Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit discouraging to be having this debate now in the House of Commons. Why? It is because we already passed a similar bill barely 18 months ago. The Conservatives voted in favour of it because the Prime Minister said that those projects would be fast-tracked at unimaginable speeds. The result is that 500 projects are currently stalled. We are not seeing any progress at all. Can the member tell me whether we will see another bill like this one 18 months down the line?

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the Liberal member, and the words are great. I can say amen to a lot of what he is saying, but the problem is that the Liberals have been in power for 11 years. He said that Canada has no shortage of opportunities and huge potential. Well, why are things not happening? We have had 500 projects, actually way more than that, bogged down. The Liberals claim that part 1 of the bill sets a one-year decision timeline, but the fine print reveals that the clock only starts after proponents submit every single study requested. Is this not just a shell game that leaves years of regulatory delays untouched?

Madam Speaker, I hardly agree with the parliamentary secretary about this being good from an economic perspective, but I guess it is good from the economic perspective of bureaucrats and bloated government. I wonder if he is aware of the six separate entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure treaty implementation. He can nod if he knows these ones: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. I am wondering if the member could elaborate on these other aspects that are about doing the same job.

Madam Speaker, it has been an honour to serve the residents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and now Mission for going on seven years. I appreciate this role and take my responsibilities seriously. Today is the first day of a fall session. I was a teacher for many years prior to being elected, and September is the start of a new school year, not only in elementary and high schools but also on campuses, with new sports programs, dance classes and many other activities. There is a sense of excitement among many students at the beginning of something new and getting involved. I want to wish students and teachers a successful and fulfilling year. I have a confession to make. As we enter this fall session, I do not have the same excitement. As a matter of fact, I have a bit of a heavy heart over what has been happening in our beautiful country of Canada for the past years under the Liberal government and, I would also add, in my province of British Columbia under the NDP government. Millions of Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. They are feeling the cost of living squeeze at the grocery stores and gas pumps. Small business owners tell me they feel that the government is, in many respects, warring against them to make them unprofitable and increase regulatory and tax burdens. Canada has dropped like a rock in our ranking in per capita income compared to the rest of the world. I will not talk about crime in our communities or drugs on the streets. However, I must give credit to the Liberals where credit is due. They are master illusionists. Has anyone ever seen a magician saw an attractive assistant in two, only for the assistant to appear whole, with the wave of a wand and the swoosh of a cape? How do magicians do it? It is a little easier now with AI to find out their secrets. The Liberals are masters of illusion. They give the appearance of doing things, tricking our eyes and minds, but it is an illusion. One and a half years ago, the Prime Minister talked about moving Canada forward at unimaginable speed on major infrastructure and economic projects and about the need to rapidly diversify. Things have been pretty stagnant on that front. They may be able to point to one or two different projects, but it has been very sluggish. They said lots of good-sounding words and talked about doubling housing that is going the wrong direction. I asked my parliamentary assistant how many new bureaucracies and offices the Liberals have they formed since they have been in government, and he sent me a list. It came to almost 50. There are 48 announced to be funded and formed, layers and layers of bureaucracies weighing down taxpayers with more debt, more regulations, more paper shuffling and more delays. Therefore, when the Liberal government tells me that Bill C-10 will fix its relationship with indigenous peoples by adding a new bureaucracy, I have to ask a simple question: With what? When we open the box, there is nothing inside. We have tried this before. As I asked in my question to the parliamentary secretary moments ago, between 2015 and 2017, the government created the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implementation office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat, six separate entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure treaty implementation. At this rate, I have to ask: How many government offices does it take to change a light bulb? Apparently, it is six, or I guess seven now. After six offices and committees and layers of bureaucracy, the light bulb is still out. It is a bureaucracy and a government that have run amok. In 2024, the Auditor General again reported that the federal system remains fragmented, bureaucratic and unaccountable. Responsibility is scattered across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board. When commitments go unfulfilled, no one is accountable, not politically, not financially, not morally. It is like it is their fault. Adding a commissioner does not change culture or performance. Only enforcement, accountability and clear expectations can. The government's response is what we have in the bill, to create yet another agency to monitor implementation. Success should not be measured in bureaucratic reports. It should be measured in results on the ground, homes, water, policing, infrastructure, governance and economic opportunities. A commissioner will not build a house. A commissioner will not hire a police officer. A commissioner will not deliver clean water. The Liberal philosophy is that Ottawa always knows best, that Ottawa must monitor, that Ottawa must supervise. The Liberals want to teach from above instead of supporting from beside. Bill C-10 is the purest expression of that instinct. Indigenous communities do not need a commissioner. The government needs a mirror. Its record is damning. The government has had 11 years to act. In that time, how many new modern treaties has it delivered? The answer is zero. That is a fact. In contrast, the Conservative government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, without all these extra bureaucracies, produced five modern treaties in six years. This is not a question of capacity or goodwill. It can be done and it has to be done. The government knows it has failed indigenous people, and it knows that the Auditor General has told it so, not once, not twice, but repeatedly. There is the 2005 report on treaty land entitlements, the 2006 report on the B.C. treaty process, the 2013 audit of modern treaty implementation, the 2016 report on the Labrador and Inuit Land Claims Agreement. There have been more than 14 reports since 2015, covering housing, clean water and treaty implementation, more than two decades of road maps. Instead of following the map, the government got lost in its own maze of offices, titles and press conferences. While it wandered in the wilderness, communities have suffered. Treaty rights have not been honoured. Fiscal transfers have been delayed. Infrastructure has crumbled. Policing was underfunded and housing has been inadequate. In 2023, the government even proposed a collaborative modern treaty implementation policy. That sounded like progress, especially with 70 treaty negotiations bogged down. Two years later, nothing has been implemented. We do not need another report telling us that the government has failed. We already know that. I ask the House how a future commissioner of modern treaty implementation would magically motivate the government to finish the work. It would not. The problem has never been a lack of oversight. The problem is a lack of execution, a lack of political will and a lack of ministerial accountability. There are some alternatives. I will maybe get to that in my responses to some questions. I will say that we already have the courts. We have the Auditor General. We already have parliamentary committees, deputy ministers, performance frameworks and internal audits. The government does not need another reminder that it is failing to do its job. Over 100,000 public servants have been added since 2015, with $20 billion a year spent on external consultants. We have a public service that is larger than ever, a public service more ineffective in every respect. Faced with that failure, the Liberal answer is always the same, one more office, just one more commissioner and just one more structure. Actually, it is not just one more. The Liberals are going a dime a dozen. It is the illusion of action.

