Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for splitting her time with me today. I am glad she brought up the issue of automatic enrolment. We actually studied it at public accounts. The Auditor General was quite pointed in her comments about the government's lack of interest in supporting Canadians. One of the biggest issues we found, and I found this both anecdotally and in the studies, is the lack of automatic enrolment for the guaranteed income supplement. This is not covered in the government's current plans. When will the federal government be introducing automatic enrolment for seniors who could benefit from the GIS?

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, the Conservatives are pushing for a more extensive gas tax cut to make life more affordable for Canadians. Last May, in fact, we put through an opposition day motion calling for the government to offer Canadians immediate relief by ending all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year, including the GST; and permanently scrapping the clean fuel standard. We then called for it to be completely eliminated up until Canada Day next year. Of course, we saw that the Liberals had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to offer a partial tax break to Canadians. The price of gas is at probably an all-time high from what I have seen in my many years. It is $1.81 a litre in Edmonton, of all places, but I understand the provincial government is offering a 13¢ cut, coming on October 1. I just heard that today. More important, the price of diesel fuel has gone through the roof, at about $2.80 to $2.90 a litre. A lot of Canadians, when they think of diesel, just think of the crazy hippie down the road still driving the Volkswagen Rabbit on diesel or perhaps someone driving a big truck on diesel. They do not understand that diesel fuel is very much the lifeline of Canadian industry, farming and trucking. Where the price of diesel goes, so goes inflation. People who want to geek out on something should take a look at something called the crack spread. Generally simplified, that is the spread between the price of refined products and the price of oil, and it is at an all-time high right now. If they want to look into it more I suggest they follow a chap named Richard Dias on Twitter. He talks about it a lot. It is a coming problem for Canadians because they see the price of oil being one thing, but the price of gas and diesel, the refined products, is decoupling in a lot of ways from the price of oil and going even higher. Again, as go diesel prices, so go food costs and many other costs. I am glad that the government is at least offering some partial relief at the pumps. Again, it is unfortunate that it has had to be nagged into extending it, and only partially, but even a partial cut is better than no cut at all. It helps Canadians now. Keeping fuel taxes low should remain a priority going forward. For years, we have seen the current government claiming the carbon tax was not inflationary and fighting to keep the carbon tax. Like caving on the carbon tax, I am glad the Liberals caved a bit on extending the fuel tax rebate at least a bit longer. Currently, it is suspended only to January 2027, then resumes at 50% and then the full amount returns on April 1, 2027. Basically, the Liberal government is putting an expiry date on affordability. I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that the Conservatives put through an opposition day motion to eliminate all taxes on gas and diesel, etc., back in May, and the current Liberal government voted the motion down. I want to quote some of the Liberal members when they were arguing against a tax rebate for Canadians or a reduction of gas taxes. I will start with my friend and colleague from Winnipeg North. He said, “Why the hypocrisy from the Conservative Party of Canada when it comes to the issue of affordability?” This is the same member whose interventions I stopped counting at 40 times. He stood in this House at least 40 times during the last couple of years, defending the carbon tax as being a boon for Canadians for affordability. In May, he was arguing against further tax cuts on gas and now he is saying it is a panacea for everything. It is funny how, when the Conservatives proposed a gas tax cut, it was bad but now it is good. I am going to continue with the hypocrisy line a bit longer. As for the finance minister who introduced the bill, I counted over the last couple of years that he stood 25 times in this House defending the carbon tax. Every time the Conservatives put through a motion to eliminate the carbon tax, the finance minister, who is all about affordability now, stood and defended the carbon tax. The finance minister also stated that a gas tax is really not that important. Because 80% of the price of fuel was because of oil, therefore a tax change did not matter. Continuing on, a Liberal member stated that what we need to do is reduce taxes in ways that are responsible and to continue to invest in critical social programs. In May, the Liberals were arguing against a tax cut, but now a tax cut is good. A tax cut was bad before, but a tax cut is good now. Again, it is hypocrisy. Another member, a senior member, stated basically that tax cuts to gas are bad because they only help the rich: “This idea that the impact is going to be more substantial on low-income Canadians than on Canadians who are much more well off is just absolutely ludicrous... It does not make any sense”. Guess who actually says gas taxes are progressive and disproportionately hurt low-income Canadians. It is a bunch of far-right-wing think tanks such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the Canadian Labour Congress and the Smart Prosperity Institute. The government was actually stating in May that it did not want to cut taxes, because it would have only helped the super wealthy. Even though the PBO and others stated the carbon tax disproportionately hurt low-income Canadians, the government argued in May that tax cuts only help the wealthy. What are we doing today with Bill C-38? We are debating a tax cut. I guess super wealthy back then was different than super wealthy now. He went on and said, “What the Conservatives are proposing is more of a benefit for the ultrawealthy”, so I have to ask the Liberals why a tax cut in May was for the ultra-wealthy and a tax cut now is not for the ultra-wealthy. Are they just completely misinformed or perhaps, as the member for Winnipeg North states, “hypocrites”? The defence minister said, “[Conservatives know] that this handful of tax changes [that they had proposed in May] are not going to contend with the economic challenges we are facing in the United States. They are not going to contend with the Ukrainian war. They are not going to contend with the gulf war.” The Minister of National Defence, in June, was attacking Conservative-proposed tax cuts. They were no good, because they were not going to do anything about the war in Ukraine nor the war in Iran, so I will invite any member of the Liberals to stand up in the questions period and tell me what has changed since the minister of defence said that tax cuts would not change what was going on in the States. Why now? I am not arguing we should not do this tax cut. I am just saying we should do more, but I was calling out the hypocrisy of the Liberals who were fighting against Conservative proposals to cut taxes in May, and all of a sudden, under Bill C-38, the tax cuts not only are good and no longer help the “ultrawealthy”, as the Liberals say, but apparently, according to the minister of defence, they would fix the Ukrainian war, they would fix the war in Iran and the gulf and fix our issues with the U.S. It is wonderful. Another member says it is “absolutely crazy” to make the claim that cutting gas taxes helps low-income people. Again, it was utterly crazy in May, but somehow good now. We know cutting taxes is good. Milton Friedman says he is in favour of any tax cut at any time. I would agree. I am glad the Liberals are doing this, but I just point out the hypocrisy of fighting a gas tax cut in May and all of a sudden saying it is a glorious thing to do now. The member for Mount Royal complained that cutting gas taxes would hurt the environment. He also said that taxes have nothing to do with the price at the pump. Is that not amazing? A gas tax cut in May would have hurt the environment, and gas taxes had nothing to do with the price at the pump, but all of a sudden they do now. We also say fuel regulations do not add to the price Canadians pay at the pump, yet the PBO says it is going to be 17¢. Environment Canada says it will cost us at the pump. I realize my time is up. I will end it here. I will open questions. I again thank the Liberals for finally listening to the Conservatives and bringing in a tax cut to help Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I do miss my colleague on the OGGO committee. I look forward to the day when he does return to join the government operations committee. The member has brought up a lot of valid facts. One of the issues he talked about was outside consultants. The Liberal-friendly McKinsey, one of the most vile, reprehensible companies in the entire world that helped supercharge the opioid crisis, continues to receive contracts from the Liberal government. In committee, we actually heard government employees testify that work they proposed to do and could cover within their own bureaucracy was pushed out to McKinsey for no reason. We heard this again and again, whether it was to Deloitte, McKinsey or others. The government should look at finding ways to save money for Canadians, and it could probably start with its management friends at McKinsey, Deloitte and all the other outside consulting companies.

