on those promises, the Prime Minister's government has doubled the deficit, presided over Canada's shrinking economy and turned a political ceremony and press release into a substitute for actual permits and construction. Petitioners further highlight that Liberals introduced Bill C-69 and C-48, anti-development legislation that has blocked the shipment of oil to our coasts; and that Liberal red tape has made it take almost 18 years to open a mine, 23% longer than in Australia and 38% longer than in the United States, while investors, jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity have been driven to other countries. Petitioners observe as well that Canada now exports 98% of its crude oil to the United States, leaving our producers and workers at the mercy of American policy and a single market, rather than getting world prices through pipelines and LNG terminals to the Pacific and Atlantic. Therefore, petitioners call on the Government of Canada to repeal Bills C-69 and C-48 and replace them with a regulatory framework that protects the environment, respects indigenous rights and allows responsible energy projects to be built. They ask the government to commit to a clear, predictable and, at maximum, six-month decision timeline for approval of major energy and resource projects so investors, workers and communities can have certainty. Finally, petitioners want the government to scrap the federal energy cap on Canadian oil and gas production so responsible, lower-emission Canadian energy can grow, compete globally and displace higher-emitting sources from hostile or unstable regimes. I want to thank the petitioners for their hard work in bringing this important petition to Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, next I am tabling a petition drawing the attention of members to very concerning comments made by Mr. Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons, calling for the expansion of euthanasia to “babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes”. Petitioners highlight their belief that infanticide is always wrong and that this proposal for the killing of infants is deeply disturbing to many Canadians, especially coming from a person affiliated with such an important organization. Petitioners want the Government of Canada to block any attempt to legalize the killing of children.

Mr. Speaker, next I am tabling a petition drawing the attention of the House to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, persecution that includes forced organ harvesting. Petitioners want more action by the government to combat the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. No doubt, petitioners are also concerned about the attacks on arts and culture by the CCP that are evident through efforts to suppress artistic expression affiliated with Falun Gong.

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I am tabling today draws the attention of the House to concerns about risks to young people online. Petitioners highlight that smart phones give Canadian children direct access to harmful online content, with children getting their own devices at increasingly young ages, and that algorithm-driven social media platforms are designed to keep users hooked, harming youth mental health and well-being. They also highlight that rising social media use among young Canadians is contributing to a worsening mental health crisis, putting added strain on health care and social services. Parents find it difficult to limit social media access across devices and apps, especially when young people can be accessing these different things on devices that are not their own. Petitioners point out that Australia has recognized these concerns and set of minimum social media age of 16, and similar laws are being debated in New Zealand, Sweden and Spain, reflecting growing global awareness. Further, they point out that social media and smart phone access exposes children to pornographic and other harmful online content at an early age with no meaningful age verification laws in place to offer protection. Therefore, petitioners ask the Government of Canada to establish a minimum age of 18 for accessing social media platforms, supported by effective age verification, and also to support Bill S-209, an act to restrict young persons' access to online pornographic material.

Mr. Speaker, persecution based on religious belief is a significant and growing problem around the world. Women and girls from religious minority communities are increasingly at risk of a kind of double persecution known as gender-specific religious persecution, where they are targeted for both their faith and their gender. Gender-specific religious persecution can include abduction, sexual assault, forced marriage and forced conversion, along with other abuses. Maria Shahbaz, a 13-year-old Pakistani Christian girl, was abducted, forcibly converted and subjected to so-called forced marriage. The Pakistani court ruled that the marriage was legal. Amany, an 18-year-old Coptic Christian woman living in upper Egypt, was kidnapped on her way to school as part of a coordinated effort to have her forcibly converted and married outside her community. The often hidden plight of women and girls who face this double persecution must not be ignored. Canada's government should push legal and practical reforms in partner countries to address this issue and ensure that our public service has the knowledge and capacity to address gender-specific religious persecution. There is a need and an opportunity for our government and our Parliament to champion a response to this issue.