Madam Speaker, certainly we support auditors general and different agencies, but we do not need half a dozen or a dozen agents doing the same exact work or with a slight modification. A key aspect is just to hold ministers accountable. Every minister should report to Parliament on treaty implementation. If an obligation is unfulfilled, this is not a bureaucratic problem. It is a leadership failure and there must be consequences. We need to reduce government. We need to reduce bureaucracy instead of expanding it.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong has certainly been drinking the Liberal Kool‑Aid, with her jargon, “build Canada strong” and “investment”. One important industry she did not really refer to is the automobile industry and how it has dropped from over 2.5 million units to, now, under one million. There has been a free fall there. That is one sector. There is also EV manufacturing. I think of the different companies. Honda's $15‑billion EV and battery complex has been scrapped. Northvolt has been cut. It has been a free fall. I wonder if the member would agree with me that these Liberal investments have actually been very dubious and unfruitful.

Mr. Speaker, crime has gone out of control under the Liberals with violent crime, extortion and those out on bail. They make it seem as if they are the bearers of truth and justice and getting things done when they are the reason we are in the situation we are now. They are closing down debate. We have a role to play. I am sure the Liberals would prefer there not be an opposition. We have a responsibility to bring forward amendments as the opposition on behalf of Canadians, because almost all the time the Liberals get it wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of an extraordinary British Columbian philanthropist and community builder, Mel Zajac, who passed away at the age of 98. I had the privilege of knowing Mel and visited Zajac Ranch in Mission on several occasions, including just last month. It is an amazing place, and it is constantly improving. What always struck me was that, right to the very end, Mel remained passionately committed to helping youth with disabilities. After the heartbreaking loss of two sons, Mel transformed personal tragedy into a remarkable legacy of hope. His vision gave life to Zajac Ranch, which is a fully accessible camp where children and young adults with complex medical conditions can experience joy, friendship, confidence and the sense of belonging that every child needs. Over the decades, thousands have been touched by Mel and Wendy's belief that barriers should never prevent a child from thriving. Mel Zajac leaves behind a legacy of philanthropy and compassion. On behalf of the House, I extend my deepest condolences to Wendy, his family and the entire Zajac community.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are a bit disappointed that the Liberals voted against some of our amendments. I think that will affect how we will vote. I would like to know what the Bloc Québécois member thinks of some of these amendments, particularly those aimed at strengthening the security of ballot boxes, as well as the measures designed to close loopholes that allow third parties to advertise on behalf of one party or another.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. The legislation proposes a federal framework to improve product durability, repairability and transparency for consumers. It sounds really good. Everyone has stories about appliances and their longevity, or the lack thereof. I bought a second-hand freezer 35 years ago. It is still humming away in our basement. It needs some defrosting. It has almost become a member of the family. I do not know how many more years it has, but it will probably outlive us. There is also my microwave. It is 23 years old today. It celebrated its birthday. About 10 years ago, it had a little problem. It started sparking. My wife, whom I have been pretty impressed with, has come up with some fixes for our dryer and our microwave, and we did a little patch. Guess what? They are still working after all these years. Those are some good stories about appliances, but not all appliances in our household have happy stories. Take our stove. It did not have a knob, like they used to. I guess some of them still do, but the one we had did not. It had a plastic top. Anyway, one of the little plastic pieces behind broke. It was about 50¢ for the piece, so I thought it would be no problem to get this little repair job done. I thought it was going to keep up with my freezer, but it apparently needed a whole new control panel. They did not make the replacement for that little piece, and a new control panel would have cost almost the same as buying a new a stove. That was a frustrating and expensive experience. Toasters nowadays seem to be just as useless, compared to half a century ago. The list goes on and on. There is a history of planned obsolescence. Have members ever heard about the Phoebus cartel? I had never heard about the Phoebus cartel before I did the preparation for this speech. It was made up of the world's major light bulb manufacturers. In 1924, we had Osram, which I had never heard of, and Philips, which I have heard of, as well as GE and others. These companies secretly agreed to cap bulb lifespans at about 1,000 hours. They were at about 2,500 hours at that time. They fined members whose bulbs lasted too long. They saw, rightly, that having bulbs that never went out was not good for business. There is a light bulb in my riding. It was part of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford's riding until the last election. It is in the Ruskin Dam. That light bulb is almost 100 years old. It has not gone out in 100 years. That is amazing. If we had light bulbs like that, we could almost put them in our will. Planned obsolescence is not new. In the 1920s, GM introduced the annual model year. Alfred Sloan pioneered dynamic obsolescence. He restyled the cars every year so that the previous year looked aged. This is what happened to the Model T. That sank it for Ford and the Model T. It was about fashion. We see present-day obsolescence in software updates, incompatible chargers, glued-in batteries and printer cartridges with kill chips. This is frustrating. I would agree that the industry can do better. We can get products that last. Canadians would welcome this. I just ordered a fourth shaver a couple days ago from Amazon. They used to last a decade or more. This is what we are seeing. We need to dig a little deeper into this bill. What would it actually do? It would force the minister to make a bureaucracy. It would force the minister to make a national framework. Liberals love the words “national framework”. The framework must address the minimum useful life and labelling, the repair via accessible parts, tools and information, replacement part availability periods, technical documentation, software support duration, consumer education and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. It is a massive bureaucratic undertaking. I can see the Liberals being gleeful about this bureaucracy. Frameworks are nebulous and vaporous. What does it mean to have a national framework? It means 50 full-time bureaucrats talking and talking. Maybe it is 500 or 5,000. I do not know. The minister must confer with the provinces on possible future legislation, industry obligations, inspections and penalties every 18 months and must report to Parliament. There would be report after report, more bureaucracy and more expense to the taxpayer. We have seen this playing out over and over again. We were recently discussing Build Canada Homes, which is a fourth bureaucracy. The Liberals have a terrible record. My staff tell me how hard it is becoming to deal with the Canada Revenue Agency, immigration and the government. It is getting slower and slower. It is hard. We need to also consider the prices for appliances that were stable and have been declining for many years. It is true that refrigerators, washers and dryers were simpler and easier to repair, and parts were more robust and less dependent on electronics. They were also heavier, with more metal components. Now, electronic control boards, sensors, touch screens and smart features introduce more failure points. Manufacturers are also feeling the pressure to keep prices competitive, which leads to lighter construction and lower-cost components. Before we run headlong into bureaucracy and regulations, we need to also recognize that modern appliances use much less electricity and water. That is a significant cost savings. They have more features and conveniences, and they meet stricter environmental standards. The trade-off has been lower purchase prices and better efficiency versus durability and ease of repair. This is another issue to keep in mind. Canada is a small market, compared to Europe and the United States. As it was mentioned previously by my colleague from British Columbia, most of the manufacturing is done in other countries. That is a problem, because they are not going to bend for Canada. Basically, what will end up happening is there will be a reduction in the number of products for Canadians. This will certainly increase costs for Canadian consumers, who the Liberals are saying they are trying to help. At the same time, the Internet has made it easier than ever for consumers to see how long things last, based on honest reviews. They may be honest. We may have to pick through them. The Conservatives are opposing this bill. Why? It is because it moves away from previous Conservative-supported right-to-repair measures. Bill C-294, which we supported, would have made it easier for Canadian businesses and innovators to create products that work with existing technologies, giving consumers more choice and encouraging competition. It was a common-sense measure that would have supported innovation, helped grow our economy and benefited Canadians without taking away copyright protections. This bill, despite its title, does not display common sense. This bill would present risks around federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals do not have a problem with that. It would introduce the potential for increased regulatory burden on businesses. The Liberals do not have a problem with that, either. It would risk consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products in the Canadian market. It sounds like a great idea, but there are a lot of problems and pitfalls in this bill. The Conservatives will be voting against it, and I encourage the government to go back to the table and follow the Conservatives' plan.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his passionate speech and for his very clearly thought-out presentation and understanding of the bill. I certainly hope that the Liberals will follow through with his amendment. My wife and I received a call a couple of days ago from a relative of the pastor of the church I have been going to for about 25 years. She was very upset about this bill. I wanted to soothe her, so I told her, “I do not believe they are going to be taking people in the next few days or few weeks and bringing them to prison.” I was just trying to calm her down. At the same time, I said, “This is leading somewhere. We do not know where it is going to go. It is going to be interpreted.” I wonder if the member could tell us how this would impact the human rights courts—

