Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise every time I get the opportunity, but in particular, for this very important private member's bill respecting Arab heritage month. Before I get into the speech, I would like to take a moment, because it has been some time since I have risen in the House, to say what a great privilege it is to represent the great people of Northumberland—Clarke. It is a true honour to be here. I thank them very much for sending me here three times, and who knows, there may be a fourth. The heart of today's speech is obviously Arab heritage month. I am going to start by painting the macroeconomic picture, and it will become clear as to why I am doing that. Canada, right now, is in an economic challenge, really an economic struggle. Of course, as was said many times in the House, we are the only G7 country that is currently in a recession. Our GDP per capita has barely grown over the last 10 years. In fact, it is the worst growth per capita since the Great Depression. We also have an unemployment rate, which is rising, of almost 7%. It is nearly a third higher than the United States—

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the punchline because I do not want to keep the member waiting. We have always needed the type of entrepreneurship and innovation that has been led by Canadians of Arabic origin. I want to tell members a story about a Lebanese gentleman who I got to know. His name is Ziad. He is not the member in the House. I think I am allowed to say that. I got to work alongside Ziad and it was an absolute honour and privilege. This gentleman is a true shining light for what Canada should be and what the Lebanese community in Canada is. When working beside him, I learned that there was not a business opportunity that this guy could not see. I will not get into the details of the business, but obviously like any business, it is important to have more sales to grow it and to be more productive. When everyone else said that they were not going to get the sale or the business was not going to grow, Ziad would always find a way. If members have had the honour and privilege of meeting Lebanese Canadians, they know that, bar none, there are no better business people in this country or anywhere in the world. They bring with them an incredible power of positivity. They have a natural mind for business. They get to deliver those products and services, not just because they want to be successful or they want to make a profit, although we know that those things happen, but because they have a deep sense of community and believe, support and trust one another. Canada is in an economic quagmire. We are in an extreme challenge. We have the most indebtedness of any G7 country outside of Japan. We are facing high unemployment. Our inflation is still within range of 2.8%, but is creeping up. We have the highest food inflation. A quarter of the population is food-insecure. While we have always been highly dependent on Canadians of Arabic origin, we are even more dependent right now, because we need their entrepreneurial spirit. I want to tell members a story about my friend's dad. She told me the story. Her dad came over here with literally not a dollar in his jeans. He built a construction business. He did not speak English or French. He had everything in life stacked against him, but once again that incredible Lebanese spirit, mind for business, innovation and entrepreneurship shone through. Not only was he able to create a successful business, but he was able to raise a family and help build a community. He supported other Lebanese members of his community within Canada. His daughter went on to be a very successful lawyer. That is the type of entrepreneurship innovation that Canada is increasingly in need of. One of the stats I will go back to again, if the member will indulge me to digress, but I promise to bring it back, is with respect to what is called the entrepreneurial drought in Canada. Throughout recent history, there have always been more businesses starting than closing in Canada. That ended in 2024. We are now seeing more businesses closing every day in this country. Actually, more businesses are now closing than are opening in Canada. In fact, over 50% of folks who are business owners today say they would not recommend to a friend or an acquaintance to start a new business. However, we desperately need that business in Canada. Certainly, government policies, as one government official said to me, have put a lot of snow on the runway and we need to clear it off now. I think that is very well put. We need to clear the path for these entrepreneurs so that the great entrepreneurs of Arabic or other origin have the ability to succeed and be more successful. Ultimately, Canada has, I believe, the best workers, the best brains and the most intelligent people in the entire world, which is in no small part because of our diversity. We bring the best and brightest from literally all around the world. I have certainly been impressed by people of all different origins. It makes all the sense in the world to acknowledge that diversity with a spirit of inclusivity so we can allow all Canadians to achieve the economic dream that, unfortunately, because of 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, has increasingly become more difficult to achieve. We have a whole generation that is finding it very difficult to buy a house. The average age of first-time homebuyers is creeping further and further along. I believe all Canadians should have the opportunity to own a house. I know that Canadians of Arabic origin will be there pushing, as they have with their tremendous legacy throughout the world. They, of course, have been responsible for breakthroughs in nearly every single discipline one can imagine, whether that is culture, mathematics, engineering or science. They have been there, making those breakthroughs, making our world literally a better place, including saving lives with medical breakthroughs. Canada is more independent. We need Canadians of Arabic origin more than ever because, as one Liberal official said to me, of all of the snow that has been put on the runway over the last 10 years. Now I believe the population is over a million people who count themselves as of Arabic origin, and that is absolutely tremendous. I, for one, am hoping that number grows, because of the amazing contributions they have made. They are some of the best doctors in the world and some of the best engineers. As I said, my own personal experience is with several Lebanese business owners who contain this incredible energy of optimism and spirit that Canada really needs more than ever. With that, I would say that this private member's bill, the Arab heritage month act, has my full support, and I look forward to it being unanimously passed. I say this as a House of Commons member and a people's representative acknowledging the tremendous accomplishments of Arab people. If I could, I would give a whole year, in fact, but I guess April will have to do. It is my pleasure to stand here in full support of this private member's bill. I cannot wait for it to be law and to celebrate it here with some great shawarma.

Mr. Speaker, after more than a decade of Liberal inflationary spending, the Prime Minister is sticking Canadians with a bill for his lavish meals while they struggle to put food on the table. Food inflation is up 40% since the Liberals took office. Last year, a record 2.2 million Canadians lined up at food banks in a single month. Just today, we learned from the National Payroll Institute that employed Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, going into debt just to afford food. One-fifth of people even reported that they were losing weight due to food insecurity. While Canadians cannot feed themselves, the Prime Minister is having taxpayers fund $200,000 in luxury food on just three flights: Normandy buttercups, veal escalope and a pricey wine list. Last year, when the Prime Minister told young Canadians they would have to make sacrifices, he was clearly not talking about himself. The Liberal Prime Minister said for Canadians to judge him at the grocery store. Well, the verdict is in: Canadians are furious with the prices at the grocery store and his lavish meals.

