Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfortunate that the member for Winnipeg North would accuse this member of the things that he has put on the record today. I think that is a pretty disturbing accusation to put on the record. I think the member for Calgary Skyview is accurately representing the concerns that he has heard from his own constituents as well as his own ethnic community. I wonder if the member could put on the record a bit more of the things that he has heard from leaders of his faith, which the member for Winnipeg North should probably take heed of before we take a final vote on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister minds addressing whether any of this money would be available for municipalities that are quite small. Despite their not being perhaps as flashy as big announcements in the major cities across Canada, these municipalities, in previous Liberal iterations of bloated federal government programs and funding, could not access the type of funding that they needed to spur small-scale housing projects in their municipalities. Can the minister comment on whether Liberals are going to get it right this time and ensure that all municipalities within the country can access funding for housing projects or whether they going to forget about rural Manitoba and rural Canada once again?

Mr. Speaker, despite leading Canada into a recession, the Prime Minister continues living in luxury, racking up $1 million in inflight catering alone. Meanwhile, more and more Manitoba families are struggling just to put food on the table. Last week, Harvest Manitoba shared its Manitoba poverty report card, which says it all, giving the government an F in its poverty rating and advising that of the record-setting 60,000 Manitobans who visit food banks monthly, 30% are employed full-time. What? If full-time workers cannot even afford food, these gimmicks and rebates are not going to cut it. When is the government going to take serious action to reduce food prices in this country?

Mr. Speaker, although I disagreed with large segments of my colleague's speech, the part she ended on is the most important one in her intervention today, which is the unacceptable nature and the affront to Westminster parliamentary democracy we have seen on display last week and now this week with programming motions being used at whim by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the rest of his administration. I wonder if that member could elaborate just a little further on the damage that does to public trust in the institution of this Parliament and how it operates on behalf of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that the theme for the government should be that someday they will get it done, and that member is certainly no exception to that rule. He is in charge of planning for the government, in terms of the House schedule, as is the House leader he serves. That member has been elected in this House since 2010. There is nothing new on the Liberal benches about that member. In fact, I was 13 years old when that member was first elected to this place, and he has not figured out by now that summer comes every year, midway through June, and that they need to plan accordingly to get their legislative agenda through. When exactly does that member think he is finally going to get ahead on the planning of the legislative agenda to get the government's legislation finished in this place?

Madam Speaker, there are a few disturbing comments on the record already, unfortunately, early this Monday, from the government whip and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I find it very unfortunate that they continue to accuse Conservatives of hating Canada. I love this country, and the member for Winnipeg North knows that. I find it very disturbing that he continues to accuse us of rightfully calling out the government where it has failed over the last 11 years. There are more Canadians at food banks than ever before, including educated Canadians with post-secondary degrees, more than ever, lining up at food banks because their jobs do not pay them enough to pay for the increase in food prices under the Liberals. There are more Canadians under 35 out of the housing market than ever before. What exactly is it that the Liberals think they have to be so proud of?

Madam Speaker, the analogy, I think, is just perfect. The Liberals are spinning their tires so hard in the mud, trying to prove to Canadians that they are improving the economic situation when they are in fact failing it, that they are actually going backward and making things worse. They are doing this instead of being stuck stationary and, certainly, instead of moving forward, which is exactly what people in this country need, particularly Manitobans and young Canadians across this country, from coast to coast to coast. I wonder if the member, who has been here a bit longer than I have, could provide a little more context about what it might take to finally get the Liberals to do a bit of self-reflection, eat a bit humble pie and maybe make a change so that Canadians are better off.

Mr. Speaker, there is no question the member is an excellent member of Parliament. We are lucky to have her and so are her constituents. I just want to pick away at this a little. I know she heard the speech earlier from the Liberal member talking about how he felt his government has saved the taxpayer $60 billion. I just do not see that in any of the documents. I do not see that in anything we are discussing today with respect to the opposition day motion. In fact, we are calling out the Liberal government on the fact that its economic policy has failed Canadians. It has failed this country for 11 years. We need a fresh perspective. I wonder if that member can elaborate on the fact that the Liberals seem to be pretty out of touch when they have spent over their $60 billion projected deficit. We are now much higher than that. Somehow these Liberal members are still running around saying that they have saved the taxpayers money when in fact we are seeing record-level deficits.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my excellent colleague for his speech, not least for the way that he ended it. I might just have to find myself down there for a couple of butter tarts. His speech accurately portrayed what I am hearing, and what I know most of our colleagues in this place are hearing, from constituents. They are feeling the recession. They are feeling the inflationary policies of the government that have driven down their wages and driven up their cost of living. I would like the member to provide a little more clarity on why he thinks the Liberals cannot admit that their 11 years of inflationary spending have had a devastating impact on our economy, on household incomes and on household debt, and what the implications of that could be going forward.

Madam Speaker, just last week, a tragic collision just east of Brandon claimed the life of a 49-year-old woman after a semi-truck failed to stop at an intersection on Highway 110. Our thoughts remain with her loved ones during this devastating time. Since then, reports have revealed that the trucking company involved had its Manitoba safety licence revoked in 2021, yet it was able to continue operating in Manitoba under a licence issued in another province. The Liberals know that this licensing loophole has existed for some time, so why has the transport minister not taken any action to close it and ensure preventable deaths like this never happen again?

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech outlining some of the significant concerns that we have about the bill: number one, about the Liberals' budget, and number two, about the expedited process by which the government is trying to ram this through with its new-found majority government. We have concerns, and I think Canadians have concerns, about the economic outlook of this country. We have concerns about the approaches that the government is taking by not only using time allocation here in the House but also shutting down committees. I wonder if the member has a bit more to say about the concerns that his constituents are relaying to him about the heavy-handedness of this brand new, manufactured Liberal majority government.

