Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the people of Edmonton Southeast to debate Bill C-39, legislation that the government says would get Canada building. Conservatives will judge this bill by whether it saves Canadians money, protects their jobs and delivers the projects our country needs. In my previous career as a lawyer, I understood that my clients depended on outcomes. Whether I was advocating for a favourable judgment or negotiating a successful settlement, my responsibility was to advance their interests and deliver a meaningful result. My clients needed more than assurances that I was working on their files. They needed to know what the progress was and what that meant for them. Canadians should expect the same accountability from the government. The government works for its people and they are entitled to judge it by the results. More than a year ago, the Liberals introduced Bill C-5, promising to accelerate major projects, yet, more than a year later, the Building Canada Act still contains no designated national interest projects. Now, the Liberal government is asking Canadians to place their confidence in a nearly 250-page omnibus bill. Canadians deserve an explanation of why the previous legislation has not delivered the promised designations and why this legislation would produce a different outcome. In my legal practice, another stack of paperwork would not, on its own, demonstrate progress for a client. It should not be the measure of success in government either. That is why we must look beyond the title of this bill and examine how it would actually change the approval system. Bill C-39 would create a transportation project office, a national trade corridors council and a new framework for regions of national interest. Coordination can be useful, but creating new offices and frameworks would not necessarily eliminate regulatory issues. A faster approval system should clearly identify who is responsible for a decision, coordinate overlapping federal reviews and provide stakeholders with a predictable path through the process. The real test would be whether these changes actually reduce red tape and shorten the time it takes to reach a final decision. These delays have consequences beyond the walls of this chamber. A project awaiting a decision represents potential contracts for suppliers, apprenticeship for young workers and income for families. When those opportunities remain uncertain, people must make decisions about their futures. This is especially important for younger Canadians. Statistics Canada routinely reports that thousands of Canadians move abroad each year. In 2021, the majority of Canadians leaving the country were between 20 and 44 years old, many of whom moved down to the United States. People leave for many reasons, and we should respect their freedom to pursue opportunities elsewhere, but as MPs, we should be deeply concerned when Canada cannot offer a competitive future to the people we have educated and trained. An engineering graduate needs a company willing to hire. An apprentice needs a project that will provide steady work. When investment is delayed, the opportunities attached to it are delayed too. For families in Edmonton Southeast, the stakes are personal. Parents want their children to build successful lives without having to move away to find the opportunities they need. Canada should be a country where ambition has room to grow. That requires a government that understands the connection between investment, employment and the ability to build a free life here. Conservatives have proposed a clear approach: approve projects within six months, repeal antidevelopment laws brought in through Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, adopt “one project, one review”, set clear requirements, coordinate the process and deliver a predictable decision. Bill C-39 promotes a one-year decision timeline for certain assessments, but that would depend upon the preassessments and determinations, both of which have no clear timelines. For the stakeholders involved in those projects, the preparation and review needed before that point still take time and money, something that this bill would not entirely address. We must examine whether these provisions produce greater certainty across the entire process. Businesses cannot plan their investments around a deadline that tells only part of the story. The same need for certainty applies to getting Canadian energy to market. This is where the government must address the tanker ban created through Bill C-48. The Oil Tanker Moratorium Act restricts large crude oil shipments through ports along British Columbia's northern coast. For an oil export project that would rely on those ports, faster approval of pipelines would not itself resolve the separate restriction put by the tanker ban on the loading of its product onto ships. The government must explain how it promises faster development when it continues to leave export barriers in place. Investors need confidence that a complete project can operate from production to delivery to the customer. Bill C-39 would not repeal the tanker ban. Bill C-264, which was put forward by my hon. colleague from Calgary Signal Hill, directly addresses this issue. If the government wants to demonstrate it is serious about opening opportunities for Canadian energy, that is a concrete measure already before Parliament. For Alberta, access to markets means opportunities for people who build and maintain energy infrastructure and for the businesses that support them. Those opportunities matter in Edmonton Southeast. In closing, my experience as a lawyer taught me to keep the interests of people I represent at the centre of my work. I bring that same responsibility to the House. Canadians deserve opportunities they can build their lives around and a government that can demonstrate what it has accomplished on their behalf. Conservatives will review this legislation carefully and press for changes that deliver those results. The government has made its promises. Canadians are waiting for it to deliver.

Mr. Speaker, this bill definitely leaves us with a number of questions. There is increasing bureaucracy, as I said in my speech. This bill would create three new offices that I have read about so far, and there may be more, but increasing offices itself is not going to deliver results. To deliver results, we need to get rid of Liberal laws that are standing in front of the intention of this bill, like the tanker ban and Bill C-69, so that we can build and deliver results.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of my community of Edmonton Southeast. As Parliament returns for the fall sitting, I am proud to stand in the House with my Conservative colleagues as we fight for a more affordable life for all Canadians. This evening, I have the privilege of debating legislation that not only is Conservative in principle, but reflects a policy that Conservatives have been pushing for months. The tabling of Bill C-38 by the government represents a successful policy push by Conservatives that would help ease the strain on the wallets of millions of Canadians, but while this legislation is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough. Earlier this year, the federal government temporarily suspended the fuel excise tax, reducing the tax on gasoline by 10¢ per litre and on diesel by four cents per litre. That relief was supposed to expire after Labour Day. Conservatives fought that tax increase and called on the government to extend the relief. Now the government has changed course. Under Bill C-38, the excise tax would remain suspended until the end of January, and half of the tax would return in February and March, before the full tax would return in April. Any relief for working Canadians is good news, but Canadians should understand what this legislation would actually do. It would not eliminate the tax. It would delay its return, and it would leave in place other federal taxes and regulatory costs that continue to affect the price Canadians pay for fuel. That matters because