Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I am not surprised by that intervention. As I stated in my speech, the reality is that 99% of EV subsidies supplied by this government actually went to foreign auto manufacturers. If the government is interested in solving this crisis, two things need to be done. Number one is to invest in the Canadian sector and take our suggestion of reducing the GST off the purchase of new vehicles. That would help spur on the purchasing power of Canadians. Number two is what the Prime Minister promised he would do in the last election, and that is to negotiate a deal with the American administration on the tariff situation. He said that he would do that by July 21, 2025, and at this point, there has been no resolution. The Prime Minister actually made false statements to Canadians that he was going to solve this problem, and here we are with 5,000 workers out of work and a manufacturing sector that is dealing with doubt and uncertainty and has been decimated as a result.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have a great deal of respect for him. We work very hard together at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Members will not be surprised by my response. There is obviously an ideological difference in terms of the natural resource sector, what it means to Canada and what it means to providing great wealth to our nation. Similar to the auto industry, there are hundreds of thousands of people employed in the natural resource sector, either directly or indirectly. We have the third- and fifth-largest reserves in the world. The ideological attack over the last almost 11 years by this government, endorsed and supported by other parties in this place, has resulted in a loss of great wealth to our nation. I have spoken about this before in this place. We have lost hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue as a result of these ideological attacks on our natural resource sector. As a nation, we would be standing on our own two feet, notwithstanding the tariff war with the United States, if we had that $200-plus billion in our hip pocket. We would be a nation that would be resilient, and we would be free of any threats of tariffs that come from the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the last 10-plus years have been incredible if one is a well-connected Liberal insider or lobbyist friend, or has business connections to the Prime Minister. Every leading indicator says that the Canadian economy is in free fall, and while the well-connected people get to gorge on the all-you-can-take taxpayer buffet, auto workers, tradespeople, families and single moms struggling to pay rent and mortgages, young people who have lost hope and seniors who cannot afford groceries are being told they have never had it so good. What happened to all the grand promises of the last election? Were they not more about the Liberals' self-preservation than about solutions to fix the self-inflicted wounds they have caused over the last 10 years?

Mr. Speaker, by every metric, every problem Canadians faced before the last election is getting worse. Food costs have doubled, food bank use has doubled and housing starts are almost non-existent. There are mass layoffs and plant closures across all sectors of our economy. The interprovincial trade barriers still exist. There is still no trade deal with the U.S. Half a trillion dollars in investment capital has left Canada. Deficits are ballooning, and Canada's debt is at record levels. In the last election, the Liberals promised affordability, lower prices and real relief for Canadians, so after a year of higher costs and broken promises, which part of that do the Liberals actually think they have delivered on?

Mr. Speaker, in a stunning admission of failure, over-promising and underdelivering, Liberals this week announced that they will be seducing Canadians with their own money. Without acknowledging that their failed economic policies have caused structural food insecurity for millions of Canadians families, the Liberals' latest scheme will put $12 billion more on the country's credit card. In the spirit of co-operation, here is an idea: Why not eliminate their industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax, and lower income taxes, boost grocery chain competition and stop taxing farmers so families can keep food in their cart rather than having to put it back on the shelf?

Mr. Speaker, if things were so great and affordability were in fact improving, there would be no need for the Liberals to spend $12 billion more outside the budget. The truth is that the Liberals are doing this to distract from their failed policies. They can right now implement solutions to solve the structural problem of grocery affordability and the food insecurity crisis that Canadian families and seniors are dealing with. Conservatives are willing to fast-track the elimination of all taxes that are having a cascading impact on higher grocery prices. Will the Liberals join us, or will they obstruct real relief for Canadians and carry on with their short-term vote-buying scheme?

Mr. Speaker, we found out today that the Prime Minister's signature Major Projects Office is directing Bay Street corporations, capital investors and banks to lend or second staff to the MPO, asking the companies to top up their pay. Here is how greasy this is: Banks, energy companies, mining companies and Brookfield could end up with employees on the inside of the MPO, giving them the inside track and advice on projects they are working on while these companies pay their salaries and provide lucrative bonuses. Under this scheme, just to spell this out, the Prime Minister's corporate buddies will be paying to have insiders work at the MPO. How is this ethical?

Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister's Bay Street buddies who are sounding the alarm. If someone is on Bay Street and wants a mine built, it is no problem, because they can pay to send an employee to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office to help. If they want a reactor built, that is no problem either, because they can pay to send an employee to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office to help them. Are they a large capital investor, say like, I do not know, Brookfield, and want to fund a green project that pads the Prime Minister's portfolio? That is no problem, because they can pay to send an employee to the Prime Minister's Major Projects Office to help. This is wrong, unethical and corrupt. How is this happening?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek concurrence on the first report of the Liaison Committee, which details the work of the standing committees of the House. I am doing so to sound the alarm over the systematic obstruction we are witnessing on multiple committee fronts, perpetrated by the Liberal government. I will split my time, as well, with the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. In addition to my work as chair of the ethics committee, I serve as the Conservative caucus committee coordinator. As part of my responsibilities, I make a point of observing a wide cross-section of standing committees and can report that Liberal obstruction tactics include purposely not scheduling meetings, intentionally withholding ministers from facing accountability at committee, preventing witnesses from testifying, lengthy filibusters and breaking procedural rules to their advantage. In a phrase, the Prime Minister treats Parliament like a corporate boardroom meant only to rubber-stamp his agenda. I have news for him and his government: This is a G7 democracy, not a meeting of shareholders. This is a minority Parliament. Committees are composed in such a way that the Liberals must work with at least one opposition party to advance the government's agenda. It also means that when opposition parties unite to hold the government to account, the government must comply with the will of the committee. However, rather than working constructively with opposition parties, the Liberals prefer to take their ball and go home. Allow me to cite some examples of Liberal obstruction. At the justice committee, after Conservatives worked productively to receive witness testimony on Bill C-9, the Liberal law on hate speech, the committee got bogged down by a Liberal filibuster on a Conservative motion that called for the strongest legislative response possible to the Supreme Court ruling that struck down mandatory prison time for those convicted of possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material. That is right. Rather than prioritize legislation on hate crimes or bail, the Liberals ran cover for an egregious court decision that eases sentences for perverts in possession of child pornography. They filibustered three meetings: November 6, November 18 and November 20. Following a filibuster on December 2, after it became clear that the Liberals were not serious about their hate crime bill, Conservatives moved that the committee prioritize the bail bill, Bill C-14. Given the daily news reports of violent crimes being committed by repeat offenders, I would think the Liberals might have wanted to work with us to pass that bail law. Conservatives are of the view that, while the bill does not go nearly far enough to fix the broken bail system, a partial measure is better than nothing. What did the Liberals do with our offer to work quickly on Bill C-14? They voted to adjourn debate. Instead, the Minister of Justice went rogue and made a deal with the Bloc to remove religious protections built into the Criminal Code as part of the hate speech bill, leading to division in their own caucus and a stalled agenda at the committee. Nevertheless, Conservatives agreed to work constructively through the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. The Liberals secured committee resources through to midnight on December 2, but after passing just one clause that day, they quickly adjourned the meeting, preventing the committee from dealing with the amendment on the religious exemption. Since then, the chair refused to schedule a meeting on December 4 and has yet to put out a meeting notice for this week. While the Liberals obstruct their own agenda, the victims of crime are the ones who suffer. I will reiterate our offer: Conservatives would be pleased to set aside other work before the committee to see that Bill C-14 becomes law. Liberal obstruction goes far beyond just the justice committee. At the transport committee, the Conservative Party worked constructively and efficiently on Bill C-5, the so-called Building Canada Act. I note that, since its passage, not one project has been listed in the national interest, and the promise the Liberals made to approve projects and build Canada remains unfulfilled. Conservatives secured several amendments to that bill, which included protections for indigenous people, as well as ethics and oversight provisions. One might think this would have created some goodwill among parties at the committee table. It did not. The committee conducted a study on the Driver Inc. issue and examined ways to improve highway safety. Opposition members proposed extending the study by two sessions in order to hear from victims of trucking accidents and obtain related documents from the government. The Liberals are determined not to show Canadians that the government is unable to keep them safe, so they have launched a procedural war against this motion. To prevent debate, the Liberal chair cancelled meetings scheduled for November 18 and 20. The members of the opposition used an extraordinary tool to force an emergency meeting through Standing Order 106(4), which began on November 25. If members consult the parliamentary website, they will see that the meeting that began on November 25 is still ongoing. As of now, this is a 13-day meeting. The Liberals began by filibustering for hours, which was followed by a multi-day suspension, another Standing Order 106(4) letter to force the recall of the committee, another four-hour filibuster by the Liberals and another multi-day suspension. At one point, the chair attempted to mislead committee members that a suspension would last 30 minutes, but then he exited out the back door and allowed the suspension to last for days. Rather than get answers for victims or prepare recommendations for expanded road safety, the Liberals are obstructing the work of the transport committee. We are seeing similar obstruction tactics by chairs at other committees, such as at the finance, science and research, health, and human resources committees, and more. I am pleased to begin this important debate to allow members of the House to air the grievances they have with the conduct of the chairs of these committees. It is a committee Festivus, if one will. Unfortunately, Liberal chairs are not the only ones obstructing committee work. Ministers of the Crown are also direct participants in this obstruction. We have seen multiple absent ministers. The justice committee invited the Minister of Justice to appear in relation to his mandate and priorities on September 23. He has yet to appear. The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Public Safety were also invited to participate as witnesses in the justice committee study on the bail system. Both ministers declined to participate. This dynamic duo was repeatedly invited to the status of women committee to participate in its study of section 810 of the Criminal Code and women's safety. Again, they have ignored that invitation. The Minister of Justice was also invited to the national defence committee as part of its study on Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act, given that he would be responsible for the civilian process to deal with sexual harassment in the military. Again, he obstructed the work of the committee and refused to appear. The finance minister refused the request of the industry committee to appear with respect to the Stellantis contract, despite the fact that he was the minister who signed the deal and the contract in the first place, which has yet to demonstrate any form of job guarantee for Canadian workers. The public safety minister refused to appear at the transport committee as part of its investigation into security concerns around the decision of the Infrastructure Bank to fund the purchase of new vessels from China for BC Ferries. The Liberals have run interference to prevent the Minister of Industry from appearing at the public safety committee on Bill C-8, even though their proposed law would give her sweeping powers to remove the Internet from citizens. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence has failed to appear at the ethics committee, despite 11 requests to do so, or the status of women committee as it conducts studies on the various impacts of AI on Canadian life. The Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature has ignored three invitations from the environment committee related to the industrial carbon tax, the global carbon tax on marine transport and the EV mandate. The Minister of Indigenous Services has failed to appear at the indigenous affairs committee to respond to the Auditor General's report on progress for indigenous communities. The Minister of Jobs and Families, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, the Minister of Public Safety, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance have all failed to appear before committees on the supplementary estimates. Billions of tax dollars are going unscrutinized before they go out the door. The list goes on. There is a lot more to say on the Liberal attack on and decline in our democracy, and the attack on committees, but I am short on time. In conclusion, we demand, on behalf of Canadians, that the Liberals end their obstruction and start being accountable for every dollar they spend, law they propose and incursion of freedom they attempt to do.

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member spends all of his time in the House. He should be out watching the committees, as I am, to see the level of obstruction that is going on by the Liberal Party in almost every committee. The challenge right now is that the Liberals know they do not have the majority on every committee, so their only process in not allowing the opposition members, whether they are the Conservatives or the Bloc Québécois, to deal with important committee business is to take their ball, go home, and have their Liberal chairs cancel the meetings, or worse yet, call for a suspension and then never come back, as they did in one of the committees, despite the fact that they had seven hours of additional resources available to them. The Liberals are obstructing democracy in this place, not the opposition parties.

Mr. Speaker, I do have the utmost respect for the hon. member as his party's whip. If the member recalls, last fall this place was seized because the government refused to provide the documents regarding the sustainable development technology fund to a committee of Parliament. It refused. There were 11,000 documents counted last fall that were not being given to a parliamentary committee, despite the fact that the parliamentary committee had demanded that those documents be turned over. I think it is a pattern of these Liberals. I once heard a very smart person say that the Liberals want an audience. They do not want an opposition. They do not want us to fulfill our constitutional obligation to hold them to account, and that is precisely what is happening in our committees right now.

