Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I was at the committee meeting the day the Privacy Commissioner was there, along with other witnesses representing social media platforms. Before the meeting, all the witnesses indicated that they had submitted their briefs to the committee. However, members were not able to see them because they had not received them. Did the member not find it frustrating that we did not receive the briefs before the meeting, not only from the Privacy Commissioner but also from the other witnesses?

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for what I thought was a very thoughtful speech on a very concerning bill. It is not just the NDP or Conservatives who are concerned, but civil liberty organizations and other stakeholders. The Privacy Commissioner himself has significant concerns about the privacy aspects of this legislation. Earlier today, Conservatives moved an amendment to separate the bill into Bill C‑22A and Bill C‑22B. By doing that, we could work with and allow the police the tools they need for investigations of serious crimes and other matters, but it would also put on pause the ultimate concern of this bill, which is part 2, and allow the Privacy Commissioner and others to come back in further reflection on this bill. Does the hon. member agree with the amendment that we put forward?

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa does not even know this yet, but there is breaking news that the Liberal government is actually standing down on some of the contentious parts of the bill, namely the retention of records. They are talking about reducing it from one year to six months now. There are other things they are talking about with respect to adjusting this piece of legislation. Again, like everything else they do, is this not an admission of failure that the bill is completely flawed?

Madam Speaker, the way the Liberals are acting tonight, it is almost like the arsonist who sets a house on fire and then we expect him to put the fire out. It is almost the same thing. I want to go back to the issue of the Privacy Commissioner. One of the things that I saw, and the member was there when I was there, was that the briefs that were submitted to the committee did not arrive and were not sent to committee members until the day they were sitting around the table to question the Privacy Commissioner and other witnesses who had submitted briefs, eight days later. I know the hon. member brought this up. He was quite concerned, as were other members sitting around that table, including the Bloc members. How much of an impact did not having those briefs have on the member's ability, as a member of this committee, to scrutinize this piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, this goes back to April 2025, when Canadians elected a minority government to provide oversight, accountability and transparency so that the opposition parties could hold them to account and provide that oversight. What we have seen since this manufactured, transactional majority is that this heavy-handed hammer has come down on this place, which has limited all other parties' ability, as an opposition, to do that. I am wondering if the hon. member would speak to the impact this is having, not only on our parliamentary democracy, but on the decline of democracy in general.

Mr. Speaker, if we talk to anyone on the street or to businesses suffering from 11 years of failed Liberal policies, they will tell us that Canada is in a recession, no matter how the Liberals or the media try to spin it, and that things are not getting any better. Families, seniors and young people are anxious about their finances and their future. The worst of all scenarios have crept into the minds of Canadian business: doubt and uncertainty. The Liberal Prime Minister has the distinction of walking into the G7 meetings as the only leader to push their country into recession. Will he rethink his costly policies, which have caused this recession?

Mr. Speaker, Canada's decline did not start last April. It was catalyzed six years ago, when the current Prime Minister was Trudeau's economic adviser. The Prime Minister's fingerprints are all over the failed policies that have caused Canada to be the only G7 country in a recession. While well‑connected Liberals and corporate buddies are doing well, the crumbs the Liberals feed to families, seniors and young people cannot mask the fact that 60% of Canadians feel anxious about their finances, 40% are losing sleep, 38% have food insecurity and 2.2 million Canadians visited food banks last year. Does that sound like everything is working well?

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the hon. member brought up the Snowbirds, because this past weekend, the Barrie Airshow was held. There were 150,000 people who attended the air show. I was fortunate that I had the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan come to Barrie, because he has been leading the fight to keep the Snowbirds flying. He heard from a lot of people how disappointed they were that the Snowbirds have actually been cancelled. The main concern is that this five-year hiatus may turn to six years, to 10 years and then to their never returning. I am wondering what the hon. member would do to keep the Snowbirds flying.

Mr. Speaker, $200 million is what Liberals gave a near-bankrupt company of well-connected Liberal insiders and family members for now three failed launches from a concrete slab spaceport. While Canadians pay for the most expensive science fair project in history, the only successful thing taking off is the bank accounts of Liberal insiders such as Sasha Jacob, who turned worthless shares of the company into a $1.8-million personal windfall after Liberals lit the fuse. Will the Prime Minister just admit that this was all about greasing the palms of well-connected Liberal insiders?