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal inflation and economic mismanagement, Canadians are the ones who are paying the price. A new United Way survey found that 60% of them are anxious about their finances and 40% are losing sleep trying to make ends meet. More than two million Canadians relied on food banks every month last year, and in Maple Ridge, food bank use has doubled in the past five years. How much worse must it get before the Liberal Prime Minister reverses the costly policies driving Canadians into hardship?

Madam Speaker, I was an MLA in British Columbia in the years coinciding with when the Conservatives were in power under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Those were the years when Canada, and more specifically B.C., was moving forward. Projects were getting built under a free enterprise provincial and federal government. In my riding, there is the Golden Ears Bridge, the Pitt River Bridge, the Port Mann Bridge and the expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway. The highway that used to go between Vancouver and Squamish was called the highway of death because of all the fatalities there. That was expanded. There is Kicking Horse Pass. The Olympics happened. There is the Canada Line, the convention centre and a new stadium, new hospitals and new schools. All throughout British Columbia there was tremendous progress, and I know that this was the same throughout the country. The New York Times, during that period, said that Canada had the richest middle class in the world. We had a dollar at par with the American dollar. I would talk to Americans and others visiting Canada and visiting Victoria, where I often was for my government work. They were amazed by the prosperity they saw in British Columbia and in Canada. Let us keep in mind that between 2007 and mid-2009, the world underwent the great global recession. It was the most severe economic and financial meltdown since the Great Depression in the late twenties and the thirties, impacting housing significantly. Canada weathered this storm very well, and we were number one in growth. Between 2006 and 2015, under Stephen Harper, there were two million housing starts in Canada, while the population growth was about 3.2 million. Using household sizes, those starts were enough to accommodate more people than the population during that period. Canada fared the best in the G7. We were a prosperous nation going from strength to strength. Fast-forward to 2026. After 11 long years under the Liberal government and under two Liberal prime ministers, we have gone from boom to gloom and from first to worst. There has been economic stagnation and decline under the Liberals. In three of the last four quarters, we have shrunk. We are in a recession. We are the only country in the G20 with an economy that is shrinking. The G20 includes nations such as Argentina, which was an economic basket case not so long ago; Australia; Brazil; China; France; Germany; India; Indonesia; Italy; Japan; Mexico, whose number one trading partner is the U.S., as it is for Canada; Russia; Saudi Arabia; South Africa; South Korea; Turkey; the United Kingdom and the United States. I know that the Liberals would like to blame the U.S. for all the problems Canada faces, but all these countries are impacted by U.S. tariffs, and some are in war zones. However, credit must be given where credit is deserved. The Liberals excel, get an A, for building bureaucracy, increasing red tape and doling out money to friends, family and themselves. Since I was elected to the House of Commons in 2019, it has been one scandal after another. We get numb after a while. The Conservatives had their scandals also. One lady, a cabinet minister, resigned for having a $16 glass of orange juice. The Prime Minister promised to double housing construction to half a million homes a year and to move at speeds we have not seen in generations. How has that turned out? More than one year in, the result is the exact opposite: fewer permits, fewer starts, and a housing crisis that keeps getting worse. For example, Toronto has experienced a major housing construction downturn, a crash. Starts are down more than 50% in the last three years. New condo sales in the GTA collapsed to 1,599 units in 2025, the lowest annual total in 35 years and 91% less than the 10-year average. However, this must be kept in context. Canada's population has increased by 2.5 million people in the last three years alone, under the Liberals' chaotic handling of immigration. Construction should be skyrocketing, not plummeting. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says that we need to build 480,000 homes a year for the next decade. We are expected to build only half of that this year and only 212,000 units by 2028. Meanwhile, 131,000 Canadians who used to work in construction are unemployed as of April, and half of home builders and contractors are reporting layoffs in the first quarter of this year. Maybe there is a strategy under this political madness. Maybe the intention is to make things so bad that when there is a change, and I think there was some positive news with the numbers today, the Liberals will blow the trumpets, bang on the drums and say how they have turned things around, how marvellous things have become. However, this is a fail. It is not a new day. It is not a new government. It is the same old, same old. Instead of a plan to build homes, the Liberals would deliver a fourth housing bureaucracy. Far from building at generational speeds, they have taken a year to introduce legislation that still builds no homes. Even when homes start getting built, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found, Build Canada Homes would add just 5,000 homes per year, 1% of what the Liberals promised. We can do the math on how much is being invested right there and what that equates to as far as cost per unit. It is more bureaucracy, more red tape and more cost. I recently held a round table with builders and developers. They are asking for less government in the homebuilding process, not more. Ever-increasing regulations are killing the market and driving up construction costs. Federal, provincial and municipal regulations and taxes are all adding costs, not just for the builder but also for the home purchaser. If we are to make housing affordable for Canadians, we need to cut the cost of building and to build more, faster. Bill C‑20 would not build, and it would not cut costs for builders. What would it do? It would build a fourth government bureaucracy. That is an F, for “fail”. I was a teacher. We can see the stats here very clearly. Canadians used to be able to buy their first home in their twenties or early thirties. Realtors in Vancouver tell me that it is now an anomaly for new homebuyers to purchase a place without getting significant financial help from their family. This is building a sharp divide in Canadian society between the haves and the have-nots. This is not good. It is becoming dependent upon generational wealth rather than on someone's being able to make it on their own, even with a supposedly great salary. Conservatives have a plan: Cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000 and unleashing new building; tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, with municipalities having to permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year to get things done; cut development charges by 50%, because the number one cost of construction is all the regulations and permitting; and end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada and unlock billions of dollars of investment in the country's homebuilding sector. Canadians should be able to earn a strong paycheque in a thriving economy to buy an affordable home. It used to be this way, and it can be this way again.

Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for the fact that I will probably be too nice in my remarks to the Liberal member. This is madness, and it actually proves the point that the Liberals might see a slight change and then blow the horn about how wonderful they are. It has been a disaster, and now they are saying that immigration is down, but it is down from historic highs. The Liberals tweak it down just a little and say how great they are doing. They have made a total mess of things. Under the Conservatives, we built two and a half million homes during a time of population increase that was less than the increase over the past few years. I hold onto that F for failure for the Liberals.

Madam Speaker, last year Canadians thought they were electing someone with exceptional economic skills who could strengthen our economy and quickly negotiate a deal with the United States. Well, it is becoming increasingly evident that we have been duped. Under the Liberals, Canada has the only recession in the G20. We have now suffered economic decline in three of the last four quarters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer paints a grim picture, saying there is only a 1% chance the Liberals will meet their own fiscal targets. As for businesses, they are retreating from investment amid soaring uncertainty. The Liberals claim to be cutting costs, but they plan to hike personnel expenses from $69 billion to $86 billion by 2031. Then there is the $72 billion in deficit borrowing this year alone. This is not just numbers; it is diminished paycheques, fewer jobs and strained households. Canadians deserve better than a Liberal government that has lost its way.

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law, but because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case, the judge did not protect private property. In 2019, the Liberal government issued a directive called litigation guideline number 14, which discourages federal lawyers from defending property rights in court. The Liberal Prime Minister has kept that guideline in place. In fact, it is still on the government's website today. Why do the Liberals continue to tell lawyers not to defend homeowners?

Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about a very important issue that is impacting all British Columbians and has implications for all Canadians: property rights. In the 2021 census, two-thirds, about 66.8%, of British Columbian households owned their own home, and it was about the same throughout the country. One-third were renters, and a good many of those renters wanted to eventually own. It has become increasingly difficult during the past decade under the Liberals due to the cost of housing, rising inflation and less and less disposable income to pay for things like groceries, gas and taxes, let alone a down payment on a home. People work hard to pay down their mortgages. It can take decades. I remember one worker I spoke to not that long ago telling me that he was working seven days a week, and very long days, just to keep a roof over his family's head and to keep their home. “It is nothing fancy”, he told me. He said that he could not give his body a break. I think of myself when I was a new teacher buying a condo, working long hours, extra hours, for money to go towards the mortgage. I think of seniors who have spent a lifetime paying down their mortgage and want to use their house as a nest egg to provide financial resources and security for their retirement and pass it on to their children and grandchildren. I do not like saying this, but this is being undermined today. In British Columbia, we sometimes have small earthquakes, we have not had a large for probably over 100 years, but I have felt them. There are tremors, foreshocks and aftershocks. The foreshocks around the world sometimes indicate that a big one is coming and should not be ignored. However, with private property rights, there are some shocks happening. The Liberals can just ignore them and say that nothing is happening. “It is the same old, same old” is what we hear from them, but there is something dangerous looming, and it is already here. Private property rights are often considered one of the foundational elements of a free and stable economy. It is important, because it impacts people's economic freedom, their personal security and investment. For generations, Canadians have understood a basic principle: If they lawfully purchase a home, if they hold title to their property, if they invest their life savings into a piece of land, and not just their life savings, but their sweat and work, then the law protects that ownership. It is certainly not a privilege. It is one of the cornerstones of democratic society. It is what allows families to build a future. It allows farmers to invest in their land. It allows businesses to create jobs and communities to grow. Where there is uncertainty in property rights, confidence erodes, investment dries up, families hesitate and communities stagnate. This is a big concern. I had a booth at a home show over the past weekend for several days and talked to hundreds of people. The topic of property rights came up over and over again, unsolicited. It is not just what the Liberals call “fearmongering”. It is what people are feeling in the community. It is not some bad dream they are having. It is reality. There are things happening, and the Liberals have been asleep at the switch, which is an old expression. The Liberals are more than asleep. Their incompetence is a key reason that we find ourselves in the mess we are in. Last August, the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision of the B.C. Supreme Court threatened the private property rights of landowners in British Columbia and potentially in other provinces. In one act, the judge deemed the aboriginal title had prior and senior rights over fee simple home ownership, like over 800 acres in Richmond worth a billion dollars. It is setting a precedent that other judgments can be made on. That is the concern. That is a big concern. It sets a precedent that can expand. It is already serious enough. This ruling has shaken the foundations of British Columbia's economy and sparked fear among landowners province-wide. As Conservatives, we are bringing this up. We are hearing what communities, like Richmond, and the owners are saying. I have met with farmers who have spent generations on their land, clearing, working and spending money. This is all being threatened and the Liberals pooh-pooh us. They say we are just barking up a tree. We are not barking up a tree. This is serious and they need to take it seriously. They cannot just say it is in the court's hands, that we need to forget about it and just go back to sleep. We are not going to. We are going to fight for this. We are going to fight for landowners. We are going to fight for homeowners. We are going to fight for our communities. We are going to try to wake up the Liberals because they have gotten us into this situation. British Columbians bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law, but because the Liberal government directed its lawyers not to argue for property rights in the Cowichan case, the judge did not protect private property. The government will say it is there and it is fighting for it, but it did not actually intervene. It said it would appeal on the very last day. The government said it had better do that as it might not be very good for it electorally. That is what it is thinking of. It is all electoral; it is all speech. Under the Prime Minister's leadership, the federal government continues to maintain the same legal directive adopted in 2019: litigation guideline 14. That directive led Ottawa to abandon the argument in defence of fee simple title in British Columbia, including in the Cowichan case. It is still on the government's website today, unless it was taken out this morning, to not encourage the government lawyers to stand up for fee simple property. The Liberals say we are fearmongering. That is not true. They are trying to minimize a very serious situation that British Columbians find themselves in. They say we are being racist. It is not true. Conservatives believe in reconciliation with indigenous people. It is essential. It is a moral obligation, a constitutional responsibility and an opportunity to build a stronger Canada founded on mutual respect and shared prosperity. Reconciliation cannot succeed if it is built on ambiguity, secrecy and legal confusion. What does this all mean? What is going on here for private property owners? What does it mean for municipalities? What does it mean for future land claims and development projects? British Columbia has been an important engine in Confederation and in the economy, but it is not the same. We are struggling here economically and developmentally. When business owners are afraid of expanding, that has an impact on jobs. The lack of jobs impacts taxes and revenues, which impacts health care and everything else.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are ignoring what is happening. Do they think that the business owners and the homeowners are just making things up, saying that they cannot renew their mortgages or that business owners cannot get loans? That is in the law. It is happening. It is the uncertainty. It is what is not in the treaties and the agreements, so it is causing problems. It is causing problems within the Lower Mainland and it is causing problems in other first nations. It is a mess and they can put that on the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is an important one. I was reflecting, as I was preparing my comments, on the new Liberal majority. I thank the members of Parliament who double-crossed the voters who elected them one year ago. We are in a situation now where the Liberals have their cherished majority government. I was thinking of this new age, and I had a flashback of when I was in grade 3 and living on a small military base in north Vancouver Island called Holberg. I was a proud member of Gary's Singing Worms. There was a song we sang. You are probably too young to remember it, Mr. Speaker. It was called The Age of Aquarius. It was a hit in the Broadway production Hair. Some of us have been losing our hair in the meantime. I will not sing the song. Some members might know the words, but I will refresh everyone's memory. It came out in 1969, the “flower power” era of love and peace. Some of the words are as follows: This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius Age of Aquarius Aquarius Aquarius Harmony and understanding Sympathy and trust abounding No more falsehoods or derision Golden living dreams of visions I have some words that could very well have been penned by the Liberal Prime Minister. They have the same tune: This is the dawning of the Age of Majority, Our Majority, Liberal Majority Harmony? We can stop pretending Questions asked will be met with no bending More secrecy and more derision One-Party rule with tunnel vision Committees bring recommendations We Liberals will ignore consultations No more listening or debate Just whipped votes, no need to wait Lovely Majority, Liberal Majority I am surprised that my Liberal colleagues are not clapping at that.