fuel is not simply another household expense. Fuel moves our economy. It gets workers to their jobs. It powers farm equipment. It moves building materials to construction sites. It delivers food to grocery stores and products to businesses across this vast country. When the cost of fuel increases, those costs do not remain at the gas station. Those costs move through our supply chains and eventually land on the bills paid by Canadian families. We are already seeing the pressures. In July, gasoline prices were up over 25% compared with the year before. Energy costs were up over 16%. Transportation costs increased by over 7%, while grocery prices rose another 3%. Canadian households now carry about $1.76 in debt for every dollar of disposable income. At the same time, consumer insolvencies are up over 5% from the year before. These are not simply numbers on a spreadsheet. They represent real Canadians trying to make their paycheques stretch further. Just this Sunday on my way to the Edmonton airport, my ride-share driver shared some of the struggles he faces every day. This hard-working man from south Edmonton is named Peter. Peter came to Canada 25 years ago and built a life for himself and his family. He owned and operated a small business in our community, employed local residents and contributed to Canada's economic engine. After almost three decades of working hard and providing for his family on a single income, it was finally time for him to retire, but there was a problem. The rapidly increasing cost of living meant that his retirement savings could no longer keep up with the price of everyday essentials. After decades of contributing to Canada's economic base and providing for his family, Peter's wife is now forced to work a retail job. At the same time, Peter cannot enjoy his well-deserved retirement years. Instead, he drives for a ride-share service five days a week just to keep his head above water. Unfortunately, Peter's story is all too common among Canadians. We used to have a simple bargain in this country: work hard, earn a decent paycheque, provide for one's family, buy a home in a safe neighbourhood and, after decades of work, enjoy a secure retirement. After 11 years of Liberal government, that bargain has been torn apart. Canadians like Peter can no longer enjoy the fruits of their labour because the cost of basics continues to eat away at their paycheques and savings. That is why Bill C-38 cannot be where this conversation ends. The government itself recognizes that fuel tax relief benefits truckers, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery businesses. If lower fuel taxes help those sectors today, then Canadians should not be satisfied watching those taxes being returned in only a few months. Conservatives are proposing something more substantial. We have called on the government to remove all federal taxes on gasoline and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. That means going beyond the excise tax suspension and addressing costs attributed to the clean fuel regulations and the industrial carbon tax. The common-sense Conservative proposal would save drivers up to 25¢ per litre and put as much as $1,000 back into the pockets of Canadian families. That is the difference between temporary relief and meaningful relief. Conservatives fought the return of the fuel excise tax after Labour Day. The government changed course, and Canadians will save money because of it. That is a positive development, but we should not confuse a temporary extension with a solution to Canada's affordability crisis. Canadians still face high fuel prices, rising grocery bills and household budgets stretched too thin. Conservatives will always fight for measures that leave more money in Canadians' pockets while continuing to push for greater and longer-lasting relief, because Canadians like Peter did everything we asked of them. They worked hard, built businesses, raised their families, paid their taxes and contributed to their communities. They deserve more than another temporary relief. They deserve a Canada where hard work once again provides the opportunity to get ahead, build a good life and retire with security. That can only be done by extending government tax relief until at least July 1, 2027, and permanently removing the clean fuel standard and industrial carbon tax.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, Conservatives welcome anything that saves Canadians money. However, when the measure is a half-measure, not a full-fledged plan, then we must ask the government to do what is needed so that Canadians can keep more in their pockets and have an affordable life. The government is proposing to cut these taxes only until April. We are asking for relief to be given until Canada Day 2027, and to also get rid of the fuel standard tax as well as the industrial carbon tax, which are driving up the cost of fuel and which drive up the cost of everyday living.

Mr. Speaker, my learned friend was a CPA by profession in his past life, and I believe no one knows numbers better than he does. I totally agree with him that the policies that the government has at least agreed to adopt are not going to help as it intends them to, or they are only going to help for a bit. We are saying the government should get rid of these taxes, those that do not make sense and those that make life unaffordable for Canadians. I agree with what my friend has said, word for word, in his analogy.

Mr. Speaker, going back to the root cause, it is good that the government is providing those reliefs, but who is going to look after the real cost of those reliefs? Why do we not get rid of the anti-energy laws that are making life unaffordable? It is like the government is creating a problem and then providing a solution for it. We do not believe in putting bandages on wounds. We believe in providing real medicine, and in this context, the real medicine is to get rid of the taxes on fuel that are driving up costs, be it the standard fuel tax or the anti-energy laws.

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. In Edmonton, families are feeling the effects of Liberal mismanagement. A recent United Way survey found that 60% of Canadians now feel anxiety about their personal finances. Global factors are not to blame. It is Liberal inflationary spending and antidevelopment laws that have staled our economy. Canadians deserve better. Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies causing this crisis so Canadians can afford to live again?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for opposing this bill for valid and right reasons. I have a question. I agree with him and want to ask him if he can shed more light on this. He quoted a few recent decisions where the courts have turned down the minimum mandatory sentences. Is it not the duty of the parliamentarians sitting on this side of the House and on the government side of the House, when judges do wrong, to tell them this is not what people at large want or what Canadians want? The real desire of the people is to impose minimum mandatory—

