Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying near record high fuel prices. Justin, from my riding, is raising four children on a single income. He has to drive 65 kilometres to work because he cannot afford to live any closer, and now he can barely afford to get to work due to skyrocketing fuel prices. Why will the Liberals not help folks like Justin by adopting our Conservative plan to save Canadians money by lifting not just one tax, but all federal taxes on fuel until at least Canada Day?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is out of touch, blaming everyone but himself for skyrocketing fuel prices. He blames foreign factors. Yesterday, he blamed the provinces, but it is his industrial carbon tax and clean fuel standard that are hiking prices. Instead of playing the blame game, why does the Prime Minister not simply control what he can control and lift all federal taxes on fuel until at least Canada Day, saving the average family $1,200?

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about corruption surrounding the Liberal government's now infamous lease with Maritime Launch Services for a so-called space port. We know that the government entered into this lease, notwithstanding that Maritime Launch Services had no history of launching anything into space. Indeed, Maritime Launch Services had a history of not doing much of anything because Maritime Launch Services was a practically bankrupt company, sustaining a loss of $47 million and with revenue of just $15,000 in 2025. As such, it is no wonder that the share value of Maritime Launch Services was practically worthless, but then the Liberals entered into the so-called space port lease on March 16 of this year, and rather conveniently, the Liberals backdated the lease by one full year to 2025, funnelling $20 million tax dollars to Maritime Launch Services for no work and no value, effectively bailing out Maritime Launch Services. What was the consequence of that? Surprise, surprise, the share value of Maritime Launch Services soared, and immediately following that, within three weeks, the chair of the board sold three million previously worthless shares, walking away with $1.8 million. He became a millionaire overnight. Do members know what that is called? It is called “pump and dump”. Do members know what else it is called? It is called “corruption”, which the Liberals allowed to happen because they failed to take the most basic of measures to prevent this kind of insider profiteering, such as, for example, insisting upon a lock-up agreement. Why did they not do that? Why did they allow this to happen? Is it because this type of corruption is business as usual with the Liberals?

Mr. Speaker, my question was about pump and dump. It was about corruption. Here we have the Liberal government funnelling $20 million to Maritime Launch Services, bailing out a nearly bankrupt company, upon which the chair of the board immediately sells three million of his shares, walking away with $1.8 million. Does the parliamentary secretary consider that to be normal? Is that just business as usual with the Liberals? How can the parliamentary secretary justify this type of corruption?