Madam Speaker, it is always wonderful to see the member here. He reminds me a bit of that Seinfeld episode with George Costanza when he was actually living underneath his desk. The member is here so much, I wonder if perhaps he is like George Costanza, setting up under his desk. I am glad the member brought up a bit about the carbon tax. We actually counted, and we found 83 different members who denied that the carbon tax had an effect on inflation. Then last year, the public accounts came out and actually stated the government expected inflation to drop because it has actually eliminated the carbon tax. We see the same thing now with the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel regulations. Liberal after Liberal says it has no effect. The PBO and Environment Canada itself have said there is a cost to it.

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be back in Ottawa. These are words I never thought I would hear myself saying, and they are words I do not think anyone has actually ever said in a truthful state. It is wonderful to be back in Parliament debating my colleague's bill, Bill C-266. The author of the bill, the member for Richmond East—Steveston, and I had the pleasure of working together on the operations committee for several years, and I quite enjoyed working with him. Although there is technically nothing wrong with his private member's bill, I question what the end value would be because it really would not do a lot. Conservatives are here to represent Canadians and to help Canadians. We are focused on saving Canadians money. I believe the Liberals are out of touch on this issue, and the bill before us shows part of that. The bill would not actually provide any action to help Canadians, and every day without action from the Liberal government is costing Canadians money. Bill C-266 has a lot of good points on paper, if it were to actually accomplish anything, but what would it accomplish in the end? It would accomplish a call for a national framework. It would not actually assist an electrician in Ontario to work and be recognized in Alberta. It just calls for a framework. In the end, that is what would happen, as the bill states, “The Minister must develop a national framework respecting skilled trades and labour mobility”. That is wonderful, but would it actually do anything? No, it is just paperwork to “develop a national framework”. The bill also states, “the Minister must hold consultations”. Well, that would be work for bureaucrats and hopefully hotels during the consultations, but in the end, after all these consultations, after all the work, debate and everything, our result would be the tabling of a framework. The bill continues: Within one year after the day on which this Act comes into force, the Minister must prepare a report setting out the national framework and cause it to be tabled That would be within a year. Maybe we could get through this in a month and then, in 2027, after another year without action, it would be tabled. The bill also states: Within one year after the day on which the report is tabled under subsection 4(1), and every year after that, the minister must prepare a progress report It does not state that he has to do anything. It is just a progress report. We have seen, with this government, lots of other frameworks and lots of other items that state it has to prepare progress reports. We have seen it in public accounts, where the Auditor General comes to say, “Yeah, for 20 years we have been doing progress reports, but nothing has changed.” The bill further states, “Within five years after the day on which this Act comes into force, a comprehensive review of the national framework must be undertaken by the committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament that is designated or established”. We would have one year to study this, another year for a progress report and then, within five years, another review of the framework. It begs the question, why does the government not just get this done? Why do we need a framework? Why do we need a private member's bill to ask the government to do what its job is, and why the delays? What should the government be doing instead? Well, it could be acting. One of the things the Liberals could act on would be to delete from their budget 2025 their intent to defund student loans for private colleges. There are 31 of these in B.C. and seven in Alberta that deliver apprenticeship training and such trade training privately, but the government is going to ban students from being able to access funding to attend them. One of the other things the Liberals could do that would be a lot more important, which I have spoken about repeatedly in the House and in committee, would be to end the scourge of trafficked and illegal workers on government-funded infrastructure projects. We have projects that are funded partly by the feds, partly by the province and partly by the municipalities where we have illegal, trafficked workers on the sites. The contractor will win the bid with a low bid and then immediately subcontract out the entire job to a subcontractor to create a layer, a distance I guess, so they can claim, “We're innocent. It was the subcontractor who broke the law.” The subcontractor will then recruit from Mexico, Venezuela or Colombia to bring in workers under a visitor's, vacation or other visa, and then they put them to work. I have presented to the Treasury Board evidence of how they are recruiting the workers. Two years ago, in the House, I spoke about it, and the government has done nothing. They will bring in these workers, abuse them, underpay them with $10 an hour in cash, make them work overtime, and then steal the overtime. Who are these workers bumping out? They are bumping out trades workers, the very skilled trades workers that this bill is supposed to help. The government talks about wanting workers from Ontario to be able to work in B.C., yet it turns a blind eye when workers are trafficked or smuggled into the country, which bumps out trades workers from working on government-funded infrastructure