Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this act to amend the Excise Tax Act and extend the federal fuel excise tax relief. At its core, the legislation would do something very simple. It would extend the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until January 31, 2027. Then the tax would come back. On February 1, the government would bring it back at half the regular rate, and on April 1, the regular excise tax rates would return. Canadians need relief at the pumps, and Conservatives have been pushing for exactly that. The Liberals originally planned to bring this tax back after Labour Day, and Conservatives pushed for the relief to continue. Canadians made clear that they are struggling with the cost of living, and the government changed its timeline. Now we are asking the Prime Minister to listen again. Conservatives are proposing to extend broader federal fuel tax relief until at least Canada Day 2027, because families in Edmonton Griesbach and right across the country are still struggling to afford their lives. They need to fill their cars, buy groceries, heat their homes and get to work without wondering what new cost is coming next. Under the bill, the current suspension would continue through January, and beginning February 1 the federal excise tax on gasoline would come back at five cents per litre. Diesel and aviation fuel would come back at two cents per litre. By April, the regular rates would be back. Conservatives believe that Canadians should get that relief for longer. If the Prime Minister recognizes that lowering fuel taxes helps Canadians today, why not extend that relief until at least Canada Day, and why stop with the excise tax? Why not look at other federal costs on fuel? Why not look at the GST? Conservatives under Prime Minister Harper cut the GST from 7% to 5%, and that relief stayed. Conservatives are calling for all federal taxes on gas and diesel to be removed until at least Canada Day 2027. That includes the GST and the cost associated with the clean fuel regulations, because every dollar matters to a family trying to make its budget work. Take a family filling up a 60-litre tank. At 10¢ a litre, that is six dollars in federal excise tax relief every time they fill up. That six dollars becomes $12, then $18 and then $24. For a family with two vehicles, it adds up even faster. That matters when they are buying groceries, when the mortgage payment is due, when the kids need new shoes or when the hydro bill comes in. The impact goes well beyond the family filling up at the local gas station. I think about the farmer, the trucker, the contractor or the small business owner. Fuel is not optional for these Canadians. It is the cost of doing business. A trucker cannot deliver food without diesel. A farmer cannot operate equipment without fuel. A contractor cannot carry lumber and tools to a job site on the bus. For millions of Canadians, driving is not a luxury; it is how they earn a living, and fuel is built into the cost of almost everything. Somebody grew the food, somebody processed it, somebody put it on a truck and somebody drove that truck to the store. Every step costs money, and fuel is part of that cost. When we lower the cost of moving goods, we help lower the cost of doing business right across this country. The same goes for construction. Liberals keep talking in the House about building more homes, but talk is cheap. It does not build homes. Canadians do not need another list of projects sitting on paper. They need shovels in the ground. They need homes built. They need mines opened. They need roads, pipelines and infrastructure moving. They need Canadian resources getting to market, and most importantly they need the jobs that come with all of it. A project does not employ a worker because Ottawa announced it. It creates opportunity when somebody actually builds it. That is how we grow this economy. That is how we raise paycheques, and that is ultimately what affordability is all about. It is not just what Canadians pay; it is also what Canadians earn. Canadians need jobs. They need investment. They need businesses expanding and hiring. They need projects moving from an announcement to a construction site. That is how Canadians get ahead. People should keep more of what they earn. Small businesses should have room to grow. Workers should receive bigger paycheques. That brings me to another major economic challenge facing Canadian workers and businesses, the trade war with the United States. Tariffs raise costs. There is no question about that. Trading tariffs back and forth does not make groceries cheaper or businesses more competitive. The Prime Minister has spent considerable time pursuing new economic relationships in Europe, but Europe is not going to simply replace the United States. Look at our auto sector. Statistics Canada reported that more than 93% of our motor vehicle exports go south of the border. That is the reality that Canadian auto workers are facing. We can pursue opportunities in Europe. We can diversify our trade somewhat. We can sell more Canadian products around the world, but European customers are not going to replace the 1.5 million Canadian vehicles sold annually to the U.S.A. Our auto industry was built around an integrated North American market. Right now, that market is being disrupted by tariffs. The Prime Minister has to get to work. He has to get the trade war resolved. He has to get the tariffs off Canadian workers and Canadian businesses. Canadian auto workers cannot afford to wait while their largest export market becomes more expensive to access. Canadian manufacturers cannot plan investments when they do not know what the rules will be six months from now, and Canadian businesses cannot simply be told to find another market and move on. The United States is our largest trading partner. That relationship matters. The Prime Minister needs to get back to work here at home, get back to the table with the United States and get this trade war resolved. That is what he promised in the last election. Canadian workers need results. The government claims it is serious about affordability, so it should be looking at every opportunity to lower costs and strengthen the Canadian economy. Lower the cost of fuel. Get our products to market. Remove the barriers to building homes. Cut unnecessary red tape. Create the conditions for businesses to invest, expand and hire. Protect Canada's access to its largest trading partner. The Liberal government cannot tax Canadians into prosperity, try as it might, and it cannot replace economic results with announcements. International meetings have their place, and new trade relationships have their place, but Canadians should be able to look at what their government is doing and see those efforts producing results here at home: more jobs, more investment, more homes, more projects getting built and paycheques that actually go further. Canadians are doing their part: the single mother driving to work every morning, the tradesman loading his truck before sunrise, the farmer putting fuel in his equipment, the trucker moving Canadian goods across this enormous country, and the small business owner trying to make payroll. Those are the people we should be thinking about when we debate the bill. They benefit from paying less tax on fuel. The question is straightforward. If extending the relief through January helps Canadians, why not give them a few more months? Why not extend broader fuel tax relief until at least Canada Day 2027? Give Canadian families more time with lower fuel costs. Give farmers and truckers more breathing room. Give small businesses more time with lower operating costs.

