Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal policies and taxes, Canadians are falling further and further behind. Recently, I heard from Jeff, who wrote to say, “The taxes I pay are completely out of hand. Canadians now pay more in taxes than we do in housing and groceries. I have never worked so much overtime and had so little money. I am spending less time with my family and keep working more and more just trying to keep bills paid.” Conservatives have a plan. We have identified savings of over $150 billion. That is nearly $10,000 per Canadian family. These savings would cut wasteful bureaucracy, handouts to fake asylum claimants and corporate welfare. Our plan would also scrap all taxes on gas until at least Canada Day of next year, saving Canadians money on gas and groceries. Our Conservative plan would save money for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, that was a serious question that deserved a serious answer. Buried in the Liberals' omnibus budget bill is yet another ministerial power grab. Cabinet gives itself more powers to award contracts while allowing itself to muzzle the very watchdog, the procurement ombudsman, who is meant to monitor it. Why are the Liberals rigging the rules so they can hand out contracts without anyone watching?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, an act that seeks to establish the Build Canada Homes bureaucracy, at third reading. As I mentioned during the debate at second reading, this bill is the latest attempt by the Liberals to solve a problem they created. Unfortunately, their solution is to create yet another Crown corporation, which they promise will deal with their housing issue. It is their third Crown corporation, no less. Over the last 10 years, our young people have watched rents and the prices of homes double. Inflation has soared and swallowed up their ability to save for the future, and the prospect of owning a home has slipped away. We all remember the promise the Prime Minister made during the last election to build at speeds not seen in a generation. This generation is losing out. He has invoked grand speeches since, reminding Canadians that for much of our history, our country was able to build vital projects and the housing it needed. I am deliberately saying “for much of our history”, because over the past 10 years under the Liberals, companies have been forced to downsize and lay off workers, businesses have had to shut their doors and our builders have been unable to build because of increasing costs and regulatory burdens. After promising to deliver 500,000 new homes every year, the PBO estimates that Canada's housing completions will average only 222,000 per year, which is well below the number needed and the number promised. However, rather than delivering on their promise to build these homes, the Liberals are building yet another bureaucracy. This makes it their fourth attempt at using bureaucracy to try to fix the housing crisis they have created. While the Liberal government continues to tell young Canadians that solutions are on their way, it is going to deliver and all it needs is more time, our young people are waking up each morning with less hope of making a down payment on a home, landing a career that will meet their needs or starting a family. After 10 years of getting it wrong, just how much time do the Liberals need to get it right? Now we find out that their grand plan is to build yet another bureaucracy. It is completely out of touch to believe that doing the same thing over and again will somehow produce a different result. Rather than repeal overburdensome regulations or legislation, the Liberals' plan is to create yet another massive, multi-billion dollar Crown corporation to do what the private sector already does, except it would move slower, cost more and require more red tape. The Liberals' record of overseeing Crown corporations is not stellar either. Let us consider Canada Post. This Crown corporation became insolvent under the government and has received not one but two $1-billion loans that taxpayers are on the hook for. This is all because the Liberals failed to act and approve its strategic plan for five years. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is another Crown corporation, handed out a $1-billion loan to a Chinese shipbuilding company, instead of giving that work to capable, hard-working Canadians in B.C. As for the Canada Lands Company, its responsibility to develop federal properties and convert them into housing units will now become the responsibility of Build Canada Homes. The six projects that were announced, as my colleague pointed out earlier, had already been approved and development was well under way. Only 49% of federal land commitments from the Canada Lands Company will be built by 2028. According to the Auditor General, federal property disposals take six to eight years per property. These delays are not one-off incidents. They are slow, repeat failures that demonstrate a true lack of will to address the issue in a meaningful way. There is no reason to believe that by transferring these properties to the new bureaucracy, things will speed up or be any more effective. Reorganizing is not reform. Still, that does not seem to resonate. Believing that giving paycheques to policy advisers on bureaucratic boards will deliver results is a failure of imagination and a failure to recognize that a change in approach is needed. Getting back into the business of building cannot mean being in the business of hiring consultants or layering on more delays. A new board of directors would not fix the supply crisis the Liberals have created. What builders need is for the cost of building to come down, and that means bringing the cost of government down. It means recognizing that the cost of government is more than just the development charges and it is more than the cost of GST on the sale of a home. It is the cost hidden in the complex rules that present the first barrier to a shovel hitting the dirt. These rules drive away competition, slow progress and gradually increase cost. We do not catalyze an industry by competing with it, using $13 billion of its own tax dollars. We do not build homes by adding more process to the country's system that already has far too much of it. For greater clarity, the OECD has identified restrictive zoning permitting and fragmented approval systems across levels of government as a principal constraint on housing supply in Canada. Build Canada Homes will not fix this, and there is a real human cost to all of this. Young Canadians are being forced to work longer in the hopes of entering the housing market later in life. We must also acknowledge the lost potential to our economy as construction workers are laid off and home builders stop building at a time when housing starts, job creation and affordability are needed the most. Building has become complex. The regulatory burden has become expansive. It is not Canadians who need to be reminded of a time when we used to build here in Canada. It is the government here in Ottawa that needs reminding that there was a time when it did not stand in the way of letting people build. If the Liberal government is serious about wanting to tackle the housing crisis our country is facing, it needs to stop blaming outside factors and rather look inward to determine a new approach, which is needed in our capital. A new approach would deliver the results Canadians need. The new is often uncomfortable. This would mean a departure from an “Ottawa knows best” mindset and a return to common sense, wherein young people are free to innovate, businesses are able to adapt and the market drives demand for growth. The government, as a customer, cannot drive demand forever, create the jobs we will need nor house every Canadian, and it should not want to. Canadians are the most capable people in the world, and the government needs to remember that. Young Canadians should not be asked to sacrifice more than they already have. They deserve a fair chance to work hard and build the homes, lives and families they choose. The 500,000 homes a year that are needed to solve this housing crisis will not be built by a fourth housing bureaucracy with red tape that prevents shovels from hitting the dirt. Boardrooms have never built homes. Builders and capable workers do. Canadians do not have to settle for a $13-billion project that will build just 5,000 homes a year. Better is possible, but it requires a change, not more of the same. The bill we are debating today is just more of the same.

Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest this: My hon. colleague does not need to take my word for it. She does not need to take the word of my colleagues on this side of the House. Maybe she should go back and look at the Auditor General's report or the PBO's report that was tabled last fall. In her report last year, the Auditor General found a clear lack of transparency in reporting numbers on the government's housing initiatives, which further undermines the trust Canadians have in the government's ability to address the housing crisis. Under its own definition of housing units, the government refuses to be transparent with the kinds of housing it is building and whether it will meet the needs of families. I would remind the member that she needs to also take a look at what others are saying about this crisis and how they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague probably has a much better grasp on the numbers than I do. I would simply say this. I am a mom of four adult children who have recently bought homes, trying to get into home ownership, and the cost to do that is incredible. We know it is still the dream of young Canadians to one day own a home, and we know the government is losing valuable time by creating bureaucracies instead of actually doing something different and addressing the issue to get more homes built for our young people.

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the 330-page budget implementation act, no. 2. All I can say is here we go again. This act, which puts in place measures to implement what was announced in the update, is just more of what we have become accustomed to from the Liberal government. The Liberals keep building bureaucracies and spending at speeds never seen before, faster than the previous Trudeau government. Any fiscal room that was generated by higher-than-expected revenues went immediately out the door. For more than a decade, the Liberals have preached that deficit spending will drive the growth in the economy needed to produce good-paying jobs for Canadians. For a government that is desperately trying to convince Canadians it is different and would achieve the results Canadians have been waiting a decade for, the spring economic update proves very little has changed. Every dollar that comes into the economy is another dollar to subsidize itself. The Liberals have caused the regulatory burden in Canada to balloon and suppress innovation and growth. Inaction is a choice. A perfect example of this is the sections in this bill that create the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity. The powers it is granting to an unnamed minister are broad and sweeping. The exceptions to competitive procurements are vast and can be used as much as the unknown minister chooses. Exceptions are likely to become the norm. No one would argue that defence procurement has been in major need of reform. Onerous rules and layers of bureaucratic processes have only grown. The pace that meets the operational needs of the Canadian Armed Forces has been sorely needed. One could expect that over the 11 years the Liberals have been in power, they would have worked to overhaul and reform the systems and rules around procurement. One could expect it, but they would be wrong. The Liberals' solution to the bureaucratic bloat seems to be the exact same as it was a year ago. It was in Bill C-5 this time last year that the Liberals claimed they needed extraordinary powers to bypass regulations and roadblocks that got in the way of major projects. They have yet to use any of those powers to designate a project in the national interest to advance our resource development. I do not bring up Bill C-5 to talk about the lack of results from the government on resource development; there are more than enough examples to talk about this elsewhere. I bring it up because it was originally drafted in such a way that would have allowed the government to bypass not only certain acts of Parliament to build projects, but virtually any act of Parliament. Allow me to list a few of the acts it sought the ability to bypass before it was amended at committee: the Access to Information Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Investment Canada Act and the Lobbying Act just to name a few. The only reason this was prevented at the time was because of the minority government that Canadians had elected. A year later, now we have the same story. Procurement has become slow, costly and unable to deliver the lethality and operational readiness our armed forces need. To give members an idea of the state of operational readiness in our armed forces, we can use the Department of National Defence's own annual results from 2024-25. Less than 60% of our maritime fleet is serviceable and ready to go out on operations. Only 51% of our land fleets are sitting at the ready and well maintained so troops can use them. Only 42% of our aircraft in the Canadian Armed Forces are ready to serve and have the proper maintenance. That is years of waiting for the government to deliver while rules and processes grew without any reform. The solution, according to the Liberals, is not to bring about reform or transformation, but rather to grant an unknown minister near-unlimited power to bypass competitive procurement rules. He or she would be able to bar anyone from being allowed to compete without ever having to provide a reason why. This unknown minister can draw $1 billion from the consolidated revenue fund, without ever needing to go to the Treasury Board to purchase shares in companies, and fire entire boards. They can use exceptions to competitive procurements to no end, never having to justify or report it to anyone. These powers can be delegated to the CEO, undermining the entire point having a single place for accountability. A year ago, we had Bill C-5, and the same story, the same solution was presented. In this case, however, the Liberals are seeking the ability to just go around the rules without ever having to explain why to anyone. This is rife for abuse. If power is to be given, the case must be made for how it will be balanced with accountability. This budget implementation act allows the same failed thinking that got us here: no case for reform and no change in approach. As I said, inaction is a choice. Proud Canadians in my riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek were looking for a signal that something better was on the way. Instead, they see that the Liberals under this Prime Minister have not changed their approach at all. Deficit spending still has not produced the results the Liberals have been promising. The interest on our debt will total more than $50 billion. Nobody on that side of the aisle seems to be interested in what we could do with our economy with that $50 billion every year. These interest charges will continue to rise and total more than a projected $80 billion by 2030‑31, with no course correction in sight. Instead, the Liberals continue to announce even new ways to deficit spend: enter the sovereign debt fund. We recently learned that the estimated interest payments to borrow the money for this fund will be three-quarters of a billion dollars annually. They have yet to even tell Canadians what the return on their money might be. Canadians have been waiting. They continue to pay their taxes and play by the rules. They have kept their end of the deal. Saskatchewan and Saskatchewanians have kept their end of the deal. In return, the government is supposed to deliver on the results it promised Canadians. It is avoiding real change. Instead, after more than a year since the previous election, it has opted to tinker with the margins or make small changes around the edges, and it has not been willing to change the approach it has taken to our economy. Its spending and its Defence Investment Agency all follow the same failed logic of the previous 10 years. Simply allowing the Liberals to have more power and more authority to avoid the bureaucracy they created and accountability is not the solution. Conservatives will wait to see who will be named as minister, and whether the Liberals will use their manufactured majority to continue a pattern of avoiding accountability at committee when this bill is referred to it.

Madam Speaker, I believe that under way are the key words in that phrase, because the first five projects the government announced were well under way. That was more performative than anything. What I would say is that Bill C-31 is proof that in year 11, the Liberals continue to put forward legislation that keeps the same failed logic we have come to expect. Believing that an 11th try using deficits to fund jobs will bear the fruit they desire is wishful thinking. I heard someone else say the issues are real and the consequences of bad policy-making are being felt across the country by Canadians. It truly is time the government holds up its end of the deal and changes course from the reckless deficit spending it has become known for.

