Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I recall over a year ago, when Bill C-21 was introduced, just how giddy with glee the NDP was until it had an epiphany about the impact this was going to have on its rural ridings. Those ridings include Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, Courtenay—Alberni, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, North Island—Powell River, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, Timmins—James Bay and Nunavut. All of those MPs reversed course on Bill C-21 when they, in fact, were supporting it at the beginning. Canadians are not stupid. Members in those ridings and the citizens in those ridings are not stupid, and they will remember what the NDP did with Bill C-21.

Mr. Speaker, as we come to report stage on this piece of legislation, one of the concerning things that the Minister of Public Safety has said is that there will be a creation of a firearms advisory committee. It is unknown at this point, in advance of this bill passing, what the makeup of that committee will be like, who is going to be on it and what decisions it will be making. We do know that it is going to look at certain firearms and make recommendations to the government. Then it will be up to the government through an order in council to determine whether in fact it is going to ban these firearms. It is effectively a backdoor way of banning firearms that the committee would advise to be banned and that the government wants to ban. I am wondering if the hon. member has any opinion as to whether in fact this should be the case in the absence of any information and whether this is a good idea or not.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise this evening at this relatively late hour to speak to this bill. I just want to mention, before I start, that, earlier this evening, I had a chance to spend some time with Persian Gulf War veterans. We were at an event, the airing of a new film on the Canadian involvement in the Persian Gulf War. These veterans are fighting the government for the classification of wartime service, and I think it is about time that we classify them as having wartime service, and even our Afghanistan veterans, as well. It was a very powerful evening, and I am very glad to have been there in support of our veterans. As we sit here to discuss report stage amendments on Bill C-21, let us not get lost on the history of how we got to this point. Sadly, the events in Nova Scotia and the mass killing out there really led to a political response by the government. It saw an opportunity. It issued an order in council on May 1, 2020, that effectively banned thousands and thousands of what were legal firearms in the country. It was so rushed, in fact, to propose the order in council, that they banned the cannon at Stanley Park that fires ceremoniously at nine o'clock every evening as part of this order in council ban. As we moved forward, the government was indicating that it was going to push a gun ban in this country, effectively an attack on law-abiding firearms owners. It was about a year ago that we saw the iteration of Bill C-21 that was tabled as legislation, and immediately, the reaction across the country was one of shock at the fact that they included an additional thousands more of what were legal firearms. They proposed a handgun ban as well if we will recall. That sent a ripple effect right across the country because they were attacking not only law-abiding firearms owners, but also hunters and indigenous people. Basically, hundreds of years of history in this country were being attacked by the Liberal government, aided and abetted by their partners in the NDP, but a funny thing happened with the NDP. When the legislation was proposed, its members were joyous about the fact that the government had proposed such a sweeping ban of firearms against law-abiding firearms owners, until they realized just what an impact this was going to have, a disproportionate impact, on rural Canadians. Then, all of a sudden, they started backing up. They said whoa, and that this piece of legislation is going way too far, because they saw that there was a political threat in those rural and remote ridings where rural Canadians and indigenous Canadians use guns to hunt, feed themselves and participate in a long-standing cultural heritage in this country, not to mention to protect themselves in those rural and remote areas. All of a sudden, here we were, revisiting this legislation. It is clear that the Liberal government and the public safety minister did not think of the implications of this and the impact it would have on hunters and indigenous people, and they were backtracking. They said whoa, they were not going to introduce this iteration. They were going to pull back on this and go back into consultation with Canadians to try to figure out how to get this right. The reason why they were in this place was because they made a political calculation, because law-abiding firearms owners in this country have always been an easy target, pardon the pun, for Liberal and leftist-leaning governments. They are the target. They are not worried about going after gangs, guns and illegal smuggling. That is the hard work. The easy work is to go after the low-hanging fruit, and that is law-abiding firearms owners. Canada has the most strict regime of registration and training of firearms owners anywhere in the world. I do not have an RPAL. I do not own a firearm. I have fired one firearm in my life, at the Barrie Gun Club, in a controlled environment, so I have no skin in the game. What I believe in is the right of individuals in this country, because of our culture and our heritage, because of our laws and because of the training, to have the right to own firearms and use them responsibly. What I do not agree with are gangs, illegal smuggling and those guns that are coming in across the border, which are easily obtained by gangs in the use of criminal activity. We have seen an increase in gang-related activity, and we have seen an increase in gun-related activity, so instead of going after the low-hanging fruit, instead of going after the law-abiding firearms owners, they are not doing what they need to do as far as guns and gangs. One only has to follow the Toronto Police Service operations twitter feed to understand the depth of the problem in Toronto, not to mention there is a problem in Vancouver and Montreal as well. It is illegal guns. It is gangs and gang-related activity that are showing the most increases in illegal gun activity in this country. It is not law-abiding firearms owners. I had the opportunity to go to the Moncton Fish and Game Association, as I did some stakeholder engagement on this issue, when we were at the height of it. The government at that time was rethinking its position. There was a policy proposal. Colleagues may recall in 2017 the then minister of public safety was going around the country because they were thinking about implementing additional firearms restrictions. I had an opportunity to speak to members of the Moncton Fish and Game Association, who are salt-of-the-earth guys, responsible firearms owners and proud Canadians. They submitted a document to the then minister of public safety that should have served as a template for any discussion. It was called a discussion paper, but it should have served as a template for what the discussion was to be about. They talked about the “long history of firearms control in this country.” The document said, “1892 saw the first Criminal Code controls with a permit system for small arms; 1934 saw the requirement for all handguns to be registered with police with RCMP issuing registration certificates”. The discussion paper that was submitted to the then minister of public safety could have and should have been used as a template. It went on: There is no clear definition as to what Canada considers to be an “assault weapon” or “assault rifle”. The outdated US Dept of Justice definition (1994-2004) is so broad that a typical rabbit hunting rifle such as the semi-automatic Marlin 60 with a tube magazine that can hold 15 rounds of 22LR ammunition might be construed as an assault weapon as might the Ruger 10/22. There have been some amendments, clearly, as we have dealt with this to not classify some of these weapons, but had these stakeholders been listened to, had there been a thorough discussion, I think the then minister of public safety would have really understood just the level and the depth of responsible firearms ownership in this country and how they want to be part of the solution to the gun and gang problem. The discussion paper goes on. One part that stood out for me, section 26, stated: Unfortunately, with every “mass shooting” and even for single victim incidents, there is an immediate reaction by the media and especially politicians to immediately blame the object for the actions that were perpetrated. It is easy for the Mayor of Toronto, Toronto Council or Montreal City Council to blame the object and call for a gun ban, but it takes political courage to identify the underlying social issues and address realistic solutions that protect people from harm by addressing the root causes of violence. The issue is not “what” was used in the incident but rather “why” the event happened, “what” was the reason, “how” was the firearm obtained and “how” could it have been prevented? It is easy to blame the gun and ignore the underlying and difficult to address societal or mental health factors. This piece of legislation is flawed in many ways. It still continues to attack law-abiding firearms owners. There are other concerns that I will address in questions and comments.