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insight on this new Build Canada Homes bill. We have two Crown corporations: the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Canada Lands Company. However, over the past 11 years, the Liberals have failed to make use of those two corporations, and now they are pushing for another bureaucracy under the name of Build Canada Homes. Why are the Liberals so adamant on adding more bureaucracy instead of focusing on results and focusing on the real needs of Canadians, which are affordable homes?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible work of the Edmonton Police Service and other law enforcement agencies involved in a two-year-long national drug trafficking investigation. Police seized approximately 80 kilograms of cocaine with a street value of more than $8 million, along with dangerous narcotics, ammunition and cash. This is a serious reminder of the organized crime networks bringing drugs, violence and fear into our communities. I want to thank the officers who put themselves at risk to keep our streets safe. Police cannot do this alone. They need a justice system that backs them up. After 11 years of Liberal soft-on-crime policies and Liberal bills like Bill C-5, our streets are more dangerous. To the police officers in Edmonton and across Canada, know that Conservatives support them. We will keep fighting for safer communities.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. There is nothing technical about someone coming home from work and telling their kids that they no longer have a job. Canada's economy has shrunk for two quarters in a row. Business investment is falling. Food bank use is at an all-time high. This is not a technical recession. This is a full-blown Liberal recession. If global factors are to blame, then why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cariboo—Prince George. One year ago, the community of Edmonton Southeast placed its trust in me to deliver change. After more than a decade of Liberal government, my community feels the effects. Grocery prices are sky-high, streets are unsafe and the fuel that powers their lives is more expensive than ever. Conservatives understand the importance of delivering common-sense solutions. That is why this opposition day motion offers the government an opportunity to deliver relief to Canadians already struggling to make ends meet. Conservatives call upon the Liberal government to act by immediately ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard. Fuel is not a luxury. It is an essential input into almost every part of our economy. The cars that bring our kids to school, hockey practice, soccer games and medical appointments rely on gas. The trucks that bring food to grocery store shelves rely on diesel. The farmers who grow that food rely on fuel. The planes that bring parliamentarians from coast to coast to coast into this chamber are powered by fuel. The Liberals know this. The Liberals know Canada is a big country. They know millions of Canadians cannot simply stop driving to work, stop transporting goods or stop heating their homes. However, what the Liberals do not seem to understand is the impact their policies are having on working Canadians, on seniors and on families across the country. In my riding of Edmonton Southeast, I recently visited local seniors' residences. Many residents at these seniors homes tell me the same thing: It is getting more expensive for them to visit their grandchildren and families. Seniors are having to decide between buying a tank of gas or buying fresh produce. Our seniors should not have to make the choice between a drive across town to see their grandson's hockey game and a good meal. That is unacceptable. Seniors in my community worked hard, paid taxes, built this country and played by the rules. They should not be punished by a government that keeps adding costs and then acts surprised when Canadians cannot keep up. That is why the Conservatives brought forward this motion calling on the government to adopt our plan, which would suspend all federal taxes on gas and diesel until the end of the year. Our plan is not complicated. Our plan would save Canadians up to 25¢ per litre on gas. That would mean about $20 every time a family fills up a minivan, and up to $1,200 in savings for a family of four over the year. The Liberals have offered only partial relief for part of the year. They suspended one tax for a limited time and then told Canadians they had already acted, but Canadians know the truth. They are still paying too much at the pump, too much at the grocery store and too much for the basic necessities of life. Lowering fuel costs is not only about the price at the pump. It is about the cost of everything that moves this country. Lower diesel prices reduce the cost of trucking. Lower trucking costs reduce the cost of groceries. Lower grocery prices help people in all our communities across the country. When fuel becomes more expensive, everything becomes more expensive. The food on our shelves, the material used to build homes and the goods shipped across this country all cost more because fuel costs more. Canadian families have been experiencing this pain every day. Food prices continue to rise faster than household budgets can handle. Families are paying more for meat, vegetables and everyday groceries. The Liberals say they understand affordability. If that is the case, then the government should have no problem supporting this motion. However, after more than 10 years, the same Liberal government continues to support policies that make life more expensive for Canadians. I will give an example of how disconnected the government is from everyday Canadians. When the finance minister was asked whether the government would extend fuel tax relief, his answer to Canadians was that the Liberals had already acted. I can assure the minister that the residents of my community who are lining up at the pumps do not agree that the government has done enough. The facts are clear. Canadians are paying much more at the pump than Americans, even while global oil prices affect both countries. The difference is not just about world markets. It is about higher Liberal taxes and a government that continues to take more from Canadians when they can least afford it. Other countries have understood the pressures families are facing and have moved to reduce fuel taxes. Meanwhile, the Liberal government offered Canadians a half-baked solution and then congratulated itself. Canadians do not need more self-praise from Liberal ministers. They need relief, lower costs and a government that understands that when fuel costs more, everything costs more. This motion is about fairness. At a time when Canadians are already stretched thin, the federal government cannot continue taking more from every litre of gas and diesel. It must scrap all federal taxes for a meaningful amount of time, giving working families immediate relief. In my community of Edmonton Southeast, people are not asking for complicated government programs or more Liberal talking points. They are asking for a government that understands their lives and works for them. They are asking for lower costs and no longer want to feel strapped for cash. I will conclude with this. Just over a year ago, I came to Ottawa with the intention of delivering common-sense solutions for the hard-working people of my community. This is why the motion is so important. Conservatives are offering a clear and practical solution to an issue facing all Canadians. By ending federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST, and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard, members of the House can make life easier for those who need it most.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite can say that we are hypocrites when we oppose the subsidies, but those do not go to the base of the issues. It is not the government's job, in a G7 country, to provide people with these kinds of perks. The job of the government should be to make sure that the people of the country have good-paying jobs so they can afford their own food and make choices about which food their children take to school. They should not be dependent upon the school principal's choosing whether they want to feed some chocolate or other non-nutritious food to the kids. That being said, the need of the time is to scrap all the taxes on fuel, gas and diesel so Canadians can feel relaxed for the rest of the year.

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with what my colleague has said. The government needs to get out of the way when it comes to affordability, when it comes to providing good-paying jobs and when it comes to cutting bureaucracy in this country. We need to make sure that all the steps the government takes make Canadians' lives more affordable, and that is exactly what the proposal is about. The opposition day motion is asking the government to cut fuel taxes by 25¢ per litre on gas and diesel for the rest of the year so Canadians can feel relaxed and there can be immediate relief felt.