Madam Speaker, that could be a very short answer if I wanted it to be. The answer is absolutely I am worried. I am worried about the fact that we have a government in power that has created the mess in our economy and then wants all Canadians to believe it has come up with the solutions and is the saviour to the problems it has created. Yes, I am worried because the government continues to introduce the same failed policies that got us to this place after 11 years. I do not see it changing, and that is deeply concerning.

Madam Speaker, we are already seeing what the devastating effects are for Canadians today. Without a change in policy, without a change in the government continuing to implement its deficit spending and believe that somehow things are going to get better for Canadians, that is concerning. It is just going to continue to repeat itself long into the future if the Liberals do not get control of the deficit and their deficit spending.

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, Liberal members stand across the way and try to convince Canadians that they are a new government. Canadians need to look no further than the government's actions today to confirm that they are the same old government, spending more and limiting debate with time allocation. When will this minister and the Liberal government realize they are here to serve Canadians, not themselves?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's Cúram software platform has become the newest IT project to make the list of over-budget, chronically delayed programs it delivers to Canadians. The program was launched in 2017, just two years after the Liberals took office. The Auditor General found that, by 2022, the program had run into delays and into cost overruns that increased by 43% before a single benefit had been processed by the system. Reports from Le Journal de Montréal estimate that the once $1.75‑billion IT project meant to modernize old age security payments will cost up to $6.6 billion. I wish I could say that this project was the first of its kind. Unfortunately it is the latest in the long list of Liberal-managed IT projects where costs ballooned, and connected consultants got paid. Members of the House voted to launch an independent inquiry into these projects, such as Phoenix, the arrive scam scandal and now Cúram, to find out how the same pattern of delay is followed by cost overruns and by a big bill for taxpayers to pay, while the people overseeing the projects are not held accountable, and why the middlemen involved walk away, getting paid every time. During the arrive scam scandal, connected consultants working out of a basement apartment took millions of dollars without performing any work. They engineered a bid to build the ArriveCAN app, and they contracted out all the work to others while pocketing the difference. The project was originally projected to cost just $80,000 but ended up costing $64.5 million. The connected insiders kept millions of dollars, and Canadians were left footing the bill for an app that the Auditor General found did not provide value for money. Cúram may not simply cost upwards of $6 billion. Reports from March indicate that tens of thousands of seniors were having issues with their benefits, and delays had reached up to 85,000 people. Members of the Liberal government stood up in the House, after taking questions, and first denied anything was wrong, but then they told members to reach out personally and to not make the issue political. Since when has question period, a time when opposition members ensure accountability by asking questions of the government, become a time when the Liberals continually demonstrate arrogance by suggesting that by pointing out that the Liberals failed to deliver the Cúram program on time or on budget, or that nearly 85,000 seniors could not access their benefits, political opponents are playing politics? That attitude is beneath members of this place. I will ask the minister the question again: Why do Liberal programs always massively exceed their projected costs, and why are seniors forced to pay the price for the Liberals' incompetence?

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General did find we needed a new system. That much is true. However, she did not advise the Liberals to manage the program so poorly that 85,000 seniors could not get their benefits in a timely way. The Auditor General certainly did not tell the Liberals to manage the program so poorly that it cost an extra $5 billion. The Liberals want to pretend these failures of Cúram are not their fault. Cúram is yet another example of how Liberal overspending and underdelivering affects everyday Canadians. There is always someone else at fault, and no one is held to account. The pattern is clear, and Canadians see it. Under the Liberals, connected, costly consultants get paid while projects fall further and further behind, running over budget by the billions, and Canadians are left paying the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have made grand promises of spending less and investing more, yet we heard from Finance Canada that their savings plan was not about spending less at all. With net new spending at $90 billion and interest on our nation's debt totalling more than we spend on health care transfers, Canadians are footing the bill in the amount of $3,300 a year per family. What are the Liberals going to tell Canadians next week when they release their fiscal update? Will it doom Canadians to more of the same?

