Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the deputy government House leader rattled off some measures that the government undertook. My hon. colleague can explain that we supported those tax cuts for Canadians because we will always support making life more affordable for Canadians and saving them money. As my hon. colleague mentioned, we supported the government in giving it more powers to build things at speeds not seen before. After 18 months of the government having those powers, what is his assessment of what it has accomplished?

Mr. Speaker, in our first week back, I am privileged to rise again and present a petition on behalf of residents in the town of Georgina and in Brock township on Lake Simcoe about an invasive species known as water soldier. It was discovered in 2024 in Cook's Bay and has continued to spread across Lake Simcoe. It is a threat to human health and to animal health in the lake, as well as to native aquatic plant species in the lake. The petitioners are calling on the government to designate sufficient resources toward remediation and to identify water soldier as an invasive species. Last, they are calling on the federal government to nominate a single party to represent the federal government on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, Liane, a grandmother from Pefferlaw, wrote me and said, “our grandkids can't imagine ever owning a home.” That is the story of a generation: no hope. The Prime Minister promised to build 500,000 new homes a year, but his own housing agency says he will be hundreds of thousands short, and fewer homes will be built this year than last year. Our Conservative plan will save Canadians money on housing by tying federal funding to permits and cutting taxes. How can the minister claim housing affordability is improving with fewer houses and the next generation shut out?

Mr. Speaker, 19,000 homes out of a promised 500,000 is a failure, and affordability has not improved. In fact, Statistics Canada reported yesterday that one in four Canadians lives in unaffordable housing. That is an increase of 22%. Things are getting worse; they are not getting better. What is worse is that StatsCan says rising housing costs squeeze family budgets. More rent payments and more mortgage payments mean more difficult decisions at the grocery store. We have offered a positive solution: save Canadians money on housing by speeding up permits, tying that to federal dollars. Why will the minister not do that?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek for his speech this evening. He is fighter for his community and it is better for having him as its representative. What we are debating tonight is in no short order a half measure. It goes a bit of the way, and we will take any relief we can get for Canadians. What does the member think we should be doing next to bring more relief for Canadians in this country?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to talk about an issue close to many Canadians' hearts, including many residents in my riding: affordability. Despite the Prime Minister's words that he thinks affordability is the best it has been for a decade, Conservatives know that is just simply not the case. I want to start tonight by reading some stories from constituents who have written to me over the past several months while Parliament has been absent to tell me about the troubles and difficulties they are facing in paying their bills and having money at the end of the month. I will start with Barbara from Beaverton in my riding. She wrote to me, “I'm a single person. I own a home and do home care. I work a lot. I try to balance at the end of the month, but I'm still short.” Barbara works hard and tries to budget, but she is still short at the end of the month. She is short at the end of the month because of rising costs in Canada, inflation caused by inflationary spending by 10 years of Liberal government and higher costs, including fuel costs, which we are talking about tonight. Next is Sheila, who is from Sutton in my riding, in my community. She wrote to me and said, “We are seniors and now have to be on a strict budget to be able to afford simple meals.” That is not dignity in retirement. Seniors should be able, in a rich country like Canada, to put more than simple meals on the table after a lifetime of hard work. Cindy from Beaverton, wrote to me and said, “We are farmers, and everything costs more, from diesel to fertilizer, to parts, steel, repairs and maintenance.” It is tough for farmers. I come from a community that has a strong history of agriculture, as do many of my colleagues in the Conservative Party. It is tough being a farmer, working hard, paying bills and trying to put food on not only their table, but the tables of thousands of Canadians across the country. However, everything costs more, as Cindy said. Unfortunately, we have a government that does not recognize that, does not acknowledge that and does not understand agriculture in any way, shape or form. In fact, the Prime Minister says that Canadians do not use steel. We know that Cindy and her family operate farm machinery made of steel to put food on our tables. That is an example of one thing that is not included in this temporary measure: the indirect effects of the industrial carbon tax on farmers, which farmers have been talking about for months now, but there has been no response from the government. Carol, also from Beaverton, wrote to me and said, “We are blessed to have a tax-free pension and have no mortgage, and we are in our eighties and have few needs, but our younger generation, they need help through this crazy time.” Similarly, Char from Stouffville, who is also concerned about young people and her children, wrote, “We are retired and managing since we own our home and don't drive much these days, but our children are affected by gas, mortgage, grocery prices, so cut the red tape, let the economy build and thrive, reduce tax.” These families are concerned about the next generation, and so am I, and so are many of my younger colleagues in the Conservative caucus, because it is the next generation that has to pay the debts of the government. We are facing the largest budget deficits in this country outside of the pandemic, and every dollar spent by the government that is borrowed is a future tax dollar that must be paid by the next generation. Nowhere is affordability more acute for the next generation than when it comes to housing, an issue I have raised many times in the House and will continue to raise, because the next generation is getting short-changed. They were promised the Canadian dream: Work hard, play by the rules, save money, plan and then buy a home and start a family. However, that is not happening. That is not happening at all for the next generation, who are continually locked out of housing. Despite lots of talk from the other side, we have no action. There is very little action. In fact, we know exactly how much action we have received from the government because the Minister of Housing told us last week and again today in the House. For all of the government's effort over the last 18 months, including a new bureaucracy, billions of dollars allocated to it and more staff, what have the Liberals done? The government has committed to, not built but committed to build, 19,000 new housing units. Its target was 500,000. After 18 months, it has 19,000 units to show for it, and they are not even built, just committed to. That is a drop in the bucket. It is de minimis. It is irrelevant. The Liberals have not even started to address the problem, despite their promises that we would build at speeds never seen before, that never since the Second World War would the government move at such haste. The result of its haste is 19,000 units out of a 500,000-unit target. In fact, the government's own housing agency, the CMHC, says that this year alone, the government will be hundreds of thousands of units of housing below their target. They estimate a gap of anywhere between about 180,000 to 230,000 homes just this year, not even going into the future. We are going in the wrong direction. Despite the government and the Prime Minister saying that affordability has never been better and that rents have never been lower, we are not building any homes. It gets worse than that because, this year, CMHC has reported that we will build fewer homes in 2026 than we built in 2025. Not only is the gap getting bigger, but we are going in the wrong direction. I sympathize with Carol and Char, who are concerned about the next generation and their ability to afford to live in the country, buy a home and start a family. Lastly, Christine from Stouffville wrote to me that, for the costs arising for basic living expenses, such as food, utility and transportation, there seems to be no break in sight. I agree. There seems to be no break for Canadians when it comes to the government. It has been 11 years with no break and higher costs on all things, whether it is fuel, housing and even one's taxes going up every year. I sympathize with my constituents, and I am here to tell them tonight that we will continue to fight for an affordable Canada for them. We will continue to drag the government kicking and screaming to do the right thing, because it seems that we always have to drag it to the right place. As for the proposal we are speaking to tonight, the suspension of some taxes on some fuels, but not all taxes on all fuels, of course, it is a good start, but it is just a start. We do not want a pat on the back for this. I do not care about a pat on the back for this. We want relief for Canadians, and that is good enough, but the Liberals opposed this measure. They might have collective amnesia but, just a few months ago in May, we proposed this measure during an opposition day motion. Liberal member after Liberal member got up and told us that this was a bad idea and they voted against it. We knew it was a good idea in May and, thankfully, the government has changed its mind, or at least half of the way there, to get us to where we are today. It does not go far enough. It does not extend the cut long enough and it does not include other hidden taxes on fuel. I will just raise one example that it does not include. The clean fuel regulation is a big one. It is a big one on the cost of gasoline and diesel, as it is 17¢ a litre on gasoline and 16¢ a litre on diesel. One does not have to take my word for it. That is the analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Moreover, the clean fuel regulation, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says, is a regressive tax. That means it hurts households that can least afford it. He said, at the time, that “lower income households generally spend a larger share of their income on transportation and other energy-intensive goods and services compared to higher income households”. I seem to remember the member for Kingston and the Islands getting up and opposing our opposition day motion, saying that, actually, it would be wealthy Canadians who would benefit the most from this tax. When we have economic advice like what we are getting from the member for Kingston and the Islands, it is no wonder we have the deficits we have. Let me conclude by saying a message to my residents. I will continue to get up in the House and tell their stories and drag the government to do the right thing every day, because we are fighting for a more affordable Canada for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we can support farmers by extending any support we can for input costs. The member says that farmers do not pay the industrial carbon tax. They do, actually, indirectly, because fertilizer and other industrial goods that are inputs into the manufacture of food and the growing of food bear those costs. When the fertilizer manufacturer pays the industrial carbon tax, who does the member think he charges that to? Who does he think that is passed on to? It is the farmer who buys the fertilizer. Obviously farmers are bearing that burden, and that comes through the supply chain into the cost of groceries, which we have seen explode in this country.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, if the government brings forward good ideas that help Canadians, it will find support in the opposition. If it brings forward bad proposals that hurt Canadians or hurt our economy, it will find opposition. It would make it a lot easier to work with the government if every time we proposed an idea, members did not get up and say that they will not take lessons from the Conservatives or that it is a bad idea, just as they did with this. We proposed this in May of this year. Every one of them stood up and voted against it, and now they are bringing it forward. When they talk about collaboration, it goes both ways.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a freedom fighter in the House, and we are proud to have her on this side. My question is about the member's riding. She mentioned that it is expansive, and I am familiar with it. I know it is longer than most, end to end, and especially longer than many urban ridings the government members come from. When fuel prices rise, and when government actions cause fuel prices to rise, can constituents and residents in her riding drive less? Can they drive less to work? Can they drive less to the grocery store? What happens to them when these costs rise? She has a big riding, and they have to go to far places. What do they do in that situation?

