Glen Motz

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today and speak on behalf of the good people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. I want to remind Canadians that this session, Conservatives will be working to restore Canada's promise of an affordable, safe and independent Canada. We will work to save Canadians money, unlike the Liberals, who are costing Canadians money. We will save Canadian jobs, keep Canadians safe, fix the immigration system and put Canada first. Today, we are talking about Bill C-266, regarding a national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility, something that we should all give serious consideration to. It is not lost on anyone in this House that Canada faces a crossroads in our relationship with our neighbours, as well as old and emerging trade partners. What cannot be forgotten, however, is the strength that lies within our own borders to meet these challenges head-on. My colleagues on both sides of this chamber must ask themselves the following. In the face of external pressures, will we leverage our immense geography, resources and skills to build a Canada that produces what it needs and controls its own destiny? Bill C-266 is central to that conversation. Skilled trade certification and labour mobility in Canada are largely governed by the provinces and territories. It is a fragmented system that creates differences in credential recognition, standards, licensing and regulatory requirements, and it can make it difficult for trade workers to move between provinces. This legislation would require the federal government to develop a national framework to identify these barriers and explore ways to harmonize and streamline credential recognition, improve labour mobility and promote careers in the skilled trades. The framework would be developed through consultation and reported to Parliament, while respecting provincial and territorial responsibility for certification. Importantly, Bill C-266 would not itself replace provincial certification systems or impose a single national licensing regime. Instead, the act would be designed to require the federal government to bring the provinces, regulatory bodies, industry, employers, unions, apprenticeship organizations, indigenous organizations and educational institutions to the table for months of consultation. The resulting framework would then have to include a complete list of skilled trades across Canada; compare and map equivalencies between provincial standards and credentials; and then identify measures to harmonize standards, reduce duplication and streamline the process of having credentials recognized from one province to another. It would also have to address emerging trades and new technologies and promote greater awareness of the importance of skilled trades. This is about making sure that a Canadian who has earned the skills to do a job can have those skills recognized when opportunity takes them somewhere else in their own country. It is appropriate that this bill is the first order of business after our return to Ottawa. The events of this summer have put an even greater onus on the Prime Minister to make good on his vow to build at speeds not seen in generations, for the housing construction sector and the major infrastructure projects and the economic investments we need to put Canada first. Regrettably, however, the Liberal government has not yet made good on that vow. There has been a lot of talk and not a whole lot of action, and it is completely out of touch. Let us examine housing, for instance. It is the central issue facing an entire generation that has effectively been locked out of the market. Housing is a skilled labour issue. We cannot build the homes Canadians need without the electricians, plumbers, carpenters, equipment operators and other skilled tradespersons needed to build them. Despite 62,000 vacant trades jobs in late 2025, over 127,000 certified tradespeople in Canada were unemployed, according to StatsCan. At the same time, the Canadian Home Builders' Association reports that 47% of builders say they or their subcontractors have had to lay off workers, rising to 65% in Ontario. That tells us something important. The challenge is not simply a shortage of skilled workers. It is also a failure to connect workers with opportunities where they are needed and where these opportunities exist. The same problem exists when it comes to major projects. The Prime Minister promised to build at speeds not seen in generations, but we need projects to actually get built if skilled workers are going to put their skills to work. There are 500 shovel-ready projects still awaiting approval at the Major Projects Office. Canada cannot afford to train more tradespeople while qualified workers face barriers in moving between provinces and major projects are struggling to get off the ground. Bill C-266 may help address one part of that equation, that is, making it easier for qualified workers to move to where the work is. While the Liberals deserve much of the blame for siphoning the full potential of our workforce, successive governments at both the federal and provincial levels have erected barriers to prevent Canadians from working and doing business freely across their own country. In the words of the Business Council of Canada, “13 different provincial credential recognition regimes” complicate our labour mobility. Not only do these roadblocks increase costs and ultimately leave Canadians paying more for essentials, but they also hold back growth when we should be firing on all cylinders. Shockingly, the International Monetary Fund estimates that impediments to internal trade in Canada are equivalent to a 9% tariff on ourselves and that removing them could increase the size of our economy by a further 7%. There should be no further hesitation