Mr. Speaker, after running a decade of deficits, the Liberals have doubled the cost of housing, doubled the cost of rent and now doubled the deficit from Justin Trudeau. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians who are struggling to afford groceries, pay their rent and fill up their tanks with gas. When will the Liberals finally admit they have gotten it wrong, change course and get their spending under control so Canadians can afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of Canadians calling on the government to cease the expansion of medical assistance in dying. The petitioners believe that advance requests for MAID could lead to undue pressure or coercion. They also believe that offering MAID rather than providing support services devalues those living with chronic conditions. As such, they ask all members of Parliament not to support legislation that expands medical assistance in dying, including advance requests, and suggest that the federal government focus on enhancing palliative and hospice care for Canadians instead.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act. This is a complex, technical piece of legislation, but its core objective is one we should all support: protecting the integrity of our democratic process. Before I get into my speech, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from St. Albert—Sturgeon River for his thoughtful remarks on this bill and for the very good work he does on democratic reform. While the Conservative caucus supports moving this bill to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a detailed study, there are specific areas regarding foreign interference and new enforcement powers that I believe require further scrutiny. The bill focuses on three central themes. The first is bringing in changes to prevent further abuses of our democratic processes by the longest ballot committee. I know we have heard a lot about this issue during this debate. Over the course of many years now, members of the House, prospective candidates and Canadians have been subjected to a coordinated effort by a group that calls itself the longest ballot committee, whose members have sought to exploit our electoral process. They target specific ridings and flood the ballot with dozens of fake candidates, candidates who have no intention of campaigning, engaging with voters or putting forward solutions and policy proposals to run on. This undermines the trust Canadians have in our election systems. The expectation of residents in the riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek from Humboldt, Warman and Martensville to Radisson, just to name a few, is that as a candidate I run under a set of policies that I am committing to represent, and I put forward a vision of what I plan to achieve in Ottawa and how I plan to represent the voices of my riding here in this place. The longest ballot committee is the exact opposite of this. To call it a protest is to misrepresent the way it undermines trust in our elections. A recent and prominent example was in the riding of Carleton, where we saw a metre-long ballot with 91 fake candidates. This creates voter confusion, marginalizes legitimate candidates and creates unnecessary barriers for voters with certain disabilities. As of now, groups can use the same 100 signatures to qualify multiple candidates. This is a clear abuse of the spirit of the act. Bill C-25 rightly proposes that an elector may only sign one nomination form and that an official agent may only act for one candidate per riding. This would help put an end to this sham of the electoral process by the longest ballot group. The second part of this bill proposes changes to close foreign funding loopholes. Central to our democracy is the idea and trust that Canadian elections should be and are decided by Canadians. Currently, significant loopholes allow foreign interests to influence our outcomes through third parties. If foreign money is sent for a general purpose rather than a specific regulated activity, it can be treated as general revenue and used for campaigning. This allows third parties to potentially be significantly funded by foreign money in practice. That process is the melding of funds. These new rules that would prohibit cryptocurrency, prepaid cards and money orders as contribution methods would extend to leadership contests as well. These changes to prevent anonymous and hard-to-trace funding channels are welcome. As has been noted, with the instance of the 2017 Tides Foundation case, where foreign funds were funnelled through Canadian intermediaries to mask their original source, those entities ended up campaigning against then prime minister Stephen Harper in the 2015 election. That is an intermediary loophole that exists, where foreign funding is dispersed to legitimate Canadian companies and then transferred to third party groups and the funds do not appear to be from foreign entities. This bill would require third parties to use separate bank accounts funded only by Canadians or permanent residents. However, there would be a 10% “own funds” exception that may still leave the door open for foreign influence. That is why Conservatives are urging the government to consider an amendment requiring all third parties, regardless of size, to use separate Canadian-only accounts to ensure a level playing field with political parties. The third part of the bill I will be focusing on is the proposed changes in powers to the commissioner of Elections Canada and new monetary penalties. It is these proposed changes that may require greater scrutiny, which would be done in the House through each stage of debate, and then during the review process at committee. The bill is proposing to increase monetary penalties for individuals from $1,500 to $25,000, and for corporations from $5,000 to $100,000. These are not small increases. Further investigation will be needed, given that the commissioner would have extraordinary powers to apply these fines, to see if it would be more appropriate to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions and to proceed by way of criminal prosecution. Some of the proposed penalties are for spreading election misinformation. Conservatives will do our part to ensure that the legislation reflects the intent and that it would not penalize or have a chilling effect on having debate and conversations about elections. There are also greater powers being proposed for the commissioner of Elections Canada, in that they would no longer need judicial authorization to compel evidence in all circumstances. We will need to ensure that this is charter compliant. These are examples of where Conservatives believe the bill requires further scrutiny, and I do hope this demonstrates that we are willing to come to the table and find solutions to the problems facing our electoral system. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled its report, and while some of its recommendations are being put forward in Bill C-25, some are not. The report was unanimous. Conservatives hope the government will be amenable to reconsidering the amendments that reflect the unanimous recommendations made by the committee. Election interference is real, and it is important that we work to close the loopholes and combat foreign influence in our elections. We are all familiar with what happened in 2019 in the riding of Don Valley North, where the Liberal nomination became an entryway for foreign interference in our elections process. A Beijing consulate coordinated support for a candidate who would go on to win the nomination and become a member of the House. Instances like the one in Don Valley North are a warning to every member of the House that foreign interference in our elections must be fought at every stage, including nominations. I know that there is much to consider in the bill, and in the short time I have had, I have not covered everything. Bill C-25 is a technical bill, as I mentioned earlier, and it includes numerous measures that are meant to close loopholes in the current legislation. I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the report and for the fact that it was unanimously agreed to. Conservatives broadly support the measures contained in the bill that would safeguard democracy and ensure the integrity of our elections, and we will closely review individual measures at committee.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the explanation that my hon. colleague has provided, and I would agree with that explanation. I do believe that the proposed increases are significant, and I think they demonstrate the seriousness with which both the committee and the drafters of the legislation take the monetary penalties that would be applied in cases where these fines are appropriate. I will leave it to the committee to determine whether this is something that needs further scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with my hon. colleague on the efficacy of that suggestion. It is important that political parties are subsidized not simply by a few votes they receive but by the voluntary contributions of Canadians who believe in what a political party represents and hopes to achieve. I know that, provincially, individuals can donate much more to candidates, and so can corporations and businesses. I believe that the threshold that has been set federally is appropriate and encourages people to stay engaged in politics and support the candidates they would like to have elected to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs produced a report on the longest ballot issue, and that it was unanimously supported by all parties. What I believe has been noted is that there are loopholes in the current legislation that allow for activities like those of the longest ballot committee to continue, just as it is legal for individuals to cross the floor in the House of Commons. So far this committee has been able to do what it is doing, but we are seeking to end that.

