Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that all sectors of the Canadian economy need significant investment, including aviation, forestry, aluminum and other sectors. However, investment has declined over the past year. On May 29, Statistics Canada reported the following: “Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.” Could my colleague comment on that?

Mr. Speaker, reports indicate that the Palestinian representative in Canada met with the Canadian Museum for Human Rights during the development of its upcoming Nakba exhibit. This should be a Canadian museum for Canadian human rights stories, not foreign agendas. The museum is a Crown corporation reporting to the heritage minister. Is the minister aware of these meetings? Does he consider these meetings appropriate, and will he delay the exhibit's opening, pending a full investigation?

Mr. Speaker, Canada mourns the loss of Constable Marc Pinizzotto. The Globe has reported that a search warrant executed yesterday related to the shootings at a synagogue and the U.S. consulate. U.S. prosecutors linked these shootings to an IRGC‑backed terrorist network that is behind 18 attacks in the U.S., Canada and Europe. A year ago, the government identified nearly 30 Iranian regime operatives who should be deported. Since then, only one has been deported. What action is the minister taking to protect Canadians from IRGC operatives on Canadian soil?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the government is carrying out a great deal of analysis. The death of Constable Marc Pinizzotto is not an isolated incident. Canadians are afraid. People are shooting bullets at synagogues, community centres, businesses and, now, the U.S. consulate in Toronto. Public safety is a national security matter. Canadians deserve answers. What new action is the government taking to protect Canadians and foreign diplomats from IRGC operatives operating here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, U.S. prosecutors have linked the U.S. consulate and synagogue shootings to an IRGC terrorist network. In 2023, Global News reported that upward of 700 regime‑linked associates could be operating in Canada. A year ago, the government said that nearly 30 Iranian regime operatives who were here in Canada should be deported. Since then, reports have indicated that only one has been deported. Can the government confirm if more than one individual has been deported in the last year?

Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Prime Minister said that the PRC's foreign interference was the greatest threat to the security of Canada. The government now has a strategic partnership with the PRC. A year ago, the government said that nearly 30 operatives linked to the Iranian regime were here in Canada and should be deported. A year later, only one has been deported. How can Canadians believe that the government is treating foreign interference seriously and taking actions to protect them here on Canadian soil?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps somebody on that side over there can answer this question. For weeks, the Prime Minister and government ministers have insisted that strong measures are already in place to combat the importation of products using forced labour into Canada. If that is the case, why did the government give the House notice that it is going to introduce a bill entitled “An Act respecting the prohibition of the importation of goods produced by forced labour”?

Mr. Speaker, the government granted a visa to a former IRGC commander who arrived at Toronto Pearson airport on April 28 to attend the FIFA World Cup. The government also failed to deport an Iranian regime supporter who has been convicted of sanctions violations and has been here so long that he is suing the government. The government has said for a year that dozens of senior Iranian officials are here, but exactly one has been deported, as was previously mentioned. When will the government treat foreign interference threats seriously and protect our Persian community?

