Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, Brockville, Ontario, is home to outstanding businesses, organizations and community leaders. I want to congratulate the winners and recipients of the 67th Brockville and District Chamber of Commerce Awards of Excellence. I congratulate Wajahat Khaleeque, the business person of the year; Sheena Earl, the young professional of the year; Terry Wills, citizen of the year; and Dane Fellows, who received the President's Award. Congratulations also go to Rob and Kim Williams at Canadian Tire Brockville, the business of the year; Rick and Tanya Orr at the Butcher Shop, small business of the year; the folks at the Downtown Brockville BIA, which won the Tourism Award; the Brockville Rowing Club, which received the Community Excellence Award; and Jackie at Anthophile Café, who is the recipient of the Ben TeKamp Memorial Award. I want to congratulate all of the finalists, all of the nominees and everyone who took time to recognize them. I thank Pam Robertson and everyone at the chamber of commerce for helping us to highlight the excellence in Brockville that is seen across Leeds and Grenville. Congratulations to everyone.

Mr. Speaker, Northern Cables in Brockville sells about half its production in the United States, and it employs skilled Canadian workers. Trump's unjustified 50% tariffs have already cost the company new U.S. work and put future Canadian investment at risk. If Canadian countertariffs are going to drive up costs for Canadian families, they would like to know by how much. Our question for the government is simple: How much are these countertariffs going to cost Canadian families, and what are the Liberals going to do to bring down costs for Canadians to make up for it?

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect the government to do is two things at the same time: first and foremost, to always stand up for Canada, and second, to make sure that it is also saving money for Canadians. The countertariffs are already creating all kinds of knock-on effects in the Canadian economy. Canadians are losing jobs, including in my riding, such as at Invista, which has already closed its operation, putting more than 100 people out of work. What we want to know is which part of the Conservative plan that we have proposed to help bring down costs for Canadian families are the Liberals willing to adopt today.

Mr. Speaker, as Canada prepares to celebrate its 159th birthday, we have every reason to be proud of the country we call home. In Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, that story is written into our landscape. The Rideau Canal helped build a young nation. The Thousand Islands became one of Canada's great treasures. Our farmers have fed Canadians for generations. In every major conflict since Confederation, the men and women of our communities have answered the call to serve. Their story is Canada's story. It is a nation built with hard work by people who served when called and left a stronger country for the next generation. As we look ahead to July 1, may we celebrate the courage, service and sacrifice that built the Canada we are all proud to call home.

Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Seniors Month, I was pleased to join with MPP Steve Clark to host our first annual Seniors Expo. This week at New Hope Church in Brockville, in partnership with Senior Support Services Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, we welcomed more than 160 seniors and dozens of exhibitors. We heard from great presenters, including the Leeds Grenville Paramedic Service, the Brockville General Hospital's hospital-to-home program, the Brockville 50+ Activity Centre, the Stroke Network of Southeastern Ontario, Rideau Community Health Services dental programs and many others. Complete with fitness breaks and lunch, this event was open to seniors at no cost. It was a wonderful way to bring our community together, share helpful resources that support seniors and their families, and recognize the incredible contributions of our seniors. I want to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who built our country and built our community. Happy Seniors Month.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to share my time with the hon. member, who so well articulated why this is an opposed item for His Majesty's loyal opposition. I would like to start my remarks with a quote from the installation speech of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Louise Arbour, the 31st Governor General of Canada. This is a quote from the speech she gave in the other place this morning to assembled guests and dignitaries, as well as to all Canadians. She said: Humanity has always sought to go further, to push the boundaries. And to go higher, as our Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen did on his mission into space. How could anyone be anything other than awestruck by the thought that he set his eyes on places no other human being had ever seen before? I say this with confidence: let us not slow our momentum toward progress out of fear of differences. Extreme polarization is dangerous—but so is extreme consensus. It is through our differences, and our fundamental right to express them, that we will nourish critical thinking, creativity and innovation. It is through our differences that we will build our common future. As Canadians, we have the extraordinary privilege of living in a mature democracy. We benefit from strong institutions that allow different views to be expressed. I offer that excerpt from the remarks of Her Excellency because it is regrettable that some who are new to this place do not know and some maybe have forgotten what it is that we are to do here and who we are doing it for. The act of opposition exercised by His Majesty's loyal opposition, and, in fact, by all members who are not in government, which is not the people in the governing party but members of the executive, is accountability. However, this discussion and debate, particularly around this $20 million annually or $200 million over 10 years, has been framed by some people, when Conservatives raise legitimate questions, as being an act of disloyalty, so let us get a couple of things clear. Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil. That is a legitimate objective. Canada has a proud history in space, as noted by Her Excellency, in the recent successful journey of Colonel Jeremy Hansen, but there are also the Canadarm or Canadarm2; Marc Garneau, who was the first Canadian in space, in the year I was born, I would note; Roberta Bondar, who was the first Canadian woman in space; Chris Hadfield, a Canadian astronaut who commanded the International Space Station; and many men and women who have made extraordinary contributions to humanity's continued reach for the stars. The Canadian Space Agency says that a commercial launch is “a natural evolution” for Canada's space sector, and I agree with this objective. The question is not whether Canada should pursue sovereign launch capability, as my hon. colleague noted previously. The question is whether taxpayers got good value for money in this $200‑million deal over 10 years, and we need to be clear about that. It is not about sovereign launch capability. When Conservatives vote against, for example, a budget that includes spending on national defence, we hear the cries from Liberal members, “They hate the military,” and, “Why don't they love Canada?” That is an awful thing to hear. I believe the Liberals actually know better. We all ran and were elected to serve the people of this great country, and there are more than a few of us who have put on the uniform to serve our country. I thank the men and women who came before us, and the men and women today who serve, not the least of whom are those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. This is not about disloyalty to Canada. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is about us exercising our responsibility to get accountability for taxpayers. We are the representation for that taxation, and we have asked very simple questions about the $20 million. The government announced a 10-year, $200-million agreement to lease one dedicated launch pad for a spaceport in Nova Scotia. The government says it is going to support DND, the Canadian Armed Forces, the wider Government of Canada, our allies and our partners. It said the pad must reach its initial operational capability by the end of 2026 and that 90% of the funds must be spent in Canada. Those are important promises, but they raise basic accountability questions. Number one, how was the $200-million price tag determined? Number two, was there a competitive process, or was this a sole-source deal? Number three, what did taxpayers receive for the first year, given that Maritime Launch says the agreement is retroactive to April 1, 2025? It is being paid $20 million per year, and the first payment of $20 million was due before March 31, 2026. Number four, what milestones, holdbacks, clawbacks or cancellation rights protect taxpayers if the site is not ready by the end of 2026? Number five, what due diligence was done on Maritime Launch's financial position? Its 2025 annual filings refer to the spaceport as “under construction” and note that depreciation begins when the spaceport is available for use. I am not here today to say that the project is bad or that the—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just came in, and he was not paying attention. He misses the entire point. He is the kind of person who comes in here and starts screaming about people being disloyal for doing their job of holding the Liberals accountable for $20 million. We love Canada. That is not something that they hold a licence on. We love this country. The hon. member, who put on a uniform for this country, knows better, and he should act better. I would not say that this project is bad, but I would say that the Liberals have to demonstrate basic due diligence to Canadians. That is their responsibility. Parliament has to make sure that the money was handled properly. If everything was done properly, the government and the company should be able to show that. We invite them to do it. I would welcome them to do that, but they have not. With that in mind, I move: That the motion be amended by replacing the amount of “$17,968,133,395” with “$17,948,133,395”.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have woken up the parliamentary secretary from his nap, but he missed the part of my speech where I said, “Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil.” That is a legitimate objective. He completely missed the entirety of the point of what we are doing here. The guy has been here a long time and does not seem to understand what we are supposed to do. We have to hold you guys accountable. We keep catching you giving Liberal insiders money. Time and time again, we have caught these guys greasing the wheels with Liberal insiders. We support our Canadian Armed Forces. We support sovereign launch capabilities. They have got to show us receipts, not just hand $20 million out the door.

