Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, Canada's immigration system is a mess. Fake refugees and criminals are slipping through the cracks and receiving preferential treatment from the Liberal government. Asylum claims should not be a shortcut to immigration. The Liberals must ensure that abuse is detected quickly and that the resources allocated to immigration serve Canadians appropriately. What is the Liberal government going to do to prevent criminals from immigrating to Canada and crowding out the skilled workers we actually need?

Mr. Speaker, really, this Prime Minister is nothing but an illusion. A banker is supposed to be good with numbers, yet here is the Prime Minister's track record: every family will be spending an extra $1,000 on groceries in 2026, business capital investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters, and Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. This record makes us the only G20 country in recession. The Prime Minister is not being accountable to Canadians. Will he take responsibility for his recession?

Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people gathered on Parliament Hill today to make their voices heard about the Alto train, which is threatening the survival of our communities. These people included many farmers facing the prospect of not being able to cross their land because of the Liberal government's threat to split it in two. I have not met a single farmer who wants a high‑speed train cutting across their land. Will the Prime Minister listen to the farmers and stop work on this project, which is totally off track?

Mr. Speaker, if the minister believes that this project is sound, he should go and meet with farmers himself to explain the expropriations. Experts are unanimous: This ideologically motivated project is completely irresponsible when it comes to our public finances. There is no evidence that it will be cost-effective. The Liberals want to leave us with a white elephant that runs purely on subsidies. With $90 million, we could refurbish nearly all of our infrastructure in Canada and become a global agricultural powerhouse. When are the Liberals going to invest in projects that will actually create wealth in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to investing in agriculture, the Liberal government turns a blind eye. When it comes to investing in research centres dedicated to agriculture, not only does it turn a blind eye, but it turns away entirely. The future of Canadian agriculture is now preparing for the next generation. The closure of seven research centres in Canada reduces our ability to innovate and prepare for the future of agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food needs to show leadership. Will he reverse his decision before it is too late?

Mr. Speaker, agriculture is just a drop in the bucket for the Liberals, who are spending $6.6 billion on the Cúram program, $19 billion on consultants, and $100 billion on a high-speed train that will ruin entire farming communities in Quebec and Ontario. Saving $23 million a year by closing seven research centres in Canada is completely unacceptable. This decision is a direct attack on our country's food security. It is not too late to fix this mistake. Why do the Liberals historically always let Canada's agricultural communities down?

Mr. Speaker, the feedback about Alto's high-speed rail project, which is being promoted by the Liberal Party and relatives of influential ministers, has been very negative. According to Radio-Canada, some 500 farms and 1,200 landowners will be affected in the Montreal-Ottawa corridor alone. Just imagine how many people who will be expropriated over the 1,000-kilometre route. Considering our Canadian winters, this project will almost certainly run into surprises that will affect the final bill and the train's ability to operate. There are not many such trains running in our climate, especially at cruising speeds of 300 kilometres an hour. Governing is about making choices, and making choices without social licence would jeopardize our private, unsubsidized means of transportation in favour of a subsidized means of transportation benefiting a handful of regular travellers. I urge the government to listen to the people of Canada before it is too late to turn back. If it is really looking for a good idea to support, there is always Quebec City's third link.

Mr. Speaker, it is always the same story with the Prime Minister's costly illusion: everything is more expensive. It is higher costs, higher taxes, more debt, and the national credit card is maxed out. It costs the average Canadian family $4,000 net per month just for the right to breathe under Liberal rule. What used to be a decent wage is now barely enough to survive on. How can people make ends meet with the Prime Minister's costly illusion?

Mr. Speaker, that answer is not worth much. What is worth a lot is gas at $2 a litre, a two-bedroom apartment at $2,000 a month, on top of an annual bill of $17,000 for a family of four's weekly grocery run. We saw just how distressed Canadians are when a new liquidation store opened in Granby this morning. The police had to direct traffic because a queue of people had turned up as early as 5 a.m. to buy discounted food. The situation is desperate. The credit card is maxed out. When will the Liberal Prime Minister take the situation seriously?