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at Maritime Launch Services' financials. I think this is very revealing because its condition appeared to be extremely weak before the government's injection of money. In its 2025 financial statements, the company had $47 million in losses, $14,980 in revenue and approximately $70,000 in cash on hand at the end of 2024. We have heard numerous times tonight that a shareholder actually cashed in what were effectively worthless shares after the $20-million injection, which gave him $1.8 million. Is it not true that the government effectively rescued a failing company and subsidized an enterprise on the verge of bankruptcy?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. First of all, let me say what a thrill it was to meet Kevin White's brother-in-law today, astronaut Jeremy Hansen, here on Parliament Hill. Kevin White is the fire chief in the city of Barrie, and he is married to Jeremy's sister. I thought I would mention that for Kevin's benefit. During World War II, when Allied aircraft would be flying over the targets, ready to bomb, they would be hit with flak. In this place, we know we are over the target when Liberals start justifying and making excuses for things that absolutely make no sense, and they speak in a louder tone to try to make their point. What is important about this debate tonight is that Canadians are watching the government spend $200 million on a politically connected spaceport project in rural Nova Scotia. The more we learn about it, the less sense it makes. As the finance minister suggested in committee of the whole two weeks ago, this is not a story about innovation or economic stewardship. It is a story, in fact, about Liberal insiders, political connections, well-connected insiders and taxpayers who, once again, are being asked to foot the bill for a project that should have never received this level of government backing in the first place. Canadians are effectively paying $50,000 every single day for this project. What exactly are they getting for that money? They are getting a gravel road, two sea cans and a concrete slab that has launched exactly two rockets, neither of which have reached space. One of those launches was conducted by a York University student rocketry club. Canadians are effectively paying $50,000 a day for what amounts to be the most expensive science fair project in the country, and yet somehow, despite this lack of infrastructure, lack of revenue, lack of launches and lack of any proven commercial success, the federal government decided to give this company $20 million a year for the next 10 years. The debate and argument tonight is that Canadians deserve to know why the numbers alone make absolutely no sense. Maritime Launch Services reported less than $15,000 in annual revenue. At the same time, the company reported tens of millions of dollars in losses and had only about $70,000 in cash on hand. Independent auditors openly warned that there was material uncertainty about whether the company could even continue operating. In plain English, this company was on the verge of financial collapse. Instead of walking away, what the Liberal government did was attach itself to this project even more aggressively. Canadians have seen this pattern before. When ordinary Canadians struggle financially, the Liberals tell them to budget better, but when politically connected companies struggle financially, the Liberals suddenly open up their wallets. The insider connections surrounding this project are impossible to ignore. Former Liberal premier Stephen McNeil publicly supported the project before the environmental review had even been completed. Then later, after championing the project politically, he conveniently joined the company's advisory board. Canadians are tired of this revolving door where Liberal politicians help projects while in office and then later somehow attach themselves to the same companies benefiting from that government support. MLS's chief lobbyist was reportedly a former senior staffer to the justice minister, and the company reportedly lobbied the justice minister 14 separate times, more than the current or former local MP for the area. Canadians do not need a conspiracy theory to see what is happening. The pattern is clear. Former Liberal politicians, former Liberal staffers and well-connected political insiders are all orbiting around a company that is now receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer support. Despite all of these political connections, the project itself still makes no practical sense. The original business model was based around launching the Cyclone-4M rocket. The problem is that the rocket has never actually been built. Imagine spending $200 million to build an airport for planes that do not exist yet. Canadians would never, ever tolerate that level of incompetence in any other sector, yet somehow the government saw no proven rocket, no proven market, no regulatory framework, no meaningful revenue and massive financial instability and still thought this is exactly where 200 million hard-earned taxpayer dollars should go. The government did not just ignore the warning signs. It practically sprinted past them. The company's founding partner became tied to a NASA false claims case involving allegations of false billing and ignored safety protocols. The chair of the board faced sanctions from Canada's investment regulator over failures involving compliance and supervision. The Ukrainian aerospace partner behind the project had already been surrounded by allegations of corruption, failed international projects and major financial disputes. Any one of these should have triggered caution, but instead, Liberal insiders continued to attach themselves to this project. The most unbelievable part of it all is the land arrangement that is in place. Maritime Launch Services does not even own the land. It leases Crown land from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $13,000 a year, and somehow, through this federal government agreement, taxpayers are paying massively inflated amounts connected to the exact same land, resulting in a 1,300% profit margin. Canadians are struggling. They cannot get mortgages approved. Young people cannot afford homes, families are cutting back on groceries and seniors are struggling with bills, but somehow, the Liberal government found a way to guarantee politically connected insiders with what appears to be a 1,300% return tied to publicly owned land. That is not to mention that effectively worthless shares of what was an effectively bankrupt company were sold for a profit of $1.8 million. That is not economic development, nor is it innovation, as the finance minister would say. It is absolute cronyism. Why is the federal government attaching itself so aggressively to a project that still lacks even the most basic foundations for success? Canada does not even have a fully developed regulatory framework for commercial orbital launches. The environmental assessment was minimal. The project dramatically changed its entire business model. The site itself is underdeveloped. There were two launches, and both were unsuccessful. Still, the government wants to invest $200 million in it. At some point, Canadians will stop seeing this as a business decision and start seeing it for what it looks like: a politically protected project kept alive by well-connected Liberal insiders using taxpayer money. Canadians deserve governments that invest based on merit, viability and public interest, not on who knows which minister, former premier or Liberal staffer. Right now, Canadians are paying $50,000 a day for a failed science fair, while the only things truly taking off appear to be the profits and connections of Liberal insiders.

Mr. Speaker, the reason corruption, cronyism, well-connected Liberal insiders and well-connected lobbyists come up all the time is that we see them all the time, and they benefit while Canadians are suffering at great cost because of the Liberal government. This is why they are brought up all the time. The second part of the member's question was on the support of this project. What Conservatives are looking for, and I think what most Canadians would want, are some accountability and transparency over this project. As I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of questions that need to be raised. We are trying to highlight some of those concerns, not just to make Canadians more aware, but also to make sure that we are providing accountability and transparency on this project.