by the government in finally and fully realizing the promise of one Canadian economy. Conservatives have always believed in the free trade of goods and labour, and there is no better time than now to trade with ourselves. We need to and would embrace the broad mutual recognition of goods, services and labour across Canada, making restrictions the exception rather than the rule. Bill C-266 is not, by itself, the end of that work, but it could provide a mechanism to identify exactly where the barriers exist and bring every jurisdiction to the table to address them. By mapping provincial credentials and identifying equivalencies, the framework could give provincial regulators the information they need to recognize qualifications more consistently, reduce duplication and make it easier for workers to move. On this side of the House, we are optimistic but have every reason to reserve doubt. While the bill's sponsor has promoted it as one that would focus on tangible outcomes, it is fair to ask why these problems remain unresolved by the Liberal Party after more than a decade in government. That is why Conservatives will continue to examine the bill carefully. We need to determine whether its framework actually produces the results that Canadian workers and employers need. The stakes are high. These restrictions impact businesses and the people they employ and serve. It is no wonder that Canada's business community has been sounding the alarm for years. Both the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Canada have called for unified recognition of skilled trade credentials across Canada, warning that barriers between provinces prevent skilled workers from moving to where they are needed. The numbers are sobering. The chamber has warned that roughly 700,000 skilled trade workers are projected to retire in the next two years, while Canada faces enormous housing and infrastructure demands. Therefore, the chamber has called for a unified framework developed with provincial and territorial governments, industry and regulatory bodies to recognize skilled trade training and credentials across Canada. This is remarkably close to what Bill C-266 asks the federal government to begin doing, which is to bring those same stakeholders together, map out the differences between jurisdictions, identify equivalencies, reduce duplication and report publicly on the progress. The Business Council of Canada has also pointed to Canada's patchwork of provincial credential recognition regimes as a barrier to labour mobility, while its research has found that shortages of skilled workers can have a significant impact on major projects and investments. Bill C-266 could not only address these challenges; it could create a national process for identifying and addressing some of the barriers the business community has repeatedly identified. It is for these reasons that the Conservatives will continue to carefully examine Bill C-266, not as the solution but as an important stepping stone to a more mobile and productive Canadian workforce. We have Canadians with skills, we have employers with available jobs, and we have communities that desperately need these workers. Bill C-266 may be a good step in identifying the barriers, bringing the people responsible for removing them to the table and requiring Parliament to measure whether progress is actually being made. Canada's skilled workers should never be held back by borders within their own country.

Mr. Speaker, from August 11 to August 15, the city of Medicine Hat is thrilled to host the 2026 Special Olympics Canada summer games, welcoming 1,700 participants from across the country. These games will showcase the incredible talents and inspiring stories of athletes with intellectual and developmental disabilities through competition, camaraderie, personal bests and unforgettable memories. Athletes will compete in 10 sports, each with their respective disciplines, celebrating inclusive sport excellence and highlighting achievement across this country. I thank the approximately 1,500 volunteers, strong community partnerships and everyone who has worked tirelessly to ensure these games are a success. I encourage the residents of Medicine Hat and area and all Canadians to come and experience this extraordinary event and cheer on these amazing athletes. Unforgettable moments of competition and connection will be created as Canada comes together in celebration of these Special Olympics Games. I wish good luck to all participants.

Madam Speaker, the Liberals tell us that the judicial safety valve is necessary to ensure flexibility. However, the criminal justice system already has safety valves in it. Police officers exercise discretion and lay charges, and the prosecutor has discretion on how they are going to handle a case and what that will look like for them. To me, the judicial safety valve would create an additional layer of discretion that would allow courts to effectively override Parliament's decision. However, Parliament is supposed to be the one that makes these decisions. We know that clause 63 in the bill would go much further by allowing judges to completely disregard mandatory minimums, except for treason and murder. Why is that?

Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and heard for weeks now, since the decision was made, about how the Conservatives are spreading misinformation, yet we know government lawyers do not act on their own. They get direction, and that direction came directly from the cabinet to the government lawyers on principle 14 in this particular decision. Could the minister please clarify for Canadians the misinformation the Liberal Party is now propagating that suggests the misinformation is actually the failure to admit that the direction given to their own lawyers failed Canadians in this particular case?