Mr. Speaker, clearly the United States is our biggest trading partner. The Prime Minister ran a whole campaign saying he was the person who would get a deal with the United States. Where is it? Why not get back to the table with our largest trading partner? Tariffs upon tariffs do not benefit Canadians. We have to get back to the table. We have to get a tariff-free deal with the United States of America, our biggest trading partner. We just cannot sit back and say we are going to replace that market with the European market. It does not work that way.

Mr. Speaker, we have already seen the result of the tit-for-tat tariffs, because Canadian businesses are being hurt. That is the great irony. The government goes after the U.S. and slaps on a tariff, but Canadian businesses are actually going out of business because of it. We have to get back to the table and negotiate tariff-free access to the United States of America, our biggest trading partner. We are not going to replace it with Europe, despite the fact that the Prime Minister spends more time in Europe than he does here in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are stretched thin. They are paying more for groceries, more for gas, more for rent, more for everything. Now the Liberals want them to pay more to stream their favourite shows and movies online. With this new policy, the CRTC is ordering online streaming services like Netflix and Disney to pay more of their annual Canadian revenues to fund Canadian content. It is not the first time the Liberals have tried to do this. Under the Liberals, the CRTC introduced a 5% tax on revenues. That tax is being challenged and is still before the courts. Now it wants to increase the tax from 5% to 15%, and that is wrong. Let us call it what it is: This is a streaming tax. A tax is a tax is a tax. Canadians know exactly what happens next. Big corporations simply do not absorb new costs. They pass them on to consumers. That means higher monthly bills for Canadian families who are already struggling with the cost of living crisis the Liberal government created. The Liberals can try to dress this up in bureaucratic language. They can call it a contribution, and they can call it modernization, but Canadians know better. If it walks like a tax and costs like a tax, it is a tax. Canadians can smell a rat, and they can smell a tax too. This Liberal tax will drive up the cost of living for all Canadians who have to shell out for online streaming services. This is just another example of a government that believes Canadians are somehow undertaxed. Conservatives have always believed in letting Canadians keep more of their own money in their own pockets. By contrast, the Liberals are always the ones with their hands in Canadians' pockets. We have repeatedly called on the government to remove all taxes on gasoline and diesel at the pumps to give some measure of tax relief to beleaguered Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberals have only responded with half measures, including taking off a few cents a litre in taxes, but we know more can be done. After 11 years of the Liberal government, life has become more expensive. Mortgage payments have doubled for many families. Food inflation has hammered household budgets. Food bank usage has doubled since 2019 to nearly 2.2 million visits per month. One in four Canadian kids now go to school hungry. Canadians are struggling. At the same time, interest rates have soared. Why? It is because the government fuelled that inflation with its reckless spending. The Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, which was $31 billion. This allegedly new and improved leader has a projected deficit of $65 billion. Now the Liberals want to make our entertainment more expensive too. Canadians use streaming services because they want choice, convenience and affordability, and the Liberals are threatening all three. The Liberals have already pushed through the Online Streaming Act. Conservatives warned that bill would open the door to more government control, more CRTC interference and more costs for consumers. We were right. The Liberals claimed ordinary Canadians would not be affected, but now we see the consequences. We see the higher costs. We know there is more red tape. Ultimately, we know it is due to more government meddling. It is the same old Liberal platform: tax, spend, repeat. This decision also sends the wrong message to investors. Canada should be attracting investment, not driving it away. Businesses need certainty. They need competitiveness. They need a government that understands economic growth. Instead, under the Liberal government, all they get is endless regulation, escalating costs and unpredictable markets. Why would companies invest more in Canada when the Liberal government keeps moving the goalposts? Why would innovators choose Canada when they are punished with higher fees and heavier regulation? Conservatives believe in supporting Canadian culture, but we do not strengthen it by punishing investment, driving up costs and undermining economic growth. This decision creates uncertainty at the worst possible time. Canada's economy is already weak. Productivity is declining. Investment is lagging behind our competitors. Businesses are leaving. This 15% tax hike places Canada among the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the world for streaming services. Put simply, it discourages business investment in Canada and will further devastate Canadian film and television production hubs like Vancouver and Toronto. In the face of declining capital, the Liberals are responding the only way they know how, with another tax hike for already struggling Canadians. That is backward and Conservatives will stand against it. This decision also risks damaging Canada's relationship with the United States ahead of a CUSMA review. At a time when we should be reducing trade tensions, the Liberals are creating new trade irritants. The U.S. ambassador to Canada said, “CRTC’s decision to triple the tax rate on leading streaming services is making a bad situation worse. CRTC is targeting and taxing U.S. companies, putting up new, discriminatory trade barriers, and worsening the investment climate for American businesses.” That is exactly what the government is doing: making a bad situation worse. While we are on the topic, how are those trade talks going? I remember that, for the first Canada-U.S. trade deal under Justin Trudeau, there were discussions many months in advance. The true irony of this is that the new Prime Minister sold himself to Canadians as the man who could get a deal with Mr. Trump by July 2025. Obviously, that failed. I am pessimistic about his ability to get a new trade deal anytime soon, especially when his government is increasing tensions between our countries with more needless taxation. That is just irresponsible. The United States has already raised concerns about discriminatory digital taxes and regulatory measures targeting American companies. The Liberals should be working to strengthen North American trade, not weaken it. Our economy depends on stable and predictable trade relationships. The government should not be picking fights with our largest trading partner just to satisfy its ideological obsession with big government. It is not just American organizations that are against this tax hike. It has also faced criticism from Canadian domestic screenwriters and creators, including the Writers Guild of Canada. Conservatives believe in lower taxes. We believe Canadians should keep more of their own money. We believe government should spend within its means, instead of driving up its deficit and constantly reaching deeper into Canadians' pockets. We believe consumers, not bureaucrats, should decide what Canadians watch online. The streaming tax is costly, careless and completely unnecessary. That is why we are calling on the Liberals to reject the CRTC's decision. The government has the authority to act. It should eliminate this streaming tax before Canadians are forced to pay the price. Canadians cannot afford more Liberal taxes. They cannot afford more inflation. They certainly cannot afford another Liberal government cash grab disguised as cultural policy. Conservatives will continue fighting for affordability, for taxpayers and for common sense.