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying I will be splitting my time with the spectacular member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North. I have to move on to a brief but very sad note. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the tragic incident that happened in my riding in the town of Cobourg yesterday. An OPP officer in my community died in the line of duty in a tragic accident. I want to take a moment to remember Sergeant Brandon Malcolm's memory and send our thoughts and prayers to his family. Godspeed, my friend. I will start the speech in earnest. Canada has a proud space past. We have numerous accomplishments. Look at the satellites we have built and put into space. There is the Magellan company, which the member for Winnipeg North mentioned. We are all very proud of that. We are proud of great astronauts like Chris Hadfield and Roberta Bondar, and Jeremy Hansen most recently. I am a “space‑phile”. I love two academic subjects. One is space and the other is politics. I was glued to the television, watching Jeremy Hansen. I had the Artemis II app as they made it all the way around the moon. It is the farthest humans have ever been. A Canadian was not just a part of that, but a big part of that. He was leading the charge. I will warn that criticism of the legislation is coming forward, but let there be no doubt that Conservatives are full‑throated supporters of Canadians taking their rightful position in the lead in the next space race. Let me talk a little about some of the concerns that come from this legislation. It purports to create a legislative framework for the launching of rockets into space from Canada. That is a notable and laudable objective, and it is something we all should aspire to. The challenge is what is actually in the legislation or, more accurately put, what is not in the legislation. If I can, I will go over some of the things that are not in this legislation. When we look at a piece of legislation that purports to create a framework for the launching of rockets into space, one would think a key term included in it is the word ”launch”. It is not included. “Launch vehicle” is also something one would think we would want to define in the legislation. It is not included. “Re‑entry vehicle” is another important piece. It is a descriptor and another important definition that one might want to include in that legislation. Let us go over some of the broad topics now that are not included in the legislation, such as permitting an authorization system, the certification and operation of launch and re‑entry sites, safety requirements, financial responsibility and insurance, liability and indemnification, zoning and land use, the application of international agreements and standards, emergency powers and stop orders, administrative enforcement matters, exemptions and exclusions. I know the members across will ask Conservatives how we are going to vote on this. My question is, what are we going to vote on? Where is the beef, as they say? The legislation might as well be two lines, saying the minister shall grant, on the terms that they wish, a launch pad wherever they want, whenever they want, and we shall just trust them. I have something I would like to share with all Canadians. If a politician comes up to them, regardless of whether they are a Liberal, a Conservative, from the NDP, a Green or from whatever party, and says to just trust them, do not do it. Here is a real challenge that comes from the uncertainty and the overreliance on regulation in the legislation. The challenge is the two Cs. One is certainty and the other is corruption. When we are looking to invest in an economy, when we are looking to invest in a business and when we are looking to buy anything, we want certainty. When an investor is looking from around the world and the trillions of dollars that float around in the global economy, they ask where they are going to put that money. They could put it into a country that has a defined regulatory system and prescribed legislation that allow people to understand with full certainty how their money will be utilized and whether or not a launch will be permitted, or they could invest in Canada, where, at some point, there will be some regulations about something regarding a launch that will, no doubt, help Liberal insiders. If I am sitting outside of Canada and I have billions of dollars to invest, I am thinking, “Canada has many great things.” We have some of the leading research scientists in the world. We have great people. We have great resources and great universities, like Waterloo, that are leading the charge. What we do not have from this legislation is certainty, and without certainty, we really do not have anything. It is a challenge, because we do not know how that is going to be interpreted and what the minister is going do. The minister, in response to my colleague's question, actually said he just copied his homework, and in the U.S., they do the same. When he says that about the U.S., I hope he is not copying Russia or China. That would be troublesome for its own reasons, but he said they are copying the homework. That is not even entirely true, because in the U.S., the licensing of launch pads is actually done by independent professionals that operate at arm's length from the government, such as the FAA and other professionals. In Canada, with this legislation, we would put it directly under the minister, which then opens us up to the other troublesome C, which is corruption. When given absolute power, it corrupts absolutely. That was said many years ago. We have certainly seen it over the last 10 years. Whether we are talking about the WE scandal, SNC-Lavalin, the billions of dollars blown on consultants or the Canada Infrastructure Bank, these ministers have a penchant for making bad decisions. As I said earlier, if any politician of any stripe comes up to a Canadian and says, “Just trust me,” that is the key for all Canadians to know not to trust them. There is a reason why we put the rule of law in place. It is that it creates a level, equal playing field for all Canadians. There is perhaps a reason that we have seen $1 trillion of capital flowing out from our country during the Trudeau and Carney eras of government. This is challenging.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I should say “the Prime Minister”. It is 10 years of Liberal rule, and I appreciate the ability to underline that. It is another Liberal, one might say. In the last decade, we have seen $1 trillion of capital flowing out. It is precisely what this legislation would embody that is the problem. Here we are. Now we are sitting here and we have to make a legislative decision. We have to decide whether or not we support this. What Conservatives are really asking for is to know what we are voting for. Nancy Pelosi famously once said they will pass the bill and then read the bill. The Conservatives believe the opposite should be true. We need to know what is in this legislation. My hon. colleague has posed a number of great questions about security and the screening of the payloads that will go up. We need to know what is in the legislation. I have two constructive suggestions for the members opposite. One is to include necessary things, such as a definition of a launch vehicle in the legislation. Amend it so that we know what is in the legislation. The second, if they really wish to go forward with regulations, is that there is nothing in law to stop them from publishing today draft regulations that would demonstrate to all Canadians exactly what their intent is going forward. Take some of the ministerial discretion and put it onto the people who are the professionals who are able to objectively review it and provide us with objective decisions on it. Those are a couple of things that would certainly help Conservatives make a decision.

Mr. Speaker, I think in this case, it would make a ton of sense to go slow to go fast. We need to walk this legislation back to provide certainty going forward. To give an idea to those folks who are watching out there, the government did not even create a new piece of legislation. It is amending the Aeronautics Act, which is really there to regulate airplanes. When the government understands that there is a difference between airplanes and rockets, we will be well ahead.