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Bill C-218, the right to recover act, introduced by my friend, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City. The title of the bill fully reflects the substance of the bill. It is the right to recover: to give persons struggling with mental health challenges hope and help, instead of state-sanctioned, state-administered death, by putting an indefinite pause on the Liberal government's ill-thought-out expansion of MAID where mental illness is the sole underlying condition. I commend the member for Cloverdale—Langley City for bringing forward the bill, because it is absolutely needed. We need legislation to be passed by Parliament. Otherwise, this ill-thought-out expansion will take effect in March 2027. I have to say that it should never have been this way. It should never have come to this. The planned expansion is a master class in how not to do policy and how not to legislate. Back in 2021, the then Liberal justice minister David Lametti, at the eleventh hour, accepted a radical Senate amendment, which he initially opposed, that set the train in motion for the expansion of MAID for mental illness, effective March 2023. There was no meaningful study, no meaningful consultation and no meaningful debate. The Liberals simply rammed it through. This was on a question of life and death concerning among the most vulnerable persons in Canadian society. It could not be more reckless than that. Here we are, more than five years later, and the planned expansion has been nothing short of a mess. It has been completely shambolic, including the fact that the government has been all but forced to introduce two emergency bills to delay implementation because it did not do its homework at the outset. Had the Liberals done their homework, they would have heard loud and clear what experts, including leading psychiatrists, have been saying, and that is that MAID for mental illness is a really bad idea, that it cannot be implemented safely for a multitude of reasons, not least of which include two unresolved clinical issues. The first of those issues is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict irremediability. In other words, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict whether someone suffering from a mental illness will get better. Indeed, many mental illnesses are remediable, and they are very difficult to predict in terms of a prognosis. As Dr. Karin Neufeld, who is one of Canada's most renowned psychiatrists and is none other than the chair of the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada, put it in her brief to the Special Joint Committee on MAID, which is studying this very issue, “Psychiatric disorders lack reliable biomarkers, follow non-linear trajectories, and frequently improve after years of severe impairment.” Accordingly, Dr. Neufeld concluded that psychiatrists are poor predictors of long-term outcomes. Simply put, modern psychiatry lacks the tools to predict irremediability in individual cases of mental illness. It is so uncertain in terms of predicting irremediability, that studies show that psychiatrists get it right less than 50% of the time. As Dr. Sonu Gaind, who is the past chair of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, told the special joint committee, one would be better off flipping a coin to predict irremediability. This is on a matter, again, involving life and death. What that means is that if this expansion were to go forward in March 2027, or at all, tens of thousands of Canadians who could get better, recover and lead productive lives will have their lives prematurely ended. This prospect is untenable, and it is unconscionable. The uncertainty around predicting irremediability not only renders MAID for mental illness a completely reckless and dangerous policy, but also makes it impossible to administer in compliance with the law. This is because a prerequisite to qualifying for MAID is that an individual must have a grievous and irremediable condition. Given that it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately predict irremediability in cases of mental illness, the legal basis for MAID cannot be satisfied, full stop. Therefore, we have not only a clinical issue, but also a major legal impediment to this expansion going forward. The second major clinical issue identified is that it is difficult to distinguish, in cases of mental illness, a rational request for aid versus one motivated by suicidal ideation. This is because, in many cases, suicidal ideation, suicidal thoughts, are a symptom of the illness, and that is underscored by the fact that, in more than 90% of suicide deaths in Canada, mental illness is a factor. What that means is, if this were to go forward, long-standing suicide prevention efforts would be undermined. The mental health law would be upended, because given that suicidal ideation is often a symptom of mental illness, it begs the very practical question of which requests for MAID would merit intervention and suicide prevention versus the granting of MAID. Given these unresolved clinical issues and other issues, and the clear opposition from the vast majority of psychiatrists, including the 17 chairs of psychiatry representing all 17 medical schools in Canada, who penned a letter to the Minister of Justice saying to put an indefinite pause on this, the Liberals twice, as I alluded to, introduced emergency legislation to kick the can down the road. They kicked the can down the road yet again with a new date of implementation, that being March 2027. Guess what. Nothing has changed. The same clinical issues remain unresolved, and there is no evidence that they will be or can be resolved in the foreseeable future, if ever. This is why the special joint committee on MAID, which wrapped up its work in June, of which I was a member, of which the member for Cloverdale—Langley City was a member, recommended that the government stop kicking the can down the road and simply put an indefinite pause on this ill-thought-out expansion. I would note that the recommendation was a unanimous recommendation from Conservative and Liberal MPs on the committee. The government likes to claim it makes decisions based upon evidence, that it make decisions based upon the facts. Well, if that is so, then to follow the evidence, there is only one, objectively speaking, reasonable course of action for the government to take, which is to admit it got it wrong in 2021 and to reverse course by putting an indefinite pause on this expansion. Bill C-218, the right to recover act, provides a clear path forward to do just that. Let us pass Bill C-218.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a supplementary report on behalf of the Conservative members of the committee. The Conservatives would have liked to see additional recommendations with a view toward strengthening the integrity of our elections, including an amendment to the Canada Elections Act to require electors residing abroad to provide proof of their last place of residence prior to the issuance of a ballot. Currently, there is no requirement of proof of residence. Additionally, the Conservatives oppose the recommendation for earlier candidate nomination deadlines, which was not supported by evidence. We also caution against the use of hybrid ballot delivery systems, including using Canadian diplomatic missions as polling stations, out of concern for ballot integrity and ballot secrecy.

