Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, we ask again: Where are the results? More families are facing financial hardship, business investments are declining and job opportunities are harder and harder to find in this country. Under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada has become the only G20 nation that is in a recession and now Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Will the Prime Minister stop hiding from accountability and admit that this Liberal recession has left millions of Canadians facing a fearful future?

Mr. Speaker, that is all rhetoric and no results. The Liberal Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. The Prime Minister has outspent every previous government in the history of Canada combined. While he is breaking spending records, Canadians are breaking their bank accounts just to survive. Food bank visits are up 99% since 2019 and we are hearing from people who are literally in distress over the cost of living. Will the Prime Minister continue to defend these bad policies that are driving Canadian seniors—

Mr. Speaker, I present a petition today signed by 15,000 Canadians concerning the proposed World Health Organization pandemic treaty and the related amended international health regulations. The petitioners express concern that the government may proceed with the signing and ratification of these agreements without sufficient parliamentary scrutiny, debate and votes. They highlight that Canada is the only G7 nation where international treaties may be ratified without mandatory parliamentary scrutiny and approval. Accordingly, the petitioners are calling on the government to table the agreement in the House of Commons before ratification, ensuring full parliamentary review and debate, and to establish the legal requirements for parliamentary oversight of major international treaties.

Mr. Speaker, I have one other petition to present. It is signed by 5,000 concerned Canadians regarding the proposal for a national digital identification system in Canada. The petitioners express concern that the digital ID system could enable the extensive collection of and linking of personal biometric information, raising significant privacy and cybersecurity concerns. They fear that such a system could lead to government or agency overreach and increased risk of data breaches and identity theft, and undermine the personal freedoms and individual autonomy of Canadians that Canadians cherish.

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way stated that the religious exemption has never been used so they cannot cite a case. I am sure the member realizes that there was an exemption that did not have to be proven, and now Bill C-9 would remove that: genuine belief. Is my friend hearing concerns from pastors about things such as that if they say that people should wait to be intimate, to have intercourse, until their marriage, that biblical principle could get them in trouble? Is my friend hearing questions of that nature?

Mr. Speaker, I have to note that in the Senate, the Senate committee studied Bill C-9 extensively, and I noted that there were witnesses from every background, whether they were from the LGBT community or from a faith community. I saw a Black pastor also. Every single one of these witnesses said that removing the good-faith exemption would be a big mistake. Every witness concurred, and this has nothing to do with race, racism or discrimination. Is my friend across the way saying that all of these witnesses from these diverse backgrounds were false in this conclusion?

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way makes reference to the Charter of Rights, but it is not clear that for the charter to be invoked, a person has to be charged first? The removal of the good-faith clause means that people who are citing religious texts in good faith could be charged, and then they would have to go through financial expense and public shame before they could defend their rights and before the charter would be imposed. Is that not the process, and is that not the way it would work? People would be guilty before proven innocent in this case.

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Portage—Lisgar. I rise today in support of the opposition motion before us. This motion states that Canada has become the only G20 nation to fall into recession. Members may debate the definition of a recession, economists may debate what a technical recession is, but even if they disagree on the label, they should not ignore the signals. The question that Canadians are asking is not about the definition of recession, which is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth, but why Canadians feel weaker with more instability, why business investments have slowed, why families feel less secure and why opportunities feel harder to reach. Perhaps that is what the concern is mostly about. Canada should not accept becoming an outlier among advanced economies, and that is why Conservatives are very sad to hear that Canada is going through a recession. We warned what reckless inflationary spending would do to our economy and to our country. Recessions result in households making smaller plans, businesses delaying decisions, young people lowering their expectations and communities wondering whether growth can still include them. Many Canadians felt that financial hardship long before there was an announcement that we were in a recession, because Canadians do not experience the economy through quarterly reports or decimal points. They experience it when groceries cost more than they expect, when their children wonder whether they will ever own a home and when communities lose opportunities. This motion asks us to consider whether our current approach is producing the outcomes Canadians were promised. Canada has recorded declining real GDP in three of the last four quarters. Business capital investment fell by 0.7% in the first quarter of the year, marking the fifth consecutive quarter of decline. Businesses are leaving Canada. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, at 6.9%, and 112,000 Canadians lost work just in the first four months of this year. Food bank usage has reached 2.2 million visits every month, which is the highest level on record and double what it was in 2019. One in four Canadians is now experiencing food insecurity. These are not abstract indicators. These are not technicalities. They reflect pressure that households are experiencing every single day. Canadians are more cautious now about spending, investing and planning for their future. People are asking whether wages are keeping up, whether opportunities are shrinking and whether their children will have the same chances of success as they had. Canadians are also being asked to adopt major technological changes at the same time that households and businesses are becoming cautious and financially weaker. People are worried about whether their paycheques will stretch far enough, whether opportunities are shrinking and whether the future will offer more security or less. Recessions are not only periods of contraction. They are tests. They expose whether the economy has built the productive capacity, the investment conditions and the resilience needed to recover and grow. That is why this motion deserves serious attention. While concerns grow about recession, the government has announced major ambitions around artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure. Those ambitions deserve to be debated seriously, because digital infrastructure does not just exist on paper. Artificial intelligence requires data centres. Data centres require compute capacity. Compute capacity is something very physical. Reliable energy is needed. That deserves serious debate, because Canadians are being asked to carry two realities at once: economic weakness today and economic transition tomorrow. Workers and families are feeling the growing pains today, and we know the new AI system the Liberals are trying to build could even change the meaning of work. As tasks become automated, businesses will likely need fewer workers. Some sectors will become more productive with fewer workers. This is why we must be honest about the future with AI and automation and what it will look like. If Canadians are already struggling with affordability, weak growth and uncertainty, then the question becomes: Are we preparing people for the transition that the Liberals are putting forward? Are we informing people about what is to come with AI and the digital infrastructure that the Liberals are building? Are we creating enough growth to absorb the disruption that AI will bring? Are we strengthening productive capacity? Perhaps part of what Canadians are feeling right now is not only economic pressure but uncertainty about transition. People sense that systems are changing and that technology is becoming more integrated into daily life. Decisions once made by people may increasingly become influenced by digital systems, and they are asking deeper questions. As these systems become more powerful, what remains of humans? That question should not be dismissed, because as we build digital infrastructure and adapt to artificial intelligence, we should ensure that human judgment remains meaningful. That divine spark in us must be preserved through human dignity. We see our dignity in work, in providing for our families, in learning and volunteering to help others even without being paid or rewarded. It is through this dignity and charity that our society was built. We must ensure that people are never reduced to technicalities, profiles, outputs, data points or mere QR codes. Technology should strengthen human capability, not weaken human agency. If we are entering a period of profound change, then our responsibility is not simply to build smarter systems; it is to build systems that remember the value of people and exist to serve people. The question is whether Canadians will participate in the prosperity that new technology creates, whether workers who are displaced and lose their jobs can adapt to the technological change, whether businesses can adapt and grow, whether families can plan for the future and whether communities can benefit. The goal cannot simply be more technology and more spending deficits. The goal must be more opportunity, because opportunity, not deficits, is what builds confidence and confidence builds investments. That is why this recession is so real. It is not because of technical definitions. Economists may debate what “technical recession” means, but Canadians do not live in a technicality. Canadians live with grocery bills. They live with a lack of jobs. They live with a shrinking economy. They live with food bank lines. They live with cancelled plans and postponed dreams. They live with choosing between turning up the heat in their homes and buying food. They live with the uncertainty of wondering whether their children will have the same opportunities they had. That is why this debate matters. It is because recessions are not ultimately measured by quarters. They are measured by whether people still believe tomorrow can be better than today. If Canadians are losing confidence in their efforts and opportunities, then we should not dismiss that as a technicality. We should treat it as a warning that our responsibility is not simply to manage decline but restore the conditions that allow people to build, invest, contribute, believe in the future and, once again, unite in a prosperous Canada.