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear that Parliament is debating a bill about weights and measurements, gas pumps, grocery scales and utility meters, they might assume this is a technical issue, but the bill touches something Canadians experience every day, the moment they pull up to the gas pump, the moment they scan their groceries and the moment their utility bill arrives at the end of the month. The bill touches on trust, because at the most basic level, Canadians expect one simple thing: that if they pay for something, they should get what they paid for. Bill S-3 promises to modernize Canada's trade measurement laws, legislation that has not been touched meaningfully nor updated since the 1980s. The bill would update how we regulate gas pumps, grocery scales, electricity and gas meters. It would introduce tools like sample-based inspections. The bill presents reasonable objectives. Modernization is necessary. Technology has changed. The economy has changed. Our laws should reflect this reality. Conservatives believe in a fair marketplace. We believe in protecting consumers. We believe that when Canadians pay for a litre of gas, a kilogram of food or a unit of electricity, they should receive exactly that. We support the bill, but there are some concerns. We are right to ask whether more government power means better outcomes for Canadians or just more bureaucracy. We support fairness. We support modernization, but we need to look closely to ensure that the bill does not come at the expense of accountability, transparency and affordability. This is exactly why the bill needs to be studied in committee. Committee is where Parliament does its real work, but committees in this place are changing. Over the past number of days, serious concerns have been raised about how committees would be structured and controlled. Conservatives have been clear that if the government uses its forced, unelected majority to limit scrutiny, it could weaken transparency and accountability. If committees stop functioning as places of independent scrutiny, then where does accountability happen? I sit on the science and research committee. We have worked well together and addressed important issues because there has been a balance. We can have critical views of current policy, as this is how we test these policies. Like many committees, that balance is at risk. There may be two new Liberal members. While I have no ill will toward the individuals, changes to committee composition would give government the power to shut down debate and critical thinking in the committee room. The bill would expands powers. We need to examine how these new powers would be used and whether Canadians would be properly protected. That only works if committee is allowed to be critical. The government cannot ask for more government powers while controlling the very committees meant to hold the powers accountable. The bill is very important, because it is about ensuring Canadians get what they pay for, but Canadians across this country are asking a much bigger question: Can they afford what they are paying for at all? Right now, Canadians feel like they are paying more and getting less. Grocery prices have risen dramatically. Food inflation has reached levels not seen in decades. Gas prices have gone up. Utilities have gone up. At the same time, wages are not keeping pace, savings are shrinking and families are relying on credit just to get by. Families in my riding are having to choose between paying their bills and putting groceries on the table. Grocery prices are up 25% over just a few years. Prices are still rising year after year. Beef, vegetables and dairy continue to climb. The average family is expected to spend over $1,000 more for food this year alone. Families are cutting back. Parents are making difficult choices. Seniors on fixed incomes are stretching every dollar. What is the government doing about this? Canadians got the answer yesterday. The Prime Minister's spring economic update unveiled what can only be described as a costly credit budget that would double the deficit left by the previous Liberal government. That means more cost, more taxes, more debt and more inflation for Canadians. Canadians are now paying $59 billion a year just in interest on the debt. That is up by 10% in a single year. It is now more than we spend on health care transfers and more than the government collects in GST. Members can think about that. Every Canadian family is effectively paying about $3,400 a year just to service the federal debt. That is money not going into groceries, not going into housing and not going into savings. Yesterday alone, the government added another $37 billion in new spending. At a time when Canadians are struggling with affordability, the government is pouring more fuel on the fire, so when Canadians feel like everything costs more, they are right. This bill would modernize the inspection framework at the gas pumps. The government regulates these pumps to make sure that people are getting the exact amount they are paying for. This would make sure that Canadians are not being ripped off, but Canadians are not thinking about inspection frameworks when they are standing there watching the numbers climb. They are thinking, “How much is this going to cost me?” Gas prices do not affect just commuters. They affect everything. They drive up the cost of food, goods and transportation. Those costs are built into the price of everything Canadians buy. That is why the Conservatives are calling for real relief. We are saying to scrap the federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, remove the fuel excise tax, remove the GST on gas and diesel, remove the industrial carbon tax and remove the fuel standard tax. That would mean real relief of up to 25¢ per litre and over $1,200 of savings for a family this year. The bigger issue is not just whether the pump is accurate; it is whether Canadians can afford to use it. Instead of following our plan, the Prime Minister cut only a third of the taxes for a third of the time. Again, the Liberals care more about regulations and control than they do about Canadian wallets. This bill is about trust, but trust is not built through regulations alone. Trust is built through outcomes. At its core, Bill S-3 is about trust in the marketplace. It is about making sure that, when Canadians pay for something, they receive what they pay for. Canadians deserve a marketplace that is fair. They also deserve a government that is transparent, restrained and focused on making life more affordable. We will support this bill moving forward. We will ask hard questions, push for accountability and work to ensure that the legislation serves Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, we, in essence, support the legislation. We support the rationale behind the legislation. Conservatives support the idea that consumer fairness should be at the core of every step the government takes. The hon. member raised two questions: one about the rebates that they are offering to Canadians and one about the bill being studied in the committee. Our position is to scrap all of the carbon taxes. The Liberals are just half listening to us. They only decided to get rid of 15¢ per litre. We are asking for 20¢ per litre. That would save a family over $1200 per year. Why do we not leave more money in Canadians' pockets so they do not have to look to the government for rebates and they do not have to look to the government for handouts?

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to provincial jurisdiction, we must respect it. For any bill that comes to the House and goes to committee, the committee should decide, based on its rationale and based on logic, why the bill should or should not be passed and what changes should or should not be made. Answering the question, yes, any subject that comes under section 92 of the Constitution of Canada shall be left to the provinces, and anything that has a larger impact on the entire nation shall be dealt with accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, my seasoned colleague has experience working in the House, debating on different committees and going through different pieces of legislation. That is a genuine concern. Let us get rid of red tape. Instead of building it, let us get rid of red tape and focus on the results. Let us make sure that the legislation that we pass does not burden the common Canadian with additional red tape. Rather, let us focus on the results. Let us cut it short and focus on the results, so that Canadians can afford to pay their mortgages, buy a an affordable home and have an affordable life.

