Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, just after this Prime Minister's big meeting in Saint-Pierre and Miquelon, French media announced that France will now be fishing 1,500 tonnes of snow crab on the Canadian continental shelf, to be caught by a French vessel and processed on the French islands. This will cause DFO to reduce Canadian quotas, harming the livelihoods of fishermen and plant workers in the riding I represent. Why is the Liberal Prime Minister more interested in cozying up with his European buddies than standing up for the livelihoods of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?

Mr. Speaker, repeat offenders are causing chaos in Newfoundland and Labrador and rural Canada. Residents in communities such as Carmanville are holding emergency meetings and signing petitions to have their voices heard. I know that they know this crime increase is not just because it is a sign of the times, but rather a direct result of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, like the principle of restraint, which has been encouraging courts to let criminals out on bail. Will the Liberals finally listen to our communities and repeal the loose Liberal bail?

Mr. Speaker, it is all talk, but no results. It is not just Liberal laws that are leaving our communities vulnerable. The RCMP has identified it needs to train close to 3,000 officers a year to maintain operations. The Liberals promised to train over 1,000. They broke their promise and never delivered. It is all talk, with no results. Are these Liberals going to blame the hard-working members of the RCMP, or are they going to stand up and finally give the police forces the tools they need?

Mr. Speaker, summer is just around the corner, and there is no better place to be than on the Rock. Whether people want to go to Swift Current to see a world-class car collection, to Bonavista to see the icebergs, to the Burin Peninsula to hear the great stories of the famous pirates or to Lumsden to experience the best beaches north of Cuba, we have something for the whole family. If people cannot swim, they can take a boat ride to experience the whales in Port Rexton or the puffins in Elliston, or explore the secret underground bunkers. No matter where people go, I am sure they will experience the warm hospitality of my fellow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. They will hear great jokes and eat delicious meals. This summer, they might even be able to catch a cod on a Wednesday afternoon. To end their trip, they can cool down and grab a brewski in the famous town of Dildo. Come on out. Catch the ferry or take a flight and come on home to the Rock.

Mr. Speaker, I read a news article yesterday that said there are asylum seekers and claimants from Saint Pierre and Miquelon entering Canada through my part of the island. Are people coming from France, a G7 ally, really seeking asylum in Canada? Are these even legitimate asylum claims? Are folks just trying to navigate the globe to take advantage of our system? To the immigration minister, if these are legitimate asylum seekers, why are they seeking asylum in Newfoundland and Labrador rather than in Saint Pierre and Miquelon, where they landed?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Saint Pierre and Miquelon was even mentioned in that answer. I do not think that answer is very good for the next generation or very comforting to the next generation. Critical minerals, for example, are critical to the country's development and future. It seems that the Liberal government claims to spend millions of dollars in hard-to-reach places that require huge construction of roads, ports and highways. If these are national building projects, why does the government not invest in critical minerals in Newfoundland and Labrador, including in Port Hope Simpson, which is already at tidewater, already has highways and already has the infrastructure and everything needed to succeed?

Mr. Speaker, Port aux Basques and Argentia ferries are critical to Newfoundland's economy. They supply our food, medication and everything else. However, the union's agreement ended in December. The unions have been fighting for a deal ever since. This Prime Minister was elected on the premise that he was supposed to be a great negotiator, the one to go against Trump, the saviour in the Trump negotiations, and yet we are 17 days away from a strike. Is it that the Prime Minister is not able to make a deal or that he refuses to make it a priority?

Mr. Speaker, I am going to let that minister in on a little secret. These ferries are a federal Crown corporation. Canada has just entered into a recession. Tourism businesses across this country are still having to pay off COVID debt. More small businesses in this country are closing than opening. Insolvencies are higher since 2000. Nobody in Canada and in Newfoundland can afford this strike, including the union workers. Will this federal Crown corporation and these Liberals take responsibility, and get a fair deal for Marine Atlantic workers?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Carmanville and surrounding communities. The petition is based on a concern for the lack of RCMP presence within those communities. This is the situation: There is a police station, and there are multiple homes owned by the RCMP to house officers, but there are no staff actually working at the station or living in the homes. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the federal government to staff the police station and put people in those homes so the people of those communities can be safe on the streets.

Mr. Speaker, when I was around my riding and hearing concerns from people, a lot of people defended the Liberals, saying, “Clearly it is not their intent to ban religious texts. We are just trying to prevent hate here.” However, what is interesting is that a Liberal cabinet minister has said that there are passages in religious texts that are clearly hateful. This came from a Liberal cabinet minister, so obviously that is the intent of the government. I am wondering if the member could explain this: Should we make a list, as governments, to give to pastors and people of religious faiths so they have examples of verses that they know they are not allowed to say in churches and synagogues without getting handcuffed?

