Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his incredible speech today on the importance of getting projects delivered in Canada. There is $1 billion here, $1 billion there, $1 billion for this person and $1 billion for that person. I would like the member's thoughts, please. If we could stop announcing $500 billion across Canada and just approve 500 projects sitting on the Prime Minister's desk, where would Canada be as we move forward?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member opposite that immediate relief is required in these times. I am curious if she could answer why it took so long. Conservatives put pressure on the government in order to have this relief put in place. The Liberals admitted that it was immediate relief for Canadians. Why will they not go the full way and remove all federal taxes on fuel moving forward? If we need the relief today, let us do it today.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the residents of Kitchener Centre. I would like to start with this: Finally, after advocating, pushing and working to put public pressure on the current government, it is agreeing to partially implement a piece of our plan to reduce the cost of living for Canadians. This all started on April 2 of this year. We started advocating to eliminate all federal tax on gas and diesel until the upcoming year to put relief for Canadians at the pumps and at the grocery stores. We were listened to, partially, but now here we are debating again, because it is coming back, it is being eliminated and the gas prices are going to immediately go up. Again, this summer we started advocating, pushing, putting public pressure and talking. Our leader, Pierre Poilievre, is saying we have got to do this—

Our leader advocated for Canadians saying that we need to keep this off the price of gas. That is exactly what is happening now. Finally, I would like to say it is a good start. We are keeping a portion of the gas taxes off for Canadians, but I really want to make it clear that it is not enough. Conservatives are calling for the elimination of all federal tax on gas and diesel, at least until Canada Day 2027. We have to control the affordability for Canadians inside our borders and inside this House to make life more affordable for Canadians. We need the government to listen to the Conservatives and put the whole measure in place, not just a piece of it: all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. The fact is that the Liberals have introduced this piece of the Conservative plan, and I am sure people can see that it is now actually being used as a talking point, which is very telling to me. The talking point is that they have put in measures to save Canadians money, 11¢ at the pump. This tells me we were right all along to say that immediate relief for Canadians is what needs to get done. Absolutely, it is 11¢, but if they took this measure the whole way, it would be 25¢ per litre of savings at the pump for Canadians moving forward. What I would like the current government to do is actually adopt our entire plan, and it could use that talking point in the future to say that it has saved 25¢ per litre for Canadians. At the end of the day, what we are doing here is saving money and making life more affordable for Canadians who desperately need it. Of course, we will be supporting this. It is the Conservative plan. Absolutely, we will be supporting this. Our Conservative Party is now asking for the current government to eliminate all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027 to save Canadians 25¢ per litre, not just 11¢ per litre. Over the summer, we have worked tirelessly for Canadians. In our role as the opposition, we have continued to work and advocate over the summer for what we can do inside our borders to help with the pressures and get the relief that Canadians need moving forward. We have listened to their stories at the dinner table. We have met with Canadians. We have had the hard conversations over the summer, about having to choose between heating their home or putting food in their refrigerator. Some people are on the verge of losing their jobs because they cannot even afford to put gas in their tank to get to work. It is this snowball effect that we are seeing happen. Through this parliamentary session we will continue to work for Canadians, to advocate for Canadians, to reduce the cost of living and to get us through what Canadians are facing now. We will keep putting pressure on the government, because we are listening. I want all Canadians, including residents of Kitchener Centre, to know that this political landscape that we are in today is not their fault. They are working hard, and raising a family or maybe they are on their own and cannot afford the essentials of life. This is what is not okay in Canada today. This is what we can actually control inside Canada today. We want to create a Canada again where Canadians can put food on their table, get to work, have a full gas tank and a full wallet, and still save for their future. There are youth out there who are thinking they are never going to be able get a home. That is not the Canada that we deserve. That is not the Canada we should live in. We will continue advocating and putting pressure on the current government to get us back into the place we used to be. The current Prime Minister stood in the House yesterday and told Canadians that the tariff war, the Iranian war and the Ukrainian war are what is driving up the cost of living for Canadians. I think that what we need to do, concentrating on the government, is focus on what we can control inside our borders. We need to focus on the reliefs and measures that we can put in place. Canadians do not want to hear about exponential crises that are the cause for the fact that they cannot put food on the table. They want to hear there are measures being put in place to help them live a life they are used to living inside our Canadian borders. I do not think John from Kitchener, who is now buying prepared meals for himself and his wife because he has to work two jobs just to stay afloat and does not have time to cook for his family anymore, wants to hear about what is happening in Ukraine or Iran. John wants to hear about tax relief, about removing the fuel standards tax, so that our grocery and gas prices come down. These are the measures that John wants to hear about. Paul in Kitchener says that he is being taxed too much, cannot afford to live anymore and does not know what he is going to do for his future. I am speaking to John and Paul directly right now. Conservatives understand. We are working, applying pressure and making sure that the government puts