Mr. Speaker, despite the Liberal rhetoric, we know that the property values in the area impacted by this decision are having a significant impact on the homeowners. I am curious. Can our friend across the way answer how this decision is impacting his house-flipping business?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' costly credit card budget is more of the same: more debt, more spending, more taxes and higher inflation. The Prime Minister has doubled previous annual deficits. He had still added $54 billion in new spending, costing Canadians now $59 billion in debt interest charges to cover it. His $25-billion sovereign debt fund is just another deception. When will the Prime Minister set aside his illusions and bring his deficit under control so Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions. I know that law enforcement has been asking for this for quite some time, and I know they are generally pleased with the start of this. I am wondering whether my colleague has heard any feedback from law enforcement that is encouraging Parliament to go further with this legislation, some specific things they are asking for that are not yet in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether my colleague would share the concerns that some Canadians have already expressed with respect to ministerial orders, requiring only the approval of the intelligence commissioner, rather than maybe adding the Privacy Commissioner or even judicial oversight onto those ministerial orders. I wonder if he shares the concerns of people who have raised that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am always honoured to rise in this place to represent the amazing people of Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner. Today's debate on Bill C-22, an act respecting lawful access, is important and timely, as Parliament again aims to modernize Canada's lawful access framework. I am hopeful this time that our efforts on the issue will have some measure of success. In Canada, “lawful access” refers to the ability of law enforcement and national security agencies to legally obtain information from electronic service providers or to intercept communications with judicial authorization. This authorized interception and the search and seizure of documents, computer data and other information is a tool frequently used by law enforcement agencies to investigate serious crimes like the illegal trafficking of weapons, drugs and people; money laundering; child pornography; Internet fraud; cybercrime; homicide and organized crime. National security agencies also use lawful access to investigate terrorist groups that threaten Canada's national security. Unfortunately, Canada's current lawful access framework is outdated and ineffective in the face of the rapid changes in technology being exploited by criminals. Gaps in legislation render Canadians increasingly vulnerable as wireless communication technology continues to advance, making it difficult for our law enforcement and national security apparatus to get the information needed to investigate serious crimes or security threats in a timely manner and to be able to prosecute them effectively. Technologies like the Internet, email, cellphones, wireless data networks and encryption all add additional layers of complexity and present serious technological challenges and delays for obtaining critical evidence. The growing global nature of crime increases this vulnerability, as terrorist networks, organized criminal groups and human traffickers all use modern technology to perpetrate crimes and avoid detection.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue on with the lawful access speech I was providing. Basically, the growing global nature of crime increases vulnerability as terrorist networks, organized criminal groups and human traffickers all use modern technology to perpetrate crimes and avoid detection. Many criminal organizations are using communication technologies that cannot be easily or lawfully accessed by Canadian law enforcement and national security agencies. Communication networks themselves have become more complex through the rise of mobile and Internet communications, encrypted messaging services, international roaming, service resellers and ever faster network technologies. Generally, these new types of communication services are developed with consumer protection and security in mind, not lawful access, which has created tremendous challenges for investigators. As new technologies shape the way criminals operate, we must ensure that our law enforcement and national security apparatus have the tools and resources necessary to keep up with this changed and changing technical landscape. In 2009, 2011 and 2012, successive attempts by Conservative governments to modernize Canada's lawful access legislation did not succeed. Over the last 10 years, Liberal governments ignored the issue, which allowed the problem to fester and organized criminals to take over our streets. Canada is currently the only Five Eyes nation without a clear lawful access framework for modern communication. Decades of successive governments have not only let down but actively hindered our law enforcement and national security agencies by failing to provide them with the required legislation to allow for adequate investigative tools and resources needed to keep Canadians safe. The country's police chiefs have been calling for modernization of Canada's lawful access framework for many years, since as early as 2001. Canada's security and intelligence organizations continue to face significant challenges in successfully obtaining lawful access to communications due to the growing gap between the lawful authority to collect information and the technical capability to do so. In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has urged elected officials to “recognise the critical need for amendments to Canada's laws, to address the widening gap between ever-evolving technology and the outdated legislative framework that Canada's policing services must work within.” Our judicial system is constrained by investigative hurdles, outdated statutes, protracted pretrial and trial litigation and a lack of clarity. In 2018, the director of CSIS described lawful access problems as one of the most significant challenges he had identified to the government. Three core factors contribute to the challenges