projects. One of the items we found is that nine of these trafficked workers, and this was in Edmonton, were forced to rent their accommodation from the wife of the subcontractor. There were nine of them in a one-bedroom house, and they were paying $3,000 for this. They were told that, if they complained, they would go back on a plane and go home. I visited one of the work sites on the Henday, the ring road or ring highway around Edmonton, which is actually in the riding of Edmonton Riverbend. Now, if the member for Edmonton Riverbend were to show up in Edmonton once in a while, he would perhaps see this work being done. We spoke to every single worker on the site during the construction. Funnily enough, every single worker was not a worker but a subcontractor. Now, if anyone has worked in construction, they know there is a general contractor. Perhaps they would sub out the drywall to a subcontractor who would then hire workers, but every single worker on this site was a subcontractor. Every single worker was from out of country. We spoke to the contractor. He tried to chase us off and run us down with his pickup truck, so I think we know how the contractor felt about that. Now, workers from Local 222, the cement masons, should have gotten the work on that Henday project, the bridge, but not one of them did. The government talks a lot about wanting to help work with the unions. It is actually in this bill that the government is going to consult with the unions. I am pretty sure, if they consulted with Local 222 of the cement masons, they would be told, “Let us work. Let our legal workers work on Canadian-funded infrastructure projects instead of trafficked workers.” We heard a story of a gentleman who was one of the illegal trafficked workers. He fell and landed on his head. Luckily, he had a helmet on. He fell 25 feet and woke up in the hospital. No one from the company or worker's comp visited him. The only person who visited was the safety officer from the subcontractor, who told him that, if he told the truth to workers' comp or anyone else, he would be fired on the spot and sent home. Three months later, after he got out of the hospital, on his first day back on the job, he was given his cheque and told he was fired, to get out. This is happening on the Edmonton LRT project; the Edmonton library, which just got built; sidewalk projects; and the Yellowhead. Again, two years ago, I had documented evidence of this. Two years ago, I placed it in the hands of the Treasury Board. I promised the Treasury Board that I would not make this public and that I would work with the government to get this done. A year later, I approached them again. I said, “You guys have done nothing. I'm going to start speaking about it. It's now been two years and nothing has been done.” We tabled a motion in the operations committee to look at this, to help the trade workers that Bill C-266 is supposed to help. The Liberals voted the motion down rather than study this. It has been two years. The government talks about wanting to help trade workers. If it wanted to actually do that, instead of developing a national framework that is going to do nothing, the government should sit down, listen to the unions and crack down to end the scourge of trafficked and illegal workers being used on government-funded infrastructure sites.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg Centre gave a passionate speech that had a lot of great points. We do not necessarily agree on everything, but I certainly appreciate everything she said today. One of the issues I have with this bill is that we have seen a lack of accountability from the government. Report after report from the Auditor General has been ignored by the government. The government said earlier that it is not the minister who is responsible for implementing the modern treaty commitments, but this commissioner. I wonder what my colleague thinks about the government taking accountability and responsibility away from the minister and pushing them onto the commissioner instead of taking responsibility itself.

Madam Speaker, I am looking at a government document. It is titled “Implementation of Modern Treaties and Self-Government Agreements”. It is a provisional annual report. It states that the implementation of modern treaty commitments is the responsibility of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Earlier this morning, at the beginning of the debate, we heard the minister state that it was not the minister's responsibility. It would be part of the new commissioner's role. Who is going to be responsible for it? Will it be the minister, as the government's own document states, or the commissioner, as the minister stated?

Mr. Speaker, in my colleague's excellent speech, he covered a lot of important information regarding Parliament and the way we act. One of the foundations of our parliamentary system, of course, is ministerial responsibility, whereby a minister is accountable to Parliament for the administration of their department and the decisions it makes. We heard the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations this morning in her opening speech on this bill state that the implementation of modern treaty commitments would not be done through her department; rather, it would be passed on to the commissioner instead. I wonder if my colleague would like to opine on the decision of the Liberal government to say that ministers would not be responsible anymore and unelected commissioners would be.

Madam Speaker, we listened to the Liberals earlier, especially the member for Winnipeg North, bash and attack anyone who disagrees with Bill C-9, actually in fear that they are all far right, right-wing, crazy white supremacists if they oppose the government on this. However, we have seen the leadership of all the Abrahamic faiths in Canada oppose big parts of Bill C-9. I wonder if my colleague agrees that perhaps there is more to this issue that needs to be studied and that we should not just label everyone who opposes it as being racist, as the Liberals seem to be doing.

