Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, hatred is real. Jewish Canadians have faced ongoing intimidation, including gunfire, firebombings and repeated threats against synagogues, schools and community institutions. Muslim Canadians have seen the tragic consequences when hatred turns deadly. Just a week ago, I joined Londoners in remembering the Afzaal family, four members of which were murdered five years ago because they were Muslim. Churches across the country have been vandalized, desecrated and, in far too many cases, burned to the ground. Members of other communities have also faced hatred, threats and intimidation because of their identity, beliefs or background. No Canadian should be threatened because of who they are, what they believe or where they worship. No one should have to pass through a hostile crowd to enter a place of worship, or wonder whether that place will still be standing in the morning. Conservatives believe that the people responsible for threats, violence, intimidation, criminal harassment and vandalism must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and face consequences that reflect the seriousness of their crimes. Canada already has laws to deal with this conduct. The government should make sure that they are enforced and that the people who terrorize communities are held fully accountable. Instead, the government is using the real fears of vulnerable communities to justify a bill that would blur the line between crime and lawful speech that may be unpopular or controversial. In a free country, the right to speak cannot depend on whether everyone agrees. Freedom of expression matters most when people strongly disagree. If the government can restrict lawful speech simply because someone finds it offensive, the line will keep moving. What is protected today may be questioned tomorrow, depending on who complains and who holds power. That is the dangerous path that Bill C-9 would put us on. The narrow Senate amendment now before us would do nothing to address the broader danger. It would simply add the noose to the bill's list of prohibited symbols. The noose carries a horrifying history as an instrument of murder and terror, but adding one more symbol would not fix the bill. It would not restore the long-standing protection for good-faith religious expression or answer the concerns raised across the country. The Senate has changed the list but has not fixed the bill. Bill C-9 is presented as though Canada has no laws against threats, intimidation or hateful conduct. That is simply not true. Canada already has laws against threats, criminal harassment, intimidation, mischief, violence, public incitement and hate-motivated crime, so why does the government act as though Canada has no laws to deal with these offences? Why expand criminal law instead of enforcing the laws we have, while removing protections for lawful religious expression. What has been missing is political leadership, consistent enforcement and consequences that reflect the seriousness of these crimes. More laws do not make up for weak leadership, and unclear laws around speech do not make communities safer. The clearest example is the proposed removal of the religious defence from section 319 of the Criminal Code. For more than 50 years, Canadian law protected a person who, in good faith, expressed an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on belief in a religious text. The protection was narrow. It did not protect threats, violence, advocating genocide or encouraging a crime. It applied to one hate speech offence and protected good-faith religious discussion while allowing the law to deal with real hatred. The government and the Bloc chose to remove that protection. They now tell Canadians not to worry. They tell faith leaders to trust prosecutors. They tell religious teachers to trust the courts, and they tell parents and clergy that lawful expression would probably remain lawful. However, if this protection were not needed, why was it kept in the Criminal Code for more than half a century? If the government still believes that good-faith religious expression should be protected, why remove the words that clearly protect it? This is the slippery slope. It rarely begins with the government's openly saying it wants to criminalize ordinary religious teaching. It begins with promises that the law would be used only in extreme cases. The protection then disappears, and the line becomes less clear. A complaint is made against a faith leader, a teacher or a parent. An investigation and legal costs may follow. Even without a conviction, the process can become the punishment. Clergy and teachers would begin censoring themselves because the Liberal government has chosen to remove a clear protection and replace it with uncertainty. That is how the slippery slope works. First the protection is removed. Then the line becomes unclear. Finally, people stop saying lawful things because they fear what might happen. However, self-censorship is not the only danger. Driving hateful ideas underground does not make them disappear. It can allow resentment and hatred to grow where they are harder to challenge, until they emerge in more dangerous forms. In a free society, bad ideas should be exposed and defeated in the open. Sunlight is often the best disinfectant. Criminal law should deal firmly with threats, violence and genuine incitement, but it should not push lawful discussion into the shadows, otherwise peaceful Canadians become afraid to speak, while real hatred is pushed out of sight instead of confronted. Rights are rarely taken away all at once. They are weakened one step at a time, with every step described as small and reasonable. That is why the government must prove that these restrictions are needed, that existing law is not enough and that lawful speech will remain protected. The government has not done that. Worse, it did not allow the full debate needed to test its case. The government used a programming motion to push the bill through committee. Debate was cut short. New amendments and subamendments could not be properly considered. Even the reading of amendments being voted on was restricted. Conservative safeguards for freedom of religion and freedom of expression were rejected. A government confident in its bill should welcome questions. Instead, the government shortened the process and pushed ahead without answering them. Those concerns reach far beyond any one faith community. A joint statement opposing Bill C-9 brought together civil liberty organizations; Muslim, Jewish and Christian organizations; refugee advocates; legal groups; and other community organizations, from across Canada. They do not share one ideology, one faith or one political outlook. Their agreement cannot simply be dismissed. Nor is opposition to Bill C-9 limited to Conservatives. At third reading, every participating NDP member and the leader of the Green Party joined Conservatives in voting against it. This is not simply a left versus right debate. The warning comes from across civil society and the political spectrum. The government also rejected the Conservative proposal to separate the broadly supported parts of the bill from those raising serious civil liberties concerns. Now the bill has returned from the Senate with another symbol added to the list, while the main problems remain untouched. This is not a real fix. It is a distraction. The government would rather debate whether a noose is offensive than explain why it removed a 50-year-old protection for lawful religious expression. It would rather offer the appearance of action than provide the leadership and enforcement needed to make communities safer. Freedom of religion means very little if it protects only beliefs that no one finds objectionable. Freedom of expression means very little if it protects only speech the government approves of. That does not mean every religious statement is wise or beyond criticism. People are free to disagree, challenge it and answer it with better arguments. Conservatives support protecting Canadians from threats, violence and intimidation, but we reject false choice between safety and freedom. Canada can enforce its laws against criminal conduct without placing peaceful religious expression under a cloud of fear and uncertainty. The Senate amendment would not restore that balance. It would add a symbol, but it would not restore the religious defence. It would change a list but would not protect freedom of expression. It would do nothing to stop the slippery slope that begins when Parliament removes clear protections and tells Canadians simply to trust that government power would be used carefully. Canadians deserve clear laws, strong enforcement, and consequences that match the seriousness of the crime. They also deserve firm protection for the freedoms of peaceful, law-abiding citizens. Bill C-9 fails that test. The Senate amendment would not fix it. For those reasons, I urge the House to reject Bill C-9.