Mr. Speaker, having the ability to launch rockets into space is incredibly important for our Canadian economy. This is why it is that much more critical that it be done correctly. I do not understand why the government has created this slapdash job of legislation. It really would not have been difficult to create a separate piece of legislation that would have understood and contemplated the complexities of space travel and put Canada on the right foot going forward.

Mr. Speaker, I find it troubling, but more importantly, so do many Canadians, including those who control the capital that would ultimately be used to build space launches and invest in rockets here in Canada. Because of this uncertainty, they would not know whether their investment will be returned to them. I agree 110%. A piece of legislation on something as complex as space travel should not be a couple of pages in length.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify something. The member earlier said that there are definitions in the bill for “launch”, “launch vehicle” and “re-entry vehicle”. The reality is that there is a transitional definition, and the minister can now call a “launch vehicle” anything. He could call it an orange if he wanted to. There is no real, permanent definition, in contrast to what he says. I would go forward to things that are absolutely not in there, which are the certification and operation of a launch re-entry vehicle, safety requirements and anything on national security. If the Liberals do not want to put it in the legislation, will they at least publish the draft regulations?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians need relief at the grocery store. They need relief at the pumps. Conservatives are calling on the Liberal government to scrap all federal gas and diesel taxes for the rest of the year. Cancelling a third of the taxes for a third of the year is not good enough. It is time to remove the fuel excise tax, GST on gas and diesel, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard tax for the rest of 2026. Conservatives want a country where Canadians do not have to choose between a full grocery cart and a full gas tank. Let us get it done.

Mr. Speaker, if someone is ever wondering how to make things more expensive, they can simply put a Liberal in charge. The Trans Mountain pipeline cost more than six times the original budget. Arrive scam cost 700 times. Now the Liberal are asking Canadians to trust them with a $90-billion budget for a high-speed rail train. That is more than even the deficit. Canadians cannot afford any more of this Liberal waste. Will the government focus on getting shovels in the ground for nation-building projects instead of blowing billions of dollars on a train to nowhere?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise with respect to the recreational boating study previously cited. Conservatives are entering a dissenting report because we believe that a rose by any other name smells just as sweet and that the carbon tax by any other name is just as painful. That is why we are tabling a dissenting report calling for the removal of the industrial carbon tax, to give boaters and boat manufacturers a break.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special member of our community, Linda Jean Lorraine Pace. On January 3, God welcomed Linda home. She leaves behind three loving children and a legacy of service, love and a true example of what it means to be a Proverbs 31 woman. Linda's mark on our community will never be forgotten. She was heavily involved with the Mission Thrift Store in Cobourg and volunteered at the Church on the Hill, the Coventry Relief Kitchen in Colborne and the Salvation Army. I know Linda's family will not be the only ones who miss her. Her impact on the community was deep and profound. We send our best wishes to the Pace family, and we remember Linda, who exemplified what Proverbs said: “clothed with strength and dignity, and she laughs without fear of the future.”

Mr. Speaker, poverty has risen for children for the third year in a row. Nearly 30,000 more children are falling below the poverty line this year. One in five children under the age of six now lives in poverty. If this does not cause the Liberals to act, I do not know what will. When will the Liberals finally meaningfully address the affordability crisis, limit their inflationary spending and get rid of all taxes on food?