Madam Speaker, here is what the Liberals have done. They have all of a sudden changed the narrative from hunters and indigenous Canadians to ghost guns. That is what they have been talking about today. They have also been talking about spreading misinformation and disinformation. They have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Here is another concern that Canadians should have. The public safety minister has indicated that there will be a firearms advisory council. There is no indication yet about the makeup, who is going to be on it and what their decisions are going to be. However, the minister did say that this firearms advisory council will have an opportunity to look at certain guns, make decisions and recommendations to the government, and then the government can issue a ban through the order in council. How is that transparent? The Liberals are going to continue to attack law-abiding firearms owners. They are just going to back-end it or do an end-around to accommodate that.

Madam Speaker, that is three times the member mentioned ghost guns, which goes to my point earlier about changing the narrative. Madam Speaker, I am going to say this and you can cut me off. I have absolutely zero respect for anything that this member says. When I was House leader, he proved himself not to be honourable and to not conduct himself with integrity, so every word he says in this place tonight I take with a grain of salt.

Madam Speaker, I am just stating my experience. I will retract it. I have sat in this debate tonight frustrated, and not because of the points we are making but because of the assertion that somehow Conservatives are spreading misinformation and disinformation. I will say this again: What we are doing is reflecting the words of our constituents, and I do that tonight as the member for Barrie—Innisfil. I will say in all honesty that 95% of the people who have reached to me are opposed to Bill C-21, the amendments that have been made and the work the government, aided and abetted by the NDP, is doing.

With regard to government expenditures related to vacations by the Prime Minister outside of Canada, since November 4, 2015, broken down by each vacation: (a) what was the date and location of each trip; (b) for each vacation in (a), what were the total costs incurred by the government, including those incurred by security and support staff, for (i) accommodations, (ii) per diems, (iii) other expenses, broken down by type of expense; (c) what was the total amount of expenses related to the trips, such as flights, incurred by the government that were reimbursed by the Prime Minister; and (d) what number of travellers were represented by the reimbursement amount in (c)?

Madam Speaker, I will ask my question in English, because I do not have much time. I want to thank the hon. member for his speech, the history and the truth. In my interactions as former House leader, I found that this member speaks the truth. He is honourable, and his word is his worth. I cannot actually say that about the Liberal or NDP House leaders. Is there no other option at this point but to have a public inquiry, with Mr. Johnston, to get to the bottom of what is happening with foreign interference and all of the stuff that is happening with the Trudeau Foundation? Is an independent public inquiry the only way to get to the bottom of what is happening here?

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the hon. member's speech, and I think he laid out the facts quite clearly and perfectly. One of the things that struck me was his comment about an opposition, because we have seen, over the last eight years, that this government, in effect, does not want an opposition; it actually wants an audience. It wants us to sit here and listen to its members ram pieces of legislation through, as they have been doing, that have profound impacts on Canadians. This issue has a profound impact not just on the member for Wellington—Halton Hills but also on the Chinese Canadians who are facing that fear, intimidation and harassment by the Chinese regime in Beijing. On the issue of an independent inquiry, do all roads not lead to that? Do we need a rapporteur to tell us what the majority of parliamentarians and the majority of Canadians are saying, which is that we need an independent inquiry?

Madam Speaker, we have been listening to this debate intently. There has been a lot of information that has come out over the last couple of weeks as a result of CSIS and The Globe and Mail. I am going to suggest that there is a disconnect between government, our security establishment and certainly the information that is being leaked to the media. There is only one option, and it is the only option that Parliament should be seized with, but also Canadians are showing a willingness and a desire for an open public inquiry into foreign interference, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague shares those sentiments.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague and the Speaker's ruling that this is a serious matter. What we have seen over the course of the last several months is a real disconnect between the executive branch and our institutions. Many of these stories have come to light as a result of CSIS and The Globe and Mail. I know my hon. colleague is a staunch defender of our institutions; I have seen it in this place. As a result of the security establishment now having to put this information out there, in the absence of any government or executive branch of government dealing with this matter, how concerning is this to him?

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the ethics committee with my hon. colleague. He is quite right that we have been studying the issue of foreign interference for some time, and the pathways it is leading us down are quite interesting. My question to him is one of confidence in our institutions. We heard the previous member, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, speak about the executive branch of government and the responsibility of the executive branch to keep its citizens, and in fact MPs, safe. What we have seen is a structural failure in that. It was only because of CSIS and The Globe and Mail that we found out that the member's family and perhaps some other MPs' families had been threatened. Does my hon. colleague agree with me that there is a structural breakdown in the institutions and the executive branch of government that is allowing this foreign interference to propagate within Canada?

Madam Speaker, one of the issues that have come up frequently in the course of this debate is the need for an independent public inquiry. We have heard of the connection between the special rapporteur and Mr. Rosenberg as it relates to the Trudeau Foundation. The Trudeau Foundation is actually implicated in this foreign interference campaign by the Beijing regime. I want the hon. member to speak to the need for an independent inquiry to get to the bottom of foreign interference in this country.

