Mel Arnold

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his speech and actually admitting in his words that we are in “a bit of a challenging time for our country.” His terminology for this may be a little bit off when we have seniors having to live in their vehicles because they cannot afford rent. We have record numbers of working people and young families relying on food banks just so that they can survive because of the ever-increasing cost of living over the last 10-plus years. I would like to ask the member if he would like to clarify for this House, and for Canadians, which government has been in power for the last 10, now almost 11 years, I guess, and is responsible for this challenging time, as he put it.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present two more petitions. These two are on the Liberals' failing firearms confiscation program. With nearly a $1-billion price tag, barely a third of that program is going to actually compensate firearms owners, while the rest will go into bureaucracy. Therefore, the undersigned citizens and permanent residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to end its assault on law-abiding firearms owners by scrapping the massively expensive and ineffective firearms confiscation program, and focus its attention on resources toward criminals and illegal firearms smuggling.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the passing of long-time city councillor, regional district director and former chair Kevin Flynn. Kevin's leadership earned him the deep respect of the community he served so passionately, yet for all his dedication to public service, Kevin's greatest joy was his family. He leaves behind his beloved wife Cathy, his proud sons Chris and Curtis, daughters-in-law Katherine and Stephanie, and his three cherished grandsons, who affectionately called him “Grump-Pa.” The name may reflect Kevin's armchair coaching and reffing style. Following Kevin's social media during games, when there was a bad coaching decision or questionable referee or empire call, we could count on Kevin to say clearly what the call should have been. Kevin called it like he saw it. That is the way he went through life, and in his role as city councillor and regional district director and chair. His integrity, laughter and dedication will be clearly missed but not forgotten. Rest in peace, Kevin.

Mr. Speaker, again that was an answer that was not even close to the question. All parties acknowledge that the salmon allocation policy must be aligned with the Ahousaht decision. However, while all Canadians have the right to fish, the minister keeps the public's lives and livelihood on hold, waiting for her to decide whether the public's current priority allocation for chinook and coho, before non-indigenous commercial, will be retained. Will she confirm, today, that this priority will remain?

Mr. Speaker, after 11 summers in the House, it is interesting to see what happens, typically, every year in June, under this government. The Liberals cannot manage their agenda throughout the entire year, so they fall so far behind. They have put us on late-night hours, where we are sitting until midnight, and even then they have to cut debate short with these time allocation motions because they cannot handle the fact that we are here to debate on behalf of Canadians who have sent us to this place to debate the government bills and to make sure they are the best they can possibly be. I strongly oppose the time allocation motion, which will shut down debate once again, just as the Liberals have been doing in committees any time we try to hold them accountable for their failed attempts at governing this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. As I have previously stated in this place, all of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to those citizens who voted for us and depend on us to be their voice here in Parliament. Canadians need us to be vigilant, and they depend on us to be their voice. We have to be ready for the challenges and dangers that emerge, and I accept that responsibility with sincere dedication to the amazing people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and the people of Canada. We must all take actions to prevent, mitigate and overcome challenges and dangers, including the the unintended consequences caused by the actions or the inactions of levels of government. In these times of global uncertainty, Canadians need our vigilance and actions more than at any other time. As I begin speaking to this bill, Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act, I would like to thank all of the Elections Canada workers, from the electoral district returning officers to the poll workers, the volunteers and the ever-important scrutineers who are such an important part of our democratic system here in Canada. I will speak to components of this bill, Bill C-25, and how parts of it are overdue while other parts need further debate and consideration for what is best for Canada and Canadians' interests. After the 2021 federal election, Canadians were alarmed to hear of foreign interference in the election of candidates and members sent here to represent and defend this country's interests. The Liberals say they care about democracy, yet they have allowed foreign actors to brazenly interfere in our elections. It was only after the Liberals got caught turning a blind eye to Beijing's