Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, Todd Baylis, a Toronto police constable, was tragically shot and killed in the line of duty, and now Mr. Baylis's family has to attend multiple parole hearings for his killer. Victims' families should not be forced to relive their most traumatic moments just to keep these vile criminals behind bars where they belong. Conservative Bill C-243 would have extended the time between parole hearings, something the Liberals promised the Toronto Police Association they would do. They broke that promise and voted down Bill C-243 last March. Even more alarming is that in January of next year, one of Canada's most vicious and disgusting criminals, Paul Bernardo, is up for parole. The victims' families should not have to relive that. The Liberals chose the rights of criminals. Conservatives will always side with the rights of victims.

Mr. Speaker, for years Conservatives have been calling on the Liberal government to provide meaningful relief to Canadians. We have raised concerns about the rising costs of gas, transportation and groceries, and have warned of the pressure facing families, workers, seniors and small businesses. Today, the government is extending a fuel tax relief measure that it originally said would be temporary. Why is that? It is because the economic reality has proven Conservatives right. Gas taxes matter. The price Canadians pay at the pump matters. When the government adds taxes to fuel, those costs spread throughout our entire economy. Gas is not a luxury for most Canadians. It is an unavoidable expense. People need to get to work. Parents need to take their children to school, medical appointments and sports, and seniors rely on transportation to buy groceries and attend appointments. Businesses need fuel to move products and serve their customers. The truck driver delivering goods across the country feels the increase, as does the farmer operating machinery, the construction worker driving to a job site and the small business paying for deliveries, which ultimately results in Canadians paying more at the grocery store. Every added expense along the supply chain is passed down to families buying food, clothing and other everyday essentials. That is why Conservatives fought the Liberal government's proposed increases to fuel taxes. After months of Conservative pressure, the Liberals have now been forced to delay that increase until early next year. I will say, any relief for working Canadians is welcome, but let us be clear, this is not the result of a government that suddenly understands affordability. It is the result of Canadians speaking out and Conservatives refusing to back down. The government's own announcement recognizes that truckers, farmers, home builders, construction workers and delivery companies benefit from fuel tax relief. Liberals previously argued that the fuel taxes had little impact on affordability. Now, by extending this relief, they are admitting that lower fuel taxes reduce costs throughout our economy. If suspending the tax helps Canadians today, then keeping fuel taxes low should be a priority. This short extension is another Liberal half measure. It does not provide the long-term relief that Canadians need. Gas prices have risen by 25.7%, energy costs have increased by 16.6% and transportation costs have climbed by 7.8%, while grocery prices have risen by another 3.1%. These are not just numbers. They determine whether a parent can afford to drive to work, whether a senior can pay the rent and still buy groceries, or whether a small business can continue employing local workers. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, I hear these stories every day. Neil is a 63-year-old resident who came to my office looking for help because he was struggling to pay his rent. As we looked through the programs that were supposed to be available to him, he learned that he did not qualify for many of them. Neil began tearing up in my office. Now at 63 years old, he is looking for a second job just to keep a roof over his head. That should alarm every single member in the House. A Canadian who has worked hard and contributed through his life should not have to take a second job at 63 simply to survive. Our seniors should not be returning to the workforce because they cannot afford rent, groceries and transportation. Here is the reality for too many Canadians: higher taxes, raising prices, unaffordable rent, growing debt and less hope that the next month will be any easier. The Liberals would have Canadians believe that this is normal. The government needs to stop telling Canadians how well they are doing and start listening when they say they are falling behind. Canadians understand something that Liberals have ignored for far too long, which is that taxing fuel makes life more expensive. That is why the Conservatives are calling on the government to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel. That means removing the 7¢ per litre imposed by the clean fuel regulations, taking the GST off fuel and permanently cancelling the industrial carbon tax. Together, these measures could save Canadians up to 25¢ per litre and as much as $1,000 per year for the average family. That would be real relief, not another temporary pause or announcement designed to get the government through the next few months. Canadians need lower prices that they can actually see when they fill their tank, buy groceries and pay their monthly bills. Across the country, people are skipping meals, relying on food banks, putting the cost of groceries on credit cards and working multiple jobs just to stay afloat. At the same time, the Liberal government has recorded almost $26 billion in foreign aid spending over the last two years. That includes about $460 million to Ethiopia, $340 million to Haiti, $312 million to Bangladesh, $306 million to the Democratic Republic of Congo, $275 million to Mozambique, $265 million to Tanzania and $238 million to South Africa. In times like this, every dollar must be tied to measurable results and spent in Canadians' national interest. That standard has not always been met. The Auditor General previously found that Global Affairs Canada could not properly show whether $3.5 billion in foreign aid spending under its feminist international assistance policy was actually improving conditions for women and girls. That is not accountability. We need to stop sending our taxpayer dollars overseas. We should cut the gas tax instead. We are the Canadian government. We should be looking out for Canadians. Canadians deserve to know where their money is going, how it is being used and what results it is producing. Instead of increasing costs for families buying groceries, it should eliminate wasteful spending and bring those savings home. It should also take a serious look at its priorities before telling struggling Canadians that there is no money available to help them. Canadians should not have to choose between filling their vehicle and putting food on the table. Seniors should not have to choose between paying rent and buying medication. Parents should not have to tell their children that they cannot attend hockey practice because the cost of driving has become too high. Small business owners should not have to lay off workers because taxes and transportation expenses have destroyed their bottom line. Canada is a strong and generous country, but a government cannot continue trying to help everyone everywhere while ignoring the people struggling here at home. The Liberals' decision to delay their fuel tax increase proves that Conservative pressure works. It confirms that fuel taxes contribute to higher prices and that relief is possible when the government is finally forced to listen. However, Canadians need more than a temporary extension. They need a government that respects how hard they work for every dollar, controls its spending, lowers taxes and puts their needs first. Conservatives are proud that our pressure helped secure this relief, but our work is not finished. We will keep fighting to remove federal taxes from gas and diesel; lower the cost of food, transportation and housing; and defend seniors such as Neil who deserve dignity and security after a lifetime of hard work. Canadians have carried the burden of the current government's costly policies long enough. It is time for lower taxes and bringing down the cost of living for Canadians first. The first responsibility of the Government of Canada must be to the people of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the member raises some very good points. The Liberals did break their election promise, but they have also broken a lot of other promises. We were supposed to get a deal in July. Going back to her question, I agree with her. I agree that Canadian money should stay in Canada, but what can I say? The Prime Minister holds about 93% of his stock assets in U.S. companies, so why do we think he would do anything different?