Mr. Speaker, in loving memory of my sister-in-law Marlène Beaudoin, an energetic, dedicated woman who loved her family: her husband Yvon, her children Jonathan, Myriam and Catherine, and her six beloved grandchildren. Always ready to protect us so that we would want for nothing, Marlène leaves us with indelible memories of her devotion to her loved ones. She was the centre of attention in our family. Her infectious laughter reminds us of the importance of family gatherings at her home and at the family cottage. She loved us dearly, and we loved her just as much. Her resilience over the past decade proved to us what an exceptional woman she was. We miss her already. May she rest in peace with the love of her entire family.

Mr. Speaker, the national credit card is more maxed out than ever, leaving a $1-trillion bill behind for our kids and grandkids. That is $1 trillion more in 10 years being piled on the backs of future generations. Today, families are paying the price for the Liberals' structural deficits through higher taxes, higher inflation, even higher interest costs and higher prices across the board. When is this Liberal Prime Minister going to end credit card budgets so that Canadian families can make ends meet?

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. It is apparent that he was a teacher before becoming an MP. Going back to the $1.5-billion program, we are talking about loans that must be repaid over three years. However, companies are losing money due to U.S. tariffs. With these 25% tariffs, they are forced to lower their prices to remain competitive, or they will be forced out of the market. If businesses decide not to take advantage of this program, could it speed up the closure of small and medium-sized businesses in Canada, given that it is not the government that is experiencing the tariff problem, but businesses, because they have to pay back or postpone the losses they are currently experiencing?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for introducing this bill, which could have far-reaching effects and help a lot of Canadians. Black holes exist in my riding, too. In particular, in one section of the Saint-Nicolas sector of Lévis, right in the city at the head of the bridges on the way to Saint-Antoine-de-Tilly, cell service suddenly disappears. These people are asking us to do everything in our power to restore their service. Will this bill help the people in my riding, especially in Saint-Nicolas?