Mr. Speaker, “to infinity and beyond”. Am I talking about a space program or our deficit? Perhaps I am talking about both. Kids all over Canada look up to Buzz Lightyear and Chris Hadfield about the stars and what is beyond them. Whether they are real astronauts or fictional astronauts, Canadians look up to these role models. Canada has a great history being a part of our space exploration, such as the Alouette I, which was launched under former Conservative Prime Minister Diefenbaker, making Canada the third country to design and build a satellite; and the Canadarm, an impressive robotic arm used in the space shuttle and the International Space Station. Even Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, was educated right here in Canada. We have a lot of achievements to be proud of and Canada is certainly swinging well above its weight, including Newfoundland and Labrador. In my riding, in the town of St. Lawrence, we actually have a launch pad. We have the NordSpace launch pad. Last year, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and scientists from around the world gathered in St. Lawrence to watch NordSpace have its first test launch. The best part is the inauguration mission was called “Getting Screeched In”. NordSpace is a 100% Canadian-owned company, investing in our province and defence, with a planned expansion opening a new office in St. John's for mission controls. This is good because Canada needs a strong space force. GPS, Internet, communications and many essential components of society and our military are in space. We need to have the ability to provide those services and protect those services for Canadians. Space is no longer just about exploration and discovery. It is about national security, economic growth, scientific advancement and innovation. The countries that lead in space will help shape the future. Canada was and always should be among those leaders. Our engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs have demonstrated time and time again that they can compete with the best in the world. However, what they need is a government that supports innovation responsibly, spends taxpayer dollars wisely and ensures that invested dollars provide value for Canadians. I have spent a few days researching NordSpace, its company and business models. It seems that it received a mere $10 million. With that money, it built a nice road, a nice spaceport, developed its technology and even had a test launch. Let us compare that to the spaceport on everyone's mind: Nova Scotia's Maritime Launch Services. Maritime Launch Services was incorporated in 2016, but things did not get spicy until this year and Canadians are concerned. We have heard that there is a $200-million deal with Maritime Launch Services, but we seem to have very little detail on what that includes. So far, all that seems to be included in this $200-million deal is a concrete pad in the middle of a gravel pit. Being the inquisitive man that I am, I got on a plane and went to Canso, Nova Scotia, to see this launch pad for myself. After a short three‑kilometre walk, it was easy to see some of the concerns. Being only three kilometres away from the town, I could actually see homes from the launch pad. I can see why the people of the town of Canso are raising concerns. There were signs all over town petitioning against the construction of this launch pad so close to their homes. In addition, there was not much there. It was an underwhelming experience. There was a sea can, a work trailer and a small concrete pad. Honestly, it was no larger than my driveway. It is not much of a piece of land. It sure seems to be an expensive piece of land at that. The company is renting the land from Nova Scotia for less than $15,000 per year and then it seems like it is billing the Department of National Defence $20 million a year and National Defence will not even own it when it is completed. To add fuel to this rocket, I am hearing that the federal government backdated this lease for a full year. How does that happen? I would be the happiest landlord in the world if I had tenants who said, “I will backdate my lease and pay for a full year before I move in.” That would be fantastic. Coincidentally, this lucrative lease came just in time to save the day. It is rumoured that this company was on the verge of bankruptcy before receiving this deal. If that is not bad enough, as soon as the deal got signed, some shareholders cashed out and dumped that stock at a ballooned price. Not only did they get bailed out, but they also got rich. They got rich off Canadian taxpayer dollars, and that is exactly why transparency matters. Canadians are not opposed to investing in infrastructure. Canadians are not opposed to investing in innovation. Canadians are not opposed to building a stronger space industry, but Canadians are opposed to writing a blank cheque without being told where the money is going. When governments spend public money, they have a duty to show their work. They have a duty to explain the costs, justify their decisions and demonstrate the results. If this project is truly in the best interest of Canadians, the government should have no problem releasing the details of that lease and letting the facts speak for themselves. I am not here just to complain and point fingers. I am here to ask questions, to raise the issue, to get to the bottom of this for Canadians. Really, I am standing here to give the Liberals a chance to explain themselves, a chance to release the lease, a chance to release the details of this funding, to explain to Canadians how they can justify spending over $200 million on a space pad in Nova Scotia while a nearly identical one was built in Newfoundland for only 5% of the cost. Canadians have a right to know. These are large amounts of money we are talking about here. This is not a $16 orange juice or even a $200,000 luxury airplane room service for the Prime Minister's private jet. This is $200 million, million with a capital M. This spaceport is costing Canadians over $54,000 a day for the next 10 years, and $54,000 is more than what an average Canadian makes in a year. The median salary for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is less than $35,000 a year. Conservatives know that Canadians have a right to transparency, a right to know how the Liberal government is spending their dollars. I am sincerely hoping the Liberals can stand up and tell Canadians, convince Canadians, show Canadians that this is not another Liberal green slush fund or another Liberal WE scandal, where Liberal insiders and Trudeau's family receive millions of taxpayer dollars. However, so far, from this side of the House, things are looking pretty fishy. Many Canadians would even argue that this entire spending is a waste. Why should the Canadian taxpayer pay for a second launch pad in Atlantic Canada, when there is a perfectly functional and nearly identical launch pad already constructed and used in Atlantic Canada? Certainly, it would cost much less than $200 million to transport those rockets to the spaceport in my riding. These are the questions, the simple questions Canadians are asking, and we want to hear good answers, so let us hear it. If there is a sound business case, let us see it. If this is truly a wise investment, then release the details to allow Canadians to judge for themselves. Until then, Canadians will continue to wonder why so much money is being spent with so few answers being provided. Unfortunately, rockets are not the only thing going to infinity and beyond. It is also Canada's deficit. We spend more money on interest payments than the federal government spends in health care payments. We spend more money servicing the deficit than we receive in GST. This means the 5% we all spend on everything at the store goes straight to the bankers. The Prime Minister's budget has generational debt. By 2029, over 12% of our budget will be used to service the debt. For every eight dollars we take in, a dollar will be used to service the debt. This is massive. Debt is looming over the next generation of Canadians, risking our entire economy's future, and it is not because Canadians are not paying taxes. We are paying way more than enough taxes. It is because the taxes are not being used wisely. This, my friends, is why this economy is not flying. It is simply falling with style.

Mr. Speaker, I just gave the Liberals a chance to get up and explain. I just asked all the questions on Canadians' minds. I gave them the opportunity on a golden platter, and the member got up on the offence, attacking me as if I do not support the space industry as well, as if I do not support Canadian sovereignty, and as if Conservatives do not support Canadian sovereignty in space. I do not know why the Liberals just never took the opportunity to explain to Canadians what this money was used for and how they are going to actually improve Canadian sovereignty in space.

Mr. Speaker, I think what my friend across the way was describing is almost the same situation, where the Liberal government takes taxpayers' money, uses it in a way that Canadians do not want it to be used and picks favourites. In this case the member across the way claims that the government took taxpayer dollars from Quebec and then gave that money to Anglo-Canada instead. I think we are on the same page. The member is agreeing that the Liberal government takes money from everybody and then distributes it to its chosen people. It is, quite frankly, very frustrating.

Mr. Speaker, I agree. Quebec especially has been a leader in the aerospace industry, with Bombardier's building airplanes. It has been amazing, what we have done in Canada. We have so much to be proud of. Again, I do not think the mistake is investing. I think the mistake is wasting that money. We built a launch pad that is almost identical to the pictures I have seen and to what I have seen when I have been there. It is an almost identical launch pad, for 5% of the price, in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not about what we are spending money on. It is how you are wasting the money, giving it to Liberal insiders. I apologize, Mr. Speaker. It was not you who wasted the money. It was the Liberals. I made a mistake.

Mr. Speaker, a recession is two consecutive quarters of economic decline. The Prime Minister has had three of his four quarters in decline. That puts Canada as the only G7 country in recession. While the Liberals are in denial, the facts do not lie. There are more small businesses in Canada closing than opening. More than half of small business owners do not recommend opening a business. When will the Liberals at least admit that their policies put Canada into a recession?