Mr. Speaker, the real concern, which was brought to my attention by constituents of London—Fanshawe, is the potential removal of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. As mentioned in my speech, constituents are concerned that they would have to always look behind their back when they do share religious texts, both in person and online. They are concerned that even protected religious text, with Bill C-9, may be quoted as hateful speech.

Mr. Speaker, the concern with Bill C-9 is this: If it is passed, what would define hate speech? There are many people from many religions who are concerned that what they used to say in person or online, which is now protected with the current laws, if Bill C-9 is passed would be deemed hate speech. With regard to their questions, they are asking about a scenario that could potentially happen with the passage of Bill C-9.

Mr. Speaker, London has long been the canary in the coal mine for the hardships Canadians are feeling. When affordability worsens, unemployment rises and the Liberal recession deepens, Londoners are among the first to feel it, and our community is hit the hardest. The Canadian promise was simple: work hard, do one's part and build a stable life. This weekend, while I was going for a walk, a fellow Londoner, Diana, pulled me aside. She is 55, works in a factory and cares for a mother who is battling cancer. However, the cost of living has become so crushing that Diana now relies on her sick mother to help her buy basics like bread and milk. She asked me, “Why is this happening when I've done everything right?” She is grieving a Canadian promise that no longer feels real. It is not just happening in London. About 38% of Canadians face food insecurity, and 40% are losing sleep over stretching their paycheques. Diana's story is personal, but not unique. London has been the warning. Will the Liberal government finally listen?

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague brought up concerns with regard to Bill C-26 and also the spending of $1.7 billion. My concern with this spending is the lack of accountability. Over the last 11 years, there have been various scandals provided by this Liberal government, such as the WE Charity scandal, the arrive scam scandal and the PrescribeIT scandal. With the lack of accountability, there could be opportunities for another scandal with this bill. I would like my colleague to possibly comment on that and tell us what he thinks.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saskatoon West's concerns about this economy, and I also agree with our mutual colleague the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, who put forward a private member's bill to help Canadians with regard to purchasing used vehicles. With regard to Bill C‑30 and the economic outlook, recently London and the London region have had a high unemployment rate. At one time, it was 9.1%, a high unemployment rate and the highest in Canada. Recently, it was 9.2%, the highest unemployment rate. This is affecting the London region. This is affecting Londoners. I was just wondering if my colleague from Saskatoon West is experiencing the same issues with the economy in his riding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who represents Bowmanville—Oshawa North for his speech. I really appreciate working with him on various issues that are affecting Canadians today. Earlier, the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary, boasted about the Prime Minister and how he is solving issues on behalf of Canadians. To date, we are still waiting for the negotiations dealing with the tariffs with President Trump to be finalized. On another note, two hours southwest of London, in Windsor, we are still waiting for the Gordie Howe International Bridge to open up. It is a Canadian taxpayer-funded bridge, yet this chief negotiator cannot negotiate with the U.S. to open the bridge. A week ago, I found out that one hour east of London, in Kitchener, regarding the Canadian promise, people are now living out of Winnebagos in carpooling parking lots just off the 401. They cannot afford houses and they cannot afford rent, so they are now living in Winnebagos. Can my colleague elaborate on whether those issues are occurring in his riding as well?

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary mentioned that the affordability issue did not happen overnight. I actually agree with him, but the key thing is that the issue has expanded for the last 11 years. Yes, that is under the Trudeau Liberal government and now under the current Liberal government. In my riding, which I am proud to represent, London—Fanshawe, I have gone door to door, connecting with constituents. The key thing is that I have talked to parents whose adult children still live in their house. They get misty-eyed and choked up because they want their children to excel, but the dilemma is that their children cannot afford a house. The Liberals promised to deliver 500 new homes every year, but according to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 by 2028. What do I tell the parents who love their children but want them to move out? What do I tell them, when they know there are not enough houses being built?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand on behalf of the constituents of London—Fanshawe. I go door to door and hear from them. With regard to home ownership, there are concerns that youth are affected by the affordability crisis and the lack of opportunity to afford a home. I applaud my colleague. She and her family members are experts in the real estate and homebuilding industries. I was just wondering if she could expand on that, and tell us what issues they are experiencing with regard to the affordability crisis and young people buying homes in her riding.

