Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to rise in the people's House again and speak to this important piece of legislation that the government has brought forth. I would like to begin by reflecting on an old story that I have referenced before but that certainly applies yet again here in the House. There was a father who had two sons, and he challenged them to go to work in his vineyard. He said, “I need you to go out and work on the farm. I have some big tasks ahead.” He commissioned them to go into the field. The first son rose enthusiastically and made a grand proclamation and a great announcement: “That's a wonderful idea. I'm going to do that right away. You can count on me. I'm going to do that. You don't have to worry one bit.” He made the grand proclamation, but he did not end up in the field. Then there was the second son who was approached, and he said, “I can't go. I'm sorry to disappoint you. I can't go.” However, he got to thinking about it and feeling bad, and he said to himself, “I owe this to my dad. I'm going to go out and work in the field like he asked me to do.” Basically, the conclusion to that story is to ask which son was more pleasing to the father, who had asked them to go out into the vineyard. Well, obviously, it was the second son. Even though his initial response was disappointing and did not rise to the occasion as was expected, the results were outstanding because he went and did what needed to be done and got the job done, whereas the other son made a grand announcement and a tremendous proclamation, got the hopes up of everyone around, sounded like things were going to be wonderful, but the end result was that he did nothing and was a grand disappointment. I cannot help but see the correlation. Once again, we are having grand proclamations and excellent announcements: “Don't you worry. No matter what problem faces this country, you hang on. There will be another announcement within five minutes, and it will be okay.” People will look, and they will ask, “Where is the result?” The answer is, “Oh, don't you worry. We're going to come and make another announcement.” There is another announcement, and yet a few months go by, and Canadians wait for the results and do not see any. “But don't you worry. There's another proclamation on its way.” They come, and their hearts are filled with anticipation. Much like cotton candy, the announcement provides an instant sugar high and makes us feel good and warm and fuzzy, but then comes the crash of no results and limited outcomes. What Canadians are looking for is tangible results and real outcomes, and I could not help but think about that story as I was preparing my remarks today. Look, these are challenging times, and we all admit that. We want what is best for Canadians, and we want Canada to move forward because Canada is a nation of incredible potential and overwhelmingly abundant blessings that we have both under our feet on our lands and in our people. We need to unleash and unlock that potential so Canada can live up to that potential and our people can enjoy the benefits of all those bountiful blessings that we have been given. Therefore, I challenge the government today. With this grand announcement, I hope there is a firm commitment to deliver real results for real Canadians. They are tired of announcements and proclamations and grand theatre and great speeches on big stages. What they want to know is, will this deliver the potential for me to find real work, make a decent paycheque, be able to put groceries on my table, help us make the mortgage payment, keep the vehicle payments up, help our kids get through school and have them actually dream of maybe someday owning a home of their own? If we do not deliver that, we are not living up to our promise and to the expectation that has been made of us by Canadians. I have been reflecting on this and looking at some of the announcements that have been made, and it was not long ago that there was yet another grand announcement: “We are forming a special projects office.” That sounds great. I love it. Over 500 announcements have been made and placed under the jurisdiction of the special projects office. However, I have to ask the House, how many have been approved? It is zero. We have had 500 announcements, many designations and grand proclamations and yet again the disappointment of no real deliverables. The time for deliverables has come. The time for results has come. We have to get to a place where we are doing real things. The good news is that our party has put forward some real, tangible solutions for some of the challenges facing Canada's industry, workers and people. We are calling for projects to be expedited and to be approved within six months. We are calling for the repeal of job-killing laws and antidevelopment laws, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that impede Canada's progress. We are also calling for a genuine one-project, one-review approach that would give proponents certainty instead of making them go through multiple layers of endless regulation and red tape. It is time to unlock our resources and unleash our potential, move beyond the announcement phase and get to the deliverables and results phase. We do that by streamlining. We do that by making sure that this gets done and does not turn into yet another grand announcement that gets our hopes up but does not deliver what Canadians need in this time of stress. We are fighting hard on this side of the House to save people and Canadians money, but also to have real projects and real jobs made available and done for Canadians. As we have seen, after a year and a half of announcements, we cannot point to concrete examples of things getting done. Nothing leads to more frustration than unmet expectations. When many expectations arise, when rhetoric soars in the moment and when we do not deliver on what we have promised to Canadians, they grow more suspect, more weary and more frustrated. Then they begin to look with a very jaundiced eye at anything that any parliamentarian or politician ever says. Why is that? It is because we have promised much and delivered little. We have to get to the place where we are delivering real, concrete results for Canadians, because this country has unbelievable, incredible potential. I want to conclude with one final analogy from an ancient story that came to me as I was preparing for today. It is a story of a lady who was in a desperate situation and did not know where to turn. She sought solutions from various places. She went to doctor after doctor and could find no help. In fact, she just got further diagnosed, with more diagnoses and more prognoses, and spent more of her hard-earned money, ending up with nothing left in her pocket while living with the consequences of false hopes and many broken promises. The good news is that this story did not end with her in a place of unmet expectation. The good news is that she pressed through the crowds and doubts, and she overcame the obstacles, as many Canadians are doing right now. She sought out a great physician and got her answer. Her answer came when she told her whole story. After she told her story and that great physician heard her story and gave her the answer, she went away whole. Canadians become whole when those who are elected to represent them take the time to hear their stories, and not just hear their stories, but take direct action to bring real solutions to their problems. It is time to get beyond the diagnoses in this country, get beyond the announcements, proclamations and false hopes, and deliver real results for real Canadians in real time.