Madam Speaker, I am certainly happy to rise, although three minutes late because of some of the shenanigans arising in this place this evening on this very important issue. Before I begin, I want to thank the Chair for the ruling today on the question of privilege from the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills. This is an extremely important issue that we are debating here tonight. It has far-reaching consequences, not just for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, but also for those Canadians in the Chinese diaspora who have felt the threats of intimidation, the harassment and the fear of the Communist regime in Beijing's interfering in almost every aspect of their lives. We are here tonight not just because of the question of privilege, but also because there are questions that need to be answered. The hope is that the motion presented by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, to have the PROC committee look into this, will find some of those answers. Some of those questions are these: Who knew, when did they know and what did they do about it? With recent reports in the media, particularly in The Globe and Mail with information that is seemingly being provided to it by the security establishment, there are many facts related to this case that are indisputable. First, we now know that the government knew about these threats almost two years ago. We know that there has been foreign intimidation of Chinese diaspora members for several elections now. We also know, according to the national security adviser to the Prime Minister, that the government did receive a report from CSIS saying that the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and his family were facing threats. They were facing threats not just here in Canada, but were facing threats also, by extension, in Hong Kong. Those facts are indisputable. There is no amount of standing up and elevating our voices that will dispute those facts. Therefore, the question remains: What, if anything, did the government do about it? We found out today, and over the course of the last week, through lines of questioning, that it has done nothing about it. It has done nothing with this information over the course of the last two years. The impact of that is significant, not just for the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. He is a member of Parliament and enjoys certain privileges as a member of Parliament, not the least of which is the expectation of security being provided by the government. All Canadians should expect that. If this can happen to a member of Parliament because of a position they have taken with a vote or multiple votes, what about the members within the Chinese diaspora in Canada who come to this country to be free of intimidation, to be free of fear and to be free of harassment? We have heard that there are many members of the Chinese community, Chinese Canadians, who are being intimidated and harassed, and who, quite frankly, are afraid. We have also heard of the interference of the Chinese regime with respect to cultural associations within this country, infiltrating and setting up police stations within this country to keep track of those in the Chinese diaspora, to promote fear, to intimidate and to harass them. The consequences of what we are discussing today are far-reaching. Let us think about this: A member of Parliament, or any Canadian, for that matter, wakes up in the morning on a Monday and finds out through The Globe and Mail, through reports from our intelligence infrastructure, that the person's family, for over two years, has faced threats, intimidation and harassment. Think of the fear this instills in anyone, not just a member of Parliament. Think of the fact that the member has children. What if the Chinese consulate and this now-exiled Chinese diplomat had conducted a campaign of gathering information on his family and his children, having access, perhaps, to his Internet and his family's Internet? This is why this is so egregious and why we are seized with this issue tonight. The member's privileges have been breached. I hope that the procedure and House affairs committee can get to the bottom of this and find out exactly what is going on and what happened to this member and to his extended family in Hong Kong. As I mentioned earlier, it is not just a member of Parliament. There are countless stories, thousands within the Chinese diaspora, among those who came to the country to flee persecution and fear, to be able to practise their own faith and political freedom in this country. They are dealing with the same issues as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills; maybe they are not doing so as publicly, but they are dealing with them. One thing that we are doing at the ethics committee is studying the issue of foreign interference. One of the first panels of witnesses we had involved those within the Chinese diaspora who are facing this harassment, these fears and these intimidation tactics by the Chinese government. This is how we got to this point with the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. If we recall, in February of 2021, there was a motion put before the House to declare the human rights abuse of the Uyghur Muslim community in China as a genocide. It received majority support in the House. In fact, some of the Liberals voted for it. However, can we say who did not vote for it and actually abstained? It was the entire cabinet of the government of this country. Marc Garneau sat in this place and abstained on behalf of the cabinet. I am going to call it for what it was. It was a gutless move. When the government had a chance to stand up for human rights and call out the Beijing Communist regime for the human rights abuses of the Muslim Uyghurs, it hightailed it out of this place. It did not even have the decency to vote. However, who voted for the motion? It was the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and every other member of Parliament, with the exception of cabinet. For that, the member was targeted; he faced a campaign of harassment, fear and intimidation. Who carried out this campaign? It was the very person who got kicked out today. The government has known about this for two years. It had two years to act; however, with diplomatic immunity, this agent of the Chinese Communist regime was able to run amok around this country. We know about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, about the intimidation and the fear that he faced. How many other Canadians faced the same tactic by this diplomat over the course of the last two years? By extension, in other countries, such as Hong Kong, how many other family members were intimidated? When we had that panel come to the ethics committee, it was sobering. We heard a former colleague, Kenny Chiu, talk about this fear and intimidation tactic on the part of Chinese Beijing officials. He talked about this misinformation and disinformation campaign that was executed against members of this place during the last couple of elections. We heard from Mehmet Tohti, one of the foremost defenders of human rights of Uyghur Muslims in China. He lives in this country, and he told us a story of phoning his relatives in China and having Beijing Communist officials picking up the phone. They just wanted to intimidate him and to let him know that they were there, in case he wanted to continue this campaign of speaking out against human rights abuses toward the Muslim community in China. This is what we are dealing with. This is the reason for this debate tonight. It is why it is so important for the procedure and House affairs committee to deal with this issue. It is why the ethics committee is dealing with foreign interference. There is another committee of Parliament dealing with foreign interference, and I cannot for the life of me understand why the government will not launch an independent inquiry about this. I have sat through most of this debate today, since the point of privilege was read out by the Speaker. I have heard members from the government side talk about the politicization of this issue. However, one way to not politicize this issue is to have an independent public inquiry so that we can get information on the depths, the infiltration and the impact that foreign interference from the Beijing Communist regime is having on this country. This is something the government does not want to do. However, it is time for the truth to be known. We have put forward motions. They were approved of by opposition parties in this place. However, the government voted against them. I have the utmost respect for the former governor general, Mr. Johnston. In the eight years of my time here, I have gotten to know Mr. Johnston. I travelled to Vimy Ridge for the 100th anniversary of Vimy with him. He is a decent man, and I do not think anybody should be impugning his character. However, Mr. Johnston is too closely connected to the family and to the Trudeau Foundation to have any sort of independent view on whether a public inquiry should be had. It is not just opposition members who are speaking about this. A majority of Canadians are speaking about the same thing. We need an independent inquiry, and we need the Prime Minister to call it now. This pandering to the Chinese Communist regime on the part of the Canadian government seems to be a pattern. It effectively started, as we are finding out through our study in committee, when the Prime Minister won the leadership of the Liberal Party, well in advance of his becoming the prime minister. There was a $140,000 donation that was procured and negotiated by the brother of the Prime Minister, Alexandre Trudeau; he actually signed the cheque. We had him at committee last week, and it was the first time in the history of the Trudeau Foundation receiving a cheque that the Prime Minister's brother was actually involved in it. Therefore, he had a lot to do with it and a lot of say in the $140,000 donation. A question has arisen about the receipt that was issued. The receipt was issued to an individual in Beijing, yet the donation was made through a company located in China. We started seeing a pattern of influence and infiltration by the Chinese Communist regime at around the time the Prime Minister won the leadership of the Liberal Party. The donors of those cheques had access to the Prime Minister shortly after he became the Prime Minister. Therefore, a lot of questions are being raised about the connection between the Liberal Party and the Chinese Communist regime. Of course, it has been well documented that the Prime Minister said that he had a basic admiration for China and the Chinese regime. We started to see very early on, when he won the leadership of the Liberal Party, that the pattern of pandering and infiltration was starting to work its way through the Liberal Party. Therefore, it is not surprising to me when we see the evidence starting to mount about this. We have also seen some other things related to China. Members will recall the Winnipeg lab incident, the information related to that and how the government fought so hard to make sure that this information was kept under wraps. It required a court challenge on the part of the Speaker to get that information. I mentioned the Trudeau Foundation and the failure to recognize cabinet stepping away from its obligation to stand up in this place and be counted, actually abstaining from a vote on the Uyghur Muslim genocide. We have illegal police stations that are still operating in this country. We have donations to election candidates. We saw over $70,000 donated to one riding in this country within a 48-hour period. The donations came from right across the country; they were not even part of the riding. We have heard stories through CSIS and, again, through The Globe and Mail, where these donations were actually paid back by the Chinese consulate. We have CSIS documentation, CSIS reports, through The Globe and Mail, about involvement in choosing candidates. Of course, we have heard about what happened in the 2019 and 2021 elections. It was well documented in 2021. We have had former members of Parliament talk about their experiences during those campaigns and how difficult it was to get their message out. People who had traditionally supported them within the Chinese community were now not supporting candidates because of the level of disinformation and the misinformation campaign that has been directly attributed to those consulates. They were acting to undermine not only our democratic institutions but also the electoral process in this country. Today, and I would like to say as a result of the motion that we put forward, we saw the government act. Over a week after the news came out about the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, we finally saw the government act and consider a Chinese consulate official persona non grata, expelling this official two years too late. When this information first came out two years ago and the government was made aware of it, as the national security adviser told the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, there should have been no question about what the government was going to do with this individual. He should have been expelled. As I said earlier, he has had two years now to continue this campaign of harassment, intimidation and inciting fear, not just in terms of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and perhaps other MPs in this place, but also in terms of the Chinese diaspora in this country. Those citizens of Canada who have come here from China do not have the platform that we do, as members of Parliament. They do not have the platform of the member for Wellington—Halton Hills. They cannot stand up in this place and ask the Speaker to rule on a point of privilege based on newspaper and CSIS reports. From what we have heard at committee, many of them live in fear. They do not participate in the electoral process because of the fear of retribution by those agents who are acting in this country on behalf of the Beijing Communist regime. What kind of country have we descended to when we cannot even protect, not just our own citizens, but a sitting member of this House because he or she stands for what is right, standing up against human rights abuses in China? It is a sad indictment that we are actually at this point. It is sad that the government does not see the seriousness of this issue, where they would call an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of it. That is what is needed. We need somebody who is not connected in any way, shape or form, to either the family or the foundation to make that decision. We are seeing more stories, more accusations and more pathways that our committees could go down. We are going to see those things over the next little while. However, the only pathway that they lead to is an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of this so that we can deal with the issue of foreign interference once and for all.