Mr. Speaker, no, of course we do not want to attack Quebec culture, but let us call this what it is. This is not an attack on culture. This is an attack on Canadians' wallets. It is one of the few pleasures that people seem to have these days. They can sit back and stream Disney+ and Netflix. The Liberal government wants to take even that small pleasure away from them, and that is just unconscionable.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are concerned. The Liberals are on track to add $1 trillion to the national debt since taking office just 11 years ago. Just as with our personal credit cards, Canadians know we will have to pay that bill. The Liberal Prime Minister is not a good steward of our tax dollars. It is an illusion. We have more costs, more taxes, more debt. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. When will he get serious? When will he end his costly credit card budgeting so Canadians can afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, I chose Edmonton as my home more than 40 years ago. It is a great city. It is friendly and full of honest, hard-working people, but lately, Edmonton is struggling. People are afraid to ride city trains and buses. Many are afraid to go downtown. They read about violent crime and see used needles in the streets. It is all because this great city has been plagued with a drug epidemic. There have been 613 drug poisoning deaths just between January 1 and the end of November 2025. Fentanyl is the killer. Last year, it accounted for 75% of opioid deaths compared to just 15% in 2024. Clearly, the Liberals' supervised drug consumption sites do not work. People do not need a place to do drugs; they need a place to get off of drugs. Instead of consumption sites, we need to help those struggling with addictions to get off the streets, get off the drugs and become productive members of society.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the Edmonton Griesbach riding. I will be using my time to speak to Bill C-22. Bill C-22 is significant. It touches on public safety, privacy and the fundamental relationship between citizens and the government. That means we absolutely have to get it right. It goes without saying that Conservatives believe in law and order. We have always stood for common-sense measures to keep Canadians safe. For the past decade, we have been urging the Liberal government to reverse its failed policies and restore safety to our communities. Instead, the Liberals have let the situation get out of control. Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, which would have fallen well short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in other areas. Thanks to the work of our Conservative team, we forced the Liberals to back down from Bill C-2, successfully blocking their infringement of individual freedoms and privacy. We stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash. We stopped them from opening mail without oversight. We stopped them from demanding that any service provider, including even dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Now we are presented with Bill C-22. While this bill excludes some provisions that Conservatives opposed, it also reintroduces parts of the failed Bill C-2. My Conservative colleagues and I continue to carefully review every line of this bill, as lawmakers. This legislation requires the necessary scrutiny and, yes, skepticism. Conservatives take this responsibility seriously. We support law enforcement. We want officers to have the tools they need to keep Canadians safe. That is not in question. It has never been in question. Also, we know these powers must be accompanied by strong safeguards, clear limits and independent oversight to protect Canadians' rights and freedoms. At the same time, we stand for the rights and freedoms of Canadians. We stand for privacy and due process. Those two principles must go hand in hand. We will continue working to ensure that privacy and due process are protected, with this legislation and all future legislation. Unlike the Liberal government, we believe in listening before legislating. As a result, Conservatives have spoken with law enforcement about Bill C-22. What we heard was clear. Officers want tools, and they want clarity. They want to be able to act quickly when it matters most. Of course, we agree with that. We welcome measures that lawfully, and with proper judicial oversight, allow police to access information needed to stop serious crime. Here is the concern. Too often with the Liberal government, the devil is in the details. We have seen it before. We saw it in Bill C-2. What was packaged as a so-called border bill actually included proposals to inspect Canadians' mail without a warrant. Canadians rejected that. We saw it again in Bill C-8, a cybersecurity bill that made sense on the surface but also included sweeping ministerial powers with little oversight. Now we have Bill C-22, and serious concerns remain. One of the biggest concerns I have with this legislation is about oversight. This bill would grant significant authority. In some cases, that authority would rest with ministers, not with the courts or with independent bodies. That is a problem. Ministerial authority is not the same as judicial oversight. It is not the same as accountability. It risks becoming arbitrary. Canadians have reason to be skeptical of Bill C-22. The government has a track record. Time and time again, it has pushed the limits of government power. Time and time again, the Liberals have asked Canadians to simply trust them, but trust must be earned, and right now it is in short supply. Civil liberties groups from across the spectrum have raised alarms about Bill C-22. That should tell us something. It tells us we need to slow down and take a closer look. This is not just about technology or policing tools. This is about Canadians' personal information, their data, their communications, their private lives. Metadata alone can reveal a great deal, more than many people realize, yet we are being asked to consider provisions that would involve broad data practices without clear limits or definitions. For example, the bill does not clearly define what constitutes a service provider. That could mean telecom companies. It could mean email providers. It could mean messaging apps or cloud storage. In other words, it could mean access to deeply personal aspects of Canadians' lives. This is not a small matter. We cannot afford vague definitions because once those powers exist, they do not just apply today. They apply tomorrow. They apply to future governments as well. This is not about partisanship but about principle. We must always ask, “How could this power be used, and how could it be misused?” This is our duty as legislators, and it is a duty Conservatives will uphold as we continue to examine this proposed legislation. As legislators, we cannot look at lawful access in isolation. If we are serious about public safety, we need a system that works from start to finish. This includes bail and sentencing. This includes giving police the support they have been asking for over the past number of years. Too often, the government has been selective, listening to law enforcement when it suits it and ignoring it when it does not. Conservatives will always stand with those on the front lines, but we will not accept a trade-off when Canadians' rights are weakened in the process. On one hand, we must ensure that those who enforce our laws have the tools they need. On the other, we must protect the fundamental rights and freedoms that define our nation. Conservatives will not sacrifice one for the other. If we get this wrong, the consequences will be serious. We have seen what happens when legislation is rushed and when concerns are dismissed. This is why we will not rubber-stamp Bill C-22. We will do our job. We will study it, question it and propose amendments where needed. We will listen to experts, law enforcement, civil liberties advocates and Canadians, because that is what responsible lawmakers do. We deeply support the objective of keeping Canadians safe. We support giving police effective tools. However, we will not ignore the risks of government overreach or the need for oversight. We will not ignore the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In closing, Bill C-22 raises serious and complex questions. It shows some progress, true, but it is clearly not there yet. It requires careful examination, detailed study, and scrutiny at committee and beyond. Conservatives will continue to stand for common-sense solutions that protect Canadians' individual freedoms, privacy and safety. That work is still ahead of us.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in my speech, we support giving the police tools. However, Canadians have a right to be skeptical of the Liberal government. In previous legislation, we stopped the Liberals from limiting the use of cash, opening mail without oversight and demanding that any service provider, including hospitals and dry cleaners, disclose user data without judicial oversight. Canadians have a right to be skeptical, and Conservatives are going to fight anything in this bill that looks suspicious.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was asked yesterday what he would do to help Canadians suffering with high gas and diesel prices. He did not have an answer. Even in oil-rich Alberta, folks are paying well over two bucks a litre for diesel. Here is an easy way for the Prime Minister to help. The feds are hauling in record revenues from high oil prices, so they can use $5 billion of that estimated $9 billion to help hard-hit Canadians. Conservatives have a plan: suspend the fuel excise tax, suspend the GST on gas and diesel, and kill the so-called clean fuel standard tax and the hated industrial carbon tax. That would cut 20¢ a litre off the price of gas and 21¢ off the price of diesel. Canadians are suffering. They desperately need some relief from the pain at the pumps. The Liberal government must give them the relief they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, my private members' bill, Bill C-243, is being read for the second time today. It is a common-sense bill that would lessen the anguish of people who have had loved ones stolen from them by murder. This Conservative bill would reduce annual parole hearings for murderers from every year to every five years. Parole hearings are traumatizing. This would be a compassionate law supporting the loved ones of murder victims, and it is endorsed by thousands of Canadians and police nationwide, so will the Liberals stand up for victims—