Mr. Speaker, this summer, I hosted young Canadians to talk about planning and saving to buy their first home, but they feel they will never own a home. They are depressed. They are dejected. They are defeated. The Prime Minister promised he would build 500,000 new homes at speeds never seen, but last week, the Minister of Housing said that the government has committed to, not built, only 19,000 homes. The Conservative plan to save Canadians money on housing will tie federal dollars to faster permits and take the taxes off new homes. Minister, your plan is not working. Why not save Canadians money—

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition on behalf of residents in my riding of York—Durham, particularly those from the town of Georgina and the community of Keswick on the south shore of Lake Simcoe, with respect to a new invasive species called water soldier. It was discovered in Lake Simcoe only a short time ago and has been spreading across the lake. It is a physical threat to our enjoyment of the lake. It is a threat to the aquatic species in the lake, and it is potentially a threat to our farming endeavours in the Holland Marsh at the lower end of Lake Simcoe. Therefore, residents in my riding are calling on the government to list or otherwise identify water soldier as an invasive aquatic plant under relevant federal law; to nominate a single federal department or agency to take responsibility for the federal government's response to water soldier; and then, to allocate sufficient financial and technical support to the Lake Simcoe water soldier working group in the same way that the Government of Ontario has done just recently.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food about the troubling implications for family farms and the ability to pass family farms on to the next generation. For generations, family farms have fed Canadians and the world, and those farms are passed on, with great pride, from one generation to the next. Generally, if a farm is passed from a father or mother to a child, it is passed on a tax-deferred basis. Unfortunately, under the current rules, if it is passed to an extended family member, such as a niece or nephew, it is fully taxed under the capital gains rules. The result has been that, over the last 20 years, more than 57,000 family farms have been lost. That hurts family farmers in my community, such as Steve Cooper, who brought this issue to my attention in the local media. He wanted to pass his farm on to a nephew but could not do so because of the dramatic tax implications. The problem will only compound in the future because right now the average Canadian farmer is in their mid-fifties, and fewer than one in 12 has a successor under the age of 40. This is data from Statistics Canada. That means that farmers are getting older; they do not have a next generation, potentially, in line; and they are struggling with the succession of their farm. The result is that we are losing family farms in my community and across Canada. I asked the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to consider looking into the rules around the Income Tax Act to change this so family farms could be passed on to the next generation in an extended family, without tax implications. The response at the time was an acknowledgement of the problem and a commitment to speak with the Minister of Finance and to come back to the House to inform us. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance is here today, so I would like to ask him if those conversations have been had, what the result of those conversations was, and whether they have a solution or proposal that they will bring forward to the House in the fall sitting to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing what the government proposes in the fall. In the last minute I have, I would like to comment on the Speaker's ruling from yesterday. I appreciated the Speaker's ruling but I was deeply disappointed by it. First, on a factual basis, the Speaker indicated in the ruling that there was only supposition that certain members of the government may have had privileged information about the timing of amendments. I would suggest to the Speaker that the fact that they submitted amendments is evidence enough that they had that information. Second, the Speaker made this point: “Both the minority and the majority have rights; however, primacy cannot be given to both.” That was the quote the Speaker used. That was not the issue. The issue was the level playing field and primacy being given by the Speaker's ruling to the majority. I am troubled by the precedent that the Speaker's ruling may have set for giving the government the ability to deny members of the House, of any party, their participatory rights in the submission of amendments.