Mr. Speaker, earlier tonight, the parliamentary secretary said that we Conservatives play games. That is so far from the truth. On his side of the House, he can play tic-tack-toe or Scrabble. That is his business. Conservatives are here for the victims of crime. We work long hours on behalf of Canadians for public safety and for the justice system. As I said earlier, the parliamentary secretary accused us of playing games. Why is it that the Liberal government would remove mandatory minimums and judges could use time served or just give a criminal who is found guilty a one-day sentence? The point I am getting at is, why is the Liberal government—

Mr. Speaker, to address what the parliamentary secretary is implying, which is that the economy here in Canada is good, I would ask him to come down to the London region. It is not just the increased food bank usage but the other organizations that support the food bank. I was talking to a representative from Urban Roots, which grows natural food to be donated to various organizations, including the local London Food Bank. The usage has increased in the last year. I would ask the member to comment on that.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill S-227, an act respecting Arab heritage month. This bill is straightforward. It would designate the month of April each year as Arab heritage month in Canada. It is a simple bill, but it speaks to something meaningful. It gives Parliament an opportunity to recognize the history, culture, work, sacrifice, entrepreneurship, faith, family values and civic contributions of Arab Canadians across this country. Arab Canadians have been part of Canada's story for generations. From the earliest Arab immigrants in the late 19th century to the communities that have grown across the country today, Arab Canadians have contributed to the Canada we share. Today, Arab Canadians are found in every part of Canadian life. They are small business owners, doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, tradespeople, artists, writers, public servants, faith leaders, community volunteers, students, parents and grandparents. They are neighbours. They are friends. They are people who came to Canada for freedom, opportunity, peace, dignity and a better future for their children. Some came from places where basic freedoms cannot always be taken for granted. Others came for opportunity, education, family, safety or the chance to shape their own futures. Whatever their path, they came here because Canada promised something better: a place where people could work hard, own a home, raise a family, worship freely, build a life with the person they love, start a business, speak their mind and contribute to the common good. That is the Canadian promise, and it is worth protecting. In my own community of London—Fanshawe, we know how much Arab Canadians contribute. We see it in our small businesses. We see it in our restaurants, our community organizations, our charities, our classrooms, our workplaces and our neighbourhoods. We see families who are deeply committed to education. We see entrepreneurs who take risks, create jobs and serve their communities. We see newcomers who arrive with courage and hope and who work incredibly hard to build a life in Canada. We see young people who are proud of their heritage and proud to be Canadian. That is something worth celebrating. Arab heritage is not one single story. It is rich, diverse and complex. It includes many countries, traditions, faiths, dialects and histories. It includes people whose families have been in Canada for generations and people who arrived only recently. It includes literature, music, food, fashion, scholarship, architecture, poetry, science, business and public service. It includes people who have preserved their heritage while also embracing Canada and contributing to our shared national life. In Canada, people do not have to forget where they came from in order to belong. They can bring the best of their heritage, their work ethic, their family values, their traditions, their faith, their creativity and their love of community, while helping build one country together. That is the Canadian balance: pride in one's heritage, loyalty to Canada and a shared commitment to the values that keep this country free. Those values matter. Equality before the law matters. Democracy matters. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the rule of law and respect for the dignity of every person matter. Commemorative months can serve a useful purpose when they help Canadians learn, reflect and build respect. They can open doors for schools, community groups, museums, libraries and families to tell stories that might otherwise be overlooked. They can help young people see themselves in Canada's history. They can help neighbours better understand one another. However, we should also be honest. Commemorative months must not become empty gestures. They should not become virtue signalling or tokenism. They should point to something real like respect, opportunity, equal treatment and safe communities in a country where hard work is rewarded. That same seriousness should guide how we approach Arab heritage month. It should not be a symbolic check mark. It should be a genuine recognition of a community that has helped build this country. It should encourage Canadians to learn about Arab Canadian history, including the early families who came here in the late 19th century, the communities that grew over the decades, the businesses that were built, the community institutions that became anchors and the younger generations now serving in every field imaginable. It should encourage us to celebrate Arab Canadian food, literature, music, art and entrepreneurship. It should also encourage us to listen to the real concerns of Arab Canadian families today, concerns about affordability, jobs, housing, safety and whether their children will have the same opportunities that brought so many families here to Canada. This is because heritage is not only about the past but also about whether families can build a future. That is where Parliament has a responsibility that goes beyond symbolic recognition. We should celebrate Arab Canadians, yes. We should also work to make Canada a country where every family, including Arab Canadian families, can afford a home, find meaningful work, start a business, raise children safely and live with dignity. One of the things I hear again and again from families in my community is that they do not want special treatment. They want a fair chance. They want hard work to mean something again. They want their children to have opportunities. They want government to get the basics right. They want safe streets and a strong economy. They want schools, workplaces and public services that treat people with respect. They want Canada to be a country where freedom is protected and where people are united by shared responsibility. That is a vision worth defending. That is also why this bill, while modest, can still matter. It can help ensure that every April, Canadians are invited to learn more about Arab heritage and Arab Canadian contributions. It can help communities mark that heritage with pride. It can help young Arab Canadians know that their story is part of Canada's story. It can help remind Parliament that the people we serve are not abstractions but families with histories, hopes, challenges and dreams. I want to conclude by speaking directly to the Arab Canadians in London—Fanshawe and across Canada. Their history and their heritage matter. Their contributions matter. Their families, their businesses, their service, their faith communities, their culture, their stories and their dreams for the next generation are part of Canada. This bill would recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. No matter how the Liberals spin it, this is a full-blown Liberal recession. Investment is leaving, jobs are disappearing and the economy has shrunk for two straight quarters. They can blame tariffs and global conflict, but every G7 country faces those pressures. In London, this comes as no surprise. London has been the canary in the coal mine. With unemployment at 9.2%, the worst in the country, Londoners saw the warning signs first. The Prime Minister can quote projections, but Londoners are living the reality. Will the Prime Minister stop denying this recession and reverse the Liberal policies that caused it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 27 signatories in London—Fanshawe concerning the reduction in Canada Post services. Whereas Canada Post and the Liberals are taking an axe to long-treasured postal services, eliminating good jobs, eliminating door-to-door deliveries, lowering mail delivery standards and possibly closing post offices, and whereas Canada Post offers a public service that needs to be protected, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop and reverse decisions on the cuts to the postal service.