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very divisive issue. There are some parts of Bill C-9 that various communities support. There is also a wide range of issues within Bill C-9 that communities do not support. The leadership of the Abrahamic faiths, for example, has come out very strongly against parts of Bill C-9, especially around religious freedom. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the government's unwillingness to listen to anything besides the narrow confines of its interests rather than to the larger faith community.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre. It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away. It is interesting to hear them complain about costs. This is, of course, from the same Liberal government that funded, through its green energy accelerator fund, companies that used that funding to go abroad and actually fund ISIS. Yes, a company that was convicted in France and in the U.S. of using that funding to actually fund ISIS, this Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars to. Under the same fund, it gave tens of millions of dollars to an overseas Chinese EV company that was named as a war sponsor supporting Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Yet, when the Liberals have a chance to support a common-sense bill that would help Canadians, encourage investment in Canada and reduce greenhouse gases, we hear government members stand up and speak against it. Bill C-269 is a very simple, common-sense bill. It would introduce a non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it into electricity. I am afraid that is all the time I have at this moment. I look forward to speaking more on it after the votes.

Mr. Speaker, it has been well over a year since the Liberal government received evidence that federally funded infrastructure projects were using illegal and trafficked labour, violating funding agreements and leaving legitimate trades workers on the sidelines, unemployed. The Liberal response since then has been crickets. When will the Liberals stop funding projects that are using illegal, trafficked labourers and instead ensure the work goes to legitimate Canadian trades workers?

Mr. Speaker, here we have on display peak Liberal hypocrisy. Only the member for Winnipeg North can spend his entire speech complaining about wasting time instead of actually doing something besides wasting time and addressing Bill C‑25. There were issues around foreign interference that the Liberals knew about in one of their ridings, where Han Dong was chosen as a Liberal candidate. It was noted in the Hogue commission. Why is there nothing in Bill C‑25 that would address the foreign interference in so many Liberal nominations?

Madam Speaker, we just heard from the member for Winnipeg North, who has sat in the House, in government, for 11 years but has done nothing to crack down on crime. The Liberals brought in Bill C‑5 and Bill C‑75, which do everything within their power to put violent criminals back out on the streets, yet now he hectors Conservatives for not doing enough for the Liberals while they are in government. What does the member think of the government's pontificating again about being tough on crime?

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer put out a report commenting that the government was stripping away services to the vulnerable via housing benefits and social housing in order to fund another bureaucracy. I wonder what the member thinks about the government taking money away from the most vulnerable to fund another bureaucracy that is going to produce, as the PBO says, only “a modest amount” of new housing.

Mr. Speaker, I have a quote from Mike Moffatt, who is acknowledged as one of the leading experts on the housing crisis. He comments on the program, saying, “Canada has a substantial shortage of three-bedroom and larger homes, and the need for our cities to densify, [but this program's] prioritization of small, low-rise homes is a peculiar choice.” Why is the government making a peculiar choice to help build the wrong type of houses, not what Canadians are looking for?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals campaigned on reducing municipal fees. In fact, I quote from their campaign: They said they would be “cutting municipal development charges in half”. CMHC just recently came out with a report warning of a very significant barrier to building housing, caused by high municipal development fees. The government has not, in fact, even approached reducing or started to reduce municipal fees. I wonder if my colleague could comment on this Liberal broken promise and how it is not helping Canadians in getting the houses they need.

Mr. Speaker, we do miss the member on the government operations committee. He is welcome to come back anytime. He talked about how the plan has support for affordable housing, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer states that, with all the billions of dollars in spending, the government is expected to build only 13,000 low-income units, and that, further, the money would come from stripping money from the affordable housing fund and other supports for at-risk Canadians. Why would the government punishing vulnerable Canadians and spend money on an added bureaucracy that would create only 13,000 new homes?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize five extraordinary young Edmontonians who are proudly representing Alberta and Canada on the world stage. Team Gladius from the River City Robotics club competed in the FIRST Tech Challenge, where students design, build and program their own robots from the ground up. In just their second season, these students engineered an award-winning robot and won the Inspire Award, which is the competition's highest award. That victory carried them to the FIRST world championships in Houston as one of only 14 teams from Canada competing, and they did not go to just watch. They won multiple matches against the very best teams in the world, which are much older and much more experienced teams. Sam, Jack, Luke, Tavin and Walter, along with their coaches, Kevin, Shawn and Angela, are exactly the innovators our future needs. Congratulations to Team Gladius. They have made Edmonton, Alberta and Canada proud.

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Mirabel's passion is exceeded only by his knowledge on this subject. I understand the member's point about measuring and calling a recession, but we have to set numbers somewhere. The fact is that Canada's economy has contracted for three of the last four quarters. Not a single country in the G7 has had a contraction in the economy in the last four quarters. The government, we hear constantly, is blaming it on the trade war with the U.S. Mexico, which is more reliant by a fair amount on trade with the U.S. than Canada is, has actually seen its exports to the U.S. rise. Mexico, which is, again, more reliant on the U.S., has not fallen into a recession or a contraction in its economy, unlike Canada. I wonder if my colleague could expand a bit on his talk about how the government needs to stop blaming the U.S. for political gain and start working to improve the economy and exports, much like Mexico has.