Mr. Speaker, it was all fake, all an illusion. Liberal promises to work together on Bill C-22 were hollow from the start. The Liberals will ram through the largest government surveillance operation in a generation. The Minister of Public Safety promised better. He promised he would work collaboratively, promised he would listen and promised he would take amendments. He is breaking those promises. Police need the tools to catch the bad guys in a digital era, obviously. That is why we proposed a solid compromise: pass the uncontroversial parts of the bill, and continue debating the others. Will they take that offer?

Mr. Speaker, I am rising this afternoon on a point of order concerning the admissibility of Government Business No. 13, which appeared on this morning's Notice Paper. Government Business No. 13 proposes to lay out a program for the remaining consideration of Bill C-22, the Liberal government's legislation concerning so-called lawful access. While programming motions are, of course, not unheard of in our Westminster system and in Canada, they have become increasingly fashionable, first under the Trudeau government and now under the current Liberal government. In fact, we have witnessed three of them this week alone. What is troubling is that each successive programming motion has been more and more aggressive than the preceding one. Government Business No. 13 introduces a novel feature not seen in previous programming motions: a retroactive deadline for the submission of committee amendments. Subparagraph (a)(ii) states: if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill within 30 minutes of the beginning of the meeting, all remaining amendments that were submitted to the committee by 4:30 p.m. on June 15, 2026, shall be deemed moved, the Chair shall put the question forthwith.... The point, as is clearly evident, is that the deadline set in this notice was yesterday at 4:30 p.m. Therefore, if adopted, Government Business No. 13 would only allow the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to consider amendments that were filed yesterday. The Liberals' proposed deadline for committee amendments for Bill C-22, therefore, possibly preceded its notice of Government Business No. 13. It certainly preceded the publication of the notice, which comes out at about, as I understand it, two o'clock in the morning. What is more egregious, or perhaps as egregious, than the proposal to ram through the House such a sweeping piece of legislation with significant consequences for the privacy rights of Canadians is that, if adopted, members will also be left with no ability to put forward any further suggestions on how to improve Bill C-22 or strike the right balance between public safety and privacy, because the motion itself prevents and precludes any report stage amendments by members. Let me draw everyone's attention to paragraphs (b) and (c) of the motion. Paragraph (b) reads, “the bill may be considered at the report stage at any time following the completion of paragraph (a)(iv) of this order, and, when the order is read, it shall be deemed to have been concurred in, as amended, at the report stage”. There would be no amendments because the deadline for amendments is retroactive and there is no ability for amendments to be brought forward at report stage. Let me contrast this with Government Business No. 12, which was the immediately preceding programming motion. That concerned Bill C-30 before the Standing Committee on Finance, and the House adopted it on Monday night. There was a committee deadline in that motion, but it was for 24 hours after notice had been given of the government motion. Members in that case at least had the time to put forward their best and last ideas, knowing that, regardless, the Liberal guillotine was at hand. I will mention that Government Business No. 12 was not subject to a ruling, so I am not attempting to draw it as an authoritative precedent, but only as an example for the Speaker's consideration. We have a government that is fascinated with all the ways it can censor Canadians. With Government Business No. 13, the Liberals are now verging into the territory of erasing the rights of members. That is what makes Government Business No. 13 so utterly offensive. The idea of a retroactive deadline is, I believe, entirely unprecedented and, therefore, I would like to go back to several first principles to lay out my initial opposition to this bill. I will note that I am raising this at the earliest opportunity I can, having simply seen the notice this morning and raising it as quickly as possible. Therefore, I would beg the Speaker's indulgence to provide further arguments should my hon. colleagues across the way also provide theirs. I will turn to the first principle, Standing Order 1, which we do not often quote in this place. However, I think it is necessary when we are talking about something that is unprecedented and novel. It states: In all cases not provided for hereinafter, or by other order of the House, procedural questions shall be decided by the Speaker...whose decisions shall be based on the usages, forms, customs and precedents of the House of Commons of Canada and on parliamentary tradition in Canada and other jurisdictions, so far as they may be applicable to the House. I would also draw the Speaker's attention to Standing Order 13, which, of course, gives you the ability to rule on whether or not any motion is in order in this place. Beauchesne’s Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, sixth edition, observes at citation 12: Parliamentary Law is something quite different from the ordinary Civil Law or Common Law. Parliamentary Law is based on centuries of tradition and precedents which have marked the evolution of parliamentary freedoms from the time that the first Parliaments were governed under the Divine Right of Kings to the stage of parliamentary sovereignty which we have now acquired. One of the House's earliest clerks, Sir John Bourinot, in Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, second edition, at page 258, reiterated one of these most essential principles, which has evolved over the centuries. He said: The great principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law have...been always kept steadily in view by the Canadian legislatures; these are: To protect the minority and restrain the improvidence and tyranny of the majority, to secure the transaction of public business in a decent and orderly manner, to enable every member to express his opinions within those limits necessary to preserve decorum and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give full opportunity for the consideration of every measure, and to prevent any legislative action being taken heedlessly and upon sudden impulse. I know the Speaker will be aware of this general principle, but I draw him again to the section that refers to protecting the minority and restraining “the improvidence and tyranny of the majority”. That principle is reinforced again by our present-day Clerk, with his own comments at paragraph 5.1 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, which says: ...over the years, the ideal of “protecting the minority” has adapted to the modern dictates of an efficient legislative body.... Nevertheless, it remains true that parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government’s need to get its business through the House and the opposition’s responsibility to debate that business.... Sir George's principles are also quoted authoritatively in Parliamentary Procedure in Québec, third edition, at page 49: The rules of parliamentary procedure as a whole, then, must reflect these principles and create a balance between them. Procedure is thus at the service of noble ideals that ensure the highly democratic nature of the parliamentary institution. Even though they may sometimes be considered superfluous, the fact remains that the rules of procedure are extremely important for parliamentarians and for the functioning of the institution. While Bill C-22 contains some measures that law enforcement agencies have asked Parliament for, part 2 of the bill and, indeed, certain sections of part 1 raise serious concerns regarding privacy, civil liberties, government powers and other issues. The government's own charter statement acknowledges this. Moreover, major Canadian industries and technology companies, including Google, Meta, Apple and others, have raised serious questions about encryption provisions, the requirement to collect and store the personal information of Canadians and the powers contained in part 2 for the minister to issue secret orders to companies. The powers and the scope of this bill should be carefully considered, defined and targeted. This requires the balancing act that I referred to earlier. Parliament needs to get this right. Doing that requires time, patience and studying the procedures of this House, but Government Motion No. 13 would prohibit that. Perhaps support for the legislation within the caucus of the Liberal Party has been declining more swiftly than we thought, after hearing from witnesses and stakeholders, and, therefore, a renewed urgency is upon the Liberals. However, that is no excuse to push this bill through the House on the very last week of its sitting. It may be useful to recall the words of Speaker Milliken in a ruling he delivered on March 29, 2007, at page 8136 of the debates. He said: ...neither the political realities of the moment nor the sheer force of numbers should force us to set aside the values inherent in the parliamentary conventions and procedures by which we govern our deliberations. The political realities of the Liberal government, facing increasing and growing scrutiny on this censorship agenda, are no excuse for what the Liberal House leader is proposing through his notice this morning. As I said, Mr. Speaker, Government Business No. 13 has not yet been proposed, but I wanted to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity to provide you sufficient time to consider it. Should you wish us to raise this point of order when the motion is moved, we will do that as well. As your predecessor said, also on March 29, 2007, at page 8137 of the debates: Unlike the situation faced by committee chairs, a Speaker's decision is not subject to appeal. All the more reason then for the Chair to exercise its awesome responsibility carefully and to ensure that the House does not, in the heat of the moment, veer dangerously off course. In our submission, Government Business No. 13 would do that. It would see this House go dangerously off course, all in the service of a bill that would therefore be denied the careful and detailed scrutiny it requires. Let me finish by quoting citation 18 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition: We use the words “House of Commons” very often without pausing to reflect upon what those words mean. The word “Commons” means the people. This is the house of the people; sitting on both sides of this house; and on both sides of the Speaker are representatives of every constituency of Canada. Collectively those of us who meet in this Chamber represent all Canadians. That is our responsibility! That is our duty. Our rights are important only to the extent that those rights represent the rights of the people themselves. If the traditional rights of the members of this House are released, limited or arbitrarily curtailed in any way, it is not our rights that are of concern. What is vitally important is that in that curtailment of rights—there is a limitation of the rights—of the people themselves. The freedom that we have here to shape and guide legislation, no matter on which side of the House we might sit, is part of the very freedom which we cherish here in this country of ours. It is here in the House of Commons, to which all the people of Canada must look for just laws properly considered and properly made, that Canadians in every part of Canada must look for the greater part of their freedom and for the assurance of that type of government which will be itself an expression of the freedom which has come down to us through so many generations of sacrifice and tremendous efforts. The retroactive committee amendment deadline proposed in Government Business No. 13 is offensive to the rich and deep tradition of parliamentary law. It is compounded by the inability of members to move motions at report stage, effectively preventing them from providing any more input into this bill. It cannot be in order that a bill provides a deadline retroactively, known only to the government members and utilized only by the government members, unbeknownst to any other member of this House until that deadline has passed. As such, it is my submission that Government Business No. 13 is not in order and, therefore, the whole of the motion should be equally called out of order.