Mr. Speaker, I do not think those words are very comforting to the apprentices or to the 112,000 people who lost their job in the past three months. Mortgage defaults are growing year over year. Canadian households have the highest debt in the G7. Insolvencies hit their highest level since 2009. Twenty billion dollars has fled this country. How much more data does the government need before it realizes that whatever the Prime Minister is pretending to do is not working?

Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, these rules would even apply to YouTube, a website that provides one of the easiest avenues for Canadian artists to put their skills, talents and content on display. It is basically a website on which common folks can post their content. Where would the bill start, and where would it end? Where would the Liberals draw the lines? Are we going to start taxing all websites that have videos on them? This is my question: Where would the porn streaming sites fall under the bill? Would adult films be left out, unregulated and untaxed, while YouTube is regulated and taxed?

Mr. Speaker, after the Prime Minister took office, China announced a 25% tariff on Canadian seafood. A few months later, I was sitting right here listening to the Liberals brag about how they sold out the automotive industry, allowing thousands of Chinese spy cars onto our streets, to save the seafood industry, but that deal covered only two species. Other seafoods, including sea cucumber, are still at 25% tariffs. Will the Prime Minister go to the wharves and speak with the Canadians whose jobs are at risk to justify this fishy deal?

Madam Speaker, there is nothing worse than going to the post office and looking forward to a friendly letter but getting nothing but a dreaded credit card bill. That is exactly how the federal budget went. Canadians thought they were going to get a responsible budget from a new government. Instead, they were hit with a costly credit card bill. The only thing new was that they doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. Canadians do not want a double-double deficit. They want to be able to afford a double-double coffee. When will the Liberals get spending under control?

Madam Speaker, I was talking about deficits, not fish, but spend, spend, spend is all the Liberals want to do. They cannot spend their way out of inflation. We would think the Prime Minister would have learned that when he wrongfully predicted that COVID spending would actually lead to deflation, but reports are showing that households are still spending more, year over year, on food. Rent is going up year over year. Everything in this country has doubled in the costly Liberal decade. How many more reports do the Liberals need to see before they realize they cannot build a country, an affordable economy, on credit card debt?

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the privilege to speak here today. A few weeks ago, I asked a question in the House about affordability. The premise of that question was that under Trudeau, there was a lot of spending, and inflation went up, and then a new Prime Minister came along, promised to run on affordability, had a banker's resume and was going to fix the country and bring down inflation. Unfortunately, we actually see a budget that is spending more than Justin Trudeau. It is so disappointing to see that. I think some Canadians are starting to feel duped now that these budgets are out. Inflation is caused by printing money, essentially. The more money there is in the system, and the goods remain the same, the more cost it is per good. This is what our Conservative leader was talking about. Just before COVID, and during Trudeau's big spending frenzy, our Conservative leader kept talking over and over about how the more we spend, the more inflation goes up and the more interest goes up. What happened? Interest went up. People's mortgages have gone up because of it. Rents have gone up because of it. Rents have gone up in Newfoundland 10% year over year, partially because interest rates are going up, and then we have inflation going up as well. It is very disappointing because people in Canada are making relatively the same wage. They are working harder but not getting ahead. They are working more and not getting ahead, because this government is spending more, and it is so disappointing. There is a graph in the budget on page 11 that shows how the deficit-to-GDP ratio actually increased after the current Prime Minister was elected. It has been a full year from when he was elected until now, and it increased significantly. It just blows my mind, as that is the opposite of what the Prime Minister campaigned on. A third of Atlantic Canadians are saying they cannot even afford to pay their bills now. Every time we point to the Harper decade and point to how Canadians could afford food back then, they could get by and perhaps even afford a trip throughout the world for vacation at that point, the excuse is always, “Well, oil prices were high. Times were good, oil prices were high, and things were great.” They do not mention that we were in the 2008 economic crisis. No, oil prices saved Canada. Okay, maybe that is true, but what is interesting is that now when we mention inflation, the Liberals will say, “Well, inflation is because of the war in Iran. With the war in Iran, the price of oil is going up, and so things are becoming more expensive, and inflation is going up.” Which is it? I mean, it is so frustrating. Canada does better when the price of oil goes up. We get revenues. The Canadian economy should be predicted to do better because of that. It is so frustrating to see this double, two-way argument. It seems like the Liberals are trying to blame everybody and anybody they can. First they blamed Trudeau, and then they axed him. Then they blamed Trump. Now that things are, “Oh, you know, who cares? We can't talk to Trump,” they get to blame the war with Iran. This is what I want to know. When will the Liberals stop looking out their window trying to find a scapegoat to blame this inflation on, rather than looking in a mirror, holding themselves accountable and asking who was running this country for the past decade when inflation got out of hand?

Madam Speaker, the government cannot tax itself into prosperity and it cannot spend its way out of inflation. That is what is very frustrating, because both of these approaches seem to be what this government keeps trying to do. It is so upside down and backwards. Four cents on diesel is almost a joke. The government is probably getting more than four cents on the GST because of the price increase. It is almost a joke. Diesel is what ships our food. It is what ships all the products in Canada. In a lot of ways, it is almost the core of the Canadian economy. The Conservatives wanted to take 25¢ off, to take it all off and reduce all those taxes to give people at home a break. We could offset those costs with all the royalties that Canada is getting from our oil and gas while supplying our allies with some of the best oil and gas in the world.

Mr. Speaker, bankers make their money by having their clients enslaved to death, and the banker Prime Minister is no different. He is just another costly Liberal. They even said the quiet part out loud. On their graph, they show that Canada's deficit-to-GDP ratio begins to skyrocket after the Prime Minister was appointed. Canadians now spend more money servicing the interest on Canada's credit card than all of our federal health care payments. Will the Liberal government commit to a real Conservative fiscal plan that spends less on bankers and more on doctors?