Mr. Speaker, it is the question that my hon. colleague has raised. This is what we have asked the government to demonstrate, and we are opposing the $20 million for this year's use because it has failed to do that. It is not about the aspiration. It is about the execution. What is the value for money that taxpayers are getting here? We are in lockstep with Canada's continued reach for the stars, but we have to see what we are getting for $20 million. Canadians expect that of us. In fact, it is not $20 million. It is $200 million. Are there improvements being made to the site? What continued services do we get for that money? Is it an investment for Canadians or is this an investment in a private company, which is going to have the equity, and not Canada? These are assurances that we need. We need to understand why and how, and for some reason, the government is refusing to demonstrate that to the House and to Canadians. That is why we oppose the expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking to reconcile, of course, is how the government prioritizes its expenditures and how we could support sectors like our forestry sector if the government was not spending money on what it cannot demonstrate to us is not the rewarding of well-connected insiders, which is a pattern that we have seen with the Liberals. We want the receipts. We want them to support Canada's wonderful natural resources sector and also to support our military and launch capabilities.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Liberal government's response to the housing crisis in our country, I believe that Canadians are looking to see steps that the government can take to immediately address this acute housing challenge without creating additional bureaucracies. Within the current remit of existing agencies, what additional powers do they hope to glean, at great additional expense to the taxpayer, that will more quickly resolve the very acute housing challenge that Canadians are facing?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on what it tells us that, for the last 11 years, we have had the same Liberal government but the housing situation has not improved. In fact it has worsened, and the evidence of that is clear in my community and the communities of all members of this place. Why is another housing bureaucracy not the answer to getting homes built and getting dignity for Canadians?

Madam Speaker, a husband wakes up in the night to find that his wife of 50 years has left the house. A daughter goes to visit her father in his apartment but sees that he is gone. Immediately, police, volunteers and neighbours begin searching woodlots and side roads and checking behind buildings. Every minute counts. Canadians know that when a child goes missing, every minute counts. The lives of vulnerable people matter. This is true for children, and it is true for vulnerable seniors. Bill C-263, the silver alert national framework act, would create the opportunity for us to help protect vulnerable seniors. Right now there are growing numbers of seniors across our country. By 2030, just four years from now, there are expected to be more than a million Canadians living with dementia. When people with dementia go missing, the risks to them of bodily injury and death are great. A silver alert is a notification system that people would be familiar with for its similarity to an Amber alert, but in this case, instead of an alert for a missing child, an alert is issued when an adult, typically a senior living with dementia or another cognitive impairment, goes missing or is at risk. The establishment of a national framework would be done in partnership with all the provinces and territories. This collaboration is so important, as we are part of a larger community. The lives of seniors at risk in all provinces need to be protected. While there are individual programs and different alert mechanisms in different parts of the country, there is not a national standard. For example, a really great program in my community is Project Lifesaver. The Brockville Police Service, along with the Alzheimer Society of Lanark Leeds Grenville, has deployed Project Lifesaver to address this very situation: Someone with a cognitive impairment goes missing. The project participants wear a wristband, and the tracking signal it emits becomes life-saving technology in that instant. They go missing; their caregiver calls 911, reporting that their loved one is at risk; and specialized tools are then deployed by highly trained teams to mobilize and find them. The average time of a rescue with the technology in Project Lifesaver is 30 minutes. That is incredible. We are going to have a tough time getting a wristband on all one million Canadians whom I referenced who will be living with dementia four years from now. What can we do as a community when we see an alert on a highway sign, our mobile phones or the news ticker on TV that a vulnerable senior is missing in our community? How are we left to feel when we could have been in the same place, running our daily errands, living our lives, taking our child to dance practice, going to get groceries or on our way to work, had we known that the individual in the red jacket, wearing slippers, moving down the sidewalk on the other side of the street was actually a senior who had wandered off when seconds turn into minutes, minutes turn into hours, and the risk went up? On our way to live our lives, we are not on the lookout for just anyone wearing a red jacket and maybe wearing slides on their feet, but that national alert, that standard, would let us know that their loved ones are looking for them, that this individual suffers from a cognitive impairment and that they are in grave danger if they do not receive assistance or are not returned to the safety of their home. It really exemplifies who we are as Canadians. I know we have all had the experience of receiving an Amber alert and immediately memorizing the description of the car or the first four digits of the licence plate. It does not matter that it was first reported four hours before. My community is along North America's busiest highway, the 401. People can get there pretty quick from some of the most-populated areas in Montreal or Toronto. My attention to a push notification on my phone could save a child's life. It is incredible. To be able to do that for seniors as well speaks to our compassion. That speaks to who we are, and it would not be at a great cost. The technology exists. It does not require the physical deployment of those very effective and innovative tools like they are using with Project Lifesaver. I encourage folks living in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to contact the Alzheimer Society if a loved one in their family could benefit from participation in that program. What can we do as Canada's Parliament, as federal legislators? When we look at those minutes that count, we can make our time here count. During the progression of, for example, Alzheimer's, which is a disease that affects a great number of Canadians, 60% of individuals will wander away from home at least once. Those are staggering numbers. By those statistics, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people wandering away across this vast, complicated country we have. What can we do? Bill C-263 is inspired by a very moving story from my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, and we should reflect on the opportunity that we have to honour seniors. The month of June is Seniors Month, so let us do right by them. They have done right by us by building our country up and raising all of us, and now we need to look out for them. That is why I think this is the least we can do, and I very much look forward to supporting this important legislation.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Veterans Well-being Act. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be introducing the service dogs for veterans act to help ensure that service dogs are available to every veteran who needs one, regardless of where they live in Canada. This bill would make it so that service dogs are an eligible form of rehabilitation support under the Veterans Well-being Act. It would create a national training and certification standard for service dogs in coordination with the provinces and territories. This bill was inspired by a meeting I had with a great veteran, Cindy Weir, and her service dog, Gracie, who are here with us on Parliament Hill today. Cindy is the founder of Veteran’s Elite Canines, a non-profit based in Brockville, Ontario, supporting veterans living with PTSD and operational stress injuries through their expertly trained service dogs. There are other incredible organizations like Veteran's Elite Canines, people like Cindy, and the extraordinary dogs, like Gracie and Ghost, who are both here today, that have been working to establish national standards for trainers, handlers and dogs to support the veterans community. I look forward to members hearing about the life-changing impact service dogs have for veterans. I encourage them to vote in support of the service dogs for veterans act. I want to thank my colleagues, the hon. members for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Airdrie—Cochrane and Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, for their support. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, in a September letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance said that he would be in a conflict of interest if he participated in discussions, decisions, debates or votes related to Alto. We now know he went on to do those things anyway. What we have learned this week is that the minister's department hired an executive from Alto to write his budget speech and budget presentation. Why?