Mr. Speaker, when we listen to the Liberal government, we get the same message: Canadians have never had it so good. We have 2.2 million Canadians going to food banks every month. We have out-of-control crime. We have the only shrinking economy in the G7. We have the only shrinking economy among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. About one-quarter of Canadians are living with food insecurity right now under the Liberal government. Does the member think Canadians have never had it so good, as the Liberals are claiming?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on our motion. Food Banks Canada had a stark warning, and this is a stark quote from its most recent report: “Something fundamental has shifted in Canada.” It goes on to further say that, in Canada, “a job is no longer enough to ensure a reliable pathway to stability.” One in four Canadians is facing food insecurity, and 20% of the 2.2 million lining up every month at food banks are employed. I am going to read again that line from the report: in Canada, “a job is no longer enough to ensure a reliable pathway to stability.” That is what over a decade of the Liberal government has inflicted upon Canada. Something has fundamentally changed in this country, and it has fundamentally changed for the worse because of the government. In Edmonton alone, we have two separate food banks just serving veterans. Those who have served our country in the military, but also RCMP, have two separate food banks to serve them, just for them to get by. At the same time, we have the Prime Minister spending close to $200,000 for gourmet meals on his jet just for three trips, while the Liberals are spending $200 million for Liberal insiders for a concrete pad, a cement pad, in Nova Scotia. Canada has entered recession territory. The Liberals will quibble and say that it is only a technical recession and really does not count, but the economy is shrinking: not just the last two quarters, but three of the last four quarters. We are the only G7 country with a shrinking economy. In fact, even basket cases like France and Italy do not have shrinking economies. We are in fact the only economy that has shrunk in the last four quarters in the G7. No one else has: not the U.S., not Germany, which continues on its path to net-zero economic suicide, and not Italy, without all the oil resources we have, but just us. Again, think of the old world, the G7, and all the issues they are having with the Ukraine war and being cut off from their natural gas resources, and yet somehow they have avoided a recession like ours. This GDP issue reflects our stagnating standard of living and anemic productivity growth and highlights our weakness in business investments. According to the Fraser Institute, investment in plants, machinery equipment and IP has fallen 20% as a share of the economy in the last 10 years. I wonder what happened 10 years ago that would cause us to be on such a decline. Further, the last four years have seen this decline accelerate, matching about four years ago when the current Prime Minister started helping the government as a special economic adviser. What a coincidence, I know. More sobering news is from the Bank of Canada monetary policy report. The member for Winnipeg North just previously was saying that the Liberals believe in the Bank of Canada and that the Bank of Canada has all the information, and he asked if we did not believe in the Bank of Canada. Well, I believe in the Bank of Canada monetary policy report, which actually shows that the government is misleading Canadians on growth. The Bank of Canada is predicting, next year, a 16% lower GDP growth than the government just did in its spring budget. The year after that, it is predicting a 13% lower growth. I ask the member for Winnipeg North whom he believes. Does he believe the Bank of Canada, as he just stated he does, or does he not now, when it is not convenient for him? Even the Bank of Canada does not believe the government when it says that we are the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We are not. Further, which is even more sobering, for 2026, of the anemic growth that we have under the Liberal government, the Bank of Canada is saying 75% is from added government spending. It is not from exporting oil, perhaps, and not from IP or investment, but from government spending. In 2027, 44% of the growth in the forecast is government spending. The year after, 25% of all the growth that the Bank of Canada is seeing in GDP is coming from government spending. This is not a way to grow out of the troubles we are in, by just simply borrowing more money and spending more money. Over the next five years, we are going to have almost $400 billion just in interest payments. What are we getting for it? We are not getting growth, like the one we see in the other countries. We are seeing a shrinking economy. What do we do about this? Well, apart from joining Marty McFly and Doc Brown, getting into a DeLorean and going back to 2015 to ensure that Trudeau does not get elected, we can change the policies now. We can start undoing the Liberal policies that are wrecking the economy. The Chamber of Commerce, just recently in a submission to the finance committee, said that the government needs to focus on competitiveness, and that we cannot compete globally because of a regulatory and red tape regime that is seen as cumbersome and anti-investment. We have well over 300,000 different rules and regulations, over 450 different acts, sometimes with thousands of regulations per act that are tying up and slowing our economic growth. What does the government do? Well, normal governments around the world would perhaps say, “Well, let us reduce red tape. Let us cut some of the red tape.” We know defence procurement is a mess, but instead of actually addressing it, the government created another bureaucracy to work around its own rules that it created. For major projects, it is same thing, adding more bureaucracy to work around the other bureaucracy it created. Further, the government created another bureaucracy for red tape reduction, and 34 full-time equivalents were added to the bureaucracy to cut red tape. We submitted an Order Paper question asking what the government managed to cut for regulations. With 34 full-time employees, we ended up with 29 regulations repealed. Here are some of them. They repealed UN regulations regarding Sierra Leone. Wow, that is going to grow the economy. They cut regulations on corded window covering products. They cut regulations regarding board elections for the Wheat Board, years after the Wheat Board went away. This is what 34 full-time employees managed to do over a period of a couple of years to cut red tape. They changed regulations on the Wheat Board elections for the board of directors of a Wheat Board that does not exist anymore. How are we going to grow the economy if this is the best the government can do? We could get our energy products to market. We could build pipelines. We could get rid of the oil and gas emissions cap. The government will say that we do not have that anymore, but it has not come out and said that the cap is dead. We could get rid of the anti-Alberta tanker ban, Bill C-48. We have a private member's bill before this House right now to eliminate the tanker ban, and Liberals are opposing it. It is perfectly fine to have Saudi Arabia oil come up the St. Lawrence, but we cannot have Alberta oil off the north B.C. coast. We could get rid of the costly industrial carbon tax and the unconstitutional “no new pipelines” bill, Bill C-69. If we want northern gateway to get built, which could add tens of billions of dollars of added growth to the economy, the government needs to get out of the way. It needs to kill Bill C-48, the anti-Alberta tanker ban. It needs to kill Bill C-69. It needs to get rid of the oil and gas emissions cap. We need to get rid of the government's determination to wreck our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for fiction hour in the House of Commons. What has the government delivered in over 10 years? It is not a new government. It is the same old, tired Liberal government. It has delivered rising unemployment, record debt, record deficit and record Canadians at food banks. The government has delivered an economy that requires us to have two food banks just to serve veterans in Edmonton. That is what this 10-year-old tired, corrupt Liberal government has delivered for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a submission to the finance committee, laid it out. They stated that the current environment imposed on businesses by this government makes investment unwelcome. Canada needs to change. We need tax reform, and we need regulatory reform. As the Chamber of Commerce has stated, we need to fix our regulatory regime. We need tax reform. We need the government to stop standing here and pretending that all these announcements are serving Canadians. It actually needs to take action.