Mr. Speaker, my riding is in the same boat. Many businesses are suffering right now because of the tariffs, but also because of the rules and laws imposed during this Liberal government's 11 years in power. I think we should support businesses. We need to support businesses in our ridings. There is no question about it. One of the ways we can greatly support businesses is by ensuring that with much of the legislation, many of those regulations and policies that are in place right now and the red tape that exists among businesses, we get the government out of the way and let these businesses flourish on their own. Of course, we should always be there to support businesses as well, but the government creates the environment for success. It does not actually create that success—

Mr. Speaker, there is really not much to compare, because we have, as I said, a gravel road with a concrete pad. Compare that to Cape Canaveral. Members can see it if they fly over it. If anybody has been there, it is very well established. There is no question about it. The issues here are transparency, accountability and the fact that so many taxpayer dollars were given to this company that was on the verge of bankruptcy. There are a lot more questions than we are getting answers to right now. We need to keep pushing on this.

Mr. Speaker, the only things they build are debt, deficit and a Liberal Prime Minister who has made Canada the only G20 country in a recession. While Canadians are told to make sacrifices, do members know who is not making sacrifices? It is the Prime Minister, as well as his well-connected Liberal insiders. Recently released documents show $200,000 spent on food for just three flights, including $18,000 for salmon for just one flight alone. That is more than the average family will spend in groceries in 2026. As seniors line up at food banks and families pay the price, will the Prime Minister finally tell us whether we are actually in a technical recession or a recession?

We will do the whole PCO next week for them, Mr. Speaker, and you will get a kick out of that. Canada's the only G20 country that is in a recession. While it may be a laughing matter to them, Canadians are missing mortgage payments, bankruptcies are up and nearly 60% have little or no money left over at the end of the month. The Liberal Prime Minister spent money in Rome: $4,213 on crème brûlée, $3,800 on chocolate and $593 on luxury Normandy buttercups, whatever that is. Canadians deserve an honest answer. Are we in a recession or a technical recession? Tell us the truth.

Mr. Speaker, this evening I will have the honour of co-hosting the annual Terry Fox Humanitarian Awards, where 15 exceptional young Canadians will be recognized for receiving one of our country's most prestigious scholarships. From Surrey, B.C., to St. John's, Newfoundland, the 2026 cohort represents communities across our country united by a shared commitment to service, compassion and leadership. These students carry Terry Fox's spirit forward through leadership in community service, academics, athletics and humanitarianism while the award is supporting them through their undergraduate studies so they can continue making a difference in their communities and abroad. To the 2026 cohort and graduating recipients, I say that Parliament recognizes and commends their remarkable leadership and dedication to serving others. They reflect the very best of Canada and serve as an inspiration to Canadians across the country. I would also like to recognize award recipient Pania Ghaneian and award graduate Caleb Small from my riding of Barrie South—Innisfil. On behalf of the community, I say that we are incredibly proud of all they have already accomplished and are excited to see all they will continue to achieve in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27: Vote 1 under Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, Vote 1 under Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, Vote 1 under Office of the Senate Ethics Officer, Votes 1 and 5 under Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada”.