measures in place to help them with their everyday lives, with what they are saying at their kitchen tables and making sure their voices are heard in Ottawa so we can bring down the cost of living and inflationary spending and move toward a more affordable future for Canadians. We found more solutions than Bill C-38. We found solutions that are calling on the government to adopt all of these measures moving forward. Number one I have already said a couple of times today, which is to eliminate all federal tax on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027 so we can reduce the price at the pumps by 25¢, not 11¢. It will affect our groceries and people will feel it immediately at the pump. We want the government to permanently scrap the fuel regulations and industrial carbon tax so those taxes never come back on Canadians. My colleagues fought for 10 years. I did not as I am honoured to be here for my first term, but my colleagues fought for 10 years saying this carbon tax was detrimental. We won that debate, but the Liberals need to take it the full way. They need to remove the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax for Canadians as well, more than a 1% cut for the lowest tax bracket. I want to mention that over the summer, the Conservative team found $150 billion in savings. There is a weird misconception that Conservatives want to save money by cutting services or social programs. That is absolutely not true. This $150 billion in savings is inflationary spending on consultants, projects that are not being built but where money is being spent and fake asylum claims. The list goes on and on. What I am saying to Canadians today is Conservatives are here for them. We have presented our solutions to the current government. We are listening to Canadians. Moving forward, we will push the government and work for it to create a more affordable life for people here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight. I did not say the government was slow to react. I said that the Conservatives have applied pressure for 10 years advocating for that. We said the carbon tax was going to be detrimental to our economy. That is the debate that we won and the debate we are moving forward with. We are asking the government now to completely eliminate it, not just a half-measure or little pieces but completely eliminate it. It should not put in question the prices of oil or exponential circumstances that we have no control over. We have control to reduce the cost of living for Canadians, and that is what we should be implementing today.

Mr. Speaker, we never said that we want to completely cut the taxes across the board for all Canadians. We do want to cut the fuel standards tax and the industrial tax. They are just another version of the previous tax the Liberals that we have fought against for 10 years. They have an economic impact on our society, and it is time to completely get rid of these taxes so we can go back to an affordable life.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think they are coming from the average Canadian. The average Canadian is really struggling right now. Canadians are struggling with everything. Their mental health is even being affected because they are having to choose between heat and food. These stories are not coming from the grassroots. They are not coming from people at their kitchen tables. They are coming from consultants or someone who thinks it is a better idea to do something different than give Canadians a little relief.

Mr. Speaker, when I debated on Bill C‑16, the protecting victims act, I spoke clearly to my community to say that I am not voting wholeheartedly against this piece of legislation. I am not voting against protecting victims. I am not voting against protecting intimate partner violence victims, but I am voting against completely negating the entire thing by making mandatory minimums optional. I knew this was going to happen, that we would be told that we voted against protecting victims. That is untrue. This is exactly the importance of debate in this House. Why is the government shutting down debate? Do they want to silence our voices so they can gaslight Canadians and say we vote against everything?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. The name of this bill sets a high standard. Protecting victims is the single most important part of any justice system. Canadians rightfully expect a system that supports those who have been harmed, protects the vulnerable and holds offenders accountable for their actions. Bill C-16 attempts to address a number of serious issues, including intimate partner violence, sexual exploitation, sexual violence, victims' rights and delays in our justice system. That expectation has not always been met in our justice system. Too often, victims feel like an afterthought. Too often, families are left waiting for justice. Too often, Canadians are left to wonder whether our justice system is putting the rights of offenders ahead of the safety of communities. Many Canadians saw that in a recent case in Kitchener, where a former neurologist was acquitted on 48 sexual assault charges. Dozens of victims gathered the courage to come forward and share their stories, and the justice system left them feeling unheard and brushed aside. We can agree in this place that it takes a tremendous amount of courage for a victim to come forward with their experience. When they do, it is important that we treat them with dignity, listen to their concerns and ensure that their voices are heard. That is why, when legislation like this comes forward, we must hold it to a high standard. There are parts of this bill that would be steps in the right direction. One of the biggest changes would be the creation of a new offence relating to coercive and controlling behaviours in intimate partner relationships. Many people think that the abuse begins when someone is physically assaulted, but it often starts long before that. It starts with manipulation, isolation and threats. It starts with controlling where a person goes, who they see, who they spend their time with, what they spend their money on or how they live their daily lives. These behaviours slowly chip away at one's independence and leave people feeling trapped in dangerous situations. By the time physical violence occurs, the warning signs may have been there for months, sometimes even years. Recognizing those warning signs in law is an important step. If interventions can come earlier, lives may be protected and future violence may be prevented. Another story from my riding is of a woman who was strangled by her husband in front of their daughter. Today, she and her daughter