Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, all summer, my team and I travelled across our riding and heard stories from people right across Fort McMurray—Cold Lake struggling to make ends meet due to a decade of bad Liberal policies and ever-rising inflation. I heard from people such as Wendy, an educational assistant married to an injured veteran, who took a summer layoff but did not qualify for EI. She is now hoping she is going to make her first full pay in October. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Wendy can afford her groceries?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are all talk, no results. Canadians want the cost of living to come down so they can afford to just live their life. Despite the Prime Minister's claiming that affordability is the best it has been in a decade, single mothers such as Heather know this just is not true. Heather is struggling to pay her bills and put food on the table, and she is fearing homelessness for her and her two kids. Our Conservative plan would save money for Canadians by lowering debt, taxes and inflation. The question is simple: Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative action plan so Heather can pay her rent and care for her kids?

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that I am a fan of building. My office is filled with model haul trucks, excavators and dozers, not just as a nod to my hometown and the industry that drives it but to serve as a reminder of where I came from and my roots in heavy construction and mining. I am proud to represent Canadian oil sands workers here in Parliament. Many years ago, like my dad and my grandfather, I laced up my own steel-toed boots and reported to work in health and safety in the oil sands. I understand how hard the people who work in Canada's energy sector work, with long hours, rotating shifts and harsh weather, yet thousands of workers show up every single day to ensure that our houses stay warm in the winter and cool in the summer and that the lights are always on when we need them. Through my experience, I have had the opportunity to see many major projects move from dream to design to construction and operation. This was the reality in the oil sands region for a long time. Then, just over 10 years ago, a new government came into power here in Ottawa, led by Justin Trudeau. He then made it his mission to demonize the industry that fuelled our economy, stigmatized the workers in this industry and created overbearing regulatory systems to shut down any new major project. He recruited eco-activists like Steven Guilbeault and then promoted them into his cabinet. While the current iteration of the Liberal Party claims to support the energy industry and the energy workers, and claims that it wants to build at unimaginable speeds, it has chosen to keep all the Trudeau-era anti-energy, antidevelopment laws and legislation in place. For years, Conservatives have been telling the Liberals to get out of the way by approving projects in rapid order, in six months; repealing anti-energy and antidevelopment laws Bill C-69 and Bill C-48; and adopting a one-project, one-review system. Canada has everything we need to be an affordable, strong, self-reliant country, but we can only live up to our full potential if the Liberal government gets out of the way. Liberals claimed a year and a half ago that Bill C-5 would allow them to move at speeds not seen in generations, yet no new projects have been approved by their Major Projects Office. Conservatives took the Liberals at their word, and we fast-tracked that bill through Parliament. Now, 18 months later, the only thing that has moved at unimaginable speeds was that piece of legislation. They are once again coming back to this chamber claiming that this latest piece of legislation will be the difference maker. As always with the Liberals, it is all talk and no results. It is the lack of results, the lack of action, that has left well over 500 projects waiting on some bureaucrat's desk for approval. For businesses considering whether to invest in Canada or not, announcements are not enough. For workers wondering whether there will be a project to work on, speeches are not enough. For communities in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, promises of future action are not enough. It is worth noting that serious changes are being proposed to the Labour Code in part 3 that clearly require extensive committee study. We need to review the proposed legislation. We have many questions, and we must ensure that all aspects of this bill are thoroughly examined. The question I have for the government is, why are sweeping labour changes being made in a giant 250-page omnibus bill? I think that is the same question I have heard from a number of my constituents. Conservatives have a clear objective. We are fighting for policies that will save Canadians money and save Canadian jobs. It is as simple as that. For generations, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and its oil industry offered a beacon of hope to people from right across Canada and the world. People who were willing to work hard and work long hours, and who had a dream, could make it big. My family has called Fort McMurray home for over 50 years. My dad and grandparents moved up to Fort McMurray in the 1970s in search of a better life, and they got a better life. They worked hard to provide opportunities for their family and give back to their community. Fort McMurray Wood Buffalo is home to the third-largest proven oil sands deposit in the world; 97% of Canada's oil comes from the oil sands, with 96% of the oil sands oil coming from the Fort McMurray region. When I say I know oil, I grew up around it; I know oil. I know a thing or two about it at the very minimum. Canada's oil sands production averages 3.1 million barrels a day. Canada's energy sector currently employs nearly one million people, with 150,000 direct jobs, 300,000 indirect jobs and 450,000 induced jobs, providing strong paycheques and life-changing opportunities for families and communities right across the country. The oil and natural gas industries are among the largest employers of indigenous people in Canada. As I fly back and forth from Ottawa, I regularly meet oil sands workers coming from every corner of the country. In 2022, oil and gas contributed $45 billion in revenue to Canadian governments. That meant funds for our hospitals, our schools, our roads and so many other important public services. When my dad was in the prime of his working years, there was no doubt that there was a future in Fort McMurray, but after 10 years of Liberals, doubt has become all too much of a reality. The energy industry 10 years ago was still growing. Families were building their lives, businesses were investing, and skilled tradespeople could look forward to the next generation with confidence and know that opportunities were waiting for them. Today, that has been replaced by a lot of questions. After a decade of anti-energy legislation, people in communities like mine are asking very basic questions. What does the future of our industry actually look like? What does the future of our community look like? What happens if the Liberals go back to their active attacks on the energy industry? These are not some pie-in-the-sky questions. These are existential questions that people in my community have. They have a hard time taking the government at its word after the Liberals' record of a decade of a constant barrage of attacks and the talking down of the very hard-working people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. This is not an abstract policy debate either. The ability to work on energy projects is not simply a line on a government spreadsheet. This is people's jobs, their mortgages, their businesses, their families and their communities. It is an apprentice hoping to become a journeyperson. It is an electrician building a career, a heavy equipment operator working long shifts to provide for his family, the engineer designing the next big project, the small business owner whose customers depend on a healthy energy sector. I stand here today fighting for Canada's energy industry and, more importantly, fighting for all of the spectacular workers in Canada's energy industry, for those hundreds of thousands of hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast who have a job, in great part, due to my community and the resources we have developed over the years. I stand here for the future of my community. When we talk about Canada's energy sector, we are also talking about Canada's ability to create good-paying jobs, attract investment, build infrastructure, generate government revenues and compete in the global economy. We are talking about whether Canadian workers can have the opportunity to build Canadian projects or whether those opportunities will continue to be built elsewhere. The reality is that for the last decade, we have seen those projects go elsewhere. We have seen those jobs go elsewhere. We have seen that opportunity flee. It is no surprise that Conservatives support building. We have been on that train for many decades, and we will continue being on it, whether it is popular for the Liberals or not. The reality is that we need to make sure that what we are building is sustainable for the long-term health of our economy. Canada has the resources, the expertise, the workers and the know-how. What we need is a government that can get out of the way. What we need is a government that will repeal the anti-energy and antidevelopment legislation, which the current government has chosen to keep on the books, that has kept a foot on the throat of the industry, preventing it from being able to expand. I will continue to stand up for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and for Canada's energy sector and the skilled workers who make our economy stronger. Conservatives will continue to push the Liberal government to cut the red tape and regulations, to get the projects actually built and to get shovels in the ground faster in Canada. We will continue to fight for the projects that we need to build to deliver an affordable, safe, independent country and to secure our energy future, not just for Canada but for our allies across the world. This is not just a question. This is something we will do and will continue fighting for.