Mr. Speaker, the government had an opportunity with this bill to close significant loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into registered third parties. The bill would fail to close those loopholes. Why did the government refuse to close those loopholes? Why would this bill, if it goes forward, allow for foreign money to continue to be funnelled into third parties to influence Canadian elections?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-25, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act, at the third reading stage. As I noted in my speech during the second reading debate, there are a number of measures in this bill that would strengthen the Canada Elections Act, which Conservatives welcome. Among them are measures to counter the undemocratic activities of the so-called longest ballot committee, which caused significant disruption in a number of ridings in the last election and in several by-elections by effectively flooding the ballot with fake candidates. This was all for the purpose of sowing confusion, making it more difficult for Elections Canada to administer elections and tabulate the vote, and undermining general public confidence in the voting process. This bill contains measures the Conservatives called for quite some time ago. It took the government quite some time to finally move forward with legislation to address those gaps and those loopholes that were taken advantage of by the longest ballot committee, but this bill does that, and we welcome those measures. Additionally, we welcome measures in the bill to establish new offences and to extend other offences to leadership races and nomination races to counter foreign interference. The bill would also provide needed new powers to the commissioner of Canada elections and increase administrative monetary penalties to give those penalties some teeth with respect to contraventions of the act by individuals and organizations. I would observe, however, that I have some concerns with respect to the powers that are being given to the commissioner insofar as the commissioner would have the power to compel evidence without judicial authorization. I would also note that when one looks at those powers, combined with the powers to impose administrative penalties of up to $100,000 for organizations and entities, it begs the question of whether there is, in fact too, much discretion being afforded to the commissioner of Canada elections. In that regard, given the dual-track enforcement option available to the commissioner, if, in fact, a contravention reached the level of imposing a $100,000 fine, it would seem to me that in the circumstances, the better course would be for the commissioner to refer the matter to the director of public prosecutions to proceed by way of criminal prosecution. While there are measures in this bill that the Conservatives broadly support, it is far from a perfect bill. There are measures that could have been included in this bill that would have gone a lot further toward strengthening the Canada Elections Act, strengthening the integrity of our voting process and safeguarding our elections, which the Liberals unfortunately did not include. I also have significant concerns about the failure of the Liberals to close well-recognized loopholes with respect to foreign money flowing into third parties to influence voters at election time. Fundamental to our democracy is how elections must be decided by Canadians, and Canadians alone. Unfortunately, what we have in this country, which we have had for years, are foreign interests and foreign governments that have used third parties to influence our elections. There are two well-recognized loopholes. One is a melding loophole, wherein certain contributions, including foreign contributions, are treated as part of the general revenue of a third party that can in turn then be used for regulated activities during the pre-election and election periods. The other loophole is one whereby foreign funds are treated as Canadian funds to third parties. In that regard, I would note that if, for example, foreign entity A transfers funds to Canadian entity B, and Canadian entity B transfers those funds to a third party, at present, those funds are treated as funds coming from Canadian entity B, even though the true source of those funds is foreign. This loophole is not a hypothetical loophole. In 2017, I brought forward a complaint to the commissioner of Canada elections with respect to $700,000 U.S. that was funnelled from the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation to a British Columbia entity. That entity then disbursed the $700,000 U.S. to eight registered third parties that were involved in, effectively, campaigning against the then Harper Conservative government and various Conservative candidates. The commissioner of Canada elections, in response to my complaint, advised that there were no contraventions of the act, or at least no contraventions that could be made out, and the reason for that is this loophole that presently exists. I have to say, I think Canadians would be alarmed that it is, in fact, that easy for foreign interests and foreign governments, with witting third parties, frankly, to use foreign funds to influence how Canadians vote and what issues are brought to their attention in the lead-up to and during an election. It is completely unacceptable that the Liberals have been aware of these loopholes for 10 years now. In fact, they benefited from these loopholes. They benefited from the use of foreign money, just as the Liberals benefited from Beijing's interference in the 2019 and 2021 elections, and have, up until now, refused to take action. Before I say what this bill would do, I would just add that the loopholes I am speaking about are ones that have been recognized by the Chief Electoral Officer. I raised these loopholes multiple times with the Chief Electoral Officer when he appeared before the procedure and House affairs committee. He also acknowledged these precise loopholes in his report on the 2019 and 2021 elections, and he called for those loopholes to be closed. This bill purports to close those loopholes, and it would do so with a general requirement. It would require third parties to