Mr. Speaker, as the G7 gets under way, the Prime Minister remains the only leader of a G7 or G20 economy that is in recession. The Prime Minister should travel, but Canadians expect results from that. When he was back home in Ireland this weekend, investment was leaving Canada. On Saturday, Open Text's Waterloo-based AI company announced a $140-million investment in Ireland. That is 400 new jobs for Ireland. Ireland has lower taxes, less regulation and a better business environment. Why did this investment not get made in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, the government's props and slogans are cold comfort to the young generation of Canadians, who are feeling its failures most acutely. The United Way's report last week confirmed that food insecurity concerns are highest among young Canadians, income declines are most acute among young Canadians and fully 91% of the next generation feel personal financial anxiety. Add on top of that the highest unemployment rate in 35 years. When will the government stop selling out the next generation?

Mr. Speaker, one of the most concerning things about the bill is how it has been described by members of the cabinet across the way, including the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who suggested that passages of the Bible and the Torah are inherently hateful and are worthy of prosecution. I wonder if the secretary of state for thought crime would get up and say whether or not she agrees with that minister.

Mr. Speaker, I have been troubled by the Bloc's position, and I am hoping my hon. colleague can help me a little. One of the examples that Bloc members have continually used to defend the removal of the good-faith exemption is the example of Mr. Charkaoui, who quite rightly was condemned for inciting hatred against Jews in Quebec. My colleague spoke about reading the law carefully, and if he were to read the Criminal Code carefully, he would see that this type of activity is already prohibited. It was not because the religious exemption is in the law now that police were prevented from charging. It was that the police chose not to. I am confused about why the Bloc has continually used this example, which has been shown to have nothing to do with the good-faith defence.