Madam Speaker, it is so sad that the Liberals will not admit the situation they are in. They use everything to deflect. They deflect even from the term “recession”. They try to redefine it. They try to use labour data from summer jobs to buttress, to increase, what the employment rate is. It is a really sad situation, because Canadians are suffering. They need truth. They need honesty. They need transparency. We are not getting these from the government.

Madam Speaker, countries that have a sovereign wealth fund are based on wealth. They are not based on debt, as the Liberal government is attempting. The member's question was also about pipelines. Every single day, Canada imports 550,000 barrels of oil. We have the third-largest accessible oil reserves on this planet, yet we continue to import oil from other nations. The lost opportunity, our not optimizing our full potential and not developing our natural resources, is one of the reasons we are in this recession. We are trying to solve the problem using creative deals like creating a sovereign debt fund and pretending it is wealth. It is not going to solve the problem.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the economic issues in my riding are very similar to the economic issues in many ridings in the country. People are making tough decisions: Do they turn up the heat in their home, or do they make sure they put a meal on the table for their family that has sufficient nutrients in it to feed and energize their family? These are the tough decisions that people are making. Some families line up at food banks. These include families with two working parents who just cannot make ends meet. We have to do something to make life more affordable for average Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, as we mark Seniors Month in Ontario, we are reminded that modernization must include everyone. As new digital systems and artificial intelligence reshape daily life, we must recognize that not every Canadian has equal access to technology. In many rural communities, reliable Internet and cell service still do not exist. Seniors tell us that they are increasingly being excluded as essential services like banking become digital by default. We cannot create a future where some Canadians are unable to participate in society. Progress is not measured by how advanced our systems become. It is measured by whether people still feel seen, valued and able to participate in society. No Canadian should lose access to society because technology has moved faster than infrastructure. Canadian seniors are not obstacles to modernization but part of Canada's great future.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were promised that life would become more affordable if they trusted the Liberal government. Instead, families are falling further behind as the cost of everything keeps rising. After years of reckless spending, inflation, debt and more taxes, the Liberal Prime Minister is proving more costly than Justin Trudeau. How does the Liberal government justify spending $90 billion, which is more than its entire deficit, on the Alto rail boondoggle in a transportation corridor that is already the most heavily serviced in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, I am hearing from desperate Canadians who are frustrated that the Liberal government prioritizes wasteful projects over the needs of families. In Haldimand—Norfolk, people are crushed by the cost of gas and basic necessities and the price of groceries, and they are choosing to pay their bills rather than putting food on the table. Now the government wants to spend $90 billion on a rail line that most people will never use, while Canadians are lining up at food banks just to survive. Which Liberal insider stands to profit from this tax—

Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George, who gave up his time today so we could debate this very important issue. Forced sterilization is a clear violation of human dignity. It is not simply a failure of policy by a nation. It is not a mere error in judgment. It is an assertion of control over someone else's ability to procreate in the future. When we examine the history of this country, we have to be honest about systemic violations of this nature and recognize that these violations, as they relate to indigenous people, have not occurred in isolation. They exist within a broader and deeper troubling pattern, a pattern of dehumanization of indigenous women. The international community has already recognized the importance of informed consent, and so I want to highlight that principle and how it relates to what we are speaking about today in the House. In the aftermath of the Second World War, during the Nuremberg trials, the world was forced to reckon with medical experimentation carried out on human beings without their agreement or consent. Out of that reckoning came the Nuremberg Code, which established a principle that has long shaped modern medical ethics. This code recognized that the voluntary and informed consent of an individual is essential. This principle is not just theoretical in nature. It was drawn from real abuses in the international era, where human beings were treated as objects rather than as persons. It established a boundary that no government, no institution and no professional should ever cross, yet we are here today debating a very similar issue, even after standards were set. We must confront the reality that similar violations occurred within our very country. In the 1940s and 1950s, the federal government, through the then department of Indian affairs and in collaboration with leading researchers, conducted a series of nutritional experiments on indigenous children in residential schools. These studies were overseen in part by a doctor, the superintendent of Indian affairs, medical services and prominent pediatricians known for developing infant nutritional products. I raise this issue to show that forced sterilization is not in isolation from policies that have been advanced in this nation and so we can understand the seriousness of having to legislate against such issues and natures of experiment. These nutritional experiments were not designed to heal. They were designed to observe, and the observation of these indigenous children was done almost as would be done in experiments watching lab rats. I hate to use that analogy, but this is what was done within our very country. These children were among the most vulnerable, at the time. They were already removed from their families and in residential schools. They were deliberately studied to see how children would react to malnutrition. In these starvation human experiments, essential nutrients were withheld from these precious, innocent children. In some cases, schools were divided into test groups versus control groups. Critical dental care was also intentionally denied, not because it was unavailable, but because researchers wanted to see how this study of nutritional deficiency would impact dental disease over time. These were not isolated oversights. These experiments were organized and documented and funded by the Canadian government. Historical records later brought this to light through archival research by scholars. It was shown that officials were aware of the conditions, and yet they still proceeded nonetheless. There was no meaningful consent. Just like we see with the sterilization cases, parents were not informed and children were not given a voice. They were not treated as individuals. They were treated as if they lacked inherent dignity and were subject to experimentation. This is not simply a tragedy in the chapter of our past. It reveals a pattern in which indigenous people were treated as objects of policy rather than as human beings deserving of care, protection and the same respect that all Canadians receive. That same pattern is reflected in the history of forced and coerced sterilization in Canada. For decades, provinces like Alberta and British Columbia operated under this eugenics legislation. The Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta authorized sterilization of thousands of individuals, many without full understanding and meaningful consent. Those disproportionately targeted included indigenous women, girls and marginalized populations. Even after those laws were repealed, the practice did not end. In recent years, indigenous women have come forth with accounts of being sterilized without full and informed consent. Some were approached during childbirth at moments of extreme vulnerability. Some were pressured into signing forms that they did not fully understand, often at their most vulnerable moment. Others reported that procedures were performed without their knowledge. This is not health care. It is not care at all. It is control over a woman's ability to decide in the future that she may want children. Under Canadian law, it constitutes bodily harm. In any other context, we would recognize this as an aggravated assault. We must understand that this issue sits within the broader systemic context. We heard about this context in the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. That inquiry concluded that violence against indigenous women was not random. It was systemic and rooted in generational marginalization, dispossession and erosion of dignity. Forced sterilization must be understood within this continuum. It reflects a history in which decisions about indigenous women's bodies were made by others and without respect for their autonomy, dignity and humanity. Bill S-228 is necessary. It would affirm clearly that forced and coerced sterilization is a criminal act. It would reinforce that non-consensual sterilization meets the threshold of aggravated assault under the Criminal Code and draws a clear line that no authority, medical institution or government has the right to override when a person can decide to have a child in the future. If we are to move forward with dignity, we must confront history fully. We must recognize that policies, once justified under the language of progress, caused real and lasting harm. We must ensure that our laws reflect a different standard rooted in dignity. This bill is a step toward that standard, and for that reason, it deserves to be supported.

Madam Speaker, after a decade of costly spending, life has never been more expensive for Canadians. Families in this country pay more for gas, groceries and housing. These are costs that they can barely afford. The Prime Minister's costly budget is just more of the same Liberal policies that have driven millions of Canadians to the food banks, with more government spending, more debt and more taxes. When will the Prime Minister finally end his costly borrowing so that Canadians can afford to live?

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are just creating new packaging to hide the same old spending and record deficits. Now, they want to borrow $25 billion to create another bureaucracy that Canadians never asked for. Their so-called wealth fund has no wealth. It is borrowed money, built on the same failed Infrastructure Bank policies that lost money and rewarded only Liberal insiders. Why will the Liberals not admit that they are simply hiding their reckless spending with more deficit—

Mr. Speaker, this week's economic update proves that nothing has changed. In fact, the Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's soaring deficits and is also doubling down on 10 years of costly credit card budgeting. Now the media reports that the government is considering recycling capital from public assets like airports to put into the new so-called wealth fund. I ask this Prime Minister, how much of Canada's public assets does he plan to sell to fund more wasteful Liberal spending?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has doubled Trudeau's deficits, and now Canadians are lining up at food banks and are unable to afford groceries. Now the Liberals want to sell off national infrastructure and put the money into their sovereign debt fund. We have seen this before with the failed Infrastructure Bank, which is losing money and is built on deficits. Does this Prime Minister understand that his spending spree is leaving Canadians with more debt and higher costs?

Mr. Speaker, one year ago, the Prime Minister promised Canadians affordable groceries. Since then, Canada has become the food inflation capital of the G7. High gas prices are driving up the cost of everything, including commuting, eating and living, yet the Liberals have offered only a drop of relief, cutting a third of taxes for only four months. Meanwhile, families in Haldimand—Norfolk pay more because they travel farther for work, groceries and services. They depend on their vehicles and should not be punished for their rural lifestyle. Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to remove all federal fuel taxes: the excise tax, the GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax. This would save Canadians an additional 15¢ per litre. There have been enough speeches and rhetoric. It is time to stop taxing Canadians and to start lifting them up.

Mr. Speaker, many Canadian families, including the ones I am hearing from in Haldimand—Norfolk, are feeling the strain every time they fill up their vehicles and buy groceries. Gas prices remain out of control, and food inflation is still the highest in the G7. For rural residents, there is no public transit alternative. They must drive to work, drive to school and drive to the grocery store. When will the Prime Minister finally deliver real relief and end the federal taxes on gas for the rest of the year?