set up a separate bank account, and the funds going into it can come only from individual Canadians. This would be a positive measure. It is one that we have long called for. It would address issues around foreign interference and foreign influence insofar as the funds would be from individual Canadians. The bill would provide much needed transparency. We would be able to more easily track and see exactly who is donating to third parties that, in turn, seek to influence Canadians in the lead-up to and during elections. It would also treat third parties on par, more or less, with political parties insofar as political parties can use contributions only from individual Canadians. This is much like how, as a general rule, third parties would be required to use and be limited to contributions from individual Canadians. That is all very good. That is in the bill, and we support that. If that is good, it begs the question, “What is problematic?” It is problematic that this would be a general rule, but there is a big exception contained in the bill, which is that third parties may continue to use their own funds and their own general revenue. In other words, they would not have to set up an individual bank account and they would not be limited to individual contributions, provided that the contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue in the year prior to the pre-election period. In such a case, funds used by the third party would be treated as commingled, whatever the source. That is not my interpretation. When I posed a question to the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Perrault, and asked him how this exception would work and exactly what funds third parties would be able to use, he said in his answer, “They would be contributions coming from their own revenue, whatever that source may be, and those would commingle with other funds.” If a third party can use contributions coming from its own revenue, whatever the source, and such funds are commingled, then it follows that commingled funds could be foreign funds. When I raised that issue with the Chief Electoral Officer, he conceded that “the practical challenge is true there as well.” The Chief Electoral Officer acknowledged that, yes, effectively, where this exception applies, third parties would be able to use foreign funds. As a result, the bill would close loopholes with respect to the use of foreign funds, but then create a new loophole. If it does not create a completely new loophole, it would continue the loophole around the melding or commingling of funds, including foreign funds. The Liberals will say this is an exception, not the rule, and it would only apply if contributions constitute 10% or less of the third party's revenue, meaning that it should not apply to very many third parties. However, who is to say this is so, and who is to say 10% or less of a third party's revenues, being contributions, is an insignificant amount of money? There are many third parties that have tens of millions of dollars, so 10% could amount to millions of dollars of foreign funds. I have to say that, ironically, to the degree that third parties would be captured by the general rule versus third parties that would not and would be captured by the exception, or could take advantage of the exception, I expect that in general it would be the smaller, grassroots-oriented third parties that would be subject to the general rule of having to set up individual bank accounts and relying exclusively on the contributions of individual Canadians, whereas some of the bigger, more influential third parties would continue to be able to get away with using their own funds, including possibly and likely foreign funds in some cases. It is true that the Chief Electoral Officer has supported this type of an exception, and in that respect, the government has adopted what the Chief Electoral Officer recommended. I can see that point, but I respectfully disagree, and I have made it clear to the Chief Electoral Officer that I disagree with his position. I have challenged him on his position on a number of occasions. The argument that he has put is that there are charter issues around freedom of speech. However, there is no case authority that the Chief Electoral Officer has cited. The best he has offered and the best the Liberals have offered is this vague argument. It is a vague argument notwithstanding, by the way, that when this issue was presented at committee, a number of witnesses, including an esteemed constitutional lawyer, including Professor Lori Turnbull and including Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch, said that, yes, this loophole, this exception, would result in foreign funding and that, given the very serious issues around foreign interference, this loophole would be taken advantage of by foreign actors, including hostile foreign states like the Beijing-based Communist regime. As I noted, it has been taken advantage of by other groups in not necessarily hostile foreign states, but in other states such as the United States, like through the Tides Foundation. The position we took is to get rid of the exception, create an equal playing field for all third parties and require every third party to set up an individual bank account. Our position was to require that all third parties, without exception, could only accept contributions from individual Canadians. That would be simple, it would be fair, it would be transparent and from an administrative and enforcement standpoint, it would be far better and far easier than the complicated framework or scheme set up by this legislation in respect of setting a threshold of contributions that constitutes 10% or less of the third party's revenue and that the period be in the year prior to the pre-election period. If one were to take at face value the charter issues that have been, and again I underscore the word “vaguely”, cited, I would question how this exception would satisfy them. If these charter issues are so real and so pressing, then why is it that with this legislation, the Liberals would be requiring that, as a general rule, third parties set up an individual bank account that accepts only contributions from individual Canadians. If that infringes upon—