Mr. Speaker, the member and I disagree on many things. However, two things we share is that we both support trains and the environment, so my question will deal with both. One of the concerns I have with high-speed rail is the environmental impact it will have, especially given the relatively brief amount of time. Could she share any concerns? Part of it is in my riding and there are some very sensitive areas there.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House, as it is every time. I would like to start, if I could, by giving a quick congratulations to both my son and my daughter, who made it to Speechfest at their school. They obviously got that oratory ability from their mother, not from me. I congratulate James and Maggie. Of course, the substance of today's debate is the budget implementation act. I will be focusing on an area that particularly affects my riding of Northumberland—Clarke, and that is the Alto high-speed rail. My speech will mostly just be a direct conveyance of the comments that I have received from my riding on the potential impact of the expropriation and the abridgement of the private property rights of many of the property owners along the route. Just so that people understand, the idea of having a high-speed rail service from Montreal to Quebec City, Ottawa and Toronto, stopping in Peterborough, the great city of Peterborough I might add, is an encouraging thing. That is a positive thing. If people could make it from Ottawa to Toronto in two hours, that is a positive thing, but there are significant challenges. I will go through some of the concerns that some of my residents have raised. Number one is the impact it would have on their property. In some cases, there are individuals who have farms that have been their family's property for multiple generations, some going as far back as Confederation. That would end. Their property would be bisected, in many cases, by the proposed route. We still do not know what the final route is. I thank the minister for being direct and saying that the final route will be announced before the end of this year. That is positive. What is not positive is that the minister, to my questions at committee, was not able to give any specific or concrete answers to questions such as these: When will expropriation begin, and how much notice will be given? Members can imagine being one of the residents of Northumberland County who has owned a farm through multiple generations and seeing a bill that proposes that, within a year, they will go from owning their property, which their family has owned for the last 150 years, to a point where it will be expropriated. The least the government could have done was give a defined process to these individuals before announcing the potential expropriation of their property. This should have been announced all at once, so people would be given notice and given a process. The minister repeated over and over that this would just be common sense. Common sense is not quite good enough for someone whose entire life is wrapped around a rural community. That is where I have lived my whole life. It might be the same in urban communities, but I know for a fact that, in rural communities, people are very much defined by the property they own, the dirt that is underneath their feet. For someone to literally pull that rug from underneath them is a very scary proposition. In addition to that, for those folks who were not directly affected, the indirect impacts could be huge. Therefore, like I said, I completely agree that being able to jump on a high-speed train going from Montreal to Toronto in three hours, or whatever the time will be exactly, is positive. What is not positive is if someone lives north of the proposed route and they need to get to Northumberland Hills Hospital, which is in the great city of Cobourg. Their drive could go from a 30- or 40-minute drive to two or three hours. The minister could not even tell me, and nor will Alto as of yet, where the crossings will be. Let me explain. In my area, quite a few people live north of where the route would be, but there is a lot of the infrastructure for those various communities, including the Northumberland Hills Hospital, Highway 401 and, actually, the VIA train, and there are major routes that link those to the rest of the community. They would put a steel fence all the way along the proposed route, which the minister said is only 60 metres, but it is still 60 metres. Regardless, even if it were just one metre, it is the idea of bisecting a community. Instead of driving directly to that hospital when their child has a fever or their dad has had a heart attack, people would then have to drive that extra time, which we do not know. It could be half an hour. It could be an hour to the east or the west to get to the hospital. It could literally mean the difference between life and death. That is at the very extreme, but there are also other inconveniences that people in my riding, and in much of rural Quebec and rural Ontario, will have to deal with. There will be many instances where there are students on one side of the high-speed rail and their school on the other, which would lead to extended bus rides. It could go from a 10-minute bus ride to an hour bus ride. These are obviously a couple trips a day that we are now extending. We also have our farmers, who might have their co-op, which is where a lot of farmers get their seed and their fertilizer. They will then have their fields on the other side. Once again, that can be really challenging because they are not always driving their truck. They could be driving their combine or their tractor. How are they going to get around that? Anyone who has driven a combine or been behind one knows they do not go particularly fast. Are they going to take an extra two or three hours in the middle of harvest? Those of us who live in rural Canada would get this. Farmers will work around the clock during harvest season because they are at the mercy of Mother Nature for when they can harvest. While it is admirable to save people in Montreal and Toronto a couple of hours back and forth, it is anything but admirable to make rural students in Ontario and Quebec add hours to their day on buses. It is anything less than admirable to make Canada less able to feed ourselves because our farmers are less efficient since they have to drive for hours and hours. In some cases, their same fields will actually be bisected. They will have to harvest one side and then find a crossing. The minister would not tell me if it will be an hour away or two hours away. We would be reducing their ability to be successful and reducing our ability to feed ourselves as Canadians. These are substantial challenges as we go forward and look at some of these issues. I just want to read a couple of comments, specifically with respect to some of these questions. These are comments from some of my residents who have emailed or sent notes on social media: “It is extremely shocking to hear the minister speak in this manner, showing so little consideration and an apparent lack of understanding of his own territory. Telling citizens to ‘go meet with Alto’ when these...are merely courtesy information sessions—where staff...take notes without any real decision-making authority—is deeply frustrating.” This is well put, too. The minister, throughout my questioning, kept putting it back on the residents, kept saying for them to go to Alto. Who is in charge here? I understand that the minister is ultimately in charge and that he should have the ultimate say. One of my residents actually sums it up very nicely when he writes, “Why is it up to the people who live in these affected areas to tell Alto which roads and amenities are essential? Should this not be part of their own research done in consultation with municipalities prior to choosing a route? I've attended Alto sessions. They have no answers, only vague promises to do right by rural residents. I find this entire process to be disingenuous and flawed.” Another comment says, “Thank you for this. If you have any further opportunity to ask questions, it would be important that Alto consults regarding the impacts of road severances and travel times for emergency services after the route has been chosen so that townships and residents can give more precise feedback.” The comment continues, “In the video it sounds like they are simply relying on this phase and public consultations to tell them about that.” The person commenting thinks they should be doing extensive research into these matters before making decisions. They go on and they talk about the various ways this will affect people's lives. We understand and, like I said, it is admirable that we should be making life more convenient for the citizens of Toronto and Montreal, but let us not forget about the citizens of rural Quebec and rural Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the sincere question. The number one thing that will defeat fear is information. What we have been lacking, and what our residents have been lacking, is information. We understand there are some commercial realities, but if the government is threatening to potentially take away people's farms, which have been in their families for four or five generations, sometimes since Confederation, the government owes it to those people to tell them when they will get notice, how much notice they will get and what potential compensation they will get. That is owed to people who will live on either side of this rail. They need to know how they will get to the hospital and where the crossings will be. That information is not there. We cannot just forget about the people in rural Ontario and rural Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this proposal, we have a $90-billion price tag that has been floating around. I doubt very much that would be the end cost, and I think we would see substantial overrun. When we ask the Liberals what the business case is for that, they say there is no business case. If members do not believe me, they can check media reports. We are three-quarters of the way down the tracks, as it were. They are actually hiring a bunch of consultants to do a financial analysis, so they do not believe their own numbers either.