Madam Speaker, in picking up exactly where the member left off, I will say that am quite curious about protecting defence industrial capability. We heard a lot from the member and from the Prime Minister about Saab and the agreement on surveillance planes. We are all wondering when the government is going to make the decision on our next fighter jet capability. I understand there have been promises from Saab about eastern Canadian jobs but very little about that for western Canada, if the Gripen is to be produced in Canada. Meanwhile, many good jobs in Winnipeg are based at Magellan Aerospace, which makes the entire tail fin component of the F-35. I am wondering if the member is going to advocate just as strongly for aerospace industry jobs in Manitoba as he is for those in eastern Canada.

Madam Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to get up today and put a few words on the record about the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves with the government moving time allocation on Bill C-31. Some of my colleagues today have covered the challenges pretty well. This is a habit we see from the Liberal government relatively frequently. We have members opposite making comments that this is a new Liberal government. Of course, it is not. The vast majority of members of the government benches on that side are certainly people who have been in cabinet and parliamentary secretary roles for a very long time, so the argument that this is a new government in any way, shape or form is a bit fictitious. Nonetheless, the government continues to perpetuate this myth to the Canadian public, which we find very unfortunate. Similarly unfortunate is the Liberals' inability to control their own spending. The Liberals go on and on about how they are going to create more jobs and how everybody in Canada is going to do better with just one more deficit. One more is going to do it. “I promise,” say the Liberals, that one more deficit will be the one that is going to get Canadians ahead this time and we are going to make it. We have yet to see that reap any real benefits for Canadians after 11 long, tired years of this failed economic strategy. In fact, more Canadians now are lined up at food banks than at any point in recorded history. That is a shockingly bad statistic and one that these members fail to take accountability for. It is a bit alarming that they seem to think that the few programs they have put forward, some of which are tweaked with this budget implementation act, are going to make any substantial dent in those enormously long lines at every single food bank across the country, many of which are actually running out of food. We are a bit shocked that the Liberals cannot eat a little slice of humble pie. They cannot find that at a food bank because they are out of food, but if they could make one for themselves and take a little bite, it might be good for the Canadian public to see that for the first time from the tired 11-year-old Liberal government. They might actually come to appreciate the efforts they are undertaking maybe slightly more, because right now they seem to hear from the government that life has never been better. I do not know any constituents in Brandon—Souris who believe that is true. On top of that, then the Liberals go and blow another $60-billion deficit, or whatever they managed to pitch that down to with the spring economic update. It is shockingly high for a government that committed in the last election to spend less to invest more. What happened to that? I have no idea where that slogan went to die, somewhere in the Liberal backbench. Perhaps the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie took that with him when he walked out with the environmental caucus. I am not sure where that is going, but nonetheless, we are concerned about the spending the government continues to perpetuate. If that was not bad enough, now we have government members who do not even want to debate their spending or answer questions regarding their spending. The Prime Minister failed to stand up and answer any questions in question period today. It is fair game to question why exactly that is. He also failed to take any questions from the media all weekend long, including today, and particularly on Friday, when it was announced that this country has in fact dived into what is unquestionably meeting the definition of a recession. The parliamentary secretary to the finance minister often stands up and loudly proclaims the Prime Minister's economic credentials. If he is such an expert, why does he not want to answer questions about the economy? He does not want to answer them from us. If he does not respect Parliament and does not want to answer questions in question period more than once a week because it is too much of a bother for him, okay, but he should answer questions from the media then. The Liberals always profess to have a greater respect for the national press gallery than Conservatives, they claim, and yet it is our leader time and time again taking questions from the media. I was with him today when he offered a press conference, offering not just critiques of the government, but also our party's proposed path forward to deliver a better economic path for this country that might get us back out of this recession. There was nothing from the Prime Minister, nothing at all. What a shame. There was nothing from the finance minister either. Where is the finance minister? Why is he not answering these questions for the media, if not for the House of Commons? I would add that I am splitting my time with the esteemed member for Airdrie—Cochrane.

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North knows better than that. I know that he does not like what I have to say, because he is a member of that tired, exhausted, spent Liberal team that has been in the front couple of benches for the last 11 years. The Liberals have no new ideas. They have no vision on how to spend smarter to actually get this country into a proper economic footprint. We are the only country in the G7 that has slipped into a recession. That is not a proud legacy for the member for Winnipeg North, and I feel bad for him, except for the fact that he cannot admit it. None of them can over there. They cannot admit their mistake, and that is unfortunate for Winnipeggers, unfortunate for Manitobans and definitely unfortunate for the country of Canada. Perhaps it is time for some fresh blood from Winnipeg. We have the member for Elmwood Transcona, who is fresh blood as a Winnipegger in the House. What an excellent member of Parliament he is, and I cannot wait to see all the contributions he is going to make to this Parliament over the course of its duration. However, to get back on track here, we are talking about finances, and it is terribly concerning what that member and the entire Liberal cabinet have done to the finances of this country over the course of the last long 11 years. The Liberals said that budgets balance themselves. Do members remember that one? That was a good one. What happened to the minister of middle-class prosperity? I loved that one, before I got elected to this place. There is still no definition from Liberal members as to what the heck that means. There is no concept. What has happened to the middle class since they appointed that ministry? Well, the ministry got abolished pretty shortly thereafter, because it was such a tire fire. Unfortunately, now all the middle class is at the food banks, and they ran out of food. That pretty much sums up the Liberal record on middle-class prosperity. It has been an abject failure, and now they do not want to even take questions on it. The Liberals have moved time allocation on this bill so that they have only three hours of debate on a bill that, as my colleagues have mentioned, is over 300 pages long. They are going to ram through votes so that they can go off for the summer and spend like Liberals often do. I guess we will see. Maybe the eleventh time is the charm. I doubt it. I really doubt it, but perhaps this time the significant deficit put forward by the government, the minister and that failed front bench will have better luck than “budgets balance themselves”, better luck than “spend less to invest more” and better luck, hopefully, I am praying, than the former minister of middle-class prosperity.