Madam Speaker, we do not trust the Liberals. We are not sure they are actually going to do what they say they are going to do. We voted in favour of Bill C‑5 because they said it was absolutely essential for moving projects forward. However, we have not seen that. No projects have been started under the Major Projects Office. We want to ensure that this will have a real impact and lead to actual construction projects in our country.

Madam Speaker, I am lucky to have studied in French, because I am now able to answer technical questions about oil sands in French. It has been a long time since I tried to use certain words in French. The Conservatives will certainly work in committee to improve this bill, just as they did during the study of Bill C‑5. However, we have concerns, because we were told that Bill C‑5 would be the solution. Now, 18 months later, nothing has been built, but the Liberals are telling us that there is another bill and that this one will be the solution. That is why we have concerns.

Madam Speaker, as I stated in my speech, Conservatives are fans of getting things built. We took the Liberals at their word, a year and a half ago when they put forward Bill C-5, that it was the solution to make things move at unimaginable speeds. We helped it get sped through Parliament. We worked and created amendments so that it was the best piece of legislation possible. Here we are, 18 months later, and we see no projects being built and nothing approved by the Major Projects Office. We know there are at least 500 projects sitting on some bureaucrat's desk somewhere that are waiting for approval from Ottawa to be able to go forward. What we are saying from the Conservative perspective is that we are going to study this bill at committee to make sure it is actually going to work to get projects built, because we desperately need to have construction in this country.

Mr. Speaker, heinous serial killers should not get to plead their case and have a chance at parole every couple of years. This is precisely why Conservatives brought forward the Conservative bill Brian's bill: to respect victims' families. Paul Bernardo is a convicted serial rapist and killer, yet he will get his fourth chance at parole, while the victims' families suffer. Trial lawyer Tim Danson said, “It's just pure entertainment for him. He has no remorse.” Why do the Liberals keep making the families of victims relive the worst days of their lives?

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that people are struggling with the cost of living, and it is incumbent on us as legislators not only to listen but to act. Any tax on fuel, whether it be gas or diesel, is ultimately a tax on food. Whether the government wants to admit it or not is another question for another day, but Canadians are out of money and do not have time to wait for us to agree. I will start off by saying that while I do not think this goes far enough, it is a step in the right direction. Conservatives have been calling for the Liberals to remove taxes on fuel for months. It is nice to see that at least some of the Liberals on the other side do in fact take lessons from Conservatives. I do not believe we would be here today debating this bill had it not been for the relentless pressure from Conservatives and our Conservative caucus over the last number of years on this very topic. Conservatives like me are fighting for Canadians, who are working hard but find themselves unable to get ahead. Some 35% of Canadians say they are anxious about money, and 28% lack emergency savings to cover basic needs. Canadian families are paying 7.8% more for transportation, while the cost of groceries rose 3.1%. Well over half, or 56% of parents, said they could not fit the cost of back-to-school supplies into their normal budgets. To some, this might just seem like numbers, but do not be fooled. Behind every number and statistic is a story from a Canadian struggling to get by: someone who is pulling their groceries off the conveyor as the till ticks up faster than they expected, a family who was not quite able to complete the back-to-school shopping list because they just did not have the funds or the children who are no longer in organized sports because there is not enough money in the family budget to drive them there and back. These are the real stories of the real Canadians I heard from this summer, and I know that many of my colleagues heard very similar stories from their constituents. These are Canadians who are hard-working and have done everything right, but they find themselves in a spot where inflation is going up faster than their paycheque, and they are navigating countless challenges. This summer specifically, I heard from a number of people who are navigating challenging consumer proposals, bankruptcies and foreclosures and who are facing financial ruin because they simply could not keep up for too many months in a row. In far too many of these cases, there are children involved. The kids might not fully understand what this means, but they do know that their parents are stressed out and do not quite understand why. According to the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, insolvencies have climbed to levels not seen since the aftermath of the great recession. Let that sink in. We are seeing insolvencies at a rate we have not seen since the great recession, while consumer insolvencies rose another 6.9% year over year. At the same time, mortgage delinquencies have reached their highest level since 2021. Again, behind every single one of these stats is a story of a real Canadian struggling. These are heartbreaking stories, and they are becoming far too common. Canadians already owe an average of $1.76 for every dollar of disposable household income they earn, and MNP reports that more than 40% are within $200 of insolvency at month-end. It means that 40% of Canadians are within $200 of not being able to pay their bills every single month. Many families have exhausted all of their savings, refinanced their debt and begged and borrowed simply to afford rent, mortgages and everyday necessities like groceries and school supplies. These are real-life consequences of more than a decade of Liberal mismanagement of our economy. While this bill would in fact offer some relief, it is not the cure for the out-of-control inflation Canadians are still facing. If the Liberals were serious about helping Canadian families make ends meet, they would not stop at a 10¢-per-litre break and pat themselves on the back. They would adopt our plan to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel until at least Canada Day 2027. That means giving Canadians a break from the excise tax and the GST on gas and diesel, and permanently scrapping the seven-cents-per-litre clean fuel standard and the industrial carbon tax. This could provide 25¢ of savings per litre of gas and diesel and would bring as much as $1,000 of savings to the average Canadian family. A recent poll found that 63% of Canadians oppose the Liberal government bringing back the fuel excise tax, including 43% who strongly oppose it. There is no surprise to that because all families see are their gas prices continuing to go up month over month, or day to day, it seems. This opposition is not just concentrated in one part of the country. It crosses every region of the country: 71% in the member opposite's riding in Manitoba and Saskatchewan; 64% in British Columbia, Alberta and Atlantic Canada; 62% in Ontario; and 60% in Quebec. It is clear that Canadians are asking for it. They need relief from the cost of living crisis. I live in rural Alberta. I represent rural Albertans. Many of my colleagues have no idea of the lengths we routinely need to travel just to live life, whether it is to go to work, take our children to school or day care, go to a medical appointment or visit family and friends. It is a 300-kilometre trip for me just to get out of town. I do not think most people in this chamber, whether they are a Conservative, Liberal or Bloc member, understand the lengths that many of us rural MPs go to to serve our constituents. Every single penny saved at the pump gives people a choice. It gives them the choice of what food they are going to put on the table for dinner that night, which events they can attend, which bills they can pay and how they can plan for their future. It gives them agency. It makes it so they are not dependent on government for every single decision in their life. For some across the country, the monthly gas or diesel bill is relatively small, but for many of the amazing people I represent, it is not small. It is a significant part of their monthly budget, and it seems to only ever go up. It is also not an optional line in their budget. Most people I represent cannot take transit most of the time because it either does not work for their schedule or simply does not exist at all. Most people cannot walk, as the distances are simply too far, and in the winter, the brutal prairie cold is not for the faint of heart. They often do not have a choice; they must drive, and every time fuel prices go up, they feel it. They understand a concept that somehow seems to elude many Liberals: When fuel prices go up, grocery prices follow, because food does not just magically appear on the table like my kids sometimes think it does, or teleport to a grocery store. It gets transported on a truck. Those trucks use diesel, and the operators of those companies cannot simply absorb those costs. Freight costs then get passed on to consumers. It is really basic economics. Conservatives are fighting to restore affordability by lowering taxes, unleashing investment, removing barriers to growth and advancing a real economic action plan that helps Canadians get ahead. The Conservative economic action plan would green-light the 500 projects that are sitting somewhere here in Ottawa on someone's desk and were supposed to move at unimaginable speeds. Conservatives supported the Liberals in trying to move those forward. We just did not imagine that those unimaginable speeds would amount to nothing. My call to the Liberals is to get to work. Canadians are not asking for more promises. They are asking for real relief that they can actually feel in their wallets. They are working hard. They are making sacrifices and doing everything they can to provide for their families, yet too many are still falling further behind. A 10¢-per-litre reduction may provide some temporary relief, but Canadians deserve a government willing to address the broader affordability crisis and give families the certainty they need to get ahead. Conservatives will continue to fight to lower taxes, lower costs, more investment and an economy that works—