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question. He also fights very hard for his community. What should we be doing? There is a lot, but we need to start with getting rid of the fuel tax. It is the one thing that Canadians can feel right away. I would propose, although this is not the forum for it, our Conservative economic plan. We have identified $150 billion in savings that Canadians can benefit from. We are starting here, but we have proposed a plan that I hope my colleagues on the other side will at least take a look at. We are in a trade war; make no mistake about that. The President has put unjustified tariffs on us, and we have to fight against that. In order to do that, we have to look at Canadians first. We need to keep money in Canada. We need to look at wasteful spending, of which we have identified 150 billion dollars' worth, come together and work on that for the sake of Canadians and for the sake of moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back in Ottawa, where we get to bring the concerns of our communities back to Parliament. One thing is clear after hearing from all the good people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek this summer: The Liberal government is not hearing them. I heard from Annie, a senior who relies on CPP, OAS and food banks to get by. It is because of the cost of living crisis that she does not know if she will be able to pay her rent or bills. After 11 years of Liberal policies, this is a new reality that many Canadians face. However, there is hope. The Conservatives have identified over $150 billion in savings, nearly $10,000 per family, by cutting wasteful consultants, corporate welfare, foreign aid, handouts to fake asylum claimants, and massive money-losing projects like Alto rail. It is time that the wasteful Liberal government started listening to Canadians and started working with Conservatives to make real, lasting changes that will bring affordability back to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this House today to speak to legislation that would help restore Canadians' confidence in our criminal justice system and the institutions responsible for keeping our communities safe. My colleague from Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake introduced Bill C-232 after hearing directly from the loved ones of victims who were stunned and outraged by a phone call they received from the Correctional Service of Canada, which informed them that Paul Bernardo, a convicted serial killer and rapist, was being transferred from a maximum-security institution in Ontario to a medium-security institution in Quebec. Like many Canadians, they could not understand how such a decision could be made. They felt betrayed by a system that seemed to place the interests of dangerous offenders ahead of the rights, concerns and dignity of the victims and their families. The legislation is about accountability, transparency and ensuring that victims are never treated as an afterthought. Canadians deserve to have the confidence that our justice system puts public safety first and respects those who have suffered the most at the hands of violent criminals. The decision to move Paul Bernardo from a maximum-security institution to a medium-security institution not only left the country shocked, but revictimized the victims' families, friends and communities. As a member of Parliament from the Niagara area, or my riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, specifically, which is close to the member's riding and the GTA, this bill hits home. I am sure it does for many around the GTA. The lasting memories of the atrocities Paul Bernardo committed are still felt around our region. That is why we have introduced Bill C-232. It is to fix a problem that should never have existed in the first place. Canadians expect that the country's most dangerous criminals, who have committed horrific acts and been designated by the courts as dangerous offenders, are to remain in maximum-security institutions, yet under the current system, offenders such as Paul Bernardo have been permitted to move from a maximum-security institution to a less restrictive one. That is not what victims' families expect. It is not what Canadians expect. This bill would ensure that dangerous offenders and mass murderers remain where they belong: in maximum-security prisons. It would require that all of these offenders be permanently classified as maximum security and housed accordingly. The bill would also reverse the Liberals' so-called “least restrictive environment” standard that was introduced in Bill C-83 in 2018. The Liberals' soft-on-crime policies have shifted the focus away from public safety and victims and toward the interests of offenders. It is time to put public safety and victims at the top of the priority list again. Canadians want a justice system that puts public safety first and respects victims and their families, and they want common-sense rules that ensure that the worst offenders face consequences reflecting the severity of their crimes. That is exactly what Bill C-232 seeks to accomplish. In addition to reversing the Liberals' weak policies, Bill C-232 would restore a more balanced and common-sense approach to corrections by bringing back the principle of “only the necessary restrictions” that was established by the previous Conservative government through the Safe Streets and Communities Act of 2012. That legislation recognized the simple but important reality that the primary responsibility of our correctional system is to protect the public, maintain safety and security and ensure that offenders are held appropriately accountable for their actions. One would think that is a common-sense statement, but the Liberal government has been moving further and further away from that since it introduced Bill C-83 in 2018, which placed greater emphasis on providing offenders with the least restrictive conditions possible. Bill C-232 would help restore the balance that Canadians expect, put public safety back at the centre of correctional decision-making and ensure that the rights of victims and the concerns of Canadians are not overshadowed by the interests of violent offenders. This bill has found support across the board from both the police and victim advocates. Marcia Penner, the victim's rights advocate and friend of Kristen French, one of Paul Bernardo's victims, said: As someone whose life has been forever impacted by violent crime, I know first-hand that victims and their families carry the consequences of these horrific acts every day. Canadians expect the most dangerous offenders to remain in maximum-security institutions, and Bill C-232 helps restore that common-sense principle while respecting the voices of victims. Chief of Police Bill Fordy, of the Niagara Regional Police Service, said: Community safety is strengthened when we continue to have thoughtful conversations about how our justice system responds to serious and repeat offenders. Police officers see every day the impact violent crime can have on victims and our entire community, which is why these discussions matter. Our focus remains on protecting the public while supporting victims and maintaining confidence in the justice system. Enough is enough. For too long, victims' families have felt ignored by a system that seems more concerned with the rights of offenders than with the pain left behind by their crimes. Every time a dangerous offender is rewarded with a transfer to a less restrictive institution, victims' families are forced to relive the worst moments of their lives. They are reminded that their loved ones will never come home, while the person responsible continues to receive privileges and consideration from the very system that failed them. This is not justice. Canadians understand that individuals like Paul Bernardo committed crimes so horrific that they forever changed the lives of countless families. Those families deserve to know that the people responsible will remain in maximum-security custody, where they belong. I stand here today because I promised the families in my community that I would do everything in my power to make it safer. I promised them that their voices would be heard in this chamber. Bill C‑232 is about restoring faith in our institutions. putting public safety first and ensuring that victims and their families are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. I ask all members of the House to join me in supporting this legislation. Together, we can send the clear message that victims matter and public safety matters, and some crimes are so horrific that the offenders responsible should never be rewarded with less restrictive conditions. Most importantly, we can honour the memories of those whose lives were taken far too soon and stand with the families who continue to carry that loss every single day.