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a great point. The Canadian economy is shrinking. Mexico has a far greater reliance on U.S. trade than Canada does, and its economy is not shrinking. In fact, its auto industry exports to the U.S. are double what they are in Canada, yet somehow Mexico is managing to grow its economy with the same issues we have. What it does not have holding it back is a Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this. I want to start by mentioning two historic Arab Albertans involved in politics. The first is my very dear friend, whom I call my brother. He is the member for Edmonton Manning. My friend was the very first Lebanese MP ever elected in the province of Alberta. Besides his being a phenomenal representative of the people, I have come to know his family very well. It is an incredible family. My dear friend also donated one of his vital organs to help save his son's life, which is further proof of what a fine gentleman he is. One of his sons later worked for me on a couple of my campaigns and did a phenomenal job, and then moved on to help out the provincial party in Alberta as well. If I could find an Arab politician to live up to my colleague from Edmonton Manning, it would be Larry Shaben. Larry Shaben was the very first Muslim elected to higher office in North America. That was in Alberta. He was also the very first to serve as a provincial minister in Canada, even when compared to, perhaps, the equivalent in the U.S. He served as a minister under the great Peter Lougheed, as well as Don Getty. I want to read a quote from Peter Lougheed about Larry Shaben, at Mr. Shaben's funeral: “We all know how much better we are because we knew Larry Shaben. We all know how much better Alberta as a whole is because of Larry Shaben.” I cannot think of a better tribute from one of the greatest Albertans ever to one of the other greatest Albertans than the one Mr. Lougheed made to Mr. Shaben. I wanted to bring that up. I know that my colleague from Edmonton Manning, whom I would like to call by his name but I will not, will live up to Mr. Shaben as well. The very first Arab recorded in Alberta was in 1912, known as Ali Ahmed Abouchadi, who was also from Lebanon. He and his uncle, Sine Abouchadi, moved from Lebanon and settled in Lac La Biche, which is now, I think, probably the largest Arab community in the entire world and the largest Lebanese community in the entire world, including Lebanon itself. It is a phenomenal community north of Edmonton that I have had the pleasure of visiting many times. It still maintains incredible Lebanese culture. I also want to talk about a couple of friends of mine from Edmonton. As my colleague mentioned, we could spend all day talking about contributions from the Arab community in Canada, but I want to mention a couple of dear friends of mine whom I have known for many years. The first is my office manager, Oula Sanduga. I know she is probably back in Edmonton right now planning my demise for mentioning her and talking about her in the House, because she is a bit shy. I have had the pleasure of working with Oula for 10 years in my office. Before working with me, she worked for the hon. Laurie Hawn, and before that, Peter Goldring. Oula hails, originally, from Palestine. She is a very proud Palestinian. I am very proud to have her with us. Over the 30 years she has worked in MP offices, she has helped untold thousands of Canadians, whether it is with CRA issues, EI issues or especially immigration issues. We have people contacting our office from around the entire province, knowing that Oula is the one to help. She is considered by all of our offices in Alberta as the most senior, most educated and most experienced person to help out on so many files. Oula has just returned to our office after very lengthy challenges, and I cannot express how happy we are that she is back with us. I know that my constituents express that exact same feeling. My predecessor, in part of my riding, the hon. Laurie Hawn, used to say about the constituency staff and the MPs that the MP is just the hood ornament and the constituency staff is the engine of the car. Oula is a phenomenally strong-running V8 engine in that comparison. The other one I want to mention specifically is Oula's father, Dean Sanduga. Dean, of course, also hails from Palestine. He is an incredible community leader and has raised an incredible family. To this day, even though he is considerably older than me, he still stays very active in the community, helping newcomers, helping Canadians and helping Edmontonians. Again, I wanted to thank both of them for all the incredible work they have done. Now, for the rest of my few minutes I have, I am going to plagiarize and read from a story by someone at the U of A, Sarah Carter. She is a professor there. I found some of the stories she was telling about Syrians coming to western Canada. One of her favourite authors is a gentleman named Habeeb Salloum. My colleague from Abbotsford may like this. Mr. Salloum was famous for writing books, including Arab Cooking on a Prairie Homestead. One of Mr. Salloum's books concluded with a great comment, as Sarah Carter wrote, “'The saga of the Arab immigrants is truly the story of Canada.' He feared they were being forgotten, as those with Arab heritage sought to assimilate. He hoped 'fellow Canadians and others, after reading our family’s saga will feel that Arab Canadians have contributed to Canada’s history.'” I encourage people to read that book. Those are very strong words from Mr. Salloum. I want to just start with some of the story that Sarah had written about Arabs in Canada, especially Syrians. She starts off with “Syrians have a long history in Canada. Paul Anka is perhaps the best known Canadian of Syrian ancestry.” I look around the House, perhaps at my colleague from Abbotsford with his love of Arab food. He is so young that I am not sure if he knows who Paul Anka is. I am looking around for the other grey hairs. There are a few of us. Paul Anka is a wonderful gentleman, and yes, I think he is probably the most famous Canadian of Syrian ancestry. Sarah goes on to say, “there were others; many of whom we must consider 'Old Stock Canadians.'” I think she makes a reference just to show how long people of Syrian heritage and Arab history have been in Canada. It goes back to, as we heard earlier, the beginning of Confederation. She continues, “Somewhat less well known, for example, but still very popular in his day, was 'Canada’s King of the Fiddle,' Ameen 'King' Ganam, born in Swift Current in 1914.” I am aging myself. I actually remember who “King” Ganam was. I see I am getting the wave that my time is up. I will come back to finish my last two minutes with the story about “King” Ganam and Tommy Hunter.