Speaker, it is a privilege to be here today and to represent the members of Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. I asked a question in the House about affordability. It seems that I come into the House and ask a lot of questions about affordability, oil and gas, and a lot of other issues, and the Minister for Fisheries seems to be the one to answer, so I was surprised she is not answering the questions I have tonight. I guess I will pose them to the parliamentary secretary. My question was about affordability. I was very disappointed that the Liberal government, including the four Liberals from Newfoundland and Labrador, turned down my private member's bill to allow Newfoundlanders to fish seven days a week. It was very surprising and disappointing, because the proposed policy was not blue or red, Conservative or Liberal, but a policy for Newfoundland and Labrador. The situation in Newfoundland and Labrador is that our recreational food fishery is not just for recreation. We do not all go out just for the sport of it, although many do. It actually feeds a lot of our families. It feeds a lot of our struggling seniors and a lot of our young people. People with big families go out to participate in it. Right now, a lot of the time, because of safety issues due to wind, people with small boats such as 17-foot ones struggle to go out. It is hard to find nice days to go out to get fish when the wind is blowing, because our season is open only three days a week: Saturday, Sunday and Monday. It is very challenging to find good weather to get out to get the fish. What is frustrating to Newfoundlanders is that people in other parts of Atlantic Canada are allowed to fish cod seven days a week. We have the same limit of five fish a day, but they are allowed to get fish seven days a week. What Newfoundlanders want is fairness. In achieving that fairness, we would actually to be able to achieve affordability for the Newfoundland and Labrador folks who want to lower their grocery bills. What is interesting is that the Liberals voted against my bill because they said it would introduce new fees. I do not understand why they said the monitoring system would require tags, so I want to read part of my bill into the record. It states: Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans must, in consultation with key stakeholders, develop a monitoring system to record, by species, the number of fish that are caught, as well as the time at which and place where they are caught. The minister had the choice to make a monitoring system, and she could have made it the way she wanted. The bill did not say “tags”. It never implied tags. What I had in mind, if the Liberals had listened to my speeches or brought this to committee, was to have it be very similar to a moose hunting licence. A person would fill out an application, voluntarily showing where and when they caught the fish. The Liberals also said that the new bill would impose new fees. I just want to read this: In developing the monitoring system, the Minister must (a) take into consideration existing models and best practices across Canada; (b) examine the possibility of covering the administrative costs of the monitoring system by fees and penalties that are required to be paid under the Fisheries Act; It would not introduce new fees but actually use the fees and penalties under the Fisheries Act that are currently there. It was very frustrating to hear these excuses. I am not sure why the Liberals were telling constituents and other people in Newfoundland and Labrador this. I do not know if it was because they were intentionally trying to deceive or if they just used AI in an attempt to find some excuses to convince the public that the bill was a bad one. I wonder why we cannot at least work together. Why did the bill not get sent to committee? Why could we not work together on the bill with respect to affordability? My final question is this: This summer, will the government open up the fisheries seven days a week so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can have fish in their freezer?

Mr. Speaker, I guess I know why the parliamentary secretary was the one reading the answer, because I do not think any Newfoundlander would be brave enough to read that and then go home and face their constituents. It almost seems like the member completely ignored what I just said about my bill not introducing new fees. It is right here. It says the minister must “examine the possibility”. It was even in the minister's hands. I put that in there. It is so frustrating. We talk about consultation. Poor old Uncle Joe and his little fish hooks are going to ruin the whole fishery. There are 2,500 tonnes that come out of the recreational food fishery and over 40,000 tonnes from the fishery. More fish are dying due to natural causes. One seal eats three tonnes. Way more fish are being eaten by seals, and that problem is something that the Liberal Party refuses to even talk about, let alone handle. It is so frustrating. I would like to know if the parliamentary secretary even went to Newfoundland and asked someone involved in the recreational food fishery on a wharf outside of St. John's what they wanted to do.

Mr. Speaker, not that long ago, the Liberal government had plans to bring fuel costs to over two dollars a litre. They said it was the only way for the world to go to net zero. Conservatives stood up, and we listened to Canadians, who knew that the carbon tax was crippling our economy and driving up affordability. Long before Trump made it tougher to compete with American tariffs, we tariffed ourselves with a carbon tax, a tax that made it nearly impossible for any sector to compete in the global markets. Even a fisherman in Newfoundland and Labrador had to pay more for fuel to catch his lobster than a fisherman in Maine. Our Conservative leader stood up for Canadians and explained that our oil and gas is the best substitute for the rising demand for coal in the world. The Liberals finally caved to our demands in a last-ditch effort to pander for votes. Thankfully, they have listened to us again, but their plan only takes away a fraction of the taxes for a fraction of the year.

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Prime Minister claimed he was going to have responsible budgets and fix Canada's economy. Instead, he actually spent more in reckless spending than Justin Trudeau, and now Atlantic Canadians are having to spend more and struggle more. Atlantic Canadians are working harder, and yet they are not making any headway. Nearly a third of Canadians say they do not even have enough to cover their bills. We are in serious trouble. When will the government get serious about affordability?

Mr. Speaker, I just asked a question about affordability and I cannot believe I did not hear anything about affordability. I guess that is no surprise, considering this fisheries minister voted against my bill that would have allowed struggling Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to fish for food seven days a week, so on Wednesdays, to go out in their small boats, take a fish for food and bring down their grocery bills. Will this fisheries minister allow Newfoundlanders to fish seven days a week to help with their grocery bills?

Mr. Speaker, the PC government of Newfoundland and Labrador was finally able to do what Liberal governments could not do. Despite years of Liberal anti-oil policies, they finally signed the deal for Bay du Nord. This will bring $6 billion of royalty revenue to the province, and 95% of its subsea work was guaranteed for the province, which is estimated at 31 million man-hours over its lifetime. To sweeten the pot, Equinor and BP agreed to build a floating dry dock to equip our province for long-term employment in shipbuilding opportunities. This is a good deal by Premier Wakeham, and I will fight to make it even greater. Currently, the contracts to build the FPSOs are on tender, and we should make sure that they are built in Newfoundland and Labrador. Will the government reinstate the oil and gas investments back into the Atlantic investment tax credit to lower taxes and give local companies a fighting chance?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Liberals voted against my bill that would allow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians access to the recreational food cod fishery seven days a week, like the rest of Atlantic Canada. Now they are fishing for excuses. They wrongfully stated that we never did any consultation, and they are spreading misinformation and imagining new fees. Why do one of these Newfoundlanders not stand up and tell us why they do not put political parties behind them, add amendments to address any of their concerns and work with us to make better policies for Newfoundland and Labrador?

Mr. Speaker, just this morning I had a phone call from a friend of mine. She is a teacher, a government worker, but life is so unaffordable that her Internet is about to be cut tomorrow because she cannot keep up with Liberal inflation. She is not the only one. According to an RBC poll, 64% of millennials are worried about their financial future under the Prime Minister. Many Canadians are bankrolling their debt into mortgages. Mortgage debt has now reached $2.6 trillion. Unfortunately, millennials cannot do this, because they cannot afford a home. Nearly 60% of millennials do not even have enough money at the end of the month to pay their bills, let alone begin saving for a home. Conservatives will continue to fight for an affordable Canada and a Canadian economy that creates powerful paycheques and lowers inflation so young people across our country can save for a home and save for a future.