Mr. Speaker, we have moved into a new realm of secrecy and of control. The Liberal member is sighing, as if it were not true, but he knows it is true. What was the first thing the Liberals did when they got their majority last week? They moved several committees in camera, into secrecy, and shut down debate on things that are uncomfortable for them. Even the Liberal media organ, the CBC, now that the Liberals are established, is perplexed and critical of this move and says this is sending the wrong message. We are seeing the same attitude in the Liberals' imposing closure on debate on this important bill. They have shown their true colours toward victims of sexual harassment in the military with how they have pushed through and are pushing through Bill C-11 without the amendments that were passed at committee. That is very unfortunate. It really boils down to control and secrecy, and we will talk a bit more about that. This debate should not be about procedure. It must not be about politics. It must be about the survivors. It must be about veterans and serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces who came before the Standing Committee on National Defence and did something extraordinarily brave. They relived some of the most painful moments of their lives, publicly and on record, because they believed that Parliament was finally prepared to listen. Let us imagine someone's testifying about one of the worst experiences of their life and then having the government refuse to listen to their voice. They testified about sexual assault. They testified about betrayal by institutions they trusted. They testified about being silenced. Above all, they testified about choice: the right to choose which justice, military or civilian, would be most effective and where they could see justice served. Therefore, I ask the House this: Why is the government now moving to shut down debate on Bill C-11 before those concerns are fully and honestly addressed? The government tells Canadians that the bill is about supporting victims and restoring trust. If that is true, why are the ministers afraid of scrutiny? Why impose time allocation on legislation that would directly affect survivors of military sexual trauma? If the government is confident that the bill reflects what survivors want and need, then let Parliament test that. Let the arguments be heard. Let victims know that their voices matter, not just at committee but also here in the House, where laws are made. This is about choice. People asked for a system that treats them with dignity, not suspicion. At committee, we listened. Conservatives worked constructively across party lines, with colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP, to improve Bill C-11. Together we brought forward amendments rooted directly in witness testimony, especially the nearly universal request that the victims of military sexual assault be able to choose which justice system they report to. That is what collaboration looks like. That is what respect for survivors looks like. However, that stands in stark contrast to the Liberal government's approach. For months, the bill has sat idle. The government did not act. It did not engage meaningfully with victims. Then, only after securing a political procedural advantage, the government moved to rush the bill through and undo the very amendments survivors had fought for. This is not leadership. This is political expediency. I can understand why the Liberals are this way, because they have gotten in a lot of trouble around the issue of sexual harassment in the military. I think of Harjit Sajjan. He was censured publicly at the House of Commons in 2021 around the issue of the cover-up of sexual harassment. This is a shame. What are the Liberals doing? There is an expression for that. The more things change, the more they stay the same. The more it changes, the more it is the same. It is the same old, same old. Actually, it is not the same old, same old. It is getting worse. The Liberals would now give the minister the power to intervene and have his way. This would be superseding justice. That is not good, because it is political expedience and political cover-up. This is not what Canadians need, and it is not what the members of the armed forces need. It is a shame. Instead of increasing the independence of military prosecutors, defence counsel and the provost marshal, the minister would ensure that these roles would remain under political and institutional control. This would do nothing to prevent sexual misconduct. It would deepen the mistrust. There is an expression by former British prime minister William Gladstone in which he said, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Gladstone was a prime minister of the U.K. at the time of the Confederation of Canada, the 1860s. It basically says that if legal remedy comes too late, it means that people are getting no justice at all. That is what is happening. The Liberals would be putting the cases into the civilian courts, but the courts are already clogged up. I was at a home show in Maple Ridge over the weekend and talked to hundreds of people, including police officers and people in justice. They were telling me that people are being arrested and the prosecutors are not moving the cases forward because the courts are jammed full. It is taking so long that they are releasing people. This is what the Liberals' solution is: just to put the matter through into a jammed-up system where they can bury it and protect themselves. This is about self-protection and self-preservation. Shame on them. Let us get a bill that really reflects what has been brought forward by the witnesses, to protect and help our armed forces and those who have suffered sexual assault.

Mr. Speaker, it is a national disgrace that 80% of Canadians now say that food is their fastest-rising expense, and one in three are forced to borrow money just to eat. The Liberal government continues merrily on its way with its costly spending, forcing parents to make difficult choices at the grocery store. History shows that, as nations prosper, people eat better, but under the Liberals, Canadians are cutting back on meat and essential nutrition. When will the Prime Minister end his costly credit card budgeting, so all Canadians can afford to eat properly?

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present on behalf of my constituents from Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and Mission. The first one regards Bill C-218. The petitioners state that Canadians with mental illness should be provided with treatment and support. They state that mental illness is complex and includes suicidal thoughts as a symptom. The lives of Canadians with mental illness will be at risk when they are eligible for medical assistance in dying on the basis of mental illness alone, especially when treatment and support are not readily available.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is in regard to Bill C-9. The petitioners state they are concerned that the Liberal and Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 could be used to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and other sacred texts. The petitioners state that the government has no place in religious texts or teachings of any faith community, and that freedom of expression and religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are under immense economic strain, and now the Liberal government has jeopardized the very foundation of home ownership. The Cowichan decision and secret Musqueam agreement have cast a dark shadow over private property rights. By failing to defend fee simple ownership in court and dropping key legal arguments, the government has sparked fear and financial chaos. Appraisers are warning that affected property values could plunge 40%. Financing is drying up and projects are already being cancelled. This is a massive failure of leadership. Conservatives are calling on the Prime Minister to reinstate a strong legal defence of private property, ensure all agreements unmistakably protect ownership, deliver a clear plan within 30 days and immediately convene a parliamentary committee. Canadians deserve certainty and security, not empty words. The government must protect Canadian homes and restore confidence now.