Mr. Speaker, what we had proposed was simply to remove the exception and simply to require that all third parties be required to set up an individual bank account and that they only be able to receive contributions from individual Canadians. We believe that would be charter-compliant and that it would, to the greatest extent possible, close loopholes around foreign funding and foreign influence through third parties.

Mr. Speaker, I agree. There are many measures in this bill that we support, that we have long called for. We have worked with the government, getting it through second reading stage, over to the procedure and House affairs committee. We brought forward some amendments where I think there was a missed opportunity, however. There was an opportunity to fully close well-identified loopholes with respect to foreign funding to third parties. That is something that is unacceptable that needs to be corrected. Those loopholes do need to be closed.

Mr. Speaker, that was an important question. The member does raise a good point, insofar as the bill would prohibit someone from signing more than one nomination form. There are arguments counter to that amendment in the bill. However, I would argue that on balance it is a reasonable amendment to the Canada Elections Act, preventing the longest ballot committee and other such bad actors from engaging in such activities in the future. The objective or the purpose of the act is that a candidate must have the endorsement or support of 100 electors, not for 100 electors to flood the ballot with an endless list of candidates. I think, given what we have seen, in terms of the disruption to our elections, this is a reasonable amendment. As for informing electors who might be inclined to sign more than one nomination form, there are measures that can be taken and that I believe Elections Canada will undertake, such as providing on the nomination form a reminder that an individual can only sign one candidate's nomination form.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas. I rise in strong support of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to stop the payment of 20 million tax dollars that would otherwise flow to Maritime Launch Services, pursuant to the government's main estimates. These 20 million tax dollars are part of the 10-year, $200-million lease the Liberals entered into with Maritime Launch Services to lease land that consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. “Do not worry,” say the Liberals. “It is not just any gravel parking lot. It is not just any concrete slab. It is the site of Canada's new sovereign spaceport.” Needless to say, there are all sorts of questions surrounding this $200-million lease. They are questions that the Liberals have refused to be transparent about. In fact, the Liberals, at virtually every turn, have obstructed and refused to answer the most basic of questions. It is not only that. They have hidden the lease from Canadians. They do not want Canadians to know where 200 million tax dollars are going. What sorts of questions are there in relation to this $200-million lease? To begin with, the government could acquire land for the site of the spaceport in the Canso area for approximately $2.5 million, but instead, the government is leasing land for $20 million a year at a cost of 200 million tax dollars over the span of 10 years. How does that make sense? For Maritime Launch Services, it is a pretty good deal. Guess why. It does not own the land. It leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year and then flips it to Ottawa at a 1,300% profit. It must be nice to be Maritime Launch Services. It is not so nice for everyday taxpayers. One might say Maritime Launch Services brings a certain level of sophistication and a certain level of expertise in developing Canada's supposedly first sovereign spaceport, but then the question becomes, “What is Maritime Launch Services?” It turns out that Maritime Launch Services is nothing more than a two-bit, six-person company. Despite its name, Maritime Launch Services does not have a history of launching much of anything. It has been in business for 10 years now and it has launched precisely nothing, zilch, into space. To be kind to Maritime Launch Services, in the span of two years, it has had two suborbital rocket launches, one of which was a model rocket from York University's model rocket club. Again, it was a model rocket from a university's model rocket club. This is the company the Liberals are entrusting to develop Canada's first sovereign spaceport. They have to be kidding. The chair of the board is Sasha Jacob. He has a history, and it is not a pretty history, of securities infractions. Indeed, he has the dubious distinction of being fined $100,000 for securities infractions and securities irregularities. That is not good, to say the least. It begs the question: Why are the Liberals doing business with and handing $200 million to a company whose chair was fined $100,000 for securities infractions? Given that the scope of the business of Maritime Launch Services involves collaborating with university model rocket clubs, it is no surprise, perhaps, that Maritime Launch Services has not exactly been the most successful company and not the most successful business. In fact, their 2025 financial statements report a massive loss of $47 million and revenue under $15,000. In fact, the independent auditor's report stated that “material uncertainty [exists] that may cast significant doubt as to whether the Company will have the ability to continue as a going concern.” In other words, Maritime Launch Services was on the verge of bankruptcy, that is, until the Liberals bailed it out with this sweetheart $200-million 10-year lease on land that Maritime Launch Services does not even own. It really begs the question: How is it possible that a company that has six employees, that has not launched anything into space, that has a chair of the board with securities infractions and that was on the verge of bankruptcy managed to land a $200-million lease with the federal government on land that they do not even own and which consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot? The answer to that, of course, with the Liberals, is that Maritime Launch Services is comfortably associated with none other than Liberal insiders. The chair of the board who I referenced, Mr. Jacob, is associated with major Liberal insider Gerald Butts. There is then Stephen McNeil, the former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, who conveniently sits on the advisory board of Maritime Launch Services. There is the chief lobbyist for Maritime Launch Services, who is none other than a former senior staffer to the Minister of Justice, whose riding happens to be situated next to the launch site. Perhaps that explains how Maritime Launch Services got this sweetheart lease. The lease is not about developing Canada's first sovereign spaceport. It is about Liberal insiders getting rich while taxpayers foot the bill. That is precisely what has happened up until now. I say that because another question is that the subject lease, even though it was entered into on April 1 of this year, was backdated to April 1, 2025. Why was the lease backdated to 2025? The effect of backdating was for the Liberals to then immediately funnel $20 million to Maritime Launch Services, to bail out the nearly bankrupt company. Guess what happened? The chair of the board, Mr. Jacob, immediately turned around and sold $3 million of previously worthless shares, pocketing a cool $1.8 million. It must be nice to be Mr. Jacob. It must be nice to be a Liberal insider. It sounds like one big pump and dump scheme to me. Given the questions and the cloud that hangs over Maritime Launch Services, and the Liberals' complete lack of transparency, it is important that $20 million of hard-earned tax dollars do not go to Maritime Launch Services until those basic questions are answered and the air—

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what has happened since the lease was entered into. There has been no rocket launch and no construction. All there is is a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. However, someone got rich, and it happens to be Mr. Jacob, who sold three million shares, walking away with $1.8 million. Why did the Liberals not, for example, insist upon a lock-up agreement, which would be the standard practice, instead of allowing the chair of a nearly bankrupt company to walk away with $1.8 million?

Mr. Speaker, I understand the issue the member has raised. It underscores what a debacle and poorly thought-out policy the carbon tax was from start to finish that the Liberal government kept in place for years, which Conservatives called on it to abolish. Of course, it technically has scrapped the consumer carbon tax, but has maintained a hidden industrial carbon tax that is increasing the cost of everything. Therefore, yes, I agree that it underscores total Liberal incompetence and mismanagement.

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals say that it is an investment, it is indeed an investment. It is an investment in Liberal insiders, and Mr. Jacob made off like a bandit in a matter of weeks upon the Liberals entering this lease. Why Maritime Launch Services? That is the central question. Only the Liberals could manage to spend $20 million a year on land that is already owned by taxpayers, but that is what we have with this lease. There is a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there usually is fire. Instead of providing answers and clarity, we have seen nothing but obfuscation. That is why the amendment brought forward by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes is necessary, to put a halt on directing more taxpayer dollars to this questionable company until those questions are answered.