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to have a debate with fellow Maritimers in the House. I will say this. Once again, the projects the member just listed are projects that have been announced but have not yet been delivered. We need real results to start kicking into place. Let us not blame Canadians for being somewhat skeptical when they hear more proclamations from the government. Let us remember that this is the same government that for 10 years called some of our most valuable resources dirty oil and dirty gas and said we should keep it in the ground. It also said that anyone who advocated for those resources and the development of those resources was a planet burner. I am glad the Liberals have experienced an absolute backflip and inverted suplex on themselves and are now embracing our policies, at least verbally. However, now we need proof of that change and transformation with real action, the real construction of pipelines, and real development.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the beautiful province of Quebec. What we need now is a government that will actually do something. We need a government that gets real things done for Canadians. When we rank 38 out of 38 among OECD nations for GDP per capita, that is an indictment of the government's policies, which have failed to deliver real results. Even though the pronouncements are grand, the results have been very much disastrous as it relates to competitiveness for our industries, for our workers and for affordability for Canadians from coast to coast. It is time to get results for them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart. The announced idling of the AV Nackawic mill is putting hundreds of hard-working Canadians out of a job heading into Christmas. This is not the first time my hometown has experienced this. My father worked at the same mill for over 50 years and experienced a closure in 2005. I am receiving calls from families wondering how they will make their house payments, keep their kids in sports or put food on the table. Will the government commit to working with me to do everything necessary to secure the livelihoods of my home community?

Mr. Speaker, a young lady who contacted me was wondering how her family was going to make ends meet, let alone provide a Christmas for her children with her husband now facing unemployment. We know that forestry mills are facing huge competitive disadvantages here in Canada, namely because of tariffs, over-regulation and the industrial carbon tax, which costs the mill in Nackawic over $2 million a year. Will the government commit to removing the barriers for our businesses so that this young lady and many others like her can have some hope for a brighter future?

Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 as the only leader who has driven his country into a recession. While families struggle through this full-blown recession, the Liberals continue to offer announcements instead of results. On Thursday, the Liberals brought yet another food affordability strategy, but grocery bills remain sky-high. Canadians are making impossible choices just to survive. In New Brunswick, one man was forced to postpone open-heart surgery because he simply could not afford to stop working and recover. Meanwhile in Moncton, there were over 300 opioid overdoses in just two weeks. Things are getting desperate. While families struggle to buy groceries, the Prime Minister is leaving on a jet plane and is not sure when he will be back again. He has spent nearly $1 million on luxury inflight catering over 14 trips so far. When two in five Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, they are right to ask why the Liberals are funding luxury while their families are struggling to just get by.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, four reports of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group. I had the privilege of leading several of these missions alongside the Hon. Senator MacDonald as co-chairs of the Canadian section of the interparliamentary group. The first concerns the IPG's participation at the west annual meeting of the Council of State Governments, known as CSG, in Jackson, Wyoming, from September 16 to 19, 2025. The second concerns the IPG's participation at the CSG national conference in Chicago, Illinois, from December 9 to 13, 2025. The third concerns the interparliamentary group's first-ever mission to Mexico City, from January 13 to 15, to participate in CUSMA-focused discussions and round tables. The fourth overviews the IPG's contributions to the Future Borders Coalition transportation border summit in Washington, D.C., on January 21 and 22, as well as our discussions with U.S. counterparts from the interparliamentary group.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to rise today. Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, eight reports of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group. The first concerns the interparliamentary group's participation at the national conference of the Council of State Governments, which is known as CSG, in New Orleans, Louisiana, from December 4 to 7, 2024. The second concerns the IPG's participation at the Canadian embassy's inauguration event for the 47th President of the United States of America in Washington, D.C., on January 19 and 20, 2025. The third concerns IPG's annual congressional visit to Washington, D.C., on March 4 and 5, 2025. The fourth concerns IPG's participation at the CSG's South Southern Legislative Annual Conference in Birmingham, Alabama, from July 19 to 23, 2025. The fifth concerns IPG's contributions to the Pacific Northwest Economic Region's 34th annual summit in Bellevue, Washington, from July 20 to 24, 2025. The sixth concerns IPG's participation at the CSG Midwest Legislative Regional Conference in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, from July 27 to 30, 2025. The seventh concerns IPG's contributions to the legislative summit of the National Conference of State Legislatures in Boston, Massachusetts, from August 4 to 6, 2025. The eighth and final report concerns the IPG's participation at the CSG Eastern Regional Conference in Providence, Rhode Island, from August 17 to 20, 2025.