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question from the member for North Island—Powell River. I was listening intently to the member for Vancouver East the other day when she spoke about this particular issue during our opposition day motion, which was passed by all opposition parties and the government voted against it. Everyone that we have spoken to, every witness who has come to committee, has spoken about the need for a foreign agent registry and the ability for us to track those foreign nationals who are lobbying the government, who are meeting with ministers and who are perhaps attending cash-for-access fundraisers. Every single one of them has spoken about the need for a foreign agent registry. They have talked about examples like Australia and the United States that have implemented a foreign agent registry successfully. Every single one of them, despite the government's contention, does not feel it is racist at all to implement such a registry if it means that we are going to keep track of those agents and those regimes that are intimidating, inciting fear and doing things to our citizens that should not be done, as the government has an obligation to protect them.

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister is accountable for his own words and his own actions. I have the utmost faith and the utmost belief in the member for Wellington—Halton Hills and the information that he received from the national security adviser. Members will recall that when Katie Telford appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee, she said that there was nothing that the Prime Minister does not see, including all of the security briefings and all of the security reports. All of it, he sees. We have no reason to believe that the Prime Minister did not see this information two years ago. He should have. If it went to the Privy Council Office, as was stated by CSIS, then the Prime Minister would have surely seen this information but he failed to act. For two years, this individual ran around Canada, intimidating—

Madam Speaker, I truly believe that it is a question and a matter of weakness. The Chinese Communist regime has certainly infiltrated or tried to infiltrate other parts of the world; namely, Australia and United States. They have stood up to it. They have had a foreign agent registry that they have enacted. However, I think that China sees our Prime Minister and the current government as weak. It goes back to when the Prime Minister said that he has a basic admiration for the dictatorship in China. It goes back to their trying to have influence and access to the Prime Minister through donations in the Trudeau Foundation of $140,000. Many of these Chinese operatives have been at cash-for-access fundraisers. They have actually worked their way into the current government because of weakness and that really speaks to the root of the problem with the government. The lack of initiative to provide security for its citizens is critical.

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. The challenge right now is to instill trust in a government that, in my opinion, is distrustful. It is showing a lack of trust with Canadians, particularly on the issue of convening an independent inquiry on this particular issue. This is a government that, though its eight years in office, has continually proven to Canadians that it is great at talking about stuff, but very poor at implementing things. We have the security establishment in this country that is feeding information to The Globe and Mail. I would suggest the government is not doing enough, not just to protect Canadians, but to protect our country as well.