Madam Speaker, it is so uplifting to have the support of my Conservative colleagues on the bill, especially my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador. We understand that this is something that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want, and we are hoping that our Liberal colleagues will recognize that and vote for the bill, so it can go to committee. That is what Newfoundlanders want. They want us, Liberals and Conservatives, to work together, not to pit commercial fishermen against recreational fishermen but to work together to make our province better, to feed our families and to be able to fish seven days a week. Fish stocks are rising, but unfortunately food insecurity is rising even faster. I have a good solution for food insecurity in our province. We can fill our boats to fill our bellies. For hundreds of years, we have turned to the ocean to feed our families. As my colleague from Long Range Mountains said today, being limited to fishing on weekends results in a massive safety barrier due to high winds and stormy conditions. If we could fish seven days a week, there would be days with better weather, allowing more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, seniors and families with smaller boats to be able to access this fishery, feeding the families who need it the most. I am sure this is something that all MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador will support and understand. Let us talk about the cod stocks. During the last debate on the bill, I sat in the House and heard a Liberal MP talk about how different parts of Atlantic Canada have different schools of fish and that populations may vary. He then went on to talk about how cod stocks in some parts of Atlantic Canada are not as strong as the cod stocks in Newfoundland. That only proves my point. If cod stocks in the Maritimes are low and they can fish seven days a week, why on earth, or perhaps why on the ocean, can Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not fish seven days a week like the rest of Atlantic Canada, when our stocks are much healthier? Additionally, every fisherman and fisherwoman knows that the biggest factor in the country affecting fish stocks is the massive overpopulation of seals. It is estimated that seals eat more fish than all of Atlantic Canada catches in the commercial fishery. My colleagues spoke about tourism. They understand how essential it is to our economy. With the new opportunities to go deep-sea fishing throughout the week, come from aways and people coming back home will spend thousands of dollars on hotels, meals, gas and other tourism activities. The economic benefit to the province will be in the millions. I have no doubt that the fisheries minister from Newfoundland and Labrador knows that opening the recreational food fishery seven days a week would significantly boost tourism in rural Newfoundland, an industry that so many people are dependent on. I hope that the minister and all my Newfoundland and Labrador colleagues do the right thing and vote for the bill. The member for Long Range Mountains spoke about her beautiful family. She talked about how some of her family's greatest memories are the times they spent together participating in the recreational food fishery. That is what it is all about. It is not about the money. It is not about the jobs. It is not about the rat race. Life is about spending time with family, doing the things we love and making memories. This is what the recreational food fishery does for our province. It brings families and friends together. This is why all parties, especially the members from Newfoundland and Labrador, should vote for the bill: to allow people, families and friends to fish together seven days a week. I would like to talk about consultation. Some of our critics and members from the other side of the aisle wrongfully state that we never did any consultation. To that I will say this. In addition to the hard work of our shadow minister and the member for Central Newfoundland, I spent months travelling from wharf to wharf in my district. I spoke with hundreds of recreational food fishers. The verdict was clear: They want to be able to fish seven days a week. I even went to commercial fishermen and fisherwomen with small enterprises in my riding. I asked them what their concerns were. Their concern was with enforcement, enforcement that the Liberal government has never done over the past decade. Their only issue, which I heard repeatedly, is that they do not want the few bad apples, the very few, to go out, fill their boats and sell it on the black market. That is enforcement that should have already been done and that needed to continue to be done over the past 10 years. There is another thing. There was a crazy statement that happened in the House today, one I could not understand, saying that the bill would create fees and a tax on food. It is not in the bill anywhere. There are no fees. That is only an imaginary tax. It is not in there. There are no fees. That is all there is. The bill is not partisan. It is practical. It respects science. It respects enforcement. I would like to request a vote in the House so we can have a formal vote.

Madam Speaker, I have been here for almost nine months now, and this is at least the third time I have risen in the chamber to speak about housing. I cannot believe how much hot air the Liberals put up in this place. It is almost enough to launch the Remax hot air balloon, yet availability and affordability of housing are going down across the country. The talking points are endless. The press conferences are polished. The announcements are flashy movie sets that are quickly deconstructed afterwards. Back home in Newfoundland and Labrador, the tents are real, the wait-lists are real and homelessness is real. Hundreds of men, women and even children are experiencing homelessness in my province. Hundreds of youth are on the waiting list for emergency shelters, and the emergency shelters are full. That is not just a statistic. That is a failure, and that failure belongs to this government. After eight years, after billions announced, after strategy upon strategy, housing is less affordable, less attainable and less available than when the Liberals took office. In my province, young families are not asking for luxury condos. They are asking for a modest starter home, a place to raise their kids and a place to build a life. Instead, they are competing against inflation, bureaucracy, gatekeeping and federal policies that drive up the cost of living and the cost of building at every single stage. The Liberals say they are investing, but if we invest billions and the homelessness rises, it is not investment. It is incompetence. I have learned in my last nine months here in Ottawa that the Liberals love picking winners and losers. Their favourite movie must be Pinocchio, because all they want to do is to pull the strings in almost every aspect of Canadians' daily lives. In my riding, we have business owners applying for federal funding to build low-income housing. That may sound great, but it creates so much bureaucracy, red tape and inequality. For example, two businessmen in neighbouring communities both apply for funding for, say, 10 units at nearly $50,000 a unit. Talk about an awesome gift from the feds. I am starting to think the Liberals like the colour red, because it reminds them that they can put on their coats and pretend to be Santa Claus. However, here is the problem: One of those businessmen did not get funding, and now all 10 of those units are going to a neighbouring community, leaving none for that businessman and his community. Why did both applicants not get five units each? The transparency of these application processes is so low. Perhaps the only way to be accepted is to be a Liberal insider or a Liberal donor. We Conservatives, time after time, have fought for transparency and fairness, one of the biggest being the Federal Accountability Act of 2006. We fight for policies and platforms that incentivize everybody equally, instead of picking winners and losers and only choosing a select few to get incentives. We want to work with provinces to reduce the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. These are policies that benefit all Canadians: no applications, no selection processes and no favouritism. We have lots of land in Canada. We have high unemployment and a huge demand for housing. When we ask home builders what the problem is, they always say that there is too much red tape and bureaucracy. Developers spend years and thousands of dollars trying to acquire land, permits, developmental fees and approvals, oftentimes having to deal with three levels of government. They want government and the bureaucracies to simply get out of the way, but the Liberal government wants to do the opposite. Every solution it proposes adds to the problem by creating more bureaucracy. Justin Trudeau's government implemented the national housing strategy. It did not work. Home prices continued to soar at rates much higher than our neighbouring economy, the United States. The Liberals came back to the House, after campaigning in the election that they would be a completely different government, and decided they wanted to continue to do the same. This led to the creation of private member's bill, Bill C-227, which would create more red tape. That was not enough. Now we are here today discussing Bill C-20, which once again builds more bureaucracy. If the Liberals are going to come into the House with their smoke and mirrors and repackage the same bills over and again, I have no choice but to give the same speech, but just in a different font. Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue my speech, but I will be splitting my time with another member afterward. The Liberals are introducing this new bill to give the illusion that they are directly involved in trying to put out the fire they started. In 2017, the Liberals launched the national housing strategy, administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If they already have the solution, why do they need to repackage the same old plan? They spent $150 billion to build only 170,000 homes. That works out to $676,000 per home. The money was wasted on bureaucracy. Now they want to create a new Crown corporation to physically build the homes, creating even more involvement and more strings for them to pull. Here is the kicker: They already have a Crown corporation that does this. All the bill does is merge the failed national housing strategy and the failed Canada Lands Company into one corporation. That is Liberal math: Take two failing things, put them together and pretend it works. In reality, it is like they are trying to build a motorcycle with two flat tires. Can members imagine how many homes could have been built if the Liberals had worked with the Conservatives to remove the GST on new home builds?