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a certified electronic petition signed by over 1,080 Canadians. The petitioners are calling on the government, specifically the Minister of Fisheries, to halt the proposed closure of the Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility. The petitioners note that this facility plays a critical role in preserving endangered wild Atlantic salmon populations and supporting local ecosystems. Therefore, they request that the Minister of Fisheries keep the Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility's programs operational and consult with the Wolastoqey Nation in New Brunswick, several of whose chiefs are here in the nation's capital this week, regarding the future of the biodiversity facility. Petitioners want the government to reaffirm Canada's commitment to Atlantic salmon conservation and ensure that all salmon at the facility are released.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, five reports of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, also called the Group. The first concerns the interparliamentary group's participation at the 78th annual meeting of the Council of State Governments Southern Legislative Conference in Greenville, West Virginia, from July 21 to 25, 2024. The second concerns the IPG's participation at the Pacific Northwest Economic Region's 33rd annual summit in Whistler, British Columbia, from July 21 to 25, 2024. The third concerns the IPG's participation at the 63rd annual meeting of the CSG Eastern Regional Conference in Baltimore, Maryland, from July 28 to 31, 2024. The fourth concerns the IPG's contributions to the National Conference of State Legislatures annual meeting in Louisville, Kentucky, from August 5 to 7, 2024. The fifth and final report concerns the IPG's participation in the Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Illinois, from August 19 to 22, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the people's House to present this petition on behalf of the great citizens of Nova Scotia and Canadians from coast to coast who are calling upon the Government of Canada to pause its planned closure of the important agricultural research facility in Nappan, Nova Scotia. The research facility does incredible work for our beef producers, livestock producers and 4-H producers across the country, especially in the Atlantic region. With this petition, they are hereby calling upon the government to pause its planned closure and to listen and engage meaningfully with the agriculture producers and residents of those rural communities.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the people's House, and it is a joy to rise on this occasion to offer our support for this private member's bill. The member for Compton—Stanstead has worked hard on this issue. I hear her refer often to people in rural communities and in the rural areas of her riding and district. I congratulate her on her efforts in addressing this area of grave concern. Across the country, in rural and remote areas, connectivity is a huge, ongoing challenge. I represent a district that is well acquainted with this challenge. There will be times when I am in the middle of a great conversation, enthralled and just getting to the highlight, and then all of a sudden I am talking to myself. “That didn't work so well”, I think. Whether it is in Arthurette, in Craig Flats, in Brockway or heading toward Forest City, there are lots of dead zones. For many of the citizens and residents of my region, that is a huge concern for public safety and for health care. If they are in a rural area and do not have really good reception, they are not sure they can get the help they need when they need it. We want to address this and take any steps we can. The bill is one of the steps we can take to address this issue by helping to hold the providers accountable and by bringing transparency. We commend and support those efforts. We are looking forward to supporting the bill through to committee and then continuing to press the government to do all it can to address the ongoing need for increased coverage and broadband access across the rural and remote areas and regions of our country. Many times, rural Canada feels forgotten, left aside and not thought about or considered in policy deliberations that take place in the House. I understand that a disproportionate amount of the population is concentrated in urban centres, but so much of what makes Canada a truly incredible country is housed in rural Canada and in remote Canada. Whether that is our vast natural resources of our incredible oil and gas sector, our energy sector and our mining sector, or our agriculture sector, many of the centres and hubs of tremendous resources and financial capacity are housed in rural and remote communities. Part of making sure that those areas remain vital, vibrant and prosperous is ensuring that people can inhabit those places, still function at a high level and participate in society in a meaningful way. Part of that is connectivity so people can continue to work, do business and be able to reside in these places. Whether they are working in a lumberyard, whether they are on a tractor on a farm and are in need of GPS, or whether they are in the resource sector, working, providing livelihood and gaining substance from that, having the ability to connect is critical. The bill is one step toward making sure we are holding providers to account and bringing transparency, and we are going to ensure that they are meeting the objectives and the targets that need to be there. It is an important step, but obviously we need continued focus on broadening and opening up competition, on allowing and encouraging more providers to get into the space so access can become more affordable for Canadians and so Canadians who live in rural and remote areas can have options for connectivity. We will continue to press, from this side of the House, for the bill to remain a priority and for it to get the support it needs. We