Madam Speaker, if that is in fact the case, and the government has shown a propensity to misinform Canadians many times since it has been in power, I think the hon. member just gave a perfect example of the failures of the government and the lack of seriousness in priority by which it takes national security. If the Prime Minister's chief of staff, as he is alleging, or the Prime Minister, as he is alleging, did not see this information given to the Privy Council Office, then that is a complete abdication of their responsibility to govern. They should step down, call an election and let a government that is serious about national security, protecting its citizens and protecting those of Chinese diaspora in this country, Iranians and others who are facing the same fear and intimidation tactics by regimes—

Madam Speaker, I am going to rise to apologize. I am going to apologize to say sorry to the Canadians who voted in 2021 for a minority Liberal government. I am sorry the NDP signed a deal with the Liberals, with their coalition agreement, that effectively gave the Liberals a majority. I am sorry that the NDP is complicit to many of the failed policies, including housing, which we are now debating in this House. I am sorry that the House leader of the NDP feels like somehow he needs to support the government when, in fact, he was voted for as a fourth party. Therefore, I will say to Canadians that I am sorry they did not get the government and the opposition they elected. Will this member do the same?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Barrie—Innisfil, in this case, to speak about the budget. It is not lost on me that game five of the Leafs is on tonight. I understand that the score is 1-1 at the first intermission. I am pretty certain that my mom and everybody in this place are the only ones hearing me speak tonight, because many are watching the game. With respect to the budget implementation act, it is not going to be a surprise to the other side, and certainly not a surprise to many of the constituents who voted for me, that I will not be supporting the budget. There are many reasons not to, and I am going to highlight just a few tonight, along with how the budget would directly impact the businesses and residents of Barrie—Innisfil. The sheer magnitude of the numbers speaks volumes about a government whose spending is completely out of control. As a result of the spending, the billions of dollars of deficits and the trillions of dollars of debt being created, future generations are going to be impacted by the decisions that are made today, for many generations to come, including my children. Quite frankly, I am very concerned about their future. I am concerned about the future of many young people in my riding of Barrie—Innisfil, many of whom are becoming despondent. They are angry that they have been lied to and let down by the Prime Minister, who, in 2015, made all these promises, particularly to the younger generation. They are not now finding themselves angry or upset, but despondent, because many of them are not going to be able to afford the types of things that even their parents and grandparents have been able to enjoy. Worse yet, the burden of debt and deficit is something that this generation and future generations will pay for for a long time. The magnitude of the numbers is just staggering. The numbers are staggering with respect to what this budget sets out, not just as current expenditures but also future expenditures. Cumulative spending for the next five years is at a record $3.1 trillion. If these numbers are to be believed, remembering that in the fall the Liberals promised a balanced budget, and if they do not add in any more spending for the rest of the term, they would add $130 billion to the debt with these projected deficits. The national debt would rise to a record $1.3 trillion, with a debt ceiling, in the Financial Administration Act, that is set at $1.8 trillion. We are rapidly approaching that debt ceiling. I know many members have spoken about this, but the Prime Minister has actually doubled the debt, more than all previous prime ministers combined, as a result of the spending. That is a scary proposition. We often talk about the interest on the national debt because it has an impact on services that government provides. It is about $44 billion today and will rise to $50 billion in five years if the government's interest rate calculations are correct. This is a government that has not been very good at predicting interest rates. There is the famous video of when the Prime Minister was asked by Glen McGregor of CTV about the potential for rising interest rates. He had almost a stunned look on his face and suggested that interest rates are low and are going to remain low. We have seen, I believe, eight interest rate increases over the last year, which are having a dramatic effect on affordability for people, whether it is variable-rate loans or mortgages, or mortgages coming up for renewal. We are into a three-year cycle of mortgage renewals and people are going to be awfully shocked when they renew and see how much more those mortgage interest rates are going to cost. In fact, many people are now paying more in interest and not even paying down the principal as a result of renewing, adding to the existing affordability crisis. The projection numbers in this budget are staggering. I was supposed to make this speech on Monday, but because of some procedural things, here we are on Thursday night. The other day, in preparation for tonight, I had an opportunity to speak with my staff. As members of Parliament, as everyone knows, we are on the ground. We talk to our constituents at events we attend and we see what is happening, but when I am in Ottawa, it is really my constituency people who are receiving the phone calls and getting the emails from seniors and average, middle-class families in Barrie—Innisfil who are concerned. I asked them what some of the messages were that people were telling them on the phone. They were very similar to what I hear when I am out in public, which is that paycheques are thinner, that people are not making as much as they once were. A lot of that has to do with increased taxation, but it also has to do with payroll tax increases, increases in the CPP and EI for example, which eat it away. Grocery prices have doubled. Gas bills have tripled, in large part because of the carbon tax. I am going to speak about that in a second. The other thing they said is that hydro rates have gone up. All of that is adding to the affordability crisis for people in Barrie—Innisfil, not just individuals, families and households, but also businesses. We get phone calls from businesses talking about these increased costs, particularly in the agriculture sector, which forms a large part of my constituency in Innisfil. I have talked to producers and wholesalers, who are telling me about the cost of the carbon tax on their gas bills and how it is increasing their production costs. Of course, those costs are going to be passed on, through the wholesalers and producers, to the end consumers, which means that we are going to continue to see increases in grocery prices down the line. Social agencies are struggling as well. In Innisfil, we had a tremendous, compassionate individual whose name was Troy Scott. Unfortunately, he passed away as a result of COVID. He was the local Foodland owner. After his passing, the Town of Innisfil decided it was going to honour his memory by having Troy Scott community fridges placed strategically around different areas in the municipality. This is how bad the food insecurity crisis is: As soon as those fridges are filled, they are emptied. There are people coming on a daily basis who, because of the food crisis and the fact they cannot afford to buy food, are seeking food from these fridges because it is free. We have a very benevolent community filling up those fridges, but they are being emptied just as quickly. Other social agencies are struggling. There is something structurally wrong in this country right now, a G7 country, when Canadians are feeling an affordability and inflation crunch like never before, particularly as it relates to food insecurity and housing affordability and attainability. It is a big problem that needs to be fixed. One of the main reasons why I cannot support this is the continuation of the carbon tax that the budget implementation act calls for. We asked the government to deal with this from an affordability crisis perspective and to axe the carbon tax because of the impact it is having on Canadian families, businesses, wholesalers and producers. In 2019, the government ran on a promise of $50 a tonne. A year later, it announced that the carbon tax was going to go up to $170 a tonne by 2030. That is going to increase prices beyond what people can afford in a community like Barrie—Innisfil, with a lack of significant mass transit and connectivity from community to community. We have the GO train, which gets people to Toronto, but most people drive to work. They either drive to work within the GTA or they drive to Barrie. It is costing them money every time they fill up their car or turn on the furnace or the air conditioning in their home. That is adding to the cost of life. Groceries are being impacted by it as well. The government has said it is adding money to the pockets of people, but the PBO has countered that. The other thing concerns Lake Simcoe. It is mentioned in this budget, but is part of a broader lakes program. We have asked for specific funding. The government, in 2019, stood at the end of Bayfield Street and promised $40 million for the Lake Simcoe fund. It has not sent a dime yet, which is another broken promise. I am not certain that Lake Simcoe is going to be a priority. I hope it is. This budget adds a lot more pain than gain to Canadian families, particularly those I represent in Barrie—Innisfil. That is just part of the reason why I cannot support the budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that anybody on this side is saying that it is a bad deal. We want to know what the deal is. The government has invested $13 billion into Volkswagen, a foreign-owned company. We do not know the details of the arrangements that were made. If we are going to spend $13 billion of Canadian taxpayer money, at a minimum, we should know what that deal entails and what we are getting as a result of it. Members will have to excuse me for being a little cynical because the government made multi-million dollar investments in a vaccine factory that is now gone. There was a very public announcement made. We have to see the details to determine whether it is the right deal for Canadians. More importantly, they have to be open and transparent about it, which they are anything but on this deal.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I tried to lay out, as best I could, the reasons I cannot support the budget. There are many of them, not the least of which is the carbon tax and the disproportionate effect it has on the people and the businesses I represent in Barrie—Innisfil. One of the things that is extremely concerning for me, which was not really in the budget, related to the Canada summer jobs program. We saw that cut by a third this year, yet we see contracts, to companies like McKinsey and others, to the tune of $21 billion in total contracts. Why are we taking away from the future and work experience that young people are getting to apply down the line, yet outsourcing and putting a priority on government contracts for friends and connected insiders of the Liberal Party? I am really disappointed in the Canada summer jobs program and the cut in funding. I know many of those people who would benefit, particular the kids, are really disappointed.