Mr. Speaker, a recession can be defined as two consecutive quarters of flat or negative GDP growth. By that definition, Canada is in a recession. The government has downplayed the seriousness of these two consecutive flat to negative quarters of growth and painted a picture of an economy with underlying strength. However, that fails to take into account the bigger picture. Here is the bigger picture: In three of the last four quarters, aggregate GDP shrank. That comes on the heels of years of shrinking per capita GDP. Per capita GDP is a more important measure than aggregate GDP. Here is why. Decades from now, it would be far better to live in a country of 40 million Canadians making double what they make now than to live in a country with 100 million Canadians making the same as they make now. The first country would have a smaller economy than the latter, but it would be more cohesive, more prosperous and more environmentally sustainable, with higher levels of individual income. Many corporate CEOs would prefer the latter country, because the total accessible market would be larger, but the average Canadian would be poorer for it. Looking at the last three years, the picture of per capita GDP is grim. Canada was effectively in a per capita recession in 2023 and 2024. In 2022, per capita GDP stood at $60,735. In 2023, it shrank by $458. In 2024, it shrank, yet again, by $539. Over a two-year period, per capita GDP dropped by almost $1,000 per person, a drop of about 1.6%. Looking at the last six years, the picture is not much better. Before the pandemic began, per capita GDP stood at $59,681 in 2019. Last year, it stood at $60,073, an increase of only $392 over six years. This is a compound annual growth rate of 0.1% per year, effectively zero. All the while, the cost of living skyrocketed. The picture is just as bad when we look at last year. While per capita GDP edged up slightly in the last quarter, the first quarter of 2026, by 0.2% quarter over quarter, the fact is that per capita GDP shrank in Q2 and Q4 last year. As a result, per capita GDP last quarter was up only 0.2% year over year, effectively zero. In other words, per capita GDP in the first year of the new Liberal government follows the same trajectory as it had under the old Liberal government. Part of the bigger picture is not only declining GDP, but productivity. As a Nobel Prize-winning economist once said, “Productivity isn't everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.” The picture of productivity looks grim. When we look at Statistics Canada's annual measures, labour productivity has declined in each and every one of the last four years for which we have full-year data. Productivity dropped from $67.70 an hour worked in 2020 to $63.20 in 2024, a decline of almost 7%. Two years ago, on March 26, 2024, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, called Canada's lagging productivity an “emergency”. Since then, productivity appears to have flatlined, if not declined. The emergency appears to have become even more dire. When we look at Statistics Canada's quarterly measures, business sector labour productivity declined over the last year. In the first quarter of 2025, it measured on an index of 100 at 104.7. Last quarter, it stood at 104.074, a decline of 0.5% in just one year. Under the new Liberal government, the productivity emergency has gotten worse than it was under the old Liberal government. At this point, I will remind the House that I will be splitting my time. When the Bank of Canada rang the alarm bells on productivity, it cited low levels of business investment as one of the root causes. Business investment has plummeted over the past decade. According to a recent analysis by Steven Globerman of the Fraser Institute, business investment in plants, capital, equipment and IP, expressed as a percentage of GDP, dropped from 13.8% in 2014 to 11.1% last year, and under the new Liberal government, the decline has continued. According to Statistics Canada's release of May 29, “Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.” Steven Globerman has called this a “business investment emergency”. We have not only a productivity emergency but a business investment emergency. The word “emergency” is not my word. This is the word of the Bank of Canada and a reputable research organization. The fundamentals have not gotten better in the past 12 months under the new Liberal government: not on per capita GDP, not on productivity growth and not on business capital investment. In fact, in many cases, it has gotten worse. The data I cite in this speech is taken from Statistics Canada, including tables 36-10-0706-01, 36-10-0480-01 and 36-10-0206-01, unless I have specified otherwise. In my assessment, nothing the new Liberal government has done with the new Prime Minister in the past year fundamentally changes the trajectory of the economy, and the early data that has come in over the past four quarters confirms that assessment. Canada's per capita GDP continues to flatline, if not decline. Canada's productivity continues to flatline, if not decline. Canada's business capital investment continues to flatline, if not outright decline. That is because the government has failed to introduce the fundamental reforms necessary to turn the economy around. It has failed to introduce wholesale tax reform to our personal and corporate income tax systems. We need tax reform of the scale and ambition that we saw in 1971 or in the 1980s under the government of Brian Mulroney. It has failed to introduce fiscal reform of the scale and ambition of former prime minister Chrétien and finance minister Martin, who, in 1995, introduced a revolutionary budget that refocused the federal government and balanced the budget in 36 months. It has failed to introduce desperately needed competition reform to address the oligopolies and the uncompetitiveness of our economy, which are making our goods unattractive for export to global markets. Export expressed as a percentage of our GDP has plummeted, from about 43% of GDP in the year 2000 to about 33% today. The government has also failed to introduce the regulatory reform needed. We need to reduce the regulation that is strangling business investment and growth. The government implicitly acknowledged that its regulatory approach is not working. Not only has the government not used the national interest designation under Bill C-5, but it is engaged in yet more consultations to introduce yet more legislation to change its regulatory approach. Until early April, the government could argue that it did not have the power to enact these fundamental reforms because it did not have a majority. That excuse no longer holds. The early data coming in over the past 12 months is that the new Liberal government is on the same course as the old Liberal government on per capita GDP, productivity and business capital investment. The government has a choice: to acknowledge how bad things are, reverse course and introduce fundamental reforms in taxation, competition, and regulatory and fiscal policies, or to continue to preside over Canada's continued economic decline. If the government does not acknowledge the very real and serious fundamental challenges our economy is facing, it will not fix the problem.

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is making the mistake of looking at flows, in other words at the P&L, rather than at the balance sheet. The balance sheet is clear. Business capital investment has declined in each and every one of the last five consecutive quarters. That is the more important measurement, because as capital is deployed, it depreciates, and the fact that business capital investment has failed to keep up with the capital depreciation in this country and has declined over the last five quarters is a much more alarming statistic than the flows he is citing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. It was not me who used the word “emergency”; it was the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada. It was a central banker who used the word “emergency”, which is strong language for someone who is normally quite opaque about the direction of the economy. It was not me who used the word “emergency”; it was Steven Globerman at the Fraser Institute, a reputable research organization and one of the largest economic research organizations in the country. The fact is that nothing has addressed the fundamental problems facing our economy, and that is why Canadians continue to struggle with the cost of day-to-day living and other essentials.

Mr. Speaker, one of the dangers of denial is that we are going to see a brain drain from this country to our neighbour to the south. According to the TD Bank study that was released on May 21, Canada's top-skilled workers are leaving for the United States in droves for lower taxes and higher pay. It says, “Canada is not hollowing out; it is spilling out at the top” and “Absent progress on this front, Canada will continue to be a feeder system for the U.S. innovation economy.” Statistics Canada confirms that in 2023 alone, 18,590 Canadian residents immigrated to the U.S. permanently, and a 2024 Bank of Canada study found that 40% of Canadians who would rank in the top 1% of earners have already left Canada for the United States. It also found that up to half of the top 2% to 10% of income earners have also already left.

Mr. Speaker, the text of the MOU signed by the Liberal government with Beijing's Ministry of Public Security remains secret. Considering that Beijing abused the previous MOU signed by the Harper government, including by coercing some 25 Canadians to return to the PRC under Operation Fox Hunt and considering that a year ago, both the public inquiry into foreign interference and the Prime Minister said that Beijing presented the greatest threat to the security of Canada, will the Liberal government release the new MOU to assure Canadians Beijing will not coerce others to return to the PRC?