Mr. Speaker, in the words of the great Yogi Berra, “It's like déjà vu all over again.” Here we are again, debating a bill that was first introduced by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George on March 9, 2023. This is a problem that has been escalating across the country: violence against emergency health care workers, first responders and others. I personally want to thank Senator Housakos and Senator Yussuff for bringing this bill back, because it is an important piece of legislation, one that this Parliament could have approved years ago, if not for delays with respect to prorogation and such. I often get asked, as a former firefighter, what is the one thing I find frustrating about being an MP and a parliamentarian. My answer is, how long it takes for things to happen and how long it takes for decisions to be made. I can think back to my career and to others I worked with. What if we responded to a house fire, and we sat outside that house fire and said, “You know what? I think we're going to come back next week, after we have a few meetings on how to deal with this situation”? We identify the problems, we mitigate them, we solve them, and then we move on to what will inevitably be the next problem. That is how things work in real life, but around this place, everything gets delayed and obstructed. This is an important piece of legislation, as I said earlier, to protect the health and safety of health care workers and first responders. One only has to look at the headlines, and I did look at some of them. There are thousands of headlines across this country about assaults that are taking place on health care workers and frontline first responders. On Sunday, May 3, a headline read, “Man, 59, charged after multiple health-care workers sexually assaulted, threatened at Grace Hospital”. Another states, “Charges pending after health-care worker assaulted at Edmonton hospital: 2 patients involved in alleged attack on Christmas Day”. Another headline states, “In a rare move, two Manitoba hospitals declared unsafe for nurses: Staff describe being punched, kicked, and sexually assaulted. The union is discouraging members from the facilities.” The union is discouraging them and asking them to stay away from their workplace because of the assaults that are going on. Other headlines read, “Teen charged during hospital visit after nurses and police officers allegedly assaulted: The 17-year-old had been brought to the St. Thomas hospital for treatment”, and “Stabbing of health care worker outside [Vancouver General Hospital] the latest in long list of attacks”. An article entitled “Firefighters say they face increasing rates of violence while on duty” stated the following: In a survey of over 117 fire departments in Canada, 40 per cent of firefighters have experienced an assault within the last five years, says Edward Kelly, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Kelly also...believes incidents of violence are under-reported. “We had a Toronto firefighter bitten by a patient,” Kelly said in an interview last month. “In Winnipeg, we’ve seen a severe rise; we’ve had 58 reported incidents in Winnipeg this year alone.” I would suggest that Winnipeg is the epicentre of this violence. “Violence against Winnipeg firefighters escalates” is another headline, as is “3 assaults against first responders in 1 week 'unacceptable,' paramedic chief says”. One story reports, “A Kamloops, B.C., paramedic was assaulted while refuelling her ambulance at a gas station on Sunday evening.” Another headline says, “Brampton man charged after female paramedics sexually assaulted in Peel Region”. Even CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, came out and talked about the increasing assaults that are happening on its members. There is a deeply troubling pattern that is underlying many of these incidents: repeat violent offenders cycling endlessly through the justice system. On September 29, 2024, a Barrie police officer was stabbed while on duty by a violent repeat offender who was on probation at the time of the attack. Over the previous two years, that individual had reportedly been arrested and released 17 times and had more than 100 interactions with Barrie police. Still, despite all those warning signs, an officer was stabbed. Canadians are increasingly asking themselves very reasonable questions: How many chances does the system have to give someone before innocent people, including first responders, pay the price? How many warning signs must exist before meaningful consequences follow? It is not the politicians or the bureaucrats who are facing this danger. It is the police officers who answer the calls. It is the paramedics who enter chaotic scenes. It is the nurses working overnight shifts in emergency departments. It is the firefighters responding to dangerous and unpredictable emergencies. They are the ones placed directly in harm's way when the system fails to deal with violent offenders. After 10 years of failed Liberal bail reform, the least the government can do is stand behind the first responders and health care professionals who keep our communities safe despite the cards they have been dealt by it. Why does Bill S-233 matter? It recognizes a simple and profoundly important principle, that an assault against a first responder or health care professional is not just an assault against an individual but an assault against the people of our communities who rely on them in moments of crisis. These are the people who run toward danger when everyone else is running away. These are the people who arrive at the worst moments in a person's life, such as accidents, overdoses, domestic violence incidents, mental health crises, fires and medical emergencies, in an attempt to restore safety and hope. For that service, they deserve more than just our simple gratitude. They deserve the protection of the law and the clear support of this Parliament. Bill S-233 sends a message that Canada will not normalize violence against those who dedicate their lives to protecting others. It says clearly and firmly that violence is not part of the job description. The truth is that repeated exposure to violence changes people. It wears them down emotionally. It creates anxiety. It creates fear. It contributes to burnout, trauma and psychological injury. Ultimately, it drives people out of the professions our country desperately needs them in. Across Canada, we are already facing a shortage of nurses, paramedics, firefighters and police officers. We cannot afford to create working conditions where the people we rely on the most feel abandoned, unsupported and unsafe. Bill S-233 matters because laws do more than punish conduct after the fact. They also reflect the values of our nation. This legislation says clearly that Canada values and respects those who protect, rescue, heal and care for others. It says that when a person assaults a first responder or health care worker, the justice system must recognize the heightened seriousness of that offence. Most importantly, it says to every frontline worker in this country that Parliament sees what they are enduring, recognizes the sacrifices they make and will not accept violence against them as simply part of the job. I started off by saying that this is like déjà vu all over again. On March 9, 2023, the member for Cariboo—Prince George put this bill on the table, but because of prorogation it fell off. We are back at it again because of a Senate bill. I appreciate Senators Yussuff and Housakos for bringing this back. This is a cascading problem happening right across the country. We need to send a message to not just our frontline health care workers but our first responders that Parliament has their backs. This would also act as a deterrent to those who normalize violence against our first responders. I want to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his continued advocacy to ensure the safety of our health care workers and frontline officers. This is an important piece of legislation. Today, we must make sure we pass it so that our frontline health care workers, paramedics, firefighters and police officers can continue to do their jobs in safety across communities in this country. We must stand with them.

Mr. Speaker, the transactional majority strikes again. It was not too long ago when the Liberals seized control of committees, and now they are seizing control of this Parliament. I will remind members that, over a year ago, a minority government was elected in order to hold government to account, to make sure that there was transparency, and to make sure that there was oversight as well. Here we are, with the government seizing control through this closure motion. Actually, what the Liberals are doing is silencing the voices of nearly 50% of members in the House, including mine, who have something to say about this budget, particularly on the $30‑billion increase in deficits and the upward trend of $2.4 trillion in additional debt that could be added by this fall economic statement going into the future. They are silencing not just my voice, but the voices of many other MPs in this place representing Canadians who are fearful that they will be left picking up the scattered pieces of what is left of this government when they are done with it. Does three hours of debate actually reflect the importance of this issue? That is my question for the finance minister.

Mr. Speaker, this is another truly sad day for our democracy and our democratic institutions. The decline in democracy is continuing with the Liberal government. The defence minister keeps referencing the Arbour report. That report was established almost seven years ago and only five years ago did the government start implementing any of the recommendations in the report. We have had all this despite the fact that seven years later, things have changed significantly. We had CAF members, stakeholders and veterans all come to committee and talk about this, yet the government continues to ignore the voices of those who know better than government what types of systems should be in place and it is gutting every committee recommendation. Is it not true that the government only wants an audience, not an opposition?