Mr. Speaker, I think the challenge in the question is we hear a lot of announcements about spending, but see very little in the way of actual builds. I have got a great example of that and it deals with the rapid housing initiative. The member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte and I sent a letter to the housing minister. There was a rapid housing initiative, a critical project in Barrie, that was supported by Redwood Park Communities, the City of Barrie, Barrie Police Service and the County of Simcoe, about renovating the Travelodge hotel and making it into affordable housing units. We supported this initiative. We did not even hear back from the Minister of Housing. I think the County of Simcoe heard back to say the application was being rejected. I do not know what the basis was, but that is an example of great announcements, but very bad and poor delivery.

Madam Speaker, the hon. member spoke about housing attainability and affordability. Other than the actual affordability of groceries, homes and all that, young people are despondent right now. They are not angry or upset. They feel like they have been lied to or let down by the government as it relates to their lives being better vis-à-vis housing affordability and attainability. I am wondering what the hon. member would say to those young people, who are doing everything right. They have university educations and are getting good jobs. They cannot afford down payments or mortgage payments. Even if they had been able to, now with interest rates increasing, that affordability crisis has become even greater. I wonder what she would say to young people about what is going on right now.

Mr. Speaker, within the budget, the government has committed $80-plus billion in tax credits toward investing in a newer, greener economy. In the budget, it is very clear that it is there. It is not a secret, but with the announcement of Volkswagen creating a new plant near St. Thomas, Ontario, there is a tremendous amount of secrecy, in terms of what that $13-billion investment would actually be going toward. I am wondering, if it is no secret what the tax credits are in the budget, which are coming from hard-earned taxpayers' money, why there is this level of secrecy in terms of this contract with Volkswagen. Should Canadians not know what that deal is all about, considering the fact that the government would be spending that money on that investment?

Mr. Speaker, I think we all bore witness to a bit of a comedy show here and a member who forgets that it is his leader who has divided this nation along many lines, including economic, race, faith, gender, etc. This is a leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister, who has referred to people as racists and misogynists, and who has referred to not having to tolerate these kinds of people, yet the member speaks about division. The one thing Conservatives are is reflective of the voices of Canadians in this place, and the Liberals can learn a lesson about reflecting the voices of their constituents as opposed to the government telling them everything. I am wondering if the hon. member has any comments about his leader wearing racist blackface so many times that he actually forgets how many times it was. How come he did not condemn his leader for doing that?

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions today. The first concerns Lake Simcoe. I am very proud to present a petition that was brought to me by the organization Youth for Lake Simcoe, spearheaded by Zoe Bystrov, who was driven to launch the petition after paddleboarding on the lake and seeing waste floating and accumulating along the shoreline. In 2021, Zoe was awarded the Ernie Crossland Young Conservationist Award by the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority. Petition e-4278 was signed by 835 residents, many of whom live within the Lake Simcoe watershed. It calls on the government to follow through on the promises made by the Liberals in the 2019 and 2021 election campaigns to provide new, direct funding for the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. I support this petition and thank Zoe and Youth for Lake Simcoe for their tireless efforts in their campaign to gather signatures for this petition. It is my hope that the government does finally keep its promise to support the work of many organizations, stakeholders and those who generally love Lake Simcoe to maintain it for sustainability and health for generations to come.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand to present petition e-4221 from Barrie—Innisfil resident Bob Dowdell, which asks the government to withdraw the amendment tabled at committee in November 2022. The petition was signed by 13,964 Canadians who agree the amendment and the evergreen definition were an overreach, unfairly made law-abiding firearm owners and sport shooters criminals, and infringed on the treaty rights of indigenous firearm owners. Mr. Dowdell was very concerned about the prohibited firearm definition, as it is an item currently contained within a federal court case concerning the order in council of May 2020. The amendment could directly affect the outcome of the federal court case. I support this petition. I thank Bob and the close to 14,000 Canadians who are residents of Barrie—Innisfil and signed and supported petition e-4221.