interference that they finally introduced legislation to establish a foreign influence registry in Canada. However, two years after passing that bill into law, there is still no registry. So far, we have had date after date promised and date after date missed. After years of opposing a foreign influence registry, including Conservative efforts to create one, the Liberals' latest tactic appears to be one of endless delay. It is time for the Liberal government to finally take foreign interference seriously. It is time to get a registry up and running, today. I must say that this is uncannily similar to an issue dealt with in my role as associate shadow minister for fisheries, and that is the issue of foreign ownership of licences and quota on the west coast. The last Conservative government put in motion policies to stop the issue of controlling agreements between processors and harvesters on the east coast, where processors were limiting harvesters' choice of where they landed their catch and how much they received for their catch. In the following years, legislation and regulations were put in place to end those controlling agreements and protect local fish harvesters and their communities on the east coast. In May 2019, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans tabled a report titled “West Coast Fisheries: Sharing Risks and Benefits”. In that report, there were 20 recommendations to government that would have helped meet the aspirations of fish harvesters, especially young fishers, to carry on their careers and family traditions and contribute to building economically, socially and culturally vibrant west coast communities. In 2023, four years later, that same fisheries committee undertook another study to produce yet another report, titled “Foreign Ownership and Corporate Concentration of Fishing Licences and Quota”. The testimony we heard during that second report was alarming in that after four years, the government had taken almost no action to identify who the beneficial owners of licences and quota are on the west coast. In fact, what we basically heard was that it has no idea. It is now seven years since that first report on the issue was tabled in the House, and the Liberal government has yet to address the issue and put in place any significant measures to protect our independent harvesters on the west coast. That is why I say that Bill C-25 and the west coast fisheries issues have something in common. It is delay, delay, delay. If the Liberals do not find it important enough to create a foreign influence registry or to investigate whether foreign entities own licences and quotas, and who controls, catches and processes our Canadian seafood, then Conservatives will hold them accountable, and we hope that Canadians will expect that accountability from their government. Another component of the bill that I want Canadians to be aware of is the third party financing loophole. Bill C-25 would create a wide open loophole through which foreign money could still be used by third parties for partisan activity, partisan advertising and election surveying. Specifically, if contributions to a third party amount to 10% or less of its annual revenue in the year prior to a fixed election year, it could use its own funds to pay for, among other things, partisan activity and advertising. A third party's own funds do not have to come from Canadian citizens or permanent residents and do not have to be reported in the same way. With fixed election periods, it is very easy for third parties and foreign interests to predict when an election may be. A foreign interest could funnel money into a third party for two or three years ahead of schedule, which would then be treated as part of the third party's own funds. Further, 10% sounds like a small number, but it may not be. There are third parties that have a lot of money. What constitutes 10% or less of a third party's revenue coming from contributions may in fact be millions of dollars. This means that very large third parties would be able to use their own funds for election-related expenses. Disappointingly, the Liberals voted against our amendments to close these wide open loopholes in the bill. I raise these points as part of this debate because that is what we as elected representatives are sent here to do, to scrutinize legislation and make it the best it can be. What we have seen from the government since I first came here in 2015 is not the best legislation it could be. Conservatives will continue to call on the Liberal government to strengthen Canada's position against foreign actors who seek to influence our economies and our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been listening, she would have heard me speak about the third party financing loophole. There could be millions of dollars spent by foreign entities to affect the nomination and election of candidates and representatives who are elected to ensure the security and safety of our country. If anything, this has to be the one piece that should have been addressed, and the government should recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question on political financing. Prior to when I was elected, there was what was known as a per-vote subsidy. If a member got a certain number of votes in the previous election, they got that subsidy from the taxpayer. What has changed now is that there is a maximum amount that individuals, and they must be individuals, not corporations, can contribute to an election candidate. That levels the playing field. To be elected, candidates have to work for the funds they need to use for their campaigns. They cannot just run on the money they raised because of the votes they got in the previous election. It is an incentive for candidates to work hard for their constituents so they can be recognized by and have support behind them from individuals in their riding.