faced by law enforcement: the effects of advances in technology, the absence of legislation for intercept capability and the jurisdictional issues arising due to the cross-border nature of digital data. Our current legislation means police face barriers around seizure authorities, causing investigative delays, sometimes with no way to get access to the information they need. Modernizing Canada's lawful access framework is necessary to remove ambiguity and provide predictability and consistency for police and prosecutors while strengthening transparency and public trust. For these reasons, I personally am very pleased to see this legislation being brought forward as a stand-alone bill, and I support Bill C-22 being sent to committee, where it can be carefully studied, scrutinized and reviewed. Part 1 of Bill C-22 aims to facilitate quicker evidence gathering by allowing police officers to demand a yes-or-no answer from telecommunications providers as to whether they provide service to a specific account. It would also create a specific judicial order to compel electronic service providers to give basic identifying information, such as a names, addresses and emails, and would introduce a new mechanism for Canadian judges to authorize requests for subscriber information held by foreign entities. This addition would be an important tool for law enforcement, as cyberspace is not constrained by Canada's domestic border. In fact, a recent report by the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians found that many, if not most, Canadians use digital services from third party companies based outside of Canada. This report also noted that most online child sexual abuse cases involve offshore tech companies. Under current legislation, if digital information is required from a company based outside of Canada, the RCMP may request that information through a mutual legal assistance treaty, commonly known as an MLAT, where one is in place. For example, if the RCMP requires information from, say, Facebook or Apple, it sends a request to Canada's Department of Justice, which sends the request on to the U.S. Department of Justice. After that request is accepted by the U.S. Department of Justice, an assistant U.S. attorney makes an application before a U.S. judge to obtain a warrant for the information. The FBI can only execute that warrant after it is issued by a U.S. judge. Once the company provides the FBI with the information, it eventually makes its way back to the RCMP via the two justice departments. Now, even if the legal process is successful, if a company does not have a data retention policy, the content sought by an investigator may be deleted before the investigation request even arrives. According to the RCMP, the MLAT process can take three to six months, delaying investigations while Canadians remain at risk. For example, if someone reports to police a case of extortion occurring, say, on Instagram, it is currently a very lengthy and complicated process for police to obtain the alleged perpetrator's name or IP address because Instagram is a U.S.-based company. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would allow police to obtain a warrant to request the IP address from Instagram; then identify which Canadian provider services that IP address, through a yes-or-no response; and finally compel that specific provider to disclose the name, phone number and address linked to the IP address with judicial authorization: a warrant. By creating a mechanism to authorize these information requests from foreign entities, Bill C-22 would provide police with an important tool to seek judicial approval to obtain IP addresses and subscriber names linked to criminal communications routed through international platforms. It would also create a new tool of international co-operation in criminal matters to facilitate obtaining the court-ordered production of specific electronic data at the request of Canada's foreign partners, allowing for better co-operation with our allies. Even with these new production orders and judicial authorizations, these investigative processes often entail extensive work and time. In some cases, the time required to produce information exceeds the length of time that the service provider retains the information, meaning evidence is being purged before police can get the legal authorization to obtain it. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would expedite the response to production orders by changing the review period to 10 days, because having prompt access to these telecommunication records is a necessity for investigations. Part 1 of Bill C-22 would also provide clarifications on the ability of police officers to receive and act on certain information that is voluntarily provided to them or publicly available. For example, if a parent discovers that their child is being sexually exploited online and finds explicit messages, the perpetrator's username and IP address may be visible directly within the chat logs. Under current law, police may hesitate to act immediately on this voluntarily provided information due to uncertainty around privacy laws and liability, potentially delaying intervention and allowing harm to continue. This clarification is important to ensure that police can lawfully and promptly use such voluntarily provided information, enabling faster identification of the service provider and quicker protection of the child. However, this new lawful access framework is only useful if telecommunications providers have the ability to respond to these demands. Currently, Canada is the only Western democracy that does not have a legal framework requiring electronic service providers to develop and maintain certain technical capabilities. This means that even if law enforcement obtains a warrant for information to, for example, track the movements of a terrorist group through one of its members' cellphones, the electronic provider may not be able to give that information as it is not required to retain it. Some telecommunications companies' and social media platforms' policies simply do not involve tracking or saving the kind of data that police might require as evidence unless they are legislated to do so. In addition to data storage, Canada currently has no comprehensive legislative or regulatory mechanism that obligates communications service providers to develop or deploy systems