are living in a domestic violence shelter, trying to rebuild their lives and find safety, yet despite a guilty plea, the man responsible remains here in Canada illegally. When victims and their families are left in situations like this, they are left asking simple questions: Where is the accountability? That is why getting legislation like Bill C-16 is incredibly important. Victims need more than words. They need to know that the justice system will protect them, support them and hold offenders accountable for the harm that they have caused. This bill also includes measures aimed at combatting child exploitation. This, especially, is an area where Parliament should be united. Technology has created incredible opportunities but also real dangers. For all the parents in this place, we can agree that we are raising children in a world that looks very different from the one we grew up in. Predators can reach children so easily through social media, phones, computers and gaming platforms. These threats are real and our children need to be protected. This bill would also update the law surrounding intimate images and digitally altered sexual images. Whether an image is captured with a camera or generated with AI, the impact to victims is devastating. Reputations can be destroyed. Careers can be damaged. Mental health can suffer, and relationships can be affected. Victims deserve protection regardless of how that image was created. For many victims, navigating the justice system can be overwhelming while they are already dealing with the trauma that it has caused. They may not understand what is happening with their case or how decisions are being made. They may feel lost in a process that can seem focused on everyone except the victim. That needs to change. Victims deserve information and respect, and they deserve to know that they matter. The Conservatives have worked constructively on this bill. We supported measures that would better protect victims, address cohesive control, combat child exploitation and strengthen victims' rights. However, despite these positive measures, the bill also includes a major change to sentencing that deserves attention. The government says this change is about flexibility and discretion, but Canadians deserve to understand what it would actually do. This bill would allow a judge to bypass every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code, with a few exceptions. In other words, it would make mandatory sentences optional, and “mandatory” is not supposed to be optional. Why does this matter? It matters because mandatory minimum sentences exist for the most serious crimes. They represent the basis that certain crimes are so serious that there must be a minimum consequence when someone is convicted. It cannot be a suggestion. If a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, Canadians expect that to mean consistency and accountability across the board. There is no room for victims to wonder if the punishment will fit the crime. If mandatory sentences become optional, confidence in our justice system would be weakened even further. That is why the issue deserves serious attention. Our justice system already contains flexibility. Police officers use discretion when determining whether or not charges should be laid. Crown prosecutors exercise discretion when determining how cases should proceed. Prosecutors make decisions every day about what charges to pursue and what position to take before the court. When Parliament created a mandatory minimum sentence, it did so because Canadians expect a certain level of accountability for a serious crime, and we did not do that by accident. Canadians may disagree on what that line should be, but they understand that there should be a line. What they do not understand is why Parliament would establish a line and then create a way around it. I hear a lot of frustration from people in Kitchener Centre, and, frankly, from people across the country, about what feels like a growing gap between what the justice system says and what it actually does. People hear that a crime carries a mandatory minimum sentence, but then they find out that the sentence might not actually be mandatory. They hear that victims are the priority, but then they watch victims spend years navigating a system that feels confusing and overwhelming. They hear that public safety comes first, but then they read stories about repeat offenders just cycling through the justice system again and again. Whether those perceptions are fair or not, they are real, and public confidence matters. Our justice system depends on trust. People need to believe that the rules are applied fairly, that serious crimes are treated seriously and that victims matter, full stop. That is especially important when we are talking about crimes that leave lasting scars on victims, families and entire communities. The effects of violence do not end when a court case concludes. Victims carry those experiences for years. Children carry them for a lifetime. Families carry them for a lifetime. Anyone who has sat across from a victim of violence knows that the impact reaches far beyond the courtroom. Accountability matters, not because accountability can undo the harm it caused. It cannot. Accountability matters because it tells victims that society recognizes the seriousness of what happened to them, and it tells them their suffering matters. Canadians are increasingly concerned about public safety. Repeat offenders cycle through the system, and victims struggle to get justice, so why would we yet again weaken the consequences for offenders, while victims try to rebuild their life? Let us think about that. While victims are left traumatized, Parliament would create another pathway for offenders to avoid consequence. That is not what Canadians think of when they hear the words “protecting victims act”. Canadians want accountability. They want consequences. They want confidence that when Parliament says a sentence is mandatory, it actually means that it is mandatory. We want a justice system that protects victims while holding offenders accountable. I would like my community to know that I am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I am not voting against protecting victims of child exploitation. I am not voting against victims of sexual violence. I am not voting against protecting victims' rights within delays in the justice system. What I am voting against is making mandatory minimums optional: clause 63. When it is eventually spun that I voted against protecting victims, please remember that I voted to ensure that victims are actually protected by ensuring that mandatory minimums remain, not as an option.