Mr. Speaker, what a theatrical performance and what a great piece of gaslighting by the Liberals, but I do have some facts here. It is because of that actual member's voting on Bill C-75 that Daniel Senecal was out on bail in Welland for a horrific crime. Most of those members voted for that. That is the actual result of bad Liberal policy that they voted on with Bill C-75 and Bill C-5. Now he is going to stand here and gaslight us. Here is another thing that is an actual fact: All those members over there voted against Bill C-381, which would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion; Bill C-220, which would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences; and Bill C-246. They voted against all that just a couple of months ago. It is a great piece of gaslighting—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for sharing her time. Before I get into Bill C-16, I would like to acknowledge that last weekend the great people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek commemorated the 213th anniversary of the Battle of Stoney Creek, one of the most important victories in Canadian history. In June 1813, a determined force of British soldiers, local militia and loyal settlers faced a much larger American army and won in what served as the Stalingrad of the War of 1812. Their courage helped turn the tide in the defence of Upper Canada and demonstrated that the people of this land would not be intimidated by a larger neighbour. More than two centuries later, the Battle of Stoney Creek remains a powerful reminder of the Canadian spirit: resilient, independent and determined to stand up for our national interests. As Canadians continue to face economic uncertainty and challenges beyond our borders, the lessons of Stoney Creek remain as relevant as ever. Our strength has always come from our unity, our perseverance and our confidence in Canada. May we always honour those who defended this country and continue building a free, proud and sovereign Canada. I rise today also to speak about Bill C-16 and against a major flaw hidden inside it, specifically clause 63, the safety valve. First, it is a fact that after 11 years of Liberal government, Canadians are less safe. Violent crime is up 55%, and extortion is up 330% across Canada. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%. Sexual assaults are up almost 76%, and Canadians can see this. They see other Canadians feeling scared and threatened. They see crime becoming more common. They see repeat offenders arrested one day and back on the streets the next. In a country that used to feel safe, this is completely out of the ordinary. Canadians are desperate for change. They want to feel safe again. After all that, what is the Liberal answer? It is more of the same. The Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe he is tough on crime, but Bill C-16 proves otherwise. While Liberals are trying to sell the bill as a crackdown on criminals, buried inside is a loophole that would allow judges to bypass almost every mandatory minimum sentence left in the Criminal Code. Bill C-16 would amend the general sentencing principles that require courts to impose a sentence below a mandatory minimum, where applying the minimum would amount to a cruel and unusual punishment for the offender. This would apply to all mandatory minimum penalties currently in the Criminal Code, with the only exceptions being murder and high treason. What it actually means is that the mandatory minimums would no longer be mandatory. A custodial sentence would still be required, but the length of the imprisonment would be up to the judge's judgment. The Liberals spent the last 11 years slowly eroding the laws that are keeping Canadians safe from criminals by keeping them behind bars. Now they want judges to ignore many of the ones that remain. Hidden inside a bill called the “protecting victims act” is a proposed get-out-of-jail-free card that claims it would protect victims. That is not getting tough on crime. That is getting softer on criminals. The Liberals voted against the following Conservative bills that would have created stricter bail laws and tougher penalties for violent and repeat offenders. Bill C-381 would have restored mandatory minimums for extortion, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-220 would have prevented judges from using immigration status to reduce sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. Bill C-246 would have required criminals convicted of multiple sexual offences to serve consecutive sentences, but the Liberals voted against it. The Liberals also weakened bail laws through Bill C-75. Police chiefs, premiers, and Conservatives warned them, but the Liberals ignored everybody. What was the result? It was the principle of restraint: letting criminals out at the earliest reasonable opportunity on the least onerous conditions, a catch-and-release justice system where violent repeat offenders cycle through our courts and back into our communities. In 2022, the Liberals' Bill C-5 struck down 14 mandatory minimums, including on possession and discharging of weapons and firearms. As a direct result of these Liberal laws, there have been multiple examples of firearms smugglers, gun traffickers and violent criminals receiving no jail time for crimes that should have put them behind bars. In Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, police have repeatedly laid firearms charges against individuals who are already on probation, under release conditions or