Madam Speaker, we face serious economic problems now as a country. We are the only G20 nation in a recession. One in four Canadians is living food-insecure. We have seen a doubling of food bank use since 2020, and we are in the midst of a worsening unemployment crisis, particularly affecting Canada's young people. We have been repeatedly calling on the government to implement a plan to respond to this youth unemployment crisis. In the fall, Conservatives put forward our plan with a series of constructive suggestions focused on unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are. We have not seen a willingness on the part of the government to implement these constructive proposals. In fact, we have seen the government choose to move in the opposite direction. We saw, for instance, with changes the Liberals made, the cutting of grants to students who are studying at vocational institutions. The Liberals ended completion grants for students in the trades. They brought them back eventually, following strong advocacy from unions, as well as from Conservatives, but they have now trumpeted them as if they were something new when they were, in fact, the restoration of grants that had previously been cut by this particular government under the Prime Minister. We are seeing some instances in which our advocacy has made a difference, but generally speaking, there is an unwillingness of the government to meet this moment. I will also draw the attention of members, in the context of this unemployment crisis, to a great report recently done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business highlighting the challenges small businesses are facing when it comes to hiring young people and some of the disconnect that has existed between small businesses and young people. Its proposal, very much aligning with what we have talked about, focuses on creating the conditions in which small businesses can afford to hire young people. It proposed, for instance, payroll tax relief. Payroll tax relief would be a clear and simple way of making it easier for small businesses to hire young people. Small business owners report that a lot of the programming that exists right now can be difficult and onerous for small businesses to use and take advantage of. The CFIB proposed broad-based changes that would reduce the cost of hiring, taking into consideration the costs of training and making it easier for people to start and grow businesses. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has also highlighted big gaps in terms of entrepreneurship in this country. It is talking about an entrepreneurial drought and saying that far more businesses are closing than are being started. Obviously, this affects the unemployment situation for young people. As I have led this file over the last year, and as Conservatives have been working on confronting this youth unemployment crisis, we have always sought to be constructive. That is, we have sought to put forward specific, concrete suggestions to the government on how these challenges can be addressed. We have put those forward in the form of the Conservative youth jobs plan. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has put forward its ideas, which are very similar to ours, but really emphasizes payroll tax relief. We have called on the government to adopt these suggestions. What we saw in the last fiscal update is a plan on the part of the government to increase EI premiums, which is again going in the opposite direction from what the Canadian Federation of Independent Business wants. My question tonight for the parliamentary secretary is this: When will we see a concrete plan to address the youth unemployment crisis that responds to these realities and recommendations by different stakeholders?

Madam Speaker, there are many things that are very strange about this response. Let us be clear. In 2006, in the first Conservative budget of Stephen Harper, Conservatives brought in grants for trades workers. We brought in completion grants in 2009. The current government cancelled them under the Prime Minister, and then, with much fanfare, announced they were bringing them back. Of course, we support bringing in these grants. We wish they had not been cancelled before being reinstated. We voted against the government's fiscal plan in general because, in general, it is going in the wrong direction. The member highlighted labour market development agreements, which are, of course, an important and valuable part of our national architecture. Most of those agreements were signed in the 1990s and early 2000s. The last one was signed with Yukon in 2009. The government also trumpets things like the Canada summer jobs program. Again, these are programs that date back to the nineties and have existed for a long time. The government has nothing new. The best the Liberals can do is rename past Conservative programs. The Liberals clearly do not have a plan. They need to get a plan, and fast.

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the tragic effects of Liberal policies on the economy. Liberals want to be judged by their intentions, announcements, illusions and gimmicks, but Canadians will see the effects of Liberal policies in the grocery store aisle, at the gas pump, in the pink slips that are piling up and in the real numbers reported by Statistics Canada. The reports are in: Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. We have had recession levels of unemployment for months, with youth unemployment approaching 15%. One in four Canadians is food-insecure, and food bank use has doubled since 2020. The Prime Minister is not working, and he certainly is not working for Canadians. Canadians want jobs, homes and hope. There is hope for this great country, but Liberals need to stop pretending that everything is fine. It is not. Canadians want a government that leaves behind the illusions and instead focuses on delivering results.