Mr. Speaker, according to an in-depth feature in Le Journal de Montréal, the Liberal government is letting seniors fall through the cracks. With all the spending on credit in the budget, food inflation is rising much faster than old age security benefits. As a result, seniors are being forced to work at age 68 to pay their mortgage. While seniors are struggling to make ends meet, the Prime Minister seems more interested in showing off his resumé around the world. When will the Prime Minister decide to get to work on helping Canadian seniors make ends meet?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Calgary Midnapore. I am pleased to take part in today's debate in the House on Government Motion No. 9. However, I am very unhappy with what this motion will do, particularly as the result will fundamentally redefine the work of MPs for the remainder of this Parliament. The parliamentary committee work that MPs do is very important for our democracy and must reflect the wishes and choices expressed by voters in the last election. That being said, Canadians chose a minority Liberal government, and therefore a government under close scrutiny. Canadians' wisdom should be reflected in a committee composition and a distribution of seats in accordance with the will of the people. Committee work requires a certain degree of collegiality and mutual respect. Motion No. 9 would bring back a great deal of partisanship. It would give absolute power to the government and, by so doing, would undermine non-partisan work in the service of Canadians. I would like to highlight the work of the clerks and analysts and the technical support provided by all the staff involved in the work of parliamentary committees. Drafting reports, hearing from witnesses and engaging in parliamentary work are the bulwark of democracy. They honour Canadians and make Canada a better country. However, when a majority decides to impose a unilateral vision without any compromise, this work comes to reflect a single party's ideology and becomes a pale imitation of what it once was. For us conscientious MPs, the most important part of parliamentary work is helping Canadians so that our government services evolve over time and are always being improved. I have been around for several Parliaments, with both majority and minority governments. When drafting their reports, it has always been important for committees to ensure that Canadians' views are heard and considered. That is how committees come up with fair and transparent recommendations that will help us in this monumental task of ensuring our country's prosperity. I am deeply concerned about what will happen in the months following the adoption of Motion No. 9, particularly with regard to how committees will operate going forward. Members who serve in committee derive their motivation from knowing that they have done their job well. However, in the coming years, we are going to find ourselves in a situation where committee reports will not be representative and will become meaningless because of the problems caused by the numerical superiority. This important work, which currently reflects MPs' opinions and talents and the views of Canadians, will be interpreted through a Liberal lens and will thus lose its substance and fail to reflect Canadians' reality. That is not to mention all the parliamentary committee resources that will be wasted. The expertise of Canadians from across the country will be disregarded to protect the Liberal government's ideology. I have received many testimonials from people who are genuinely concerned about the government's drift away from democracy. Just yesterday, a 21-year-old young worker in my riding told me, “It makes no sense. Basically, what is the point of my vote if, afterwards, everyone changes their mind and does exactly the opposite of what they said? I have no say? Is voting even worth it at this point? That tells me that my vote does not matter and that politics is extremely biased. I no longer see the purpose of voting.” I can say that millions of Canadians are feeling the same way and this is fuelling cynicism about our democracy and our institutions. Today, I ask Canadians what they think. Do they believe their vote counts? Do they believe that Canada is best served when the makeup of our institutions reflects the outcome of our elections? The Liberal's Motion No. 9 will only fuel this cynicism and cause great harm to our country in the short, medium and long term. I urge the government to reconsider before it is too late and not to proceed with this motion. This whole situation is all the more concerning given that, this week, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics released a report recommending that the Prime Minister divest his investments and shares in Brookfield, a firm that manages nearly $1 trillion in assets. His close ties to that company, where he served as vice chair for two and a half years before entering the race for the Liberal leadership, place the Prime Minister in a multitude of potential conflicts of interest. This is an unprecedented situation, but that is the reality. Thanks to some tremendous work, the committee has formulated 20 recommendations for resolving this ongoing conflict of interest. Unfortunately, this is the kind of study that will no longer be possible with the restructuring of the committees. These kinds of studies will now be nipped in the bud by the government before witnesses can be heard. That is why the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Barrie South—Innisfil, aimed at exempting the ethics, public accounts, and government operations committees, is so