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say this debate has been excellent. I have learned many things. I will start off with the joy of sports, and the member for Waterloo talked about this a bit. I was never much of an athlete, much to the disappointment of my father who was an athlete, but the one thing I could do was watch sports. One of the greatest joys I have is either watching my daughter compete in her competitive dance or watching my son compete at hockey. He is a goaltender and is at a tournament tomorrow, so I would ask everyone to please wish him good luck. There is nothing that I enjoy doing more than watching them compete and have a great time. What I also love to do is sit around the house, when we get that break from time to time, and watch sports with them. Seeing them enjoy watching team Canada's hockey team compete, which won five to nothing, brings joy around. My chosen NFL team is the Buffalo Bills and there is nothing better than sitting around with friends and family and crying together as they lose yet again in the divisional round. There is a purity to people competing, giving everything they can, working so very hard to get to that great moment and coming together as a team. Anyone who has worked as a team, which is what we are in the House of Commons, knows the thrill of coming together, putting someone else's interests above ours and competing to get the best possible product, or bill, and winning the game. There is a purity and a greatness to that. I must say that the gambling around this has tainted it. Some of the other speakers also talked about this earlier with respect to the particularly vulnerable groups in this: young men and boys. If we go to a high school, we would see that nearly every teenage boy, and every teenage girl for that matter, has a phone. If we looked at what was on their phones, I can guarantee members that over 80% or 90% of them have a gambling app. That is scary because it is leading them down a path. Not everyone will go down the path where it will have a big impact on their life, but some will. What is the number of individuals who go down that path and have that challenge? What are we willing to accept in society? Is it okay if one in 10, one in 100, or one in 1,000 give up their life to a horrible gambling addiction that sucks in friends and family members as they try to support these people? What is that number? One of the things I do when I look at legislation or at laws as we try to make the best decisions in this House, which I believe all 343 members attempt to do, is that I look at it as if we were driving to that perfect society where we all live in prosperity and abundance, where we are kind and gentle with each other and where we only have good days, and I ask if this law would get us closer to that. I am not naive. I know we will certainly not get there in my lifetime, and probably not even after that, but as a House, as legislators, we should be striving toward that goal. When I see this legislation, I say, yes, this is another step toward it, because it starts to rein in and regulate the amount of advertising. There are a couple of issues I have with this legislation, and I hope they will be fleshed out at committee. Of course, we will be supporting it to go to committee, and we hope it will get fleshed out. The overall driving principle of this legislation to expose our children to less gambling advertising is going in a positive direction. I really do not think anyone can say no to that. In fact, I am told that there are industries out there right now that are self-regulating and self-imposing those regulations with respect to the amount of advertising. To those folks I would say that is a great job and may they keep it up. The less government we have the better. In this case, I think there is a need for some intervention, unless of course the industry can get together and control its own house, which would be great. I have been there, like the member, sitting and watching sports, and I do probably watch too much sports. It is just amazing; we will see, in one show, three or four different advertisements for online sports betting. We will then see them on the boards of the skating rink. We will see them in the back of the basketball stadium. We will see them in the baseball stadium, in the back. They are just absolutely everywhere. They are invasive. Just as the government has stepped in and regulated advertisements on things like alcohol and nicotine and smoking, I think it makes sense to have a process here. The Bloc Québécois actually raised a terrific point, in that a lot of this is provincial jurisdiction. When we look at national frameworks, the idea is good. I have no doubt about that, but I am hoping that some work can be done in committee, so that we do not just have a bureaucrat-led, one-size-fits-all solution, so that we bring in partners, so that we have agreement from the provinces, so that we have agreement from the premiers from coast to coast and so that we have agreement from industry, quite frankly. Whether one works for a multinational or whether one works for Parliament or whether one works for a premier, the reality is that we all have children and we all want the best for those children. We need to find a solution where we have everyone working together to make sure that children are protected, as there has clearly been an excess of advertising of online betting.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet under his watch, $58 billion of net investments have fled to the United States and we have lost 28,000 manufacturing jobs. Promising to build a pipeline is not enough. Creating a new bureaucracy is not enough. Reapproving projects over and over again is not enough. We need shovels in the ground, and we need them in the ground now. When will the Prime Minister do what he promised, build at a scale we have not seen in generations and work with Conservatives to stand up for our sovereignty against the American threat?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise. Once again I would like to take 30 seconds to thank the wonderful people of Northumberland—Clarke for sending me here again, for a third time. It is a privilege of a lifetime and an honour of a lifetime to work for them here in the House of Commons. Of course, we are here today to talk about Bill C-10. I will go over it relatively briefly, as there has been debate already on this very important bill. Bill C-10 would establish the independent commissioner of modern treaty implementation as an agent of Parliament. It would create the office of the commissioner to support this role. The mandate of the commissioner would be to conduct reviews and performance audits on federal government institutions' activities related to implementing modern treaties, comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements with indigenous peoples post-1970s, and to monitor and report on how well the federal government fulfills its obligations, commitments and relationships under these treaties. It would aim to promote accountability; rebuild trust between the Crown and modern treaty partners, indigenous groups and self-governing first nations; and address long-standing, for more than 20 years in many cases, calls for better oversight and implementation of treaty promises. The commissioner would report the findings to Parliament to help ensure that the government's actions would align with its treaty obligations. The commissioner would not have enforcement powers and would focus on independent reviews, auditing and reporting, rather than on direct intervention. Of course, Conservatives support modern treaties, and if someone has been reviewing the debate, they would see that my comments would be squarely within the Conservative argument. Of course, we believe in these debates and we believe in the treaties, but we believe ultimately in enforcement; the government needs to take action to rectify wrongs as opposed to having another level of bureaucracy. Let us face it: After a decade of Liberal rule, if agencies, bureaucrats and offices were to create solutions, we would be living in the best economy in the world. The reality is that, despite the Prime Minister's promises, we languish near the bottom of the G7 economies, even though we have many different government agencies, including a housing agency and a national projects office. I might take a moment to pause and discuss the national projects office. I worked closely with my Liberal counterparts to legislate the creation of the national projects office, but here we are, nearly a year later, at least eight months, and as of yet no projects have been approved. Because of an Order Paper question, we know that the government has spent close to a million dollars, and probably more, because the answer is a little dated now, yet no projects have been approved There has been a pattern over the last 10 years. The so-called new government is continuing the ways of the so-called old government: If in fact there is a problem, it creates a new government office. Ronald Reagan once said that the closest thing to eternal life in this world is a government office. Despite the fact that we do not have results, we just get more and more government offices that spend more tax dollars without getting results. In fact in some cases we get the exact opposite of the outcome we want, which in this case is the administration of treaties in accordance with legislation and in accordance with the path towards truth and reconciliation. This is because, as we build more and more bureaucracies, the truth gets more and more obscured. We need to hold civil servants accountable. That starts with the government, quite frankly. We need parliamentarians to step up and not be afraid to criticize the government and not be afraid to criticize the actions of their civil servants and hold them accountable if they are not taking the necessary actions and steps of treaties as we go forward. Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. In the span of six years, the former Conservative government negotiated five modern treaties. The Liberals have negotiated none in ten years in office. The Office of the Auditor General has conducted over two dozen reports, including audits, since 2005 into treaty negotiations and matters that affect indigenous people. Rather than demanding accountability from “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals propose creating new layers of bureaucracy and spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it. I might say, it is a particularly poor time to spend funds that could go directly towards the implementation of treaties. Money could go directly towards helping or assisting first nations, for example in making sure that every indigenous child has access to clean drinking water, which was a pledge made in 2015 by the Liberal government. The Liberals committed that, within five years, every indigenous child would have access to clean drinking water. Here we are in 2026, and that pledge still has not been made good on. The first step towards truth and reconciliation is the truth part. The second part is living up to our promises, our commitments. If we commit to anyone that we are going to do something, it is the very basis of human nature, of any type of code of morality from any religion, or any secular code, that we need to live up to that commitment. We are here in 2026 talking about a promise that was made in 2015. Before implementing another level of government bureaucracy, why do we not just live up to the promises made in the House to first nations peoples? Too often, whenever the Liberals see a problem, they see a government agency they need to create. The Liberals should in fact look back at their own track record. Between 2015 and 2017 alone, they created a web of entities: the modern treaty implementation office, assessment of modern treaty implications, performance networks, oversight committees and the reconciliation secretariat. The government has a very poor record when it comes to modern treaty interpretation and enforcement. The government is, quite frankly, not getting it done. The answer is not another level of bureaucracy. It is not another set of regulations. It is simply the same thing that I am sure all parliamentarians try to instill into their children: that when they make a promise, they live up to that promise. That is what the government has to do. No matter how many levels of bureaucracy are stacked on, it does not necessarily mean that the promises will be lived up to. What we require are ministers and senior officials who take ownership of their legal duties and processes, whether under modern treaties, self-government agreements or historical agreements. A commissioner will not change the culture; accountability will. In fact, I have written letters to multiple ministers, several about local indigenous issues. The great Alderville First Nation is within boundaries of the Northumberland—Clarke riding. Its people have forwarded issues, and I have still not had a response to those issues. Instead of responding to Parliament, the accountability that exists in the House, the Liberals are just going to try to obscure and move things over to another bureaucracy, saying, “Look over there. We don't want this responsibility. We don't want this accountability.” Instead they are going to put it on another bureaucracy that will without doubt spend millions, if not more, of Canadian taxpayer dollars without actually making life any better for indigenous people. We need a government that lives up to its promises and truly walks us down the path of truth and reconciliation, making life better for all Canadians, making life better for all indigenous peoples, making life better for all children across the land and making sure that every indigenous child has access to clean drinking water.

Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member would be in a much better position to answer his question than I am. From my experience of talking to the first nations who are located within the riding of Northumberland, one of their big frustrations is the fact that they cannot get answers. They get pushed from one bureaucrat to another. They seek nation-to-nation communications, clarity and answers. They do not need another bureaucracy. They do not need another federal office.

Mr. Speaker, in 2014, under the then Conservative government, the New York Times declared that Canada's middle class was the richest in the world. Now our middle class faces skyrocketing costs and taxes, a stagnant GDP per capita and a declining standard of living. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing G7 economy by building major national projects. However, the Liberals built none, and they continue to build none. The time to act is now. When will the Liberals collaborate with Conservatives and finally bring prosperity back to our great land?

Mr. Speaker, it always worries me when the government opens up with “I have good news”, because it rarely is. What we are asking for, and what Canadians want, are new pipelines and new projects. The amount that the Liberals have approved is absolutely zero. The government needs to reverse course, which has led two million Canadians to food banks, admit that its policies have failed, embrace Conservative principles fully and collaborate with Conservatives to bring prosperity back to our country.

Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on...in the bloodstream.” It has to be fought for. That is exactly what the brave protesters in Iran are doing right now. It is hard, through the obscurity of Internet and telecommunications blackouts, to see exactly what is going on in Iran, but media and human rights organizations put the death toll at over 30,000. We simply cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the atrocities that are occurring right now in Iran. A government that slaughters its own people is weak and pathetic and must be stood up against. That is why we all must stand unequivocally behind the people of Iran for their freedom.

Mr. Speaker, according to StatsCan, food inflation is now up to 6.2%. Canada has the highest food inflation in the G7. Food prices are rising twice as high in Canada as they are the United States. Driving up the cost of food is the more expensive, less transparent replacement for the consumer carbon tax. They are called the fuel standard tax and the industrial carbon tax, which are increasing costs for farmers, food processors and truckers. When will the Liberals finally admit that a carbon tax by any name is painful?

Mr. Speaker, it is the same government and the same old tired lines. The Liberals have the temerity to get up in the House of Commons and tell the 2.2 million Canadians who are using food banks right now, “Stop complaining; people have never had it so good.” Well, Conservatives are not so easily fooled. We know that millions of Canadians are struggling. When will the Liberals finally take meaningful action and reduce the cost of food by reducing and eliminating the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax?