subject to firearms probation. Canadians are asking why people who have already demonstrated that they will ignore court orders continue finding themselves back with the police on new charges. Canadians are losing confidence in a justice system that seems more focused on giving offenders another chance than giving victims peace of mind. When someone is arrested for a serious firearms offence while already under a court order, Canadians do not see that as a mistake. They see a system that is failing to protect them, which the Liberals have created. Every time a violent repeat offender is released only to commit another crime, another family, business owner or community pays the price. The consequences and the fear are real, and the frustration Canadians feel is completely justified. It is no surprise that under the Liberal government, crime is increasing at alarming rates. Now the Liberals are making the same mistake again. Canadians want to feel safe. Criminals are becoming more aggressive. They are targeting businesses and using intimidation and violence. The Liberal response is a bill that could allow offenders convicted of extortion with a prohibited firearm to receive a sentence below the current mandatory minimum. That makes no sense. If someone uses a gun to terrorize a business owner, Canadians expect serious consequences, not loopholes and leniency. They certainly do not expect the Liberal government to make it easier for criminals to avoid punishment. It does not make any sense. We have a mandatory duty as elected officials to make our communities and Canada at large safer. This is not optional. Conservatives believe the justice system should stand with victims, not criminals; that mandatory minimum sentences should actually be mandatory; and that organized criminals, repeat violent offenders and sexual offenders should stay behind bars where they belong, not be treated like they are entitled to endless second chances. That is why Conservatives are calling on the government to fix this bill. The Liberals are trying to allow judges to ignore mandatory sentences for the following: aggravated sexual assault with a gun, human trafficking, multiple violent firearms offences, extortion with a firearm, weapons trafficking and drive-by shootings with a restricted, prohibited firearm. Parliament set mandatory minimums for these heinous crimes for a reason. If the Liberals allow judges to ignore mandatory minimums, there will be nothing mandatory about them, full stop. Mandatory is not optional, and that is what Conservatives are fighting for. We are happy with the positive changes in the bill. Banning deepfakes of intimate partners and bringing in mandatory reporting for child sexual abuse material would help Canadians and would keep our kids safe. Despite these changes, Bill C‑16 still fails to reverse the dangerous soft-on-crime agenda that the Liberals have spent the last 11 years enacting. Conservatives were defeated or ruled out of scope on 30 amendments that would have tightened or restored mandatory minimums for violent and serious crimes and repeat violent offenders. Those amendments would have kept our streets safer by removing the safety valve from crimes including extortion, aggravated assault and child sexual offences, and they would have kept criminals who commit these heinous acts behind bars, where they belong. The safety valve would be a dangerous clause to include in this otherwise positive bill. This is another example of Liberal half measures. We have come this far with a good bill that would protect Canadians from serious crimes, but keeping the safety valve provision would completely contradict the principles of keeping victims safe. The Liberals should simply split this provision off so that Parliament can work to make this bill better to keep victims safe.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very concerning that I am up here speaking to a bill to keep Canadians safe, a bill I have said is very positive in a sense but that has a release valve in it that would allow judges to not enact mandatory minimums, and the member does not even want to talk about it. He just wants to deflect. Let us get serious here for a second. Canadians want a safer Canada, and the sooner the Liberals realize that and work with us and look at our amendments, the sooner we can keep Canadians safe.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question, but I want to be clear. Conservatives want mandatory minimums for heinous crimes. For criminals who attack women and children, we do not want a “get out of jail free” card. We are tough on crime. That is what I believe in. It is why I was elected and why I wanted to become a politician. I wanted to make change. I also want to make sure that when criminals get to court, they get a mandatory minimum for sexually abusing children and for violence against women. We should not have a clause that would allow the judge to see otherwise. That is what Conservatives want, and if the Liberals could just work with us on this, this would be a good bill.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we can all come into the House, talk about it and feel good about ourselves, but unless we get strict on mandatory minimums, it is all for nothing. That is the real truth. If we leave a loophole in there where a judge can let criminals go, like the Supreme Court did in a child-sensitive material or child pornography case, all is lost. Mandatory minimums are needed, full stop. That is what the Conservatives believe in.