Mr. Speaker, rising fuel costs are a daily reality for Canadians. Fresh vegetables are up nearly 8% and fuel costs continue to skyrocket. Canadians pay 20% more for gas than Americans. At what point is the Liberal government going to stop blaming global factors and take responsibility for these rising costs? When will the Prime Minister finally remove all of the federal taxes on fuel and deliver real relief for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, today, I will speak on Bill C-22, the lawful access act, which asks Canadians to accept something very significant. It asks telecommunications providers across this country to build and maintain systems that would allow government-authorized access to their networks. It would expand expectations around the collection and retention of so-called metadata: the time, the location, the connection, details attached to the messages and the Internet activity. It would give ministers the authority to shape how those systems are designed and enforced. This is not a small technical change. It is structural in nature. It is a structural shift in how digital infrastructure is designed and who ultimately controls it. Let me speak plainly. Before this bill, if a government wanted to access people's private communications, listen to their telephone calls or read their messages, they had to go to court. They had to make their case to a judge. They had to show why it was necessary. Judges and our judicial system were and are a critical safeguard to our privacy. This is a foundation of our democracy. This bill would change the system around that process. It would require telecommunications companies to build this network that is ready for access, a lawful access network. It would allow governments and government ministers to set the rules of that lawful access network. Also, it would set how this system operates. It would do that not through a parliamentary process, but backdoor channels in regulation. Instead of access being something that happens only after a judge carefully considers it, we would now be building a system where that capability is always ready to access. The system of access would be largely created not by Parliament, but by ministers behind closed doors. I want to bring members back to Bill C-2. Colleagues should remember the uproar over the concern Canadians had, which was raised over the real issues about how governments could access their personal, private, confidential, most intimate and personal communications. Now what the government has done instead is to take a particular section out of Bill C-2 and put it in Bill C-22. It deals with the same issue of access to information. To be fair, there have been some changes made to Bill C-22 from Bill C-2. The government could no longer directly obtain consumer information. That is something I am proud of. Canadians stood up and fought for that because it is important. The government now could only ask a narrow question to telecommunications providers, "Does this consumer have an account with your company?" If they wanted more information, then they would have to go to court to obtain a production order. Here is what Canadians also need to understand about Bill C-22. This bill is not just about whether the data can be accessed. It is about who designed the system that made the access possible. How has the system been designed? Right now too much of that system has been designed and built behind closed doors, through regulations and without parliamentary oversight. However, there is also a deeper issue here. Bill C-22 does not operate in a vacuum. It is arriving in a country that has deeply unequal infrastructure when it comes to digital infrastructure. Nowhere is this more evident than in rural Canada. In many urban centres there are millions of people who share dense networks, which are layered on top of each other. Thousands of users are connected through the same infrastructure at any given time in a large city. Metadata, in that context, is spread across large populations, so it is harder to isolate and attribute specific data to a specific individual. However, that is not the case in rural areas like mine. In Haldimand—Norfolk we would face a new and different reality from the legislation. We have a population approaching 130,000 people, spread across more than 2,900 square kilometres. That is a density of roughly 40 people per square kilometre. In Toronto, for example, the number is over 4,500. That is 4,500 people spread over a square kilometre versus 40 people spread over a square kilometre. That is a difference in density of 100 times. That difference matters when it comes to privacy, because data collected in rural Canada is not diluted across thousands of users. It is concentrated. In many parts of my community, a single tower or wireless node may serve only a few dozen or a few hundred households. When it is connected and when the connection is logged in a rural area at a certain time, it does not point to a crowd per se; it can point to a handful of homes, the privacy of which is then compromised, especially in low-density rural areas. Over time, that could also reveal patterns, such as when someone is home, when work on a farm begins or when a small business is operating. When the government tells Canadians that metadata is not personal, this may be true in theory, but in rural Canada it is easier to identify which data is connected with which particular user. There is something else fundamentally out of order. The government is moving to ensure that every network can be accessed, but ensuring that every Canadian can have access to the network was not a priority. In rural Canada, people are still struggling with basic Internet access and connectivity. In my community of Haldimand—Norfolk, students are still trying to complete their homework with unstable Internet. Seniors are being pushed into digital systems they cannot reliably access. Small businesses are competing in an economy that assumes connectivity, while they are still waiting for it. However, instead of focusing on closing that gap between rural and urban Internet access, the government would be creating new obligations on top of systems that are already uneven. Bill C-22 would apply the same rules across the country, but the impact would be greater in rural communities, where fewer users share the network, as I previously said. Costs are higher per household, privacy risks are greater and infrastructure is still incomplete. When the government says the bill is about balance, rural Canada has to ask, “balance for whom?” The law that ignores the realities of rural Canada is not balanced. It is blind to those realities. I recognize that we need modern and responsive systems in the digital era; however, we must ensure that the systems we build do not create unintended harm, especially in rural communities that are already underserviced. I have searched high and low, and I could not find a rural impact assessment that addresses Bill C-22. Without an impact study, we need to ask a deeper question: Who is this system being built for? Bill C-22 needs to address proportional requirements of smaller providers. If we take the rural Canada situation, we will see that in rural Canada, Internet providers are much smaller and they do not have deep pockets. Imposing this system on them is going to cause undue financial hardship. I must state that we also need commitment from the government that infrastructure expansion, not surveillance capability, is going to be the priority and that infrastructure expansion comes first, before the surveillance capability of the government. Canadians should not have to choose between being connected and being protected. Rural Canadians should not have to carry a disproportionate burden for a system designed without their reality in mind. It is not enough to say that Parliament will review the system later. Under the bill, the review would happen after three years. By that time, the system is already built. What is the point? The regulations would already be in force. What is the point of reviewing a system that could cause privacy issues after it is built? Let us do it right the first time. The system and the practices would already be entrenched after three years. There need to be checks on the system. There need to be checks on government encroachment on our freedoms. The same way that we raised concerns about Bill C-2, concerns need to be raised about Bill C-22, if it is encroaching on freedoms. We need to ensure that whatever system is built for lawful access, it does not encroach on privacy. We cannot accept lax rules around the government being able to access our phone or our messages. These are things that we have grown, in Canadian society, to see as sacred, and now this bill would allow governments to have access to this. Clear oversight after the system is in place is not real oversight. It is confirmation, and that is not acceptable. In a free and democratic society, it is not enough to ask whether the state can access our data. We must also ask who decided that the data should exist and be retained in the first place. Who is accountable for that decision? If the government is going to design a system that governs Canadians' data, then Parliament must be involved before those decisions are made, not after. This is only logical. This is not just about access to data. It is about control over the system that defines our lives. Once these systems are built, they do not just respond to decisions. They shape decisions. They determine who has access, who has ownership and who benefits. It is very important, because the system that is constructed is going to be what informs the judges and what the judges look at when they say what data could be applied to the order that is being sought. It is very important that we understand that it is not just about data. It is about power. The question before us is simple: Will Canadians have a stake in the system that defines their lives, or will they simply be surveilled and managed by this system?