Mr. Speaker, if Beijing's foreign interference and transnational repression are the greatest threat to the security of Canada and if the government is confident about the MOU between itself and Beijing's Ministry of Public Security, the government should simply release the MOU and let Canadians decide for themselves. Will the minister raise the issue of transnational repression and foreign interference when she meets with Foreign Minister Wang Yi this week?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-217, which was introduced by my friend and colleague in the other place Senator Percy Downe. I thank him for his perseverance in pushing this issue forward. I believe this is the third time the bill was introduced and adopted in the other place and the third time the bill has been sent to the House for consideration. I know Senator Downe has put a lot of work into this. To be clear, we support this bill. It would, broadly, do three things. First, it would have the CRA publish a list of people who are criminally convicted for tax evasion, which I think is an important part of public disclosure and transparency. Second, it would require the CRA to estimate the tax gap between taxes owed and taxes collected. Third, it would require the CRA to provide data to the Parliamentary Budget Officer so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer can independently assess the tax gap between taxes owed and taxes collected. Those are, I think, three very good goals of the bill. I would encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is important to maintain the integrity of our income tax system. This will give the institutions of state the tools they need to do that so that we can ensure lower taxes for everyone, because when we close the tax gap and reduce tax evasion, taxes can go down. I look forward to the further debate and vote on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am raising the alarm bells about Ontario's auto sector. The sector depends on access to the U.S. market. The sector has paid $5 billion in tariffs over the last year. Passenger, car and light truck exports to the United States are plummeting. The Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association has said, “You cannot have a commercially viable automotive plant in Canada facing tariffs of that size.” Toyota has said that tariffs have made manufacturing in Ontario “unsustainable”. However, the government has given no date for formal negotiations on section 232 tariffs, unlike Mexico, and no explanation for the decision to go slow on the tariff negotiations. The auto sector and its workers are worried about the status quo. They need to know when tariff relief is in sight. Bleeding $5 billion a year is unsustainable. Something is going to break. The auto sector is running out of time while the government goes slow on its approach to the tariff negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, Mexico is clearly at the negotiating table, providing formal updates. Yesterday, President Sheinbaum and U.S. Trade Representative Greer formally met in Mexico City. The joint statement said that Mexico and the U.S. will hold talks this week on resolving trade irritants, and that Mexico and the United States will begin the first official negotiating round for the review of CUSMA the week of May 25. When will talks between Canada and the U.S. take place to resolve irritants? When will the first official Canada-U.S. negotiating round for the review of CUSMA take place?

Mr.S peaker, work is under way to celebrate the founding of Guelph in 1827. Next year marks 200 years since the city was founded at the confluence of the Speed and Eramosa rivers, in the province of Upper Canada, by Scottish poet and novelist John Galt. The Guelph 200 community working group has already begun planning. On April 23, the city will launch its official bicentennial logo, marking the beginning of year-long celebrations, including an anniversary weekend and a summer homecoming. Guelphites are proud of the Royal City and its 200 years of history. It has produced John McCrae of In Flanders Fields, Nobel Prize winners and so many other great Canadians. The slogan of the bicentennial, “rooted deep, growing together”, speaks of a community proud of its past and confident in its future. I ask all colleagues to join me in marking this historic occasion.

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada released The Daily just yesterday about the income and wealth distribution of Canadians last year under the Liberal government. Here are the opening two sentences of that report: “The income gap increased in 2025 as lower income households were negatively affected by declining interest rates and weak growth in employment income. The wealth gap grew throughout 2025 as continued strong financial market gains benefited the wealthiest.” Would the member comment on his government's economic performance?

Mr. Speaker, Iran is a serial violator of human rights, and because of that the government formally designates Iran as a state supporter of terrorism under the State Immunity Act. However, last Wednesday, the Liberal government voted in favour of Iran's membership on the United Nations Committee for Programme and Coordination, which plans, programs and coordinates human rights at the United Nations. Why did the government vote in favour of Iran's membership on this committee?

Mr. Speaker, Parliament recognized, with Liberal MPs supporting, that a genocide, including forced labour, was taking place against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province in the PRC. In response, the Liberal government imposed sanctions. Today, a Liberal member of Parliament in committee intimated in questioning Margaret McCuaig-Johnston, a former PCO official, that there was and is no Uyghur forced labour. I have two questions. First, does the government still assess that Uyghur forced labour has taken place? Second, will the sanctions remain in place?

Mr. Speaker, it has been four years since the war in Ukraine began, and it has been four years since we called on the government to expedite Canadian LNG exports for allies like Germany. It has been eight months since Parliament gave the government power to expedite new oil and gas projects for exports to Europe and Asia. In eight months, not a single new export project like that has been approved. When will the government get serious about Canadian energy policy? Do we have to wait for another four years of inaction?

Mr. Speaker, the question was about LNG exports. When the war began in Ukraine, it took Germany only 194 days to approve and build a new LNG export facility, and another four new facilities were quickly brought online shortly thereafter. Over 194 days ago, this Parliament gave the government unprecedented powers to expedite new gas projects to expedite LNG for Europe and Asia. Now we have a war in the Middle East. When is the government going to use these new powers and approve new LNG exports for Europe or Asia?

Mr. Speaker, the government has said three things about the U.S. air strikes that are incoherent and contradictory. First, on March 4, the Prime Minister said, “Canada’s policy itself is to always and everywhere respect international law.” He went on further and said, “Canada reaffirms that international law binds all belligerents.” The minister herself just said, “International law binds all parties.” Second, on March 4, the Prime Minister also said about the air strikes that “it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law.” Third, the government has said multiple times since February 28 that it supports the air strikes. The government sees the air strikes as inconsistent with international law but supports them anyway, and the government policy is to always and everywhere support international law. Can the minister explain this mumbo jumbo of foreign policy?