Madam Speaker, despite today's headline numbers, Canada is in a recession. The Prime Minister promised the strongest economy in the G7. Instead, he has delivered the only shrinking economy not only in the G7, but also across the entire G20. That is three out of four quarters of negative growth. Will the Liberals simply acknowledge that Canada's economy is weaker after one year of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker, in so many respects, the bill is not as advertised. The Liberals have advertised the bill as one of restoring mandatory minimum penalties, but one of the things the Liberals have not restored is the mandatory minimum penalties that they removed from the Criminal Code, including with respect to serious firearms offences, like robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with the intent to injure, extortion with a firearm and weapons trafficking, among other serious firearms offences. Would the member agree that the Liberals missed an opportunity to reinsert those mandatory minimum penalties? It is consistent with their soft-on-crime approach. This government has the dubious distinction of being the only government to remove mandatory minimums from the Criminal Code.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Bill C-16 because it is legislation that would completely eviscerate mandatory minimum penalties, virtually every one on the books, other than murder and treason. The bill would eviscerate them with a so-called safety valve that would give judges wide ambit to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum penalty set by Parliament, regard for Parliament's judgment that certain offences are sufficiently serious to impose a minimum sentencing floor, and regard for long-standing sentencing principles, including denunciation, blameworthiness and so on. It would give them the ability to instead apply a lesser sentence. The Minister of Justice will claim that this is about saving mandatory minimum penalties in the face of certain recent jurisprudence. He has a point up to a certain point, which is that, yes, there has been some recent jurisprudence in which the courts have been more ready to strike down mandatory minimum penalties due to an expansive application of the reasonable hypotheticals doctrine following the Nur decision of 2015. In that decision, the court lowered the threshold in which the reasonable hypotheticals doctrine could be applied, to include hypotheticals that are not merely remote or far-fetched. What that has led to in some cases is the courts' applying reasonable hypotheticals that are in fact remote, far-fetched and unreasonable. One clear example of that was the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. It was a divided, five-four, decision, but the majority, in its infinite wisdom, struck down the mandatory minimum penalty for the possession of child pornography. The facts in the Senneville case were grotesque. It involved two offenders: violent, sadistic sexual predators who had in their possession hundreds of images of child sexual abuse and torture. The court applied a completely remote hypothetical, that of a 17-year-old boy who received a sexually explicit image from his 17-year-old girlfriend, which he then passed on to his 18-year-old friend. It is a completely remote hypothetical, but the court said that because it hypothetically could apply, the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment and violated section 12 of the charter, no matter how far removed that hypothetical was from reality and from the facts in the case. In the face of a decision that constitutes, frankly, naked judicial activism, the only appropriate course of action for the government to take is to use the constitutional tool it has at its disposal, which is to invoke the notwithstanding clause to reassert parliamentary supremacy and Parliament's law-making powers, but the Liberals did not do that. Instead, they accepted the Senneville decision. Not only did they accept the Senneville decision, but they used the Senneville decision as a pretext to bring the so-called safety valve, which is an escape valve, into the bill. What about the Nur decision and the cases that have followed? I say that, yes, it is an issue, but this is not the solution. The solution, when faced with decisions such as Senneville and Bissonnette, I restate, is to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Seeing that the Liberals have absolutely no appetite to ever invoke the notwithstanding clause, there is another path, which is to introduce legislation to bring in new mandatory minimum penalties that would clarify and narrow the application of the offence as the mandatory minimum would apply to. However, that would take hard work, and the Liberals have not availed themselves of doing that. Instead what they offer is the broad escape valve. The Liberals have characterized it as a modest safeguard. They have claimed that it would, in effect, apply only in exceptional circumstances. If that is the case, if it is not about totally eviscerating mandatory minimum penalties, which the Liberals are on the record as consistently opposing, by the way, over the past 10 years, then at the very least what is required is reasonable guardrails. Guardrails are completely missing from the legislation. There is no direction to the courts, no exceptional circumstances clause, no direction on how Parliament would demand or assert that the courts apply mandatory minimum penalties, and no direction with respect to the circumstances in which the escape valve could be used. Conservatives brought forward at the justice committee multiple amendments to provide guardrails, including a guardrail that could apply only when the accused does not have a prior criminal record, a guardrail that the mandatory minimum penalty could be cut only by half, a guardrail that the escape valve would not apply in cases of child sexual offences, and a guardrail that the crime not include weapons trafficking, armed extortion or aggravated sexual assault. The Liberals voted against all those guardrails. If in fact this is a modest safeguard and would apply only in exceptional cases and circumstances, then why is it that the Liberals were so reticent to define what those exceptional circumstances would be? Could it be because this is the same Liberal government that has the dubious record of being the only government in Canadian history to bring in legislation, Bill C-5, that repealed mandatory minimum penalties, by choice, involving serious crimes, including serious gun crimes and drug offences? I am not talking about minor possession; I am talking about trafficking and producing schedule I drugs, such as fentanyl, that have killed tens of thousands of Canadians over the past 10 years. Could that be the reason why they were so reticent, so opposed to defining safeguards or guardrails around the escape valve? Could it be that the bill is not as advertised but that, despite the protestations of the Minister of Justice that it is about saving mandatory minimum penalties, the true intent of the bill is to eviscerate them? Make no mistake about it; mandatory minimum penalties would be eviscerated. They would have no meaning. The floodgates of litigation would be opened. It begs the question, what good are mandatory minimum penalties if they can be disregarded on an ad hoc basis? For that reason, I and my Conservative colleagues cannot support this soft-on-crime bill from the soft-on-crime Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, the solution is not to impose a blanket escape valve and leave it to judges to, at their discretion, disregard or bypass what Parliament has judged to be a minimum sentencing floor related to the seriousness of the offence. That is what the Liberals have done. The Liberals have completely surrendered Parliament's law-making power as it relates to mandatory minimum penalties. They had many options, including the notwithstanding clause and including bringing in new mandatory minimums. At the very least, as we said, if the Liberals are insistent upon an escape valve, then there needs to be robust safeguards. We brought forward robust safeguards. They voted them down every step of the way at committee.