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister took office, the projected deficit was $31 billion. He promised to spend less. Instead, he spent more. He piled on $90 billion in new spending, not on results but on bigger government. Bureaucracy is up, costs are up and Canadians are paying the price. Will the Prime Minister commit today that his deficit will not exceed the already outrageous $31 billion left behind by his predecessor, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-238, a bill that attempts to address a very real and serious issue in our country, the issue of growing crime in our communities. Let me be clear. The intent behind this bill is understandable. Across Canada, frontline organizations are carrying an enormous burden, shelters are overwhelmed, hospitals are dealing with constant overdose cases, first responders are stretched thin and victim support organizations are under pressure like never before. These are the people who show up when everything is falling apart, and they are paying a price for crime. The bill is attempting to respond to this reality by allowing courts to order offenders involved in human and drug trafficking to pay restitution to community organizations. On its face, this is reasonable. If crime creates costs, offenders should help pay the cost. However, as someone who practised law before coming to this House, I understand that just because something sounds good, it does not always work in practice. Unfortunately, I do not believe this bill would work in practice. The first fundamental problem is causation. We cannot just point to a harm and say who should pay. The basic legal standard is it must be proven that a specific individual caused a specific loss. This bill would be asking the courts to do something extremely difficult: to take broad system-wide costs, like shelter demand and harm reduction services, and tie them to a single offender; to decide which dealer caused the overdose that required opioid overdose reversals like Narcan; or to decide which individual caused the need for shelter security upgrades. These are not simple questions and in many cases they cannot be answered in a way that meets required legal standards. If it cannot be proven, then this bill simply will not deliver. The second problem is enforceability. Let us say the courts do establish causation. There is the question of whether the money can even be collected. The reality is the vast majority of offenders pertaining to this bill would not have the means to pay, with no assets, no steady incomes and likely facing significant sentences. What would happen? Courts would issue restitution that exists on paper, but not in reality, not collected, not enforced and providing no meaningful support to those community organizations. We would be left with only the illusion of accountability. The third issue is the impact on our justice system. The courts are already under strain, dealing with delays, backlogs and increasing pressure on judges, prosecutors and defence counsel. The bill would add another layer of complexity at the sentencing stage. To determine restitution, courts would need detailed financial records, documentation of expenses, witnesses to establish those costs, arguments over whether those costs were caused by a specific offender and so on. What would this really mean? It would mean more time, more paperwork and more delay. The result would be a system that moves even slower at a time when Canadians are already losing confidence in it. There would also be a practical burden falling on the organizations this bill is supposed to help. To access restitution, they would need to track expenses in detail, link those expenses to specific incidents, prepare documentation for court and participate in legal proceedings. That is more administration work, more time spent in courts and more sources diverted from frontline work. Most smaller organizations will not have the capacity to do such things. If they do go ahead with it, we go back to the issue of enforceability. Will they even get any money? Are the court resources used not overwhelmingly more expensive than the damages? Let us talk about this crime crisis briefly. It is a crisis we are dealing with right now in communities across the country, including Edmonton. In Edmonton, we are seeing the impact of crime and addiction every single day. We see rising drug use on the streets. We see increased overdoses on deadly street drugs, and we see immense pressure on shelters and emergency services. Organized criminal activity is becoming more viable and more aggressive. Extortion is a huge issue in my riding, and I hear constantly of cases from my constituents. Small business owners are being targeted, especially through WhatsApp. They are being threatened, intimidated and told to pay or face consequences. These are people who have worked hard to build something and are being forced to live in fear. When they look at the justice system, they are not looking for symbolic restitution orders years down the line. They are asking for protection, for enforcement and for a system that actually stops the people causing the harm. This is where we need to focus, because accountability is not about new processes that look good on paper. It is about outcomes. It is about strengthening and enforcing laws. This is where the Liberals have failed. They have failed to stop repeat offenders who are committing most of the crime. They have created an in-and-out bail system that puts criminals back on the street. They have relaxed sentencing laws, making it difficult for people to go to jail. They give violent criminals house arrest and no punishment. They have grown the addiction crisis and have focused on safe supply instead of getting people off drugs. Instead of doing the real work, they are pushing legislation that just looks good and does nothing to solve the real issues. This bill is a prime example. We all agree that communities are paying the price for crime. We all agree that frontline organizations deserve support, but good intentions are not enough. If a law cannot be proven, if it cannot be enforced, then it does not achieve its purpose. Canadians deserve better than that. They deserve a justice system that works. They deserve policies that deliver real results. They deserve communities that are safe, not just in theory, but in reality. For those reasons, and for the reason that I am not convinced it will be viable and practical to collect money from the offenders, even though I have great respect for the intent behind this bill, I cannot support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few petitions to present today. I rise to present a petition on behalf of the people of Edmonton Southeast. Edmontonians do not feel safe in their homes or on the street. They note that little is being done to combat increasing crime, social disorder and extortion within the communities of Edmonton. However, hard-working Canadians deserve safe neighbourhoods and strong laws. The petitioners call upon the government to bring home safe streets by repealing all Liberal soft-on-crime laws and bringing back mandatory minimum sentencing for violent offenders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Edmontonians and residents of Edmonton Southeast with regard to the rising housing crisis. As the cost of homes skyrockets, the dream of home ownership for many Canadians is slipping away. These residents describe out-of-control rent prices, while the lack of supply increases the price of new homes. This petition, therefore, calls upon the government to cut bureaucracy, cut the GST on new homes under $1.3 million, work with municipalities to create more affordable homes for all generations of Canadians and let the dream of home ownership be a reality for Canadians who are left out under the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of all struggling Canadians, especially those in Edmonton. The cost of living crisis is affecting millions of Canadians and thousands of my constituents. The residents are describing visiting grocery stores as an increasing financial burden, something Conservatives have reminded the government about for a year. Many Canadians are having to make difficult decisions on whether to buy fresh produce or skip meals. This petition calls upon the government to repeal all taxes that directly affect food production and the supply chain, such as the carbon tax and fertilizer tax. Canadians, Edmontonians and their wallets deserve a break.