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this House. Over the past year, Canada has been subjected to unfair, hostile and even capricious economic actions by the current administration of the United States. Most Canadians are united in our resolve to stand up against these actions. Many would even call it bullying. What many are starting to realize, though, is that in order for Canada to stand up, our economy must stand on its own two feet. In the face of these challenges, the Liberal government has conveniently discovered a new-found respect for economic growth, resource development, reducing taxes and even government efficiency, although, having expressed a desire to make Canada stronger, the record is clear. Over the last 10 years, we have actually seen the lowest GDP-per-capita growth across the G7; in fact, it is nearly zero. We have seen the worst economic record since the Great Depression. In the first year of this Prime Minister, it has not gotten any better. In fact, it has gotten worse. The Liberal government has the opportunity, though, to act on its rhetoric, to actually engage in actions that promote economic growth, government efficiency and international trade and move away from the Liberals' socialist death spiral, which always starts the same way: They need more taxes to give more things away. The problem is, the more they tax, the more they impoverish citizens. Dollar for dollar, citizens get poorer and poorer, which then increases the need for additional social welfare programs, which then increases the debt, which increases taxes, which repeats the cycle, and before we know it, we have more poverty and more of the socialist poverty that we have seen in countries like Venezuela, the Soviet Union and Cuba. Will the government finally put a line in the sand, go no further and in fact turn around and acknowledge that those policies of the last 10 years are a failure? We have seen, to the government's credit, a repudiation of many of the Trudeau-era policies. In fact, it is somewhat unbelievable sometimes when I hear these members brag about eliminating the carbon tax, when many members, including me, for more than a decade have been shouting that the carbon tax is not the right way to go. Now, somehow, the Liberals take credit for the elimination of the carbon tax and the benefits it has had. Will the government finally take that step in the right direction, away from socialism and toward prosperity? Will the UN's former climate czar really build a pipeline? I have my doubts. As shadow minister for intergovernmental affairs and one Canadian economy and interprovincial trade, my speech will focus on interprovincial trade and some of the Liberal promises. Michael Jordan, the famous basketball player, once said, “Some people want it to happen, some wish it would happen, others make it happen.” Conservatives are here to be the ones who make it happen, and we can see on the other side that, at best, they will wish and dream of its happening. There are many, many people who are favourably disposed to eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. In fact, nearly every economist and nearly every expert has opined on the importance of eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and the benefits that it would have on the economy. However, there are very few leaders who have demonstrated the will and the fortitude to get this done. The calculation of the benefits of interprovincial trade and the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers varies. Experts go anywhere from tens of billions of dollars to even hundreds of billions of dollars, but at the heart of it, everyone believes that it would have benefits and that it is only common sense to eliminate these barriers. As an example, here are some of the things that just do not make sense. Why should a nurse in Manitoba require different accreditation from a nurse in Nova Scotia? Presumably, the human body is the same in Nova Scotia as it is in Manitoba. Why should beer being produced in Prince Edward Island not be available in Ontario? If it is delicious on the east coast, it will be delicious here in Ontario. Why should a construction site in Manitoba require a different type of portable toilet from a construction site in Ontario? These things do not make sense, and we all agree on it. The challenge, once again, is not just dreaming about it and not just wishing for it; it is about getting it done. The Liberal government made a bold promise. It promised that by Canada Day, it would eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers. Canada Day has come and gone. No longer are we in the warmth of July. If anyone has been outside, it is pretty cold. We are well past July, yet the vast majority of interprovincial trade barriers are still in place. Many of the ministers and members on the other side promised there would be hundreds of billions of dollars. I have asked government officials, and they have not been able to quantify one single dollar from the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers. These billions of dollars that were supposed to help grow the Canadian economy, create jobs and strengthen our sovereignty are not here. To be fair, the government did make some baby steps with the help of Conservative members, with Bill C-5, toward eliminating federal interprovincial trade barriers, but that was a mere drop in the bucket. Most trade barriers are provincially legislated and, therefore, require provincial legislative changes. Despite the many eloquent speeches and photo ops with premiers, the Liberal government has failed to eliminate these barriers. While leadership has definitely been a problem, at the heart of it is also a framework. The reality is that some interprovincial trade barriers are simply there because of the division of powers in our Constitution. That is the way that the system has sort of evolved, but also, in many cases, those interprovincial trade barriers were put in place intentionally, to protect local industries, local economies and provincial industries in those areas against large national corporations or other things that would disturb and disrupt local economies. If, in fact, we do not acknowledge this, we are asking provinces to act against their own self-interest. What Conservatives pledge to do and what a Canada sovereignty act would allow us to do would be to provide financial benefits and incentives. This would mean that instead of provinces being punished for doing the right things, which they are right now and which may be hurting their own industry to help the national cause to make us more sovereign and more autonomous, we would provide that financial benefit, which would help them instead of hurting them as the existing framework does. We need to look forward in eliminating these barriers from coast to coast, but we need to make sure it happens in a way that helps all of our economy. The reality is that over the last 10 years, this economy has been weakened by socialist policies that have brought our GDP per capita to nearly zero. The first year under the Prime Minister has accelerated that decline. If we are going to be an independent country, we need to get our resources out of the ground and build Canadian energy and the Canadian economy. We simply will not do this by just adding more bureaucracy. More government agents are not the answer here. The answer is not the Canadian government; it is the Canadian people. We need to embolden and unleash Canadians to do what they do best: create jobs, create wealth for our wonderful country and create prosperity from coast to coast. The sovereignty act would allow free trade throughout the provinces. It would allow our resources to get to market. We will build a stronger nation that is truly autonomous, and that will not happen because of some speech given in Davos. Our country will become stronger, more sovereign and more autonomous and be the best country in the world to live in, because we have the greatest people in the world in Canada. That is why I call upon this government to do the right thing: Pass our motion, support us and make sure that Canada stays a sovereign, independent country, so that we have generations of success and prosperity, and we do not fall into the trap of the socialist death spiral.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read into the record what has happened at the transport committee. The record is as follows: November 18, meeting cancelled by Chair; November 20, meeting cancelled by Chair; November 25, Liberal filibuster; November 27, meeting cancelled by Chair; and December 2, Liberal filibuster. Then the Chair got up and said the committee was going to suspend for 30 minutes and ran out the back door. December 4 was a Liberal filibuster. We are scheduled for another filibuster tomorrow. Is this the Liberals' definition of “productivity”?

Mr. Speaker, to the chair of the transportation committee, it should not take opposition parties calling emergency meetings to get a parliamentary committee to meet, like it is supposed to, but that is exactly what the opposition parties have been forced to do. When we had a meeting, in the middle of it, the Liberals suspended and ran out the back door. Will the chair confirm that there are scheduled meetings, or will they run out the back door again?