Madam Speaker, one of the areas I want to focus on in the budget is specifically with respect to Lake Simcoe. I know the government has allocated a multi-million dollar fund for freshwater lakes and watersheds across the country. One of the things that we are focused on locally, and I would consider the member to be part of that in central Ontario, is specific funding for Lake Simcoe and the reinstatement of the Lake Simcoe clean-up fund. As we know, a previous Conservative government invested close to $60 million and saw measurable improvements in phosphorus and fish habitats were coming back. There were numerous councils around the Lake Simcoe watershed that passed motions asking for direct funding for Lake Simcoe. Why would that not have been specifically indicated in the budget as a direct funding mechanism for Lake Simcoe?

Madam Speaker, listening to the hon. member's speech, one would think Canadians, and particularly Torontonians, have never had it so good. In fact, prior to the pandemic, of the 128 food bank networks across the greater Toronto area, 65,000 people were using the food bank. This March, 275,000 people used the food bank. Across Canada, 1.5 million people are using food banks. Does the hon. member not take any responsibility for government policy creating this mess in terms of the debt, the deficits and the increased inflation, all the things that have contributed to this food bank usage?

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I ask for you to be judicious in this particular speech. This is an elected member of Parliament. He has been elected by his constituents to represent them in this place, and I ask that you not allow these interruptions to occur. You have ruled that the member will be going back to the point. He has already made that clear. He is an elected member of Parliament and has every right, in spite of the fact that they stand up and interrupt him, to—

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. Democracy does, indeed, die at night. We are sitting here dealing with amendments from the Senate on a deeply flawed and deeply controversial piece of legislation. I have not been in the House all day, but for the last couple of hours. I have heard the debate and the concern expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. It was a profoundly convincing argument that he made as to why this piece of legislation should not be passed. However, it is not just the words of the Leader of the Opposition that tell us why this piece of legislation needs to be, at a minimum, overhauled or, better yet, halted at this time. The concerns of Canadians, the concerns of digital content creators, those who understand this space, those who have looked at this piece of legislation, those who have taken the time to appear before committee to express their views and all of their concerns, including the Senate amendments, to deal with one part of this deeply flawed piece of legislation are being ignored by the government, which is certainly being aided and abetted by other opposition parties. What I thought I would do tonight is take a different tack from where this debate has gone today. There have been, like I said, hundreds of thousands of voices. There is not one issue, perhaps other than Bill C-21, the firearms legislation that I heard more about from my constituents than Bill C-11. Like the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap, I am an elected member of this place, I am the voice of the people who I represent in Barrie—Innisfil and I am going to share their voices this evening. I am going to share the voices of other eminent Canadians who have expressed a concern about this piece of legislation. I received an email from Kim, who said, “Dear Mr. Brassard, The passing of Bill C-11 will be a sad moment in Canadian history. Please consider making sure this bill does not get passed. This kind of censorship should not come from our government or any free society.” Violet said, “Dear Sir: I want the brakes put on this Bill now! I am not a fan of this ridiculous Bill.” Rose said, “This bill is an overreach. It needs to be scrapped. Anyone who has been following this bill understands that we do not need the government to tell us what we can read/see [online].” Peter said, “Hello John, Regarding the above, my opinion is Bill C-11 should be scrapped and the [...] government keep their hand off of our social media. I hope you are [doing your] best to keep this Bill from being passed. Hopefully the Liberals will be ousted in the next election.” John and Corrine from Barrie said, “Trust all is going well with you and your family. We ask that you vote 'no' to Bill C-11. This will hurt and restrict healthy free speech and debate which is the democracy our nation is founded on. This is a great concern to us. As our constitutional freedoms and rights are restricted, this opens doors to tyranny and dictatorship which is dangerous to every level of our nation.” Another says, “Good afternoon Mr. Honourable Brassard, I know you're busy so I'll be brief.” This is from Brent in Barrie. “I'm very much against Bill C-11. I don't want an unelected government official/body determining what my family can watch. Margaret Atwood is against it. The previous CRTC commissioner is against it. This bill will stifle freedom of speech and shut down contrary views under the threat of 'misinformation and/or disinformation'. Please fight for our freedom of speech.” We have certainly heard in the arguments from the opposition, the NDP and others about this being an issue of disinformation. In fact, I would suggest the ones spreading the disinformation are those on the government side. The other person who has been directly involved in this entire debate has been Michael Geist, who is a law professor at Ottawa University. Interestingly, I was going through some his posts earlier today and he has been watching the debate intently in this House of Commons. He made a post earlier that said, “Bill C-11 is not China, Russia or Nazi Germany. As I’ve stated many times, it does not limit the ability....[of] implications for freedom of expression but it does [not] turn Canada into China.”

Don't get ahead of yourself. Madam Speaker, his post continues, “To the claims that user content regulation is excluded from the bill, Section 4.‍1(2)‍(b) and 4.2.2 clearly scope such content into the bill, an interpretation that has been confirmed by dozens of experts and the former Chair of the CRTC. Liberal and NDP MP claims to the contrary should be regarded as disinformation, a deliberate attempt to spread false information. Indeed, the Senate proposed a fix. The government rejected it. That was supposed to be the focus of the debate, yet Liberal MPs such as [the member for Winnipeg North] falsely claimed that it is not there.” He continued, “There were many other misleading or inaccurate statements throughout the day. Contrary to what some claim, the bill will not result in hundreds of millions of new spending or lead to increased consumer choice (the opposite is true). It will require the CRTC to re-examine Cancon rules, which experience suggests are only loosely correlated to the professed goal of “telling Canadian stories.” But leaving all of these things aside, there was really only one question that needed answering: if the government’s intent is not to regulate user content and the Senate passed an amendment consistent with that goal after concluding that Bill C-11 in its current form opens the door to CRTC regulation, why is the government rejecting the amendment?” That is the fundamental question to this debate, and it is a question that has not been answered by either the government or any other members of the opposition. In fact, Mr. Geist goes on and actually references a Bloc MP's intervention. He says, “[It probably provides] what is likely the most accurate, if deeply troubling answer. When asked to confirm that the bill maintains freedom of expression safeguards, [this Bloc member] responded with the following per the House of Commons translator 'if violating freedom of expression means ensuring that Quebec content is well represented online then that’s worth it.'” To hell with everyone else. We need to be able to protect freedom of expression online for everyone in this country, not just based on a geographical region. That is what is most egregious about this bill. Mr. Geist goes on, “in the zeal to court support from the Quebec culture lobby, [the] Canadian Heritage Minister and the government are choosing in Bill C-11 to sacrifice some freedom of expression, which includes both the right to speak and the right to be heard.” I mentioned earlier there have been other Canadians who spoke out against this. Timothy Denton, former CRTC commissioner and president of the Internet Society Canada Chapter, spoke out against this, as did Peter Menzies, former CRTC commissioner, and Scott Benzie, content creator and director at Digital First Canada. J.J. McCullough, in a well-document Twitter intervention, posted his video. He talked about his concerns, and he is a journalist and commentator, about the impact this is going to have on user-generated content. The Digital Media Association has expressed concern, as did Jeanette Patell, the head of Canada government affairs and public policy at YouTube. We have heard all of these interventions at committee all expressing concern about this particular piece of legislation and the impact it is going to have on the ability for Canadians to be seen and heard for the type of content they create. As I said at the outset, we are dealing with Senate amendments. The Senate found it within itself, many of its members who are Liberal-appointed senators, to approve the amendments and send those amendments back to this place so we could have a wholesome debate. What is so sad throughout this whole process is the fact that this debate is being stifled at this point by closure by the government because it does not want to hear the truth from many of those Canadians who have expressed serious concern with this bill. Of course, the government is being aided and abetted by its coalition partners within the NDP. We will always stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We are not going to sit idly by and allow the government to kill democracy at night.