that provide intercept capabilities. When a new technology or communications service is introduced, law enforcement and national security agencies often have to research and develop new methods to gain lawful access to those networks. The lack of a technical solution, or a delay in the ability to use it, hampers investigations and prevents law enforcement and national security agencies from effectively acting on serious crimes or threats to national security in a timely manner. Part 2 of Bill C-22 would require electronic service providers to develop and maintain the technological capacity necessary to respond to lawful access requests and would establish a monetary penalty for non-compliance. It would also empower the Minister of Public Safety to issue flexible and targeted ministerial orders compelling an electronic service provider to develop and maintain specific capabilities. These ministerial orders would be subject to approval by the Intelligence Commissioner, as privacy and cybersecurity are explicit factors that need to be considered. With the establishment of legal obligations for service providers, when law enforcement agencies obtain a search warrant, they could be assured that the information they need to combat terrorism, organized crime or human trafficking, for example, would be provided quickly and accurately. Finally, part 3 of the bill would mandate a comprehensive review of the entire act by Parliament three years after all provisions came into force to assess its effectiveness and impact. I personally believe it would be of significant assistance to law enforcement, national security agencies and prosecutors if the public safety committee, when it does this study, also undertook to discuss and recommend amendments to sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act, which deal with what information must be disclosed in court and what can remain protected. Currently, when police officers develop and use certain investigative techniques, they may be required to disclose how those tactics work in court, which can expose sensitive methods and undermine future investigations. Previous committee testimony by the commander of the Provincial Operations Intelligence Bureau of the Ontario Provincial Police discussed how amendments to the Canada Evidence Act are necessary to maintain confidentiality regarding the way in which investigative tools are developed and how they operate, function or are deployed to protect ongoing and future investigations. I hope that at committee, serious consideration will be given to these issues to ensure that police and our national security apparatus have the tools needed to prevent, investigate and prosecute serious and organized crimes, terrorism and other such offences. Coming from a law enforcement background, I have witnessed first-hand the growing gap between what Canada's law allows and what technologies make possible for criminals. Conservatives believe in law and order and have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. With that said, I am also aware of concerns raised by Canadians about the implications of this bill on their individual freedoms and privacy. I want to clarify that lawful access does not mean expanded access to private information. Rather, it means more timely and consistent lawful access to information related to specific individuals suspected of being engaged in criminal activity. Law enforcement authorities are not interested in the millions of devices used by everyday Canadians. The framework in Bill C-22 is intended to target those devices or communications that are being used to plan or execute criminal or terrorist activities. We must remember that without judicial authorization, law enforcement cannot intercept communications or request information and data. Lawful access does not allow access to private communications without a warrant, and interception can be carried out only with lawful authority, for targeted communications, for a specific period of time. Lawful access legislation does not allow law enforcement and intelligence investigators to simply monitor anyone's Internet use, email content or social media activity. Conservatives have been and will continue to be unequivocal in our commitment to protecting the freedom, privacy and safety of Canadians. At committee, we will scrutinize, debate and propose amendments to improve this legislation and stand firm against unnecessary infringements on the rights of Canadians. I remain optimistic that the government is open to non-partisan co-operation in assuring that Bill C-22 achieves its stated goal of strengthening Canada's public safety and national security, as well as safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I left policing in 2015, and I can say that in the decade and a half or more before that, there were serious restrictions and limitations on the ability of law enforcement, and certainly our national security apparatus, to lawfully gather information and then be able to use it in court. I can say that the chiefs of police, as I indicated in my remarks, said as early as 2001 that one of the biggest gaps that they have in bringing criminals to justice is the change in legislation for lawful access. Criminals are using the latest technology available, and law enforcement cannot keep up because our legislation has not kept up. I think it is critical, if we want to, regardless of some of the laws that I think could be changed—

Mr. Speaker, I was getting wound up on my last question. I will answer my colleague from the Bloc first. I do not think the threshold, to be honest, would be any lower. Law enforcement would still require reasonable, probable grounds to believe an offence has been or is about to be committed in order for the threshold to be met to obtain a warrant. The only thing that would be adjusted is that a service provider would be answering a basic yes or no question, with no details. “Does person X have an account? Are you the service provider for person X or for this account?” Once law enforcement knows that, the idea is that they would go to a judge to present this additional information. “Yes, Bell has this account, and this account is part of our investigation.” Then they could ask the judge for a warrant for that specific account. Right now, law enforcement is on a fishing trip, trying to find out what service provider that IP address is attached to.