Mr. Speaker I spoke with Bailey's grandmother, who lives in my riding, who heartbrokenly told me that she was with Bailey the day she was born, for her first breath, and was with her when she took her last breath. I just wonder if the member could tell us how we as legislators can justify not strengthening protections for victims through measures like Bailey's law to ensure that dangerous offenders are not given opportunities to reoffend and to murder an intimate partner.

Mr. Speaker, Sainte‑Thérèse was once home to an auto manufacturing facility, and even though Quebec no longer manufactures cars, it remains a very important industry in that province. Parts and engines are still manufactured there, for example. Thousands of workers are employed in that industry. Can the Bloc Québécois comment on the impact that the Liberal's policy is having on Quebec and on this staggering decline of more than a million cars? Although vehicles are not fully assembled in Quebec, this does have an impact on parts manufacturing.

Mr. Speaker, conflict in the Middle East is not new, but never have we seen it spill onto the streets of Canada in the way it has under the Liberal government. By politicizing foreign conflicts and pushing a soft-on-crime agenda, the Liberals have left Jewish and Iranian Canadians feeling unsafe in their own communities. Last week alone, three synagogues in the greater Toronto area were shot at. Canadians have heard enough of the condemnations and the endless empty words. Words are not enough. The truth is that terrorists operate on our streets while the laws already on the books go unenforced. Now, an Iranian dissident in Vancouver, someone I knew personally, has gone missing, and police fear he was killed, yet successive Liberal immigration and public safety ministers have failed to stop hundreds of known, active IRGC agents from living here. Why will the government not deport them now?

Mr. Speaker, the minister waxes eloquent about the bill and this motion, saying it is the best thing since sliced bread, that there is nothing to worry about and to trust in him. It reminds me of some words of a certain reptile in the The Jungle Book named Kaa, I believe. The minister says, “Just trust in us. Do not listen to all these religious organizations, all these churches, synagogues and mosques. Just trust in us.” Well, we do not trust in them at all. They have a track record. Does the minister not recognize that there is such a contradiction between them saying they are promoting the protection of religious communities and, at the same time, removing the defence of religious expression, which was put in by Pierre Elliott Trudeau with Bill C-3, the original hate propaganda bill. Does the minister not recognize the concerns of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians across Canada, and recognize that we do not trust in them?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, coming from the airport, I had the cab driver tell me, unsolicited, that he wanted Israel wiped off the map, and I have to assume Jews also. What we are seeing in Canada is an 800% increase in hate speech. This craziness has happened under the Liberal watch in every respect. An Iranian dissident I knew was killed in Vancouver last month. This is going on. The Liberals have not been enforcing the laws that are there, so they come up with this bill that censors religious speech. I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that the Conservatives wanted to split the bill to keep the crime pieces in and move out the censorship aspect.