Mr. Speaker, while the hour is late, it is always a privilege to get up and speak in the House, especially on an issue that is so important. I rise with a bit of a heavy heart, though, because I realize this will likely be the last time I can speak at substantive length to this bill and express my concern with, first, the government's heavy-handedness in dealing with this debate. It is unfortunate that the government moved to end this debate only a few minutes after it began. The irony of cutting off and censoring debate on a bill that deals with expression is not lost on me, nor is it lost on Canadians. I want to say at the outset that I understand the laudable goal that exists with Bill C-9. I think it is one that is shared by all members of the House. It is certainly shared by me. However, we know what is said about good intentions and the path that they lead to. The laudable goal, of course, is the elimination of hateful speech and conduct in our society. We all share that goal. After 11 years, Canadians just do not trust the Liberal government to preserve and protect their liberty. Quite the opposite is true. There is a history and a pattern that proves this suspicion that people of faith across Canada have. There was an ideological test to receive summer jobs funding, which I did not forget, and I do not think Christian communities, Jewish communities or Muslim communities across Canada forgot that either. There was the removal, or proposed removal, of charitable status for organizations that defend and promote life. These are still the avowed positions of the government opposite. I will note that I am splitting my time. In the Senate debates, Professor Haskell said, “Past experience shows that when Liberal governments promised that devout Christians would not be harmed by their new laws, those promises were broken.” History has a way of teaching us not to believe the Liberal government when it says, “Just trust us.” That is why Bill C-9 united Christians across all denominations, from the United Church to the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church to the evangelical churches across Canada, but it was not just Christians who were united against this bill. One of the most fascinating things about this is that the Liberal government succeeded in uniting all faiths against their proposition. We have heard tonight, numerous times, that “Canadians were asking for this” and “Communities were asking for this,” but actually the opposite is true, and we have the letters from those communities to prove it. We have letters from the rabbinical council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to prove it. The reality, as I understand the evidence, is that every faith community opposed this legislation. Rather than asking for it, they opposed it. I want to focus a bit on the most troubling part of Bill C-9, which is the removal of long-standing protections for religious freedom and the ability to have civil and substantive discussions about matters that go to the core of belief without the government's interference in that. Unfortunately, a Faustian bargain was struck between the Liberals and the Bloc to remove that protection from the Criminal Code. Now, it is not my opinion that this is what was taking place. This is the opinion that was held by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who said that certain passages of the Torah and the Bible are categorically “hateful” and that prosecutors should have “discretion...to press charges.” What is deeply troubling about this is that in this whole debate, over the entire months that we have been discussing this, the minister has never resiled from his comments. He has never sought to clarify his comments, and he never sought to add nuance to those comments or explain to religious communities what he meant by them. To add insult to injury, not one member of the Prime Minister's cabinet has said anything about them. In fact, no member, to my knowledge, of the Liberal Party, despite being asked in debate after debate, has resiled from those comments. What should we take from them? The only logical conclusion to take is that they believe them. If that is the case, then our fears are well founded. The reality is that Canadians should be allowed to discuss and debate controversial issues, even if we do not like them, even if we think they are repugnant. It does not matter. That is what living in a free society allows us. Government should not decide what religious truth is. I do not want the minister of culture being the arbitrary arbiter of whether Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and I do not want them to be the arbiter of whether in fact there is no God other than God, “and Muhammad is his messenger”. That is not the government's role. However, perhaps one of the most pernicious aspects of this amendment that removed that protection was that it was predicated on a completely false fact. It was predicated on the idea that there was an instance in Quebec that could not be prosecuted because of this religious protection. That is categorically false and, no matter how many times the Bloc want to bring up that example of Mr. Charkaoui , it does not make it true. I want to note this as well about the Senate amendment, because that of course is part of what we are discussing tonight. The Senate amendment seeks to add an additional symbol to criminalize in the code. Let me start with the obvious. The use of a symbol can, of course, be hateful, but I would respond that if it is, it is already a crime. There have been several examples where police across Canada have prosecuted individuals for expressing their hateful conduct through the use of a symbol. Of course, a noose could be used as a hate symbol, undoubtedly. However, to me this is a bit of an odd inclusion. To me this sounds like the importation of an American problem into Canada, and the use of that problem to divide and fearmonger. Canada does not have the same history as the United States does with this symbol. Moreover, discussing symbols opens a Pandora's box. Who would decide what symbols are hateful? Well, according to the bill, the government could decide to add any new entity to a terrorist list, and therefore its symbols would become hate symbols. Is display enough to warrant prosecution, or does intent matter? These questions remain unanswered. If we were to go down the path of selecting symbols, I would have several to offer. How about the hammer and sickle? If we want to talk about a hateful symbol that Canadians fought and died against, for example in the Korean War, the hammer and sickle would be one of them, but this just proves the point about the selective nature of what the Liberals think hate is. Burning churches is understandable. Conservatives had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to list Samidoun as a terrorist organization. This tells us that it is not about hate. It is about things the Liberals disagree with, and that is the problem with this type of censorship. There is a creeping culture of censorship that pervades the Liberal government: Bill C‑9, the Liberal censorship law; Bill C‑22, the Liberal surveillance law; Bill C‑35, the Liberal law on digital ID for all; Bill C‑36, the Liberal digital Stasi commission. We are sliding backwards into self-imposed immaturity, lacking the ability to use our own understanding without the guidance from another, in this case the state. Why is the Liberal government afraid of freedom? When a government lives in fear of its citizens, it seeks to censor them. Let me close with a quote from the great Frederick Douglass, a great abolitionist, who said: Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence. We have the beginnings of tyrannical government in Canada, and that is the problem. Bill C‑9 is only the beginning. It is not the end.

Mr. Speaker, being involved in this debate has actually been an amazing experience for me personally because it has allowed me to reach and speak with other faith communities, which I would not otherwise have had the chance to do. I met with Muslim groups in Toronto and Jewish groups in my own riding. I had a different faith and a different view of the world, but we were in complete alignment on Bill C‑9. It was actually quite amazing. My hon. colleague raises a great point, which is the selective nature of what the government considers hate. He points out a very good example, that regardless of which lists the Liberals use or which groups they identify, they seem to leave out some and include others. Unfortunately, that leaves us to conclude that some people, in their view, are more equal than others. This is why we are so concerned when they get involved in censorship, because we know which groups they think deserve protection and we know which groups they think do not deserve that protection.

Mr. Speaker, so far in 2026, the U.S. Customs authority has blocked 1,198 shipments worth about $75 million on concerns with forced labour. I know this because the U.S. authorities make their data publicly available. I checked it this morning. In contrast, the Liberal government does not. When I asked for this information at the Standing Committee on International Trade, I received a written response that said the government is “unable to provide the requested information”. If the U.S. authorities can make their data publicly available to see, why can the Liberal government not?

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not the law, whether that is the current law or any subsequent law the government may introduce. The issue is the Liberal government's complete and utter negligence in enforcing the current law. Now the Liberals have been caught, and that failure is threatening our entire economy with new tariffs. The U.S. regularly blocks shipments. Last year, they blocked shipments from the world's largest bicycle manufacturer, Giant Manufacturing Company. Those bicycles are available in Canada today, at two stores in Ottawa and three in the Toronto region. Can the government confirm for the House whether or not those bicycles available today were made with forced labour?

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to present a petition on behalf of concerned Canadians about the plight of Christians in Africa, specifically in Nigeria, Congo and Mozambique, who are being attacked and murdered by groups such as Boko Haram, Islamic State and other terrorist groups for the simple reason that they are Christians. According to reports such as those from the Observatory for Religious Freedom in Africa, in many communities, millions of people have been forced to flee their homes. In Nigeria alone, the petitioners note, it is estimated that 30 Christians are murdered every day. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to do the following: unequivocally condemn the ongoing persecution of Christians in Africa; engage diplomatically with these countries in Africa to both defend Christians and seek justice for them; provide humanitarian and reconstruction relief to these communities; and lastly, ensure that Canada's foreign policy continues to defend the freedom of conscience and freedom of religion of all people globally.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has spoken so eloquently on Bill C-9 from the beginning, and I want to commend him for seeing Bill C-9 for what it is. It is the government's attempt to censor what people say and do in this country. Does he see a pattern in the behaviour of the government? With whatever social problems seem to exist in this country, the Liberals' response is not to let Canadians make decisions for themselves, think for themselves or speak for themselves, but to tell them what their truth is and that if they do not believe their truth, they are bad people. Does he see a pattern here?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister calls it just a little economic weakness, just a settling-in period. Well, I am a little more simple. I will just call it what it is, a recession. Today the United Way quantified for us that feeling that things are just not very good right now. Nine in 10 Canadians are experiencing financial anxiety, and CTV reported that fully employed Canadians are sleeping in campers to survive. This is a made-in-Canada problem. Mexico is in the same trade war with no recession. Even Russia, which is in a full-scale war and economically sanctioned, has no recession. What is the excuse today?