Mr. Speaker, it is absurd that we are seeing the government filibuster its own bills, and there is a reason they are doing this. It is because, on every committee, not just the oversight committees, they do not hold the majority. The majority has been held by the opposition parties. After the committees were formed, between the Conservatives and the Bloc, we hold the majority, which means that no vote ever gets to a Liberal chair. What they do instead is cancel the meetings, or take their ball and go home, only to regroup and come back. What we are seeing is a pattern across all committees, and no member in this place should be surprised, including—

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that I have a lot of respect for my colleague. He is a great guy. We may disagree politically, but I have a lot of respect for him. I am very pleased that my colleague is looking at the statistics on how committees work. We are doing that as well. Today's debate is about the fact that a number of committee chairs are Liberals. As my colleague said, the chair has a lot of power and can cancel meetings. Does my colleague think that democracy suffers when Liberal chairs operate this way? Does that diminish the ability of members to do their work in the House and in committees?

Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in my colleague's comments. I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. In this Parliament, as in all Parliaments, there are committees responsible for government oversight. My job is to closely monitor the work of these four oversight committees, as well as the committees chaired by Liberal members. Could my colleague comment on how oversight committees function in comparison to committees chaired by Liberals? In my opinion, the latter seem to function less effectively than the former.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Well, the verdict is in. The 2026 “Canada's Food Price Report” warns that grocery costs will rise by 4% to 6% next year, meaning the average family of four will pay nearly $1,000 more, bringing annual food costs to over $17,500. One in four Canadian households is already food insecure, and Canadian families, seniors and single moms are being squeezed at the checkout. Why are these Liberals not cutting their inflationary spending, the industrial carbon tax and their new fuel tax, so that Canadians can afford to eat?

Mr. Speaker, the member is blaming climate change for the rise in food prices. The Liberals will say that things have never been better, but the reality is that things have never been worse. In Ontario, there were 8.7 million visits to a food bank, and grocery prices are expected to cost families $1,000 more in 2026. The Prime Minister said he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Well, the verdict is in, but there is still time for him to enter a plea deal on his lower grocery price promise. Will he plead guilty of breach of trust, fraud or both?

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister said “Who cares?” during his visit to the U.A.E. recently about the state of trade talks with the U.S., he meant it, and here is why. No one should be naive in thinking that the Prime Minister left a $1-trillion company, making millions of dollars in both salary and deferred compensations, for some virtuous reason to make $400,000 as the Prime Minister, to negotiate a trade deal or save us from ourselves. Almost everything in the budget implementation act is set up to use the power of the Prime Minister's Office to benefit a group of well-connected Liberal insiders, lobbyists and the Prime Minister's corporate buddies. This was a process that started in 2020, when the Prime Minister was appointed as the economic adviser to Justin Trudeau while still acting as chair of Brookfield Asset Management. Having Trudeau in power was a dream come true for the incestuous cabal of Liberal elites. While Trudeau was playing prime minister, the pieces being put into place to ensure that many if not all of the public financial instruments, green investment funds and policies the Prime Minister started pushing when he was pulling Trudeau's strings as his economic adviser aligned with Brookfield's strategy and success. Last week we found out from Brookfield's chief operating officer that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in carried interest payments from his company's success related to climate and infrastructure schemes he set up. These funds could generate tens of millions of dollars in carried interest for the Prime Minister personally, depending on their performance over the next decade. However, here is the problem. The Prime Minister knows what he owned before the blind trust was set up. Every time he makes a decision on infrastructure, energy or climate policy, or with tax incentives that are in the BIA, this will help Brookfield in areas where Brookfield is deeply invested. Questions should arise. Is any given policy for Canadians, for Brookfield or for the Prime Minister? Critics will argue that they have set up a blind trust and an ethics screen, and that this is enough to ensure public confidence and trust, but Brookfield's interest from artificial intelligence, modular housing, carbon capture, nuclear and the transition model of public risk for private return he set up while advising Trudeau will make the Prime Minister millions, and he knows it. Furthermore, the screen is administered by two political appointees of the Prime Minister. We found out last week that the Prime Minister met with Brookfield executives privately in the Prime Minister's office in October, which would cause a reasonable person to think that the screen is not being wilfully applied, given the fact that the Prime Minister is not supposed to have any interaction with Brookfield, either its people or its entities. Who cares? We all should, because democracy depends on trust. If Canadians believe that their leaders are making decisions to enrich their companies or themselves, confidence in our institution erodes even more than it has under the Liberals. This is not about partisan politics; it is about accountability. Canadians deserve leaders who serve the public interest, not private portfolios. My assessment of the budget is simple. For people who support expansive government involvement in every aspect of our economy; subsidies given to companies that would otherwise invest their own capital; Brookfield's deep involvement in policies shaped by its former chair, the current Prime Minister, policies that he and the company stand to gain from; bloating debt and deficits that burden our families, seniors and future generations; and a system that gives Liberal insiders and lobbyists unfettered access to the Treasury while Canada drifts closer and closer towards a kleptocracy, this is the budget—

Madam Speaker, that got the member going. The truth hurts. Actually, everything I said is open source and based on testimony at the ethics committee and on some of the discussions and questions in the House. The difference is that the Prime Minister holds the levers of power in this country. Every decision he makes can and will benefit him, Liberal-connected insiders and his corporate buddies. When members of the opposition hold stocks, let us say in Brookfield, they do not hold the levers of power that will enrich themselves. The truth is the truth, and what I spoke today is the truth.

Madam Speaker, it is a simple response because the Prime Minister knows precisely what is in that blind trust. He set up the investment schemes, green infrastructure, etc. when he was advising the former prime minister, so he knows full well what is in that blind trust. The problem is that every policy decision he makes can and will, in some way, impact him and his corporate buddies. The Conflict of Interest Act, which the ethics committee is studying right now, has a massive hole that one could drive a truck through, and this is what the Prime Minister is applying right now, as it relates to the general application rule. He can make broad policy decisions that impact his company and his investments, like the tax credits, for example, in the budget implementation act, or nuclear deals with the United States in Washington, which his company owns. All this means that the blind trust is not really blind at all to the Prime Minister and that he can, in fact, use his position to influence policy decisions and make millions at the same time.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to represent the rural part of my riding in Innisfil. We have the largest privately held farm in Ontario and the largest onion farm in Canada. The policies we put forward would have directly impacted, in a positive way, farming communities. For example, the industrial carbon tax is still applied. Every time those farmers buy equipment, buy fertilizer and buy seed, all of that is applicable and has a cascading effect down the supply chain. The hon. member wonders why food inflation and food insecurity are so great in this country. It is a direct result of the failed economic policies of the government that are affecting farmers at the cost level. Those costs are being applied downstream, as well, to the end consumer. Therefore, I am very proud of the policies we put forward with respect to agriculture, and I am very proud to represent a riding that has agriculture in it.