Mr. Speaker, this morning millions of Canadians got in their vehicles and headed to work. They did not have the luxury of deciding whether they needed fuel because they needed it. They needed it to get to work, to get their children to school, to care for their aging parents and to make deliveries, visit clients, run businesses and earn a living. When fuel prices rise sharply, as Canadians have experienced in recent months, fuel begins to take up a larger share of the household budget. The money has to come from somewhere. The question is not whether Canadians will fill the tank, but what they will have to give up elsewhere in order to do it. Will it mean less money for groceries, for savings, for their children's activities or to be set aside for an emergency? For millions of Canadians, fuel is not a luxury, but a necessity. That is why we are having this debate today. Fuel prices are not shaped by one force alone. Global instability, energy markets, supply chains and economic uncertainty play a role. Canadians understand that. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. That simple principle is at the heart of our opposition day motion. I was reminded of that principle just a few days ago while hosting a seniors town hall in London—Fanshawe. We discussed retirement security, the problems seniors are encountering with the dental care program and government services. Once again, the cost of living dominated the conversation. Seniors spoke about the rising cost of groceries, about housing costs and about the everyday expenses that continue to rise while their incomes remained fixed. What struck me the most was not simply the concern about affordability itself. Many were not speaking only about themselves, but were worried about their children and their grandchildren. They see young families working hard and struggling just to get ahead. They see household budgets stretched thinner than ever. They worry that, despite all the speeches, promises and announcements coming from the Liberal government, things continue moving in the wrong direction. Whether it is a young family, a tradesperson, a small business owner or a senior, the concern is remarkably similar. Life is becoming more expensive. People are feeling the pressure and they want the government to stop making it worse. In London—Fanshawe, we often experience these pressures early. Our community is deeply connected to manufacturing, transportation and North American supply chains. We sit just over an hour from the United States border. We understand better than most that Canada's prosperity depends on our ability to compete. When uncertainty grows, communities like ours often feel it first. When costs rise, we feel it. When investment slows, we feel it. When businesses become hesitant about expansion, we feel it. When families begin tightening household budgets, we feel it. Today, London's unemployment rate sits at 9.2%, the highest in the country. Communities like ours often experience economic pressures before much of the country does. That is why London is the canary in the coal mine for the Canadian economy. What begins in communities like ours rarely stays there. The warning signs eventually spread. Today, those warning signs are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. Businesses are increasingly looking beyond Canada for opportunities to invest and grow. Families are delaying purchases. Workers are wondering what the future holds. Because of our close economic ties to the United States, trade uncertainty is not an abstract policy decision for communities like ours. It affects investment decisions, hiring decisions and confidence. It affects whether businesses choose to expand or wait. Canadians were told that the Prime Minister was uniquely equipped to handle this challenge. They were told that he would use every tool available to strengthen Canada's position. They were told that he would secure a deal, yet today Canadian businesses are still operating under the same uncertainty. Investment decisions are still being delayed, employers are still waiting for clarity and Canadian workers are still wondering what comes next. We cannot control what President Trump says or does, no Canadian government can, but we can control how we position ourselves. We can control whether Canada is competing from a position of strength. We can control whether we are attracting investment or driving it away. We can control whether we are making it easier or harder to build, produce, transport and compete here at home. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. The government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. Canadians are paying significantly more for fuel than Americans. Families, businesses, truckers and manufacturers all notice the difference. They are all asking a simple question: Why, at a time when Canadians are already facing so much economic pressure, is the government continuing to add costs of its own? Costs imposed on fuel do not stay at the gas station. They move through the entire economy. They affect transportation, agriculture, construction, manufacturing, deliveries and food prices. Every product that must be moved, every service that requires transportation and every business that depends on fuel eventually feels the impact. The costs go somewhere. They are reflected in prices, business decisions and competitiveness. Ultimately, they are reflected in the cost of living paid by Canadian families. That is why this debate is about more than what appears on the receipt at the pump. It is about whether Canadians can get ahead. It is about whether businesses can remain competitive. It is about whether our economy is becoming stronger or weaker. It is also about whether the government understands that every additional cost imposed on necessities eventually lands on the shoulders of ordinary Canadians. The issue extends beyond what Canadians pay at the pump. It speaks to a broader philosophy that treats higher costs as somebody else's problem. Whether those costs are imposed through fuel taxes, the clean fuel standard or industrial carbon taxes, they do not disappear. They move through supply chains. They increase production costs. They increase transportation costs. They increase the cost of doing business. They ultimately make Canada less competitive. That matters for manufacturing, agriculture, transportation and industries that will shape the future economy. Countries around the world are competing for investment in advanced manufacturing, data centres and artificial intelligence. These industries require enormous amounts of affordable and reliable energy. If Canada continues making energy more expensive while our competitors work to attract investment, we should not be surprised when the investment goes elsewhere. Canadians spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis. Conservatives spent years warning government that affordability was becoming a crisis. For years, Canadians were told not to worry. For years, they were told that the carbon tax was the answer. Eventually, after years of pressure from Canadians and years of opposition from Conservatives, the government finally backed away from its signature carbon tax. However, the lesson was larger than a single tax. Canadians were not objecting to a single line item on a bill. They were objecting to a broader approach that kept making essential parts of life more expensive. The lesson was that affordability matters. The lesson was that governments cannot continually make necessities more expensive and expect Canadians not to notice. The lesson was that when families are struggling, the government should be looking for ways to reduce the burden, not increase it. That is why temporary relief on federal taxes applied to gasoline and diesel through the remainder of the year makes sense. Canadians need relief now. People are already feeling the impact of rising fuel costs. They do not need additional taxes that make the situation worse. It is also why permanently eliminating the clean fuel standard makes sense. Temporary pressures may justify temporary relief, but structural costs require structural solutions. At a time when affordability remains one of the defining challenges facing Canadians, government should not be in the business of making energy, transportation and everyday life more expensive. Canadians are doing their part. They are working hard. They are raising families. They are building businesses. They are adapting to challenges that often lie beyond their control. There are many challenges facing Canadians that lie beyond the government's control. Government cannot remove every one of those challenges, but at the very least, it should not be making those challenges unnecessarily harder. That is exactly what this proposal seeks to accomplish. For that reason, I am pleased to support it.