Mr. Speaker, there are so many issues that I think are very, very important. Let me start by saying that our concern is how the system behind the access is designed, that it should be through regulations, not parliamentary oversight. That is one major concern. We also have concerns about the shifts in key decisions about the system design and the data collection. As the member mentioned, being in a rural community, the breakdown of people within a certain range is far less sparse. Therefore, the access and infringement would be greater in rural communities. There are a number of issues, such as parliamentary oversight and review of the regulations, that are very important. Limits on ministerial orders are also very important. It is also important to recognize that in the three years it will take for us to review the system, it will be too late. The system will already be in place. We need parliamentary review before the system is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to present a petition from concerned Canadians across the country on government Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, which passed third reading yesterday in the House. The petitioners worry that amendments made by the government would limit religious expression, and they are concerned that the state would be interfering in the ability of faith communities to practise their faith. The petitioners fear that the changes could criminalize passages of the Bible and other sacred writings. In this petition, Canadians are asking the government to provide assurance that individuals of faith will not face criminal charges simply for reading, sharing and practising their faith, which are fundamental freedoms enshrined in the charter.

Mr. Speaker, a grocery store worker in Haldimand—Norfolk contacted my office to say $120 used to buy five bags of groceries, and now it barely fills one. Even though she works at a grocery store, she is still forced to use the food bank. The Prime Minister has delivered the worst food inflation in the G7, and he even plans to raise the clean fuel standard tax by 7%. Will the Prime Minister get rid of the food tax so Canadians can afford to eat?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are in distress and struggling with high food costs. The Prime Minister promised change but instead, the affordability crisis has just gotten worse over the past year. The Prime Minister broke his promise. He said grocery prices would go down. Now Canada has the worst food inflation in the entire G7. His plan to increase the clean fuel standard tax by 7% would only make things worse. Will the Liberal Prime Minister cancel this tax on food so Canadians can afford to eat?

Mr. Speaker, in Haldimand—Norfolk, beef farming is a way of life and a significant contributor to our local economy. Beef farming in my riding has produced world-class Canadian beef, and beef farmers deserve access to global markets. Can the government explain to the farmers in Haldimand—Norfolk and throughout Canada why their world-class beef still cannot access the U.K. markets like it could before?

Mr. Speaker, Liberal insiders connected to former Liberal MPs received a $206-million loan below market rate from the Canada Infrastructure Bank and nearly $150 million in subsidies for a Nova Scotia wind farm project. Canadians are tired of Liberal insiders getting rich off taxpayer dollars while millions of Canadians are lined up at food banks every single month. When will the Liberals finally make life more affordable for Canadians instead of lining the pockets of Liberal-connected insiders?