Mr. Speaker, every day they play the same game, claiming success for any small ray of sunlight but shirking responsibility for everything else. Canadians do not believe them. The United Way said today that 57% of Canadians, in all age and gender groups, believe the public finances are being poorly managed. Two-thirds of Canadians are anxious about the future. They do not believe in the job the Prime Minister is doing today, and they are not buying his promises for tomorrow Will the Prime Minister finally get up and accept responsibility for his choices that are having devastating consequences for Canadians today?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C‑22 again. I spoke about it at second reading, raising my significant concerns with the Liberals' latest attempt at lawful access legislation here in Canada. In that speech, I focused on part 2, but I want to focus this morning on part 1 and, in particular, our motion to split the bill between part 1 and part 2. Part 1 has largely been referred to as the confirmation of service portion of Bill C‑22, and part 2 is about the new lawful access, government surveillance architecture that is quite problematic, but we will leave part 2 for most of this morning. What we are trying to do with the motion is salvage a huge mess the government has created. The government presented a bill in the fall, I believe it was Bill C‑2, with a whole host of problems. Thankfully we were able to prevent its passage. Then, instead of going back to the drawing board and coming back to Parliament with a proposal on lawful access that would be reasonable and proportionate, and that would balance the needs of law enforcement to catch the bad guys, which we all want to do, with protecting Canadians' reasonable expectation of privacy on things that are important to them, such as their location data, their metadata, whom they visit and whom they send emails and text messages to, we got Bill C‑22. Bill C‑22 would create a whole new part 2 architecture on surveillance, which industry, technology companies and any people who know anything about tech have uniformly come out and opposed. We have not been able to hear from all those voices, because it seems to be the intent of the government to push the bill forward. We are trying to salvage a mess the government has created with Bill C‑22, because we think there are parts of part 1 that could be salvaged. I am going to try to explain some of the problems that exist with part 1 that I think we could amend in committee. Some of those amendments are before the committee right now and will be discussed later today. If we make those amendments, then I think part 1 would be more amenable to this side of the House. We will see how interested the government is in passing a piece of the legislation, but I think the government quite clearly understands that part 2 is a problem. Part 1 and part 2 both have problems. Let us start with the part 1 problem. Within part 1, there are, I think, three problems we want to try to solve. Part 1 would allow police to ask a whole host of providers, “Do you offer services or provide services to this particular Canadian?” Unfortunately, the type of information that police would be allowed to request, with no judicial authorization, I will note, which is different from the new production request that I will get to in a moment, also in part 1, includes a whole host of personally identifying information. That information includes more than just someone's name. It can also include the types of services that are being offered by companies. It may be what one might, in a common-sense way, think the police are asking for, such as “Does this person have Internet with Bell or Rogers?” However, it could be far more expansive than that. What we are proposing to do is narrow the range of the types of information that could be requested. If the Liberals are serious about the police just needing confirmation of service, okay, that is great. Let us narrow it to names and perhaps certain types of addresses, and keep the list very narrow. Right now the list is open-ended, which creates a possibility that the types of information police could get under part 1 would actually be pretty broad. This is a point that was raised by the Privacy Commissioner in their submission to the public safety committee and the Minister of Public Safety. In fact, it was a recommendation by the Privacy Commissioner that the range of information under this provision of part 1 be narrowed, so, I believe, both the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to do that. Unfortunately, it has not yet been accepted by the Liberals. Worse than that, not only are the Liberals refusing to accept good-faith amendments about our concerns, but the amendment itself was proposed by the Privacy Commissioner, and they are refusing to allow the Privacy Commissioner to be present at committee when these amendments are being discussed. The Privacy Commissioner made several amendments. I just mentioned the first one. I will mention two more with respect to part 1. During debate on this, Conservatives requested that the Privacy Commissioner be granted the same opportunity as other government-related officials who are, in the normal course, permitted to attend and to provide information to committee members and answer their questions. We asked for it as a motion. We asked for it on unanimous consent. Every time, it was denied. I have not heard a good reason why the Privacy Commissioner should not be permitted to attend committee and be available to parliamentarians, whether Conservative, Bloc, or Liberal, to answer questions about the amendments to part 1. The second problem with part 2 is the range of providers that can be requested to provide confirmation of service. Right now, it is anyone who provides telecommunications services. That is not very well defined in the act, so it could encompass a whole host of providers beyond the normal telcos. That could include, say, a lawyer, a grocery store or the hotel someone stayed at. Again, we have suggested an amendment, which was originally proposed by the Privacy Commissioner, to narrow to just telcos the range of who could receive this confirmation request, because that is the first thing law enforcement wants to know: Are they providing a telecom or Internet service to a particular person? Again, the Privacy Commissioner was denied the opportunity to be present at committee to answer questions on the amendment of narrowing the range of who could receive this request. The third amendment, which I hope we will get to in committee, but I do not believe we have yet, is that once this request is made and once information is provided to law enforcement, the person who has provided the information to law enforcement should be required to produce a document that sets out what information was provided. This is so that, in case something goes wrong and we need to know what was provided, we have a document that says what they provided. Again, this is a recommendation from the Privacy Commissioner that Liberals have refused. Those are three critical problems on the substantive side with part 1, and I will add one more to that. This is the threshold issue on the production order request, which is the second part of part 1. We have conservation of service, and then production order. The Liberals have proposed to lower the threshold for obtaining a production order, to reasonable suspicion. This would be lowered from the traditional grounds for obtaining a production order, which is reasonable grounds to believe. In this case, it would have judicial oversight of some manner, which would not necessarily have to be a judge. It could be another judicial official, such as a peace officer who is not a judge. It would not even have to be a lawyer. For the non-lawyers or people who are not initiated in these two thresholds, I will explain that this would be an important change, because the first one, reasonable suspicion, is simply someone's subjective view that they think something bad has happened. They think a crime has been committed, so they need some information to see if they are right. That is a very low threshold. It is like a hunch. It is as if I have a hunch that someone committed a crime, so I am going to get the government to give me all their personal information. I do not think that sounds like a good idea. What should be approved through amendment to the bill is bringing that standard back up to the standard that has been used for production orders in the Criminal Code for decades, which is reasonable grounds to believe. This means that not only would someone have to have a hunch, but they would also have to have an objective belief that there is going to be some evidence. It is not enough that someone thinks someone has committed a crime. They have to know that there is some evidence or have a good belief that there is evidence. Through decades of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and all common-law jurisdictions, the court has said it is not enough to just have a hunch. In the common law and now under the charter, we must have more than a hunch to invade someone's privacy and demand information about them. If the Liberals will not change that standard, then we will oppose part 1 as well.