Mr. Speaker, the spin has already begun. I am not voting against protecting victims of intimate partner violence. I am absolutely not. What we cannot stand behind is making mandatory minimums optional so the judge can decide whether the perpetrator of the offence gets any time at all. That is just not what we can stand behind. I am saying here today that I would vote in favour of the victims of intimate partner violence. We worked hard with the government to ensure that we could get these corrections made so the mandatory minimums would be taken out, but the government refused to work with us on this. That is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to talk about some of the consequences of not defining what sentencing should be. Because of Bill C-5, there is a drug smuggler, caught with 55 grams of cocaine while on bail, awaiting sentencing for previous gun offences. He received a sentence of only 12 months, half of what the judge said his crimes deserved, partially because of his immigration status. The Ontario judge cut the sentence in half for the offender, who was facing the significant likelihood of deportation because he was already serving a six-year prison sentence in Canada for trafficking fentanyl and for gun-related offences. The judge wrote in their decision, “Mr. Rush is not a Canadian citizen and he is likely to be deported as a result of these offences. This is a significant collateral consequence.” It is. The consequence should have been served, and he should have been removed.

Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. There has been no answer as to why the government has failed us and brought us into a recession. First, it was a technical recession, but when Canadians pushed back, it became tariffs. When that did not stick, it became not enough spending and not enough immigration: What? When Canadians have to steal 10 billion dollars' worth of groceries because of affordability, is it because they are only technically hungry?

Mr. Speaker, I have hope that one day the government will actually answer questions and take accountability, but it seems as though today is not that day. When the news broke that Canada is in a recession, my very first thought was, “When is the government going to ask for another blank cheque?” It is already borrowing over its budget. The spring economic update said it would borrow $65 billion this year. However, the budget watchdog says it is going to be $72 billion. I would like to know just how much the Prime Minister will tell Canadians it is going to take to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start today with great big huge thanks to all of my colleagues who wanted to speak to and debate Bill C-240 today. I thank my colleagues who are part of the Conservative caucus and also colleagues across the floor, so much, for speaking to this bill today. I thank the Bloc Québécois members as well, so very much, for speaking to this bill and showing their support for it. I think the most important thing that we need to do at this point in time is reverse course in Canada. We need to start focusing on recovery and rehabilitation because people can and do recover. There is an encampment in Kitchener where we are quite literally killing people with kindness right now. In this encampment, five people have died from overdose, and it is time now that all levels of government came together and jointly worked together to fix this crisis in Canada. It is time to reverse course. Bill C-240 is the first step, introducing rehabilitation into incarceration. At least when someone has to be accountable for their actions, they would have a path forward when they are serving their time, to change their life, break cycles and turn their life around. We need to do this in Canada before incarceration, as well, so I am standing here today to thank members for their support in the House for Bill C-240 but also to declare that this is a pivotal moment in Canada. It is time now to concentrate on recovery and rehabilitation because on the other side of recovery is a happy, beautiful, healed and healthy life. Every single person who is struggling with addiction deserves that life, and it is time we helped them get there.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. Imagine hiring someone for a job and in the interview they said that they would give the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but they actually delivered the only economy in the G7 in a recession. It is the exact opposite result to the promise. What would be the consequence? I think accountability would be a good start. Instead of taking accountability, though, the Liberals are blaming the tariffs. If this were true, then why is Canada the only country in the G7, with all facing tariffs, in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, if these measures actually did anything for affordability, we would not have the lineups at the food banks that we are seeing. This exact program is going to reach fewer than half of Canadians out there who are working at jobs. I am going to repeat the question. France is facing tariffs, Germany is facing tariffs, Italy is facing tariffs. Japan is facing tariffs. Why is Canada the only country in the G7 with our economy in a recession?