Mr. Speaker, there have been a few issues over the last few years that I have heard consistently so much about, and this is not just in my riding of Haldimand—Norfolk but across the entire country. Among those, the cost of living, the erosion of freedom and individual choice ranked very high at the top. The bill that we are debating today goes to the very heart of the fundamental concerns that Canadians are raising. This bill is not just about natural health care products. It is about freedom of choice. It is also about affordability and whether Canadians can still afford the basic essentials that they have always counted on every single day. I am not sure that most members of the House have experienced a time when they have been without a doctor. I know they have experienced waking up with a potential cold, sore throat or cough and possibly considered using vitamins to fight that cold, purchasing some sort of alternative care such as vitamin C or echinacea, or even drinking medicinal tea. Those common remedies are not uncommon products. They are part of ordinary Canadian life. In fact, a strong majority of Canadians, 70%, rely on vitamins or other natural health products. They do so regularly to stay healthy during the long winter seasons. They also use them to supplement their diets. These are not luxury items. For many of my constituents, these products are not optional. They are essential for their health and their well-being, and for the well-being of their families. That is why I am proud to speak in support today of the common-sense bill from my hon. colleague, the member for Ponoka—Didsbury, Bill C-224, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding natural health care products. Bill C-224 moves to reverse the sweeping changes that the government made in 2023 to the Food and Drugs Act, which changed how natural health products are regulated in Canada. Prior to 2023, natural health products were already regulated under the natural health products regulations, which is a robust and clear framework introduced by the previous Conservative government under former prime minister Stephen Harper. That framework provided sufficient oversight and safety, and recognized that vitamins are not pharmaceuticals. Since the Liberals changed the requirements in 2023, natural health products must now comply with an onerous labelling regimen, additional inspections, compliance measures and mandatory recall orders, as well as additional government fees and the threat of a monetary penalty of up to $5 million per day for non-compliance. These same rules are used to regulate pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs. The question that many Canadians have written to my office to ask is, why is the government treating small Canadian vitamin-brand businesses like high-risk pharmaceutical manufacturers? Conservatives are not against regulation. There is a place for wise and precise government regulation. Regulations are meant to protect Canadians, to reduce the risk of harm and to provide the necessary guardrails against misuse and abuse, but regulations must be proportionate. With little regulation, people obviously could get harmed, but with too much regulation, government moves from protection to control. It begins to dictate free choices, saddle businesses with red tape and distort the marketplace. As a result, innovation becomes stifled. Canadian businesses ultimately suffer, and Canadians lose choice while paying higher costs. When products disappear, choice shrinks. When compliance costs rise, prices increase. When domestic producers exit, foreign competitors fill that gap. Unfortunately, Canadians are seeing this pattern across multiple sectors: housing, agriculture, natural resources and energy. Government red tape has already cost Canadian businesses over $50 billion every single year. Small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy, bear the heaviest burden. Ultimately, Canadians pay the price. We must also consider this. Six million Canadians are without a family doctor. Millions more are on wait-lists for treatments and procedures. At the same time when Canadians are navigating a strained health care system, we should not be making it harder for them to responsibly manage their own well-being, yet, under this regulatory regime, that is exactly what is happening. Industry associations, small businesses, health practitioners and consumers are all raising the alarm, and 70% of brands say that they may pull their products from Canadian shelves. One in five may exit the Canadian market entirely. At a minimum, prices will rise at a time when families are already struggling. Make no mistake: Without Bill C-224, businesses will shut down or leave the Canadian market, and Canadians will lose access to products they rely on. My office has been overwhelmed with calls, letters and petitions about this issue over the past three years. This matters deeply to Canadians. The people of Haldimand—Norfolk elected me to represent their voice, to speak the truth and to push back when government overreach threatens their autonomy. Canadians want to return to a country where choice, affordability and personal responsibility are respected by government. That is why this is not a partisan issue. The bill speaks to the fundamental values that matter to every single Canadian: freedom, autonomy and the dignity of an affordable life. This bill is not just about natural health products; it is about freedom of choice. In the previous Parliament, we saw cross-party support for this legislation. I urge all members to once again support this common-sense bill, not only in the interest of millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products and Canadian businesses that work every single day to supply products in a safe and responsible manner to Canadians who desire those products, but also in the interest of Canadians across this country and future generations who want to live in a Canada where freedom of choice abounds, where businesses thrive and where life is affordable. The full promise of Canada deserves nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I agree that public safety is not a partisan issue, and it was noticeable that this point was highlighted in my hon. friend's speech. I want to point my friend to the issue of mandatory minimums for the most heinous crimes. We know that when those are eroded, the public feels that judges are taking the law into their own hands and are not punishing strictly for the most heinous crimes. What message does that send to society? Also, the fact that so many of these mandatory minimums have been upheld means the public may see this as eroding things that are necessary, which the court has already ruled on. I would like my friend to elaborate on that.

Mr. Speaker. I thank my hon. friend for his passionate speech. My heart goes out to the members in his community who faced violent criminals while going through a catastrophe. It is endemic. It is an example of how our criminal justice system has failed us. When we look at Bill C-5 and Bill C-75, we see a culture of releasing violent offenders. It is no wonder 60% of Canadians feel that crime is rising in their community and that they are not safe. How does my friend think this bill is going to solve that problem, if at all, and restore the confidence of the public?