Mr. Speaker, the authors of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms understood the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of conscience and religion; the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression; and the freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Across Canada, places of worship, from churches and gurdwaras to mosques, synagogues and temples, serve as vital centres in our communities. They are gathering places that provide hope, a sense of meaning and a place of belonging for many. We owe it to Canadians and our communities to ensure the protection of our freedom to worship in our own way. Regrettably, over the past 10 years, there has been an alarming increase in incidents of mischief committed against religious property in Canada. The burden of damage should rest not on the shoulders of the victims but instead firmly with those who break the law. By protecting our religious communities, we send a clear message that vandalizing places of worship is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister continues to make big promises, Canadians continue to struggle. The truth of the matter is that he is an illusionist. Canadians are paying 35% more due to rising global oil prices, and Liberal taxes are making it even worse, forcing them to pay almost 20% more than Americans. Not only is the Prime Minister late to the game at announcing relief at the pumps, it is an illusion that he will actually deliver on affordability when he is only pausing the fuel excise tax from April 20 until Labour Day. Conservatives have brought forward a plan to eliminate the fuel excise tax, the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard for the rest of the year. It is a plan that would cut costs at the pump by 25¢ per litre, saving a family of four $1,200 this year. Canadians deserve affordable fuel and food. Conservatives will continue to fight the cost of living crisis, restore economic growth and make life affordable again.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to first acknowledge our Jewish communities that have been victims of recent shootings in Toronto taking place at synagogues. The rise in anti-Semitism has only worsened since the attacks on October 7. These are attacks that are already illegal and that nothing in Bill C-9 would have prevented from occurring. That is why I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important discussion on Bill C-9 and, more specifically, the deal made by the Liberals and the Bloc to eliminate Criminal Code safeguards for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. They are now imposing closure on that very important debate. Over the past 17 years that I have served as a member of Parliament, there have been many issues that have caused deep concern for constituents. Using the measurement of the volume of emails that I receive on any given issue, I can attest that some issues appear to be greater than others. Whether I agree with the opinions expressed in the emails or not, I recognize that constituents have demonstrated that they are deeply passionate enough about an issue to go the extra mile to communicate their opinion to their member of Parliament. With that context, I want to put on the record that the Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 is a genuinely huge and alarming issue. My inbox has been flooded with emails from constituents, the likes of which are equal in number only to the number of emails I received when the Liberal government invoked the Emergencies Act in February 2022. Key among constituents' concerns with the amendment is that with the new definition of hate in Bill C-9 and the removal of the religious defence, it would be easier for people to be prosecuted over religious expression. The ambiguity the bill would create about where the line should be drawn on hate speech would have a chilling effect on discussions about contentious issues. The following are just a couple of excerpts from emails I have received. Here is one: “As recently as last week and even this morning I have been hearing some troubling news about an amendment to Bill C-9 that does not seem to be good news for our community of faith or our country. As a pastor in a church of the Sask Valley, I think we should raise our voice of disapproval to the amendment that could happen very soon.” Here is another: “I am writing because I've heard the Justice Committee is reviewing Bill C-9 and may be asked to consider amending the bill to remove the good faith religious belief defense from section 319(3) of the Criminal Code. This defense isn't overused or misused. It's an important protection for minority religious communities like the one I belong to. Removing this defense would marginalize religious Canadians and send the message that their beliefs are less protected in Canada. Please don't allow Bill C-9 to be changed to remove this defense. Thank you for standing against this attempt to restrict our religious freedoms.” By removing the religious defence and removing Attorney General consent for laying a hate speech charge, the Liberals would be sending a signal to the courts, law enforcement and activist groups that religious teaching is fair game for criminal prosecution. To be clear, the issue is not whether faith leaders should be free to spread hate but rather how hate is defined and how the new law would be applied. Calls to incite hatred or violence, whether cloaked in religion or not, are already illegal and not subject to the religious defence that Bill C-9 proposes to remove. The religious defence has never shielded hate or incitement to violence but has served as an essential safeguard for Canadians of all religious traditions, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu and others, who seek to express their sincerely held beliefs in peaceful, responsible ways. I believe that the removal of the defence would represent a serious shift in the relationship between the state and freedom of religion in Canada. Its removal would risk chilling legitimate religious expression, creating legal uncertainty for faith communities, empowering subjective or inconsistent enforcement and undermining confidence in Canada's commitment to pluralism and freedom. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience and religion, as well as freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. These guarantees were enshrined in law to ensure that Canadians can live out their beliefs even when those beliefs are unpopular or run counter to cultural trends. Respecting diverse beliefs and protecting freedoms is essential to any healthy democracy, and it is something we take pride in here in Canada. The proposed change to Bill C-9 risks eroding that foundation. While it is not surprising that this amendment was put forward by the Bloc, what is shocking is that the Liberal Party of Canada has acceded to this amendment that would completely undermine the charter. Perhaps this is why so many Canadians are taken aback. More than an assault on specific religions that have sacred texts, which some secularists might find offensive, the Bloc amendment to Bill C-9 is an assault on the idea of what it means to be a free country. Let us be clear: The right of freedom to expression and freedom of religion is connected to the freedom of what someone can think. The government has laws already in existence that would allow it to prosecute hate crimes, and blaming our laws for why politicians from the Liberal Party have left our judges and police officers without the public backing to enforce those laws that exist is wrong. Despite the government's attempt to gloss over this amendment, there is no way the amendment would be anything but a stripping away of the rights of Canadians. The Supreme Court has recognized the religious defence as necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional. When it made this ruling, the highest court in Canada understood how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are. The good-faith religious defence protects minorities and those with sincerely held religious beliefs. Is the government signalling to Canadians that it does not believe they function in good faith? We are a nation built upon peace, order and good governance. I do not believe that as parliamentarians we have the right to ask that Canadians assume we govern in good faith, while removing provisions that protect their freedoms under the assumption that Canadians themselves do not operate in good faith. While Liberals continue to insist that their new bill is needed to protect religious Canadians from hate, removing the religious freedom safeguard from the Criminal Code would not make them safer. It would not protect anyone, least among them people of faith, from hate. Instead, it would expose them to criminal prosecution for the simple act of quoting from their own sacred texts. I would not be speaking today if I did not feel truly concerned by the monumental change this amendment would have in Canadian society. I know it. Canadians know it. Perhaps most concerning is that the government knows it but does not appear to care. Despite all this, Conservatives asked the government to split Bill C-9 to quickly move through provisions and protections for places of worship, protections for cultural centres and offences related to intimidation. The Liberals have instead chosen to shut down debate on such a significant change to the Criminal Code in its removal of religious protections. At a time when Canada should be standing shoulder to shoulder, united, the Liberals have chosen to prioritize passing such a divisive piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply tell my hon. colleague to ask that question to his colleague who spoke at the justice committee and gave his opinion on what should happen in such a case as the member is speaking about. I would add that the government's motion is truly not about protecting places of worship. It is about shutting down debate to force through a controversial amendment and, which the member knows, to remove the religious defence in the Criminal Code. It is an amendment that was not in the original bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will refer back to the comments I made in my speech on this very issue. The Supreme Court, the highest court in Canada, has recognized that the religious defence is necessary to keep Canada's hate speech laws constitutional. When it made this ruling, it understood how crucial freedom of expression and freedom of religion are. I will end by saying that we already have laws in the Criminal Code that allow people to be prosecuted for inciting others to violence on the basis of hate.