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is the only G7 leader to push his country into a recession. All other G7 countries are facing the same issues with tariffs and global challenges, but no others are in a recession. The real GDP fell in quarter one, making it two consecutive quarters of annualized decline, pushing Canada into a recession. The decline was mostly driven by decline in investments. Household savings dropped to the lowest level in two years as Canadians try to absorb the higher interest and debt servicing costs. This is the direct result of Liberal policies and taxes, including the clean fuel standard, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel excise tax, which are making everything more expensive. The Prime Minister tried to claim that affordability is the best it has been in over a decade, but families cannot get ahead while paying for Liberal taxes, waste and mistakes. The Liberals have the means to make life more affordable, yet they continue pushing Canadians into a recession.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. Members of the House are elected to represent Canadians and to advocate on their behalf. Every one of us is sent here to represent the people, to be their voice and advocate and to work on behalf of the people we represent. These are basic and essential principles of representative government that are supposed to be upheld in this place, but the Liberal government seems to have persistent challenges in fulfilling basic requirements of representative government. On May 8, I asked if the Prime Minister would reverse government directive 14. What is directive 14? Well, it is the Liberal government's directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples, which instructs federal lawyers to limit their advocacy and arguments in litigation in which they are supposed to be representing the Government of Canada, which is supposed to represent the people of Canada. In other words, even if there are sound legal arguments for government lawyers to make in defending the interests of Canadian property rights, the Liberal government has instructed its lawyers to enter the ring with their hands tied behind their backs. With directive 14, the Liberal government has disabled the representatives of the representatives elected by Canadians to fight for the interests of Canadians. The Cowichan decision stated that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles that are the primary method of private home ownership. The Liberal government's directive 14 was the central factor in the Cowichan case. When I asked on May 8 whether the Prime Minister would reverse directive 14, the Liberal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations responded by dodging my question. The Liberal government issued directive 14. The government lawyers stood down as directed. The B.C. Supreme Court concluded that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles. This has directly undermined the rights of all landowners in B.C. and across Canada. The Liberal talking point and response will likely be that the Conservatives are whipping up emotions and stirring up unwarranted fear, but it is the Liberal government directive that has caused the real fear among Canadians, especially British Columbians. When a representative elected by the people stands in the House and asks if the Liberal government will discard its reckless policy that has caused so much chaos and harm, the Liberal ministers dodge the question. Constituents have contacted me to raise their personal fears for their property rights in the fallout from Cowichan, not because someone else whipped up fear but because of their own fear. The good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies can count on me to raise their concerns in the House, but sadly, they cannot count on the Liberal government to provide reasonable answers. The Liberal government is not representing Canadians' interests, nor is it defending the rights of Canadians. It is refusing to answer questions raised by members of the House elected by Canadians. All of this is the opposite of how representative government should operate. Canadians deserve to know why.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for attempting to change the channel, but he really needs to go back to his drawing board. I was asking about the Cowichan agreement, not the Musqueam agreement that he referred to. His denial response is exactly what I predicted. He was going to try and blame Conservatives for stoking fear. It is real fear that is coming from Canadians, like homeowners in the Richmond area who do not know what the value of their home is. He asked whether we had specific cases of people who had lost their homes. They have not lost their homes, but they have lost all value in their homes. We have ranch properties around British Columbia that simply cannot find any interested buyers because of this situation that the government has created.