Mr. Speaker, as a surprise to no one, the government House leader is lowering the decorum in the House at the same time that he is also unleashing devastation on communities across Ontario and Quebec, as well as the expropriation of farms, homes, businesses and the destruction of environmentally sensitive land like the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, with a program that will cost more than $90 billion, while they let atrophy Canadian infrastructure and services like Via Rail, which services the same communities that Alto will pass by while destroying. Why will they not invest in Canada instead of destroying it?

Mr. Chair, it is unbelievable that the minister will not even confirm how he voted on the bill. He will not provide the letter that he wrote in which he said there would be a conflict. We just want to provide transparency for Canadians. If he has nothing to hide, he certainly should be able to provide to members of the House of Commons the letter that he shared with Toronto Star. Why will he not share it?

Mr. Chair, I have made no allegation. I have only repeated what the minister has said. Regarding what we have asked, and indeed one of the minister's hon. colleagues asked me to repeat it outside the House, I am asking questions, and the questions are repeating exactly what the minister has said. Therefore, did Finance Canada hire an outside contractor to assist with the 2025 budget speech and presentation, yes or no?

Mr. Chair, this is a different question. The question is about a contractor who worked on the budget speech. My understanding is that this is separate from your letter in September. It was a contract worth $12,168. I would encourage you to use your officials who are here in the chamber with you. The contract identified a vendor. The vendor's last name is Émond, and I am wondering if the minister can confirm that this contract was awarded. It is open-source. It is published online: $12,168 to help with the budget presentation and speech. Can he confirm that?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our community, I ask all parliamentarians to join me in honouring the memory of LouWanda, Mackayla and Nikita Elliott, whose lives were taken in a horrific act of intimate partner violence in Brockville on May 7, 2026. We will remember LouWanda as a beloved mother, wife and sister, and Mackayla and Nikita as sisters, daughters and friends. They are deeply loved and missed by all who knew them, especially LouWanda's husband of 27 years, Andy Elliott; her brother Richard; and Andy and LouWanda's surviving daughters, Harley and Katherine. I thank the Brockville Police Service and first responders, who responded with care and professionalism in the face of what can only be described as unimaginable tragedy for the family and for our community. I want to recognize Leeds and Grenville Interval House and Shelter Movers for their vital work in supporting victims and survivors of intimate partner violence. Together our community honours LouWanda, Mackayla and Nikita. I ask everyone to join us in honouring them as we stand in solidarity with all victims of intimate partner violence.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government spent $300 million on the failed PrescribeIT program that had less than 5% uptake. Now that it is being scrapped, we have learned that the CEO responsible for this failed scandal-plagued program was being paid $900,000 per year. When Conservatives looked to have the minister testify at committee, Liberals blocked it. Will the minister stand today and explain to this House the justification for paying the CEO $900,000 while Canadians are lined up at food banks?