Mr. Speaker, the difference here for the House and my colleagues to understand is that the courts found that during the “freedom convoy”, the government and the Governor in Council acted illegally. They circumvented the law. They basically broke the law, in my opinion and the opinion of the courts. The difference here is that there is legislation that allows for this to occur. This gives me pause to believe that the government is not able to circumvent the authorities here because of the law. It acted under the Emergencies Act during the “freedom convoy”. It made the decision as cabinet, with no law to protect Canadians. It just did it on its own, trying to quell what it did not like to have happen. This is why I have confidence to believe that with this legislation, being it is legislation and a statute, the law enforcement and the national security apparatus would operate within that statute.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that Bill C-2 had a number of things that distracted Canadians and gave us pause as legislators. It tried to lump everything together. It was suggested to the government that if we are going to deal with a subject as critical as this to law enforcement and the protection of our national security, and to CSIS and other national security investigators, we need to have a stand-alone bill. It needs to be clearly laid out and allow the government to be able to accept amendments and recommendations from opposition parties to strengthen the bill. This would allow law enforcement and our national security apparatus to both do the job we as Canadians have asked them to do for us and protect the privacy rights and concerns of Canadians. Having a stand-alone bill that can clearly articulate the authorities with which law enforcement can act would clear up a lot of ambiguity and get support across—

Mr. Speaker, if the government is going to have a robust lawful access regime in this country, it needs to have the necessary resources, not only in law enforcement and the national security apparatus, but also in prosecutions, to make sure we can follow through and hold accountable those who would do us harm as a country, like those who prey on the vulnerable, and organized crime individuals. Law enforcement needs not only the resources to do its job well, but also laws that ensure that those who commit crimes are held responsible and that we take seriously the issue of national security and the public safety of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, rising oil prices should be an enormous opportunity for Canada's economy, but Liberal anti-energy ideology blocks this sector. Despite grand speeches and meaningless MOUs, the Liberals have failed to approve any pipeline to tidewater, and their Major Projects Office has done nothing and approved nothing. Canadian energy should stabilize global markets, support our allies and strengthen our own economy. When will the Prime Minister get out of the way and unblock our resources so we can fuel our friends abroad and power paycheques here at home?

Mr. Speaker, today, words travel farther and faster than ever, allowing them to outlive the moment. What comes out of a person's mouth has immediate impact, and those words are not harmless, but we all have said something we regret. Our words create momentum for good or destruction. We think strength is proven by being blunt, direct or unfiltered. Proverbs 18 tells us, “The tongue has the power of life and death,” to build up or tear down. Angry words are sharp, prideful words are dismissive, and fearful words are defensive. Wisdom produces measured, purposeful, helpful words, and understands that restraint or silence is not weakness. Deliberate words carry authority because they are chosen, not impulsive. Leadership is not volume; it is direction. A wise person uses their tongue to bring clarity, courage, correction and hope. They understand that speaking truth requires both conviction and care. In this place and always, may our words express life.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are moving forward with their gun confiscation scheme, while at the same time the Public Safety Minister admits that he cannot explain the logic of his own policy. More than $700 million will be wasted, and he acknowledges that law-abiding gun owners are not the problem; criminals using illegal guns are. The Trudeau Liberals promised fair compensation, but now the program is capped. Valuations are half what they were before, and only about 15% of the more than two million guns are actually expected to be compensated for. This government continues to target the wrong people, despite the majority of Canada's provinces and territories and most law enforcement agencies officially rejecting any role in enforcing this misguided policy, meaning there is no one to even collect these guns. Gun crime is up 130% while the Liberals fail to secure the border, reduce penalties for gun crimes and allow repeat offenders back on the streets. It is time for the government to scrap its wasteful, politically motivated, ideological program and invest in real public safety.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of Canadians who are expressing great concern with the recent amendments from the Bloc and the Liberal government in regard to Bill C-9. The petitioners are concerned about criminalization of the reading of passages from the Bible and other sacred texts. Freedom of expression is a fundamental right in this country, and the petitioners are calling on the Liberal government to protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent overreach by the government.