important. Allowing opposition parties to do their job on these committees and hold the government to account is the bare minimum. These committees exist to ensure government transparency and to prevent corruption. The ideal remains that this government respect the will of Canadians as expressed in the general election of April 28, 2025, less than a year ago, and that the committees continue to reflect that democratic will. I can already hear the Liberals responding with their polls and other nonsense. I can say that, in Canada, there is only one poll that counts and that is an election. It is the only way to guarantee with certainty the will of Canadians. It is not a sample of 1,000 respondents to a poll that will give this Liberal government the right to override democracy. I do not know if that is a word that the Prime Minister likes, as he seems to think our parliamentary institutions are fairly burdensome, or rather a necessary evil. That may be why he prefers to travel all over the world, everywhere but Canada. However, the Prime Minister must remember that, for our democracy to work, we must nurture it. We must take personal initiative and exchange ideas. Motion No. 9 destroys that trust in the ability of parliamentarians to do meaningful work for their communities. If this motion passes, it means that the Liberals have no intention of working collaboratively with their colleagues. It means that they want to impose their agenda without working collaboratively with the opposition parties. Even though the Leader of the Opposition has reached out to the Prime Minister to work collaboratively on the issue of U.S. tariffs, the Liberals have no intention of working collaboratively. Lastly, it means that the Liberals reward backroom dealings and secret agreements over the normal, transparent process of Parliament and committees, which reflects the will of Canadians. In any case, I find this situation absolutely shameful, and I hope Canadians will remember it when the next election rolls around. Regardless of which way the vote on this motion goes, I ask Canadians not to lose heart. I ask them to continue to believe that change is possible, that there are still some honest politicians and that Liberal arrogance does not define the current state of our country. I solemnly pledge, as do all other Conservative MPs, to continue to fight every day, in every way possible, to represent our constituents by fulfilling the mandate entrusted to us; to fight to give Canadian workers their purchasing power back; to rebuild the strongest middle class in the world, which we had under the Harper government; to bring safety and order back to our streets; to restore a government that respects farmers, their land and their trade, because they feed us all; to restore entrepreneurs' belief that it is worthwhile to invest in Canada and to encourage innovation without being overtaxed on the wealth they create; and to restore the dream of home ownership for young people. We will fight this fight every day.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure him that we have never dared to go as far as the Liberals have. I have to emphasize the word “never”. The Liberals have broken democracy. They are going to foster cynicism. I read a message last night from a young man who took the time to write to me, and he said he may never vote again in his life because of the Liberals' tactics. Has anyone thought about the cynicism this could foster across Canada if this situation affects hundreds of thousands of people who will say that it is not worth voting because Parliament does not respect the will of Canadians? This goes too far.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps telling Canadians that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. It seems that Brookfield's elite rarely go out to buy groceries. Over the past Liberal decade, food prices have risen by 42%. Potatoes have gone up by 60%, and beef has gone up by 69%. Those are the facts, and the list goes on. Can the Prime Minister take responsibility for the Liberals' poor record and stop lecturing Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals like to chew gum, but here are the facts. Just yesterday, data confirmed that Canada has the worst record in the G7 when it comes to food inflation. Canadians are unhappy under Liberal rule. We have fallen from fifth place to 25th place in the global happiness rankings. Even without a track record to speak of, the Liberals are outdoing themselves in arrogance. When will this Prime Minister stop peddling false hope and finally start delivering results for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the measures announced this morning by the Liberal government are too little too late in the face of the magnitude of the cost of living crisis in Canada. The price of diesel today is $2.75 a litre. The announced tax cut of four cents a litre changes nothing for our truckers. The Liberal government is still charging eight cents a litre in GST and seven cents a litre for the clean fuel regulations. Canadians are paying 20% more for gas than Americans. Will the Liberal government stop patting itself on the back and start working for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, this morning I listened to the Liberal government's announcement. They are talking about lowering the price of diesel. Diesel currently costs about $2.75 a litre. The government announced a four-cent-per-litre reduction. In the trucking industry it can cost between $1,300 and $1,500 a day to run a truck on diesel. Will this four-cent reduction make a big difference? Could the government have been a little more generous?

Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about a new Liberal government or an old Liberal government, it is a Liberal government that is no good at math. For the past 10 years, the same Liberals have been ruining our country. Canada has lost more than 100,000 jobs since the start of the year. Business investment per worker has fallen by 25% since the last Conservative government and investment in industrial and commercial buildings has dropped by 32%. Will the Liberals cut the industrial carbon tax so that our country can once again become a place to invest?

Mr. Speaker, the scandals never end. The wind is blowing in the right direction for Liberal wind turbines. This week, it came to light that the Liberals issued a $205-million loan at a below-market rate as well as $150-million in subsidies for a wind farm in Nova Scotia. In fact, to get a seat on the board of directors, a person has to be a former Liberal MP or part of the Liberal family—no exceptions. Why is the Liberal family getting subsidies and below-market interest rates courtesy of Canadian taxpayers?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Liberal Prime Minister said that the immigration system was under control, yet the Liberals have abandoned security checks and systematic screening processes and have allowed approximately 25,000 people into the country without even having to talk to a government employee. Meanwhile, where is the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship? She is not answering any questions. The situation is so serious that even Liberal MPs are calling for her to resign. Can the Prime Minister step up to the plate and finally fire his Liberal immigration minister?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have locked the doors to the Saint-Augustin-de-Desmaures experimental farm and the Laval University research centre in the Minister of Public Works and Procurement's constituency. Everyone agrees that this decision will have long-term consequences for our food sovereignty and our Canadian expertise. Agricultural research is already being neglected under the Liberals. The Prime Minister has stated that a country that cannot feed itself has few options. Why is the government not walking the talk?