Mr. Speaker, imagine taking the GST off of all new homes under $1.3 million. That would instantly save 5%. With a 5% savings, that would have encouraged thousands of Canadians right across the country to build new homes. By partnering with Canadians, we could have stretched our dollar by 95%, by having that 5% incentive. Instead of letting Canadians keep their own money, the Liberals keep taxing things like housing, things they often call a human right. They then give that money to corporations and landlords to build homes, not for young people to actually own but for them to rent. Own nothing and be happy: that is the slogan of the Liberals' plan for their new world order. Young people do not want to rent for their whole lives. They want to own a home, a place where they can paint their kids' bedroom, a place that gives them pride and hope for the future, a place where they can build a fence for their dog. Housing is not just about shelter. It is about economic stability. It is about mental health. It is about whether young people can make a wooden box a home. In my province, we face the highest unemployment rate in the country. We add that to rising rents and rising prices and limited supply, and young people are being forced to make unfavourable choices. Some are staying with their parents. Some are even staying with their grandparents. These are young men and women, oftentimes older than myself, working full time, yet they still have to face these unfavourable choices. Unfortunately, we are seeing even greater consequences of the lost Liberal decade. Homelessness, once unthinkable at this scale, especially in my province, is now a reality in communities right across my province and the whole country. Over the summer, I was able to have a tour of a Salvation Army homeless shelter in St. John's. I began to ask the workers at the facility what had led to people being there. I remember one young lady looked at me and said that all those men had just hit their breaking point. The shelter sees these kinds of surges when the economy goes bad. They lose their jobs and that causes stress. They oftentimes lose their wives and their family because of that stress, and they end up there. Her statement stuck with me because of the simple fact that what we do here in Ottawa does not just affect our economy; it affects real people. It does not just affect housing stats and unemployment. It affects real people, real Canadians, people who are hurting and looking for hope. How long will these Liberals keep hiding in their haunted house of smoke and mirrors before they admit that more bureaucracy will not build a single home? Canadians do not need another illusion. They need a real home.

Mr. Speaker, having a housing crisis and having Canadians forcing Liberals to step in to try to do something does not show success. It shows failure. The Conservatives have never had to build more than six homes because we were out of the way, and private industry was building homes. In 2017, the Liberals launched a strategy, an agency. Nothing got built, and problems got worse. The more they do, and the evidence shows this, the more problems we have. They should just get out of the way. That is it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I have ever agreed with the Bloc as much as I do now. One hundred per cent, the federal government needs to step out of the way and let people on the ground, the people who build homes and communities, do the work. Let them build the homes they want to build. The federal government needs to just get out of the way, get policies in place or get policies removed so that they can build homes.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's dedication to thinking outside the box. We definitely need to try something new rather than just repackaging the same bureaucracy. However, what the Conservatives are very adamant on is creating policies that everyone across this country can benefit from. Removing the GST would not pick winners and losers. Anybody could go out, build a new home and benefit from that. It would be incentivizing everybody.