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of the Liberal government, the cost of living crisis is crushing young Canadians and seniors alike. An RBC poll shows that 64% of millennials are anxious about their future, and 57% have nothing left at month's end. Four in 10 fear that they will never escape their debts. TransUnion Canada reports that household debts have surged to a record $2.6 trillion, driven largely by mortgages as families take on staggering debt just to keep a roof overhead. Today, the Financial Post reported that only 41% believe they will have enough to retire, with most worried they will not have enough savings to live securely. Seniors in the communities in my riding are asking how they are supposed to survive with the ever-escalating costs of groceries and everything else. When will the Liberals rein in their inflationary deficits, lower costs and restore an economy where Canadians can finally get ahead?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from a number of constituents who are very concerned about the escalating attacks, kidnappings and killings affecting Christians and other communities in parts of Nigeria. These incidents have had devastating humanitarian consequences, including mass displacement of life, destruction of property and places of worship, and an acute insecurity for vulnerable populations. The petitioners seek urgent and coordinated international action to protect civilians, uphold human rights and support peaceful coexistence in Nigeria.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-16. It is an important bill, and it is quite disturbing to hear the Liberal parliamentary secretary saying we are filibustering. We are putting up four speakers, a one-hour debate, and he is saying we are trying to push back. We are doing our job. We are here to say where things are good and where there needs to be improvement. That is our job. The Liberals would just prefer that we do not do our job on behalf of Canada. I just wanted to begin with that. We believe that job one for the federal government is public safety and security. Historically, Canada has been known as a peaceful and safe place to live. As a matter of fact, in the 1867 Constitution Act, the words are “Peace, Order, and good Government”. That is what Canadians should expect from the federal government: peace, for public safety; order, for rule of law; and good government, as in competent. Canada has been known for a number of symbols internationally. The one that is probably most famous is the maple leaf. It is on our flags, everywhere. The second one that would probably be most known internationally would be the RCMP with his red serge, or her red serge, and possibly on one of the horses. I remember the first time I visited Ottawa. This was in 1973. I came on a school trip from Chibougamau, Quebec. I was very impressed with the buildings and the city. I never dreamed of one day being able to represent the Canadian people as a member of Parliament, specifically the residents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and Mission, whom I thank for having re-elected me for a third term. I remember in 1973, when I was here, actually getting a coin, a 25¢ coin, and it was the centennial of the formation of the RCMP, which was originally the North-West Mounted Police. The reason I bring this up is that the North-West Mounted Police, which later became the RCMP, came and brought order in the west of Canada. There was one fort that members may be aware of, Fort Whoop-Up, where whisky traders from the United States were making a mockery of justice in that part of Canada, so the NWMP was establishing order. Canada has been known as a peaceful place and a safe place, but this has changed dramatically under the Liberals. I have many interesting conversations with Uber drivers, including late last night. I got in, and the fellow was an immigrant; he told me he was from Brazil. I asked him why he moved here. He said he moved here about nine years ago. He said a big thing for him was safety and security; that was the first thing. I said, “Oh, really?” However, he said things have changed, things are changing here in Canada. He says he sees the crime going up, people going to stores, grabbing things, and the police do not seem to be doing anything. It was very disappointing to hear this. Canadians are not just making this up. They are not misinformed. Let us look at Statistics Canada since 2015. I choose 2015 because that is the year the Liberals came into power. Human trafficking is up 80%. Sexual assault is up 74%. Violent crime is up more than 50%. I can roll off mathematical percentages, but those stats represent thousands, hundreds of thousands, of victims in our country. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I see violent crime is, again, up 50% to 85,000 incidences. Sexual assaults are up 97% to 4,396 incidences. Extortion is up 482%, almost 500%, or 2,885 cases in one year. This is under the Liberals. Government makes a difference. Brenda Locke, the mayor of Surrey, asked the government to invoke the Emergencies Act because the police are overwhelmed. People are fleeing the country. There are killings. We had never heard of this sort of thing beforehand. What is going on? In B.C., again, sexual violations against children are up 294% since the Liberals have been in power, to 2,581 cases. Luring children on a computer has gone up 18 times, to 1,406 incidents. Distributing child pornography is up 776%. This is insane. These are Statistics Canada's numbers. People are afraid on transit, in their neighbourhoods, in their homes and the downtown core. Crime did not rise on its own. It rose because of deliberate Liberal choices and legislation. The deliberate