Mr. Speaker, I was clear in my speech that what is deeply concerning to me, and perhaps to my colleagues on this side of the House and to the individuals I represent back home in Saskatchewan, is that the government does not seem to care about the implications for our country or our citizens who want to practise their faith. This would have an impact on them that would not be easily unwound. They are censoring a censorship bill by imposing closure on this debate. I believe that speaks for itself.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table two petitions on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the implications of Bill C-9. The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that Liberal Bill C-9 is an infringement on those rights. As such, they call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, which is an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, the Liberals' latest promise to solve a problem that they created. The bill would create a Crown corporation, their third that deals with housing, while our young people have watched the prospect of owning a home slip away. As rents have doubled over the last 10 years, the prices of those homes have also doubled. Inflation has soared and swallowed up their ability to save for the future. In the last election, less than a year ago, the Prime Minister promised he would build at speeds not seen in a generation and has since spent his time invoking grand speeches reminding us that for much of our proud history, Canada was able to build vital projects and the housing people needed. I say “much” of our history because over the course of the last decade of Liberal rule, businesses have been forced to shut their doors, companies have been forced to lay off their workers, and builders have been left unable to build because of an increase in costs and regulatory burdens. After the Liberals promised to deliver 500,000 new homes every year, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall as low as 212,000 per year by 2028. Rather than delivering on their promise to build these homes, they have decided to build yet another bureaucracy. This makes it their fourth attempt at using a bureaucracy to try to fix the housing crisis they created. While the Liberal government continues to tell young Canadians that solutions are on their way, that they are going to deliver and that all they need is more time, our young people are waking up each morning with less hope of making a down payment on a home, landing a career that will meet their needs or starting a family. If 10 years was not enough, just how much time do the Liberals need?

Mr. Speaker, while the minister continues to deny issues with the software system Cúram, tens of thousands of Canadians have been impacted by the Liberals' botched update. Cases are backlogged, benefits are delayed and seniors are left paying the price. The program, which was set to cost less than $2 billion, has ended up costing $5 billion more. Why do Liberal programs always massively exceed their projected costs, and why are seniors forced to pay the price for Liberal incompetence?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals refuse to be transparent with Canadians. The Auditor General has reported these cost overruns numerous times. Their attempt at updating an outdated technology has ended up costing Canadians $5 billion more, three times more than they projected. The bottom line is this: Canadian seniors deserve better than Liberal excuses and denial. Why is it that Liberals cannot ever deliver on time or on budget?

Mr. Speaker, the Cúram software has cost Canadians $5 billion more than what was originally budgeted. To add insult to injury, hundreds of seniors have been delayed in receiving their benefits. An overdue update to an outdated technology has turned into a nightmare for Canadians, with tens of thousands of cases backlogged. Why is it that Liberal programs always massively exceed their projected costs, and why are seniors forced to pay the price for the Liberals' incompetence and yet another failed federal software system?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continue to deny that there are any cost overruns for Cúram, even though the Auditor General herself reported four in 2025. Canadian seniors deserve better than denial. I will ask the same question, and I would like a serious answer from the minister. Why can the Liberals not stay on budget, and why are seniors being forced to pay the price for yet another Liberal failure?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek. The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that Liberal Bill C-9 would be an infringement on those rights. They therefore call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and to prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy is on life support and the country is in recession watch. Bloomberg reports that “per capita GDP is still falling, and the economy is growing at only one per cent annually.” GDP growth in November was 0%, and real GDP is expected to decline 0.1% in the fourth quarter. The news for business is bleak. Businesses are postponing their expansion plans. These numbers matter. When our economy is not growing, Canadians get poorer. The Liberals want to blame outside forces instead of taking action here at home. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but has not gotten rid of a single anti-development law or bureaucracy. He only needs to listen to our ideas and introduce a plan that gets his government's barriers and tax burdens out of the way so Canadians can build.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion introduced by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, Motion No. 16. While this motion appears to be related to the current and future use of federal office space, it calls upon the House to recognize, among other things, “that the government is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to meet our NATO funding targets earlier than committed”. Clearly, this is nothing more than a Liberal talking point that does not add value, nor can it be substantiated in any way. It is not clear whether there has been an increase in CAF members over the past few years, let alone in the past six months since the government announced its new spending policies. I would also ask what the member means by “historic investments”. The Liberals have been in power for over 10 years. On this issue, what do they have to show for it? Simply recommitting to make progress after 10 years of inaction is a convenient way of avoiding accountability. For example, a report tabled by the Auditor General last fall revealed there are significant shortcomings in the living standards of our military. She identified that only 5% of major repairs were completed of the more than 227 high-priority repairs needed across three bases. These were not insignificant: lack of potable water, malfunctioning sanitary waste systems and deteriorating external walls. However, on this, there was no apology for or even an acknowledgement of these deplorable conditions, while the Liberals continued with their reckless spending and avoided their commitment to defence spending for a decade. One of the first