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's trust may be blind, but the math is not. This week, we found out from Brookfield's chief operating officer that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in carried interest payments from his company's success related to the climate and infrastructure schemes he set up. Many, if not all, of the public financial instruments, funds and policies the Prime Minister started pushing when he was pulling Trudeau's strings as his economic adviser in 2020 align with Brookfield's strategy and success. How is it ethical when the Prime Minister is using the power of his office to benefit him and his company?

Madam Speaker, Brookfield's COO also confirmed that the umbilical cord between the Prime Minister and his company will stay attached until 2034, because the fund the Prime Minister set up will mature then. That means if it does well, he does really well. Here is the problem. He knows full well what is in his blind trust and is using the power of his office to promote policies that benefit his company and him. AI, modular housing, carbon capture, nuclear and the transition model of public risk for private returns he set up while advising Trudeau will make him millions. How is this ethical, if not illegal?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a hard-working member. His riding is adjacent to mine. He is well-respected in his community. I know he works hard. I know he is dealing with an issue that I am keeping an eye on. He referenced the DND expropriation of almost 4,000 acres of farmland. This is prime agricultural land. There are generational family farms. The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture is engaged, trying to do everything it can to stop this. Could the member comment a little further? Obviously, when land is expropriated, people do not get the true value for it, and all the significant investments that farmers have made in that area will be lost as well.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak fast because I have a lot to cover in seven minutes. A lot has been said about the budget implementation act over the last several days. There are a couple of highlights I want to focus on. The first thing I want to talk about is the deficit. We heard that it is up to $78 billion. It was supposed to be $62 billion. The Prime Minister promised a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. He is raising both it and inflation. He promised to spend less. He is spending $90 billion more, and that works out to about $5,400 more in inflationary spending per household when families can least afford it. He is adding $321.7 billion to the federal debt over the next five years. That is more than twice the $154 billion that Trudeau would have added over the same period. Let us think about that. Those are staggering numbers, and this is really going to impact affordability for Canadians. It adds $10 million to our debt every hour, and the federal debt is now $1.35 trillion. The interest on the debt will be $55.6 billion for 2025-26, and that is more than the Canadian health transfers of $54.7 billion. GST revenue is $54.4 billion, and it amounts to about $3,360 per Canadian household. The GDP has already grown. It is just getting worse. I want to spend my time focusing on something that is not in the budget. It is a critical issue for us locally in central Ontario, particularly in the riding that I represent and the riding of the member for Simcoe—Grey, who is sitting behind me right now. We have many members who have an interest in Lake Simcoe and the health of Lake Simcoe. The Canada Water Agency is addressed in the budget. There are minor increases in funding, but one thing that is not in the budget implementation act, nor was it in the budget, is the restoration of the long-standing demand that I have made and members whose ridings surround Lake Simcoe have made. It is about the health, sustainability and viability of that precious crown jewel. There is not one dime allocated toward the health and the protection of Lake Simcoe. I am profoundly disappointed. We made a commitment to reinstate the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. There was $59 million initiated by the Conservative government back under former prime minister Stephen Harper. We saw measurable improvements in Lake Simcoe's health, quality and invasive species, as well as the land restoration surrounding the lake. It was having a dramatic impact. In 2019, the former finance minister came to the shores of Lake Simcoe and promised a restoration of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. Conservatives had made a commitment to restore it, and the Liberals have reneged on that offer since then. We have not seen one dime coming to Lake Simcoe. There was an announcement of some minor funding, but in terms of that protection plan, that dedicated fund for Lake Simcoe, we have not seen it at all. Just two days ago, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition issued a report on the current health of Lake Simcoe. I will remind members again that it is the largest freshwater lake in Ontario. It is a four-season destination. The economic benefits of Lake Simcoe, as a four-season destination, are hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. It is generated in businesses, seasonal fishing and cottages. We depend on the lake for many things, not to mention drinking water, which is drawn from that lake as well. In the report, the coalition talked about the current state of the lake. It talked about phosphorus pollution, fish habitat and fish health. It talked about invasive species. It stated, “Quagga mussels have overtaken zebra mussels; round goby are widespread; starry stonewort is entrenched, though it has gone through 'boom and bust' cycles; and in 2024, water soldier was confirmed near Keswick and Innisfil as a significant emerging threat”. In fact, through a friend of mine, Barry Wiszniowski, I had an opportunity to fly over the lake in his aircraft. We flew over the water soldier that is now permeating and rising above Cook's Bay. It is quite relevant and prevalent in Cook's Bay right now. As an invasive species, it has the potential to create incredible damage. In its executive summary, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition talked about what we see 16 years after the Lake Simcoe protection plan, which was a provincial initiative. It said, “The costs of inaction are mounting. Declining water quality drives higher municipal expenses for stormwater systems, with significant deferred maintenance for stormwater ponds and linear drainage assets”. It said that the “watershed remains under significant ecological stress.” The report, and the review of the report, talked about the current scientific conditions and the policy trends, and they were asking that Lake Simcoe have a dedicated fund that is directed, again, in a similar way to what the Conservatives had initiated. I think this was early 2012; I am gapping on the date, but there was $59 million, as I said, that was dedicated towards the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, so members of the coalition are asking for the restoration of that fund. Again, as I said, they are asking to “Anchor Lake Simcoe Within the Federal Freshwater Action Plan”. My colleagues and I, in ridings that surround Lake Simcoe, have written numerous environmental ministers. We have written the Prime Minister, pleading with the government to restore the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, which was a dedicated fund that saw measurable improvements, that put boots on the ground and that worked with the conservation authorities to make sure that the health and vitality of Lake Simcoe was to be protected, not just for now, but for generations to come. It is that critical to our area, and I am disappointed that it is not in the budget.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says Canadians need to sacrifice more and accept a lower standard of living and quality of life, while he says “Who cares?” about critical trade talks with the U.S., acting more like an advance team for Brookfield than standing up for Canadians. Everywhere he goes, a deal for Brookfield follows while tariffs stay in place or go up. We learned this week that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in bonuses from Brookfield's success. Why does the Prime Minister have his elbows up for himself and his Brookfield buddies, but says “Who cares?” about Canadian businesses and working families affected by tariffs?