Mr. Speaker, in the most recent unemployment numbers, London has climbed to 9.2%, remaining the highest in Canada. Behind these numbers are people sending out résumés and hearing nothing back, parents trying to stretch every dollar further and young people wondering whether opportunity is moving out of reach. Just an hour from the U.S. border, London is the canary in the coal mine. When things go wrong, Londoners are the first to feel it, and it hits our community the hardest, but this is not just a London issue. What we are seeing in our community is a warning sign for the rest of the country. On behalf of all Londoners who are worried about their jobs, their bills and their future, I urge the Liberals to get serious and focus on creating the conditions for Canadian businesses to compete, invest, grow, and create private sector jobs. Conservatives are calling for lower taxes, less red tape and the trade deal the Liberal Prime Minister promised. London is sounding the alarm. Londoners, especially those of London—Fanshawe, are seeing these concerns all around them. When will the Liberals finally listen?

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned to a Conservative colleague what we should cut to help Canadians. Repeatedly, with the Trudeau government, we heard about scandal upon scandal and about the waste of taxpayers' dollars. I am concerned, even with the current Liberal government, of potentially more scandals with regard to wasting taxpayers' dollars. Is the Liberal government going to come to terms and stop wasting taxpayers' dollars on behalf of all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, if Canada wants to deal with the United States, we need leverage. Our leverage comes from our strengths, our energy, our critical minerals and our ability to supply the inputs that North American industry depends on. Conservatives believe we should be building that strength, developing our resources, expanding our capacity and creating the conditions for investment so that Canada can negotiate from a position of power, not weakness. I know that the riding I represent, London—Fanshawe, has a manufacturing sector that has had to deal with the U.S. tariffs. Repeatedly, the Prime Minister has said that by a certain date, he would deal with U.S. tariffs, especially last July, and then on repeated dates. I am wondering if the member from the Bloc can expand on the continuing issue of the tariffs that we have to deal with today.

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Winnipeg North said negotiations take time. As the representative for London—Fanshawe, we have a large manufacturing base. These tariffs are hitting Canada, and especially my riding, hard. My concern is what I should tell my constituents who have to line up at the food bank and are now in the unemployment line in the manufacturing sectors, especially the auto sector, which has been hit hard by the tariffs. I wonder if my hon. colleague could expand on how the tariffs are hurting his riding as much as they are hurting London—Fanshawe.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member from the Bloc for his excellent speech. This bill is about supporting the manufacturing sector. In London—Fanshawe, the manufacturing sector has brought up concerns to me regarding the tariffs. The Liberal government keeps delaying when the so-called negotiations by the Prime Minister will be finalized, the ones dealing with these tariffs between Canada and the U.S. Does the member from the Bloc agree that the Prime Minister should tell Canadians the specific date when these negotiations will be finalized?