Mr. Speaker, Tolstoy said, “Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.” Let us wash away everything that is not gold from the member's speech and look at the truth. Well, that is right, we washed away, and there is nothing. We have sat and listened to a master class of 20 minutes of disinformation from the Liberal government. I will be upfront here. We tease back and forth with the member for Winnipeg North all the time, and I quite enjoy jousting with him, quite good-naturedly. However, I have to say I am disappointed by some of his terms in accusing us of being far right. I will comment on a few of his claims. The member goes on at length about the school food program for 400,000 children. However, there are 5.4 million children who are not covered by it. On the grocery rebate, when we actually include two working parents at minimum wage, they do not qualify. The government spent years claiming that the carbon tax was not inflationary. Why does the member now, after so many times saying the gas tax was not inflationary—

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to support the private member's bill concerning Bill C-48. It is mind-boggling to watch the government continue to deny Alberta, and to also deny the facts around the system and the facts around the issue of the incredible contribution that the energy industry makes to Canadian finances and will make in the future as well. We have seen reports that say that losing the northern gateway has cost Canada $20 billion in lost revenue since the Liberal government cancelled it. The Liberals wonder who is going to bring a new pipeline to Canada and invest billions of dollars. The government wants industry to spend an extra $20 billion for carbon capture. Who is going to spend that to develop a pipeline to nowhere, as the government is proposing, with $20 billion just for the carbon capture, on top of perhaps another $15 billion to get a pipeline to the coast, only to have the Liberal government say no to Alberta oil off the B.C. coast”? At the same time, the same Liberal government allows hundreds of oil tankers up and down the St. Lawrence and off the east coast, while in B.C., where we have never had a single major spill, the government, not for scientific reasons or financial reasons but for purely ideological reasons, is saying no to bringing Alberta oil to off the B.C. coast. The private member's bill would end the tanker ban off the B.C. coast and would bring untold wealth to the country when we need it and energy sovereignty when we need it. What better way is there to fight against the Trump tariffs and the economic uncertainty than building this in Canada now?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the spring economic update, or as I call it, the spring deficit update. The Liberals, on their introduction of the bill, put out a good 250-page program called “Canada Strong for All.” I think it should be “Canada Deficits for All.” It reminds me of a famous Internet meme from Toy Story of Woody and Buzz Lightyear, where Buzz is pointing out saying, “as far as the eye can see.” That is what this economic update is. It is deficits as far as the eye can see. Do members remember, not too long ago, in the Trudeau days, when Trudeau said that balanced budgets from the Liberal government was a commitment set in stone? He said it was “very” cast in stone. Now, 75% of the current Liberal bench, and about half the cabinet, is made up of people who were here under the Trudeau government, yet somehow this cast-in-stone commitment to balance the budget has disappeared. Instead of a balanced budget, what do we get? We get deficits as far as the eye can see. It was $67 billion last year, which is well up from the worst of the Trudeau days; $65 billion this year; $63 billion next year; $58 billion in 2028; a $56-billion deficit in 2029; and $53 billion in 2030. That is $362 billion of added debt in just over six years. Do members remember the government's saying it was going to spend less and invest more? Over the same period, this spending less is going to get us $406 billion in interest on the Liberal debt. There is money for bankers, with $406 billion for banker friends of the Prime Minister, not for Canadians, not for more doctors, not for more nurses, not for more schools or hospitals, not for lower taxes, heaven forbid, and not for defence or more infrastructure. That is $406 billion over a six-year period for the Liberal debt. Do members remember, which was repeated ad nauseam by the government, by the ministers, that they were going to cut spending? Again, they said that they were going to spend less so they could invest more. The President of the Treasury Board was at the operations committee yesterday, the mighty OGGO. I have to mention that. He stated that there was $60 billion less in spending, but what does the spring deficit update actually bring us? It brings more spending and program spending that actually outpaces the rate of inflation over the next six years. Somehow spend less equals more program spending. This is from the Liberals' own documents. What about the public service? The government says it is going to cut 35,000 jobs, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has put out a report noting that spending on the public service is actually increasing 6%; from $71 billion, it is going up to $76 billion. In committee, we asked about this, and the Treasury Board told us that it is not actually reducing public servants or spending but just re-profiling, shifting things around. What does all this extra spending get us? For 10 years, the government has been excusing its deficits by saying that spending is needed because it is going to add growth, is going to do this and is going to do that. What did we get? It is not a lot of growth, with a 1.7% average growth over the next six years. An added deficit of $362 billion equals 1.7% growth. What is interesting is that the Bank of Canada put out its monetary policy report at about the same time that the spring deficit update came out from the government, and the Bank of Canada's number for growth is 16% lower in 2027 than what the government is saying, with a 10% lower prediction in GDP growth the following year. How is it that the Bank of Canada has different numbers than the government does? We actually asked and were told that the Bank of Canada is using proper numbers. Who has the real numbers? How much higher is the deficit going to be if we are to believe the Bank of Canada over the government? It is about an extra $2 billion to $3 billion of deficit added per year. That is certainly not adding to any productivity or growth. According to the Bank of Canada report on the contributions to real GDP growth over the coming years, in 2026, the year we are in now, the vast majority of growth in our GDP is government spending. Almost as much growth is from consumption. It is not from added exports, and it is not from growth in productivity. I think GDP growth is 1.2% this year, and almost all of it is government spending. In 2027, 44% of the GDP growth that we are going to see in this country, according to the Bank of Canada, will not be from pipelines, from building more cars, from more industry or from more exports. It will be from government spending. In 2028, 27% of the projected growth, according to the Bank of Canada, is going to be government spending. What should we do to increase growth? It is simple: Unleash our oil and gas industry. We can start by repealing Bill C-48, which bans tankers off British Columbia's north coast and stops Alberta oil from being exported. We could get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. We could end the destructive oil production cap that the government still has not repealed. We could actually get to building pipelines and increasing revenue and wealth for this country. We saw a note from a very famous economist, Ms. Exner-Pirot. She stated that just in the two months of the war in Iran and the issues with the Strait of Hormuz, if we had built the northern gateway pipeline, we would be looking at an extra $3 billion in revenue for this country, just from the added oil from the last two months. The government is running a massive deficit. Instead, we could actually be making more. I am going to talk about northern gateway and the lost revenue caused by the government when it cancelled the project. The government has still not set up the regulatory regime to allow a pipeline to the coast. Total government revenue between 2019 and 2048, if we had built northern gateway, would be $131.5 billion: $72 billion for the federal government and about $59 billion for the provincial governments. On an annual basis, in revenue by region, provinces will have lost out on $2.1 billion per year because the Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway project, with $1.7 billion lost for the federal government. With respect to jobs, we just heard the member for Winnipeg North go on and on about, in the spring deficit update, money for trades. We do not have a lot of trades jobs available in Canada right now. It is wonderful that there is finally, after 10 years, recognition by the Liberal government that the people who build things have value, but where are the jobs going to be for them? The jobs could have been in helping build northern gateway. For that period, 773,000 jobs, on an FTE basis, are lost because the government threw up barriers and cancelled northern gateway. The government will say that we need to have a carbon tax in order to sell our oil. We saw the president of Cenovus today state quite bluntly that we would be the only country in the world handicapping our oil and gas industry in such a way. He states that under Liberal policies, the government is producing high-paying jobs in Saudi Arabia, Russia and America instead of here in Canada. Canada's oil production is the most ethical, and we have an industry that is providing more jobs for indigenous people and more wealth than any other industry in Canada, but the government is trying to wreck it. The government needs to get out of the way and recognize that the oil and gas industry has produced wealth for this country and for the world. It needs to get out of the way to allow us to build, and it needs to stop its inflationary practices and stop destroying this country with its deficit spending.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North overlooks the fact that this government has not repealed Bill C-48, which ensures no pipeline will get built to the B.C. coast. He overlooks that this government has still not repealed Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill. This government has still not repealed the oil and gas production cap. Who is going to invest in this country when we cannot get our oil to market, and when the government is punishing the oil and gas industries with a carbon tax that does not apply to similar industries in other countries? The Major Projects Office is like everything else the Liberals offer: It is an illusion.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought up a great point. He has actually brought up two great points. When the same old, corrupt, tired Liberal government was elected, the Liberals stated they would no longer do omnibus bills, and that is what this is. I think there are 11 different pieces of legislation, including the act the member mentioned. On the direct question about helping foreign entities come in and take over our banking system, I honestly wonder what he expects from the Prime Minister when one of his last acts in the private sector was moving his company out of Canada into the States, and then denying he actually did it. The Prime Minister is not dedicated to our country. I think he is dedicated to his business interests.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Calgary Centre for his continued advocacy for Alberta's oil and gas industry. It is ridiculous. This government continues its virtue-signalling tour around the world, spending Canadian money on wasteful projects, I believe, overseas, when we have 2.2 million people every month at food banks in Canada. We have seniors and we have parents who cannot feed their children. This government should be focused on growing our wealth, not spending our wealth abroad so the Liberals can have photo ops.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg West; we share the “west” part of our ridings. I appreciate the member's speech and I honestly believe that he means well, he cares for people and he is not out here pushing the government's slogans. One of the issues he brought up was the grocery rebate. The way it is formulated, if we have a husband and wife, a mother and father, or two adults with up to four kids earning pennies above minimum wage in Manitoba, they would be earning too much and would not receive the grocery rebate. The way the government has it set up pushes most of the rebate into the hands of single earners, single families without children. Can my colleague comment on that being the government's priority, not helping low-income families, which is the way the program is set up?

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has noted that red tape alone is costing businesses $18 billion a year. Red tape and regulations are strangling Canadian businesses. I wonder if my colleague thinks that perhaps the Liberal government could introduce legislation to reduce some of this burdensome red tape rather than relying on the Senate to bring in a bill that has a relatively low impact on supporting businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his work and his advocacy for the vulnerable. I do not think there is a stronger voice in this House for that, so I thank him very much. I wonder if perhaps he could comment on some of the other groups that are supportive of his measures. He mentioned Inclusion Alberta, which is wonderful, but I wonder if he could mention some of the others. Apparently, people on the other side of the House think this is not an issue to be attended to.