Madam Speaker, at a time when Canadians are barely getting by, here we are introducing another tax. I hear from residents all over my community about how they are barely getting by. I also have a very vibrant arts community in Kitchener Centre. I would like my colleague to dive a little deeper into the Conservative solution on how we could better support our arts industry, rather than adding another tax that Canadians cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to say just how proud I am of the Kitchener Rangers. What we have seen this season is pure talent and character. Winning the OHL championship does not happen by accident. It takes discipline, resilience and a relentless commitment to one another day in and day out. It is about showing up when it matters, pushing through, having a commitment and believing in each other as a team. To see the Rangers competing for the Memorial Cup, the most prestigious prize in junior hockey, is something truly special. The Rangers are representing the entire Kitchener-Waterloo community with heart, determination and skill. The players, coaches and staff have made our city proud. No matter what happens next, they have shown what it takes to compete at the highest level. Let us be real, the boys have this. Go, Rangers.

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about something in our country that should not even have to be debated: whether Canadians deserve a break. People in this country who wake up early, work hard, pay their taxes, raise their kids, care for loved ones, live on fixed incomes or navigate life with a disability do everything the way they are told, and they deserve a break. This is what our motion is about today. It is about cancelling the federal taxes on gas and diesel and scrapping the clean fuel standard that continues to drive up costs across this economy. Frankly, we all leave this place and talk to our friends, neighbours and constituents, and we hear it in conversations in our offices, in the grocery store lineups and at community events: the reality that life is unaffordable. A couple who both work full-time are wondering how they are going to afford a home. A senior is cutting back on visiting grandkids because the cost of filling the tank is getting to be a bit too much. A single parent is deciding which bill can wait another few days. It is the farmers, truckers, tradespeople and small business owners who are watching their budgets erode month after month while being overtaxed and stretched thinner every day. People are tired. They are doing everything they can, and it still feels like they are falling behind. They are why this motion matters so much. Over the past few years, Canadians have watched as the price of absolutely everything has gone up: groceries, utilities, rent, mortgage payments, insurance, transportation and everyday necessities. While the government will often talk about how it is saving Canadians money, and even the Prime Minister stood up and said that affordability has not been better in a decade, the reality is that Canadians are looking at their bank accounts and wondering how much more they can stretch. When we increase the cost of fuel, it increases the cost of everything. It is passed to the consumer. Every single thing Canadians buy becomes more expensive, and yet the government continues to insist that adding more costs somehow makes life more affordable. It does not even make sense. For many Canadians, gas prices are not just a number on a sign that they drive by. They shape almost every financial decision people make during the month. People feel it when it costs them more to fill the tank. That is money that no longer goes toward groceries, savings, bills or their kids' activities. For families already stretched thin, there is zero room in the budget to absorb these increases. There are people planning errands around fuel usage, driving less to visit family and thinking twice before accepting extra shifts because of the commute. The impact ripples through our entire economy. Everyone pays more. One of the things I hear most often in my riding is that people no longer feel like hard work gets them ahead. This is devastating to hear in a country like Canada. We have young couples delaying having kids because they cannot afford a home. We have parents worried that their kids will never be able to get a start on their own or build a life for themselves. We have people working overtime, second jobs and side jobs and yet still relying on credit cards just to get by. More and more, we are hearing about households with dual incomes that are barely staying afloat because the cost of living has risen faster than the ability to keep up. I recently heard from Sayed in my riding who told me that rent, groceries and utilities have become nearly impossible to manage. They said they are under enormous stress to find safe and affordable housing while everyday expenses keep climbing faster and faster, and their income is not keeping pace. Also, Nathalie shared that they are already behind on rent and struggling to afford basics like food and phone bills at the same time, let alone this gas increase. They told me their bank account balance is at zero. They are beyond negative, and they cannot afford this price increase in gas, and they are terrified of losing their housing altogether. Adis, a father of five who lives in a two-bedroom apartment