Mr. Speaker, in a review of the Conflict of Interest Act, the ethics committee heard that while the Prime Minister was Trudeau's economic adviser and chair of Brookfield, he set up one of Canada's largest tax-dodging schemes by hiding $5.3 billion in offshore tax havens. Brookfield's CEO also confirmed that the Prime Minister will make millions from what is in his blind trust by aligning public policy with Brookfield's strategy. The committee recommended that the Prime Minister divest his holdings to ensure that he is acting in the best interests of the country and not his personal self-interest. Will the Prime Minister divest his Brookfield assets to eliminate his conflicts of interest?

Mr. Speaker, the ethics committee also recommended that the general application provisions of the Conflict of Interest Act need to change. That means that a public office holder, including a highly conflicted prime minister, can be involved in decisions they benefit from personally, even though they are in conflict. Brookfield's COO again confirmed that the Prime Minister will make millions from public policy decisions that align with Brookfield's strategies. Will this Liberal Prime Minister commit today to address this loophole in the law so Canadians have confidence that he is making decisions in the best interests of the country, not his own or Brookfield's?

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Review of the Conflict of Interest Act”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report. Before I conclude, I want to thank all of our witnesses, the analysts, the clerk, the technicians and translation staff for their work on this report. It is a fairly comprehensive report that provides significant recommendations to changes to the Conflict of Interest Act.

Mr. Speaker, in the words of that great country music singer, George Strait, “I've got some ocean front property in Arizona” to sell. That was quite the speech. The minister mentioned that if it were the will of the opposition parties, if for some reason the majority the Liberals have cobbled together with floor crossers were to decline into a minority situation, if the opposition parties did decide to use an opposition motion and the motion did pass, would the minister respect that decision and not call it a matter of confidence if and when that scenario were to happen? That is a fair question to ask him.

Mr. Speaker, if Canadians wanted any evidence at all that what the Liberal government wants is an audience and not an effective opposition, Motion No. 9 reflects that accurately and precisely. It was just under a year ago that the Prime Minister of this country was elected by Canadians. It was a fair election, but the Prime Minister was elected in a minority situation. He received fewer votes than what he needed for a majority. Canadians sent that message, as they did in previous elections, because they were not happy with the Liberal government and what it was doing to this country. Canadians elected the government in a minority situation because we had an untested, unproven Prime Minister who had never engaged in politics before. Canadians voted for a minority government. What that meant, as is the convention around this place in relation to the Standing Orders, is that we had committees that were negotiated at that time that were structured in a way that reflected the results of the election. It meant that for Conservatives and members of the Bloc, we had the majority of members on those committees. For the committees that were not oversight committees, that meant that if the opposition members wanted to determine what a study was going to be, wanted to compel witnesses, wanted to summons or wanted to compel documents, they could do it without it having to get to the chair. That is the way committees were formed. The same can be said about the oversight committees. I am the chair of the ethics committee. The oversight committees exist because they deal with issues of importance related to government operations, government contracts, ethics, accountability and transparency. If it was not for the oversight committees in previous parliaments, as the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said, none of the scandals that became big scandals, one which caused Parliament to be prorogued in the case of the Winnipeg lab scandal, would have come out if not for the oversight committees. The purpose the oversight committees serve is to hold the government to account, to ensure there is transparency and to ensure that the information is available to us, especially when a minority government is elected. We run a real risk. I have a grave concern that the level of accountability and transparency is not going to be there with Liberal members on these oversight committees, controlling these committees. When those committees were constituted, there were good-faith negotiations. The proportionality of what has happened now in this transactional nature of a majority government, where we have seen floor crossers give the government a majority, means they have just over 50% of the seats right now, which, again, should be reflective on those committees. What the Liberals are proposing with Motion No. 9 is to in fact give themselves 58% of representation on those committees, which would ensure that nothing the opposition wanted to do at those committees would actually happen. There would be no summoning of documents. There would be no appearances by witnesses. There would be no studies on things that happen as a result of scandals within the government that would ever see the light of day. That is what is most troubling to me. The other thing that has been troubling, and I have seen a pattern of this over the 10‑plus years I have been here, speaks to the importance of what is needed in this country. If we do not have any accountability and do not have the type of transparency that Parliament is going to be able to provide at this point, especially given the work the committees are charged with, it seems like we have turned into a country where we are the only country in liberalized democracies around the world where the opposition party is held to a greater account than the government by media. That needs to stop right now, because the power that is given to this Parliament, the power that is given to MPs, the supreme power that is given, is being taken away by the Liberal government through Motion No. 9. It is a sad indictment on where we are with respect to oversight, accountability and transparency, when there are YouTubers who are finding out more about what is happening within the Liberal government, the scandals and the connections of well-connected insiders, lobbyists and family members. When YouTubers are researching this stuff and finding this stuff out, that is a sad indictment on where we are with respect to media accountability in this country and holding the opposition to greater account than the government party. With all that is happening with Motion No. 9, I want to send a message, because it is going to become increasingly important for the media if this passes without amendment on the oversight committees: “Do your goddamn jobs.”

Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that. The message to the media is, “Do your jobs. Hold the government to account for everything that is going on with respect to spending, contracts and all that stuff.” Canadians are going to need to rely on the media to do this. The Liberal government is handcuffing the opposition party right now, particularly on oversight committees. With this motion and with everything else that we have seen, the sad reality is that Liberals expect Canadians to give up, get complacent and go away, so that the Prime Minister can have total power without any accountability. That will not happen. Our country and its people are worth fighting for. We will continue to fight for people to afford homes, fuel and food. We will continue to fight for safety on our streets. We will continue to fight for our resource workers and our soldiers. Conservatives will continue to lead that fight, every day and in every way, in Parliament, across the country and into the next election when Canadians will reclaim this country we know and love, and put the power back to the people and not the government. With that, I would like to close with an amendment to Government Motion No. 9. I move: That the motion be amended, in paragraph (b), (a) by adding, after the words “and Estimates”, the word “and”; and (b) by adding, after the words “Public Accounts”, the following: “which shall consist of nine members and be composed of four members from the Liberal Party, four members from the Conservative Party and one member from the Bloc Québécois.”

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member thinks that the passion I am showing for accountability and transparency, and for ensuring that the government acts in an ethical manner, is just theatrics. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am very passionate about this. As chair of the ethics committee, I am keenly aware of this topic. We just dropped a report today on the Conflict of Interest Act. Throughout the testimony on the Conflict of Interest Act, we heard some pretty disturbing things when it comes to blind trusts and ethics screens not being applied properly, like companies having $5.6 billion in unpaid taxes through offshore accounts. In the last little while, we have seen contracts, like the spaceport, handed out to Liberal family members. I will make no apologies for being passionate about defending the rights of Canadians and making sure that ethical standards are met in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I already mentioned that in my speech. Following the election last April, the parties took part in negotiations regarding the number of members on each committee, but because some MPs have switched sides, we now find ourselves in this situation. We have to ensure we have accountability, oversight and transparency at our committees. This would do nothing to ensure that. In fact, I suggest that it would make it much worse, and the Liberals would run roughshod through everything. They would pass whatever they want to pass, and committees would not have a say in any of it.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be increasingly difficult, but we are not going to stop. We are going to continue to ensure that we have accountability, transparency and oversight. I did mention that the role of the media is going to be that much more important now. If the media acts like it does in other western democracies and actually holds the government to account, then maybe we will get some action in holding it to account as well.

Mr. Speaker, this week, the International Association of Fire Fighters is holding its 33rd legislative conference in Ottawa. As a former firefighter and president of Markham Local 2727, I know the work IAFF members are doing this week, meeting with MPs from all parties, is critical to improving firefighter health and safety, as well as ensuring the financial security of Canadian firefighters, their families and the families of members who have been lost in the line of duty, either by accident or illness. Their advocacy reflects the same commitment to service they bring to their communities every day. As the member of Parliament for Barrie South—Innisfil, I want to thank both the Barrie and Innisfil firefighters associations and their members, IAFF Local 1753 and Local 3804, for the work they do in increasingly difficult circumstances and for their charitable fundraising to help those in need. Finally, I want to thank every IAFF firefighter in Ottawa this week and general president Ed Kelly for their service, their advocacy and their unwavering commitment to firefighter safety. I thank them for looking out for our families.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of jobs, if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. For 16 hours and 45 minutes, the Liberals have been filibustering the ethics committee meetings on a motion that would invite the Minister of Finance to appear before it about his assertion that he put an ethics screen in place because of his spouse's employment as vice-president at Alto. How can there be an ethics screen in place when the minister has been participating in every decision on Alto since the screen was in place? What is the minister hiding, and why are Liberal members of the committee not wanting him to appear?

Mr. Speaker, here is what the member knows. We have seen the future of a Liberal majority at committee, and the future is now. Just last week, the Liberal Prime Minister promised Canadians they would see less showboating and more relevance and substantive debate at committee. What we are actually seeing at committee is Liberal obstruction and a clear sign that they will further obstruct the work of committees and not allow for transparency and accountability, and for the truth to be exposed. If the finance minister has nothing to hide, why will he not come to committee and explain why he discussed and voted on portions of the budget specifically related to Alto, when he said he would not?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a true icon of Canadian sport and broadcasting and the pride of Unionville, Joe Bowen. For more than four decades, Joe Bowen has been the voice of the Toronto Maple Leafs, bringing passion, professionalism and an unmistakable love of the game to fans from coast to coast. Through thrilling victories and heartbreaking losses, Joe made us feel every moment, from last-second goals to unforgettable playoff runs, with a sincerity that connected generations of listeners and resulted in more than a few bent steering wheels in Leafs nation. His calls were never about hype. They were about respect for the game, for the players and for the fans who gathered around radios and televisions season after season. “Holy mackinaw” became more than a catchphrase. It became part of our national hockey culture. As Joe Bowen closes this remarkable chapter of his career, we thank him for the memories, the emotion and a voice that helped define a love for hockey in Canada. Thanks for everything, Joe, and holy mackinaw, enjoy retirement.

Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right. If the minister had nothing to hide, he would have nothing to fear in coming to the ethics committee. The ethics committee will be heading into its 12th hour with the Liberals filibustering an amendment that Conservatives actually support. The motion calls on the finance minister to explain his claim that he has recused himself from decisions on Alto when it is clear he has not. Yesterday the Liberal Prime Minister promised Canadians they would see less showboating, more relevance and substantive debate at committee. If the Prime Minister truly believes that, why does he not tell his members to stand down and have the finance minister appear?

Mr. Speaker, just a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, the shadow minister for justice, proposed that the bill, in an amendment, be sent back to committee. The reason is a simple one. There are at least 15 faith-based organizations in the country who have asked that the bill be reconsidered in its current form. These faith-based organizations represent, collectively, millions of Canadians who are concerned about the bill. Does the hon. member agree that the bill should be sent back to committee to have witnesses at least come in and talk about their concerns and that, perhaps, some more amendments could be made that would make the bill palatable to Canadians? As it stands today, the bill is not.

Mr. Speaker, what we also need are politicians with a backbone who stand behind law enforcement to enforce hate crimes in this country, but that is another subject. I want to go back to what the hon. member said about the member for Nunavut. She cited several examples from that member in her opposition to this bill. The member for Nunavut crossed the floor. In about 30 minutes, I suspect that she is going to be voting for this bill. I am not sure how the member for Nunavut can reconcile that, and I am interested in the hon. member's opinion on that as well.

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister travels the world promoting Brookfield's interests like he is their PM, portfolio manager, here at home, “shocking” is the only way to describe this morning's job numbers: 84,000 Canadians lost their jobs in February and 108,000 jobs were lost in full-time work, while private sector employment fell by 73,000. Employment mostly fell among men aged 25 to 54, the core working age group, and young people between the ages of 15 and 24. Why can the Liberals not finally admit that everything they are doing is an illusion and that they are failing Canadian families and young people?

Mr. Speaker, here at home, our people want to work. They want to produce and they want to provide for their families. Young people want a family and a home for their kids to grow up in. Because of the last 11 years of Liberal failures, a generation has lost hope that this will ever happen. Today's job numbers are a national crisis. Maybe the Prime Minister can focus, for once, not on his Brookfield interests abroad but on what is happening here at home and work with Conservatives to solve the job crisis impacting Canadian families and our young people.

Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, here at home, Canadian families, seniors and businesses are still dealing with ideologically flawed economic policies, regulation and legislation that have seen the cost of everything, including food prices in Canada, rise 7.3% in January alone. Taxes imposed on our farmers, fishers and those who transport our food, as well as the industrial carbon tax, which the Liberal Prime Minister keeps in place, have raised prices on everything made with steel, aluminum and plastic. Why can the Liberal Prime Minister not do the right thing and remove these failed policies that have caused unnecessary hardship and make life more expensive for our people and our businesses?

Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about is our businesses and our people dealing with self-inflicted wounds, because they are. From failing to eliminate these ideological taxes, causing cascading affordability impacts, to the ideological, almost hate-driven attacks on our wealth-creating natural resource sector, every problem we have started here at home in 2015 and continues today under the Liberal Prime Minister. Our nation has the worst food inflation in the G7 and the only shrinking economy in the G7. When will the Liberals accept responsibility for what they can control and for what they caused by removing policies that have made life more expensive for our people and businesses?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have stolen all our ideas. A recent Missing Middle Initiative report shows just how many young people have lost hope of ever owning a home. For parents and grandparents, the signs have been obvious for years. If we are honest about it, the problem started well before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. Despite the Liberals throwing tens of billions of dollars at the problem, the fact remains that 10 years of structural incompetence and Liberal policies have caused house prices and rent to double and, with that, the lost hope of home ownership for a generation. Here is an idea: Why not remove the GST on all new homes to start restoring the hope, at least, of home ownership among young Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, we voted against more bureaucracy and more red tape instead of getting the job done. Our kids are worried, and our grandkids are worried. In 10 years, home ownership among 30- to 34-year-olds fell from 60% to 52%. It is even steeper among young people: 93% of gen Zs and millennials are worried about the state of housing in Canada today. Unfortunately, unaffordability is reshaping communities, with nearly half of young Canadians reporting that they have considered leaving their current city or province. This is not a tariff issue. It is a self-inflicted wound caused by failed policies. Can we at least agree to start restoring the hope of owning a home among young people by removing the GST on all new homes?