Mr. Speaker, I stand today as a proud representative of London—Fanshawe, part of which has a great manufacturing sector. However, we have been hit with tariffs, and, repeatedly, the people of London—Fanshawe are having to deal with the affordability crisis and concerns about being unemployed, or they actually have been unemployed, due to various sectors' being affected by the tariffs. The Liberals have repeatedly said that they are going to solve the tariff issues, yet the Prime Minister has not negotiated with President Trump in the last seven months, so my question is this: Are we witnessing a political bait-and-switch while Canadians are still waiting for a solution?

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite mentioned vision. If this is the Liberal government's vision, I find quite concerning, especially as I represent the people of London—Fanshawe, but it is also concerning for the region of London. We are talking about the affordability crisis and the cost of living crisis, and London's 9.1% unemployment is the highest in Canada. That is a concern also. Also with regard to vision, especially for the people who have to utilize the food bank, what we do tell the people in the lineup of the food bank about when the Prime Minister is going to come through and solve the tariff issue?

Mr. Speaker, real relief does not come from government loan programs. It comes from getting tariffs reduced or eliminated. Loans do not restore competitiveness. They saddle struggling businesses with more debt, while the underlying problem remains. At the same time, the Liberals are failing to focus on what Canada can control. Instead of strengthening our economy at home, they continue to layer on red tape, slow approvals and policies that make it harder to build, produce and compete. I wonder if the member from the Bloc could expand on this.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-268, the spectrum policy framework for Canada act, first and foremost because of my previous career working in information technology. The wireless spectrum was taught to me when I took computer engineering technology at Lambton College in Sarnia, and also, from time to time, the wireless spectrum was discussed in my information technology career. However, today, this act addresses a foundational yet often overlooked pillar of Canada's digital economy: how we manage and govern the wireless spectrum. Spectrum is not an abstract concept. It is invisible infrastructure that powers our phones, enables emergency communications, connects businesses and supports the daily lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In a modern economy, access to reliable connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. Despite its importance, Canada's spectrum policy framework has not been formally updated since 2007. Nearly two decades have passed without a legislative requirement to review, modernize or even systematically evaluate how this critical public resource is being managed. In that time, the world has changed dramatically. Technology has advanced. Data consumption has surged. Entire sectors of our economy have become digitally dependent, but our framework has not kept pace. At its core, Bill C-268 introduces three key elements: verification, accountability and transparency. First, the bill would require the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to establish a process to verify the accuracy of mobile network coverage data submitted by telecommunications providers. This is not a minor technical adjustment; it addresses a long-standing concern that coverage maps are largely based on self-reported data from carriers. When Canadians are told that they have service, they expect that service to work, not just in theory, but in practice. Too often, that is not the case. We have all heard stories of dropped calls on major highways, lack of signal in rural communities, lack of signal in one area of someone's residence when there is signal at the other end of the residence, and unreliable connectivity in remote regions. These are not isolated inconveniences. They are systematic issues with real consequences. For a family travelling on a remote road, a lack of signal can mean no access to emergency services. For a small business, it can mean lost revenue. For indigenous and northern communities, it can mean continued exclusion from the digital economy. Accurate data is the foundation of good policy. Without it, we cannot identify gaps, allocate resources effectively or hold providers accountable. Second, Bill C-268 would mandate a comprehensive review of Canada's spectrum policy framework within 18 months of the act's coming into force. This is a critical step. For too long, updates to the framework have occurred on an ad hoc basis through departmental processes without a structured, legislated requirement for review—