things the government could do, if it truly plans on making generational investments, is to start investing in living quarters that meet basic standards for our military. It does not deserve a pat on the back for saying it is going to make historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. Conservatives will hold the government to account for its failure to adequately support the brave men and women of our armed forces. We will not let the government simply claim that it is making these historic investments when we have yet to see it act. Further, without any plan to study what impacts finally meeting our NATO commitments could have on veterans' services, the motion goes on to call for the House to recognize the assumption that an increasing number of CAF service members will lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans over the next few decades. Seriously, this assumes that, after 10 years, the Liberals have solved their management of recruitment to the armed forces, which has been a disaster, and that we will need more service centres for veterans, to such a degree that Public Services and Procurement Canada should abandon its promise of reducing federal lands and selling underused office space for affordable housing. Let us talk about the Liberal government's recent action on veterans' services, since the member's motion assumes they will need to be expanded, a claim that was made just months after the Liberals decided to cut $4.3 billion in funding from Veterans Affairs Canada over four years. How the Liberals claim, on one hand, they will need to expand services in the future, while cutting them at the same time, makes little sense to me. On the issue of PSPC's failure, in 2017, a report was published that stated that 50% of government office space was not being used to full capacity. Two years later, in 2019, Public Services and Procurement Canada began to identify which buildings would be suitable for housing and implement a plan to sell these properties to developers. In 2021, the Treasury Board Secretariat created an oversight program to assist in departmental co-operation and implementation of the federal lands initiative, though in 2024, it was dissolved due to a lack of funding. At that time, budget 2024 announced $1.1 billion over 10 years, starting in 2024-25, for PSPC to reduce its office portfolio by 50% to 2.95 million rentable square metres. However, in June 2025, the Auditor General's report entitled “Current and Future Use of Federal Office Space” slammed Public Services and Procurement Canada for their slow implementation of the plan to reduce office space and for their failure to deliver affordable homes for the most vulnerable, despite more than $1 billion being allocated to PSPC for this one task. More specifically, from the department's original plan to reduce the footprint by 50%, since 2019 they have only managed to reduce their office footprint from six million rentable square metres to 5.9 million in 2024. This plan came with a promise to save $3.9 billion over 10 years and save taxpayers nearly $1 billion annually from operating costs. Further, the Auditor General predicted that there are many savings to be made by selling federal buildings. Annual maintenance on unused federal buildings cost taxpayers $2.14 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year. Selling these buildings will generate savings of approximately $1 billion per year moving forward. Like many Liberal promises of savings, after five years it has not worked out the way they planned. Additionally, a process already exists for departments to communicate their office needs to Public Services and Procurement Canada. If Veterans Affairs Canada needed new space for veterans services, they already have an internal mechanism available without needing to invoke parliamentary motions or committee studies. That is why the third part of this motion is egregious, in that it seeks to instruct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings when one already exists. I am skeptical of the motivation, in that I believe there is a desire to control the agenda of the government operations and estimates committee by instructing an opposition-led committee to undertake this study, given the following. The TBS sets policies and approved funding that guide how departments can acquire and use government office space. Departments are responsible for understanding and articulating their specific needs for services and the office space required to support their programs and mandates. PSPC, as the custodian, manages the government's portfolio of office spaces and works with departments to meet their space requirements. Therefore, if Veterans Affairs Canada needed more space, they would simply need to go to PSPC and make that need known. In closing, I would note that the Auditor General found that while PSPC has been slow in meeting its mandate, the department lacked up-to-date, standardized and reliable information from federal tenants on the daily use of office space. She has been clear: The federal government does not efficiently or adequately use its spaces. Our position is clear: Sell these surplus buildings and use them for affordable housing. We are opposed to attempts to redirect the work of committees in order to distract from the government's failures in reducing and selling underused federal office buildings so they could be converted into affordable housing. Self-congratulatory motions such as this allow the Liberal government to avoid accountability for its years of inaction and failure to execute its reduction of federal office space, and allow the Liberals to get away with promising investments for the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces or for our veterans without following through on those promises. Conservatives will continue to do the work we were elected to do as the official opposition and hold the government to account for its broken promises.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to table a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding. The petitioners believe that freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. They believe that the Liberal bill, Bill C-9, is an infringement on those rights. As such, petitioners call on the House to withdraw Bill C-9 and prevent government intrusion into matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister delivered his speech pointing out the gaps between rhetoric and reality on the world stage, the reality here at home is that Canadians cannot eat speeches. Our food inflation is the highest in the G7, and the bill is in: Food costs are now up 6.2%, with groceries up 5% and restaurant meals up 8.5% year over year. The Prime Minister's $78-billion deficit has turned Canada into the food inflation capital of the G7. Instead of delivering affordability, he insists on blaming tariffs from the U.S., which do not even apply to food costs in Canada. A quarter of Canadian households are considered food insecure, with over two million people visiting food banks in Canada monthly. Now it is estimated that a family of four will pay $1,000 more this year to eat. One thing is clear. Only Canada's Conservatives would put an end to the Liberals' food—