with his family, wants to move into a three-bedroom apartment, but the rental prices have become incredibly unaffordable, and year after year, the increases keep pushing them further and further behind. These are not one-off stories. We are hearing more and more of the same stories across our country from everyday Canadians. Even food insecurity is a national crisis. It is at record highs. There are families with children using food banks, and seniors using food banks. People who never imagined they would need help are now standing in line because they simply cannot keep up. Let us think about that. In one of the wealthiest countries in the world, people with jobs are struggling to feed themselves. To be a bit nostalgic for a second, only 11 years ago we had the wealthiest middle class in the G7. Look at what has happened with the Liberal government. Those same people are now in food bank lineups. When fuel prices rise, grocery prices rise. Farmers need fuel to operate their equipment. Truckers need fuel to transport goods. Stores need fuel to supply their chains. These costs do not disappear. They get passed on to the consumer. People drive their kids from Kitchener to Cambridge for sports and activities, and that is putting a strain on families. People drive because they have to. Farmers drive because they have to. Parents drive their kids to school, sports and appointments because they have to. They are not the problem. When the government increases tax on fuel, Canadians see it at the checkout counter when they buy milk, bread, produce or even diapers. The most frustrating part is that Canadians say they are feeling completely ignored when they try to point out the unaffordability. Disabled people already live below the poverty line, which is a discussion for another day. How can the government keep punishing people financially? There is something so fundamentally unfair about asking Canadians to make it work when so many are already stretched to the breaking point. The government often talks about supposed rebates, but the majority of Canadians do not see them. All Canadians want is breathing room. They do not want handouts. They just want breathing room and to get ahead. They want to feel like they make responsible choices and can build a decent life for themselves and their families. That should not be too much to ask. Canadians do not feel that things are affordable. They feel stressed when they are walking down the grocery aisle or paying their bills. It is not enough for them to have to cut back on groceries or cancel excursions for their kids. They are still not making ends meet. This is not a choice they should even have to make. Canadians do not need more talking points. They need relief. This motion offers a very straightforward step toward that relief. The motion would cancel all federal taxes on gas and diesel, scrap the clean fuel standard and stop making everyday life more expensive. We should never become so disconnected from reality that we forget who we are here to serve. We are here to serve the people who sent us here: the people balancing budgets at the kitchen table, trying to keep their small business alive and skipping meals so their kids can eat first. We have the opportunity to show Canadians that someone is listening to them. Will the government support our motion and show Canadians that it is listening?

Mr. Speaker, I would thank my hon. colleague for the question, but I do not think there was one in there. Let me respond. I agree completely that affordability is an actual crisis right now. We are not saying that this measure is going to fix everything. We are saying that it is a start. It is something that can be done for Canadians to tell them that we are listening to them and that we know they are struggling. It is something we can do. I will also agree with the statement, though, that the current measure the Liberals have taken is only a half measure. It is not really going to do anything to significantly impact Canadians, their chequebooks and their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being forced to choose between a full tank of gas and a full grocery cart. After 10 years of rising costs, the government's plan only offered limited, short-term relief that has not actually lowered prices at the pump. Conservatives have a plan for a full tank, which is to scrap all federal gas and diesel taxes for the rest of 2026, saving Canadians up to 25¢ per litre and over $1,200 for a family, because when we lower the cost of fuel, we lower the cost of everything. That matters because every truck driver delivering the goods, every small business needing those goods and every commuter that goes to work will feel this cost-savings in their wallets. Canadians do not need another announcement. They need relief. It is time to deliver relief for Canadians that they can actually feel.

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has made many promises, but the results of those promises are left to the imagination. One of those promises was to spend less than Trudeau. Well, no imagination is needed here. The result is a doubling of spending in less than a year. Families cannot pay for food with these failed imaginary promises. They need results. Will the Prime Minister apologize for promising to cut spending while at the same time delivering the highest deficit in Canadian history? Just an apology please.