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to present a petition that raises important concerns of Canadians about amendments made by the Liberal government and supported by the Bloc to Bill C-9. Petitioners fear that the change could criminalize passages of the Bible and other sacred writings. They believe that the state should not interfere in religious teachings or scriptures and that doing so risks government overreach into matters of faith. At the core of this petition is a call to protect freedom of religion and freedom of expression as fundamental rights in Canada. They urge the government to ensure that Canadians can continue to read, to share and to practice their faith without fear of being criminally charged.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. At its core, the bill responds to long-standing concerns raised by indigenous communities about the need for greater federal accountability in implementing modern treaties and agreements. These treaties are essentially comprehensive land claims agreements that are negotiated between first nations, Inuit and Métis groups and the Crown to resolve long-standing disputes in defined territories. I want to recognize that indigenous communities have long asked for a mechanism to ensure that Canada fulfills its promises under these treaties. However, the way the bill seeks to achieve that goal raises important concerns about accountability, clarity and the impact on existing property rights. First, many of the functions the commissioner would perform are already done within the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations. By codifying them in law and creating a new office, we risk duplicating roles, blurring the lines of authority and diffusing ministerial responsibility. Despite appearances, the commissioner for modern treaties implementation would not be an officer of Parliament like the Auditor General or the Ethics Commissioner, who are appointed by and report directly to Parliament itself. They are independent of government and do not exist to hold the executive, the Prime Minister and the cabinet to account. However, under Bill C-10, the commissioner would be appointed by cabinet, via the Governor in Council, on the advice of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. This means the commissioner would sit within the executive branch, the Prime Minister's cabinet, and not the legislative branch. While the commissioner would table reports in Parliament, they would answer to the very government they are meant to monitor. Parliament could not direct them, remove them or review their work in any substantive way. This is a very serious oversight gap. We have seen this problem before. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was designed with similar intentions: to be at arm's length, efficient and transparent. Instead, it became a costly entity with limited parliamentary scrutiny, spending billions while accountability remained murky. This new proposed office, with $10.6 million over four years, risks following the same path. I also note that no external oversight mechanisms are built into Bill C-10, which is a very big omission. There would be no independent review body overseeing the commissioner. There would be no performance audit or sunset clause. There would be no clear consequences for failing to act on findings. There would be no mandatory parliamentary committee review at fixed intervals. These omissions of accountability are not abstract. They would have real-world consequences, particularly when it comes to land and resource rights. In provinces such as Alberta and British Colombia, people are, right now, experiencing the practical impacts of uncertainty due to overlapping land rights. Landowners with fee simple title, which is the form of title most Canadians own their home under, are worried. These landowners believed their property rights were secure, but they are discovering that they may need to consult indigenous groups before doing things like building a dock, harvesting timber or even walking through nearby forested areas. The Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision has shown that even the long-held title ownership Canadians have in their homes and lands does not always confer absolute control. This has created a great deal of uncertainty for landowners, lenders and the real estate market. As treaty rights continue to expand across the country, this decision would continue to touch more communities, municipalities and resource-rich regions across Canada. As these modern treaties are implemented, we must also prepare Canadians for the changes that will follow. This is why the roles, powers and accountability mechanisms of the commissioner must be clearly defined, which is something that is not present in the bill and that the bill fails to do. We do not need a new layer of bureaucracy with undefined reach into matters that affect both indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians. It is crucial that the government communicate all policies and legal shifts openly and honestly with Canadians. Canadians deserve to understand not only the rights being affirmed for indigenous communities but also their own rights. Canadians also need to understand how their rights, including property rights and resource rights, may be affected. This is about transparency and fairness. People cannot respect or adapt to what has been hidden from them. If we fail to prepare the public and if these developments arise suddenly or unevenly, we risk confusion, frustration and unnecessary division. For years, the government has talked about reconciliation, but without accountability and without clarity, reconciliation will never be achieved. The path ahead must therefore include national education that explains how treaty rights and private ownership rights coexist under Canadian law and how governments intend to manage those intersectionalities. Canadians must not be left to learn through conflict or court cases. They must be included through dialogue, communication and truth. The relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples must be built on trust, integrity and transparency. Trust is not created by removing ministerial responsibility or by insulating bureaucracies from scrutiny. We cannot allow the new commissioner to become a parallel system of governance funded by taxpayers, shielded from oversight and empowered to make decisions that could change the relationship with Canada's indigenous peoples, property rights in Canada and the economic stability of the country without direct accountability. There is a basic irony here in the government creating a treaty commissioner who could not be overlooked. At its core, the implementation of treaties is the responsibility of cabinet ministers. These are elected officials who are accountable to Parliament and to Canadians, and whose role is to ensure that government programs and policies uphold the law and meet Canada's obligations. Bill C-10 would create a new, cabinet-appointed office to audit and monitor federal departments, effectively outsourcing a core ministerial responsibility. I am not kidding. The government is creating an office to monitor whether it does the very job taxpayers elected it to do. Taxpayers pay ministers close to $350,000 every year, yet the ministers have the audacity to outsource their responsibility to commissioners they appoint. The Liberal government is taking outsourcing, obviously, to another level. This is simply circular accountability, where ministers evade ownership of the consequences of their decisions. This so-called independent commissioner would likely become a shield for government, allowing ministers to deflect responsibility and accountability from treaty implementation and land rights. The proposed arrangement raises some fundamental questions. If a minister's duty is to ensure compliance, why is an independent office needed to check that they are doing their job? In short, and in closing, while the spirit of the bill aims to improve accountability and transparency, it actually risks the opposite by allowing ministers to abdicate their duty to Parliament and hide behind the commissioners. This is why any discussion of oversight must focus on holding ministers directly accountable. We must ensure the commissioner's work supports, rather than substitutes, democracy and responsibility.

Madam Speaker, the important issue is one of reconciliation. If we implement a system that blocks accountability and allows the ministers to deflect responsibility, it would not lead to reconciliation. It is very important that, with Bill C-10, people recognize that this system would ensure that the minister would appoint a commissioner, and that the commissioner would then be accountable to the same minister who appointed them. This would deflect the responsibility of the cabinet, which is supposed to be accountable for reconciliation in this country.

Madam Speaker, it would absolutely not. It would not compel. In fact, it would create another layer of bureaucracy the government could deflect its responsibilities onto. The Auditor General has an auditing mechanism already in place. The bill would infuse another layer of bureaucracy and make it even more complicated for indigenous communities to hold the government to account, because the government would then have a commissioner as a buffer whom it could blame for all its failings.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing jobs, plants are shutting down and investments are fleeing. Canada lost 52,000 private sector jobs last month alone. Workers and families are paying the price, from GM employees in Oshawa to forestry families in Quebec who are struggling to put food on the table. This is the opposite of what the Prime Minister promised. When will the Liberals admit that their rhetoric is far from the reality that Canadians face and finally listen to common-sense Conservative solutions?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet GDP growth is currently at zero. Manufacturing, auto and forestry sectors are all declining, and families in Haldimand—Norfolk fear for their livelihoods as the economy weakens. Despite this economic decline, the government has not repealed a single anti-development law. When will the Liberals finally admit that their economic plan is failing and remove the barriers and tax burdens holding back Canadian workers and the economy?