Mr. Speaker, June 15, 2012, was a dark day in Edmonton. A young man named Brian Ilesic was one of three armoured-car guards who were murdered. The other victims were Michelle Shegelski, Eddie Rejano, and Matthew Schuman. As they serviced ATMs in the Hub Mall on the University of Alberta campus in Edmonton, their co-worker, Travis Baumgartner, shot and killed Brian, Michelle and Eddie. Baumgartner then locked them in a vault behind the ATM and fled like a coward in the armoured truck. Thankfully, Matthew's life was spared, although he was critically injured. Brian was just 35 years old, a devoted father, a loyal friend and a cherished son. In 2012, the savage murderer Baumgartner was found guilty, but Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, are dreading the day when they will have to face him at a parole hearing. I want to dedicate this speech to Brian and to his parents, Mike and Dianne, who are watching what is happening today. This bill is for them, and it is for all the victims left behind. For families, the suffering goes on for decades. In many cases, those left behind must face the person responsible at parole hearings. As it now stands, if a convicted murderer applies for parole and is denied the first time, he or she can apply for another parole hearing just one year later and year after year afterwards. Under Bill C-243, convicted murderers could only apply for parole every five years instead of each and every year. The trauma endured at these parole hearings is well documented. The families of the victims of Paul Bernardo have spoken about this. They spoke about the pain of being forced back into that nightmare again and again. Another person watching today is Christina Trang. Her father was murdered in Chinatown, which is part of my riding of Edmonton Griesbach. She supports this bill. Our justice system must protect the rights of the accused and the rights of the victims and their families. Right now, many Canadians believe that balance has tipped too far. They feel that the rights of murderers are placed before the rights of the loved ones left behind. Hundreds of Canadians coast to coast have signed my petition in support of this bill. This bill would not undermine justice. It would strengthen it. It would ensure that victims and their families are treated with the dignity they deserve, while still respecting the integrity of our legal system. I believe all MPs on both sides of the House will support that, and I am hoping they will vote for this bill to go to committee for further study. To colleagues on both sides of this aisle, I ask them to think about the Canadians in their riding who have signed petitions and written letters asking for this bill. Please represent them, stand up for them and support this common-sense legislation. I am grateful that this bill has received support from the president of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the president of the Canadian Police Association, the Alberta Federation of Police Associations, the Calgary Police Association, the Toronto Police Association and the Ottawa Police Association. It also has the support of Teamsters Canada and Teamsters Local 362, which represented Brian. I would also like to thank Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu and Senator Denise Batters for their support, as well as my good friend, the MP for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, for his support. I thank again Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne. This bill is not about politics. It is about people. It is about victims. It is about families whose lives have been shattered by senseless, brutal violence. We can build a justice system that treats victims with the respect and compassion they deserve. That is what Bill C-243 seeks to do. This is for Brian Ilesic. This is for every victim of violent crime and for every family left behind.

Mr. Speaker, there is reckless government spending, hidden carbon taxes and red tape. After 11 years of the Liberals, there is an affordability crisis. Household debt alone is now a record $2.6 trillion. A recent poll found that 57% of millennials are nearly broke after paying monthly bills. A generation that should be building wealth is draining savings. This week, several university students told me they fear they will never afford a home. It is a Canadian dream to own a home, but under the Liberals, it is now just a pipe dream. Why is that?

Madam Speaker, today I rise to present a petition signed by my constituents in Edmonton Griesbach. This petition highlights the 26-year persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. My constituents say this persecution has included torture, killings and forced organ harvesting. The petitioners call on the federal government to take urgent action to end these abuses and protect a community targeted by foreign repression. I am pleased to bring this critical matter forward.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by prices at the grocery store. Well, eight months later, those prices have skyrocketed. I have heard countless horror stories in Edmonton of families struggling to afford food. I have even heard of single moms selling their furniture online to pay for rent and groceries. Just this week, Miranda from North Edmonton told me she honestly does not know how people are getting by; it is heat or eat. When will the Liberals cut their inflationary spending and gas the industrial carbon tax so that Canadians can afford to eat?