Mr. Speaker, last year when I was nominated to be a Conservative candidate, I had an interesting conversation with Ches Crosbie. Mr. Crosbie asked me a tough question. He asked me, out of the four Conservative platform pillars, which one I thought would be the most important to my constituents. I took a moment and I thought real long and hard. Axe the tax, stop the crime, build the homes and fix the budget are all very important issues, but in my rural riding, where people have to travel long distances for work, drive large SUVs to handle our terrible roads and use pickup trucks to do their daily tasks, I figured axing the tax would be one of the biggest concerns in rural Newfoundland. Boy, was I wrong. It did not take long for me to realize that stopping crime was one of the biggest issues facing rural Newfoundland and Labrador. While rural Newfoundland is not riddled with extortion like we see in many parts of Canada, families, people and business owners are living in fear. Over the summer, communities in Conception Bay North were devastated by forest fires that swept through their communities. Families, seniors and people all along that shore had to leave their homes to find a place to stay. Unfortunately, many of them lost their homes and have yet to return. However, that was not the first fire they experienced. That was the 13th fire in less than three months. Multiple people in that community reported the fire previously as potential arson. Unfortunately, nothing was done. Even during the fires, I was told that people were sneaking in to the evacuated zones and breaking into homes. Imagine that: thieves brazen enough to steal from the people who are suffering the most. Now, even while the community tries to rebuild, crime is rampant. I am being told that truckloads of two-by-fours are being stolen. Tools are being stolen. This is on a regular basis. They are not one-time events, but happening repeatedly. People from the area are calling and begging me, and actually begging all of us, all of us parliamentarians, to work together to solve this problem. Not only do they ask for increased policing, but they also ask for increased bail reform. Even everyday Canadians know that all these crimes are being committed over and over by the same people, and that the heart of the problem is in the justice system. They are desperate for change. They have even taken it upon themselves to circulate petitions to call for change, a petition that I will be glad to present here in the House of Commons at a later date. On the opposite end of my riding, they are having the same issue. The Town of Carmanville invited me to a regional event where people from neighbouring communities voiced their significant concerns about crime in the area. Parents in the meeting told me they were worried about letting their kids walk down the road to their friends' house nearby because of the increased number of intoxicated drivers due to the excessive amount of drugs in the area. What makes the situation worse is that the town of Carmanville and the area feel completely abandoned. Their police station is empty. They have one police station and three RCMP homes that are maintained and heated but are completely empty. Quite frankly, they are abandoned. During the lost Liberal decade, their police station has become completely eroded of personnel, but why? Why is it so hard for the government to secure police officers? When I chat with officers, a common theme comes up: Crime is up, but morale is down. Police are so frustrated with the justice system and their constant game of cat and mouse that they retire as soon as they can, eager to leave the force and oftentimes even having to go on sick leave due to the mental health strain this crime cycle creates. Imagine them getting up every day, putting on a uniform and holstering a gun, not knowing if they will return to see their families that evening and risking their lives just for the criminals they catch to get a slap on the wrist and a get-out-of-jail-free card. This massive increase in crime has even changed the fabric of our Newfoundland culture. Homeowners in the safest communities are locking their doors, not just at nighttime but even during the day while they are in their own homes. This was not unheard of 10 years ago, but in some communities, it may have even been considered rude and unfriendly to do so. Parents are more and more fearful of letting their children play in nearby parks and playgrounds. Cultural activities like mummering and even trick-or-treating are rapidly eroding as the risks become higher and higher. Cabin owners leave their properties not knowing what they will come back to, with break and enter becoming the norm. This is all due to 10 years of Liberal failed policies. When I saw and heard of crime rates going up and heard of these violent crimes, I always thought it was a sign of the times, that it was the way the world is. I figured that our culture must be producing more criminals. Once I got to Ottawa, I learned what was really behind this change. It did not happen because of a whim or because of changes on TV. It happened because the Liberal government introduced the principle of restraint. This principle instructed judges, who preside over thousands of bail applications, to release accused criminals at the earliest opportunity and with the least restrictive restrictions. Conservatives feel that this is the core of the problem. Unfortunately, Liberals have decided to keep this language pertaining to the principle of restraint in the bill, keeping their soft-on-crime, hug-a-thug mentality. Additionally, the bill fails to get tough enough on conditional sentencing orders. Criminals who are involved in robbery, gun and trafficking offences are still able to access house arrest. Over and over again, at doors and meetings across my riding, I hear that people are sick and tired of these criminals getting arrested and getting nothing but a soft slap on the wrist. There is even a joke. People say that the criminals get home before the police are off duty. Crime should not be a joking matter. We need to get serious about it. Firstly, we need to get rid of this idea that criminals should get the least amount of punishment allocated by the law. If judges, courts and prosecutors feel that these criminals deserve more time, they should get more time. Conservatives want to repeal the principle of restraint and replace it with the principle of prioritizing community and public safety, as set out in our private member's bill, the jail not bail act. Conservatives want to restore mandatory minimums for kidnapping, human trafficking, extortion, arson and other serious violent crimes. When we speed, we know the consequences. There is a fine we must pay. It is a minimum, not an amount that we can negotiate. Why should human trafficking, one of the most horrendous crimes imaginable, not have the same idea instead of minimum consequences? Let us talk about bail reform. “Jail not bail” is something that Conservatives have chanted alone for years. It was not until election time that the Liberals were pressured by the public to do something and said they would consider bail reform. Unfortunately, the bill misses key aspects at the core of the problem. Conservatives know that judges and courts need to consider the full criminal history and outstanding charges of criminals. Many Canadians, including myself, are shocked that this is not already mandated. Conservatives want to do exactly that. If we were in government, we would mandate courts to consider the full criminal history of the accused. It is just common sense. Here is the most unbelievable part. Right now, sometimes, when someone is out on bail, they may need surety, someone who supervises them, someone to vouch for them, who will ensure that they will be back for court and that they will behave while on bail, yet, right now, the guarantor, the supervisor, could have been convicted in the past. Conservatives want to make sure that these criminals out on bail are not being supervised by other criminals. Conservatives want to require courts to enforce guarantor obligations and ensure that they do not have an indictable conviction. Additionally, Conservatives want to give the courts the power to make non-residents surrender their passports in situations they feel are appropriate, reducing the chances of the accused skipping bail and continuing criminal activity in other countries. Canadians are asking us to work together. Although we do not believe that the bill does enough, we are proud of the inputs and additions that Conservatives made to the bill during the process. We will continue to advocate for stricter penalties, for more policing and for a justice system that protects the community, not criminals.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government for 10 years has been soft on crime. It was not until the public put the government on notice that it decided to pretend to do something about it and came out with this bill. The member across the way said it wanted to have it done by Christmas, yet it put the controversial bill, Bill C-9, in front of it to try to take away the religious rights of people across this country. It is obstructing getting this through, so I am frustrated. This needs to keep going.

Mr. Speaker, repeat offending is something that happens over and over. When we go into communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, oftentimes if we ask who the troublemaker is, everyone points their finger at the same house. The police know who it is, the community knows who it is, but unfortunately, the justice system is not prepared to handle the situation. There are some small things in here that go in the right direction and would fix some of that stuff, but they are not as big as what the Conservatives want. However, we are definitely working with the Liberals to try to make that happen.

Mr. Speaker, rural Canada and rural Newfoundland were the safest places in the world, places where nobody locked their doors and everybody trusted each other. There was a fabric there. I talked about that a bit in my speech. That is lost. It is heartbreaking that people growing up in small communities now have to live in fear, not just for themselves but for their children and their families. It is very sad.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has a long history of building boats and protecting North America during the wars. Unfortunately, it seems like the Liberal government is overlooking our province as it builds its icebreaker maintenance facility. In my region alone, we currently have four industry ports sitting idle: Marystown Shipyard, Cow Head facility, the Bull Arm Fabrication Site and the retired navy base of Argentia. Newfoundlanders have used these sites to build vessels, ferries and even large oil rigs. With all these previous projects, our tradespeople have become the best boatbuilders in the world, but over the last Liberal decade, these sites have been empty. Now Newfoundland and Labrador has 74% of its tradespeople unemployed. We have the ports. We have the people. Let us get a government that gets our people to work.