Mr. Speaker, what a weird day of events. Today we celebrated an astronaut who represents the pinnacle of the Canadian space program, and all members of the House were applauding that, as we should. However, Liberals are now trying to defend a tax boondoggle whereby a piece of land leased for $13,500 a year is being re-leased to the government for $20 million a year. My question for my colleague is this: How important is it that we get full transparency and that the government releases all the documents around this deal to show Canadians exactly what happened there?

Mr. Speaker, two of the five men accused of murdering a teenager in a terrifying Stoney Creek shooting linked to the GTA tow truck wars are refugee claimants. A source from the CBSA told the Toronto Sun that although they want to remove these individuals from Canada, they keep facing countless roadblocks. The minister does not do anything to make sure that government departments will deport non-citizens who commit serious crimes like murder. The residents of Stoney Creek and all Canadians want to know and demand to know why.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am in the House of Commons or the twilight zone. Last Thursday, the Liberal Prime Minister went around telling everyone that we have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7, but on Friday, Statistics Canada reported that our economy shrank in two consecutive quarters. We are in a recession. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Today, Liberals are blaming tariffs and global conflicts, but if that is the case, why is no other G7 country facing the same headwinds in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat to that out-of-touch Liberal, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. That member has failed Canada. The Liberals have failed Canada. Parents in Hamilton want job security, a tariff deal and paycheques that can afford groceries. The Stoney Creek Community Food Bank is serving over 120 families per week. The Food Banks Canada report card came out yesterday, and the Liberals got a D+. When will the Liberals stop gaslighting Canadians and start working for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, just the other day, while I was filling up on gas in Stoney Creek, a member of my community commented on how ridiculous these gas prices are, and I could not agree more. Gas prices are 10% higher in Canada than they are in the United States, which is costing Canadians an average of 16¢ more per litre. Canadians want relief. The Liberal finance minister says they have already acted, but they have only acted on one-third of the taxes for one-third of the year. Our Conservative plan to remove all Liberal taxes on gas and diesel would save a family of four in Hamilton $1,200 per year. If the Liberals support our Conservative motion today, we could bring real relief at the pumps. It is what Canadians want, but more importantly, it is what Canadians deserve. Canadians have been getting squeezed for way too long, and this is a great opportunity to put money back in their pockets. Let us do the right thing today and vote yes for our Conservative motion. Let us give Canadians the win they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, it is more cost, more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card, more of the same. The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal with nothing to show for his waste. Gas prices surged 28.6% in April, grocery prices were up 3.8% in April and energy prices rose 19.2%. My community is being squeezed, and they cannot pay more. Conservatives have a real plan to give Canadians relief from Liberal inflation by removing all federal fuel taxes for the year. On what day will the Liberals adopt it?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to touch a little on theory and reality. We heard my colleague across the way talk about launch capability and how it is going to create jobs and all this good stuff, but then we actually have reality. The reality is that Maritime Launch Services leased to Canada for $20 million a year a concrete pad, which is being leased for $13,000 a year. Our Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for $20 million a year. It is a dirt road with a concrete pad. The other reality is that Telesat, which got over $2 billion from Canadian taxpayers, is now running from creditors. I would like to hear comments from the member on this huge mismanagement of Canadian taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to talk about our country's weakness. The only weakness I see is his broken promise to Canadians in not getting a tariff deal. A new 25% tariff was put on the entire value of goods made with steel, aluminum and copper. This is devastating news for the thousands of workers in Stoney Creek's industrial corridor and the 2.6 million Canadians who rely on U.S. trade for their jobs. It has been one year. When will the Prime Minister stop the illusions and get the tariff deal he promised Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, here is a list of what we currently have: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance measurement framework, the modern treaties management environment office, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. We also have the Auditor General reports. How would the new commissioner solve any problems, other than by creating more reports than seven offices already generate? Here is a radical idea: Maybe the parliamentary secretary to the minister could enforce these offices doing their jobs.