Mr. Speaker, I say condolences to the 1,000 workers laid off from Algoma Steel in my hometown of Sault Ste. Marie. My dad, Tony, worked at Algoma for over 30 years. The Prime Minister is squarely to blame for these layoffs. In the election, our elbows-up PM said he was the guy who could get a good trade deal with Donald Trump. Instead of a deal, the PM said, “Who cares?” We then saw higher tariffs on Canadian goods. The results are these layoffs and others. When will the Prime Minister finally get a deal with Trump?

Mr. Speaker, let us play “today in history”. It has been 133 days since the Prime Minister said he would have a trade deal with Donald Trump's U.S.A. It was the PM's main campaign promise, but he broke it. It is now December, and there is no deal in sight. Tariffs are higher: Softwood lumber tariffs exceed 45%, tariffs on steel are 25%, and they are 25% on some Canadian autos. It is now almost impossible to sell many crucial products to the U.S., and jobs are being lost. The Prime Minister travels the world to get trade deals with other countries, but he fails there too. Tariffs have now increased on Canadian products shipping to the U.K., India, China and other nations. The PM has racked up the air miles, but that is money for nothing. We do not need a globetrotter; we need a deal maker, but the Prime Minister is not that guy. Conservatives, though, will always fight for Canadian workers and jobs.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak about public safety in Canada or, more accurately, the lack of public safety in our country under the Liberal government. Bill C-14 is another classic miss by the Liberals. Right now, we should be strengthening Canada's bail laws and protecting law-abiding citizens. We should be making the public safer and keeping criminals in jail. We should be protecting victims from dangerous offenders and keeping murderers behind bars where they belong. Instead, the Liberals have put forward a bill that does not come close to the changes we need to fix Canada's justice system. We need to be tough on crime. We need to keep criminals in jail. We especially need to keep repeat violent offenders behind bars. We should be increasing penalties for repeat violent criminals, including people who commit sexual assault. This is about public safety. It is just common sense. Conservatives have been pointing this out for years. The Liberals' soft-on-crime approach to bail is simply not working. We have taken issue with their generous bail laws in the past and sentencing reforms that return criminals to the streets. Time and time again, their laws have granted criminals the freedom to keep causing chaos. These revolving-door policies allow criminals to reoffend. Unfortunately for Canadians, under the Liberals, criminals essentially have a get-out-of-jail-free card. It is a dangerous game of Monopoly. This summer, our country was plagued by a string of high-profile violent crimes. It is heartbreaking to know that each and every one of these crimes was preventable, and each crime was a failure of our system to protect our citizens. Sadly, many of these crimes occurred in my community of Edmonton. Just this summer, Cody Desjarlais was in jail facing 27 charges, including impaired driving, yet he got bail. He was released on July 4, and less than two weeks later, he went on a crime spree. He stole a vehicle. He then used this stolen vehicle to plow into a 59-year-old cyclist. After that, he attacked and stabbed a 40-year-old man. He now has a laundry list of charges, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of stolen property, two counts of dangerous operation, driving while prohibited, breach of release order, possessing a weapon dangerous to the public, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, failing to stop after an accident and theft of a motor vehicle. Desjarlais should never have had the chance to go out on this crime spree. He should have remained behind bars. The public should have remained safe from him. Desjarlais' crimes were severe and dangerous enough but, sadly, crimes committed by others who got out on bail have been even worse. Here is one story of a crime that did not have to happen. It was horrendous. It is the murder of Bailey McCourt. Bailey was murdered in a parking lot by her ex-husband, James Plover. However, here is the thing: Plover had been released on bail following an assault conviction just hours before murdering Bailey. This murder obviously should never have happened. James should have been behind bars. Just that afternoon, he had been convicted of choking someone and uttering threats. He was a dangerous offender who should have been locked up. Instead, he was out and free to cause even more harm. Our justice system had the chance to protect Bailey McCourt, but our laws failed her. Another person who fell victim to the Liberals' weak bail laws was Marina Simard. Marina was just 18 years old, with her entire life ahead of her. Sadly, she was murdered by her 26-year-old brother, Tyrone. Guess what. He was out on bail. There are so many heartbreaking examples of this happening. There are too many to share in my time today, but I also must mention Savannah Kulla. Savannah was a 29-year-old mother of four who was brutally shot and killed at a Brampton strip mall. Her killer, Anthony Deschepper, surprise, surprise, was out on bail. Following Savannah's senseless murder, one detective shared some stark comments about the crime spree with the Toronto Sun. A detective told reporters: If you continue to release these sorts of people, events like this are going to happen. It’s inevitable.... There are so many people out there like this; no community is safe. And now, because of the broken bail system, a young woman has paid with her life. This murder was preventable. It is just a matter of keeping criminals behind bars. How hard is that? My heart goes out to the families and loved ones of these victims. To the families of Bailey McCourt, Marina Simard and Savannah Kulla, I say I am so sorry for their loss and for the heartbreak they have endured. Let this be a reminder to all of us. The legislation we pass in this place has real consequences. We must stand up for Canadians, protect them and keep them safe. As I have said, Bill C-14 is a missed opportunity to do just that. It is a missed opportunity to strengthen penalties for serious violent offences. It is a missed opportunity for the Liberals to recognize the disastrous mistakes being made. It is a missed opportunity to keep Canadians safe. The laws in our country must change. Since 2015, violent crime is up 55%. Firearms crime is up 130%. Extortion has risen 330% across Canada. Sexual assaults are up 76%, and homicides are up 29%. A recent poll by Leger Marketing asked Canadians about public safety. Unfortunately, the results confirm what Conservatives already knew: Canadians do not feel safe. The poll found that 51% of Canadians say they are worried about general safety in their own neighbourhood and that more than half of Canadians feel that the justice system is working against the interests of citizens. Police officers across this country know that the lax Liberal laws are not working. The Saskatoon police chief, Cam McBride, has called for urgent bail reform. He said, “There are, at any point in time, violent [offenders] in our communities that really need the support and structure of incarceration or remand”. The Police Association of Ontario has blasted Canada's bail system, warning that it is putting communities at risk. The president of the association said: Every day, our members work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of the communities we serve, yet violent and repeat offenders are routinely released on bail and returned to the streets.... This ongoing threat undermines public safety, erodes confidence in our justice system, and puts both police officers and innocent people at risk. There is one good thing this bill accomplishes. It is an admission by the Liberals that their criminal justice reforms have failed. In a press release, the Liberals acknowledged this problem themselves. They noted that there has been a 41% rise in the violent crime severity index since 2014. That is outrageous. Conservatives will always work to toughen bail laws. We must put public safety and community safety ahead of the rights of criminals. We must keep serious, dangerous offenders off our streets. My colleagues and I are calling on the government to end crime, chaos and disorder in our streets.