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with another member of the House. It is an honour to be here and speak to Bill C-13, an act implementing U.K. accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, commonly known as CPTPP. Common-sense Conservatives support free trade. Canada is a trading nation, and we know that through free trade, we get better economic results. Free trade lowers prices for consumers and provides a greater variety of goods. Having more producers in the market drives down costs and leaves the consumer better off. It increases efficiency. With international competition, businesses are encouraged to improve their resource allocation and utilization. Finally, it allows us to specialize to our advantages. Canada has many resources and a lot of human capital. That benefits us in the global economy. It helps Canada to be the global leader it is in many industries and sectors. The Conservative Party has a strong legacy in promoting free trade. It was the old PCs under Mulroney who created NAFTA, leading to free trade in North America. Later on, former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper may have been the greatest proponent of international trade in Canadian history. Under his Conservative government, Canada concluded 15 free trade agreements with 51 countries, giving Canada preferential access across the world. The CPTPP, the very trade agreement we are discussing, also fits into the Harper legacy. His legacy put Canada in a strong position globally, one that, unfortunately, the Liberal government has squandered, namely with the United States. The Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win by July 21 last year. We are now well into 2026, and there is no deal. On August 1, President Trump's government raised tariffs to 35% on Canadian goods not covered by CUSMA. That was a great job, Prime Minister. The free trade uncertainty is far from over as the government prepares for the July 1, 2026 CUSMA review. Even the Prime Minister has expressed uncertainty, expressing that Canada may need to change the terms for U.S. access to our market if the negotiations fail. This is our biggest trading partner, but the Prime Minister has yet to establish respect from Americans, flip-flopping on our commitments to them and even recently being called governor in a social media post by the President. I think we can all see the writing on the wall, that the current Liberal government may fail us just as they have in the past, and Liberal failures are having a real impact on Canadians. I look at the Food Banks Canada “Hunger Count 2025” report. The results are sad, but unfortunately, unsurprising. Canada is becoming a country where hunger is normalized. Food prices have risen 25% in the last four years, and the month of March saw over two million food bank visits. This is the highest ever in Canadian history. I recently attended an event in my riding, hosted by Infinity Safety Awareness and organized by Sunil Phool. We discussed the intersection of food insecurity and mental health. I met with students, single parents and many suffering from this insecurity. I learned how much this affects families and children. Imagine kids going to school with no food. This affects their mental health, not just their stomachs. How sad is it that we now live in a country where working families are forced to use food banks? This goes to show what 10 years of Liberals have done to this country. With the current failure to keep jobs in Canada, things may only get worse. Every plant moving to the U.S. or shutting down due to lack of market access means more and more families will have to turn to food banks to keep their stomachs full. With regard to this legislation, where we are approving the necessary legislative changes for the U.K. to join the CPTPP, there is a major sector that the Liberals fail to defend, and that is the beef industry, an important industry for Canadians and Albertans. The United Kingdom exported over 16 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, over $42 million in 2024 and $28 million in 2025. Meanwhile, Canada exported only $85,500 dollars' worth of beef to the U.K. in 2023, $25,000 in 2024 and no beef at all in 2025. How can this be, given that Canada is one of the largest beef producers in the world, with the best quality of meat and world-class safety standards? This comes at a time when beef exports are doing well. In 2024, Canada exported $3.88 billion in beef, with Alberta exporting $3.8 billion, almost all of it. The reason we have no exports to the United Kingdom is that it refuses to approve the carcass washing applied at Canadian slaughter plants and opposes the use of growth promotants in beef production. These objections are not based in fact. In fact, the U.K.'s position is anti-scientific. Canadian food, especially Alberta beef, is some of the best quality in the world, and the vast majority of countries recognize our standards as world-class. The U.K. is using non-tariff barriers to keep Canadians out of its market, but at the same time, we let it into ours. That is not fair, and that is why the Canadian Cattle Association has called for the termination of the Canada-UK Trade Continuity Agreement previously. The Liberals have failed beef producers and Albertans by not standing up on this trade irritant. Instead, they expect us to approve the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP without anything in return. This is a bad negotiation strategy and goes to show what we already know, which is that the Prime Minister does not care about farmers, he does not care about the beef industry and he does not care about Alberta. Conservatives will support the expansion of our trade market, but it is with great displeasure that beef producers and, in turn, Albertans were not taken into account. Otherwise, the U.K. has and will continue to be a close partner for Canada. Our history is intertwined. Our country, our values and our democracy, including this very House of Commons, come from the U.K. It is good for both countries to maintain their ties and open market at a fair level.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the member opposite is famous for twisting myths around to sound like they are real. I said that during Stephen Harper's time, we signed 15 trade agreements with 51 countries. That is a fact. The member does not have anything to refer to saying that my information is incorrect or is not well informed, so I encourage him to come up with the facts and the sources he is relying upon.

Mr. Speaker, Edmonton residents are paying the price of inaction in the Liberal extortion crisis. Every day I hear about extortionists and gangsters who are threatening families and businesses in Edmonton and across the country. Meanwhile, the government has done nothing but weakened sentencing and pushed catch-and-release bail. Liberal Bill C-5 scrapped mandatory jail time, and Liberal Bill C-75 forces judges to release repeat violent offenders back into our communities. Criminals should fear the law; law-abiding Canadians should not. Under the Liberal government, extortion is up 330%. A Conservative government will bring back mandatory minimum sentences for extortion. These criminals deserve to be in jail, not on bail. It is time to stop crime, end the chaos and bring home safe streets to Edmonton.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to table a petition on behalf of the constituents of my riding who want to force the Liberals to withdraw Bill C-9 and block the Liberal amendment that was passed in committee to remove the religious freedom defence clause from the Criminal Code. The petitioners believe that the government is going to criminalize passages from the Bible, Quran, Torah and other religious texts. If allowed, it would prosecute those who deeply express their religious beliefs. Punishment for such a crime is up to two years. The state has no business in people's religious faiths, teachings and the beliefs that they hold deeply within their conscience. Therefore, the petitioners are seeking for the Liberals to withdraw Bill C-9, protect religious freedoms, uphold the right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government institutions from interfering.