Mr. Speaker, again I will ask the minister to clarify the government's position. The government has said multiple times that international law binds all parties and that Canada, everywhere and always, respects international law. The Prime Minister said in Australia on March 4 about the air strikes, that “it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law.” The government then also says that it supports the air strikes. These things are all contradictory. Can the minister clarify what the government's position is in a coherent, consistent and cogent manner?

Mr. Chair, the government's position on the war in the Middle East has been contradictory and incoherent. I think, when I say that, I am being generous in my criticism. The Prime Minister and government members have said multiple times that they support U.S. air strikes against Iran to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran's regime from further threatening international peace and security. When the U.S. air strikes began on Saturday, February 28, the government issued a formal statement, issued jointly in the names of the Prime Minister and the foreign affairs minister, which can be found, if the public is interested, on the PMO's website. It states unequivocally, “Canada supports the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.” In other words, the government unequivocally supports the U.S. air strikes against Iran. This is clear, unambiguous, coherent and consistent. However, then several days passed and some Liberals became uneasy with the Prime Minister's clear, unambiguous, coherent and consistent statement, so the government started to backtrack ambiguously, incoherently and inconsistently. On March 3, the Prime Minister said, with respect to his support for the air strikes, that he took the position with regret. Here is exactly what he said: We take this position with regret, because the current conflict is another example of the failure of the international order. Despite decades of United Nations Security Council resolutions, the tireless work of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and a succession of sanctions and diplomatic frameworks, Iran’s nuclear threat remains. In other words, the Prime Minister took the position in support of the air strikes with regret and says the current conflict is an example of the failure of the international order, including diplomatic frameworks. On the same day, the national defence minister came out and called for a diplomatic end to the U.S. air strikes, saying that the government would prefer to see the U.S. air strikes cease. Here is what the national defence minister said on the very same day the Prime Minister issued the previous statement: “We're also calling for a diplomatic end to it. We very much would prefer to see peace and a ceasefire.” In other words, the government, on the same day it said diplomacy had failed, was calling for more diplomacy. It said it supported the U.S. air strikes but regretted supporting the U.S. air strikes. Does the government support the air strikes, or is it calling for a ceasefire? It is not clear. Which is it? Then, on March 4, the Prime Minister said this about the U.S. air strikes: “Canada’s policy itself is to always and everywhere respect international law.” He then further said, “Canada reaffirms that international law binds all belligerence.” The foreign affairs minister tonight in the House said that “international law binds all parties.” At the same time, on March 4, the Prime Minister said about the air strikes that they appear inconsistent with international law. He said, “Prima facie, it appears that these actions are inconsistent with international law.” However, the Prime Minister has said multiple times, as has the government, that he consistently supports the air strikes. Does the government see the air strikes as inconsistent with international law, but support them anyway, while its policy is to call on Canada and the United States and all international parties to always and everywhere, all the time, support international law? This is completely contradictory and inconsistent. To summarize, here is the government's position on the conflict in the Middle East: It supports the U.S. acting with air strikes, but it also regrets having to support the U.S. in air strikes. It calls for a ceasefire of the air strikes, but it calls for the air strikes to continue. The international order and diplomacy have failed, but it is calling for more diplomacy. It calls on all parties, including Canada and the United States, to uphold international law, but it believes the air strikes are inconsistent with international law, yet it supports them. The government's foreign policy is a complete, incoherent mess.

Mr. Chair, my hon. colleague's question points out that Ukraine, which we all support in the House, was unequivocal, clear and unambiguous in its support for the U.S. air strikes against Iran, because Ukraine, like few democracies, understands first-hand that this is a fight between western liberal democracies and authoritarian states. Ukraine is on the front lines of that fight and has been subject to the Shahed drones that Iran has been providing Russia. They have attacked Ukrainians and their communities thousands of times over the last four years, leading to thousands, if not tens of thousands, of deaths. Iran and Russia are in this together, along with the People's Republic of China. There is an increasing rise in authoritarianism that threatens not only democracies like Ukraine, but also democracies on the other side of the Atlantic, such as Canada.

Mr. Speaker, Hong Kong has sentenced newspaper publisher Jimmy Lai to 20 years in prison simply for exercising his rights and freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association, which are guaranteed in an international treaty, the Sino-British Joint Declaration. First, will the government reiterate its call for Jimmy Lai to be immediately released? Second, will the government acknowledge that his imprisonment is a violation of an international treaty and of international law?

Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague, the member for Calgary Confederation, with a great deal of interest. I would encourage him to look at Motion No. 517, which was introduced in the 40th Parliament and which echoes many of the issues he has raised. I note that in that motion, which the Liberal Party later adopted in the 42nd Parliament, the 43rd Parliament and the 44th Parliament, one of the five proposals was for the prime minister to answer questions on Wednesdays. There being roughly 36 to 40 questions on Wednesdays, Prime Minister Trudeau answered roughly 36 to 40 questions every week in the House. I do not believe that the current Prime Minister answers as many questions each week in the House. I am wondering if the member would like to see the restoration of Wednesday PMQs.