Madam Speaker, I was born in a time when Liberals failed to meet their commitments to Manitoba. There is no question about that. The member mentioned the Port of Churchill. There is no mention of a dollar figure for Churchill. If the Liberals support the Port of Churchill plus project, how much are they spending on it? We do not know, because it is not mentioned in any of these documents. That is the only major project that the Liberal government has come up with for the province of Manitoba. The Liberals have six Manitoba members. One of them represents northern Manitoba. Is this all they could come up with? There are no budgetary figures for the one project they have got referred to the Major Projects Office. That is a shameful legacy for the Liberal members from Manitoba and a shameful record for the government overall.

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Donald Trump's tariffs on Canadian products are an absolute disaster. Unfortunately, an equal disaster is the Liberal government's failure to live up to its election commitment to negotiate a deal with his administration. The Prime Minister touted himself as the big economic expert who was going to fly in and get a win for Canada. Well, here we are, well over a year into his prime ministership, and there is no deal with America, so my friends from Quebec, as well as those from every other province and from specific industries, are facing the brunt of that because of that failed promise from the Liberals. The Conservatives do not believe in wage subsidies in particular. We would rather negotiate a deal in which we could continue to have tariff-free access to the American market. Our leader has put forward a plan to boost Canadian natural resources, not just in the oil and gas sector but also in the critical minerals sector, and use that as leverage to negotiate with the Americans for tariff-free access to their market. That is something we would love for the Liberals to pillage from us. Maybe the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade wants to take that when he is on his next junket down to Washington. We would be glad for him to take it, glad for him to finally get some success on this file and glad to help our friends from Quebec and their industries that have been impacted by Donald Trump's disastrous tariff policy.

Mr. Speaker, it is, once again and always, a privilege to rise on behalf of my constituents in Brandon—Souris. I rise in support of the Conservative opposition day motion today, which is in direct response to the announcement made by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission last week. Quite simply, we need to reverse the CRTC's ridiculous tax hike on streaming services, because Canadians cannot afford one more increase to the cost of living caused by the Liberals. It is really as simple as that. Hiking the streaming tax will also make Canada less competitive for our streaming and film industry, of which there is currently, and has been over the last number of years, growth in my home province of Manitoba. It has already threatened our currently tempestuous relationship with the United States. Only the Prime Minister and his Liberal get along gang can reject the CRTC's tax increase and save Canadians money by eliminating it permanently, which is exactly what we, as Conservatives, are asking for today. For those Brandon—Souris constituents who may not have been following this closely, the context of this issue is just as important as the tax hike itself. Liberal MPs voted, in 2023, to make their Online Streaming Act a law here in Canada. The act has been set up to serve three primary purposes, according to government members. First, the act brought online streaming platforms, such as YouTube, Netflix, Spotify and all the rest, under the authority of the CRTC and therefore made them subject to similar Canadian broadcasting rules to those we use for television and radio. Second, the act allowed the CRTC to force streaming companies to fund and support Canadian content and its creators through additional taxes, such as the one we are debating today. Third, it also gave the CRTC powers that mandated Canadian content be promoted and discoverable in Canada, which I will not have time to speak to today. In any case, that is just a bit of background or context for viewers at home as to how we got here. Just one week ago, with the power granted to it by the Liberal government, the CRTC announced that it is tripling the tax for online streamers and platforms from 5%, which it had already imposed after the law was passed, up to 15%. Now, Canadians would be forgiven for being a bit confused as to why the Liberals would be upping the tax already. They may know that the original 5% tax is currently being challenged in the courts by online streamers, which is a case that has not been decided on, nor has any tax at that 5% actually been paid to date. Before the courts have even ruled on a 5% tax that the Liberals allowed the CRTC to create, the Liberal-backed CRTC has ploughed ahead with tripling the tax, making it even higher. As many of my Conservative colleagues already warned earlier today, and in years past, I might add, this use of power by the CRTC will have harsh consequences for Canada, and we are sincerely skeptical as to whether we will see any real benefit. Despite these warnings, here we are anyway. This online streaming or Netflix tax is a creation of the CRTC, but it also reflects the type of government intervention that attempts to lead a horse to water and force it to drink, whether the horse is thirsty or not, which we have seen time and time again from this tired, costly Liberal government over the last 11 years. As my colleagues have rightly pointed out, nothing prevents streaming companies from tagging Canadians with this 15% tax increase on their monthly bills either, as if we had a need for something else to cost us more in our daily lives. Have members noticed their streaming service bills going up? I bet they have, and after this is imposed, they are going to get worse, not better. Not only will Canadians pay more, but the imposition of a 15% tax increase would also make Canada among the most expensive places to operate a streaming service in the world. With less competition, fewer options and increased costs, it sounds like a Liberal deal to me. Why would streamers and online streaming companies bring their business to Canada, to a market that will be less profitable for them, increasingly taxed and more meddled about with through government intervention? Netflix's recent investment in Vancouver is a great example. It created more than 450 jobs. These are the kinds of benefits that Canadians may lose should the Liberal government fail to use its power to stop this streaming tax hike and allow more costs within this industry. Canadians, due to left-wing government intervention in the marketplace and a lack of competition, already pay some of the highest fees in the digital space, from streaming to cell packages and home Internet. Now the CRTC wants streaming services to cost more to prop up programs that most Canadians do not want to watch. This not only sends a message to streamers and larger streaming companies, but also has a serious potential to weaken Canada's already fragile position in trade negotiations. We have already seen comments that it is going to have just that effect. As we fast approach a review of our CUSMA agreement with the United States, whose streaming companies undoubtedly make up a majority of the target the CRTC is trying to hit with this tax, it feels completely out of touch with the renegotiations and the challenging circumstances in which we find ourselves. We do not have to look far to see its impact. In response to the CRTC's decision, the U.S. ambassador to Canada has already said that this initiative “is making a bad situation worse.” At a time when Canada needs strength, why are the Liberals so determined to put Canada in the worst possible negotiating position? It is a deeply troubling stance from the government. I sincerely hope it is not due to its own shameful political ambitions. The fact is that a significant amount of the content that Canadians consume is from other countries, including the United States. That is not likely to change. The CRTC wants to ignore this reality and force Canadians to watch solely Canadian content and have them pay top dollar while doing so, but that is not a free marketplace and it should not be the government's role. To be clear, Conservatives are committed to protecting and championing Canadian culture in every way. We are pro a Canadian national identity, which is why we have disagreed with grounding national symbols like the Snowbirds and removing Terry Fox from the passport. To that end, we know what makes Canadian content special, and we need to ensure that affordability and economic growth are at the centre of how we spur that content, not forcible government regulation and taxation. For 10 years now, the Liberals' approach of over-regulation, coupled with this CRTC announcement, is starting to feel like Groundhog Day. Liberals create a problem and then create a tax that they say will make everything better. Conservatives know this is an inherently flawed way to achieve an objective. We only need to look at the last 11 years to see the result. For the higher cost of living because of the carbon tax, we can thank a Liberal. For the higher housing costs due to outlandish requirements, taxes and red tape, we can thank a Liberal. For the higher fuel prices from an intentional depression of the oil and gas sector by taxation, red tape and oppressive environmental regulation, we can thank a Liberal. Now the Liberals want our streaming services to pay three times the tax, which will undoubtedly be passed down to Canadian consumers, so when our streaming bills go up in the coming months, we will know exactly what to do: We can thank a Liberal.