Mr. Speaker, extortion has increased significantly. I believe extortion is up more than 80%. The member is quite right that the Liberals removed mandatory minimum sentences for serious offences including armed extortion, robbery with a firearm and weapons trafficking. It was not because the courts instructed the government to do so or because they were found to be unconstitutional but because the Liberals ideologically opposed mandatory minimum penalties. Over these past 10 years, they have a record of being soft on crime time and time again, and this bill is another example of it.

In short, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. For example, there was an opportunity to fix section 810 orders at committee. I believe there were amendments brought forward that would have done that. What did the Liberals do? They voted against those amendments, just like they voted against every amendment to put in place robust guardrails around this escape valve with respect to mandatory minimum penalties.

Mr. Speaker, Liberals on the ethics committee are blocking transparency around the Prime Minister's ethics screen. The screen was mandated by the Ethics Commissioner because of the Prime Minister's vast conflicts. Canadians deserve to know how the screen is working, including instances in which potential conflicts are flagged but the Prime Minister's advisers decide against activating the screen. It is precisely those records that the Liberals are hiding from Canadians. The question is why. Is it because those records would show that the Prime Minister is involved in making decisions on matters in which he has a conflict of interest? Enough of the stonewalling. The Prime Minister needs to come clean, and he needs to come clean today by releasing all records related to the application of his ethics screen.

Mr. Chair, the answer is zero. They have zero track record of launching anything into space. The Liberals are paying Maritime Launch Services $20 million a year to lease land that Maritime Launch Services does not even own, which they are leasing from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $14,000 a year. They are then flipping it to the federal government, earning a 1,300% profit. Is that value for money, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal's PrescribeIT program has been a total debacle, costing taxpayers $300 million for a program that effectively no one used and that the government has since been forced to cancel. We have learned that the CEO of the program was being paid $1 million a year, including pocketing a $215,000 bonus. This happened under the health minister's watch. Will she accept responsibility for this latest outrageous abuse of taxpayer dollars?

Mr. Speaker, the previous government is the same old Liberal government, and the buck stops with the minister. However, the minister has admitted that she asked no questions as 300 million tax dollars went up in smoke. In addition to the CEO, several other executives were paid handsomely and walked away with $60,000- and $70,000-bonuses. Who else got rich while taxpayers got hosed as the minister was asleep at the switch?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals refuse to come clean about 200 million tax dollars that they handed a six-person company of Liberal insiders to lease a so-called spaceport that is really nothing more than a gravel pit. That was 200 million tax dollars to a company that does not even own the land and that leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $20,000 a year. If taxpayers are not being ripped off, then why will the Liberals not release all of the documents surrounding this shady lease?

Mr. Speaker, there is more. The company's 2025 financial statements recorded a comprehensive loss of $47 million, and revenue of under $15,000. In other words, the company was nearly bankrupt until the Liberals came to their rescue and handed them 200 million tax dollars to lease land that taxpayers already own. Is the reason the Liberals will not release the documents not that it is just one big scam in which Liberal insiders are getting rich?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' costly budget demonstrates once again that the Prime Minister's rhetoric does not match reality. The Prime Minister promised to spend less. It turns out that he is spending more, way more than Justin Trudeau. In only one year, the Prime Minister has managed to double Trudeau's deficit, and now the Liberals are on track to rack up a record $1 trillion of new debt. It begs the question. For all of the spending and all of the debt, what do the Liberals have to show for it? The answer is record food inflation, record housing costs, terrible productivity and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric, he is more of the same. He is just another costly Liberal.

Mr. Speaker, the ethics committee has issued a report calling on the Prime Minister to divest himself from Brookfield. Now, the Prime Minister has set up a blind trust, but the problem is that it is not truly blind, because the Prime Minister stands to make millions from stock options and future bonus pay from an investment fund that he personally set up while he was at Brookfield. Will the Prime Minister finally do the right thing and divest himself from Brookfield, or is he going to defy the direction of the ethics committee?