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to recognize all the volunteers across Canada for National Volunteer Week. In my home riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, there are many members of my community who give hours and hours every week to make our city flow. They are the oil between the gears. Without them, kids would not play soccer. Honestly, without volunteers, I would not be here representing Hamilton East—Stoney Creek. For decades, governments have talked about reconciliation, but without accountability, those are just words. Frankly, words are not good enough. Canadians expect action. Indigenous communities deserve results, yet time and time again, what we see from the Liberal government is delay, deflection and more bureaucracy. The Liberal government's Bill C-10, which would create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, looks less like a meaningful solution and more like an attempt to paper over a decade of broken promises to indigenous peoples. We do not need another layer of bureaucracy to tell us what we already know. The Office of the Auditor General has said it. Indigenous leaders across the country have said it. All Canadians can see it for themselves. The government is failing to meet its obligation, and Canadians expect better. Now, let us take a step back and talk about what modern treaties actually are. A modern-day treaty is a comprehensive land claim agreement that is negotiated between first nations, Inuit or Métis groups and the federal government. The purpose is straightforward. It is to resolve long-standing issues around land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. These agreements can cover a wide range of areas, including land access to resources, financial compensation and governance rights. Once in place, these treaties carry the force of federal law. They can clarify or, in some cases, replace rights set out under historical treaties. Let me be clear that Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous communities who want to move beyond the outdated and restrictive Indian Act, but what we do not support is the Liberal approach of throwing more taxpayer dollars at the problem while failing to deliver real results. Creating another office in Ottawa would not fix what the government has failed at. If we want to understand the real issue here, we need to look at the government's actual track record. Let us take a look at the facts. In October 2025, the Auditor General tabled a report titled “Follow-up on Programs for First Nations”. The findings were clear and, frankly, they were deeply concerning. The auditor found that Indigenous Services Canada “had made unsatisfactory progress in implementing the actions [on] 53%...of the recommendations” made since 2015. That is 18 out of 34 recommendations, which is more than half. At the same time, the department's spending on programs increased 84% since the 2019-20 fiscal year. Let us think about that. Spending has gone up dramatically, but outcomes have not improved in a meaningful way. That should concern every single member of the House. The Auditor General has also identified several key barriers preventing progress. The first was a lack of continued attention from management, and that raises a simple question. If there is no constant leadership and focus, how can these programs succeed? The second barrier was a lack of clarity around service levels. Systems become overly complicated when they are layered with bureaucracy. It becomes harder, not easier, for communities to access the services they need. The third barrier was a lack of support to build capacity in the first nations communities, and this point is critical. If we are serious about reconciliation, we need to empower communities, not trap them in systems they cannot effectively navigate.

Mr. Speaker, after years of Conservative pressure, the Liberals have announced a watered-down version of our Conservative plan. The Liberals are only removing a third of the fuel tax for a third of the year, all while still collecting up to $10 billion more from taxpayers. I have heard from the community I represent in Hamilton, and that is not enough. Conservatives would remove the whole tax for the full year. Will the Prime Minister listen to Canadians, vote with us and bring real relief at the pumps?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister confirmed that Conservatives have the solution for Canadians, but he is delivering only a third of our plan. Liberals are keeping the GST and the clean fuel standard. It is time to cut all the tax for a full year. Our plan will cut an extra 25¢ per litre, which will save families $1,200 per year. This is what Hamilton wants. Let us make it a great day for Canadians. Will the Prime Minister vote with us and bring real relief at the pumps?

Mr. Speaker, I find it concerning that the member called our motion “unserious” when clearly it is serious enough that the Prime Minister just had a press conference on it. What I find unserious is that he took his time and, instead of talking about gas taxes and how to save Canadians money at the pumps, he just talked about housing most of the time. Does he believe that Canadians should get relief at the pumps, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives on this side have been listening to Canadians, and that is why we have brought forth the cutting of gas taxes. Today we have seen that the Prime Minister has caved to Conservatives, because we are actually listening to Canadians, but again it is not all the way. It is halfway. I would like my colleague to enlighten us on why this is so important to his riding, because I know his riding is a transportation hub as well. Can he let us know what it would mean to scrap all the gas taxes for a full year and not just halfway until Labour Day?

Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleague on the other side can advise his colleagues to stop calling us obstructionists, because today we have witnessed what a healthy opposition can do. We have held their feet to the fire. We have been calling for zero tax on gas and now the Prime Minister has actually made an announcement that he is going halfway until Labour Day. We want zero taxes for the whole year. Make no mistake, this would not have happened if Conservatives had not brought this issue forward. I would like my colleague to acknowledge that if it were not for the Conservatives, we would not be seeing relief at the pumps today.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals came out today, but I do not think they were prepared for the Prime Minister to announce that he was going to adopt Conservative policy, and so most of their debate has been on everything but cutting the gas tax. The Liberals and the Prime Minister have come halfway: half the taxes until Labour Day. My question to the member is: Why not cut all the taxes for the rest of the year and save Canadians even more money, because they have been listening, they have been emailing and they want real relief at the pumps? Why not go all the way, all the taxes for the rest of the year, and not just halfway to Labour Day?

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister caved to Conservative pressure today and announced that he will make some cuts at the pumps. That could not have happened without the hard work on this side of the aisle, but it has fallen short. Can my very good friend and colleague explain why voting tomorrow for this motion to save Canadians even more money is essential for the folks in his riding?