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal government was asked about its billion-dollar subsidy deal with Stellantis, the minister said to read the contracts and we would see job guarantees. After her officials lied and were forced to release the documents, we see exactly what the Liberals got in return for Canadians' money. The contract stated that there would be no penalties against the recipient should their aspirational target not be met. Why did the minister hand out hundreds of millions of dollars without any guarantee from Stellantis that jobs would be created?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of constituents from Hague, Osler, Warman and Rosthern, to table a petition on their behalf. The petitioners believe that Canadians who find themselves struggling with mental illness should be given support and resources to address the challenges they face. They also believe that vulnerable Canadians deserve compassion and care, and should not be offered medical assistance in dying. As such, they call on this House to support Bill C-218.

Mr. Speaker, after being ordered to hand over their multi-billion dollar subsidy deal with Stellantis unredacted, the Liberals refused, with senior officials blaming the company, stating that Stellantis had outlined every redaction they had felt to be necessary and that they were, “comfortable with the redactions they proposed.” The problem is that Stellantis has now gone public, saying it never asked for the documents to be blacked out. Will the minister tell us why her officials lied to committee and Canadians?

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this place this morning to speak to the government's long-awaited budget. While the suspense built over the last six months waiting for this day, at the end of it, our biggest fears were realized and the disappointment was palpable. Canadians have been sold a bill of goods packaged up in promises and buzzwords, with the same tax-and-spend policies of the Liberals winning the day and a staggering $78-billion deficit, which, if the budget is passed, will be the largest in our nation's history outside of the COVID pandemic, a deficit larger than what the Prime Minister promised and double what his predecessor left behind. Before I go any further, I note that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière. This budget is strewn with measures under the same misguided understanding of economics and the notion that we can spend our way out of a deficit. Many Canadians expected better, given the Prime Minister's resume. He promised a generational budget, but the only way this qualifies as such is in the enormous amount of debt that it would leave to future generations. As author and commentator Kim Moody wrote on X, “this is a horrible budget that will cripple our future generations.” Saddling our children and grandchildren with higher and higher debt-servicing costs robs them of opportunity and would hamstring future Canadian governments. The new Prime Minister is saying and doing the exact same things as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did. As a result, his government will produce the exact same results: low growth, low investment and higher inflation. At their core, the Liberals believe that for Canadians and Canadian companies to build, get things done, create jobs, prosper and pursue their dreams, the government must be in control. However, what actually happens when a government, especially a Liberal government, gets involved and tries to control things? Investors stop investing. The Prime Minister promised more investment; the budget reveals investment is collapsing. Builders stop building. Companies have fled the country and are building in other parts of the world that directly compete with Canadian producers, for example, in oil and gas. Taxes are imposed, like the industrial carbon tax, which adds to the cost of doing business, making it difficult for Canadian companies to compete and discouraging any business considering moving to Canada. Jobs are lost, followed by higher unemployment, especially among young Canadians. The impacts can be seen across this country. The farmers who produce food and the manufacturers who build things and create jobs in the riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek are being penalized. The industrial carbon tax, which will continue to increase over the next five years and beyond to 2050, keeps input costs high for our farmers. It drives up the cost of materials like steel and concrete, which are used in the construction of farm shops, manufacturing plants, farm implements and residential homes. It makes our producers and manufacturers less competitive with their international competitors. By maintaining his industrial carbon tax, the Prime Minister is sending manufacturers in Humboldt, Englefeld and St. Brieux, just to name a few, a message. He is in effect saying to them and to those whose jobs rely on these businesses that he does not really like what they are doing, so he will make it difficult for them to continue doing it. Similarly, what is the message the industrial carbon tax sends to our resource sectors in Saskatchewan? Rather than creating the right conditions for these sectors to flourish and contribute to our economy, the Liberal government treats them like a bank machine where it can make tax withdrawals over and over again, taking money out of income-generating activities and putting it into a bigger bureaucracy. Conservatives offered to work with the government to support Canadians and ensure a positive, hopeful and affordable future, one where our economy can respond to international threats from a place of strength, where our farmers can ship their products to new markets and where our manufacturers can compete and sell their goods both south of the border and around the world. Instead, the Liberals have decided to continue with their high deficits despite promising to spend less. The Prime Minister made a promise to cap spending at $62 billion and broke it. He promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio and instead is raising it along with inflation. In fact, with this budget, the Liberals are spending $90 billion more than was previously committed. That is a $5,400 increase that will come out of the pockets of every Canadian household. That is $5,400 of new spending this year alone for Canadian households. This budget fails to meet the moment. Fitch Ratings sent out a warning just a day after the budget was released that the constant expansion of fiscal spending by the Liberal government is putting pressure on Canada's credit rating. To add insult to injury, after tabling the budget and asking Saskatchewanians to make more sacrifices, the finance minister headed off to a lavish “Prudence and Prosecco” party hosted by lobbyists and Liberal insiders. Apparently, it is okay to ask others to sacrifice, just not themselves. Under their new projected spending, the Liberals are planning to add an extra $321 billion to the national debt over the next five years. That is more than twice the $154 billion the Prime Minister's predecessor, Justin Trudeau, was projecting to add over the same period. The national debt has ballooned to the point where the entire amount the federal government collects from GST will be less than what Canadians are required to spend just to pay the interest on the national debt. For residents of Saskatchewan, it means the Liberals will spend more money servicing the debt they created than they will send to the provinces in health transfer payments. This is on the heels of taxing schools and hospitals for heating during the winter for years, which was done until it was politically advantageous for them to end the consumer carbon tax. After shackling our economy with regulations and red tape over the last 10 years, the Liberals' strategy remains the same. They refuse to repeal their anti-resource development legislation, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, and plan to continue with their clean fuel standards tax, which will cost Canadians an extra 17¢ per litre on their gas. Former prime minister Justin Trudeau claimed that he was not spending but investing, campaigning on a promise of small deficits, but he immediately broke that promise. The current Prime Minister is maintaining the Liberals' unbroken record of broken promises to Canadians, but he has gone even further by changing the way he will account for his spending. By using an overly expansive definition of capital spending, the Liberals are giving the appearance of a balanced operating budget. If we bring their definition in line with international standards, they will not even deliver on their promise to balance their operational spending. Liberals refuse to get out of the way to let Canadians build, feed and house themselves. In closing, the people of Saskatchewan and all Canadians deserve a federal government that gets out of the way so they can invest in Canada's economy, build for the future and feed and house themselves. They deserve the opportunity to earn livelihoods, to engineer and create with Canadian steel, to grow Canadian food to feed Canadians and the world, and to buy a home of their choosing. They deserve a government that does not gamble away their future with large inflationary deficits and taxes on their livelihoods. They deserve affordable homes with affordable groceries in an affordable life. Budget 2025 ignores the challenges people in Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek are facing. It is a budget that delivers for wealthy insiders, bondholders and multinationals. It will drive up inflation, will cost Canadians more in interest on the national debt than we collect in GST or spend on health care transfers, and will saddle our children and our children's children with paying for the Liberals' “buy now and have someone else pay for it later” policies. The bottom line is the Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his promises.

Madam Speaker, Conservatives have always been united under a common vision of hope and restoring the promise of Canada. That is what we have been asking for over the last 10 years. This has never been more important than today. Taxes are up, housing costs have doubled, our national debt is out of control, and crime and chaos are wreaking havoc in our streets, all of which has led to the worst decline in Canadians' living standards in generations. Canadians are continuing to find it hard to make ends meet, let alone get ahead, and what did the Liberal government do? It introduced the most costly and largest budget deficit in Canadian history outside of COVID.

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that I think it is normal for the current government. We have seen this over and over again over the last 10 years, and I would say this Liberal budget lets everyone down. After promising to deliver a generational budget, the Liberals instead delivered more broken promises. Conservatives have been clear. We want an affordable budget for an affordable life for Saskatchewan. That includes those working in the forestry industry. That includes small and medium-sized businesses, which the CFIB has said the government has left behind.

Madam Speaker, obviously in my speech I referenced that the Prime Minister has broken every promise he made six months ago, and he continues to break promises. He is adding the largest deficit this country has seen since COVID. Conservatives were really clear. We offered to work with the government, but even in this minority parliament, the government refuses to work with other parties. We were clear, as I said, that we wanted an affordable budget, and we asked the Prime Minister to do—

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief—religious property). Mr. Speaker, I rise to table my private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code as it relates to mischief to religious property. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Thornhill, for seconding the bill. Over the past 10 years, there has been an alarming increase in incidents of mischief committed against religious property in Canada. Churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship continue to be vandalized. The proposed legislation seeks to shift the financial burden caused by vandalism from the victim to the criminal. It would also expand the scope to cover all mischief directed at places of worship, not just hate-motivated mischief. While some of the punishments proposed in the bill are novel, there are strong similarities to the measures addressing vandalism of war memorials already in the Criminal Code. I hope all members will join me in supporting Canadians of all faiths. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to Major Lorne Benedict Plemel. Raised on a family farm in St. Gregor, he joined the military at the age of 17 and served the guns of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery and the Royal Canadian Artillery for 38 years, climbing the ranks from gunner to major, a remarkable feat in itself. His service included many peacekeeping missions and tours of duty in Afghanistan with NATO. While he never sought accolades, Major Plemel’s dedication did not go unnoticed. Among his many awards are the Order of Military Merit and the Chief of the Defence Staff Commendation. His decision to stand on guard for our country deserves our gratitude. We are grateful to him and his family for the sacrifices they made to keep our nation strong and free. Major Plemel has been laid to rest, but he will always be remembered for his love of country, family and friends, a true hero from Saskatchewan and a truly great Canadian. I thank Leroy for his service.