Liberal laws have undermined public safety. What sort of things have they done to undermine it? They say we have Bill C-16, and they are all about safety, order and criminal justice. Well, they have a track record. Under catch-and-release bail, they let criminals go under the least onerous conditions. One-third of homicides in Canada are committed by criminals out on bail. The partner of Bailey McCourt from Kelowna was charged with domestic violence and released on bail. He found the young mother of two in a parking lot and killed her in cold blood two hours later. We have talked about this at different times. The Conservatives brought forward Bailey's law. There are stories across Canada. I talked to the grandmother, who lives in my riding. She told me that she was with Bailey when she took her first breath and she was with her when she took the last breath of life. She is grieving. The Liberals also deliberately repealed mandatory minimum sentences. They have claimed that mandatory minimums violate the charter, and the Supreme Court upheld it. There are over 100 mandatory minimums, and they are constitutional. There are weak consequences for violent offenders. There have been 50,000 apprehensions of 40 people in Vancouver in one year. It is a cycle. Police ask me: What is the use? That is under the Liberals' watch. They cannot just wave around Bill C-16 and tell Canadians that everything is good now. They have the wrong criminal justice priorities. There is the gun buyback program. Conservatives believe in keeping Canadians safe from criminals, and the Liberals believe in keeping turkeys safe from hunters. One frontline police officer wrote me and said, “As a police officer, I don't get to voice my opinion publicly. I was hired to enforce the law, not comment on politics.” He felt compelled to email me. He said the Liberal firearm buyback program is a political distraction, a waste of resources and a danger to public safety. Those were his comments as a frontline professional. Meanwhile, those smuggling guns, repeat offenders and violent criminals walk free. That is not public safety; that is optics. Now the Liberals wonder why Canadians have lost trust. Bill C-16 needs to be judged in this context. It does not exist in a vacuum. There is every sign of the Liberals calling a snap election, including comments by the member who said Conservatives are filibustering. They are trying to develop a line. They have their trump card, their ace card. It is like they are battering a door in an arena with a flag, getting people riled up. The thing is, though, that they realize they have some vulnerabilities, and one of their biggest vulnerabilities is that they know Canadians are very concerned about public safety. Conservatives support some of the language, some of the things the bill has brought forward, because they are actually Conservative. However, the Liberals have a poison pill. If I had another 20 minutes, I could show how they could very well make things a lot worse for Canadians with this bill. It needs to be changed and to be split. I hope the Liberals will take our advice. We are going to pass Bill C-16 on to committee stage. I very much hope they will take the Conservative recommendations to split the bill and debate our meaningful amendments.

Mr. Speaker, like everything the Liberals do, this is about optics and about words. When we dig into it, we see that it is fake, like we are seeing with a lot of their projects. They have said that something is going to happen, but nothing is happening. The Conservatives are very concerned about this. It is not about the language being used, because we agree with many of the concerns being brought forward. The language sounds great until we get deeper into the bill and read what is said, buried in the provisions. There is a provision that would allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums if they decide that the sentence would be cruel and unusual. That may sound compassionate, but it is not. It would invite endless litigation and a steady erosion of sentencing law.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. This demonstrates the importance of the economy and how the federal government manages the economy. It has been completely flat for the past ten years under the Liberals. We do not have the resources to do what we should be doing and to invest more, perhaps, in health, security, transportation and all that. What are they doing? They are running ever-larger deficits and the debt is growing. This is terrible for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, that is a good point from my colleague. We warned the Liberals during the debate on Bill C-5 that repealing mandatory minimums would increase crime and undermine trust, but we were mocked by them four years ago. Since then, crime is up and fear is up, and Bill C-16 would not correct the course; it would accelerate it. There are some changes, but the bill could be a lot better if the Liberals would take some of our amendments and apply them, and Canadians would be better off because of that.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from 11,500 Canadians who are asking that the Liberal government no longer proceed with Bill C-9 but enforce existing laws to protect Canadians. Among other things, they say Bill C-9 lowers the legal standard for hatred with a vague definition, which is confusing and unmeasurable, threatening freedom of speech and expression; that it removes important safeguards, such as requiring Attorney General approval for hate speech charges; and finally, that it will undermine constitutional rights to freedoms of religion, conscience, thought, belief, opinion and expression, and the freedom of press and other mediums of communication.