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not measure government success by press conferences, talking points or rebranded programs. They measure success by what they see when they stand at the checkout line in their local grocery store. In Edmonton Southeast, families tell me the same thing again and again: They used to worry about what they wanted to buy, but now they worry about what they can afford. Parents are putting fewer fresh items in their carts. Seniors on fixed incomes are stretching meals. Young people are skipping groceries to pay rent. Students are skipping meals altogether. These are not isolated stories. They are the realities of life under the Liberal government. The Prime Minister himself said that he should be judged by the cost of groceries. By that standard, the government has failed. Today we are debating Bill C-19, the so-called Canadian groceries and essentials benefit act. The Liberals are presenting this bill as a solution to the cost of living crisis. In reality, it is a temporary rebate meant to cover up a permanent problem created by the government. Let us be clear about what Bill C-19 would do. It would expand the GST credit by 25% over the next five years and would add a one-time 50% top-up this June. Conservatives support relief for families that are struggling, but the House should not be pretending that mailing another cheque would solve the root cause of why groceries have been so expensive in the first place. Justin Trudeau introduced a nearly identical policy in 2022, doubling the same tax credit. At the time, the Liberals promised it would help affordability; it did not. We know it did not because since 2022, this inflationary crisis has not stopped. Grocery prices kept climbing, and families kept falling behind. Here we are again with the same failed Liberal idea, rebranded under a new Liberal Prime Minister. The problem is not that Canadians do not have enough rebates. The problem is that the Liberal government has driven food inflation out of control. Canada is now the food inflation capital of the G7. Food prices are rising faster here than in any other major advanced economy. Food inflation is now roughly twice as high as it is in the United States. Under the government, food costs are up 6.2% year over year. Grocery prices are up 5%, and restaurant prices are up 8.5%. These are not abstract numbers. Canadians see it aisle by aisle, item by item, every time they shop. A GST rebate would not cancel out a 21% increase in ground beef or, worse, a 40% increase in coffee. It would not make infant formula more affordable for parents who are already stretched to the limit. The government's approach is simple. It raises the costs with one hand, and then offers rebates with the other and pretends that it is helping. Every dollar the Prime Minister and the Liberal government spend comes from Canadian pockets, and Canadians are feeling it. The Prime Minister admitted, when he announced this legislation, that he does not have a solution to stop food inflation. That should alarm everyone. Food inflation is not an accident. It is a direct result of Liberal policies, massive deficits, reckless spending and hidden taxes that drive up the cost of producing, transporting and selling food. The government is running a $78-billion deficit. Government spending has increased by roughly $90 billion. These inflationary deficits drive up the cost of everything, including groceries. On top of that, the Liberals have layered tax after tax onto farmers, truckers and food processors. The industrial carbon tax raises costs for food producers. The fuel standard tax adds about 17¢ per litre to the price of gas, which drives up transportation costs. The Liberal food packaging tax increases costs at every step of the supply chain. Farmers pay more to grow food. Truckers pay more to ship it. Grocery stores pay more to keep their shelves stocked, and in the end, Canadian families pay more at the checkout. The government claims to be helping Canadians, but its own policies are making food more expensive. The consequences are severe: A quarter of Canadian households are now considered food-insecure. Nearly 2.2 million people visited food banks every month last year. A recent food survey found that almost 30% of students are skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat. According to MNP, an accounting firm, 71% of Canadians expect their cost of living to rise in 2026, and 41% of Canadians say that they are $200 or less away from bankruptcy. This is not a functioning economy; this is a cost of living crisis. This crisis is not just hurting families; it is also hurting small businesses and local restaurants. Last year alone, 7,000 restaurants closed across Canada. This year another 4,000 are expected to shut their doors. These are family-run businesses. These are jobs in our communities. These are places where neighbours gather. They are disappearing because no one can afford to eat out and because operating costs have become unbearable under Liberal policies. In Edmonton Southeast, local business owners tell me they want to keep prices affordable but cannot keep up with rising rent, rising fuel costs, rising taxes and rising food prices. The Liberals' answer is yet another rebate. Conservatives believe Canadians deserve real solutions. We support measures that bring immediate relief, including the GST rebate announced in Bill C-19, but relief alone is not enough. We must fix the policies that caused this crisis. Conservatives have put forward clear, concrete proposals, and the Liberals have voted them down. We would scrap the Liberal food packaging tax, eliminate the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax that adds 17¢ per litre at the pump, and reverse inflationary deficits that drive up prices across the country. We would cut red tape for farmers so they could grow more food at lower cost, and boost competition in the grocery sector so Canadians can get better prices. We would lower the cost of growing, transporting and selling food, not subsidize the damage after the fact. In short, Conservatives would lower prices permanently, not temporarily send cheques while inflation keeps rising. Instead, all that Canadians are getting from Liberals are temporary band-aid solutions. While Conservatives will support the bill, the bill itself is not enough, and we will continue to fight against inflationary Liberal policies and work for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in the member's comments. Again, my answer to the comments is that we as Conservatives believe in real solutions. We do not believe in the bandages that Liberals are the masters of putting on when they are out of touch with the real challenges that people face. When they face those challenges at the door, the Liberals come up with rebates and other bandages to cover up the situation. This is not going to work. They have to listen to Canadians and their problems. I wish the member would go to her local grocery store, check out the prices and draw a comparison from the last five years. She would get the answer.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a valid question. The bill, as far as I understand, would cover fewer than 30% of Canadians who have been really struggling. Some families would not even be covered under its conditions. On top of that, it would increase the deficit by an additional $12 billion. Nobody knows where that money would come from. Would the money be reprinted as in Justin Trudeau's time, or is there any plan B for the government? With regard to the second part of my friend's question about why this was not added to the budget, the Liberals are in a better position to say why they did not disclose their intentions at that time.

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the science and research committee. Last Wednesday, the chair arbitrarily cancelled the meeting half an hour prior. Today they cancelled our Monday meeting without any advance notice. They cancelled the meeting on justice and other committees. What are the Liberals trying to hide? What do they have to hide? Why are they running away from questions? Why are they not doing the job that people want them to do?

Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, Canadians went to the polls, and we all know what was top of mind for voters: It was affordability. For 10 years, under these same Liberals, affordability was thrown to the side. Our country's spending was mismanaged. They spent all the money they could and took no responsibility for the public purse. Then came the current Prime Minister. During the election, he told Canadians he would be different and would not be like his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. He said that he would be responsible. The Prime Minister persuaded Canadians that they could judge him by the cost at the grocery store. Many Canadians were not fooled. They knew, after 10 years, who the Liberals were. They voted for common-sense Conservatives, and now we have the largest opposition in years, with 25 new seats. I am proud to be one of the new MPs in this House. I was elected by the common-sense people of Edmonton Southeast, who wanted to fix this budget. I recently met with one of my constituents who is from the U.K. She made it clear why our Prime Minister, the former governor of the Bank of England, should not be the Prime Minister of Canada after what he did to that country. She was not misled, but many Canadians were misled. They believed the Prime Minister would be different from his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. With this first budget, which is the first real test of the Prime Minister, he proved that he is no different from Justin Trudeau. Like Liberals often do, they say one thing to Canadians and do the other. They misled voters. This is the same budget, if not worse, that we saw during the 10 years of Justin Trudeau. Here are some of the promises the new Liberal Prime Minister broke. The Prime Minister promised a deficit no bigger than $62 billion, but what we got is a deficit of nearly $80 billion. This is $16 billion more than he promised and twice the size of the deficit left by Justin Trudeau. Who would have believed it was possible to spend more than Justin Trudeau? I am sure someone told the Prime Minister when he took office that he had big shoes to fill, but I do not believe this is what was meant. He is spending the most in Canadian history outside of the pandemic and is doing so with a smile. Every hour, $10 million is being added to the national debt. This is proof that he is no different than the Liberals have been in the past 10 years. The Prime Minister also promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio, but the analysis provided by the Parliamentary Budget Officer says otherwise. The PBO found that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be even higher than it was in the last economic update, and Canada is no longer projected to be on a declining path over the medium term. In last fall's economic statement, it was noted that a declining debt-to-GDP ratio was “key not only for fiscal sustainability, but also to preserve Canada's AAA credit rating, which helps maintain investors' confidence and keeps Canada's borrowing costs as low as possible.” By allowing the debt-to-GDP ratio to get higher, the Prime Minister is not only adding debt; he is also making our debt expensive. If it continues down this road, Canada will be unable to handle a lower credit rating and increased borrowing costs. The amount being paid on borrowing costs is already higher than the revenue brought in from the GST. Yes, the 5% levy on almost everything we buy in Canada is essentially only covering our debt servicing cost. Think about where all the money could go if we were fiscally responsible and started reducing the amount of debt and debt servicing we have to pay. Our health care system is in shambles. Millions of Canadians cannot get a doctor or specialist and often go to emergency rooms. Imagine if more of our dollars could go to doctors, nurses and hospitals instead of just paying off old debt. By creating more debt, we are making this problem worse. The future generation will pay more. Look at the system now. It is already overloaded. What do people think the system will be like for our children? They will be paying off the ridiculous spending of the lost Liberal decade for much longer than we will be alive. The Liberal Prime Minister also promised he would invest more. “Spend less...invest more” has been the tag line of the budget, but in the budget itself, at page 38, there is a graph showing that in every quarter of this year, private sector business investment will fall. Who would have thought that the Prime Minister, an investor, banker and economist by trade, would see private sector investment fall under his watch? Even before he was the current Prime Minister, he was Trudeau's economic adviser. He is responsible for the problem, which is proven by the fact that he would not invest in Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister was moving his Brookfield operations to the United States. It is only with taxpayer dollars that the Prime Minister is interested in investing in Canada. Even then, with our money, he is misleading about the investment in Canada. It has become clear that he has cooked the books. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed this, saying that the Prime Minister's definition of capital spending in the budget was “overly expansive”. It defies international accounting standards. In the budget, the Liberals lumped corporate tax breaks and subsidies in with capital spending. Within international public accounting norms, we cannot consider this to be real capital formation. According to the PBO, the government's real capital spending is 30% lower than it claimed. That is a $94-billion difference. The Liberals cooked the books and are getting caught. It is no wonder they want to get rid of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The PBO also found that the budget will not even balance the government's operating budget over the next five years, abandoning what has been a key fiscal anchor. Very quickly, Canadians have learned that “spend less...invest more” really means otherwise; it means spending more and investing less. Let me recap the broken promises. The Prime Minister broke his promise on the deficit. He broke his promise on the debt-to-GDP ratio. He broke his promise on investing more. In less than a year, the Prime Minister is showing us very quickly that the government is the same old Liberal government we have had for 10 years, maybe even worse. It is not what Canadians voted for. It is not what they want. Conservatives could not support the budget. I am very proud of my vote against it. I am proud because my constituents voted for affordability. They are struggling. Let me remind the House of the cost of living crisis due to 10 years of Liberal spending. Over the past year, the price of coffee has gone up 34%. Carrots are up 11%; beef, 17%; oranges, 7%; baby formula, 6%, telephone services, 8%; rent, over 5% and new vehicles, 4.5%. Do members know what is not going up this year? Paycheques, home ownership and the standard of living are not. The people of Edmonton Southeast are fed up with Liberal spending. Conservatives will continue to stand up for Canadians and affordability. There must be no more cooked Liberal books.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly like that the senior member of the Liberals can speak for hours without saying anything or making any sense. To answer his question, I want to say that the Prime Minister has been to the U.S., and there has been no progress. He has been to India, and India has increased tariffs on peas. He has been to China, and there are increased tariffs. He has been to England, and our beef exports are not at the level of what it is exporting to Canada. The Prime Minister is touring country to country, a new country every time, but he comes back with literally nothing.

Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed I do. There has been the same situation in my riding of Edmonton Southeast, where a hospital was projected to be built, with earlier costs set at $1.5 billion. The province had to push that because the cost is now over $5 billion. The cuts that the government is making to essential services and to critical things like hospitals do not make sense. The amount allocated in the budget, $5 billion nationwide, is just peanuts, nothing but a joke to the health care system, which is already broken.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his genuine, common-sense question on affordability. The Prime Minister has failed badly on affordability. Canadians have already given him an F grade on his promise that he can be judged by how much groceries cost at the grocery store. That said, there are over 5,000 homeless people in Edmonton Southeast. I do not see anything in the budget on affordability for people who do not have jobs or who meet low-income criteria. I am not satisfied with the budget nor with the steps the government has taken. It has failed to take into consideration the people who are struggling with the lack of jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive government in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians and is driving up the cost of everything. The Liberals could have lowered food costs by scrapping the plastic packaging tax, which drives up the cost of produce by 34% and costs the average household $400; instead, they chose to keep it. Why is the Prime Minister keeping the packaging tax and making food more expensive?

Mr. Speaker, would the member agree with me that there is no minimum mandatory jail time for drug traffickers, for fentanyl traffickers and for gangsters in this bill? Also, the bill does not mention anything about stopping safe consumption sites from being close to schools and day cares. Young families are being impacted on a daily basis. How is the government going to stay true to its intent of making sure the legislation protects those who are affected by it?