Madam Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise today to speak to the opposition day motion. Before I begin my remarks, I too want to express my sincere sympathies and condolences to the people of Tumbler Ridge, B.C. It was an incredible tragedy, and I want them to know that I and the people I represent in Barrie South—Innisfil are thinking of them. We send our love and our comfort to them during this unimaginable time. Having gone through tragedies ourselves, losing two police officers in 2022, we know the coming days will be dark days for the community of Tumbler Ridge, but the love and comfort of our nation is with them. Members in this place certainly expressed that yesterday. We are dealing with an opposition day motion on an EV mandate, and I want to focus on three things that the opposition is asking for today. Number one is scrapping the subsidies for foreign-made electric vehicles entering Canada, which force Canadian workers to subsidize $50,000 new cars. Two is removing the GST on Canadian-made vehicles. This was something that was in our Conservative platform in the last election, as a measure to spur on Canadian sales of Canadian-made vehicles. The last thing is for the government to use its existing authority under section 153 of the Income Tax Act to help the workers in Ingersoll who have been devastated by job losses and, worse yet, have had to pay taxes, right now, on their severance pay. We are trying to help those workers in that regard. In 2023, the then Trudeau government implemented an electric vehicle mandate that would require 100% of vehicles sold in Canada to be electric by 2035. For years, Canada's Conservatives have been clear that forcing 100% of new vehicle sales to be electric by 2035 was unrealistic and created prolonged uncertainty for manufacturers and workers making long-term investment decisions. The one thing businesses cannot afford is uncertainty and doubt when making those decisions. By cancelling the EV mandate recently, the Prime Minister and the Liberals signalled and admitted that Conservatives were right all along. However, their solutions will still leave Canadians and Canadian workers behind. Canadians cannot afford to keep paying into EV subsidies for vehicles they cannot afford and that are not built by our workers. The announcement by the government wastes $97 million in taxpayer money on its environmental crusade and ideology. Of this spending, $84 million will go toward EV charging stations across the country, with no connection between the amount of funding and the number of chargers delivered. This adds more fuel, frankly, to the fire that was last week's announcement that the Liberals will be spending $2.3 billion in subsidies that will mostly go to foreign EVs. When looking at the numbers, Conservatives found that in 2023, 99% of EV rebates went to foreign-made cars. There is only one Canadian EV that is made in Canada and qualifies for the rebate, and that is the Dodge Charger EV, which is unaffordable to most. They simply cannot afford it, as part of the middle class. Canada's own auto sector is hurting, and Canada's workers are being put out of jobs. Since 2016, vehicle production has been cut nearly in half, from 2.3 million cars per year to 1.2 million in 2025. Real GDP in auto manufacturing fell another 10% in November alone, and 5,000 auto sector workers have been laid off in the last year. As a member of Parliament from central Ontario, I am very proud of the investment that Honda Manufacturing has made in Alliston. There is a significant concern not just among the members of Parliament from central Ontario but among those workers, those thousands of workers, many of whom live in my riding of Barrie South—Innisfil. They are quite concerned about the state of the auto sector as it stands right now under the Liberal government. For the 1,200 workers at the CAMI facility in Ingersoll who have been laid off, the severance pay and lump sum payouts are reduced by the minimum tax rate, meaning that over 50% of their payouts are held by the government until these workers file their taxes. Canada's Conservatives are asking the Liberals to use their existing authority to reduce the amount withheld in these payments, which can simply be done by the finance minister under section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Instead, the government has labelled helping laid-off workers as political malpractice, announced a rebate that will subsidize American-made EVs, and committed a swath of taxpayer cash for EV charging stations. While Donald Trump continues to slap additional tariffs on our auto workers, the Prime Minister decided to give Americans access to this $2.3-billion subsidy. Canadian taxpayers should not have to subsidize American EVs when the trade conflict with the U.S. has already cost 5,000 Canadian auto manufacturing jobs and 37,000 manufacturing jobs since the Prime Minister took office. He needs to answer as to why Canadian tax dollars would subsidize American EVs and to stop this insult to workers, who have seen production leave to the U.S. They will be the ones who are now paying the price. I will provide some examples of vehicles that are manufactured in the United States but sold in Canada under the $50,000 manufacturer's suggested price that may qualify for this: The Volkswagen ID.4, which has a suggested price of $46,000, is assembled in Chattanooga, Tennessee; the Chevy Bolt is manufactured in Kansas City; the Tesla Model Y is manufactured in Austin, Texas; and the Ford Escape plug-in hybrid is manufactured at the Louisville assembly plant in Kentucky. Here are other identified eligible electric vehicles that are made outside the U.S.: The Chevy Equinox EV is assembled in Mexico; the Hyundai Kona Electric is manufactured in South Korea; the Fiat 500e is manufactured in Italy; and the Nissan Leaf is manufactured in Japan. There are other examples of vehicles that are made in South Korea, Japan, the United States and other places, like Mexico, where Canadian workers will be subsidizing the purchase of these EVs under this new scheme and regime that was announced by the government. Auto workers are losing their jobs. There are hard-working, middle-class taxpayers right now who can barely afford the essentials and the necessities of life. They are being asked, under this new scheme, to subsidize vehicles that are not going to be manufactured in Canada, resulting in more uncertainty and more doubt within the automotive sector with respect to where this investment is going. As an example, the member for Kildonan—St. Paul said that we have seen $53 billion put into the EV sector that is basically money that has been poured down the drain. We see a retrenchment now in the investments by auto manufacturers and the auto sector on the EV mandates, largely because the largest consumer market in the world, which is the American market, has moved away from EV mandates. However, here we are in Canada, doubling down on a failed policy as a result of ideology that is going to cost Canadian workers billions more hard-earned dollars to subsidize not just a failing industry but also vehicles made in the United States. Today, Canada's Conservatives are standing up not just for those auto workers and the 600,000 people who are employed in the auto sector, either directly or indirectly, but also for those hard-working Canadians who pay their taxes, are having trouble paying their bills, and are now being asked by the Liberal government to subsidize vehicles that are going to be made in other countries. It is wrong. This motion attempts to address that. It is another solution proposed by Canada's Conservatives to fix what has gone wrong over the last 10 years as a result of the failed economic and ideological policies of the Liberal government.