Mr. Speaker, the entire premise of that member's question is ridiculous. We encourage supporting growth and competitiveness in Canada's film industry, which this tax hike is going to make worse. We support the Manitoba film industry. We support the Ontario film industry. We support competitiveness in the British Columbia film industry. The only party in this place that surrendered sovereignty to the United States on anything is the Liberals. They are keeping us reliant on U.S. oil and gas refineries in the south by refusing to approve pipelines to new markets so that Canadians can have more competition in the oil and gas industry and reassert Canadian sovereignty. That is the Liberal record, and the record of that member, for the last 30 years. It is shameful. We are supporting a free and independent arts and culture industry and a free and independent oil and gas industry in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there was much of a question in there for me. I am sorry that my colleague from the Bloc feels offended or insulted. That is certainly not the premise. I am assuming that streaming service users in Quebec, just like in every other province, are concerned about the rising prices and affordability measures that are affecting every province across the country. Why would they want a three-times increase in the cost of streaming services? That would impact affordability measures in Quebec just like it would everywhere else. The Liberal government has raised the cost of everything else in this country. Canadians, Quebeckers, Manitobans, western Canadians and Atlantic Canadians alike cannot afford another affordability measure being damaged by the Liberal government. It is shameful that the Liberals are doing it. It should be put to a stop today.

Mr. Speaker, the member from Brampton is an excellent member of Parliament. I think the answer is simple. The Liberals would much rather that all businesses in this country be reliant on the government to get ahead, as opposed to being able to compete themselves. We have seen that in industry after industry. Now the government is meddling away again, allowing the CRTC to increase this tax on digital service providers, our streaming services and our film industries. It is shameful. We need more competition in this country. We need less government intervention in the market. That is what Conservatives are calling for. We hope the Liberals will vote for it today.

Mr. Speaker, we see another month gone and another disastrous report card on Liberal affordability measures. Food inflation is up, yet nobody on the Liberal benches can tell me their plan to increase food production. Rent is up, despite a fourth housing bureaucracy presented as a silver bullet. Now gas prices have surged 28% in April, the largest monthly increase ever recorded. Liberals promised relief, but instead, food, rent and fuel are further out of reach. Today the Liberals have an opportunity to bring down food and fuel prices by taking all the tax off all the fuel for the rest of the year. Will the costly Liberal Prime Minister and his get-along gang vote in favour today?

Mr. Speaker, in typical Liberal fashion, there was nothing about the fuel tax. The Liberals' half measure on fuel tax is just three months away from expiring. Does the member know any Canadians who have felt real relief? I sure do not. In fact, the only people I see waving the “mission accomplished” flag are people like the minister who are Liberals. Everyone knows that it will take years to truly solve the Liberal inflation crisis. The least these tired, costly Liberals could do is give Canadians a real break on all their fuel taxes. Is the Liberal plan really to tell Canadians that their affordability crisis will be solved by the end of summer? Seriously? Why do they not take all the tax off all the fuel for the rest of the year and give Canadians some real relief today?

Madam Speaker, this topic will not be a stranger to you. I think I was asking about it the last time you were in the chair. I had the privilege of asking a question of the minister responsible for food production. We have an affordability crisis. People are struggling to pay their bills, particularly at the grocery store and at the checkout. Here is what the Minister of Women and Gender Equality replied: Mr. Speaker, Canadians need real relief right now, and we are delivering. I have great news. The very first Canada groceries and essentials benefit is going to Canadians right across the country this June.... From grocery support to child care and dental care, we are there. Of course, members already heard today that we are lowering the cost at the pumps by 28¢ per litre. There is nothing in there about food production. I was asking about the need to produce more food in this country to bring down costs. More supply would mean lower costs for Canadian consumers at the grocery store. This is after I had asked a question of the agriculture minister, and one question was enough for him. His response to my question about what his department, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, is doing to increase food production in this country was this: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member disagrees with child care, dental care, the Canada child benefit, the national school food program, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, an increase in health transfers, the OAS, eliminating the carbon tax, a tax break for 22 million Canadians.... He then went on to say, “there is no more” and sat down as his own cabinet members were heckling him. Again, there was nothing about food production, so I would like to give the agriculture minister one more chance. Given that it is his responsibility as the minister responsible for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, could he please inform my constituents in western Manitoba, and all Canadians, what the government is doing to increase domestic food production so Canadians can have cheaper produce and goods at the grocery store?