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to participate in this very important debate, because I think checks and balances on power and how power is distributed in Parliament are an extremely important topic of debate. We have all seen what has happened in other democracies over the last number of years, the weakening of guardrails and the importance of guardrails in restraining executive power. Particularly in a Westminster parliamentary democracy, where the executive is not elected but appointed, and not only appointed but appointed out of this place, it is really important to have the rules and procedures in place to ensure that the legislature can hold the executive branch of government accountable. I believe there are three areas of reform that the House should consider. First, I believe that the Speaker's right of recognition should be restored. We are, to my knowledge, the only Westminster parliamentary democracy where the Speaker has effectively lost the right of recognition. In many proceedings of the House, during debate, during Oral Questions and during other proceedings, that right of recognition has been replaced by the list system, managed by the whips and House leaders, which has effectively displaced the Speaker's authority. During most of the proceedings of the House, in order for a member to speak, the member's name has to be put on a speaking list by either the House leader or the whip's office, and too often members do not have a voice in the House because they do not get on the list. The Speaker should determine who gets to speak in the House. The House should do away with the list system and replace it with a system established and controlled by the Speaker. That system should have two broad principles. First, all members who wish to speak to a matter should get to speak. Second, time allocated to individual members who wish to speak should be distributed as equitably as possible to those members who wish to speak. As I understand it, in the United Kingdom Parliament, members who wish to speak, whether to a bill or during Oral Questions, go through a system established and controlled by the Speaker. For example, all members who wish to speak to a bill get to speak, because the time allotted for debate is divided by the number of members who have indicated to the Speaker that they want to speak, and the Speaker allocates time accordingly. For example, if four hours of debate are scheduled for a bill at second reading, and there are 40 members who wish to speak to the bill, the 240 minutes allotted are divided by the 40 members, thus each member would get six minutes to speak. In that system, every single member who wishes to speak to a matter in the House will have their voice heard, down to a minimum of three minutes, ensuring that their position on a particular matter is on the record. I hope all members in the House give serious consideration to this. I would note, in particular, that former Speaker Milliken advocated for this change to the rules of the House and advocated for it strongly. I believe he advocates for it to this day. The second area of reform the House should consider is its standing committees. In 2002, the Standing Orders were changed, a move supported by then finance minister Paul Martin to address the democratic deficit, by replacing the appointment of committee chairs with their election. Unfortunately, the Standing Order was crafted in a way that did not anticipate it being used in the way it has been. That well-intentioned change has not worked out in practice. While, technically, committee members can elect committee chairs, about 21 or 22 of them are effectively appointed by the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's designate, and I think four by the Leader of the Opposition. That is because the moving of a nomination of a member for the chair position is done in public, and the whips use that fact to ensure that only a member that the ministry has decided should be the chair is moved and no one else is moved for nomination. The result, in almost all cases, is that members are acclaimed. One way to fix this is to require a secret preferential ballot listing all the names of committee members of the recognized party from which the chair is to be selected. That way, no nominations for chair can take place, and the 12 members of the committee, or 10 members, or however many members are allocated per standing committee in that particular Parliament, decide who will be the chair based on a single secret preferential ballot. To make committees even more effective, I think a second reform should be considered. The House should consider distributing the 25 chairs of the standing committees in a way that is proportional to the recognized parties' standing in the House. That is done in other Westminster parliaments, and I think it reflects the distribution of other aspects of the House when a Parliament is first constituted. The House should also consider a third change to the way committees are constituted. Members on committees should be elected by their peers in caucus. The election on a secret preferential ballot vote could take place at the same time as the election for Speaker. Other Westminster parliaments do the same thing. In totality, the secret preferential ballot election of committee chairs and the secret preferential ballot election of committee members would strengthen the role of committees in this place and ensure that there is more accountability of the executive branch of government to the House and its committees. I would add something on this point of committee reform. The United Kingdom had a similar system for its select committees, equivalent to our standing committees, to the one we have here today. About a decade and a half ago, they implemented these kinds of reforms to their committees. After being in place for their select committee system for roughly a decade and a half, these reforms have, by universal acclaim, been seen to be effective reforms that have strengthened the U.K. Parliament. The third area of reform I think the House should consider is to take away the Prime Minister's power to make key appointments in this place. I do not believe that the Prime Minister should be able to appoint the Clerk of the House, nor do I believe that the Prime Minister should be able to appoint the head of our parliamentary security, the Sergeant-at-Arms. I believe both of these positions should be appointed by the Speaker on the recommendation of a committee of MPs that has vetted various candidates. In fact, at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that is exactly the process that is in place, and it is that process that is also in place in the U.K. Parliament and the Australian parliament. Most importantly, I think the majority of members of the powerful board that administers this place should be no longer appointed by the Prime Minister, either directly or indirectly, but rather elected by members of this House on a secret ballot vote. Members of the ministry, as well as officers of the House on both sides of the aisle, should not be eligible for the majority of positions on the Board of Internal Economy. In other words, the majority of the members on the Board of Internal Economy should be backbench members of this House, elected on a secret ballot vote by their peers in this place. Those are the three areas of reform that I believe the House should consider. As a final note, I would add this: I believe we should end hybrid Parliament. We are the only national legislature amongst western Liberal democracies to remain in hybrid mode. The U.K. House of Commons ended hybrid sittings on July 22, 2021, five years ago. The U.S. House of Representatives ended hybrid sittings on January 9, 2023, and the Australian parliament ended hybrid sittings on July 25, 2022. I would note that the French National Assembly never actually had hybrid mode, because, if I recall correctly, the court declared it unconstitutional, mandating that members of the legislature appear in person throughout the pandemic time. Those are the three or four reforms I recommend to this place, and I look forward to the debate on this. I hope a committee of the House or a member of the House will take up these reforms and propose them to the House, and that some of them may be adopted.