Mr. Speaker, what we have just heard from the other side is that there is a need for more research and more time to consult, but they have had one year to get a deal done, and they have produced zero. In that year, there have been closures and job losses. We are now stalled in talks with America. We, the Conservatives, have put forth a clear plan that calls for a tariff-free auto pact. That member just spent 10 minutes tearing it apart. I want to ask the member, are you really going against a tariff-free auto pact? Is that is what you want to tell the constituents?

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot of things in the House today in this debate, and we did not actually hear too much of what the Liberals' plan is. I have a quote, since we are speaking of quotes. The parliamentary secretary said he will continue to “wait it out”. That is a part of their plan and strategy. That does not go very well for the Hamilton auto parts sector. I would like to ask my hon. colleague to highlight some points of an actual plan that will get workers back to work.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been caught misleading Canadians. After his trip to Beijing, he claimed human rights violations and foreign interference were discussed in meetings with CCP leaders. However, the government documents I requested revealed that neither of these topics were discussed in any of the bilateral meetings. Today, the Prime Minister is trying to change his story yet again. Canadians want to know: Why can the Prime Minister not stick to his story?

Mr. Speaker, there are heroes among us today, and if it were not for them, a life would have been lost. Two days ago, a member of my office suffered a sudden medical emergency, and in those critical moments, parliamentary assistant Ellena Yazdani, Constable Maxime Patry-Lavigne, Constable Matthew Sargeson and many other members of the Parliamentary Protective Service acted immediately. Because of their courage, quick thinking and medical training, a life was saved. I am happy to report he is doing very well. In the hospital, the doctor told me that if there had not been a defibrillator on site, a tragedy would have occurred. I would like to also thank my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac for his endless work in advocating for access to defibrillators. We need more defibrillators in public spaces. Simply put, they save lives. I ask all members of the House to join me in recognizing and thanking the PPS, police, emergency services and the heroes we have here today.

Mr. Speaker, just last week almost 300 people came out to a Bill C-9 religious freedoms town hall, and in the last half an hour, I have had a flood of emails. Shutting down debate in committee goes against everything that these people want from their members of Parliament. I would like to ask a question of my fellow member. We hear a lot of talk from the other side that we are obstructionists and that we are doing this and doing that. They have done today exactly what they said we are doing. In my mind, the opposition is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy, and I would like the member to comment on the actions taken today. Are they demonstrating a healthy democracy?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-20, legislation that would transform Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation and expand yet another layer of federal bureaucracy in the housing file. At a time when Canadians are facing the worst housing affordability crisis in a generation, what they need is action that lowers costs and unleashes supply. What this bill offers instead is more bureaucracy expanding its administrative authority, and $13 billion in new spending without a credible plan to actually build the homes that Canada was promised. That could not have been more evident than in the speech from the member across, in which he spent 10 minutes calling us “far right” and slandering us. I am a little more dumbfounded now than I was before I walked in, but hopefully we will get some answers. Let us be clear that what Bill C-20 does is that it converts Build Canada Homes, which exists as a special operating agency, into a full Crown corporation. It establishes a corporate structure, a board and expanded powers, and folds the Canada Lands Company into its portfolio. It grants this new entity the power to provide advice to ministers, departments, agencies and other Crown corporations. However, Canadians are not short on advice; they are short on homes. During the 2025 election campaign, the Liberal government promised that Build Canada Homes would fulfill three core functions: first, building affordable housing at scale; second, catalyzing a new housing industry; and third, providing financing to affordable home builders. Those are lofty promises, and we must measure legislation not by theory but by its results and evidence. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has reviewed this initiative. What did the PBO conclude? The Liberals promised 500,000 homes per year, half a million homes annually, yet the PBO reported that there is no plan to achieve that goal and that Build Canada Homes would build approximately 5,200 homes per year. These 5,000 homes will not restore affordability in this country, which needs hundreds of thousands more units annually just to keep pace with demand. What will this cost Canadians? Bill C-20 represents $13 billion over five years, $11.5 billion for Build Canada Homes and $1.5 billion for the Canada Lands Company transfer, yet after spending $219 million just on bureaucrats to run the new office, the PBO stated that Build Canada Homes will fund the same types of projects that were already funded under CMHC's affordable housing fund, with the same unit costs and the same distribution and affordability. In other words, we are spending billions of dollars to duplicate what already exists. This would be the government's third housing agency and fourth housing bureaucracy. Builders across this country, from Vancouver to Halifax, from rural communities to our largest cities, are pleading for less government in the building process, not more. They are asking for streamlined approvals, predictable permitting, reduced developmental charges, lower taxes and faster timelines. The Liberal government believes that if something is not working, the solution is to create another agency. However, housing is not built by bureaucrats; it is built by builders. In order to build, we need prices to be cut. For prices to be cut, we need to build. Bill C-20 does not meaningfully cut the costs that builders face. It does not eliminate the GST on new homes. It does not mandate municipalities to increase supply. It does not cut developmental charges. It does not address capital flows leaving Canada due to punitive tax policies. Bill C-20 is not what future homeowners need. Do not take my word for it. Take the word of the Ontario Home Builders' Association, who had this to say: The Ontario Home Builders' Association...is deeply disappointed with the lack of support for Ontario’s home builders and buyers in the 2025 Federal Budget.... The budget presented no new measures to unlock supply and restore affordability.... The government’s continued inaction has put [100,000] jobs...at risk—from architects and engineers, to trades and sub trades across the residential construction sector. They also said that the budget remains “vague regarding the Liberal platform’s commitment to work with municipalities to reduce development charges...by 50 percent.” If our own home builders do not support the Liberal platform's housing plan, how can we expect the rest of Canada, who are paying this enormous price tag, to support it? Now let us address the supposed affordability claims. The Prime Minister has suggested that Canadians could expect affordable rents in a range of $600 to $800 per month under this initiative, yet the PBO found that so-called affordable rents under Build Canada Homes could actually exceed current market rents. Applying the government's own affordability criteria, a two-bedroom unit would cost about $2,168 per month for the median household. That is nearly double the $1,100 national median for market rent.