Mr. Speaker, there is yet another scandal. Following the Phoenix fiasco, Liberal incompetence has reached new heights with the Cúram software, a federal version of SAAQclic. The price tag for this IT project has risen to $6.6 billion, and more than half of that money will go to consultants who are racking up delays, failures and cost overruns with impunity. While Canadians are struggling, public money is being thrown out the window. Why are cost overruns in the Liberals' DNA?

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dream of home ownership is fading for young Canadians. A Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation report says that housing starts in 2028 could fall by as much as 18% compared to last year. The Canadian Home Builders' Association says that current conditions will create a lost decade for home ownership in Canada. When will the government adopt our plan to stimulate residential growth by eliminating the GST on all new homes so that our young people can hope to own their own home?

Mr. Speaker, we do not inherit the earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children. It seems so easy for major project proponents to look at a map and draw a line. However, when that line becomes a route and valuable farmland has to be acquired for a project, we often forget where that land came from and who owns it. If a person gets their car stolen, they are not going to be in a good mood and they might even get really angry about it, but, at the end of the day, they can buy an identical car with the insurance money. However, when a person's land is stolen, destroyed or divided, it is impossible to repair it. Many countries were colonized by promising people land. Our ancestors left France, England and various other countries to come here and live the Canadian dream. They came to clear and farm large, fertile expanses of land. Throughout history, people valued owning land and farming it above all else. That makes sense. To feed ourselves properly, we have to harvest the fruits of the earth, which give us grain, fodder and vegetables, which then provide us with meat and consumer goods essential to our survival. These lands were not created by providence. We have what we see today because of the hard work of generations of farmers. If we drive along Highway 132 or Highway 138, we can see the beautiful farms that are there today. They are there because of the hard work of nine, 10 or 11 generations of farmers who cleared every metre of land by the sweat of their brow in order to survive. This land did not just ensure their survival, but the survival of an entire people, the Quebec nation. There is no asset in the world as precious as this one. This is not something to be taken lightly. We learned early on in school that, sooner or later, land came into play in every war throughout history. Why proceed arbitrarily? We understand that there are major projects to be completed in 2026 and that they will require large areas of land. There is no getting around that. However, in order for this to work, the government needs to seek advice from farmers, who may come up with solutions themselves. They may have some clever suggestions. They will suggest routes that may interfere less with their farming operations. We should not just be consulting farmers about their land; we should be working with them. All things considered, we must be very careful. It is certainly possible to lay pipelines on land by negotiating easement agreements. It is also possible to place power lines on land. That is another easement that farmers accept for the good of society. If they agree, we can cross their land. However, it is more difficult when part of the surface area needs to be taken away. Those are precious hectares and acres that divide the land in two or even three, depending on the provisions of the current land titles. Do we have any idea how many families will actually be affected by the project being presented by the Liberal government? The land is divided on each side of the St. Lawrence River, perpendicular to it, three arpents wide by thirty arpents long, which is approximately 170 metres wide by 1,700 metres long. That is about six lots per kilometre. According to my calculations, we are talking about 1,950 different lots between Quebec City and the Ontario border. At three lots per farm, this could potentially affect 650 farms or 1,000 farming families. That is a lot of farms considering how many remain in Quebec. There is a good chance that this project will undermine the profitability of these farms, whose acreage value continues to grow. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my father and mother, Armand and Rita, who were among the last pioneers to cultivate their own land after clearing it themselves. I saw my father clearing our land when I was young, and I helped him cultivate it. It required a lot of physical labour. I spent my youth working on my land, picking rocks, building fences; I built them and I even took them down. Imagine what it is like to pick rocks all summer long, in 36-degree heat, to get a few more acres of cropland. However, after all that effort, we were able to enjoy the crops and forages that the land provided. Taking acreage away from a farm and breaking up access to fields is hard for people to accept, especially when it is done without consultation. That is the worst insult to rightful property owners. Expropriation can feel worse than theft. It can feel like betrayal, like the government betraying its citizens and what they hold most dear. The Mirabel expropriations are the Crown's greatest affront to the francophone Quebec nation, almost on par with the deportation of the Acadians. I have memories from my youth of the Mirabel expropriations. Thousands of families, entire families, including grandparents, children, grandchildren, were evicted from their homes by police at the behest of the federal Liberal government. Men and women lost their land, their homes, their livelihoods. Today, there are up to 100,000 Quebeckers who are descendants of those whose land was expropriated, all for a project with huge ambitions, and look what came of it. The Mirabel expropriations are truly a dark chapter in our history. Large-scale projects are necessary, but caution is needed to ensure that they are consistent with the reality of our country and its workers. We must always be wary of ideological projects. People need food, housing and transportation. After those things are covered, there is not much money left for anything else. Do my colleagues want to hear something absurd? Only 2% of the land in Quebec is arable, all of it located on both banks of the St. Lawrence River, and that 2% is already threatened by urban sprawl. I ask myself the following question: Do we really want to build a high-speed train that will take away our land and divide it up, in addition to promoting urban sprawl? High-speed rail is a bad good idea. Are Canada's public transportation systems, such as trains, buses, and planes, really operating at capacity? The question hardly bears asking. If our country really wants to invest between $200 billion and $500 billion in major projects, I have two good ideas. First, in the manufacturing sector, we could work to become more competitive with other countries in the global market and bring back well-paying jobs in the age of artificial intelligence. Second, we could develop our minerals and mines. The Right Hon. Stephen Harper, the former prime minister with whom I had the honour of working, said that rare minerals are a way forward for Canada. Canada should put all its eggs in this big natural resources basket. In conclusion, my attachment to the land comes from my farming DNA, from my great-grandfather Octave, who settled in my hometown, and from my grandfather Napoléon, who spent his entire life clearing land alongside my father Armand, who was passionate about the land. Now I am the steward of that land, which I am passing on to my son Jérémie so that he can cultivate it in turn, while watching his own son, Octave, take his first steps on the land of his ancestors. We do not inherit the land from our parents. We borrow it from our children.