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have long called for the abolition of the carbon tax on fuel. That is nothing new. We are happy that the Prime Minister finally listened. In the last Parliament with the last Liberal government, which had a lot of the same faces around the cabinet table, the health minister actually said that Canadians were going to burn to death if they go on a summer road trip. He was quite animated in his feelings on this. This is a small, temporary measure that is a small step in the right direction. What Conservatives are saying is that it does not go far enough and to listen to us. We are trying to work with the government and do what is best for Canadians. All that is stopping the Liberals from doing it is to open their ears and listen.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who has been a fearless leader for the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadian Armed Forces families and a relentless champion of Canada's Snowbirds. This is just it. It is not about the fact that the Liberals are removing 10¢ a litre. It is that Conservatives do not believe that 10¢ a litre is going to be enough to create the type of pressure relief that Canadian families need. I do not know if members opposite were in their ridings talking to people struggling over the summer. I was and I know my colleague was, and what we heard is that 10¢ a litre, which would equate to somewhere in the range of $250 for the average Canadian family for a year, is not going to make a difference, but 25¢ a litre, which is approximately $1,000 for an average family, would. It is simple.

Mr. Speaker, what I heard loud and clear when I was touring my riding and meeting with Canadians from coast to coast to coast this summer is that they want agency. They want to make decisions as to how they spend their own money. They think they can spend their money a lot better than Ottawa can spend their money. They might have different priorities. Some of the programs mentioned by the Liberals are well and good for the people who can access them, but far too many Canadians are stuck on waiting lists or are waiting in line trying to access those services, so they do not do anything for affordability for the thousands and thousands of Canadians who are stuck waiting in line trying to get access or stuck waiting for the schools that have not done anything. One of the biggest frustrations, whether it be with the school food program or the day care program, which are provincial responsibilities, is that the Liberals have not worked as well with the provinces as I think they could have or should have to deliver these services. What they have done is create layers of bureaucracy, which means that right now over 30% of food bank users in Canada are children. That is a shame, and that is a shame on the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize an extraordinary young tradesperson from Fort McMurray who is making history on the world stage. Keegan Sturge is a Keyano College apprentice electrician, and he is currently in Shanghai, China, representing team Canada in the electrical installation category at the prestigious WorldSkills competition. He is facing off against the best young tradespeople from more than 70 countries. Keegan's journey started when he entered a registered apprenticeship program in high school. Guided by his instructor and mentor Dawn Ohama, he has spent countless hours in specialized training, national competitions and international camps. I have had the opportunity to see his work up close and learn first hand about the challenges he has faced along the way. His passion for his trade is truly inspiring, and I hope his journey sends a message to all young people out there to look at the trades. I would ask all members of the House to join me in wishing Keegan all the best as he starts his competition at WorldSkills. Keegan's community and his country are extremely proud of him.

Madam Speaker, we are seeing here a heavy-handed Liberal government that has decided that, because it is unable to manage the time of the House and because it is unable to bring forward legislation in a timely manner, it is going to use the hammer to curtail debate. We have seen an hour of debate on this particular bill in the chamber, and the Liberals' answer is to speed this through so we cannot have an adequate debate on the bill. They are trying to use every excuse in the book, but the reality is that, when we started sitting, we had effectively no bills for a very long period of time, and that is on the Liberals. They cannot get bills out for us to have time to debate them. It is not on the opposition for holding them accountable and saying that we deserve to have debate. This is a lot of money being spent. Does the minister not believe that Canadians deserve to have actual conversations and debate on bills in this chamber, specifically when we are spending billions of dollars for Canadians, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is falling behind. Under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada stands alone as the only G20 country in a recession. Families feel it every day. Paycheques do not stretch as far, bills keep piling up, and home ownership is slipping out of reach. Canadians are left asking a simple question: How did we get here? The answer is a decade of Liberal economic failure. The Liberals said this spring that they would borrow $65 billion, yet the independent budget watchdog says the real number is $72 billion. That is $7 billion more on debt, $7 billion more to be paid by our children and grandchildren. The Liberals keep spending like there is no tomorrow, while Canadians are left paying the price today with higher debt, higher costs and less opportunity. Canadians deserve better than excuses. They deserve a government that grows the economy instead of growing the debt. It is time to end the reckless spending, restore fiscal responsibility and get Canada back on track.