Madam Speaker, Canada has shaped the world far and beyond our borders. One such contribution lives on in a phrase we still use every day: “the real McCoy”. As we mark Black History Month in Canada, we recognize the achievements of Elijah McCoy. Born in Canada to formerly enslaved parents, he achieved greatness while facing barriers and discrimination. Elijah McCoy transformed modern engineering by inventing automatic lubrication systems that revolutionized railways, ships, factories and industrial machinery. Black History Month matters because it tells a full story of Canada, honouring excellence and acknowledging struggle and our shared Canadian history. As we reflect on this legacy today, let us strive for excellence by always asking for and being the real McCoy. Happy Black History Month.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin today not with statistics but with the lived experiences of people from my riding, Haldimand—Norfolk, and also from the residents of Canada. A constituent recently told me about standing in the checkout line at the grocery store and slowly watching the price climb and climb. Knowing how much money she had in her bank account, she slowly started to put items back to save herself embarrassment. The items that she was putting back were not treats for the family or luxury items; they were basic food items she needed for sustenance. A family shared that they stopped buying meat regularly. They eat chicken occasionally, and beef has become rare in their household of four. The change in their diet has not come by choice; they have had to adopt it out of necessity. A single dad told me something that no parent should have to share: He eats less so that there's enough food for his kids to eat. When parents are skipping meals so that their children do not go hungry, something in our country is deeply wrong. It is not about families budgeting better or making lifestyle choices; it is about dignity. A father called my office last week to tell a story, and he was in tears. He told us that he had a good job and income, but for the first time, his wife had to go to the food bank. The sense of shame that he felt because he was no longer fully able to provide for his family brought him to tears and to call my office to share his story. Canadians are struggling to understand why life has become so unaffordable so quickly. Canadians were promised a dream that if they worked hard, they could earn a good living and at least be able to afford the basic necessities, such as food. They worked, planned, sacrificed and budgeted carefully, but still they are falling behind. When groceries become a breaking point, we are no longer talking about affordability; we are talking about survival. The government has presented Bill C-19 as a solution to the affordability measure. However, Bill C-19 would send money after the prices of groceries have already risen. It would do nothing to lower grocery prices: It would not reduce the price of producing or transporting food, and it would not increase competition, which would lead to lower grocery prices. This bill merely treats affordability as a household income problem, not a cost of living problem. The government falsely concludes that by spending a few dollars on Canadians through a rebate, the cost of living problem that was caused by inflationary spending and unnecessary fuel tax and industrial carbon tax will be resolved by these rebate cheques. Canadians are smart, so they know that this is not going to solve the problem. They know that a rebate does not make chicken cheaper, a benefit does not lower the cost of bread, and a top-up does not reduce the fuel cost embedded in every item on the grocery store's shelf. People tell me plainly when they call my office that the money is gone before the month is even over. Families are left asking, “Why is food still expensive if the government promised to make food more affordable?” That question matters, because if it goes unanswered, it erodes public trust. The solution to food insecurity is to bring down the cost of food, plain and simple: Make food that we need for our daily survival more affordable. Being able to afford food is human dignity. Let us speak honestly for a moment about what food insecurity does to the average person. It creates stress. It creates anxiety. It creates shame. Knowing they are struggling to feed themselves and their family members is something that can bring a person to tears, like that gentleman who called my office. Parents do not talk openly about skipping meals; they hide it. Children feel the stress of survival when there is not enough food to go around. Even when parents are hiding it from them, the children know there is something happening in the household. Meals get smaller. Choices get narrower. Nutrition suffers. This is not just an economic issue. It is also a public health issue, a mental health issue, a social cohesion issue. No rebate can undo the damage that is caused to someone's dignity when they cannot afford to feed themselves and their family. If we are serious about the food affordability crisis, we must be honest about the causes. Food prices are driven by energy and fuel costs that have excess taxation, such as the fuel standard tax and the industrial carbon tax. They are driven by transportation costs and taxes on the industry and also by regulatory burdens. They are driven by carbon charges embedded throughout the supply chain and also by weak domestic food-processing capacity. Every one of these costs shows up on the shelf and makes food more expensive, yet Bill C-19 removes none of these causes. One of the quiet injustices of an approach that gives Canadians a food rebate, almost like giving them a food stamp, is that many struggling families get left out. Working families who are struggling often get nothing. Families who are not well off but earn just above the eligibility requirement receive no benefit. There are hard-working families and individuals who are doing everything right, yet they are still falling between the cracks. Canadians do not want handouts. For those Canadians seeking real affordability, a government rebate will not help them do better and be able to afford food, but permanently lowering food prices will have an immediate impact. In closing, I will end the same way I began. We have a food affordability crisis. Parents are skipping meals. Families are cutting protein out of their diets, and Canadians are quietly putting food back on the shelves at the grocery stores. Canadians need relief that lasts. They want their dignity back, and they do not want their survival to be based on government subsidies. They want to live with dignity in a country they love. Canadians need better than rebates. They need lower prices, honest policy and solutions that address causes, not a band-aid solution or a temporary cheque that robs them of their dignity.

Mr. Speaker, we spend time on things that are important to Canadians. We spend time on explaining how things that impact their daily lives and their survival will play out so they can understand, because they pay our salaries. It is very important that we have a debate on real substantive issues, not just band-aid solutions. When people are going to food banks in the hundreds of thousands, when people's dignity is lost, it is important that we spend the time to get it right.

Mr. Speaker, these are very good questions, and that is why we are here discussing this issue. The hon. member asked why these payments were not made monthly. People call my office daily, telling us that at the end of the month they do not have enough for food. A rebate is not going to do it. A rebate is not going to be the solution. This should have been something that was contemplated in the budget, because affordability measures are so important. For example, the industrial carbon tax is something that could easily fix the food affordability crisis if it was just removed, as we have asked for as Conservatives.

Mr. Speaker, my constituents find that when we have an authentic, genuine question that we are debating and members refer to it as obstructing, they are offended by the fact that we are not taking their concerns seriously. I have had people, and grown men, on the phone in tears because they cannot feed their families. This is not an obstructionist issue. We have to get it right. We have to be there for Canadians. They are depending on us. It is a basic human right, a basic human dignity, to be able to feed our families and feed ourselves. We have to make sure that we spend the time to get this issue right.

Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister spends his time with the world elites, life at home is getting harder for Canadians, including families in Haldimand—Norfolk. The 2026 food price report is alarming. This year, it will cost $17,600 to feed a family of four, which is $1,000 more than it cost last year. The Prime Minister's industrial carbon tax and fuel standard tax are driving up food prices. Will he scrap the taxes and bring down the cost of food for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. Statistics Canada shows that food inflation is up 6.2%, which is the highest in the G7. I remember, as a university student, putting food back on the shelf because I could not afford it. I am so blessed today, but even recently I did not buy a package of meat because it cost four times more than I paid for it last year. Imagine what average Canadians who are working two jobs are going through, sacrificing every single day just to get by. Will the Liberals give Canadians a break and cut the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax?