Leslyn Lewis

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.