Mr. Speaker, I hear it all the time in my community. It really is terrifying and so sad that in a country like Canada, people are afraid to be out on the streets in their own neighbourhoods. As a parliamentarian, I truly believe that the first order of business for Canadians, for parliamentarians, is to keep citizens safe. That should be job one. There should be no reason that people could not walk in their own community, day or night, safely. They should not be afraid to be out and about at any time of the day or night.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, first responders are often victims of crime; because they are first to respond, they are always in danger. I have talked to first responders personally. They feel very strongly that we need tougher laws so that they are not in danger, and that the people who are repeat violent offenders must be kept in jail so that the first responders can do their job of treating people, as they should, and not have to deal with assaults on their person.

moved that Bill C-243, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole review), be read the second time and referred to a committee. Madam Speaker, it is my profound honour to rise today to speak to my private members' bill, Bill C-243. Before I begin, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu and Senator Denise Batters. I would also like to extend my gratitude to my esteemed colleague, the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River. I thank them for all their tireless dedication and work on Bill S-281. That was the earlier version of the legislation. It laid the groundwork for what we are discussing today. Now, Bill S-281 was lost when Parliament was prorogued, but its spirit and purpose endure in the current bill, Bill C-243. The bill is dedicated to the memory of the late Brian Ilesic. Brian was just 35 years old when he was murdered. He was described as a devoted father, a loyal friend and a cherished son. This callous crime unfolded just after midnight on June 15, 2012. It happened when Brian and three others, Michelle Shegelski, Eddie Rejano and Matthew Schuman, were working as armoured car guards. They were employed by G4S Cash Solutions and were servicing ATMs in the HUB Mall, a food court on the University of Alberta campus in Edmonton. Suddenly, their co-worker, Travis Baumgartner, turned on them. He shot and killed Brian, Michelle and Eddie with point-blank gunshots to the back of the head. After shooting his co-workers, Baumgartner locked them in a vault behind the ATM and fled in the armoured truck. It was a cold-blooded act of violence that shocked students and rocked our community. Edmontonians have seldom witnessed anything so brutal. Miraculously, Brian's colleague Matthew survived, but to this day he lives with life-altering injuries. Brian's 12-year-old daughter, Kiannah, was left without a dad. She will grow up with fond memories of her father, but that is all she will have. She will never have her father at her side when she graduates from high school. Her father will not be there on her wedding day. Her children will never know their grandfather. Every father lives to be there for such precious occasions, but death has robbed their family of these precious moments. In 2012, this savage murderer was found guilty. He was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years. It was the harshest sentence delivered in Canada since 1962. There was some justice in this tragic story, or so we believed. The sentence correctly reflected the depth of the suffering he caused: three people murdered in cold blood, one person disabled for life. However, a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 2022 overturned the law passed by former prime minister Stephen Harper. The law had allowed judges to give consecutive sentences in the event of multiple murders. Brian's murderer ended three lives in a horrendous, heartless act, but because of the court's decision, the man who killed Brian could now be eligible to apply for parole in about a dozen years. Brian's parents, Mike and Dianne Ilesic, will now have to decide far earlier than expected whether they will attend a parole hearing for the man who callously murdered their son. It gets worse. As it now stands, if a convicted murderer applies for parole and is denied the first time, he or she could apply for another parole hearing just one year later. We can think of the trauma that Mike and Dianne would face in that situation. It would emotionally scar them. It would bring back horrific memories of their loving son's senseless murder. Bill C-243 seeks to right that wrong. It stands for justice: justice for Brian, justice for his family and justice for every victim whose voice was silenced too soon at the hands of a murderer. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in 2022, Mike and Dianne bravely spoke out against the decision, and they have repeatedly spoken out, not just for their son but for every family member who has suffered at the hands of a cruel killer. Dianne said she and her husband felt deflated by the Supreme Court's decision. That is understandable. She went on to say that she and her husband had lost faith in the system. The system failed them. I have recently spoken with Mike and Dianne. They are a true testament of strength and resilience. While we were discussing my proposed bill, they told me this: “This bill would certainly lessen the trauma that victims go through before, during and after the parole process takes place. Avoiding frequent trips for the purpose of attending parole hearings would assure victims that the perpetrators of the crime remain contained in jail.” Mike and Dianne are pleading that all politicians across party lines will answer their prayers. They told me to please tell my colleagues this: “The bill supports all victims left behind. Parole hearings tend to be emotionally draining. Please stop the process of having frequent parole hearings. Please have the House of Commons approve Brian's bill.” Mike and Dianne said it so eloquently. The bill is about protecting victims. It recognizes the horrific heartache families have gone through, and it aims to protect them. Currently, convicted murderers can apply for parole each and every year after having served their minimum sentence. That means that each and every year, victims' families could come face to face with their loved one's murderer. Victims' families have to endure this every year to stop murderers from getting parole. Can anyone imagine facing, each and every year, the murderer who killed their son, or having to face the person who killed their daughter or best friend, or who murdered their mother? Murderers simply should not be able to revictimize the loved ones of their victims at parole hearings. Paul Bernardo is another notorious murderer who has plagued our nation. He kidnapped, tortured and killed 15-year-old Kristen French. He kidnapped, tortured and killed 14-year-old Leslie Mahaffy. The lives of these two young women were cruelly snuffed out. Bernardo has had three parole hearings to date. His first hearing was in October 2018. He was rightly denied. His second hearing was in June 2021; he was once again denied. His third hearing was in November 2024, and he was denied again. That means that the French and Mahaffy families attended two parole board hearings for Bernardo in less than three years. That is outrageous. The families of Bernardo's victims have been open and honest about the pain the parole hearings have brought them, and it serves to illustrate how painful it is for anyone in this country to have to face the murderer of their loved one. I want to give a voice to Kristen French's mother, Donna. This is what she had to say about the repeated parole applications: It seems that just as the ink has dried on our previous victim impact statement, Doug and I have to muster up the strength to prepare a second statement. This is a painful and difficult process as there are no words that can capture the depth of our loss, anguish and despair. I will also share these powerful words from Donna: For those who say that time heals, they don't know the excruciating pain that comes from such a horrific loss. Time doesn't heal the pain. The pain is a life sentence. Parole hearings for multiple murders are likely far more common than many Canadians would believe. Let us look at a small piece of that dark history. Between 2009 and 2010, the Parole Board held 23 full hearings for people convicted of multiple murders. As of 2011, there were 4,420 offenders serving life sentences for first- and second-degree murder. Of those, 421 killed more than one person, and of those, 95 were out on full parole. We are in a country that most of the world believes is safe, but it gets worse. Between 2022 and 2023, there were 199 parole hearings where victims gave impact statements. I read a Public Safety Canada report from 2010, and the report stated: ...families of a homicide victim appear to feel a sense of responsibility to be present to represent their loved one(s). Some families have expressed the view that their presence is essential so that their loved one is not forgotten in a process that is largely focused on the offender. It is therefore a burden on victims that, presently, hearings for those serving life and indefinite sentences can apply for parole.... We as a country must do better for victims. My bill would spare scores of families from suffering and enduring additional, frequent pain from the justice system. Again, this bill would mean murderers would only get to apply for parole every five years after their first denial. Our justice system needs to protect families. Families should come first, not murderers. Bill C-243 would take common-sense action to protect grieving families. With this bill, Brian's parents Mike and Dianne would not have to face, every year, the monster who killed their son. In my view and in the view of the majority of Canadians, the current process makes a mockery of justice. I want to give my personal thanks to Mike and Dianne for being so brave and so forthcoming in their support for this important piece of legislation. I sincerely hope and pray that my fellow parliamentarians on both sides of this House will support it. Please do it. Do it for Mike and Dianne.

Mr. Speaker, I am not a lawyer and I am not about to do lawyers' work or judges' work. This bill comes from the heart. We need to recognize the pain of these victims. I have to admit that I choked up reading some of the thoughts from Mike and Dianne, who have to face that monster every year. Every year the same person is coming before them and they have to relive it. I can imagine they probably do not sleep at night in the weeks leading up to the hearing. I would imagine they feel tense and tearful. I have gotten to know this fine couple. The fact that they are willing to be so brave and stand up and bring up the memories of their son is so admirable. I beg members across the way to please get on board with this bill. It is up to the courts to decide the law, but let us rule from the heart on this one.

Mr. Speaker, the whole intent of the bill is basically to do that, to accomplish that. Instead of the offender coming back year after year, it would mean they had only one shot every five years. Whether somebody appears live, by video or any other way, it still brings up those awful feelings and just puts them through sheer hell. This is the ideal bill to solve that whole issue, help victims and put victims ahead of murderers for once.

Madam Speaker, I know it is not exactly tradition to ask for a round of applause in this House, but our Conservative caucus deserves one today. That is because when the Liberals first introduced the bill in its original form, we fought long and hard against this disaster. It was because of our pressure that the Liberals backed down on the worst of it. Thanks to the work of our Conservative caucus, the government has not given powers to Canada Post to open any mail, including simple letters, without a warrant. Our work stopped the government from banning cash payments and donations of more than $10,000. We stopped the government from having the ability to access personal information without first seeking a warrant. We stopped the government from being able to use Canadians' personal banking information if it suspected that someone was involved, in any way, in money laundering. This is a list of groups that were insulted by the ham-fisted first attempt at the bill. In June, 300 organizations were opposed to the government overreach included in the first version of the bill, and it is quite a list. It included the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the BC Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the United Church of Canada, the Migrant Rights Network, the Canadian Council for Refugees, Amnesty International and OpenMedia. They are all opposed. It is hard to believe how many people the Liberals could possibly offend. They have to work hard to cause this kind of outrage. However, we are not done. There is more. The bill was also opposed by the HIV Legal Network, the Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers, Climate Action Network Canada, the Centre for Free Expression, the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association and the Canadian Muslim Public Affairs Council. Even with this newer, improved bill, there is still opposition from the likes of Amnesty International Canada and other organizations. These groups are working to protect civil liberties, data privacy and refugee rights, and they all strongly oppose the legislation. They say it tries to fast-track, rather than address, many aspects of the previous bill, which was called Bill C-2. It is shocking that the Privacy Commissioner said the Liberals did not even consult him before the bill was considered. They did not consult him when they were trying to grant themselves sweeping new powers. They wanted to access Canadians' personal information from service providers, including banks and telecoms. We are talking about access to vital personal information without so much as a warrant. That is the kind of overreach that the Liberal government would have love to see. I know Canadians are rightly suspicious of government overreach, and they should be. We have seen how the Liberal government tries to take an inch and turn it into a mile. For example, let us look at what the Liberals are doing to law-abiding gun owners. The government is attacking law-abiding gun owners. In a typical Liberal overreach, the government is trying to force these good citizens to give up the legally purchased and owned guns that they use for hunting and sport shooting. This is the type of government control that alarms Canadians, and it is typical of the Liberals. They want an inch, and it somehow turns into a mile. Conservatives will continue to fight on that front. We will continue fighting so that law-abiding gun owners are not punished for wanting to hunt or go sport shooting. At the same time, the government still refuses to have mandatory prison sentences for gangsters who use guns to commit crimes. We know that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed using guns that have been illegally smuggled across the border. It is not grandpa with his gopher gun who is committing crimes, yet the Liberals want to go after law-abiding gun owners. Can Canadians believe that? It is incredible. It is almost unbelievable. Here is another classic example of the Liberal government's overreach: its ridiculous EV mandate. If the Liberals get their way, by 2035, under the EV mandate, Canadians will not be able to buy new gas-powered or diesel-powered vehicles. Can we imagine that? This mandate is a punitive tax on drivers, because those EVs are very expensive, but it is so typical of these “Ottawa knows best” Liberals. The thing that gets me is that, right now, hybrid vehicles are actually fairly popular in Canada. This mandate would outlaw—

Madam Speaker, the vehicle manufacturers of Canada are dead set against this EV mandate, as are all the major car manufacturers. I have talked to representatives from the industry, and they are all dead set against it. How does it even make sense that in a climate as cold as Canada's, the government would force such an insane law upon us? I have a friend who has a Tesla. He loves it in the summer. He barely even drives it in the winter because when he turns on the heater, as he tells me, it sucks so much of the battery that he worries he will not be able to get back and forth from work. Now the government has paused the mandate for a year. That is true, but it needs to be killed completely, and Conservatives will continue to fight this government overreach. Now, let us get back to the legislation at hand. The Liberals claim that the new bill, Bill C-12, would crack down on precursor chemicals, which is great. Those are the chemicals that are used to manufacture illegal drugs. At the same time, the Liberal health minister has recently refused to rule out approving additional legal drug consumption sites. This summer I toured the area around a major drug consumption site in my riding of Edmonton Griesbach with the Edmonton Police Service. To say it was a disaster is an understatement. These sites are allegedly, supposedly, used by addicts to safely inject drugs, including fentanyl, but the reality is that they are just not working. Unfortunately, on my tour, we noticed someone right outside the consumption site in my riding of Edmonton Griesbach injecting drugs. This site, I might add, is located not that far from a day care. What the Liberals are doing with these sites is shocking and appalling. I have talked with police, and they say that these sites increase the amount of drug activity in the area. The drug dealers are naturally drawn to the area; they know they can sell their wares there. It is like a magnet for them, and we can see the sad, dejected people who are struggling with this illness. It has resulted in a spike in violent crime in the area, including murders. In addition, for all the people who argue that there is so-called safe supply, there is nothing safe about injecting drugs into one's system, especially fentanyl. It is especially bad in Chinatown. My Edmonton riding includes half of Chinatown, and it is really tragic to see the effect on a community that was once thriving, vibrant and very safe. There was a bakery there that had been in business for 60 long years, but because of the kind of crime linked to these injection sites, the store had to close. They could not keep the addicts out of their shop. They had been broken into. Crime was rampant, and it caused this Canadian small business to close. That is so sad. Now in Chinatown, the most common sight seems to be “for lease” and “for rent” signs, and it was once such a safe, thriving neighbourhood. I have seen the tragedy of people slumped in the streets, obviously struggling with addiction, and it is largely due to these consumption sites that the Liberals like to encourage. It is shocking that they encourage these sites. Does it not make sense that, if we truly are a caring society, rather than pushing people into these sites, we do the humane thing and help people recover? Do we not owe that to the most vulnerable in our society? Do we not owe them that, as opposed to, in some cases, watching them die on the street? As I have mentioned, the original version of the bill, Bill C-2, included significant changes to the immigration system. My riding has a significant amount of immigration casework. I live in a very diverse riding. I recently hosted an event to welcome new Canadian citizens in Edmonton, but we know the Liberals have been very poor on that front. They have broken the immigration system. Conservatives will continue to fight on all these fronts.

Madam Speaker, it is not misleading; the Liberals agree with the sites wholeheartedly. More recently, the health minister refused to rule out injection sites, even near day cares. It is shocking. I rode with the frontline police officers who have to police around these sites, and they are just disgusted. It has made their lives so difficult, and if the Liberals had some leadership, they would be vehemently opposed to these things in order to support our good law enforcement people.

Mr. Speaker, Liberal bail has caused a bloodbath of crime in communities nationwide. The culprit is Bill C-75, the catch-and-release Liberal bail law. The Prime Minister has kept that awful law in place over his last six months in power, but Conservatives have been taking advice from police and victims to draft a new bill to scrap Liberal bail and bring peace to our streets. The House votes on it today. Victims and police are watching. Will the Prime Minister put partisanship aside and vote to scrap Liberal bail?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-243, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (parole review). Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to introduce my private member's bill today in honour of Brian Ilesic. It would simply amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act so that convicted murderers would no longer be eligible to apply for parole each and every year after they have served their minimum sentences and after their first application for parole is denied. Instead, parole would be reviewed in accordance with statutory time frames. This would be a common-sense approach in recognition of the significant trauma and harm caused to victims and families having to be put through repeated parole hearings year after year. I look forward to debating this in greater detail when the time comes and having the support of colleagues on all sides of the House. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

With regard to contracts for the provision of research or speechwriting services to ministers, since January 1, 2021: (a) what are the details of all contracts, including the (i) start and end dates, (ii) contracting parties, (iii) file number, (iv) nature or description of the work, (v) value of the contract; and (b) for speechwriting contracts, what is the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) audience or event at which the speech was, or was intended to be, delivered, (iv) number of speeches written, (v) cost charged per speech?