Madam Speaker, I am open to all potential options for the way this place sits, but I would note that we already sit the least of any major national legislature in the west. The U.S. House of Representatives typically sits between 165 and 190 days a year, and the U.K. House of Commons typically sits between 146 and 162 days a year. We sit only 129 days a year, and provincial legislatures sit even less. We sit far less than we used to, and I believe that we should consider sitting through much of July and early August and then adjourn for the rest of the summer. I believe we should start earlier in January. Again, accountability of the executive to this place can take place only when the House is sitting. I would note that in the 1960s and—

Madam Speaker, I think the way in which many of these reforms can be implemented is quite simple. Most of these reforms would require the procedure and House affairs committee to table a report in this House recommending these reforms, and that the report be concurred in. That would be one way to adopt these reforms. The other is for any member of the House, through a private member's motion, or for a member of the ministry, through a ministerial motion, to propose these reforms and for the motion to be adopted. Those are two methods through which we could implement the reforms that are being debated here today.

Mr. Speaker, Beijing's foreign interference is the biggest threat to the security of Canada; that is what the Prime Minister told Canadians last spring. Less than a year later, the Prime Minister has entered into a so-called strategic partnership with Beijing, yet we still have no foreign influence transparency registry. When the bill was being debated, the government said it hoped to have the registry up and running in 12 months, ahead of a federal election. It is now 19 months and one election later, and there is still no registry. Another election could pass without the protection of a registry. One wonders if the government delayed the registry until now to avoid offending Beijing's leadership, and for the same reason Liberal MPs were told recently to cut short their trip to Taiwan. Canadians deserve a government that treats foreign interference seriously as a threat to our national security. The government needs to implement the foreign influence transparency registry now.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a minority government, and Conservatives fully respect the democratic will of the electorate. That is why, as His Majesty's loyal official opposition, we will carry out our constitutional responsibilities within the House. On some matters, we will oppose the government as the official opposition, which is a constitutionally mandated role in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. On other matters, we will support the government, seeing as Canadians did not give the government a majority, which requires the opposition to play a role in moving certain matters forward in the House. Conservatives respect the democratic will of Canadians as expressed in the last election. The government needs to do the same. That means the government needs to understand that, on certain bills in front of the House, we will oppose the government, and on other bills in front of the House, we will support the government. It is not reasonable for the government to expect the opposition in the House to support it in all and any bills that it brings before the House. That would undermine the constitutional role the official opposition has in holding the appointed executive to account. The Conservatives support Bill C-18, just as we supported Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and just as we have supported many other bills over the past year in this Parliament. We have supported the following six government bills: Bill S-2, an act to amend the Indian Act; Bill S-3, an act to amend the Weights and Measures Act and other acts; Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians; Bill C-5, an act to enact the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act and the Building Canada Act; and Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act. Recently, we agreed that we would expedite the study and passage of Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. We have been clear that good ideas in the interest of Canadians will win our support. Including the bill in front of us today, we have supported eight government bills in this Parliament just in the last year. The Conservatives support Bill C-18, an act to implement the comprehensive economic partnership agreement between Canada and Indonesia, because we support diversifying our trade with other partners, especially in the Indo-Pacific region. This agreement would eventually reduce tariffs on 97% of Canadian exports destined for Indonesia. However, the government procurement in this trade agreement requires further scrutiny. Indonesian firms could bid on Canadian contracts, but Canadian firms could only bid on Indonesian government procurement if it is expressly opened. Indonesian government procurement is largely closed. Other trading partners of Canada secured better agreements with Indonesia on government procurement rules, including the United Arab Emirates and the European Union. The European Union also negotiated a commitment to begin market access negotiations. Canada has no specific timeline to begin negotiating market access. For Canada, market access is left to further negotiations and no published coverage schedules. However, Conservatives will support passing Bill C-18 to committee, but we would scrutinize the effectiveness of this agreement and point to ways that it could be better utilized. I would like to conclude my remarks on our support for this bill by adding the following: Just signing trade agreements is not enough to diversify our trade away from our main trading partner. To capitalize on these trade agreements and these investment deals, the Government of Canada needs to do two other things. These are two things that the government has not been doing and that, if left undone, would prevent us from significantly diversifying trade away from our largest trading partner. The first thing we need to do is make Canadian goods and services more competitive to buyers in Asia and in Europe. Over the last decade, the Canadian economy has become uncompetitive, and many of our goods and services are no longer desired by buyers in Asia and in Europe. The trade data bears this out. In the year 2000, Canadian exports, expressed as a per cent of our gross domestic product, were 42%. In 2024, the last year for which we have data, our global exports, expressed as a per cent of our GDP, had dropped to 33%, which is a 9% drop. Clearly, our products and services are not as desirable to foreign buyers as they once were. That is because the Canadian economy has become uncompetitive and over-regulated. Our tax system has become a completely Byzantine mess, and this includes both the personal and corporate income tax system. We need to overhaul competition policy to make our economy more competitive. We need to eliminate regulation and the regulatory overburden that is strangling our competitiveness. We need to overhaul our personal and corporate income tax system in the same ambitious way that we once did in 1971 and in 1986. The government has introduced none of these types of reforms to get our economy moving and to make our goods and services more desirable for buyers in Asia and Europe. The second thing we need to do is increase the physical capability of exporting more goods and commodities to global markets via the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Currently, we do not have the capacity to significantly increase exports of commodities or goods via our country's largest ports. The port of Vancouver, which is our largest port and a federal entity, is woefully inefficient. According to a Standard & Poor's global study that was commissioned in 2024 by the World Bank, the port of Vancouver ranked 389 out of 403 global ports for efficiency. It is critical to have sufficient trade corridor infrastructure to significantly increase the export of commodities and goods via our ports to Asia or Europe. Here is another example of a lack of trade corridor infrastructure: Canada is the largest high-income nation in the world without a comprehensive national highway system, and by highway, I mean an autobahn, an expressway or an autoroute, a system that would run from coast to coast, be entirely grade-separated, have no cross-traffic and have four or more lanes, two or more in each direction, allowing travel that is unimpeded by traffic signals, driveways, stop signs or intersections. I encourage anyone listening to go to Google Maps to map out the fastest way from Halifax to Vancouver or from Toronto to Vancouver. Every single route will route us through the United States of America, through the U.S. interstate system, which is faster and more efficient than any highway system we have in this country. That is just one example of the lack of trade corridor infrastructure that prevents us from significantly diversifying trade beyond that with our largest trading partner. Again, the government has introduced no real plans to significantly expand trade corridor infrastructure or improve its efficiency. As I said, we support Bill C-18, just as we have supported seven other government bills in the House. However, simply signing trade agreements will not do much to diversify our trade unless the government does the necessary work here in this country to make our economy more competitive and ensure that the essential infrastructure is in place to export our goods and resources to global markets.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a new approach. I enumerated five bills that we already supported in the last year of this Parliament, Bill S-2, Bill S-3, Bill C-4, Bill C-5, Bill C-12, and now, in addition to that, Bill C-14 and the bill that is now in front of the House, Bill C-18. We have been supporting some pieces of legislation to move ahead. The government would like to present a narrative that the opposition is being obstructionist, because I think it would like to pull the pin early on a federal election.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question about importing goods made with forced labour. That is a major problem. I think the crux of the problem is this. Canadian law bans the importation of products produced from forced labour. This was first agreed to in the Canada-U.S.-Mexico trade agreement and then, subsequently, implemented in Canadian law. Importing products into Canada via forced labour is already banned. The problem is that the government has not enforced the law. For example, thousands of shipments of cargo containers from western China that have been produced using Uyghur forced labour have been interdicted by U.S. authorities and prevented from entering the United States over the last five years. In Canada, not a single cargo container has been stopped and prevented from entering Canadian supply chains under the CUSMA agreement, and that is to the shame of the Canadian government, which, after five years, has failed to enforce our treaty obligations.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's question allows me to point out in greater detail that the Canadian government was not as successful in negotiating this trade agreement with Indonesia as the United Arab Emirates or the European Union were. The United Arab Emirates secured a 10% price preference in Indonesian procurement tenders and enhanced access for U.A.E. businesses to Indonesian government procurement opportunities. The European Union managed to secure non-discrimination obligations from Indonesia in government procurement. There is no such clause in this agreement in front of the House today. As I mentioned earlier, the European Union also negotiated a commitment to begin market access negotiations on a scheduled timeline. The Canadian government did not secure the same explicit timeline in the agreement in front of the House. Clearly, it could have done a better job in negotiating this agreement.

I am honoured to participate in the budget debate. I think that the context of this budget is important. First of all, it was delayed for an unprecedented number of months and introduced in the fall, which will now be the new government's budget cycle. It was also preceded by a lot of rhetoric from the government about what kind of budget it would be, with commitments about making this a budget full of “generational investments”, saying that it would “swing for the fences”, that it would “define our next century” and that it would be “transformative”. That is the context in which this budget was hyped. However, when we actually got the budget on November 4, it was anything but. It was not a budget like that of 1971, which introduced comprehensive tax reform that had been largely recommended by the Carter commission. It was not a budget like that of 1988, which collapsed 10 federal tax brackets into three and started the country on a transformative change to our economy. It was not like the budget of 1991, which took the difficult step of eliminating the 13.5% manufacturer sales tax and introducing a broader and lower value-added tax in the form of the GST. It was not the budget of 1996, introduced by then finance minister Paul Martin, which introduced the plan to balance the federal government's finances in 36 months. This budget had none of the hallmarks of the budgets of those four important years. Instead, this budget would do quite the opposite. It would continue us down the path of the last 10 years. It is another big spending, big government, big Liberal budget. In fact, this government's budget has weaker fiscal anchors than the previous Liberal government's. The last Liberal budget had a fiscal anchor of deficits of less than 1% of GDP. This budget would double those deficits, averaging 2% of GDP in the coming years. The last Liberal budget had a fiscal anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. This budget would increase the debt to GDP. It is clear that this government's fiscal anchor is weaker than the previous Liberal government's. The new fiscal anchor is some weird new invention that very few, if any, other G7 countries use. The new fiscal anchor is a balanced operating budget by 2029 and a declining deficit rather than debt-to-GDP ratio. By fiscal year 2029, the deficit will only be $58 billion. By then, the government projects that the interest on the debt will be $71 billion, chewing up 13¢ of every dollar, up from only six cents as recently as fiscal year 2022. Last July, bond rating agency Fitch Ratings warned that a material rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio and a material rise in our deficit could lead to a credit downgrade. This budget would double deficits and lead to an ever-increasing debt-to-GDP ratio. As a result, here is what Fitch Ratings said several weeks ago after the budget was delivered: Canada's...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances, says Fitch Ratings. While Canada’s rating is broadly stable, persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term. This may be exacerbated by persistent economic underperformance caused by tariff risks and structural challenges, including low productivity. In other words, the government's increased deficits and rising additions to the national debt have eroded the federal government's finances and weakened its credit profile. We are at particular risk because all of this could be exacerbated by additional tariffs and our ongoing low productivity. We can all acknowledge that the tariffs levied by the U.S. administration are not within the control of government, but what is within the control of government is low productivity. The government has immense macroeconomic levers at its disposal to turn around this country's chronically low, if not declining, labour productivity. I would like to dwell on this for just a moment. The deputy governor of the Bank of Canada called Canada's low productivity an “emergency”. She said, “it's time to break the glass.” Despite that warning over a year ago, the government failed to meet the moment and failed to introduce fundamental reforms to get the Canadian economy on track. A famous economist once said that the only long-run determinant of prosperity is productivity, and the government has absolutely failed to introduce fundamental reforms to meet the moment to get our productivity turned around. A second point on the government's deficits and debt is that the government often touts its record on net debt, but that fails to take into account that Canada is the smallest of the G7 economies. It has the smallest currency of the G7 economies. We are not part of the eurozone. We are not the U.S. dollar, and we are not the U.K. pound. We are the smallest of the G7 currencies, and we are not a reserve currency like the U.S. dollar or the eurozone. The government's rhetoric on net debt also fails to take into account a second important distinction from other G7 countries, which is that we are the most indebted subnational debt country in the G7. We have some of the highest levels of subnational debt in the OECD, which the federal government backstops. I will remind the House that it was just over five years ago when a province hit the fiscal wall. It ran out of money. Now, that may not be remembered by many people, because it happened in March of 2020 when the global pandemic hit, but in March 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador tried to raise cash on debt capital markets to pay for nurses, doctors and teachers, and it could not. It did not have any money to meet payroll, and as a result, it went to the federal government and asked for an emergency transfer of cash to keep basic government operations going. When we take into account subnational debt, and when we take into account that we are the smallest of the G7 currencies and not a global reserve currency, the government's record on debt does not look as good as it would have everyone believe. I will finish by asking this: Where are the fundamental reforms that meet the moment? Where are the transformative reforms that are generational? Where is the competition reform? Where is the regulatory reform? Where is the tax reform? Many had hoped, myself included, that the government was going to commit to that comprehensive tax reform. The Liberals have been promising fundamental tax reform since their first budget in 2016. Other governments have introduced fundamental tax reforms that transformed the economy, moved productivity and created prosperity and growth. I think of the budgets of 1971, of 1988, of 1991 and of 1996. Instead of fundamental progrowth tax reform, regulatory reform and competition reform, we are getting a bunch of special loopholes and deductions for specially targeted sectors. It is creating more big government, more “big government knows best”, and more of the big programs and big sectoral focuses that will do nothing to turn this economy around or address the fundamental economic crisis we are facing in this country.

Mr. Speaker, that question highlights the financial illiteracy that pervades the House. The fact of the matter is that, if we go to Statistics Canada's labour productivity data, we will see that, over the course of the 1990s and the early aughts, right to 2015, a good part of 25 of the last 35 years in this country, labour productivity consistently marched upward. What we have seen, though, in the last 10 years, particularly in the last five, is that labour productivity has stalled, if not declined, in some years. As far as the debt goes, I would add, for example, that the Province of Ontario has a larger debt than the State of California, so the member is wrong when he talks about net debt.

Mr. Speaker, the record of the Liberals over the last 10 years has been the worst economic record in this country since the Second World War period. That is an incontrovertible fact. If members look at the labour productivity tables, for example, what will they see is that labour productivity has flatlined over the last number of years. Even with Statistics Canada's recent upward revision in GDP numbers, per capita GDP has flatlined over the last number of years, all while our economic peer group has seen per capita GDP go up. We are falling behind, which is why we are falling behind in global league tables on a range of measures such as productivity, growth, and so many other measures.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some labour productivity statistics that members of the House may not be aware of. This is from Statistics Canada, table 36-10-0480-01: In 2006, labour productivity was $56.8 per hour. In 2015, it was $61 per hour, an increase of $4.2 an hour. In 2024, it was $63.2 an hour, an increase of only $2.2. It is clear that the record of the previous Conservative government on labour productivity for all industries, all sectors, was far better than that of the current Liberal government. I just wanted to make sure that was read into the record for the elucidation of members of the House who may not be aware of that.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government over the last 10 years has arguably the worst economic record since 1945. Here is just one set of data points: Overall labour productivity has declined in each and every one of the last four years. I cannot think of any four-year period since 1945 where this has happened. It is in CANSIM table 383-0033. Productivity was $65 per hour in 2021, $64.60 in 2022, $63.50 in 2023 and $63.20 in 2024, last year. It has dropped in each and every one of the last four years since 2020. That is why the Bank of Canada has called it an emergency. The budget does little to address this productivity emergency. Would the member comment?

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to represent Wellington—Halton Hills North. The Canadians who live in the riding, in Wellington County, the town of Halton Hills and the city of Guelph, are truly exceptional. In the last seven years, three people from Guelph and Wellington County have received a Nobel Prize. Donna Strickland received a joint Nobel Prize in physics, and David Card and Peter Howitt separately received joint Nobel Prizes in economics. This global excellence coming from Guelph and Wellington County, a community of some 200,000 Canadians, is extraordinary. What was it about the Guelph and Wellington County of the 1960s and 1970s, when these extraordinary Canadians came of age, that produced such global excellence? Whatever it was, Canada needs more of it. Congratulations to all three of these extraordinary Canadians.