Mr. Speaker, owning a home was once at the heart of the Canadian dream. For generations, Canadians believed that if they worked hard, played by the rules, paid their taxes and contributed to their communities, they would have the opportunity to buy a home, raise a family and build a secure future. That was not an unreasonable expectation. It was part of the promise of this country. Today, however, that promise is further out of reach than it has ever felt before. After more than a decade of Liberal government, Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis unlike anything we have seen in generations. The cost of groceries has soared, utility bills continue to climb, families are paying more at the gas pump, more at the checkout counter and more for virtually everything, every necessity of life, yet nowhere is this failure more evident than in the housing sector. Home ownership is increasingly becoming an unachievable goal for hard-working Canadians. Young people who did everything right are losing hope. They pursued an education, entered the workforce, saved diligently and delayed major life decisions, only to discover that the dream of owning a home continues to move further and further away. The statistics paint a sobering picture. According to the office of the superintendent of bankruptcy, the number of Canadians seeking relief under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act during the first quarter of 2026 reached levels not seen since the aftermath of the Great Depression. Consumer insolvencies increased by 8.5% compared to the same period last year, and mortgage delinquencies have reached their highest levels since 2021. Canadians are carrying an astonishing $2.6 trillion in household debt, and the average Canadian now owes $1.77 for every dollar earned, yet the burden is heavier for lower- and middle-income earners. Testimony before the finance committee revealed that, for the bottom 80% of earners, debt-to-income ratios exceed 200%. For the bottom 20%, they approach 430%. These numbers are more than just statistics. They represent families draining their savings, simply trying to keep up. They represent seniors worried about their financial security. They represent young couples wondering when they will ever be able to save enough money for that down payment. They represent Canadians who have refinanced mortgages, maxed-out lines of credit and taken on additional debt simply to afford rent, groceries and other necessities. Canada is facing a housing crisis, not a housing challenge, not a housing issue, but a housing crisis, and it is a crisis that has been years in the making. I have seen the aftermath of this crisis in my hometown of Fort McMurray, where we have had booms and busts for as long as people have known that the oil sands existed. However, never was this more true than in the last decade when we had the Liberal government in place, which told people in my community that it would transition their jobs away, and that they should not actually be in that kind of industry. What we saw, effectively for the last 10 years, were housing starts dropping to nearly zero, which means that, right now, we do not have the builders ready to build, because most of the builders have left town. Most of the construction workers have left town, because there were no jobs to be had as people were not buying houses. What we saw, and what we are continuing to see, are people upside down on their mortgage, which means they owe more than they have paid. If they want to sell their house, their choice is either to pay a whole bunch of money or go bankrupt. That is not a space where Canadians want to be, but this is where we are careening down, because of the Liberals' mismanagement of the economy for the last decade. The decisions the Liberals make, and the decisions we make here in Parliament, have real-life impact on the lives of Canadians. This is not just a crisis for families who are looking to buy homes. It is a crisis for workers who build homes: electricians, carpenters, plumbers and welders. It has an impact on all kinds of construction workers. When projects are delayed by government red tape or permits take years instead of months, investment goes away. This is one of those problems, because when the investment goes away, the jobs disappear. We need to think about that for a moment. Canada has a severe housing crisis and a severe housing shortage. We need millions of new homes across the country. We have skilled trades workers ready to build them, yet government policies are slowing down construction and preventing projects from even getting off the ground. Every housing project that is cancelled, delayed or deemed too expensive to proceed means fewer houses for workers to work on, fewer apprentices getting trained, fewer opportunities for young people entering the trades and fewer paycheques for hard-working Canadians. This is the reality that the Liberal government fails to understand. What is the Liberals' solution? Their solution is yet another housing bureaucracy. What we are seeing with Build Canada Homes is a fourth Canadian housing bureaucracy because their solution to so much is just to build more government bureaucracy. The reality is we have yet to be able to understand, on the human resources, skills and social development committee, what powers of the Build Canada Homes could not be accessed through either the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or the Canada Lands Company, which are two existing bureaucracies. Instead, the Liberals want to put a new shiny bow on things, build something new and say they are going to build at unimaginable speeds, yet the reality is we are seeing construction grind to a halt. Most of the people who came before our committee when we studied this bill did not really understand what Build Canada Homes was going to do. They had some general ideas, but nothing concrete. When we had the CEO come to committee, we heard how many homes the corporation had built. The answer, I think, was nine, which is not speeds that had never before been seen. The Liberals promised to build 500,000 homes annually, yet according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation projections, housing starts could actually fall to approximately 212,000 units by 2028. That is not just a small shortfall. That is a huge failure of historic proportions. Even more concerning is the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that Build Canada Homes would contribute only about 5,000 homes annually. That is only 1% of the government's own annual housing target. Canadians deserve better than announcements that generate headlines but fail to deliver results. The reality is builders have consistently told government what is needed. The solution is not more bureaucracy. The solution is not more government agencies. The solution is not having Ottawa involved. The solution is not having Ottawa attempting to become a developer. The solution is creating conditions that allow builders to build. The CEO of the Ontario Home Builders' Association summed it up perfectly when he testified at our committee. He said, “the path forward is not for government to step into the role of the builder but for it to enable those who already do this work every day to do it better, faster and at greater scale.” The Conservative Party of Canada completely agrees and we believe that all Canadians should have the opportunity to own their own home and have access to safe and affordable housing. That is why Conservatives believe that the federal government can assist home builders across the country by cutting the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000; unleash building by tying federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding; have municipalities permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year; cut development charges by 50%, which the Liberals promised during the last election campaign but refused to deliver; end the capital gains on reinvestment in new housing in Canada; and unlock billions of dollars of investment in the country's homebuilding sector. Most importantly, we believe the government should focus on the outcomes instead of announcements. I know that is shocking, but Canadians do not measure success by the number of government programs that exist. They measure success by whether they can afford a home. They measure success by whether their children have opportunities. They measure success by whether their communities can grow and prosper. For too many Canadians, the answer today is no. The consequences of inaction are profound. Canadians are tired of excuses. They are tired of missed targets. They are tired of announcements that never materialize into results. They want action. They want homes. They want affordability. They want governments that remove obstacles instead of creating them. As the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I will continue fighting for the workers, the families, the tradespeople and the young Canadians who simply want a fair chance to succeed, to save, to buy a home, to build a future and to pass on something to their children. This was once the Canadian promise and it should be again. It is time to restore Canada's promise.

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite can get all huffy and puffy, and have all the passion in the world for this, but it does not change the result that over 80% of Canadians want to own a home. They want to own their own house. The government has created yet another housing bureaucracy, so we are now up to four housing bureaucracies at the federal level in Canada. The government's own Parliamentary Budget Officer has even said that Build Canada Homes will add just 5,000 homes per year, which is 1% of what the Liberals promised. I do not think that meets the expectation of Canadians. I wonder if he does.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, with whom I have the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, as well as on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. The facts are crystal clear. We heard from so many witnesses during the committee's study of Bill C‑20. The witnesses said that there was a lot of uncertainty and that they were not getting answers about the point of all this or why it could not be done by existing agencies. Ottawa decided to create another structure, to add more bureaucracy. It is not going to work. The fact is that we need to work more closely with the provinces, the territories and indigenous governments across the country because what Ottawa is doing is not working.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my spectacular colleague from the South Okanagan area for her tremendous work. She rightly points out the fact that the bureaucracies that currently exist, keyed by the Government of Canada, are too far away to be able to understand some of the needs of communities. This is one of the big problems that we face, but the answer from the Liberals is, “Let us build more bureaucracy. Let us not build more houses. Let us not do anything—

Madam Speaker, it is shameful that the government has decided it is going to use a hammer to restrict our ability to continue debating this important bill. The minister has stated that he wishes there were more, such as a parliamentary study on the idea of elder abuse and coercive control. All he would have to do is read through some of the testimony we have been hearing at FEWO for the last couple months, and there is ample. We have had witness after witness make it very clear that this needs to be put in. We have had tons of stakeholders bring this forward as a massive issue, yet the Liberals say that it is not important and that they are not dealing with that right now. Also, they are limiting any ability to have any further debate on this issue because they want to go home for vacation. We are here to work, and we expect that, so why is the minister so keen to get out of here, get to somewhere else and go on his vacation rather than stay here and work for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it is truly such an honour to be here today to speak to this spectacular bill. I want to sincerely thank my friend, my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre for being willing to be vulnerable, for being willing to share her story with each and every one of us and to use the pain, the struggle that she went through as she was dealing with addiction early in her life, and how she turned that into a spectacular life. I have had the opportunity of meeting her daughter and seeing the accomplishments she made in her professional life before she came to Parliament. To find out that years prior she had been homeless and sleeping on park benches in the community that she now gets to represent in Parliament, I think, is a huge testament to the fact that recovery is possible. What stops so many people from going after recovery is not having the tools to get there, the off-ramps. This is one of the pieces that Conservatives have been consistent in sharing. We need to meet people where they are at, but we cannot just leave them there. We need to give them the tools so they can get into detox and then, from that space, from detox into treatment. In my province of Alberta, the fact that people can do that without having to mortgage a house or wait six years on a wait-list has made the difference as to whether people stay sick or get better. I want to see more support for recovery because people truly can and do get better. Here is the piece: When people are in jail, and the root cause of some of their criminality is addiction, we really owe it to ourselves to make sure we are treating that root cause of the addiction. For every single person I have met who is now in recovery from addiction, the single hardest thing they have had to do in their life is getting sober and staying sober, confronting the demons of some of the actions and activities they did that were not in line with their values and confronting some of the really tough things they did when they were trying to just survive and get by. We should be offering tools while people are incarcerated so they can get better, and not just offering those tools but allowing that to be in consideration for parole and giving incentives so people can do that. Right now, if someone is seeking out treatment in incarceration in Canada, the steps they have to go through in most provinces are quite hard. Most people cannot even get into an NA or AA meeting if they are in jail. That is a failure of our system. It costs effectively nothing, yet in so many jurisdictions, it is hard to even get that for people who are struggling with addiction. This bill would take the huge step of not just telling people that addiction is a health condition and needs to be treated as such but clearly stating that we have hope, that we believe they can get better and that we know recovery is possible. That is the single most inspiring piece we can do. This is the most important piece. If people want to get started on that hard and long path toward recovery, it starts one step at a time, to do the next right thing, and this is the next right thing. I would encourage every single member in this chamber to put aside partisanship, to realize that this, what we are talking about right now, can make a huge difference in the lives of so many Canadians. I would urge every single member to unreservedly support the member for Kitchener Centre's private member's bill, Bill C-240, and make a very clear statement that recovery is possible.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. After two straight quarters of economic decline, the consequences are everywhere. One in four Canadians is food-insecure. Millions of people are struggling to put food on the table. Canadians are cutting back and lining up at food banks, yet reports of the Prime Minister's lavish catering and elite events continue to pile up. The Prime Minister spent more money on airplane food for three flights than the average family would spend on food for an entire decade. How can the Prime Minister justify spending so lavishly while Canadian families are struggling to afford the basics?

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Prime Minister continues to spend lavishly while Canadians struggle to put food on the table. After more than a decade of Liberal inflationary spending, Canadians are being stuck with the bill while government racks up debt and pays for luxury perks. Food Banks Canada's newest poverty report card warns that too many Canadians have incomes not meeting the cost of living and having a job is no longer a reliable path to stability. Let that sink in. Working Canadians now make up one in five food bank clients. The Prime Minister says this recession is a result of global economic crisis and tariff problems. If that is true, why is there no other country in G7—

Mr. Speaker, today is McHappy day, a day when every purchase at McDonald's helps support families through the Ronald McDonald House charities. In Alberta, 65% of families live outside a city with a children's hospital, meaning that many families must travel far from home and their support networks to access specialized care. In these moments, Ronald McDonald Houses provide a home away from home to families right across Canada. Last year, from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake alone, 52 families benefited from Ronald McDonald House stays, each bringing a little more normalcy and a chance for kids to be kids and for families to connect. When a child is seriously ill, families should not have to worry about where they will sleep or where their next meal is going to come from. Ronald McDonald House provides comfort, stability and a place to stay during some of life's most difficult moments. I encourage all Canadians to take part in McHappy day and help make a meaningful difference for families in need.

Mr. Speaker, we are just over a week into the Liberals' sneaky majority, which they got through backdoor deals, and this is the piece of legislation they have decided they are going to ram through and curtail debate. What is this piece of legislation we are talking about? This is a piece of legislation about sexual assault and listening to our veterans. The Liberals are choosing to put political expediency ahead of the needs of victims and our veterans or even listening to our military members. This is all par for the course. I have seen this in Cold Lake at 4 Wing. We still do not have an answer as to when we are going to get all 88 of the F-35s in, because they do not seem to care. This is just a pattern of abuse from the government of not putting veterans and our armed forces members first. The question is simple. Will the Liberals admit they are wrong on this and let the debate continue?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister claims that a new pipeline is more probable than possible. Yet, there is no proponent, no start date, no completion date, no route, no timeline, no shovels in the ground, nothing. This is after promising to move at unimaginable speeds. Despite the illusions, it is clear that the Prime Minister is just another Liberal. If he wants Canadians to believe he is anything other than just another Liberal, will he answer this simple question: What is the exact date construction will begin on a new Pacific pipeline, just the date?

Mr. Speaker, I am focused on the people of Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. The problem is that this is yet another Liberal illusion. The biggest barriers that we face in developing Canadian natural resources are imposed by the Liberal government here in Ottawa. It has not repealed a single anti-development law. There is not one tax cut for the resource sector and not one shovel in the ground through the Liberals' Major Projects Office. It is the same old story, because this is just another Liberal. The promise was to move an unimaginable speeds. Can he just very clearly state what is the date for this new Pacific pipeline, just the date, please?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, a former banker who should know a thing or two about economics, has doubled Trudeau's deficit. Higher deficits lead to higher debt, higher inflation and ultimately higher taxes for Canadians. He is effectively running up the government's credit card without any plan to tackle the principle. Families do not run their budgets this way. Liberal policies are just driving up costs, and nowhere is this more clear than a trip to the grocery store. Canadians now have the highest food inflation in the G7. When will the Liberal Prime Minister end his costly credit card budgeting so Canadians can afford to eat?

Mr. Speaker, here is a news flash: Families and parents want to feed their own kids. They do not want to have to rely on government just to be able to get by. I know it is hard for the Liberals to understand that, but that is what parents say every single day. My question is simple. Will the Liberals finally drop all of their deficit spending and bring things in budget? How many more reports have to come out before the Liberals stop this costly credit card spending and make food more affordable for families?

Mr. Speaker, nearly three-quarters of Canadians say that the rising cost of essentials, like food and fuel, is putting serious strain on their finances. After years of Liberal policies driving up the cost of living, Canadians are being forced to make impossible choices just to get by. Yet, just yesterday, Liberals voted against a motion that would have removed taxes on gas and diesel, lowering prices for families. The question is simple: Will the Prime Minister listen to hard-working families, remove gas taxes and make life more affordable for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that 73% of Canadians say they are cutting back on spending. There are already reports of food suppliers adding surcharges to offset the soaring cost of fuel, which will only increase the cost of food. Food banks are reporting they are spending more on fuel and less on food as demand continues to soar. Families need relief today, yet the Prime Minister's solution is a temporary half-measure, leaving gas taxes largely in place. Every tax on fuel is a tax on families and a tax on food. Will they do the right thing and remove all taxes on gas, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C‑231, a bill for David's friends. This bill, introduced by my colleague and friend, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, in honour of his son David, seeks to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. David left us too soon. He was way too young. I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague and his lovely wife Caro for courageously taking the initiative to share their story and that of their beloved son. Passing this bill could help many young Canadians who are struggling with addictions. In my previous role as shadow minister for addictions, I saw first-hand the chaos and destruction that addiction can cause in the lives of those struggling with the disease, as well as in the lives of their families and communities. I met individuals whose lives had been profoundly disrupted by substance use, where stable employment, housing and relationships had completely eroded over time. I also heard from parents, partners and children who were left to cope with uncertainty, fear and repeated cycles of crisis, relapse, overdose and recovery attempts. These experiences underscored how addiction is not an isolated issue but one that affects the entire family system and places significant strain on frontline services such as health care, law enforcement and social services. Today I am going to share a story that is very personal. I want to profoundly thank my brother for allowing me to tell a part of his story. My brother Brent started using drugs at 14, while he was in high school, shortly after our mom's death from cancer. What started as teenagers being teenagers very quickly changed. He quickly fell into addiction, using drugs to get through classes and just to get by. He was in the world of addiction and active drug use for over a decade, a decade where he struggled to feel normal, a decade stuck. The only way he felt normal was when he was using drugs, through high school and just barely surviving. Through his decade of active drug use, he had many run-ins with the law. As a family, there was so much stress and so many sleepless nights wondering where he was, how he was doing and if he would ever find a path to recovery. I told him about the bill and asked him about his thoughts. He liked it. He thought it would be a good idea and that it very well might have helped him when he first started on his path of addiction. He shared with me that he often wonders what his life would have looked like had he been offered treatment after his first run-in with the law as a minor, how much further ahead he would be had he not lost that decade stuck in addiction, had he been able to get the help he needed sooner. After many years of struggle, he accepted that he had a problem, and he started his journey toward recovery. It was not a straight line, and it took so much work, but he put in the work. I am so incredibly proud to share that my baby brother is now in recovery from addiction and that he is over a year sober today. He is doing so well. He is in his first year of trade school as a plumber-steamfitter. He is literally and figuratively helping build Canada and build what we need, and showing that recovery is possible every single day. These experiences have reinforced the importance of a compassionate, evidence-based response that prioritizes immediate safety and also long-term pathways to recovery, recognizing that addiction is a complex health condition. Early intervention in youth addiction is critical because it can significantly improve long-term outcomes by preventing experimentation from developing into entrenched substance use. When we look at Bill C-231, that idea really sits at the centre of what meaningful reform should achieve, helping young people earlier. Why not? Most youth who come into contact with the justice system are not simply offenders. That was not the case for my brother. He was struggling with addiction, trauma and mental health challenges, and he needed someone to see him. He needed our justice system to offer him the support he needed, and that would have been addiction treatment. If the only response is punitive, we risk missing the chance to actually change the trajectory of their lives. Adolescence is a window where intervention can genuinely work, where relationships, supports and treatment can redirect a young person before more patterns set in. Strengthening the Youth Criminal Justice Act in this way would reflect a more realistic and humane understanding of what kids need: timely support, accountability paired with rehabilitation, and coordinated services that address the root cause. Done properly, early intervention gives young people a real shot at stability, recovery and a future that looks very different from the path they were on. This is one example where Alberta provides a powerful example through our PChAD, protection of children abusing drugs, program. Under PChAD, families in Alberta have a legal option where young people in severe substance use can get involuntary treatment. Families can apply to the court for help, and, importantly, the system responds in a way that is focused on stabilization and recovery, not punishment. When a judge issues a PChAD order, the young person can be placed in a structured, supervised setting where immediate safety is addressed. Withdrawal can be managed, if necessary, and a clear pathway into treatment is created. It also brings families into the process in a meaningful way, rather than leaving them isolated and overwhelmed while trying to manage a crisis at home. The practical outcomes are significant and very real. It means that a parent is not left alone, wondering whether their child will survive another night out in crisis. It also means that police are not repeatedly acting as the default responders to what is fundamentally a health issue. It means that emergency departments are not becoming the only safety net available. It means that young people are given a real opportunity to pause, to stabilize and to engage with treatment before their situation becomes worse. PChAD is not perfect. No program is. However, it reflects an important principle: When addiction is present in a young person's life, early structured interventions can change outcomes. I have met some of the children who went through this program, and it changed their life. Recovery is in fact possible. I am encouraging all my colleagues to consider supporting the bill and giving kids across Canada some of the support that is available if they happen to be lucky enough to be from Alberta. The same principle is what is here in Bill C-231. It is trying to bring more consistency into the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The bill asks us to recognize something simple, which is that for many young people, addiction is not separate from their contact with the justice system. It is often at the centre of it. If we treat each court appearance as an isolated event, we miss the pattern and we miss the chance to intervene. The legislation is about connecting these dots. It would ensure that when the justice system sees a pattern, it could respond, and with more than repetition. It could respond with treatment, structure and a path towards recovery. Members of the House all come with different perspectives, but we share one basic responsibility. We are here to make decisions that affect real people, especially young people who are struggling and still have a chance to turn their life around. Every single person has a chance to turn their life around, but why are we not affording this to the youth in our country? The bill is not asking us to choose between accountability and compassion. It is asking us to finally align them in a way that reflects reality. Young people need both structure and support. Families need options, not hopelessness. Our justice system needs tools to match the complexity of what it is seeing. That is what Bill C-231 offers: a practical step towards a system that intervenes earlier, connects better and gives young people a real chance at direction. One thing I will share is that recovery takes a lot of work. People who choose recovery are some of the bravest people I have ever had the chance to encounter. This is not them taking the easy way out; this is them doing the hardest work possible. What the bill from my colleague, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, is proposing is simply allowing these kids to put in the hard work and get their life back on track. I am going to close by saying this. If there is still time to help a young person turn their life around, we have the responsibility to try. Why would we not, for David, for the friends of David and for every family still hoping for a different outcome? For David, for all of David's friends and for all the families across Canada hoping for a different outcome, we should pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the strongest economy in the G7. Instead, Canada is at the bottom. We have the only shrinking economy, the second-highest unemployment, the highest household debt and the worst food inflation in the G7. The Prime Minister cannot hide behind global challenges when every other G7 country faces the exact same pressures. These problems did not appear overnight. They are a direct result of bad Liberal policies. Will the Prime Minister reverse course on the policies that have left Canada with a shrinking economy, soaring food prices and rising unemployment?

Mr. Speaker, Albertans know that the member lives in an illusion. There are no projects that have been approved by the government and no shovels in the ground. For years, the Liberal government did everything in its power to block pipelines, stall major energy projects and scare off investment, weakening one of Canada's most critical economic drivers, the oil sands. Canadians are now paying the price. With a shrinking economy and over 100,000 jobs already lost this year, the consequences are clear. Will the Prime Minister finally reverse course, unleash Canada's energy sector and help rebuild our economy?

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, for most Canadians, my hon. colleague's speech fell flat because it does not actually respond to the problems that we are hearing about. The Liberals are so intent that their answer is the only right answer that they refuse to listen to any other options. Their answer keeps coming back to the fact that our answer is an answer from the past, but the reality is that we have had the president of Unifor Local 222 in Oshawa say that this is a common-sense solution. The reality is that what the Liberals have been doing for the last decade has absolutely destroyed our auto industry and has hurt people because they cannot afford things. They cannot afford to buy groceries. They cannot afford to put gas in their vehicles, and they sure cannot afford to buy new vehicles. Does the member opposite believe that we need to do everything in our power to bring affordability back and bring things back to Canada, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in response to the point of order raised yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security to Bill C-8, concerning cybersecurity and telecommunications. In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary referred to three amendments that the committee had agreed to consider despite the committee chair ruling the amendments inadmissible, which it subsequently adopted. Firstly, I would like to remind the House that appeals of committee chairs' rulings are simply part of the routine practice of this place. Standing Order 117 says so. It says, “The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee—

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this is a very important point of order, and I would recommend that everyone stop to listen. Standing Order 117 says, “The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee”. Secondly, a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible. Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3,327 of the Debates, you yourself reached a different conclusion than the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had concerning the need for royal recommendation for an amendment that the committee made to Bill C-4. The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority. The parliamentary secretary referred the Chair to paragraph 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, which provides that an amendment to a bill is out of order “if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” The parliamentary secretary, however, did not offer any argument or reasoning for the amendments being allegedly beyond the scope of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I think you should reject the government's argument on that basis alone, since it is asking you to overturn a committee decision without any true procedural justification. As Janse and LeBlanc wrote at paragraph 16.96, “The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage.” Indeed, as Speaker Milliken mentioned on March 14, 2008, at page 4182 of the Debates, “successive Speakers have been reluctant to intervene in the proceedings of committees except in highly exceptional circumstances.” That is, in fact, a commonly understood principle in this House, but the parliamentary secretary failed to offer any justification meeting that threshold of exceptional circumstances. Indeed, the same former Speaker explained on November 27, 2002, at page 1950 of the Debates, “it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.” However, should you disagree with me on the ending of your inquiry here, Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer submissions about how these Conservative amendments are actually within the scope of this bill. Let us get our bearings. First, footnote 164 on page 63 of Janse and LeBlanc refers to the scope of a bill as “meaning the schemes by which the principles of the bill are achieved.” Paragraph 28.81 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 25th edition, expands upon the concept. It states: The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases, difficult questions of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine the scope. The same authority continues, explaining the United Kingdom's practice: Standing Order No 65 gives a general authority to any committee on a bill to amend the bill as it sees fit (even if this entails amending the bill's long title in consequence), provided that the amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, that is to say, within the scope of the bill. Bill C-8 is a broad bill, touching on a number of facets of the digital world. For our purposes, let us focus on part 1, containing amendments to the Telecommunications Act and making provisions for a variety of measures, including empowering the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry, respectively, to make orders and give direction regarding the security of Canada's telecommunications system. What amendments CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 do collectively is require prior judicial authorization for certain of those orders, including for decisions of the cabinet or the minister to impose a gag order on Canadians. I would submit that nothing about this changes or expands the scope of Bill C-8. Instead, they oppose conditions on executive decision-making, without changing the nature or scope of the decisions that might be made under the authorities proposed in the bill. In a ruling given on October 26, 2006, Mr. Speaker Milliken held at page 4308 of the Debates, that: I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill. As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact. Another precedent concerns a former bill, Bill C-483, which proposed to transfer decision-making authority over the temporary escorted absences of convicted murderers from penitentiary wardens, who are officials of the executive branch, to the quasi-judicial national Parole Board. The public safety committee reported that bill back to the House with amendments that would instead have had the decision-making responsibilities shared between institution heads and the Parole Board. Mr. Speaker, your predecessor found the committee's amendments to have been in order, commenting on May 2, 2014, at page 4880 of the Debates, that: I can see nothing in the bill as amended by the committee which would alter the aims and intent of the bill, namely the limiting of the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences. In the present case before you, Mr. Speaker, the government itself contemplates a rule for the federal court elsewhere in clause 2 of Bill C-8, namely, in its proposed section 15.9 of the Telecommunications Act, making provisions for the judicial review of the cabinet and ministers' orders. The amendments to Bill C-8, challenged by the parliamentary secretary, are like the 2006 precedent. This is the simple creation of a condition on how the decisions of a minister are exercised without changing the types of decisions that could be made and, like the 2014 precedent, simply adjusting to the responsibilities of the decision-makers who each already have assigned roles within the proposed statutory scheme. To sum up, the parliamentary secretary's point of order should simply be dismissed for its failure to advance any procedural grounds for why the public safety committee's third report might be procedurally flawed. In the alternative, the impugned amendments are all, I submit, within the scope of the bill and have a nature consistent with committee amendments, which your predecessors have found to be within the scope of the bills concerned.

Mr. Speaker, it is really troubling when the government brings forward a bill that is about potentially censoring people. The minister has pointed out that the bill has been in the process of being debated for a while. Part of that is because, as time has gone on, we have been able to discover more and more troubling items within this particular bill. Had it been just an easy bill that everyone could get behind, that would have been be fine. However, I have had so many people from my riding reach out to me with their deeply held faith positions. Whether they are from the Muslim community, the Christian community or the Hindu community, they are very concerned about what the bill would actually do and how it would impact their ability to counsel their children and live their lives the way they are choosing to do so, in peace and harmony. Why is this the bill that the Liberals have decided they are going to ram through and not allow us to have a fulsome debate on when this is something that is so important to so many Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, despite the government's claim, the Prime Minister has not approved a single new pipeline to tidewater. Even with sweeping new powers, the Major Project Office has yet to approve a single major project, let alone one in Canada's oil sands. Canada's energy sector could help supply our allies, strengthen our economy at home, diversify our trade and provide greater economic certainty in an uncertain world. Why will the Prime Minister not support responsible energy development so Canada can help our economy and our allies?

Mr. Speaker, we are on board. Rising oil prices should be a major opportunity. Canada is home to the fourth-largest oil reserves, yet Canada's leading energy companies have been clear that it is the Liberal anti-energy laws that are killing economic growth in our country. Instead of building, we are seeing projects stall. Last week, CNRL paused an $8-billion project because of Liberal anti-development policies and laws. This would have been thousands of jobs in Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and right across Canada. Why will the government not just get out of the way so that we can get pipelines built?

Mr. Speaker, child poverty in Canada has risen for the third consecutive year. In 2025, nearly 30,000 more children fell below the poverty line, according to the latest child and family poverty report card. The progress our country once made is not just slowing; we are going backwards. Behind every statistic is a child going without, a family stretched beyond its limits and parents forced to make impossible choices. When will the Liberal government reverse the rise in child poverty, reduce the cost of living and strengthen our economy so Canadians can afford basic necessities?

Mr. Speaker, one in five children under six in Canada is living under poverty due to the government, 2.5 million children are growing up in food-insecure households, and most alarming of all, the number of children in severely food-insecure households doubled between 2019 and 2023. For too many parents, the gap between working hard and making ends meet has become impossible. For too many children, opportunity is being replaced with uncertainty. At what point will the Liberal government confront the reality families are facing, take meaningful actions to lower costs and rebuild an economy where no child is left behind?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his tireless effort on this incredibly important topic. He and I have shared a number of conversations about not just the importance of the legislation but the importance of talking about it here in the House of Commons and bringing attention to this issue, because this is something that a lot of people think lives in a far distant past. I do not believe he had an opportunity to finish all of his speech. I wondered if he could perhaps share with the chamber some of the hard work he performed that he did not get to share with us earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code on sterilization procedures. Bill S-228, formerly Bill S-250, would criminalize the act of forcing or coercing a person to become sterilized without proper consent. It would amend the Criminal Code of Canada by adding section 268.1, which would clarify what a sterilization procedure is and add clarity that a sterilization procedure is an act that would fall under subsection 268(1). I want to thank Senator Yvonne Boyer for her leadership in bringing forward this bill. This is not an easy topic to talk about, but it would bring an important solution, so that forced or coerced sterilization would never happen again. Forced or coerced sterilization is a form of eugenics, and Canada has a troubling and well-documented history when it comes to its practice. In 1928, Alberta enacted the Sexual Sterilization Act, which established a eugenics board empowered to authorize the sterilization of patients in mental hospitals who were being considered for discharge. If the board determined that an individual might pass on a perceived disability to their children, it could approve the procedure. At first, the act required consent, either from the patient or from the parent, guardian or spouse. However, in 1937, the legislation was amended to remove the requirement for informed consent for those labelled “mentally defective”. During the 44 years in which this legislation was in effect, the eugenics board approved 4,725 cases for sterilization, of which 2,834 were carried out. One of the survivors was Leilani Muir. In 1955, Ms. Muir was admitted to the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives in Red Deer. She was told she was undergoing a routine appendectomy when doctors decided to sterilize her without her knowledge, much less her consent. It was only years later that she found out, while trying to conceive, that her sterilization had occurred. In 1996, Ms. Muir became the first person to successfully sue the Alberta government for wrongful sterilization. Ms. Muir's case opened the door for similar class action lawsuits, and by 1999 the Province of Alberta had paid $142 million in settlement costs to over 700 victims. The Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed in 1972 by Premier Peter Lougheed's Progressive Conservative government, and in 1999, former Premier Ralph Klein made an historic formal apology for the forced sterilization of more than 2,800 people. British Columbia enacted a similar law that was in place between 1933 and 1973, yet it was narrower in scope than Alberta's legislation and therefore impacted a lot fewer people. Both Saskatchewan and Ontario debated bringing forward this type of legislation, but ultimately the legislation did not pass. As a result, many assume that forced sterilization belongs to some troublesome but distant past. This assumption, however, is completely inaccurate. Reports of forced or coerced sterilization have surfaced as recently as last year, 2025. For those affected, this is not history. It is lived experience. To date, it is estimated that somewhere between 12,000 and 15,000 indigenous women and men have experienced forced or coerced sterilization in Canada. Evidence also shows that other marginalized groups, including women living in poverty, women with disabilities, African Canadian women, racialized and ethnic minority women and women living with HIV, have been particularly vulnerable to coercive sterilization practices within Canadian health care settings, where their autonomy and informed consent were compromised or, worse yet, completely disregarded. This week, I had the opportunity to attend an information session, where survivors of forced and coerced sterilization bravely shared their stories. One survivor, Chastity, really touched my heart. She recounted her experience to me, saying that during the birth of her daughter, she had been scheduled for a Caesarean section. Upon her arrival at the hospital, doctors began discussing complications from her previous pregnancy and then shifted to the topic of tubal ligation. She made it clear that the doctors were speaking among themselves but not including her in the conversation, as though the decision had already been made. She explicitly told the doctors that she did not want to have a tubal ligation, and instead she asked about having a five-year contraceptive implant. She was handed documents to sign, and she believed she was consenting to the implant. Throughout this time, she was drifting in and out of consciousness and experiencing disorientation. She was not informed of her options, nor was she in a condition to provide meaningful consent. Despite this, during her C-section, Chastity remembers the smell of burning flesh. To this day, she does not know exactly which procedure was performed on her. The trauma of this experience has had lasting impacts and effects, yet tragically, Chastity's story is just one of thousands. She was 22 years old at the time. She is now in her early forties. She is only a couple of years older than me. This clearly is not a problem of the past, and we must do something today to stop it once and for all. Forced or coerced sterilization is a profound violation of human rights. It strips individuals of bodily autonomy, personal freedom and fundamental dignity. As Chastity stated, “This isn't theoretical. It happened to real people, Indigenous women, racialized women, and vulnerable women. Survivors were harmed without consent. A law is required because human rights should never rely on goodwill.” In my view, forced and coerced sterilization constitutes aggravated assault and should be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. While existing provisions of the Criminal Code may, in certain circumstances, allow for this to be prosecuted, it really leaves a gap and a hole. It is clear: The Senate committee, expert witnesses repeatedly testified that these provisions rarely actually resulted in meaningful accountability. The absence of explicit language creates uncertainty for law enforcement, prosecutors, health care administrators and survivors alike. When the law lacks clarity, investigations falter, prosecutions stall and the people harmed are reluctant to come forward. This is just one more example of our medical system that mistreats and misunderstands women, especially women in these vulnerable times. The legislative gap leaves grave violations insufficiently addressed, and the resolution is Bill S-228. I am so proud to be able to second the bill. The legislation, at its core, is about justice for every person who has endured the profound violation of forced or coerced sterilization. Indigenous women have been disproportionately targeted, reflecting a painful and well-documented history of discrimination and systemic racism, but we also have to recognize that this abuse has not been confined to one community. This abuse has afflicted women, gender-diverse people, and men throughout our entire country. It has harmed individuals from coast to coast to coast. This is something that truly just has to end today. Let me reiterate: Forced sterilization is not just something in the past. It is happening now, today, to somebody's daughter or son, perhaps to someone we might very well know. Passing the bill would not undo the suffering already inflicted, but it would tell the survivors that we hear them, we see them and we will make sure that never again will this happen in this great country of ours. I would urge every member to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, 57% of millennials say they have little to no money left over after paying monthly bills, according to the 2026 RBC financial independence poll. That is more than a statistic; it is a giant blaring warning signal. Young Canadians are not just postponing vacations or cutting back on luxuries. Many are struggling to put food on the table, let alone save for their futures. The Liberals blame global events for rising food prices, yet 70% of the food we eat is produced right here in Canada. Therefore, it is excessive regulation, inflationary spending and the industrial carbon tax that are driving up costs here at home across the entire supply chain, costs that are passed on to Canadians. This is a made-in-Canada problem, and food prices have risen more than twice as fast as our overall goods. Every trip to the grocery store is a reminder that something just is not working. How expensive does food have to get before the Liberals stop strangling Canadian food production with red tape and punishing taxes?

Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Liberals' solutions, their programs, are just not working. They are making it so that one in three kids is in the line at the food bank; there are 700,000 children accessing a food bank every single month. Food inflation is twice as high as when the Prime Minister took office a year ago and twice as high as what it is in the United States. The question is simple: Will the Liberals just listen to Conservatives, steal our idea and support our motion to introduce a food affordability plan, eliminating the industrial carbon tax, eliminating the fuel standard tax and increasing competition amongst grocery stores?