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify some of the problems for the minister. The Liberals spent $300 million on a program that did not work and was not used. They oversaw the CEO being paid $900,000. They do not seem to want to agree to have the Auditor General review this scandal-plagued program and the minister does not seem to want to come to committee to face questions about it. Will the minister stand up today and commit to have the Auditor General review this program in detail and report findings to this House, and to come before committee to testify about this failure?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul for her leadership on what truly could make a difference across this country and not just in her home community, where she has personally been acquainted with the realities of tragedies that can befall families and communities when seniors go missing and we do not have a way to alert the broader community. I think it is really critical that this contains the distribution of a system across our country for all communities so that regardless of where people live, the framework would exist. Whether they are in rural Ontario, Manitoba or the territories, they would benefit from this kind of system. Can the hon. member share with the House any jurisdictions where this has been implemented in an electronic format as proof of its success?

Mr. Speaker, across Canada, Canadians are working hard, but too many are falling behind and far too many know about the devastating experience of trying to fill a grocery cart for their family each week. For Canadians who are just trying to fill the gas tank to get to the office or the job site, the pain at the pump is not only too much to bear, but also more than they can afford. The Libera-ls have said that they understand the affordability crisis Canadians are facing, but their measures for relief on gas do not go far enough for long enough. That is why Conservatives are proposing a 25¢‑per‑litre break at the pumps for the year, which would put $1,200 back in the pockets of Canadian families. The Liberals have the opportunity to work with Canadians to provide real relief for the families and workers who are building this country.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister's costly budget is going to add another $37 billion in new debt this year, continuing his Liberal predecessor's tradition of borrowing and spending. What is worse is that interest alone on the national debt will be an additional $59 billion this year, which is $3,400 for every Canadian, who is already struggling with the rising prices of gas, groceries and housing. The Prime Minister has the opportunity to show that he is not just another Liberal. Will he instead break from type and offer relief and affordability for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that with the Liberal Prime Minister, just like his Liberal predecessor, Canadians are struggling now more than ever. Groceries, gas and homes have never been more expensive. Members do not have to take my word for it. The Globe and Mail said, in a scathing review, “Canada's New Government is no more interested in arresting our economic decline than Canada's Old Government.” We should be the richest and most affordable country on earth, but instead the Liberals are borrowing today and making Canadians of future generations pay it back. Why will the Liberals not deliver relief?

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate National Volunteer Week, I want to thank the remarkable people who are the heart of Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes: our volunteers. These are people like Chief Fire Prevention Officer Brent Norton, with 45 years of service, and Captain John Houston, with 30 years of service, both as firefighters with the Prescott Fire Department; North Grenville's volunteer of the year, Victor Desroches; Wendy Galloway, who received a lifetime volunteer achievement award from the Brockville Chamber of Commerce; and Tye Carswell of the Gananoque Minor Hockey Association. Whether they are volunteering at the Delta Maple Syrup Festival, the Spencerville Fair, the Cardinal LabourFest or the Athens Cornfest; with the Brockville or Gananoque food banks, the Westport Legion or Senior Support Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville; or with churches, historical societies, agricultural societies and more from Rideau Lakes to Front of Yonge, I want to thank every volunteer in our community. They are the foundation of this incredible community that I am proud to serve and that we share as our home.

Mr. Speaker, the ethics committee issued its report to make Canada's conflict of interest laws stronger, and we know that Canada needs this because Canadians deserve accountability but have a Prime Minister who is guaranteed future bonus payments from Brookfield, the company he used to run. The Prime Minister should sell his assets so Canadians know that his decisions are in the public interest, not in his own personal financial interest, which is currently the case. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to do the right thing to show Canadians he is serious about democracy and about accountability. Will the Prime Minister sell his assets and adopt the committee's recommendations?

Mr. Speaker, it was the Liberal finance minister who said that he may be in a conflict of interest if he cast a vote or was involved in any discussions or decisions around the $90-billion Alto project, because of his relationship. He has a partner who is a vice president at Alto. However, we have since seen that the minister has done those very things. He did vote on and participate in discussions around the $90-billion Alto project, even saying at a Senate committee that he was delivering the goods with this project. Canadians expect to have confidence in their public institutions and in their elected representatives, but they cannot when they see this risk of a conflict of interest before them. What we have seen at the ethics committee is Liberal MPs filibustering for 17 hours to block the minister from testifying and from answering questions from Conservative members of Parliament. Will the Liberals end their 17-hour filibuster and allow the finance minister to finally testify on this potential conflict of interest?

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the transport minister said that anyone who speaks out against the land expropriation, environmental devastation or sham consultation in its $90-billion Alto project should be ashamed. I will tell this House that I am proud to stand with people like Dave Brown, his wife Carole, the Brown's Marina and the people of Chaffey's Lock, Rideau Lakes and Eastern Ontario who are rightly fearful for their family homes, their farms, their businesses and their way of life. The Liberals have an opportunity to do the right thing and to cancel a project that's going to devastate communities as well as families, just like Dave and Carole.

Mr. Speaker, the minister said, “We're going to...move that train as fast as we can”, and he said the quiet part out loud. The Liberal government is going to breeze right past the very real concerns of families, farmers, small businesses and people who just want to live the way that they thought they could in eastern Ontario, but instead we are seeing a project that is going to devastate the environment in areas like the Frontenac Arch Biosphere and UNESCO-recognized world heritage sites. Why are these Liberals disregarding the rights of Canadians for a vanity project? They should do the right thing and cancel the $90 billion.

Mr. Speaker, when we have the opportunity to discuss, debate and advance legislation that is going to address the real challenges facing Canadians, it is important that we do so in a fulsome way. This system that we have, our Westminster parliamentary democracy, gives us all specific roles to play. The government advances government legislation and the official opposition has a duty to test what the government puts before the House before it comes into force. This bill is an example of why it is so important that we have an official opposition in our system. It demonstrates the effectiveness of Canada's Conservatives in holding the Liberal government to account for over 11 years. We have seen a history that has not changed since the last election, or with the selection and then election of a new Liberal Prime Minister. When Liberals are given the opportunity, they will try to grab as much power as they can with both hands, and they usually do it in times when Canadians need help the most and we are looking, as parliamentarians, to try and find ways to help them, to help Parliament work and to help Canadians. What we saw with the evolution of the legislative process that led us to Bill C-22 is only the most recent example of that, but it will not be the last. There have been some signals about what is to come. If we look back, even at the COVID pandemic, we saw in the House so much uncertainty and so much anxiety about what was going to happen and what the government would need to do. Perhaps there would be runs on banks. The government sought the approval of the House to have the ability to spend without any accountability from this place for a period of time that was without precedence and without limit on the types of things they would spend hundreds of billions of dollars on. It was a late hour when it was proposed and there was minimal manning in the chamber. There was only a small cadre of government and opposition members from all parties present, and we had to make decisions quickly. The government had the benefit of the full apparatus, including hundreds of thousands of public servants, but the official opposition, without that advantage to give fulsome review to the proposal by the government, pushed back and was able to place limits on the power that the government was looking to grab, which it did not need. This is an example similar to that. In Bill C-2, we saw, in response to what has been a growing crime problem in our country over the last decade, a solution to problems that we did not have and an effort to suspend the legal rights of Canadians for convenience, I suppose. It would be for the government to justify why it would have needed some of those powers, and it was not able to make the case publicly or in this place, so Bill C-2 did not proceed. Bill C-12, also known as the Bill C-2 redo, made it through the House and now we have Bill C-22. These are bills born out of that one piece of legislation. Why did we oppose it? There were provisions on things that the government, as I said, failed to make its case on. Limiting Canadians' ability to use cash in transactions was one of them. Allowing individuals other than peace officers, without a warrant, to open Canadians' mail was another, as well as having warrantless access to medical records and private electronic communication. Again, the government did not demonstrate necessity. It did not say that it was born out of a national security imperative or say that the tools we had did not sufficiently solve the problem for which they prescribed this solution. We are looking to get the result that, of course, is going to help with the scourge of crime in our streets. I know that speakers before me have gone through the truly alarming crime statistics. I know that some have offered anecdotes and that some have offered testimony of very real and painful situations for victims of crime. We could have addressed this many months ago in the way that we are addressing it now, with the bill brought before the House, made better by the opposition who look to, with all parliamentarians, discuss, review, hear from experts, stakeholders and Canadians, and make further improvements and amendments to the bill when it is at committee What will the scope of those amendments be? I do not sit on the committee where it will be reviewed. If I have the opportunity to take part in those hearings, I do have some areas that I would look to examine, including questions that are not answered in the legislative text but would be resolved by regulation. We need to get certainty around what that would look like because that is outside the purview of Parliament. We want to have certainty on a number of things. Protecting Canadians also means protecting their rights. We also need to be protected from government overreach. We all have a duty to do that. I am pleased that we are examining the bill in its latest form. It sounds like it will have support to advance to committee, including from the opposition who helped to sharpen the iron. What we want to see, at all times here, is that Canadians have in Parliament a mechanism to make things better, where there is a check against it. The balance in the chamber has changed in the last week, with a majority of members now on the government side. If we had been in that situation many months ago, the bill would have passed unchanged. The government clearly believes this to be an improvement. I started by talking about how government looks to grab power with both hands. We are going to see, over the next couple of weeks, the government looking to undo what it agreed to for the duration of Parliament, and that is the composition of our committees. I want to take my last minute to implore all members, members in the governing party especially, to consider that we are better collectively when we are able to improve on that legislation through a truly collaborative process, and not just simply by majority rule or by diminishing or eliminating the rights of the minority. We need to protect the rights of Canadians. I look forward to the study of the bill at committee, so that we can do that, especially at this time, as we have seen, over the last 11 years, the scourge of crime in our streets.

Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister would take a minute to reflect on what I said and consider the role he played in bringing forward the failed legislation in Bill C-2 before this House. If it were not for Conservatives, who sharpened their pencils and actually turned the pages, we would be facing laws that infringed on the rights of Canadians, and he would be the author of that. If the minister wants to talk about substance, why is this bill devoid of substance on areas that are going to be prescribed in regulation instead of being debated in the House, examined and enshrined in law? What is it that needs to be done in the back rooms? Is it the same kind of thing, the same kind of thinking that led to the bill that was Bill C-2, that was such a failure—

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians would like is for the Liberals to get out of the way of accountability that Canadians expect to be brought to bear against a government, against a minister who said he would be in a conflict of interest because his partner is a vice-president at Alto if he voted on this project, if he debated it, if he discussed it, if he decided on it in cabinet. This is why we are asking for the minister to come to committee. It is a conflict of interest dealing with $90 billion. Why is it that these Liberals are doing everything they can to block accountability with their filibuster? When will the minister come to committee?

Mr. Speaker, the law is clear that ministers must not use their position to further the personal interests of their family members, but the finance minister is championing the multi-billion-dollar Alto project where his partner is a vice-president. It was the finance minister who told the Prime Minister that he was concerned about a conflict of interest because of that relationship and said that he needed to recuse himself, and Canadians agree. The problem is, that is not what he did. Now the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics wants to review the matter and have the minister come to clear the air. Instead, we have a Liberal filibuster. Will the minister end the filibuster and come to committee?

Mr. Speaker, the problem for the Liberals is that even their Liberal candidates in the area know this is so unpopular that they are speaking out against this boondoggle. Canadians want accountability from the Liberals. It is $90 billion. The minister is refusing to come to committee, and there is this Liberal filibuster that persists. My question is to the chair of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. Can he tell the House why the minister has not been scheduled to appear to testify on this conflict of interest scandal?

Mr. Speaker, the government House leader is disagreeing with his finance minister here, and this is the confusion that is created for Canadians. The finance minister said that he needed to recuse himself from the discussions. He said he needed to put in place a conflict of interest screen, but then went ahead and participated in discussions and debates, and even said at a Senate committee that he was “delivering the goods” for Canadians. If he has recused himself, why is he also voting on this issue in the House? Canadians have concerns about how this $90 billion is being spent. They are concerned about this conflict of interest. Why will the finance minister not speak for himself, get on his feet and say he will come to committee and address it?