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier that, in 2014, the Harper government released a framework that put Canadian sovereignty and national security at the forefront of space policy. Under the Liberal government, we have a bill that does not include a single explicit national security test for launches. The Liberal government is asking us to trust its discretion instead of putting a law in place to stop hostile foreign actors from launching satellites over our Arctic. Could my hon. colleague expand on the concerns about this?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my Conservative colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. Canada should be a leader in space. I will admit that this is something that has fascinated me since I was a kid. Like many Canadians, I grew up watching Star Trek and imagining what the future could look like beyond our planet. That sense of wonder is shared by many Canadians and has helped drive what we have achieved in space. In 1962, under former Conservative prime minister John Diefenbaker, Alouette I made Canada the third country in the world to design and build its own satellite. Since then, Canadians have built on that legacy. Astronauts such as Roberta Bondar and Chris Hadfield have carried our flag into orbit. Canadian innovation gave the world the Canadarm. More recently, Canada played a key role in the Artemis II mission, with Jeremy Hansen taking part in the historic journey of circling the moon and returning to earth. It is a powerful example of what we can achieve through partnership, while also reminding us why strengthening our own capabilities matters. Let me be clear that Conservatives support building Canada's space capabilities. We support sovereignty. We support protecting Canada's national security. We support Canadian workers, engineers and innovators competing in a growing global space economy. Bill C-28 speaks to a real opportunity. Canada is the only G7 country without domestic launch capability. That is a gap and a chance to lead. If done properly, this could strengthen our economy, reinforce our sovereignty and position Canada as a serious player in the next generation of space activity. One day, I would love to see places like the London International Airport play a role in that future. We have strong infrastructure and a skilled workforce. That may be further down the road, but it reflects the kind of ambition we should have as a country. However, ambition alone is not strong enough, because the question before us is not whether Canada should participate in space, but whether this bill would set us up to do it in the right way. That is where the concerns arise, because as it stands, Bill C-28 would put too much power in the hands of the minister without leaving key rules and safeguards to be worked out later. In plain language, it asks Canadians to accept the framework first and trust the rules, which will come later. That is not how we build durable policy. It is how we create a system that functions like a blank cheque. This bill would not even clearly define what a launch is. Instead, it would push those basic rules off to be decided later. At the same time, it would give the minister broad control over who gets approved, who gets denied and what conditions apply. It would allow the minister to change the financial rules and protect companies from liability. In some cases, it would limit the ways decisions could be appealed or reviewed independently. What we are left with is a framework that would be flexible where it should be firm and discretionary where it should be accountable. That would be concerning on its own, but Canadians are already asking a more immediate question: How is it that, what is, today, little more than a gravel lot and a concrete pad on Crown land, which was leased for $13,500 a year, adds up to a $200-million federal agreement before Parliament has even been asked to approve the framework governing it? At its core, this is a question about whether Parliament sets the rules or whether those rules are written later behind closed doors. Who set that price? What valuation was used? Was there a competitive process? What exactly are taxpayers receiving in return? Who carries the risk if this project does not deliver? Canadians are not funding a finished asset. They are funding a project still under development in a market that remains uncertain. That makes getting this right even more important. This is where the broader concern comes into focus, because this is not an isolated situation. We have seen this pattern before. With ArriveCAN, what began as a simple app, originally estimated at about $80,000, ballooned to nearly $60 million, which is roughly 750 times over budget. A well-connected firm benefited from a process that lacked transparency, and Canadians were left with the bill. More recently, we are seeing a $300-million e-prescribing program, PrescribeIT, come under serious scrutiny. After nearly a decade, it is used for less than 5% of prescriptions, and key questions remain about where the money went and who benefited. These are different files and different departments, but it is the same Liberal team and the same underlying problem, which is large commitments of public money, limited transparency and unclear outcomes. At the end of it, Canadians are left asking what exactly they paid for. These are just a few of the many examples Canadians have become used to. From the SNC-Lavalin affair, to the WE Charity scandal and the green slush fund, there is a reason Canadians are not comfortable handing any government a blank cheque. This matters because Bill C-28 is not being introduced in a vacuum. It is being introduced in a context where trust in how large public projects are managed has been eroded. When a bill proposes to give broad power to ministers, to leave key rules for later and to move forward without clear safeguards, Canadians are right to be cautious. This is also a national security issue. Space is no longer just about exploration. It is about communication, surveillance, navigation, defence and sovereignty. Any general launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions—

Mr. Speaker, any Canadian launch system must include strong screening, clear national security oversight and strong protections against foreign influence, particularly when it comes to our Arctic and other sensitive regions. If this bill is about sovereignty, then those protections must be written into the law, not left to chance. This is ultimately about balance. Canada can build a competitive space sector. Canada can support innovation. Canada can strengthen sovereignty. That is how previous generations succeeded. The achievements of Canada's space program were not the result of vague rules or unchecked power. They were built on clear objectives, strong oversight and public trust. That is the standard we should be applying today. As we consider Bill C-28, the question is not whether we support Canada in space. We do. The question is whether the bill gets the framework right. In its current form, there are serious concerns. Let me be clear about what getting this right actually looks like. A serious bill would define the key terms clearly in the law so Parliament, not just cabinet, sets the rules. It would include clear criteria for approvals and rejections so decisions are not made behind closed doors without explanation. It would preserve independent review so Canadians can have confidence that decisions can be challenged when needed. It would also require full transparency around major financial commitments. If hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are involved, Canadians should be able to see the reasoning, the price and what they are getting in return. Most important, the bill would put national security safeguards directly into the law, not as an afterthought or something decided later but as a core requirement from the start, because once these systems are in place, once launches begin and international actors are involved, it becomes much harder to go back to fix gaps that should have been addressed from the beginning. These are questions that must be answered and issues that must be addressed, and this is where Parliament must do its job. Canada has the opportunity to get this right. We can build something that reflects our strengths and values, but that will not happen by default. It will require scrutiny, accountability and a willingness to improve what is in front of us, because the goal is not just to participate in space but to lead in a way that Canadians can be proud of. That means that when we act, we do so in the clear interest of Canadians, not behind closed doors and not without answers. Canada should lead in space, but Canadians should never be asked to sign a blank cheque for decisions made behind closed doors.

Mr. Speaker, my concern is the repeated pattern of Liberal boondoggles or possible scandals. We have seen it with the Trudeau government, and we are possibly seeing it with the Liberal government. Cases in point are ArriveCAN and also PrescribeIT. With the lack of checks and balances in Bill C-28, there could potentially be a Liberal scandal, such as possibly what is happening in Nova Scotia with $200 million spent for what is deemed a spaceport but for which so far the results have been very limited.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal parliamentary secretary brought up games. Let us have a reality check. We have an affordability crisis right now. We have a cost of living crisis right now that is affecting all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including young people. With regard to this motion, these are cuts to student grants for career college students, and I have had stakeholders of career colleges approach me in London—Fanshawe about this. Does the government believe that education at career colleges is less valuable than education at other institutions?