Madam Speaker, that was a lesson in obfuscation that would give even the Manitoba provincial NDP a run for their money, and that is saying something. My colleague from Winnipeg North will know what I am talking about. The member did eventually get to domestic food production at about minute three in that response, but the vast majority of what he talked about was grocery benefits that will not help farmers and producers grow more food domestically. That needs to be more than just a footnote at the very end of the government's responses. It needs to be the primary focus. More supply means cheaper groceries and produce at the store. If there were a small greenhouse benefit, there may be some merit to that, but there needs to be far more done by the government to increase domestic food production. We see it happening when government acts appropriately. The previous PC government in Manitoba provided the right tax incentives to Vermillion Growers in Dauphin. It has set up a massive tomato greenhouse in rural Manitoba in the Parkland region, which is growing year-round, providing fresh produce to Manitobans and those in eastern Saskatchewan. These things can be done if they are done appropriately. How much longer does the government want to take?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to put a few words on the record about Bill S-233. I know, although I am a new member, that it has been here before in different formats. I am very glad to see that it is back on the floor of the House of Commons again for debate. Of course, it is unfortunate that it did not pass previously and has not been in effect, but at least it has made its way back here now so we can try to get it through one last time to ensure protections are in place for our health care officials. I want to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. I know that this has been a passion project of his for a long time, something he has been championing across the country. It is a big issue. I hear about it all the time, unfortunately, from health care professionals, whether they are paramedics, firefighters responding to 911 calls or health care professionals in our emergency rooms, which are becoming a cross between a traditional emergency room, a detox centre and all kinds of different mental health crisis facilities. Our health care professionals are struggling under the weight of the addiction and mental health crisis going on in this country right now. Unfortunately, many of the individuals coming in are repeat violent offenders who need help, but we have to ensure that protections are in place for our health care workers. I hear too often from young nurses and young health care professionals from many different professions that they were assaulted, attacked in some way, shape or form. They can be coming to work, leaving work, in the emergency room or responding to a call on the street. Individuals get bitten or stabbed with dirty needles. There are all kinds of other physical or violent assaults. This is just simply and completely unacceptable for anyone in the health care profession, whether they are new to the job or have been doing it for 30 years. It is totally unacceptable to Canadians that these people, who are on our front lines, stepping up to protect Canadians and do what they can to save our lives when we get into accidents or have other types of health care issues, are being assaulted in their places of work. We all expect a safe workplace, and our health care professionals should too. Just because their workplace happens to sometimes be on the streets of our communities, that does not mean that they should be any less safe when they step up for Canadians. In Manitoba, and in my constituency of Brandon—Souris, the Brandon firefighter and paramedic service does excellent work, as does the health care staff at the Brandon Regional Health Centre and the many rural hospitals that I represent across the Brandon—Souris constituency. These folks are nervous. They come to my office and say that they have seen the same person come in over and over again. Every time, there is a violent incident, and there are no repercussions for that person. They say there is nothing that they can do to prevent this from happening. They are obligated to provide health care to that individual and everybody else who is in the waiting room, and they are not safe when that individual is around. That is a major problem. This bill would go a long way toward ensuring specifically that violence against a health care professional in their place of work is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. There has to be some repercussions for these folks. We know that they are often experiencing some type of breakdown, whether it is an addiction crisis or a mental health crisis of their own, and we have services available for that. The provinces are obligated to make services available in our health care system to get those people the care they need to bring them back to a healthy lifestyle. There is nothing in the bill that tries to diminish that in any way, but for repeat offenders who are committing violence against our health care professionals, there must be consequences for those actions. Perhaps, if it is dealt with through the court system as an aggravating factor, these folks who are experiencing and perpetrating this violence would get connected with the services they need to navigate their way back to a healthier life. I know the Liberals know all about this, because the Health Sciences Centre is Manitoba's hospital. It is located in Winnipeg. It has some of the worst cases of violence against health care professionals in the country. There are a series of Liberal MPs who represent Winnipeg. They need to step up for the health care professionals who work at this facility, as well as those at the Grace and St. Boniface emergency rooms. This is not just for the people in my riding, but for the people in Winnipeg and all of us from rural Manitoba who end up, in large part, having to go to Winnipeg's major hospitals for specialty surgical services and other things. We need to make sure that the health care professionals there are safe. There are a number of workers who have been attacked, not just in the emergency rooms or in hospital rooms, but also in the parkades where they park their car. This is tragic. It is a horrific incidence. I am really hopeful that the Liberals will step up, pass the bill, send it to committee, move it through the system and get it passed so that the member for Cariboo—Prince George and all of the advocates who have been asking for this, as well as health care professionals, get the support they need. Let us get the bill passed. Let us make health care professionals safer in Brandon—Souris, in Manitoba and in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize two remarkable Manitobans who are giving back in Brandon—Souris. Earlier this month, it was announced that the late Mrs. Edna Edwards left a $4-million contribution to the Assiniboine College School of Nursing dedicated to funding research opportunities and financial awards for students. The now Edna Edwards School of Nursing will honour her legacy as a registered psychiatric nurse who was trained at the former Brandon Mental Health Centre, a facility that now forms part of Assiniboine College's North Hill campus, a truly full-circle moment. The gift was announced by her husband, Mr. Russ Edwards, who is no stranger to Assiniboine College or to Brandon. Just four years ago, Mr. Edwards donated $4 million to create the Russ Edwards School of Agriculture and Environment aimed at the college's vision to build the Prairie Innovation Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, a project that is still waiting on federal investment, I might add. The Edwards family's generosity is bringing enhanced educational opportunities closer to home for more Westman students, which is a remarkable legacy for two highly successful leaders in the business and health care sectors. I thank Russ and Edna.

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment numbers are in for April, and Canadians are devastated, particularly young Canadians. After being forced to watch Liberal spending grow month over month, young Canadians continue to see job losses month over month. In April alone, youth unemployment rose to 14.3%, and student unemployment is over 16%. More young Canadians are unemployed now than at any time since 1976. This is a crisis for young people. Where is the urgency from the Liberal government to deal with this? Is the plan simply to keep young Canadians unemployed, homeless, desperate and reliant on Liberal government programs to stay alive?

Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves. Jobs among young people are down, not up, despite what that member has to say in the House. Young Canadians want a job and a home they can afford, neither of which they can get after 10 years of the same tired Liberals. Youth unemployment is over 14%. Housing starts are down. No new major projects are approved, and more Canadians are investing in the U.S. and the EU than in Canada. No Liberal social program is going to fix that. We need a competitive market so that investors can invest, builders can build and young Canadians can get to work. When will the Liberals get out of the way so that young Canadians can get to work and build this country?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to put a few words on the record about the important bill before Parliament today. Bill C-265 is a piece of legislation that seeks to address an important issue that affects Canadians who are struggling with serious and life-threatening medical conditions. The reality is that, in Canada, individuals suffering from serious medical conditions or rare diseases may not be able to access the vital therapeutic products that are designed to help them when conventional treatments cannot. Some therapeutic products might not be approved for use in Canada and others are not marketed in Canada. These products may be well-established and approved by jurisdictions that Canada trusts, but Canadians cannot access them in the way they typically can access other drugs or other health products. Health Canada's current special access program was set up to address this issue, but it has serious flaws. The program exists as a way to get non-marketed drugs that have been proven safe into the hands of the Canadians who, oftentimes, have no other options. The issue is that this process of actually accessing these products can be lengthy and overly bureaucratic. The special access program has strict rules requiring health care practitioners to apply for what is known as a letter of authorization before they can access certain non-marketed therapeutic products for a patient. Health practitioners in Canada are unable to prescribe unlicensed or non-marketed products in the same way they would for medications that are already available in Canada and to Canadians. Instead, approval for use is given on a case-by-case basis by the special access program for each patient seeking access to these unapproved or non-marketed therapeutic products, even if another Canadian was already approved for the same prescription drug. This has created a system where treatment has been proven effective in other countries, and even approved for other Canadians and proven effective, but, because of the administrative burdens of the program, it is still out of reach for new individuals who are diagnosed with a particular condition and who need access. Receiving over a thousand applications monthly, or more than 12,000 applications each year, the special access program has been a critical pathway for Canadians to receive medications that could help them, but it faces significant delays. At desperate moments in the lives and the health care journeys of those suffering with severe conditions or concerns, this delay often results in thousands of Canadians' losing critical hours, days, weeks or months waiting for a letter or a response to their request, in other words, bureaucratic approvals, as they watch their health decline. In some cases, Canadians lose this precious time waiting just to find out that it is not a positive response and that their application has been denied by the program. This can lead applicants to seek out alternative treatments outside the country or even leave them, sadly, in too many cases, with nowhere else to turn. Canadians deserve timely access to care, and Conservatives understand that bureaucratic delays are a problem with the program. To address these flaws with the special access program, Bill C-265, which we are considering today, offers important changes that attempt to reshape how unlicensed or non-marketed products are accessed by Canadians. Bill C-265 seeks to make amendments to the Food and Drugs Act to require the Minister of Health to create a publicized list of pre-approved, non-marketed therapeutic products to treat serious or life-threatening conditions. This would include a 120-day deadline for the minister to make a decision about adding such a product to the list. Further, the bill would set limits and criteria related to the Minister of Health's power to refuse emergency letters of authorization for pharmaceutical products. Bill C-265 would also reinforce the basic principle that health care practitioners should be able to use therapeutic products that are legally available when in the best interest of their patients, which we should all be able to support. Conservatives understand how and why the special access program needs refinements, and we appreciate the member opposite for bringing forward some proposed solutions to that program. However, we do have a few concerns with the bill, which I hope to outline here as well. Without guardrails in place, the bill has the ability to create risk here in Canada, both for the health of Canadians and the influence of corporations. That said, I want to be clear that we do see potential in this bill and how, in principle, it could benefit Canadians who struggle with different stages of accessing these therapeutic products that may have already been approved and are used by other Canadians. To get this bill right, considerations must be given to how it would come into force and what unintended consequences it might have without key amendments. One of our broader concerns with this legislation is the lack of a safeguard against controlled substances like diacetylmorphine, also known as heroin, being included on the list. As written, the new authorization process creates an avenue for the Minister of Health to potentially add harmful and illegal substances to the pre-approved list. These are provisions that were removed by a previous government, after having been on the list in the past. Simply put, this would mean health care practitioners could access substances like pharmaceutical-grade heroin, even though they are considered restricted or illegal drugs in Canada. Under the previous Harper Conservative government, intentional restrictions were placed on the special access program to prevent the approval of many such restricted substances. Despite that work being reversed by Trudeau Liberals, we have an opportunity with this bill to get it right and prevent addictive substances from being placed on this pre-approved list where they could pose significant risks to our public health. This bill would also create blind spots within the pharmaceutical approval process and a lack of oversight of which products are added to the pre-approved list. Not only would it give the minister the power to add or remove products, but it would also allow them to set criteria, standards and conditions without limitations. A potential safeguard to put in place to ensure due diligence with the pre-approved list is an advisory committee that would need to be consulted before the list is amended. Unfortunately, we have no idea who would sit on that committee or who would determine its composition. Given the important role this advisory committee would play, Conservatives would need to understand its composition and ensure the selection standards are clear. Finally, our concern is that Bill C-265 would open the door for corporate influence that directly contradicts safeguards already in place for pharmaceutical companies that want their products in the Canadian market. I know the previous member has spoken to that already today. The bill seeks to allow those therapeutic products that are placed on the pre-approved drug list to be exempt from the Food and Drug Act's regulatory power, which means companies could sell their products in Canada without being subject to the stringent reviews that Health Canada requires of the normal process. A similar regulatory bypass created in this bill comes in the presumption of approval for a letter of authorization if just two expert clinicians put forward a joint treatment plan. While the principle makes sense on the surface, the bill offers no way to ensure these individuals are independent from one another or a verification that one of the two experts is not the practitioner responsible for treating the patient who is seeking the approval. There must be checks and balances in place to ensure drugs added to the pre-approved list and that received the letters of authorization meet clearly defined and verified safety standards. In closing, Conservatives stand firm in our belief that Canadians deserve timely access to health care. We appreciate that the member is trying to deal with that very real and challenging issue many Canadians face. We also believe that when they access that care, Canadians should not lose their life savings because of unforeseen health complications or expensive prescription drugs. Conservatives support getting this well-intentioned bill to committee, where we can strengthen it by strengthening safeguards to ensure controlled and addictive substances can not be added to the pre-approved list; improving oversight and accountability around the minister's authority and the advisory committee responsible for review products; closing loopholes that could allow pharmaceutical companies to bypass Canada's existing regulatory approval process; and ensuring the emergency authorization process includes clear independence and verification standards for expert clinicians.