moved that Bill C-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make related amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise for the first hour of debate on the second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-240. Canada is facing a crisis, one that is often described as silent. It is silent in our national conversations, perhaps, but deafening in our homes, in our communities and in our daily lives. It is a crisis heard in worried phone calls, in empty chairs at the family table and in the quiet grief carried by parents, friends and loved ones. This is not an abstract policy debate. It is this drug crisis, and it is affecting Canadians everywhere. There are 343 seats in the House, and every single one of them has been impacted in some way. No region, no riding and no community has been spared. For some, it is a 15-year-old girl's grandmother asking for help to save her from this crisis, or a conversation with a police officer when one can literally see the mental anguish on his face because of the human-trafficking aspect of this crisis and the toll it is taking because it feels endless. For others, it is a friend, a neighbour, a colleague or a family member who is struggling right now. This crisis has a face in every corner of our country. We have lost more than 50,000 Canadians to this drug crisis in the past 10 years. This is more lives than we lost in the Second World War. If this level of loss were caused by any other threat, the House would be united in urgency, relentless in its response and clear in its resolve, yet despite the scale of this tragedy, the drug crisis too often remains hidden, spoken about quietly, not fully addressed or avoided altogether. Too often stigma replaces understanding, discomfort replaces honesty, and political talking points replace action. We hesitate to talk openly about addiction because it is complex, because it is painful and because it forces us to confront the difficult truths about mental health, trauma, housing, crime and care, but silence has never saved a life. Avoidance has never led to recovery. If we are serious about protecting Canadians, then we must be serious about acknowledging the reality that is in front of us. We must start talking about this crisis openly and honestly. We must move from debate to action, and we must work together across federal, provincial and municipal governments and alongside our communities on the ground, because recovery is possible. People can and do recover. People can come home happy, healthy, healed and drug-free. Recovery must be at the centre of any serious response to this drug crisis. If we truly want to help people who are suffering from addiction, we have to focus on getting them well, not enabling and not just cycling them through systems that never really address the root cause. Addiction is not a moral failure, and recovery is possible when people are given the right supports. In my community, I see what works. I see organizations that are changing lives every single day by focusing on rehabilitation and recovery. Groups like Frontline Recovery, HART Hub at the House of Friendship, Celebrate Recovery, Porchlight, Key Metrix and Crow Shield Lodge, along with many others, are doing the hard, often unseen work of helping people rebuild their lives. These frontline organizations understand addiction not as a headline but as a human reality. They prove that recovery works when properly supported. Our stories are different, but at the core of addiction there is trauma. It drives substance use and keeps people trapped in cycles they cannot escape on their own. If we do not heal the trauma, we do not break the cycle. If we do not break the cycle, we are not offering real recovery but only enabling addiction. That belief is what led me to bring forward Bill C-240. It is a bill about breaking cycles and putting recovery at the centre of our justice system's response to addiction-driven crime. Bill C-240 would introduce rehabilitation directly into incarceration. It would allow a judge to prescribe rehabilitation, mental health supports, education and training. It would give the individual the opportunity to participate in that treatment, and it would allow a parole board to consider whether that treatment plan has been completed. What makes this different from what exists today is accountability. Right now, programs may exist, but there is no real accountability to ensure that they are delivered as intended or that the individual receives the full support required to complete them. When rehabilitation is judge-prescribed, accountability exists on both sides: on the correctional facility to provide meaningful programming and on the individual to engage in treatment. That accountability is what turns intention into outcome. Bill C-240 also sends a very clear and necessary message to those who profit from addiction. It treats the trafficking of fentanyl as an aggravating factor, allowing for harsher penalties for dealers who knowingly make money off human suffering. Recovery must be paired with the consequences for those who exploit vulnerability for profit. The goal of this bill is simple and focused: to heal and break cycles for those afflicted by addiction and to punish those who knowingly fuel it. If we want safer communities, fewer victims and fewer lives lost, recovery must be the path forward and accountability must be a part of that path. This last part may be difficult for me to get through, but it matters that I say it. There are many faces, backgrounds, stories, people, different walks of life and reasons for addiction. I know this because I am one of those faces. I am one of those walks of life. I am a recovered addict. I fell into addiction in high school. It starts as fun, an escape from reality and good times with friends. Then it turns into something very different. It becomes one's life. It steals from people, who then burn bridges and make choices that trap them in a life of continued trauma. No one talks about the dark side of addiction: those