Mr. Speaker, these kinds of questions make me very emotional. Nothing is more precious to a farm family than the land. That land is the fruit of generations of work: nine, 10, 11, 12 generations. The land in Mirabel was the most fertile land in Quebec. There were beautiful plateaus, plains and heat units that everyone here in Quebec would love to have. This was the federal Liberal government's worst mistake. It is a blow to the Quebec nation. Everyone who was expropriated was francophone.

Mr. Speaker, the largest key projects for Canada over the next 15 to 30 years will involve massive investments in our manufacturing sector, which is really under threat right now. If we want to create jobs for Canadians, we need to invest in the manufacturing sector and in mining as well. Rare minerals will bring in a lot of money. They will be in demand around the world. Canada can be a world leader in supplying the rare minerals that are needed for the future of tomorrow's societies. If we truly want to have major projects, we need to have projects that bring in money before that money is spent.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a brief history lesson. When I was young, between four and five years old, I saw families on television being expropriated from their land. It is impossible to imagine what it would have felt like for a four- or five-year-old boy living on a farm to see his house being bulldozed. The entire rural community of Quebec felt this great betrayal and the fear of having their land expropriated because major developers had simply drawn a line on a map. Imagine what it is like to lose nine to 12 generations' worth of work for a project that may not have been worth it.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to expropriating farmers from their land, the Liberal government is closing agri-food research centres. The Sainte-Foy research centre in the riding of the member for Louis-Hébert is one of seven agricultural research centres that the Liberals just randomly closed. Canadian science and innovation are built in these centres. They drive our productivity. How does the Prime Minister justify his decision to prioritize consultants and foreign-based projects rather than cultivate expertise here at home, which feeds Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the Minister of Finance promised to stabilize food prices. Since then, the price of lettuce has gone up 40%, the price of coffee has gone up 34% and the price of beef has gone up 27%. Instead of lowering costs, the Liberals are rolling out another temporary rebate as a band-aid solution. Will the Liberals finally turn things around and support our Conservative motion, which eliminates the industrial carbon tax, eliminates the fuel standards tax and strengthens competition in the grocery sector?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-19, which is a striking and disturbing illustration of how far Canada has fallen over the past 10 years under the Liberals. This bill is not just another piece of legislation. It is indicative of a much deeper problem, specifically how the Liberal economic vision has failed and how it has increased the tax burden on Canadians, weakened their purchasing power and made daily life increasingly difficult for millions of families. Imagine if, 10 years ago, someone had stood up in the House of Commons and said that, one day, the federal government would have to create a benefit to ensure that Canadians could put food on the table. Most of us would have thought that was an exaggeration or nonsense. At the time, Canada was known for its strong middle class, the relative affordability of essential goods and the basic idea that someone who was working could provide for their family sufficiently. However, that is not the case today. According to data from the Consumer Price Index published by Statistics Canada in its 2026 report, it now costs $17,600 a year to feed a family of four in Canada. This is $1,000 more than last year, at a time when wages are not keeping pace and Canadians are watching their savings dwindle. This is not an abstract figure. This means hard choices for parents. It means unpaid bills. It means hard-working families being asked to make sacrifices even though they are not getting their money's worth because of hidden Liberal taxes. We might be inclined to think there is always someone worse off than we are, but unfortunately, that is not the case. Food prices in Canada are rising twice as fast as in the U.S. Food inflation is at 6.2%, the worst in all of the G7. These data should set off alarm bells for all members of Parliament, regardless of political stripe, because there is a very concrete human reality behind these numbers. This poor record is directly reflected in the drastic increase in food bank use. Food banks are now receiving an average of two million visits every single month across the country from working Canadians, seniors who paid premiums all their lives, students, and single-parent families. This is not the hallmark of a prosperous country, but the result of a government that has lost control over the cost of living. In the face of that reality, Bill C‑19 is proposing to keep up the Liberal momentum: more programs, more redistribution and more dependence on government without tackling the root of the problem. Conservatives are proposing a fundamentally different approach. We believe that taxes that punish work, effort and productivity must be cut to reduce the cost of living at the source instead of papering over the cracks with temporary measures. We believe Canadians are truly free when their income allows them to make their own choices and they do not have to wait for a cheque from the government to make ends meet. We believe economic freedom is part and parcel of human dignity. A society where people can keep more of what they earn is a stronger and more resilient society. It is also a society that encourages individual initiative, personal responsibility and an entrepreneurial spirit. These are important qualities in any wealthy, free and productive society. We have just returned from our national convention in Calgary. I was struck by something very simple, but very revealing: the abundance of products and the relatively low prices of consumer goods. That is no coincidence. Alberta has low income tax and no provincial sales tax, so it shows that it is possible to have a thriving economy that is attractive to both families and businesses. This model is based on a simple idea: Trust people and do not tax them excessively. Imagine for a moment what Canada could achieve if the federal government adopted the same approach. Imagine a smaller, more efficient government and freer people who are able to invest, save and plan for the future. However, Bill C‑19 is the very definition of an idea that only looks good on paper. It perfectly illustrates the fundamental difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Liberals tax, tax, tax people from coast to coast to coast and then redistribute some of that money through complex, costly and ineffective programs. The Conservatives, on the other hand, understand that Canadians are in the best position to make informed decisions based on their needs. Far from giving Canadians hope for better days ahead, Bill C‑19 only confirms that the Liberals have failed. Canadians do not want temporary solutions. They do not want crumbs. They want a country where it pays to work again. Here are some comments I have received from concerned Quebeckers. Mr. Whissel said that the government should just lower taxes instead of coming up with a bunch of new programs that will ultimately help no one. Mr. Garceau said that when a country gets to a point where it has to send cheques to its citizens just so they can afford to eat, yet it does nothing to address the taxes it forces them to pay, there is a problem. Mr. Spallanzani had questions about the Canada groceries benefit and was wondering what will come next. He wondered whether the next Canada benefit will be for electricity. He added that this measure that is supposed to help Canadians sounded like a communist idea. Ms. Daigle lamented the disappearance of Canada's middle class and said that the Canada benefit only helps the low-income class, while the middle class continues to rack up credit card debt. She wanted to know why there are no tax cuts that apply to all Canadians, since inflation is out of control, despite claims that wages are going up. She also said that wages in Canada have not kept pace with inflation. Lastly, Mr. Robichaud said that all the Liberals are good at is buying votes with tons of little cheques. It is bad when Canadians are forced to put groceries on their credit cards, but it is twice as bad when the government hands out money for Canadians to put food on the table using their credit cards. This measure will directly add to Canada's debt. It will add nearly $1.4 billion in interest over five years. This will contribute to inflation. The only winners here are the credit card companies. Nevertheless, Conservatives will support any measure to boost people's purchasing power in these challenging times. I urge the other parties to support our opposition motion on this subject, which is on the Order Paper now and will be debated tomorrow. The motion calls on the government to immediately introduce a food affordability plan that removes the Liberals' hidden taxes on food. This includes the industrial carbon tax on farm equipment, fertilizer and food processors that drives up the costs of producing food, which are then passed on to consumers. It also includes the fuel standards tax, which is 7¢ a litre and is rising to 17¢ a litre, on farmers, truckers and those who bring us our food. Finally, it includes the food packaging tax, which will cost Canadians $1.3 billion. This plan would also boost competition in Canada's overly concentrated grocery sector. In conclusion, the Liberal government is papering over the cracks by going into excessive debt, which is ultimately going to cause our society to lose a lot of money. The astronomical deficit jeopardizes our ability to provide high-quality services to Canadians. In any event, at our convention, I saw that there is hope. A Conservative government gives all Canadians, especially young people, hope for an affordable life, for the possibility of home ownership, for lower taxes and for a safer country where life is good.