Mr. Speaker, only the Liberals could spend 200 million tax dollars to rent land already owned by taxpayers, but then again, the former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia serves on the advisory board to the company, and the lobbyist for the project is none other than a former staffer to the Liberal Minister of Justice. Is this not just another case of Liberal insiders getting rich while taxpayers get ripped off?

Mr. Speaker, at first blush, someone might dismiss this bill as merely symbolic, but I could not more strongly disagree with such a sentiment, because there are very real knowledge gaps amongst Canadians with respect to the important role that juries play in the administration of justice, as well as the significant and unique challenges faced by jurors and former jurors. Can the member speak to the issue of the knowledge gap and how dedicating a week of appreciation will help close it?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill S-226, legislation to establish national jury duty appreciation week. Trial by jury is a cornerstone of justice in a free and democratic society. Trial by jury is a profound expression of equality before the law, to be judged by one's peers, 12 fellow citizens. In so doing, juries play an integral role in upholding the right to a fair trial. As Lord Devlin famously said, trial by jury is “the lamp that shows that freedom lives”. The Law Commission of Canada, in its 1980 report on juries, highlighted the important role juries play in the administration of justice and in safeguarding the right to a fair trial. In that regard, the commission noted that juries tackle trials anew, free from the biases and predispositions that judges may acquire after presiding over similar cases over many years. Also, importantly, juries are not in court when applications to exclude evidence are brought forward. As a result, juries are not tainted by such evidence and the consequent real or perceived bias. There is something to be said about 12 citizens listening to a trial, being sequestered, deliberating on the evidence, challenging each other's views and reaching a collective judgment. That process gives weight and confidence to trial outcomes. For all of these reasons and more, juries perform a vital role in the administration of justice in Canada. Indeed, the right to a trial by jury is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for serious criminal matters and serious quasi-criminal matters. While juries play a vital role in the administration of justice, serving on a jury often comes at a significant personal cost. When someone is called to sit on a jury, they have their work-life balance disrupted. They often have to leave their place of work for sometimes days, sometimes weeks or sometimes months. Jury duty disrupts family and social life, all for very little remuneration. As well, there is no training. There is nothing that can fully prepare someone for discharging the responsibilities that are entrusted to jurors and that are performed every day with the very significant responsibilities that come with that. Given that there is a right to trial by jury for serious criminal matters, jurors often go through very difficult trials, where they are exposed to horrific evidence in many cases. In the face of such evidence, jurors cannot look away. They cannot close their eyes or cover their ears. They must take in the evidence. They must process the evidence and they must then, at the conclusion of a trial, be sequestered and go through the evidence. It is a stressful process. The stakes are high. After all, what could be a weightier decision than judging whether the accused in the most serious of criminal cases could spend the rest of his or her life behind bars? That is precisely what is expected of jurors. I have to say that even though I practised law before I was elected to this place, I did not practice criminal law, and I had not really given much consideration to some of these issues and challenges. It was not until 2017, when I sat on the justice committee, that the committee undertook the first study of its kind on juror supports. During the course of that study, many former jurors testified and told their stories about how jury service had impacted them, how it had changed their lives, former jurors like Mark Farrant and like Tina Daenzer, who served as juror number one in the Paul Bernardo trial. Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer still suffer from mental health issues as a result of what they went through in very difficult trials, and they are, of course, not alone. Thousands of jurors experience mental health and other issues. One of the things we heard in the course of that study is that an impediment, in terms of jurors getting the help they need, is the jury secrecy rule. Pursuant to the jury secrecy rule, it is a criminal offence to disclose any aspect of the jury deliberation process, which, by the way, is often the most stressful aspect of jury service, to anyone, for life, even a medical professional. That begged the question, how can a former juror suffering from mental health issues get better and get the help they need when they cannot even discuss what is the core of their injury with a medical professional? That is why, in the unanimous report of the justice committee, it was recommended that a carve-out, an exception, be made to the jury secrecy rule. Following the issuance of the report, I worked with Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer and brought forward a private member's bill to do just that, to carve out an exception whereby former jurors who are suffering from mental health issues arising from their jury service can disclose all aspects of that service to a medical professional bound by confidentiality, thereby respecting the integrity of the jury secrecy rule while seeing that former jurors can get the help and support that they need and that they deserve. Despite unanimous support at all stages, it took four bills in three different parliaments. I want to acknowledge the advocacy of Mark Farrant and Tina Daenzer, as well as Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu for carrying that bill forward in the other place. That private member's bill, and how it came about, underscores why national jury duty appreciation week is needed. There are significant knowledge gaps. Dedicating such a week to jurors and their role would help Canadians better understand the vital role that they play in the administration of justice, as well as some of the challenges that they face. Mark Farrant said, quite appropriately, that jury service is the last mandatory form of civic duty in Canada. Each year, thousands of Canadians step up to perform that civic duty. It is time that we recognize these men and women for their contributions to our justice system with a week of appreciation.