choices, the self-harm, the trap houses, the abusers of vulnerability and the realities of the life of addiction. I was young. I was vulnerable. I had my own trauma. Then one day, while I was in one of those trap houses, I was looking around and thought to myself, “What am I doing? What is this life? What is my future? What is next, death?" That is when I decided to change. When I was in addiction, my mom showed me tough love. While I was in active addiction, I was not allowed at home. However, she always checked in on me. She always knew where I was, and she would make me go for coffee or Sunday dinner at nana and grandpa's house. Every time she checked in on me, she would always plant a seed, asking, “When are you going to school?” The very first thing I did when I got through detox was march up to my mom's office. She worked for the Waterloo region her entire career, and at the time she was at 99 Regina Street South. I went into her office and said, “Mom, I need a Conestoga College book.” I applied for early childhood education, radio broadcasting and television, and mechanical engineering, specializing in robotics and automation. I literally had no idea what I wanted to do next. I just knew I wanted to do something different. The only thing I was accepted into right away was the engineering program, so that became my path. I have been told, often by people who do not know me, that I need to be trauma-informed or that I need to listen more closely to the research, the data or the intellectuals who study this issue. While research matters, I want to say this very clearly: We will never solve this crisis if we do not listen to the people with lived experience, especially those who have healed. Recovery is not theoretical. It is lived, one day at a time. I wear the scars, but I also wear the success of defeating the demon of addiction. I always wanted to go into politics, but I delayed running because of my past. The weight held me back. I asked myself, “What if I win? What if my past comes out? What if I am judged or shamed or dismissed because of who I once was rather than who I am today?” That fear is not unique to me. It is the stigma many recovered people carry with them, even after they have built their lives. I decided I would no longer carry that stigma in silence. I am ending it by telling my story. Under our party's leader, I knew I would be supported, not only because of who our leader is as a person but because of the message that he continually shares. During the last election, he spoke about recovered addicts as having a kind of strength others may never fully understand, because recovery means climbing a mountain that most people will never see. He spoke about the need for rehabilitation beds across this country and for real pathways to recovery. That message mattered to me. It told me I would not only be accepted as a member of Parliament, but also be supported. We need more leaders like this. That support has given me the strength and the courage to stand here in the House of Commons and share my own personal story. However, there is one thing I would like to add to that message. Yes, recovered people climb a mountain, but at the very beginning of recovery, all a person can see is that mountain in front of them. It feels impossible. It feels endless. It feels lonely, but if they take one day at a time, one step at a time, they will reach the top, and that is where their life truly begins. There is a big, beautiful, happy, healed life on the other side of addiction. If members have ever seen the view from the top of a mountain, they know that the world opens up, possibilities expand and our future becomes something we can finally imagine. I was an addict sleeping in Victoria Park in Kitchener, Ontario. I slept in the streets and at the women's shelter on Frederick Street, Mary's Place, and now I am a member of Parliament representing that very same area. The very same area and community I was homeless in, I now represent as a member of Parliament. If someone hears this who is struggling or feels trapped at the base of that mountain, I want them to know this: They should take that step, start the healing journey and give themself the life they deserve.

Madam Speaker, the most beautiful part about continually sharing my story is that it allows people the opportunity to share their own. The more we do that, the more we end the stigma around addiction. I thank the member opposite for sharing his personal ties to addiction. I also want to thank him very much for recognizing what it means to stand in the House and share our own stories. I hope, moving forward, we can work together and ensure that we can help create paths to recovery in this country, starting with supporting my private member's bill and introducing rehabilitation into incarceration.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to speak a little further on focusing on taking that first step. One thing that addiction does is it breaks one's relationships. The continued cycle of bad decisions that someone makes is carried with them and it actually stops them from wanting to heal. It is not only that they have their own personal trauma but they have the guilt and they have everything else surrounded in the choices they made while they were in active addiction. I want people to know that they are loved. Everyone still cares about the person. Everyone still loves the person. All they want the person to do is to get well. All the person has to do is get well. All the person has to do is take that first step.

Madam Speaker, that is why I do not agree with enabling addiction by providing the drugs to keep people trapped in addiction. I relapsed 13 years after being sober, because it was literally just in front of me. We have to make a conscious choice our entire life to just not be around it. When I was, I relapsed. Luckily, I had enough time and enough healing and enough space that I did not fall back into the cycle of addiction. I think it is really important when people start their journey to not—