Mr. Speaker, he shrugs off critical trade talks with a smug “Who cares?” Here is something he cannot shrug off that everyone should care about. Despite the conflict of interest and ethics screen he has on Brookfield, we found out this week that the Prime Minister met with Brookfield executives behind closed doors in his office in October, proving that his ethics screen is more like a smokescreen. The Prime Minister and Brookfield stand to gain millions from his policies. He knows he cannot have any contact with those at Brookfield, but he met with them anyway. Why would he meet with Brookfield knowing he is barred from having any contact with it?

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the Christmas season, it is important to remember the spirit of giving and compassion that defines the time of year. In Barrie and Innisfil, local charities, such as Community for Kids, Christmas Cheer, Senior Wish Association, the Salvation Army, our local churches and the Rotary clubs, work tirelessly to support families, provide meals and bring hope to those in need. Food banks in both Barrie and Innisfil have seen a demand increase and a rise in use. Speaking with Barrie Food Bank executive director Karen Shuh over the weekend, I learned that it has seen a 16% increase in usage year over year. Sadly, people who never imagined they would have to use the food bank now are. The same is true in Innisfil. By donating or volunteering, we can make a real difference in the lives of our neighbours and strengthen the bonds that make our communities so special. This Christmas, let us come together to share kindness and ensure that everyone can experience the joy of the season.

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian should be thanking their lucky stars that we have a Parliamentary Budget Officer whose job it is to be independent and honest about the state of government deficits, debts and spending. The budget watchdog, last week, called out the creative accounting in the Prime Minister's credit card budget, saying that he is using “a definition of capital investment that expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice”. In other words, the Prime Minister is cooking the books, and his out-of-control deficit is pouring more gas on the debt and deficit fires. How many more alarms must go off for the Prime Minister to rein in his spending in his credit card budget?

Mr. Speaker, what is the Liberals' response to the interim PBO's warnings? They put him on notice that they will be looking to replace him with someone who has “tact and discretion”. Presumably, that means replacing the budget watchdog with someone from the Prime Minister's inner circle of corporate buddies, who take their marching orders from him. The independence and oversight of the budget watchdog is designed to call out deception and raise the alarm, to ensure that every MP and Canadian knows when the books are being cooked. Why are the watchdogs who are challenging the wolves on the credit card budget being threatened?

Mr. Speaker, I move that the third report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, presented to the House on Monday, September 22, 2025, be concurred in. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, who is also a stalwart defender of openness, transparency, truth and accountability, as our shadow minister for ethics on the ethics committee. The ethics committee has been in the process of studying a report and a review of the Conflict of Interest Act. As I reported to the House, what the committee is in the middle of studying right now includes the conflict of interest rules, disclosure mechanisms and compliance measures set out in the act. The committee is also looking to the House to instruct the committee on whether the act should be amended or expanded with a view to enhancing transparency; preventing conflicts of interest; avoiding potential or apparent conflicts of interest; regulating public office-holders’ ownership of assets in tax havens, and I will have more to say on that in a few minutes; limiting the availability of blind trusts as a compliance measure; extending the act’s provisions to political party leaders and leadership candidates; and increasing penalties for non-compliance. The conclusion of the review calls for the committee to report its findings to the House. The Conflict of Interest Act, quite frankly, has never contemplated a situation such as the one we are in right now, where we find a designated public office-holder with so many potential conflicts of interest because of extensive private sector holdings. We are really trying to focus on and narrow down how we can improve the Conflict of Interest Act and perhaps provide recommendations to the House, and certainly to the government, in amending the law in ways that would protect the transparency and accountability that Canadians so rightly demand. It is not just about the one thing of having a conflict; the appearance of the conflict is also another thing. Quite frankly, there are many holes within the Conflict of Interest Act that allow for designated public office-holders, including those holding the highest office in the land, to use that act, with its many loopholes, to skirt around the law that exists today, and that would cause reasonable, thinking people in this country to question the motives and intention of a designated office-holder. We are quite understanding of the fact that we cannot focus on things on a case-by-case basis, and that is why we are conducting the comprehensive study on the act to ensure that Canadians are confident that their designated public officers are not using their offices as a means to enhance or further their private interests and to gain financially as a result of their being in office. As members will recall, the act is quite comprehensive, but it is to ensure that ethical governance exists. It is central to maintaining the integrity of public trust in government. It is also designed to prevent the misuse of power. It aims to prevent officials from using their positions, as I said, to further their private interests, and it aims to clarify obligations as well. Designated public office-holders have complex and varied responsibilities under the act. It also provides for some oversight and accountability to strengthen oversight mechanisms so parliamentary reviews can identify gaps on enforcement and compliance, which is what the committee is doing right now, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the Ethics Commissioner. The committee oversees the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. It is also to respond to public concerns, high-profile cases or controversies that may prompt the need for legislative review, which certainly we are seeing in the case of the Prime Minister right now. On modernization and reform, the intent of the committee is also to update outdated provisions. The act may need revisions from time to time to reflect current realities, for example, digital assets and lobbying practices. I am very pleased to report that the ethics committee has passed a motion to study the Lobbying Act, which has not been reviewed since 2012 despite the legislative requirement of a five-year review. I know that the Commissioner of Lobbying is very much anticipating the review, and I expect that you, Mr. Speaker, will hear from committee or the House leaders, asking for the committee to conduct such a review. It is also to address ambiguities. Some rules may be unclear or be inconsistently applied across different roles. Certainly, first and foremost, it is to improve transparency by strengthening disclosure and reporting requirements that can enhance, ultimately, what the goal of all parliamentarians and designated public officers should be: to ensure that the public has the utmost confidence that designated public office-holders are not using their position to further enhance their financial portfolio. Right now the committee is undertaking a review of the applicability to various roles, as ministers, parliamentary secretaries and senior officials have different levels of obligation. It will assess post-employment rules and consider exemptions and exceptions. Some provisions may allow for exceptions, which may need a little more scrutiny. From a policy and legislative alignment standpoint, it should align with other ethics frameworks to ensure consistency with the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons and other federal ethics laws and certainly to support broader accountability, including transparency, lobbying and privacy legislation as well. The committee is working. It is in the process right now of undertaking the study. There have been some pretty significant interactions with witnesses who have provided some suggestions to the committee that could eventually form the recommendations of a study that we ultimately present to Parliament, and have the government respond to many of the recommendations that may come. I certainly do not want to preclude any results of this. Obviously the committee has more work ahead of it. There are more witnesses to appear, but also, as we draft the report and come up with recommendations, I can assure the House with some confidence that many of those recommendations will form a significant upgrade and allow for the Conflict of Interest Act to reflect the modern times and the situation we find ourselves in, where, in the case of the Prime Minister and his private interests, we have never had a prime minister as conflicted as the current one is, with having to declare 103 conflicts of interest, as well as stockholdings in the United States that represent almost 93% of his portfolio. What makes it important, particularly with blind trusts and the ethics screens that have been set up, is that there are many loopholes within the current, existing framework of the act that can allow for a designated public officer to be directly engaged and involved in the decision-making process when, in fact that person should be recusing himself or herself from any decisions that are made, because there is a financial gain or a financial interest at play. The committee wants to make sure that it is in a position to close the loopholes. There have been significant suggestions from witnesses who have appeared on how to do that, so that will form the basis of many of the recommendations the committee presents. We also want to ensure that there is ethical governance. The act is central to maintaining integrity and public trust in government. In some cases, quite frankly, that trust has been eroded. In the Prime Minister's case, during the election he told a reporter that he holds only cash and real estate, but we found out subsequent to the ethics reporting that the Prime Minister has an extensive portfolio of holdings within companies, particularly affiliated with Brookfield and others, 93% of which are in the United States. We also found out through witness testimony that while the Prime Minister was the head of Brookfield, taxes were dodged in tax havens to the extent of $6.5 billion. When Canadian companies do not pay their taxes, that is less money for services that look after vulnerable people, less for health care and less for education. Therefore, we want to ensure that public trust is restored, that designated public officers are held to the highest standard and that we review and modernize the Conflict of Interest Act to reflect the modern realities of Canada today.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this: The report's being presented in the House and being concurred in is a requirement in order for the ethics committee not just to continue its study but also to eventually present a report to the House. There were Liberal members on the committee who agreed with our having the House concur in it. At some point the concurrence motion had to come to the House. Today was the day, and I would hope that the member is not opposed to the committee's work on improving and increasing the transparency and accountability of designated public office holders.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that it is the job of the ethics committee, as an oversight committee, to hold the government to account. It is majority-led for a reason, by a majority of members of the opposition, and it is our job to provide oversight. There are other committees that do that as well, but it is critical, as I said, that Canadians have transparency and accountability and are confident in the ability of the Conflict of Interest Act to hold designated public officers to account, and it is also critical in the appearance of conflicts. In the case of the Prime Minister, in an example I gave earlier, he has 103 different conflicts of interest declared and over 550 stocks held in the United States. We heard from the deputy clerk of the Privy Council, for example, during transportation committee hearings, that it takes a whole department to look after the Prime Minister's conflicts, so we want to make sure we have the right people in front of us, including the Clerk of the Privy Council and the Prime Minister's chief of staff, to ensure that the screens are being properly applied and that the Prime Minister is not in conflict.