Mr. Speaker, yes it is. Conservatives believe that the only way to restore the dream of home ownership in stable rental markets is to unleash supply at scale. Our approach is clear. First, we would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. That would save families up to $65,000 and immediately stimulate construction activity across the country. Second, we would tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding performance. Municipalities must permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year in order to receive full federal funding. If cities want transit dollars, they would have to approve homes near transit. If they want infrastructure dollars, they would have to permit growth. Third, we would cut development charges by 50%. These charges can add hundreds of thousands of dollars to the cost of a home before a shovel has even hit the ground. The Liberals promised to address development charges during the last election campaign, but they have failed to deliver. Last, we would end the capital gains tax on reinvestment in new housing in Canada. This would unlock billions of dollars in private capital, directing investments into Canada homebuilding instead of watching it flee to foreign markets like America. These are measures that would address the underlying economics of supply. Bill C-20 would not; instead, it would grow the footprint of government in a sector that is already burdened by regulation, taxation and delay. It would further centralize authority in Ottawa, when what we need is to cut red tape and accelerate approvals. Every year of delay means higher rents, higher mortgages and fewer opportunities for young Canadians to own a home. Every new layer of bureaucracy adds time. Time adds cost, cost adds price, and price erodes affordability. Throwing billions more dollars at redundant bureaucracies would not fix our supply crisis. The government argues that converting Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation would provide flexibility and independence, but independence without a plan is meaningless. Governance reform without cost reform does not lower prices. The central question is simple: Would the bill dramatically increase the number of homes built at a lower cost? The PBO says it would not; it would duplicate existing CMHC programs, produce a fraction of the promised homes and spend millions of dollars to underachieve. That is not what the Prime Minister promised Canadians when he took office. Conservatives recognize that housing affordability is not merely a line item in a budget. It is about generational equity and whether young Canadians can start families, seniors can downsize with dignity, workers can live near their jobs, and communities can grow sustainably. When the private sector is ready and willing to build, the government's rule should be to remove obstacles, not to create them. Canadians deserve results, not rebranding. They deserve homes, not headlines. Bill C-20 would expand bureaucracy, duplicate existing programs and fall dramatically short of the government's own promises. Instead, I ask for support of our Conservative plan for homebuilding: to focus on letting builders build, on cutting costs and on restoring the dream of home ownership for the next generation of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, simply put, Canadians want action. I knocked on 120,000 doors and I met a lot of young adults who lived in basements. While the government wants to do more research on what is happening, on this side of the aisle, we actually talk to young Canadians. We actually hear their wants and needs. We actually listen to Canadians. We formulate our thoughts and we try to execute. Some members on that side will call us obstructionists. I beg to differ. I believe the cornerstone to our democracy is a very good and reliable opposition, and we cannot discount that. When they trample all over us and call us obstructionists, I call that freedom and I call that democracy.

Mr. Speaker, there have been more examples of admissions of failure. We have heard them in the House. I have heard many 10-minute speeches that do not actually speak to Bill C-20. It is much like when I hold stakeholder meetings back in Hamilton, which I do regularly with the housing sector. I ask them whether they understand Build Canada Homes, and not one of our experts in the Hamilton-Wentworth and Niagara region can actually say what Build Canada Homes does. We heard it about 20 minutes ago when the member across the way did not talk about Bill C-20. He blamed everything on the Conservatives and the right wing. I do not even know what it was. Like I said, I am more dumbfounded now, after listening to him, than I was before. There were no solutions coming from that. They do not even understand their own bill. The rest of Canada and Canadians watching this want to know what Build Canada Homes would do because the stakeholders have no clue what it would do or how it would better Canadians. I do know that they have hired some bureaucrats north of $700,000 to start filling it out with employees. That is what we do know. However, there are no shovels in the ground. There are no homes built, and it will fail just like all the other ones did. As someone on the public accounts committee, I cannot wait to dig my teeth into this one when it comes across our plate.