Mr. Speaker, because the Liberal government directed its lawyers to not argue property rights in the Cowichan case, British Columbians who bought their homes, paid their mortgages and followed the law now do not know the status of their home ownership. The Liberal government directive number 14 is still in place. This means that the legal instruction for federal lawyers to not defend property rights remains in place today. British Columbians need certainty of their home ownership. Will the Prime Minister reverse directive 14 today?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. It is always an honour to rise as the elected representative of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies. As I have previously stated in this place, all of us have a solemn responsibility to provide representation and voice to the citizens who depend on us to do their bidding here in Parliament. Canadians need us to be vigilant for challenges and dangers that emerge and take actions to prevent, mitigate and overcome the challenges and dangers, including unintended consequences caused by the actions or inaction of levels of government. In these times of global uncertainty, Canadians need our vigilance and action perhaps more than at any other time. Today, I rise to speak to today's Conservative opposition day motion. This motion opens with how the Cowichan Tribes v. Canada decision has created massive uncertainty around fee simple property, not just in Richmond, B.C., where the land relevant to the case is located, but across my home province of British Columbia and other parts of Canada. All this is because the legal basis on which Canadians and businesses alike own their homes and land, the basis on which economies are built, the basis that has provided the general stability for growth, investment, surety and prosperity, has been undermined. The certainty of fee simple property has been undermined, and with it the stability and security of every property owner in B.C. and beyond. I believe all of us in this House are proud to call Canada home, while we also recognize historical imperfections, chapters of our shared history in which forebears, including the federal government, failed. It is important to recognize and learn from historical failures. It helps strengthen our nation. So does recognizing our historical successes, reflected by the fact that our ancestors and predecessors built a country that others around the globe have admired because they have seen the opportunities that flowed from our stability and certainty. However, the sharp decline in certainty in the wake of the Cowichan decision has caused instability, directly harming opportunities for Canadians, while also putting a chill on those who would otherwise invest in Canada. If others look at Canada and see internal turmoil and conflict rather than stability, they will go elsewhere to pursue opportunities. Instability and insecurity reflect on Parliament, and all parliamentarians should reflect on how we can increase stability and security for citizens, both today and far into the future. The Cowichan decision is already having a significant impact on the outlook of citizens. Home values and project financing, not just in the immediate area around Richmond but across B.C., have been impacted. When I meet with people at events and on the streets across the riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, people come up to me and ask if their future and title to their property, which they have worked a lifetime to pay for, are at risk. The instability caused by the Cowichan decision was compounded when the Liberals negotiated the Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement in secret, without ensuring that it contains protections for property rights and without ensuring proper transparency or consultation with other potentially affected first nations. The Musqueam agreement covers up to 533,000 hectares, including metro Vancouver and the Richmond lands that are at the centre of the Cowichan ruling. Canadians are asking questions, questions that the Liberal government will not answer. When the Prime Minister stated, “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples' rights”, did he know that this is not the case? The Musqueam Rights Recognition Agreement contains the word “private” only once and not in reference to private property. The Musqueam Stewardship and Marine Management Agreement does not contain the word “private” or “property”. The Musqueam Fisheries Agreement does not mention the word “private” or “property”. The agreement that provides the Musqueam with revenues from the Vancouver airport does not contain the word “private” or “property”. None of these agreements signed by the Liberal government protect private property rights, as the Prime Minister tried to claim they do, so either the Prime Minister has no idea what is in these agreements or he has been misleading Canadians. If we are to have true reconciliation in Canada, I believe we must also have truth. When we have a Prime Minister who either does not know or does not care what agreements his government is signing, or is willing to mislead Canadians on what is in those secretly negotiated agreements, it is no wonder that Canadians have questions for us, as they have elected us to be their representatives and voice. Canadians already face enough pressure from high costs and economic uncertainty without having to wonder whether their homes are truly theirs. The Liberal government must provide certainty and stability by openly reaffirming private property in court, and it must make it clear in writing that Canadians' homes and land titles will be protected. Thus far, they have failed to do this. As Conservatives, we have urged the federal government to reinstate the arguments before the Court of Appeal that fee simple landownership supersedes all other titles, and we call on the government to take the following steps to protect property rights. Step one would be to put private property first in the Cowichan case by arguing that this has priority over all other titles and reversing the current position directing federal lawyers not to argue for property rights and the withdrawal of the extinguishment argument from the earlier 2018 decision. Step two would be to make no agreement without explicit property protection, so that existing fee simple owners are protected in all future agreements with first nations, reversing the government's failure to explicitly protect people's homes in the agreements the Liberal government has signed, which fail to explicitly protect fee simple property ownership, causing confusion, fear and risk, instability and uncertainty. At a time in global history when we are all seeing so much instability and uncertainty, this is a time when Canada could be a shining example in which all Canadians, regardless of ancestry, could have the sense of certainty and stability that others used to see in us. We cannot restore certainty and stability through secretly negotiated agreements. I have always believed that bringing everyone to the same table allows us to fully understand each other's perspective. Failing to do so only brings speculation, skepticism and distrust. If we are to build trust and respect, we need the government to respect all Canadians and restore confidence for homeowners across British Columbia and Canada, by convening a parliamentary committee to study all legal, constitutional and political steps that can protect private property rights in Canada, in light of the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement. In this way, the government can begin restoring trust, the trust that is required to move forward with the transparency, balance, stability and certainty that Canada once had.