Mr. Speaker, the only result of the last two Liberal speakers who gave those speeches is, unfortunately, that any Canadian who had to listen to them will likely have a hard time tying their shoes tonight, but I digress. I just wonder where the B.C. Liberal caucus is. The last speaker was from Manitoba. The one before that was from Saskatchewan. They are under the numbered treaties. It is a very different legal context when it comes to land claims and fee simple property. Our Conservative B.C. MPs have been out speaking about this issue, which matters to British Columbians. Why are the B.C. Liberal MPs in hiding? Where are they? Why will they not get up and defend the disastrous Liberal record on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, in addition to his speech, my colleague has moved a great amendment to what is a disastrous fiscal update from the government. It seems to be unable, despite labelling itself as a “new” Liberal government, to break itself of the habit of continuing to rob the piggy bank of young Canadians and future generations to blow the credit card budget on Liberal fat-cat projects. I wonder if my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge has a few more comments to put on the record about what a disaster this fiscal update is for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today. Last week, I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about the sorry state of food affordability in Canada and what exactly the government was doing to increase food production in this country. It makes sense to me that if we grow more and produce more food, the price of food should come down. It is not impacted by tariffs that we have seen, nor by inclement weather in other parts of the world, which often affects prices in this country. Unfortunately, the response I got was anything but an answer. The Minister of Agriculture went on to list a whole bunch of programs that have nothing whatsoever to do with food production or increasing it in this country. Therefore, I would like to give the member across the way another crack at the same question. What exactly is the government doing to increase food production in Canada, and when will the Liberals finally recognize that when regions like mine that grow the food cannot even afford to buy it, the rest of the country is certainly in crisis?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister unveiled another Liberal credit card budget, the 11th in a row, and doubled the last Trudeau deficit. This year, Canadians will spend $60 billion just to pay the interest on the debt that Canada already owes, and that number is only going up. That is $60 billion that is not going into health care, critical infrastructure, national defence or affordability measures to help Canadians put food on the table or a roof over their head. I have a simple question. What happened to last year's Liberal slogan to spend less, invest more? Was that just a tagline to win an election? Are these guys actually incapable of reducing government spending?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have a long list of costly programs and a failure to get any major project approved for the province of Manitoba. I have not met a person yet who thinks any of those programs have made food or housing cheaper, or that those costly programs are actually well run. Housing and food have skyrocketed, and our debt has doubled. We have the highest youth unemployment in decades, no new major projects begun, record food bank lines and more children living below the poverty line than in years. These results, despite all the rhetoric about Liberal financial prowess, are the definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. After 11 years and no change, do these Liberals not fit the bill?

Madam Speaker, that is pretty much par for the course with the Liberal government, unfortunately. The question was specifically about food production, and I am not sure the Liberal member across the way used the two-word phrase “food production” at any point in that entire answer, which is par for the course, even more sadly, for the agriculture minister in responding to my questions during question period. He and his parliamentary secretary are clearly too busy tonight to answer these questions. It is an important measure that we need to be addressing because this country needs to grow more food to meet our domestic needs, to bring prices down for Canadians, as well as to continue to feed the world, which so many people from my region and across the Prairies do. It is very disappointing that the Liberals have no plan to increase food production in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals continue to ignore the affordability concerns of Canadians, the reality for families is getting worse. Monday's data shows that here in Canada we continue to carry the highest food inflation in the G7, a badge of shame that we have held for four months in a row. Beef costs 69% more, and the price of chicken is 43% higher than it was in 2015. Working-class families, young Canadians and seniors all feel that inflation every time they leave the grocery store. When are we finally going to see action from the Liberals to increase domestic food production to bring down the cost of food in this country?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to peddle half measures and broken promises as the answer to the affordability crisis the Liberals created. They have had years to act. Canadians are in need of results, but what they get are recycled speeches and illusions, while food inflation remains the highest in the G7 and the Prime Minister pretends affordability has never been better. With food bank and soup kitchen use in Brandon over capacity month after month in the heart of Canada's breadbasket, when are the Liberals finally going to recognize that when the region that grows the food cannot even afford it, the rest of the country is in crisis?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Brunswick for that excellent speech. It has certainly been eye-opening, particularly for our members across the way. Despite the second son in that scenario he mentioned perhaps just being a Liberal, we know that good parents love their children whether they vote the way their parents do or not. I wonder if the member down the way would describe in a bit of detail why he thinks the Liberals often get so addicted to the creation of additional bureaucracy to push more issues away from the decision-making of cabinet in order to deflect rather than take accountability for their actions and their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for that excellent speech. We were just at the procedure and House affairs committee where we were discussing civic resilience, a study that is currently under way there. In the theme of Bill C-25 and the study that is ongoing at PROC about civic resilience, what does it mean to only have one set of voices and one set of ideas being pushed? What kind of message does that send to Canadians who might disagree? What kind of health does that promote within our Canadian society?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her work in past Parliaments and past committees on this topic. It is very concerning to Canadians and Conservatives the position China has. Law enforcement agencies, as well as Global Affairs, have confirmed it is the greatest threat actor to Canadian democracy and one that interferes the most in Canadian elections. That has been very clear from the officials. Chinese vehicles coming into the Canadian market may present a serious security risk. I think the government needs to be held accountable for allowing these vehicles in. What security parameters is it putting in place to ensure that Canadian electors, and the information surrounding the Canadian public in general, are safe and secure while these vehicles come into our market? The member raises a great point. I think it is important that the committee, as part of its debate on this bill, investigate whether those provisions are in place.