Mr. Speaker, let us think about what it takes to put food on the table after what the Liberal government has done over the past 10 years. Some 12 million Canadians will receive the grocery benefit. Have Canadians become so poor that 30% of the population needs this benefit? Why have the Liberals kept taxes so high? They need to lower taxes. They need to leave Canadian taxpayers' money in their pockets. That way, Canadians can choose what they want while feeling confident about the future.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that Conservatives have always supported Canadians who face food insecurity. Unfortunately, today, 30% of Canadians need to use this type of program, whereas only 3% of Canadians needed to do so in 2015. The numbers have been multiplied by a factor of 10. That is the problem. It is the result of 10 years of Liberal government. Canadians are hungry and, regrettably, this needs to be done.

Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Quebeckers are losing sleep at night because of the Liberals' inflationary taxes. It costs an average of $17,600 per year to feed a family of four. That is $1,000 more than at this time last year. This is the worst record in the G7, but the good news is that the Conservatives are ready to co-operate on any initiative that will remedy this situation. Will this government immediately introduce a bill to eliminate inflationary Liberal taxes, increase competition among grocery chains and reduce the paperwork and regulations imposed on farmers?

Mr. Speaker, votes cannot be bought. They must be earned. The latest consumer price index data shows that food inflation has risen by 6.2%, making Canada the food inflation capital of the G7. The Prime Minister can blame the rest of the world, but this is a problem created right here at home by the high Liberal taxes imposed on our farmers. Will the government agree to immediately introduce legislation that eliminates hidden taxes on food?

Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, this Liberal Prime Minister spent $736,000 of taxpayer money to travel to Egypt, a last-minute trip, which tripled the cost. The Prime Minister's responsibilities come at the expense of taxpayers, while next year Canadians will pay $1,000 more for food. Can the Liberals stop their inflationary spending and get rid of hidden taxes on food so that Canadians can finally eat their fill?

Mr. Speaker, the reality on the ground is that food prices have skyrocketed. This week, Ms. Ouellet wrote to me that her grocery bill is higher than her mortgage payment. Ms. Vallée told me that she no longer eats meat so that she can stay within her budget. Mr. Hardy has noticed that people are regularly choosing pop and chips as a meal so they can pay their rent at the end of the month. Can the Prime Minister come down from his ivory tower and finally acknowledge the reality that Canadian families are facing?