Mr. Speaker, no one who aspires to become prime minister or a member of Parliament should profit from things they conceal among their private assets. We talked a lot about, and there has been some testimony about, complete divestment of holdings in order to ensure that designated public office holders are not subject to the perception among the public that there is an alternative reason as to why they are in that position, for profit.

Mr. Speaker, how could we not love Vladdy and David Ortiz repeating after the game, “Da Yankees lose!”? Actually keeping their elbows up against the Yankees, the Toronto Blue Jays have punched their ticket to the American League championship, with a 5-2 victory last night. Credit goes to Ross Atkins, Mark Shapiro and manager John Schneider and his staff for building a culture where players play for each other, not for themselves. Along the way, they have allowed an entire nation to be part of this season. This is how championships are built. From Vladdy to Bo, Ernie to Gaus, Daulton to Kirky, Canadians know this team by their first names and nicknames. We are all part of this ride now, and I think I speak for every Canadian when I say we want it all. We want them to win the ALCS and we want them to win the World Series. We want it all. As the Blue Jays wait for their next opponent, start spreading the news. I wish I could say it like John Schneider said it. For the first time since 2016, the Blue Jays are going to the ALCS.

Mr. Speaker, we are here debating a motion at a point in this nation's history when Liberal delusion is meeting the fiscal reality of Canadians and Canadian businesses. The delusion is that Canadians have never had it as good as they have it today. The reality is that Canadian families and single moms are worried about putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads. Canadian businesses are not investing. In fact, we are seeing a lot of investment leaving this country because of doubt and uncertainty and because of the tax regime of this country. Yesterday, I met with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and it is quite concerned about the tax regime in this country. Delusion is actually meeting reality, and just this week, we learned of what that reality may look like. MNP financial issued a note on a survey it did. The reality of the headline, I think, speaks volumes as to where we are at today as a nation: “Canadians face ‘heat or eat’ decisions as financial strain deepens”. That is the headline this week. MNP financial did a survey of Canadians. Would members like to know what it found? Again, Liberal delusion is meeting the reality of Canadians: Canadians’ financial vulnerability is worsening, with the MNP Consumer Debt Index sliding two points to 86—its lowest September reading since 2023. Growing numbers report making painful trade-offs: 29% [of Canadians] have reduced utility consumption [which is up five points, year over year] and 24% say they are eating less to save money [which is down four points, year over year]. Nearly half [of Canadians] (48%) are within $200 of insolvency each month [which is up six points, quarter over quarter], and the average cushion after bills has fallen to $744 (from $916). Fewer than half (46%) have six months of emergency savings, leaving many households exposed as winter heating costs approach. Where are they cutting back? Again, it is Liberal delusion meeting with Canadian reality: “Beyond heat and food, Canadians are changing daily habits to cope. 51% are grocery shopping more strategically (meal plans, bulk buying, coupons, price matching). 45% are avoiding impulse purchases and 41% have stopped dining out or ordering takeout.” When we listen to the Liberals, and we have heard them today, Canadians do not care about debt-to-GDP ratios, despite the fact that the Liberals are wrong. We have the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. These are all the realities that Canadians are facing right now. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What today's motion says is that enough is enough. What the Liberals are doing is not working. The reality of Canadians is that they are suffering. Four million Canadians are using food banks. We have seen it increase in Barrie sixfold since 2020. Just a couple weeks ago, I was at the Barrie Food Bank. It is serving 7,600 families a month right now, and 44% of the people it is serving are children and seniors. Those who used to donate to the food banks are now users of food banks in Barrie. This is cascading across the country. Four million people are using food banks every month in this country. It should not be that way. In the last government, we saw increased debt and deficit, which caused inflationary pressures that have caused many Canadians to feel the price increases at the stores for groceries, and for other items, including heat and hydro. They cannot afford to live anymore, based on the fiscal policies of the last 10 years. The government has trumpeted the fact that it is a new government since the April election. The reality is that it is the same government since 70% of the people who are in that cabinet today were in cabinet in the Justin Trudeau government, and they are responsible for 80% of the spending occurring in the government today. It is not a new government. It is the same government employing and deploying the same tactics and the same strategy of debt and deficit that is causing so much hardship to Canadians. After the last election, we have a Prime Minister right now, who is not so much a PM, but more a portfolio manager, who promised the world to Canadians and that he was going to be different. He is anything but, because we are now seeing that the deficit is projected to be $60 billion. I suggest it is going to be a lot more than that. There are a lot of people who are much smarter than me who are suggesting it is going to be a lot more than that. We are also seeing debt increase. There is a budget coming November 4, which is basically a bait and switch. We know the Liberals are going to try to cover up as much as they can in terms of the actual amount of the debt and deficit through this new budget regime. They are not going to be fooling anybody. All eyes will be on the government to see just how much of a bait and switch this new budgetary regime it is announcing is going to cause. I say to people all the time that it is naive to think that the Prime Minister left a multi-billion dollar company making multiple millions of dollars for some virtuous reason to make $400,000 as the Prime Minister because he wanted to come back to save the nation. I have said this before in the House, but he came back to keep the kleptocracy alive, to allow those in the inside circle of the Liberal elite party, and all of those who are well-connected insiders and lobbyists, at the trough to maintain access to the Treasury. Every single problem we have in this country, such as the inflation, the debt, the deficits, the housing