Mr. Speaker, as I said during my speech, there has not been any other issue that I have been seized with other than Bill C-21, which is the firearms legislation, more than this piece of legislation. I have heard from more people who are opposed to this piece of legislation, because of the impact it would have on user-generated content. I have listened to the voices of those people I represent. I have heard, at committee, the testimony of people. I read many of their comments about their concern about this piece of legislation. The Senate has a concern. The only sides that are not concerned about this are the Liberal and NDP side, and to some degree the Bloc. It is understandable why the Bloc is in support of this piece of legislation, but the NDP and the Liberals are not doing what they need to do, and that is to listen to those people who have expressed concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I do, it is called the Criminal Code. To conflate the issue of child sexual exploitation with amendments or legislation that deal with the Broadcasting Act is disingenuous to say the least. None of us in this place want to see child exploitation manifest itself through online channels. The Criminal Code addresses that. The police services across this country address that. We have already addressed that. Could we do more? Absolutely. However, this is about the Broadcasting Act, and this is about user-generated content and the impact for what people could see online.

Mr. Speaker, I think we have already seen examples of an overreach with this particular government on many aspects. I talked about Bill C-21 during my speech. My colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap highlighted many of the egregious events of the government in taking down or limiting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. I think that is a concern and certainly a concern that I have heard from people as well.

Mr. Speaker, April is Parkinson's Awareness Month in Canada and I want to recognize the residents of Barrie—Innisfil and my friend Greg McGinnis for using their voices to bring awareness to Parkinson's disease for the 100,000 Canadians who are living with Parkinson's. In 2023, 35 Canadians a day will be diagnosed with Parkinson's. It is the fastest-growing neurological disease in the world. It is widely considered a disease of older Canadians, but young-onset Parkinson's is afflicting 20% of diagnosed Canadians under the age of 50. There is presently no cure for Parkinson's, but researchers continue to search and hope that one will be discovered. Greater awareness about Parkinson's is needed, in an effort to work together so every Canadian who has been diagnosed with Parkinson's can enjoy a good quality of life. This greater awareness is what my friend Greg has asked me to undertake by bringing this message to the House of Commons today. I would also like to thank Parkinson's Canada for its commitment to transform the lives of people living with Parkinson's.

Mr. Speaker, firefighters from across Canada are in Ottawa this week for the 30th Canadian Legislative Conference of the International Association of Fire Fighters. As a retired firefighter and former president of Markham local 2727, I know first-hand just how important these next few days of advocacy will be for firefighters and their families. In the coming days, MPs from all parties will hear about the increase in occupational illnesses like cancer among firefighters, including the need to remove PFAS from firefighting gear, now being linked to cancer and other serious health effects. There will also be a discussion for federally regulated airports in Canada to meet ICAO standards. Under the leadership of president Ed Kelly, the IAFF is laser-focused on protecting the health and safety of its 334,000 members and their families, both here in Canada and in the United States. On behalf of our Conservative team to my former colleagues in Markham, to the Barrie and Innisfil firefighters and all firefighters who have come to Ottawa this week, welcome. We hear them, we respect them and we are here for them and their families.

Madam Speaker, to hear the member for Cumberland—Colchester is almost like getting a playing lesson from a pro. He is a former medical doctor who is intimately aware of the system. This is as opposed to a playing lesson from a former kayaker. I sense his frustration. It is a frustration that many Canadians are feeling. We are hearing news today about doctors with foreign credentials. Canadian doctors who are foreign trained are unable to come back into this country to practise. They number in the thousands. What role can the federal government play in ensuring that doctors with foreign credentials, many of them Canadians, can come back into this country and work with provincial governments to ensure that we build up our capacity in the health care system and have those health care professionals work in Canada?

Madam Speaker, I recall what happened a year ago. I was opposition House leader when the coalition agreement came into effect between the NDP and the Liberals. It actually gave the NDP a lot of power. They could use this power right now if the leader of the NDP simply walked up to the third floor, to the Prime Minister's office, and said that he wanted this type of stuff to happen. Instead, he spends 10 minutes in this House railing against the Liberals, Conservatives and provincial premiers. If the leader of the NDP had any course of action at all, why does he not rip up the agreement that he has with the Liberals, force an election and let Canadians decide which health care vision is best for this country? They will decide: NDP, Conservative or Liberal. Let us do this. The member could rip up the agreement and let Canadians decide.

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the current Prime Minister, Canadians are struggling to pay for their food and for their heat, and moms are going to bed every night worried about keeping roofs over their heads. However, if someone is a Liberal-connected insider, or a friend of the Prime Minister like McKinsey, they get their palms greased to the tune of $120 million, yet the Prime Minister does not care. He takes no responsibility either. Will the Prime Minister either step aside and let Conservatives fix the problem, or is he going to add to the problem like he has over the last eight years?