Madam Speaker, there is a rumour spreading. It has been around a while, but it lingers. People thought that by now this rumour would be dead, but unfortunately, it still lives on. In almost every corner of Canada, we hear the three big words: Canada feels broken. Why? Why does Canada feel broken? Once we start asking that question, we will get many answers, but at the core of all those things, I see one issue that affects almost every neighbourhood across this country: a housing crisis. Housing conditions have changed dramatically in recent years. Cost has risen faster than wages. Demand has increased. Supply has not kept pace, and young Canadians are feeling the pressure more than any generation before them. Housing is not just about shelter. It is about economic stability. It is about mental health. It is about whether young people can make a wooden box into a home. Young Canadians are not asking for guarantees or handouts; they are asking for fairness. They want to work. They want to contribute. They want the same opportunities as the generations before them. They want to own a home. In my province, we face the highest unemployment rate in the country. Add that to rising rents, rising home prices and limited supply, and young people are being forced into impossible choices. Some are staying with their parents. Some are even staying with their grandparents. These are grown men and women, oftentimes older than me, working full-time, yet still having to face these unfavourable choices. I went to university. I got a degree in civil engineering. Even with a degree that offered great employment like that, in order to afford a home, I still had to work two jobs. I would work week on, week off at a gold mine. On my weeks off, I would work with a consulting company in the oil and gas sector. These are the consequences of the inflationary Liberal decade. Us young people have to work twice as hard to get the same things our parents had. We are seeing even greater consequences of the lost Liberal decade. Youth shelters are full. Housing wait-lists are growing. Homelessness, once unthinkable at this scale, is now a reality in communities across my province and this country. Over the summer, I was able to have a tour of the Salvation Army homeless shelter in St. John's. I spoke with a few young men in the cafeteria. I heard their stories. They started out not much different than we did. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, they lost hope, and when hope was lost, they searched for something to fill that void. Like many young people, especially young men, they turned to drugs. Why did they lose this hope? As the inquisitive young man that I am, I asked workers at the facility that exact question. A young lady working there came up to me and said, “All these men, they just hit their breaking point. We see these kinds of surges when the economy gets bad. They lose their jobs, which causes stress. They often lose their wives and their families too, and they end up here.” How heartbreaking. Her statement stuck with me because what we do here in Ottawa does not just affect our economy. It does not just affect unemployment, and it does not just affect housing stats. It affects real people, real Canadians, people who are hurting and looking for hope. Now these men are homeless. They have no jobs, and it is like a dog chasing its tail. Last night, as I was writing this speech, I came up with a revolutionary idea. What if we started building more homes to create more jobs for these young men and to give families homes to live in? I think that is an idea we can all get behind. The question is, how? Economics 101 is a lesson on supply and demand. As supply increases, the demand decreases. This means that the more homes we have in Canada, the lower the demand will be, and prices will begin stabilizing to make houses more affordable for all Canadians. The solution seems simple: build more homes. Unfortunately, nobody in this country seems to be doing that. Why? Canada has an abundance of land, we have record high unemployment, and we have young families ready to move in. Once we start talking to developers, though, they will quickly tell us it is often the government's fault. Developers spend years and thousands of dollars trying to acquire the land, the permits, the developmental fees and the approvals, oftentimes having to work with three levels of government. Once again, the developers want our government and bureaucrats to simply get out of the way, but the Liberal government wants to do the opposite. The Liberals now want to introduce a new bill so they would be directly involved in maintaining the illusion that they are trying to put out the fire they started. This is not the first time that the Liberals have done this. In 2017, they launched a national housing strategy that was administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If they already have the solution, why do they need to repackage the same old plan? They spent over $115 billion to build 170,000 homes. That works out to $676,000 per home. The money was wasted on bureaucracy. Can members imagine how many homes we could have built if the Liberals had worked with the Conservatives to remove the GST on new home builds? Taking off GST would have instantly saved 5%, which would have encouraged thousands of Canadians to build new homes right across this country. By partnering with Canadians, we could have stretched our dollar and built 95% more homes with that same dollar. Instead of letting Canadians keep their own money, the Liberals want to keep taxing things such as housing, which they call a human right. Then they give that money to corporations and landlords to build homes, not for young people to own, but to rent. “Own nothing and be happy” is the slogan of the Liberals' plan for their new world order. Young people do not want to rent their whole lives; they want to own a home, a place where they can paint their kids' bedrooms and build a fence for their dog. They want to own a home that builds equity toward retirement and gives them pride and hope for the future. This cannot be done by building rentals; it is achieved by letting the free market do its thing. For generations, we had a system. Young people would buy a small starter home from a middle-aged family. This allowed them to build equity and their careers. When it was time to have kids, they could sell off their starter home to another young family and afford to build their new family home, perhaps even their dream home. Once their new home was built and their family raised, couples often decided to sell their home to the next generation as they downsized for retirement. Using their equity from the sale, they could build a small home for retirement. Once their lives came to an end, the family would sell off the property so that a young couple could start their journey on this housing cycle. Hakuna matata, it was the circle of life. When bureaucrats got in the way, they damaged the whole cycle. It became too difficult for people to build new homes and move up the housing ladder, so they just stayed. No homes were built, the demand grew and prices skyrocketed. Give a man a fish and he is thankful; give five men a fish and the whole village wants one. That is the problem with handouts: Everybody gets in line with their hand out. Investors no longer want to build homes with their own money because they are in line, waiting to see if they will win the Liberal lottery. Even in housing, instead of making housing incentives that would encourage all Canadians to build homes, the Liberals want to pick winners and losers. Last year, the Liberal government announced that it wanted to build programs similar to the one described in this bill to build modular homes. Is it a coincidence that, when our Prime Minister was the chair of Brookfield, it acquired a modular home company called Modulaire Group? I think Canadians are curious, and even anxious, to see how much Modulaire, Brookfield and our Prime Minister will financially benefit from the programs in this bill. It is time to build homes and hope. It is time to be more focused on getting our hammers up instead of our elbows.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance promised to stabilize food prices three years ago. What the Liberals have actually done is create the worst food inflation in the G7. Food inflation is now double what it was when the Prime Minister got into office. This is not a global phenomenon. Canadian inflation is double that of the United States. Now, instead of fixing the actual problem, they have added a temporary band-aid. A couple making minimum wage would not even be eligible for it. Will the Liberal government please stand with our food affordability plan to make groceries affordable for all of us?