crisis, the health care crisis and the immigration crisis, everything, all started before Donald Trump became the President of the United States. Everything did, yet the Liberals continue to use Trump as an excuse. What we are saying with this motion today is that enough is enough. The Liberals cannot keep doing the things they are doing and expect different results. Lastly, I want to focus on the issue of resources and building our resources out. Canada has the best innovation, labour and human rights standards in the world. We have the third-largest and fifth-largest reserves in the world. As long as legislation like Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the emissions cap exist, it will continue to limit and impede our ability to create the revenue we need to pay for the debt and deficit the government has not only accumulated over the last 10 years but also continues to accumulate going forward. We cannot keep attacking our energy sector. We have what the world needs. We have clean Canadian energy that we can feed the world. The problem we have right now, as long as these pieces of legislation exist, and as long as we continue with our emissions cap and an ideological attack on our energy sector, Canada is falling behind to a point where we are not going to supply the world, but we are actually going to enter into a supplementary mode. We can supply the world with clean Canadian energy, create billions and billions of dollars in revenue and great-paying jobs for our fellow Canadians, including indigenous Canadians, right across the country, yet this ideological attack continues and limits our ability to create these revenues. This will keep happening as long as we keep doing these things. This motion is calling for us to stop doing what we are doing, because it is not working. Canadians are paying the price every single day the government continues on the path it is on.

Mr. Speaker, I know you said “I hope”, but I believe the comment was directed at a member currently sitting in the House, which goes to show the indifference the Liberal government is showing toward the plight of Canadians right now. The Liberals think everything is a big joke. It is not a joke for a single mom who cannot afford to put food on her table or a roof over her head. It is not a joke for a business owner, their family and their employees, who are counting on that business to continue to function, as long as the government keeps attacking people through increased taxation and regulation. We are not talking about a joke here today. The Liberal members may see it that way, but there are millions of Canadians who are suffering each and every day in this country. They are making ends meet just to get by, and enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. member for Shefford brought up this point. I am very thankful she is as concerned as I and my family are for the state of finances in this country. There seem to be no guardrails, and the member is quite right. I remember the fiasco the day the former finance minister resigned. I remember the former House leader coming in and dropping the fall economic statement on the table. There was really no opportunity to discuss it. We have not had a budget in this country in 18 months. We have no idea what the government's revenues or expenditures are, except what is being signalled by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and others. With Halloween coming up, it is scary for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as impossible as it may seem, things are worse under the Prime Minister than they were under Justin Trudeau. While those connected to the Prime Minister, his corporate buddies, Liberal-connected insiders and lobbyists, are doing just fine, 86,000 Canadians have lost their jobs since he became the Prime Minister. Canada now has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Our productivity as a country is nearing developing-nation status. Why are the policies of the Prime Minister designed to benefit his corporate buddies and Liberal insiders while Canadians pay the price?

Mr. Speaker, they are also checking the stock price of Brookfield-related companies. Nearly $60 billion in investment has fled the country, mostly to the place where the Prime Minister has 93% of his investments, the United States. He promised he would handle Trump and negotiate a win by July 16, then it was July 21 and then August 1. It is October 3. He promised strength but has shown weakness. Oshawa, Kapuskasing and Calgary have all been devastated with job losses this week. How many more families need to lose their jobs and how many more businesses need to close before the Prime Minister wakes up to the reality that what he is doing is not working?

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I also have a petition, certified and signed by 30 people, regarding recommendation 430 of the House of Commons finance committee's pre-budget report, which proposes removing the advancement of religion as a recognized charitable purpose under the Income Tax Act. Recommendation 429 proposes to revoke the charitable status of various organizations. Religious charities in Canada provide vital services to society, including food banks, care for seniors, newcomer support, youth programs and mental health outreach. These communities indeed promote hope, belonging, social cohesion and compassion. The undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to reject recommendations 429 and 430 of the House of Commons finance committee's pre-budget report, refrain from including these recommendations in the federal budget or any related legislation, and affirm the charitable status of faith-based organizations, whose work flows from sincerely held beliefs and whose contributions serve the common good of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, 600 foreign nationals with criminal convictions are roaming around Canadian cities. More than half are on the CBSA's wanted list, and their whereabouts are unknown. Over 70% of these non-citizen criminals have been convicted of serious crimes, including sexual assault. The public safety minister has one job, which is to keep Canadians safe. On this and many other issues, he is failing miserably. It is really hard to believe that the Prime Minister, just yesterday, said he has confidence in the minister. Why will he not fire the minister? Not doing so calls into question the Prime Minister's judgment.

Mr. Speaker, he cannot find them. He cannot find the 600 serious criminals who are non-citizens and should be deported but are roaming the streets of Canadian cities. The minister had the entire summer to come up with a plan to find these convicted non-citizen criminals, who have been convicted of crimes like sexual assault. He lost them and he cannot find them. My question is for the Prime Minister. If this level of incompetence happened at Brookfield, would he still have confidence in that person or would he fire them?