Mr. Speaker, I want to again quote what the Prime Minister stated earlier this week in the House: “All federal agreements with first nations, with indigenous peoples and with rights holders protect private property rights and protect indigenous peoples' rights.” I checked those agreements this morning. As I stated, the Musqueam agreement does not mention the term “private property”. None of those agreements mention private property. Was the Prime Minister misleading the House, or was he ill-informed?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Bloc member about whether this could be studied at the indigenous affairs committee. With the regime that the current power-brokered Liberal government has now installed at committees with its majority, it is shuttering committees. Any question as to the government's integrity is shut down, turned in camera and voted against by the majority Liberal membership on these committees. I do not trust the Liberal government to allow any of this discussion to take place at committee.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford was referring to the risks of secret agreements and asking whether I could expand on those risks. Well, because those agreements are secret, we have not seen them. We do not know what the risks are in these secret agreements. I have been privy to this through my work, for over 10 years, on the fisheries committee, where agreements are signed with organizations around the country, secret agreements. Due to the rules put in place by the Liberal government in the previous changes to the Fisheries Act, the information in those agreements cannot be made public. It is hidden behind closed doors, so the risks are absolutely unknown.

Mr. Speaker, on April 17, I asked the government a question, and the response provided by the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada was unacceptable, which is why we are here now for this debate this evening. I stated the following: ...after more than a decade of Liberal policies, life is unaffordable. The latest MNP consumer debt index report states that 70% of British Columbians say rising food prices and gas prices are straining their finances. The Liberals voted against reducing taxes that increase the cost of gas by 25¢ a litre. They voted against removing taxes on food that drive up the cost of groceries. Then I asked the government: Why will the Liberals not provide Canadians some relief by adopting our Conservative plan to cut taxes on gas and food, and make life more affordable for Canadians? My question was on fuel and grocery costs, things Canadians need and purchase every day. In response, the Liberals decided to put up a housing minister, who parroted preprocessed Liberal talking points about housing. By refusing to deliver reliefs that are within its reach, the Liberal government is refusing to recognize the problem, refusing to make life more affordable, and forcing more Canadians to be reliant on government rebates just to put food on the table. When I had a group of students in my office this week, they were genuinely concerned for their future because of the massive increases not just in the cost of their education but also in the cost of daily living. They have almost given up on the dream of owning a home that their parents were able to achieve. I do not know what it will take for the Liberal government to realize that its inflationary policies are part of the problem these students and other Canadians are facing. The Liberal government could remove the fuel standard tax and the industrial carbon tax to instantly reduce the cost of fuel and groceries for Canadians, but it continues to make things worse with inflationary spending that Canadians are forced to repay with interest. Speaking of interest, the debt the government has piled up will that mean roughly $3,400 per Canadian family will go toward serving the federal debt's interest this year alone. That is just interest, not repayment of the debt. I will repeat my question from April 17 once more, this time in hopes that the government will give Canadians an answer they really need and deserve, instead of preprocessed talking points from the minister's office: Why will the Liberals not provide Canadians some relief by adopting our Conservative plan to cut taxes on gas and food to make life more affordable for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, that was more preprocessed talking points from the minister's office and no real answers for Canadians. The parliamentary secretary said that they are aware of the affordability issue, but are they aware that the government is responsible for it? There are the ever-increasing deficits, and this year's deficit is two times what former prime minister Justin Trudeau would have had. Billions of dollars are now being paid out in debt payments. The member mentioned what they cannot control, the war in the Middle East and external issues, but they can control Liberal taxation and Liberal deficit spending. Why will the Liberals not take the steps that they can take? The Liberal government could take steps to relieve the pressure on Canadians. Why will it not take them?