Madam Speaker, everything we do on this side of the House is for the benefit of Canadians, and that includes striking a balance between their privacy and the needs of law enforcement. I have tried to make very reasonable and sensible arguments here, not hyperbole. To clarify to the member, it is the strength of the Supreme Court's reasons that is important. It does not matter that the court sits on high. It is the strength of its reasons that we look to. In this case, its reasoning on section 8 and unreasonable search and seizure has a long history, and I support it. It is not just because Supreme Court justices sit in robes that we listen to them. It is because of the strength of their reasons. That is very important, and the member misses that.

Madam Speaker, I would describe Bill C-22 right now as a big, fat dumpster fire. This is the government's dumpster fire, which this motion is trying to fix. What the member quite rightly points out is that in part 2, there is a metadata retention requirement, and that includes one's location services. That means that law enforcement, or any other part of government, can choose to get this information later. We have seen in other countries that it does not stop at law enforcement. Other government agencies look for that information. They will know who someone had coffee with because they will be able to see two iPhones at the same location. They will know if someone goes to church on Sunday because they will see a pattern. All of that reveals very private information, which is exactly why, in the EU, the European Court of Justice said that this information is very private, and it struck down the very same metadata retention requirements that Bill C-22 includes.

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. There are certain carve-outs in the bill that are attempting to address this issue, on medical records and solicitor-client privilege, I believe. The problem is that this is very vague, in part 1 especially, and the Privacy Commissioner makes this point. The list of entities that could be requested to provide information is very broad, so it would include more than just telecoms. The information that they would be requested to provide is non-exhaustive. It could go beyond just what it says in the bill. We are trying to fix that in part 1 so that we do not get in a situation. It would not be a doctor, because that is carved out, but there are a lot of other health care providers in there who may touch on someone's information. That is private. That should be protected. We need to fix that in part 1. If we fix that in part 1, I think we have a path forward. Right now, we do not have a path forward.

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to recognize Caroline Mulroney, member of provincial Parliament for York—Simcoe, who retires from politics today. Locally, Caroline's legacy is historic. She pushed through the Bradford bypass connecting Highways 400 and 404, she championed the new Southlake hospital in Queensville, she was responsible for the creation of the North Gwillimbury Forest, preserving nearly 1,000 acres for future generations, and she made sure that the Ford government approved a state-of-the-art phosphorus reduction facility for the health of Lake Simcoe. She was and remains a principled, reasonable Conservative, never overly partisan. She always supported Conservatives, no matter the stripe. She always said yes, always took my calls and always gave honest, prudent advice. I know she is a proud mom and a loving wife, too. Caroline will be deeply missed by our community and by me personally. For everything she has done, I thank her.

Madam Speaker, let us imagine I was pulled over by police on the way here this morning, and I said to the officer, “Officer, I know I was technically speeding but it was just a couple kilometres over the speed limit.” I do not think that would work, because a recession is a recession is a recession, and Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Under the hood of that recession is even more bad news. The parliamentary budget watchdog said that Canada's growth has been downgraded for both 2026 and 2027. The best case is now effective stagnation. Why is Canada the only country in a recession?

Madam Speaker, I have only been here a year, but I have never heard so much bad news be cheered by the government. Fewer Canadians are working today than at the beginning of the year. Fewer youth are working today than at the beginning of the year. Business investment continues to lag. In fact, it is below the replacement rate. That means we have lower labour productivity. As Krugman said, “Productivity isn't everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything.” It seems like the government does not care about that. In fact, it will cheer this bad news. Why is that?

Mr. Speaker, there is Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Russia, Mexico, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the EU, the U.S. and the U.K. As Big Bird would say, “One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong.” Can the Prime Minister tell us which one of these G20 economies is not like the other? I will give him a hint: Only one is in a recession. Which one is it?

Mr. Speaker, that is an easy answer: a Canada led by a strong Conservative government. Under the Liberal government, poor economic management leads to more bad news, the only G20 country in a recession. Today, the parliamentary budget watchdog said that the Prime Minister has a 1% chance of keeping his promise of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. Growth is downcast for 2026 and 2027. Is this a recession or is this all just technical?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome my hon. colleague to the House. She will no doubt be aware that recently the Muslim Association of Canada held a networking session, a conference, for Canadians in Toronto. In a word cloud that was presented at that conference was the phrase “Jew free”. I wonder if my hon. colleague would take this opportunity in her maiden speech during the questions and comments to get up here and show us her courage to condemn that type of thinking in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, October was a beautiful month at Green Gables, when the birches in the hollow turned as golden as sunshine and the maples behind the orchard were royal crimson and the wild cherry-trees along the lane put on the loveliest shades of dark red and bronzy green, while the fields sunned themselves in aftermaths. Anne reveled in the world of color about her. “Oh, Marilla,” she exclaimed one Saturday morning,... “I’m so glad I live in a world where there are Octobers...” Those who love Canadian content may recognize this memorable passage from the great Canadian story Anne of Green Gables, written by the great Canadian author Lucy Maud Montgomery. This passage highlights why the book has endured for so many years: Anne's irrepressible spirit, capturing her vivid imagination that turns the ordinary autumn into something magical. Anne's author, Lucy Maud Montgomery, in fact spent 15 years of her life in Leaskdale, Ontario, which is in my riding of York—Durham, about 15 minutes from where I live. She wrote the majority of her books while living in Leaskdale, and she raised her two surviving children there. Anne of Green Gables was not successful because Lucy Maud Montgomery was funded by a tax on foreign authors. Anne of Green Gables was not successful because a Liberal government forced Canadians to buy her book. It was successful because it was great writing, great content and great Canadian culture. The strength of Canadian culture should not rely on forcing foreign companies to subsidize Canadian content. The strength of Canadian culture should not rely on forcing foreign companies to force Canadians to watch or listen to government-mandated content, regardless of its quality. We are talking about the Online Streaming Act today and the increase in that tax on Canadians, the Netflix tax, from 5% of gross Canadian revenues to 15% of gross Canadian revenues, which will undoubtedly increase the costs for Canadians. There are many reasons to oppose this tax hike, but what I want to focus on today is that this tax hike will be a trade irritant with our friends in the United States and will impede our ability to get a good deal on our CUSMA renewal. Since its introduction, the Online Streaming Act has faced trade backlash from the United States, and rightly so. It requires foreign streaming services to contribute a percentage of their gross Canadian revenues to Canadian production funds as a condition of market access. Those payments were at 5% and have now increased to 15%. These rules are discriminatory for at least four reasons: First, they exclude Canadian streaming services from the same obligations, so foreign companies must pay and Canadian companies do not have to. Second, when foreign companies pay, they pay twice. That is because the royalties they pay to Canadian rights holders are included in the taxable revenue used to calculate their obligation. I know Liberals love taxes, but this is a tax on a tax. Third, the rules exclude foreign companies from benefiting from those content funds. Last, they require streaming providers to promote and prioritize Canadian content. This is often referred to as discoverability. I will pause on that for a moment. The government is dictating the content that these streaming service providers must show Canadians. They are telling them that regardless of whether a show is popular, of quality, good to watch, fun to watch or even if anyone wants to watch it, it must be shown to Canadians. The Liberal government will tell them what content is okay. All of this leaves us with an unfair and uneven playing field, whereby foreign companies are required to contribute but banned from benefiting. The cost to foreign companies is real. One estimate that was submitted before the CRTC by the Computer and Communications Industry Association in the United States said that at 5%, it cost its industry $2.2 billion U.S. This will grow between 2025 and 2030, at the higher CRTC rates, to over $7 billion U.S. I am not noting the cost so that we shed a tear for companies that are paying taxes but to note that there is a real cost to U.S. companies. We should not be surprised that these U.S. companies are outraged that they are being discriminated against and are calling on their government to take action. The Americans have responded in several ways. First, the Online Streaming Act has been identified in the USTR's national trade estimates report every year since its passage. That report identifies trade irritants that the U.S. has with countries around the world. If we go to the section on Canada, we will find a subsection on the Online Streaming Act, which calls out this tax. This is not just some government report that sits on a shelf. USTR Jamieson Greer has repeatedly said in public that the national trade estimates report must be part of any CUSMA renegotiations. This means that the issue is squarely in play for the U.S. The government has often claimed that Canada is shielded from this or otherwise protected because of the so-called cultural exception in the CUSMA. The cultural exception exists, but it comes with a price. Let me unpack that a little more. The starting point is chapter 19 on digital trade in the CUSMA. It covers non-discrimination. It says, in the relevant part, “No Party shall accord less favorable treatment to a digital product created, produced, published, contracted for...or...made available on commercial terms in the territory of another Party”. We have to treat foreign digital products in the same way as we treat other foreign digital projects and products created in Canada. Lawyers will argue on whether there is discrimination or not, and we will leave that to them. I would say that I think the case is pretty strong. That takes us to the so-called cultural exemption, which is found in chapter 32. It says, in the relevant part, that the agreement, the CUSMA, “does not apply to a measure adopted or maintained by Canada with respect to a cultural industry”. Okay, that sounds good. However, that is not the whole story, because just two articles down, it says, “Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, a Party may take a measure of equivalent commercial effect in response to an action by another Party that would have been inconsistent with this Agreement”. Taken together, this means that Canada can violate its non-discrimination obligations in the digital trade chapter for the cultural sector in Canada, as it is doing with the Online Streaming Act. However, that gives the U.S. the right to retaliate with “equivalent commercial effect”. This is why the estimates of the cost to U.S. industry are so important, because it tells us what the retaliation may be. It is also important to note that the retaliation provision is not limited to the cultural sector. This means that the United States could choose which products or services it wishes to retaliate against. The U.S. has done that repeatedly with other countries. We can take France as an example. The U.S. retaliated to the French digital services tax by targeting its wine, cheese and handbags. We have talked a lot in the House about vulnerable industries in Canada: steel, aluminum, lumber, automotive and seafood. We can imagine the United States taking retaliatory action, completely consistent with its obligations, in one of those industries. I just want to end on how this funding is being used, because we could argue about whether this is good or not, but what really puts the nail in the coffin for me is to see how this cultural funding is being used. It is often used to push radical ideologies on Canadians, families and children. Let us look at just a couple of the outrageous examples. Most recently, we heard about the example of the prank show Northland Tales, produced by the CBC and APTN, in which the state broadcaster used deceptive tactics to lure participants to a show and then sandbagged them to push their anti-historical, anti-Canadian narratives attacking Canadian figures and institutions such as John A. Macdonald, the founder of our country. Without Macdonald, there would be no Canada. There was also the RCMP, a historic institution in this country. Even members of Parliament were targeted. The member for North Island—Powell River was targeted. He is smarter than the average bear and was able to avoid that. We can see that this funding is not used to promote quality Canadian content, such as Anne of Green Gables. It is wasted on radical ideologies. However, there is a solution. The solution is that the government should use its powers to stop the CRTC from raising this tax from 5% of revenues to 15% of revenues. The government has the power. It has its majority. The question is whether it will do that. At the end of the day, Canadians want to go home, kick their feet up, crack a beer and watch Netflix without having it cost them an arm and a leg.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague takes such a dim view of culture in Canada, that it cannot stand on its own two feet. I am not afraid of American culture. I am not afraid of watching American sports. I am sure the member opposite watches U.S. films or TV and maybe even uses Netflix. It does not scare me because I have confidence in Canadian artists and Canadian cultural creators and confidence that our content is excellent. Just as Anne of Green Gables went worldwide, I believe the next Canadian author, streamer or musician can do the same.

Mr. Speaker, to describe a gullible listener, we used to say, “I have some swampland in Florida for you.” Now, thanks to the Minister of Defence, we can say a Canadian version: “I have a gravel pit in Nova Scotia for you.” At the low cost of just $200 million, the Liberals are trying to build a spaceport. The problem is that the company that is leasing it is paying just $13,000, and construction will cost only $70 million. If the construction is $70 million, and the lease is only $13,000, why are Canadians forking out $200 million?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague begged the Liberals to try to have some respect for this place and answer the questions, but that is the essence of the scam. It is just illusions. The Liberals have figured out how to turn a gravel pit into a money pit. It is more costs and more debt, all on the national credit card. If everything is above board and hunky-dory, as the minister claims, why does he not table in the House the lease agreement and give us the details? While he is at it, maybe he could explain why it is Liberal insiders who lobbied for it and Liberal insiders who would benefit from it. Will the minister come clean today and give us a copy of the agreement?