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly proud to rise on behalf of my constituents to speak to Bill C-25. I would like to mention at the beginning that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska. Today we are debating an important piece of legislation that is especially relevant to the democratic process that Canadians take part in during each federal election, which results in our having the true privilege and honour to serve in this place and represent them. There are several aspects to the bill, and while my colleagues across party lines have spoken to different mechanisms within the legislation, I will be focusing on two that are of particular importance to me. Before I do that, I want to be clear: This bill does have merits. Many of its provisions, which I think our shadow minister has already mentioned, are certainly welcome, and the bill deserves to be studied further at the committee stage of the process. I believe most of our colleagues here today would agree with that. They would also agree that trust in our democracy remains of the utmost importance to Canadians. As parliamentarians, we all have a duty to uphold democracy and ensure the interests of Canadians are represented in that process. Democratic trust binds all actors within our federal elections, and that trust is earned. Some of the most important actors in our democratic processes are the voters, who cast their ballots in each election. They deserve the ability to trust that their will is reflected in the outcome of our elections in every constituency across this country, regardless of the result of each of those votes. That brings me to the two most important points I would like to focus on today. First, there is the work done by Conservatives in mobilizing action to defend our democracy against the longest ballot committee movement. Second, there are the gaps that currently exist in protection from foreign interference, which have been allowed to persist over the last 11 years under the Liberal government. While it is great to see the Liberals begin to take these concerns seriously, it is unfortunate that they have chosen to wait so long to bring any meaningful change forward. However, that is nothing new. As is commonly said, imitation is the greatest or sincerest form of flattery, and Conservatives are very proud to be making real change from the opposition benches to ensure better government and better democracy in this country. As the member of Parliament for Brandon—Souris, I have heard the concerns of my constituents. Both during and following last year's federal election, I heard loud and clear that the actions of the so-called longest ballot committee significantly impacted the ability of many Canadians to cast their ballot. Any action that is deliberately confusing or attempts to discourage voters and that creates unnecessary burdens for the staff at Elections Canada, who in many cases come out of retirement just to work on our election days, does not serve the best interests of our democratic system. This was an absolutely unacceptable act to voters, to my constituents back at home, and I heard that at door after door. In fact, those efforts created barriers, particularly for some of the most vulnerable in our society, or seniors and individuals with disabilities, which my constituents found exceptionally distasteful. Canadians need to be able to trust in our system, but they are right to question why loopholes in the Canada Elections Act allow groups to intentionally disrupt the voter process in the first place. In July 2025, the leader of the official opposition, who has been the target of several campaigns by the longest ballot committee, and our shadow minister for democratic reform wrote a letter to the Liberal government demanding the rapid implementation of legislation and that priority should be placed on this by the government to protect Canadian federal elections from these tactics. This is why, in October 2025, I was proud to table a petition to Parliament in response to the actions of the longest ballot committee. My petition received hundreds of signatures from Canadians who supported calling on the Government of Canada to amend the Canada Elections Act to prohibit an individual from serving as the official agent for more than one candidate in a federal election. There were further deliberations, which I was proud to take part of as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, that resulted in a report with seven or eight recommendations to the government to take action, and we are pleased to see that many of them are reflected in this bill. We are pleased that Bill C-25 would adopt some of our ideas and partially reflect the concerns of the petitioners who took time out of their busy schedules to respond to the need for change in this area. Conservatives have pushed for simple measures like this, which are very clear in their purpose, that would ensure that trust remains a cornerstone of any general election or by-election that takes place in Canada. Conservatives have repeatedly called on the Liberal government to get serious, and finally, in Bill C-25, we have forced the Liberals to produce a piece of legislation in the House that seeks to significantly change the Canada Elections Act. Some of those changes are close to what Conservatives have called for. Other changes in this bill would have significant impacts on administrative monetary penalties in the act and the suggested powers granted to the commissioner of Canada elections. These are among several other changes that need careful consideration and study, so we believe strongly in sending this bill to committee for the in-depth analysis that that part of our legislative process allows. However, what I find most troubling about where we are now is the fact that four federal by-elections have taken place since the federal election last year and, in these by-elections, Canadians voted under the pressures of the longest ballot committee, most recently in the riding of Terrebonne earlier this week. The Liberals want to pat themselves on the back for tabling this legislation, but Canadians are right to question why, despite warnings from Conservatives, the Chief Electoral Officer and others, who gave recommendations to prevent this type of disruption all the way back in 2024, it took so long to see legislation developed and debated. It was just a few weeks ago. There will be more to say regarding this at committee. Now, I will transition my comments to the foreign interference part of this piece of legislation. Canadians expect their governments to act in the face of all threats to our democracy, whether they be foreign or domestic, in a rapid and decisive manner. This brings me to my second point. While I have concerns with the actions of the Canadians who choose to protest through the longest ballot committee, I also have concerns with the lack of action to combat foreign entities who would seek to influence the outcomes of our election. This meddling by foreign actors in Canadian elections is a pervasive threat to Canada's democracy. These threats are real, and we know where they come from. The Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions was before my time, before I was elected to this place, but I want to thank Commissioner Hogue for her diligence and efforts. The commissioner found that “foreign states are trying to interfere in our democratic institutions, including electoral processes.” She expressed serious concerns with foreign interference in the nomination race for a former member for Don Valley North in 2019, and significant events have taken place in the years since. Bill C-25 would take steps to address these election interference gaps, such as prohibiting undue influence by foreigners related to electors' voting, refraining from voting or voting for a specific candidate, party or election. It would also touch on pieces of third-party finance with relation to funds coming from foreign actors. I would recognize that, after questioning from the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, the minister responsible did take it under consideration that the bill would allow a 10% financing gap, and he committed to studying at committee that some of those provisions should be removed from the process or at least looked into at the committee stage. We look forward to the minister's following through on that process. Regardless of the Liberals' failures on this file so far, I am encouraged that the bill has come forward. I am very much looking forward, as a member of the procedure and House affairs committee, to discussing this bill in depth at committee. Through this legislation, I am hopeful that Canada and Canadians could finally take actions that Conservatives have been recommending for some time, which we know are in the best interests of supporting and defending this democratic institution and the process that gets members elected here, to ensure Canadians can have the confidence and the trust in our institutions they deserve. That is their right. That is why I am very glad to support this bill's moving forward to the committee stage.