Mr. Speaker, I rise because a recently released statistic shows London as having a high unemployment rate of 9.1%, the highest in Canada. Because of this, Londoners and some of my constituents would obviously think of a career change. What does my colleague think about the Liberal government's implying with these cuts that education at a career college is less valuable than education at other institutions?

Mr. Speaker, I will continue. Part of the challenge in debating legislation like Bill C-22 is that many of the terms involved can sound deceptively benign. Words like “subscriber information” or “metadata” may sound minor, but anyone with experience in digital systems understands otherwise. Metadata can reveal a tremendous amount about an individual. It can reveal who someone communicates with, when they communicate, where they are located, what services they use and patterns of behaviour that paint a detailed portrait of their private life. In many cases, aggregated metadata can reveal far more than people assume. Over time, it can expose routine relationships, movement patterns and behavioural habits with remarkable precision, often allowing detailed inferences even without access to message content itself. It is also worth remembering that digital identifiers do not always map neatly onto individuals. An IP address or subscriber record may identify an account holder or Internet connection but not necessarily the person behind specific content. That is one more reason Parliament must proceed carefully when expanding access to such information. When the government proposes mandatory metadata retention, expanded access powers and technical interception capabilities, Parliament must treat those powers with the seriousness they deserve. This reminds me of the time when, as a young teenager, I was hired at a local Internet service provider, when I was living in Forest, Ontario. I was going to North Lambton Secondary School, and my job after high school was not working at the local grocery store stocking shelves or at the local gas station pumping gas. My first job was working at the local Internet service provider, back in 1996. As part of that role, I was in charge of web development and tech support, and I had access to all of the data for all of the customers. It was not just customers' accounts. There were times I had administrative access and I could see, in real time, where people were going on the Internet. I asked myself, what are the stipulations in protecting this information? Again, it was 1996, and even though I was an employee, I had the maturity to tell myself this information should be private, should be kept within the company and should not be shared with my neighbours, including my friends at the local high school. It was interesting, as an employee of the local Internet service provider, to walk through the halls of North Lambton Secondary School back in 1996 at age 16. I would see my friends and my peers at school, and I would know where they went on the Internet and also where their parents went on the Internet. Yes, I knew the dirty laundry of Forest, Ontario, and also of Lambton County. These are precisely the kinds of questions that must be tested carefully at committee to ensure the right balance is struck. We need to balance law enforcement tools with the privacy that Canadians entrust us with under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not merely about giving police access to isolated records. It is about creating and mandating digital surveillance infrastructure. That requires caution for two reasons. The first reason for caution is that governments must never simply be trusted to exercise broad powers perfectly. Parliament must legislate based not on ideal assumptions but on real-world experience. Many Canadians remain concerned whenever governments seek expanded powers touching on privacy and civil liberties. That does not mean such powers are never necessary. It means Parliament has a duty to ensure that they are narrowly drafted, proportionate and subject to proper oversight. The second reason for caution is technical. Bill C-22 would require certain providers to build and maintain technical interception capabilities and retain metadata for up to one year. Every additional repository of retained data creates a target. Every additional access mechanism creates a vulnerability. In cybersecurity, one of the most basic principles is to minimize unnecessary access pathways. Systems are generally made more secure by reducing points of entry, not by multiplying them. Parliament must be cautious whenever legislation proposes to move in the opposite direction. Those of us with experience in cybersecurity understand a simple reality: Every access point created for lawful use is also a potential attack surface for unlawful exploitation. That concern is becoming more urgent, not less. Artificial intelligence is dramatically accelerating offensive cyber-capabilities. Anthropic recently declined to publicly release one of its most advanced models after reportedly concluding that its ability to identify and exploit software vulnerabilities posed serious security concerns. Parliament cannot ignore the reality that the tools available to malicious actors are becoming more powerful at an unprecedented pace, so it must ask itself if it is prudent to mandate the creation of more retained data, more interception infrastructure and more potential vulnerabilities if not absolutely necessary. In trying to improve lawful access for investigators, we must be careful not to weaken the broader security of the systems Canadians rely upon. These are complex, technical considerations, and Parliament should take the time to fully examine them before finalizing this framework. There is also an economic and innovation dimension to this bill. Canada has already seen how digital regulation can produce unintended consequences when burdens are poorly calibrated. Following the passage of the previous Parliament's Bill C-18, Meta chose to block Canadian news content on its platforms rather than comply with the framework Parliament imposed. That is a reminder that large digital firms can and do make strategic decisions about whether operating under Canadian rules is worth the cost. Even more importantly, while dominant, multinational firms may have the leverage and resources to absorb significant compliance burdens, smaller Internet providers and emerging competitors often do not. If Parliament imposes overly onerous technical requirements, it risks creating barriers to entry, discouraging innovation and entrenching the very largest incumbents at the expense of competition in Canada's digital economy. These potential impacts should be carefully considered as this bill moves through committee. None of these concerns mean that lawful access reform should not proceed, only that it must proceed carefully. Conservatives believe police should have modern tools.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the members of the government are not asking questions, because this bill is very important, especially with respect to the balancing of law enforcement with civil liberties. Another reason this bill is important is the economic impact. Yes, maybe large Internet service providers can absorb the cost of the request within this bill of storing metadata for one year, but it would also affect the economy of Internet service providers because the ability of small and medium-sized Internet service providers or new Internet service providers to offer competition to the Internet industry would be hindered by this—