Mr. Speaker, I too rise to pay tribute to a remarkable Canadian whose contributions have transcended the arenas of sport, public service and social advocacy, the Hon. Ken Dryden. I do so not just as a member of Parliament, but as a kid who grew up in Montreal watching Ken Dryden play for the Canadiens. I have a personal connection to the Dryden family by way of my wife's family, who lived not too far from Murray, Margaret, Ken, Dave and Judy's home in central Etobicoke on Pinehurst Crescent. My mother-in-law Jean Berry served on the board of Ken's dad's charity, Sleeping Children Around the World, and edited Murray's book With God Nothing is Impossible. When Lynda and Ken moved back to Toronto, my wife Liane babysat their two children while they searched for a home. I had the occasion to visit Dryden's childhood home several times in Islington with my mother-in-law, and the home later became a warehouse of bed kits for Murray's charity. What struck me was that Murray had paved the backyard so young Ken and Dave could hone their skills in net with the neighbourhood kids, who, as I was told by Murray, would gather often to play ball hockey and ice hockey in the winter. The nets were still there when I visited. Members can imagine how I felt seeing the very spot where my hockey hero, the member for Foothills's hero and many of our Quebec colleagues' hero learned the art of being a goaler. Dave Stubbs of NHL.com wrote that Dryden was “never a conventional goaltender. Not with his lanky, even gangly body type, accentuated even more by his stand-up style of play”. I thought about that as I stood in the Dryden backyard. In fact, his style was so unconventional that “legendary Boston Bruins and New York Rangers sniper Phil Esposito...during the 1971 Stanley Cup Playoffs was so frustrated by Dryden stoning the Bruins in an NHL Quarterfinals upset that he grumbled about the goalie having ‘arms like a giraffe.’” More than half a century later, Esposito revisited the confusing comparison to a giraffe's anatomy after Dryden's death and said, “OK, maybe [he had] the legs of a giraffe.” Much has been said about his hockey accomplishments since his passing on September 5: the Stanley Cups he won, the Vezina Trophy, the Conn Smythe Trophy, the 1972 Summit Series and being drafted by the Boston Bruins in the 1964 NHL draft, which he did find out until the mid-seventies because it was a much simpler time back then, with no cellphones, no Internet and no hockey database websites. However, it is what he accomplished outside of playing hockey that has been so intriguing. The legendary American broadcaster Al Michaels, who Dryden was sitting beside during the Miracle on Ice, when arguably the greatest call in sports history was made, referred to Ken recently on a podcast as a “Renaissance man” who knew everything about everything. Father Raymond J. de Souza, in the National Post, said of Dryden, “In team sports, no one ever packed so much achievement into as few years (only eight seasons) as did Dryden—six Stanley Cups plus the 1972 Soviet series.” He said, “Only Michael Jordan was comparable, but the 1992 U.S. basketball ‘dream team’ was not nearly as important as the 1972 series.” Surprisingly, Ken Dryden was at his best and most impressive off, not on, the ice. There are many excellent hockey players out there, but none was as skilled at analyzing the public sphere and, ultimately, at serving the public within the federal cabinet. J. de Souza noted that Ken Dryden “spent a year...in classrooms as Ontario's youth commissioner to more fully understand the challenges of education.” He went on to say: He moved into a middle-class home for a week to observe what life was like for a typical Toronto family in the early '90s. His novel of that experience, “The Moved and the Shaken”...[was] a reminder in public policy, in journalism, in culture, to pay attention not only to the movers and the shakers, but those whom they move and shake. We would be wise to let that be a reminder to all of us as we contemplate the decisions we make and the impact they have on our fellow Canadians. Like every kid growing up back when Ken Dryden was goalie for the Montreal Canadiens, he inspired countless people to play that position in the streets or on the ice, and to strike the Dryden pose when resting, blocker against stick, as immortalized by statues in Montreal and in the Hockey Hall of Fame. As de Souza wrote this week, “What other sports figure is sculpted at rest rather than in action? It’s the sports version of Auguste Rodin's ‘The Thinker’ because Dryden was the great sportsman-thinker of his time, perhaps any time.” There was never any doubt about the way that Ken Dryden lived his life or that he believed in miracles. A larger-than-life figure, he was curious, humble and respectful of the many people he met along his miraculous journey, including a young boy who grew up on 6th Avenue in Verdun and idolized Ken Dryden. He loved Canada and everything that Canada aspired to be. Finally, having met his dad, Murray, on several occasions, and knowing the impact he had on so many lives around the world, I am not surprised Ken lived his life the way he did. Murray and Margaret Dryden taught Ken well, and it showed in who he was as a person and in everything he did. On behalf of our Conservative team and our leader, with great respect and admiration for a truly remarkable Canadian, and Canadien, we send our condolences to Lynda and the entire Dryden family. May Ken rest, in his famous pose, in peace.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great time to connect with the people we represent, and there was no better way to do that than the eighth annual Community Barbecue, hosted by myself and my good friend, an MPP and minister, Andrea Khanjin. It took place on August 16 in Stroud. The event saw an incredible turnout, our biggest ever, with more than 1,500 people attending. On behalf of Andrea and myself, I want to thank our invaluable community partners, who helped make this event the biggest one yet: the Town of Innisfil, Sobeys Alcona Beach, Foodland Stroud, the South Simcoe Police Service, the Innisfil fire department, Kool FM, Rock 95, Canadian Musicians Co-operative, Georgian College, RVH's Keep Life Wild campaign, Dream Parties, Innisfil Backyard Bounce, Barrie Tent & Awning, The Flag Store, Allegra Barrie, Cyncor and Dave Chalut from Domino's Pizza. Finally, a barbecue this large would not be possible without our incredible team of staff and volunteers. I want to thank Al Gilchrist and the team he put together. Over 75 people gave of their time on a Saturday in August to help bring our communities together, and they did so knowing the importance of connecting people.

With regard to government travel, broken down by minister's office since January 1, 2021: (a) which ministers or exempt staff have rented vehicles, including, but not limited to, car and driver services, limousine services or car services, within Canada or elsewhere; (b) for each use identified in (a), what was the (i) date of the rental, (ii) pick-up location of the rental, (iii) drop-off location of the rental, (iv) nature of the official business, including any events attended, (v) cost of the rental, (vi) vehicle description, including the type and model, if available, (vii) name of each passenger, if known, (viii) name of the vendor, (ix) duration of the rental; and (c) for each rental listed in (a), was a driver provided?