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour and privilege to rise in the House. Today, we are discussing the budget implementation act. I want to talk, just in generalities, about the importance of the private sector and of the individual workers, entrepreneurs and job creators across this great country. Ultimately, they will drive our productivity and our economy forward. Unfortunately, the Liberal government has been working at cross-purposes to empowering them and getting them to do the work that they do great, which is to create jobs and wealth. In our country, as nearly any metric by nearly any international or domestic organization will show, we have extremely high rates of taxation and regulation. This regulation has the undeniable impact of limiting our potential and our ability to fully exploit our economy as we go forward. This is across different sectors, including manufacturing in my great province of Ontario, where we have some of the best manufacturers in the entire world. When I meet with them, and I have met with many of them in my own riding in towns like Cobourg and Port Hope, they all talk about their inability to fully exploit their potential because of the amount of red tape and regulation surrounding them, particularly at the federal level. The ones who ultimately benefit from a corporation or a company being successful are the workers, because when a company is successful, it is the workers that will receive much of the compensation that comes from that. However, when we look at this, we see this regulation, and we see things slowing down. If Canadians do not believe politicians, it may be because there have been politicians, even in this very House, who have been disingenuous and who have not been entirely believable. I would like to direct attention to a scholarly book written on business by one of the bright lights in terms of academic discussion of businesses and how businesses succeed. Jim Collins wrote Good to Great. For those with no knowledge of this, I highly recommend it. His books have been highly influential, not just in the business sector but in the non-governmental, non-profit and charitable sectors as well. He had a number of different rules based on an incredibly large study that he did of many companies over a long period of time. The empirical data in there is really undeniable. One of his conclusions talked about the level of control, bureaucracy and rules in a corporation. He said that, ultimately, governments, or actually in this case, companies, often put copious numbers of rules in place in order to fence in, or box in, a couple of bad actors. What happened with all these rules was that those folks who were entrepreneurs, who were inventive and who were driving the productivity of those companies forward were snuffed out. Once again, the book is called Good to Great. I highly recommend that everyone check it out. In his research, he compiled the empirical data. Those companies with too much regulation almost always failed. They were unable to compete with those businesses that, instead of hemming individuals in with these oppressive regulations, established a culture of responsibility. In other words, they trusted individuals to do what was in their best interests and also in the company's best interests, going forward. By putting in place that culture of personal responsibility, not only did it have the effect of making people more entrepreneurial and more innovative, but it brought people into the organization and, quite frankly, brought people together. No longer did they look at other people as the enemy or as their competitors in the corporation, they saw their colleagues as people who could potentially help them up the ladder. The empirical evidence is clear. The next subject I would like to talk about is what I have deemed to be the fiscal or financial imbalance in our country. In any modern society, there is a calculus that has to be made: How many resources are dedicated to the public sector, and how many resources are dedicated to the private sector? I want to start by saying that the public sector has many great purposes: our police, fire and armed forces. Even the equity ability of the government should not be understated, but the challenge is, if too many of the resources are put on the public side of the ledger, the private sector of the economy ends up being starved. This creates what has been seen in many countries, from the Soviet Union to Venezuela, Cuba and many others, which is a socialist death spiral of the economy. What happens is that as the private sector gets starved of oxygen or resources or capital, this starts to have a compounding impact. As businesses do not have the ability to go forward, to move, to grow and to invest, it multiplies throughout the economy. If one business fails, what happens is that those companies that supply the company may also fail, which cascades across the entire economy. What then happens is that more individuals require the assistance of the state going forward, which requires the government to pay more money. This cycle just continues. As more money is taken out of the private sector, the private sector shrinks even more, which shrinks the tax base and puts greater needs on the state. This creates a socialist death spiral, where the private sector just gets smaller and smaller and the state gets bigger and bigger. The reality is that the innovators, the job creators, are snuffed out one by one. We have seen the impact of the socialist death spiral. Most notable in the not-too-distant past was the Soviet Union, which centralized everything and snuffed out the private sector and innovation from going forward. We have seen this in Venezuela, Cuba and in other states around the world as well. That is all well and good, but what do we do for a solution? I will tell the House where we are in Canada before getting into solving this issue. Canada is headed toward that path. There is just no denying that with a $1.35-trillion debt, a $78-billion deficit and $55 billion being paid in interest. Unfortunately, we will hear individuals on the other side, if not purposely then unintentionally, misleading Canadians by stating that Canada's debt is not that high. As our leader has said, if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything. The reality is that you must take a picture of the total debt calculation, which includes provincial and federal debt as well as the debt required for the CPP. We cannot use CPP money to apply to debt, which is what the Liberals do when they try to say they do not have a debt issue. That money is already spent, or at least I hope it is. Otherwise, they are going to rob CPP. The reality is that when we take that calculation, we are the second-worst, with a total debt ratio of well over 100% of our GDP. We are second only to Japan, which had its own lost decade. We have experienced ours and, quite frankly, we continue to experience that. What do we need to get back on track as a country? We need to move away from seeing government as the answer. The government is, in most cases, not the answer. In fact, it is the culprit. It is responsible for driving down our economy. It is the reason we have had the worst economic growth since the Great Depression. We need to, once again, not trust in the Canadian government but trust in the Canadian people. We need to correct the fiscal financial imbalance that has given way too much money to the federal government and not enough money to Canadian citizens, entrepreneurs and job creators.

Mr. Speaker, there is so much I disagree with in that, but I will focus on my shadow cabinet area, which is interprovincial trade. The member should consult with his own bureaucrats, whom I wrote to and asked exactly how much the reduction in interprovincial trade barriers, the federal interprovincial trade barriers, and the progress they have made on that has contributed to the economy. They said that it was zero, which is how much sense this member makes.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, one of the greatest challenges to democracy, certainly in the 20th century and likely before then, is demagogues. That is what we hear from that side. We call it modern-day gaslighting. The reality is that Canada's economy is not as strong as it should be. Our oil and gas sector, which drove productivity historically for Canada, has been kneecapped by the government. We had the worst GDP per capita growth since the Great Depression over the last 10 years. The government will seize on the smallest bit of good information and try to exploit it to make it look like something that is not true. If members want to see the issues in the Canadian economy, they can come down to Cobourg's Fare Share Food Bank and they will see the reality.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we actually lost full-time jobs, and most of the jobs created were part-time, which shows that Canadians are struggling. We need the great full-time jobs that should have been at Stellantis, Algoma Steel and Weetabix in my riding. It is the government driving out the economic wealth creators, the job creators, that is causing our Canadian economy to lose great, union jobs.

Madam Speaker, we continue to hear these old, tired lines from the so-called new government. The Liberals tell us again and again that Canadians have never had it so good. Here is the reality. Food bank usage is at record rates, with over two million visits per month. Meanwhile, Brookfield's stock has gone up by over 20% since the Prime Minister got elected. Maybe that is just a coincidence. Why do Canadians have to continue to suffer while Liberal elites get wealthier?