will also press for an enhanced discussion. Beyond discussion, enhanced action needs to take place to bring connectivity to those Canadians who have oftentimes been overlooked and forgotten. As I was preparing my speech, I could not help but reflect a bit. I was reflecting on an ancient story that came back to me as I was reflecting on the importance of connection and connectivity. I got to thinking about people and what they go through when they feel disconnected. Oftentimes, it goes far beyond just cell and broadband access. There is a deeper lesson in this, which is that, when anyone feels disconnected, it comes with all kinds of other societal challenges. Social isolation is a big problem. It is very real. Social anxiety is a big problem. When people feel disconnected from family, that leads to many issues. When they feel disconnected from help, that leads to issues. If they feel disconnected from resources and services, that leads to multiple issues. I was reflecting on an old story, and I believe there is a correlation. It goes like this. There was once a man who was travelling from one community to another. The way it is written, it is said that he fell among thieves. He was robbed, beaten, left on the side of the road and abandoned. After they had stripped him and taken his goods, they left him there half dead. This man was lying in a ditch with no help. He was feeling isolated, cut off from help, cut off from resources and cut off from his family. He was left to die. The man heard the sound of footprints coming down the road and was probably feeling happy that help was on the way. I am sure his hopes were rising, even though his strength was faint and he did not have the capacity to help himself fully. He thought that this was his answer because he heard help coming down the road. As this gentleman came up to him, his hopes, which had been rising so quickly, were quickly dashed. Why? It is because this gentleman, who was a priest, a religious man, looked at the man in the ditch and decided he did not have the time to deal with him. It was too messy and too complicated. He had to get to an important meeting, so he crossed over on the other side and kept on walking. Then came another man. The man in the ditch thought about how the last one did not work out well, how he left him more hurt, isolated and disappointed, but that maybe this one was his answer. Along came a very educated man. He was prestigious, a lawyer, a scribe. He was well regarded in the community. He was distinguished and had all kinds of resources. The man in the ditch thought to himself that this guy could help him, he could get him connected to what he needed to get better. Surely this was his answer. We can see that the hope was rising up inside the man who was lying by the wayside, in the ditch. He was thinking that surely this was the guy who could get him connected. Though it promised much and the man had the ability to do so, he looked at the man in the ditch and figured that he was too far gone and he had no time for that. He had more important things to deal with. He was busy, so he crossed over to the other side and kept on walking. The man in the ditch grew worse and more despairing. Then there was a third gentleman who came along that road. Members will recall the story. He did not come from much pedigree. He was not known as a person in a position of great authority. He was a stranger and a commoner, but something happened inside that man when he saw the man in the ditch, who was disconnected, cut off from resources and the sources of help he needed and was desperate for. This kind stranger was so moved, he got off his donkey, climbed down into the ditch, bandaged up his wounds and spent some time with him. Thankfully, he did not just give him a band-aid or put a bandage on him and move on. He did something very important, which relates to this bill, believe it or not. He took the man and connected him. He decided to take him to the local area hospital and make sure that he got the help he needed. He made sure that he was connected, had found a new circle and had the resources he needed to be hooked back up on the way to recovery and wholeness. Of course, that is the ever-famous story of the good Samaritan. There is good news in this bill. I see a correlation. If we can help people get connected to the help they need, if they are isolated and cut off, hurt by life circumstances, maybe because of where they live or because they do not have access to all the latest technology, we can somehow build a bridge of connectivity to them and help them gain access to the help, public safety, health care and resources they need to better their situation. I thank the hon. colleague across the way for her efforts on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of Canadians and residents of Canada to present a petition in the House of Commons calling upon the federal government and the House of Commons to recognize the efforts of the free people of Iran to establish an open, free democracy and to stand with the good people of Iran who have been longing, for 47 years, for freedom from the oppressive regime they have been under. It gives me great honour to present this petition today on their behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, three reports of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, or CEUS. The first report concerns the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group's participation at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Council of State Governments, CSG, Western Legislative Conference in Portland, Oregon, from July 9 to 12, 2024. The second concerns the IPG's participation at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from July 15 to 18, 2024. The third concerns the IPG's participation at the 78th Annual Meeting of the CSG Midwestern Legislative Conference in Columbus, Ohio, from July 21 to 24, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the people's House today to address Bill C-10, in regard to appointing a commissioner for modern treaty implementation. As I begin my remarks, I cannot help but think that we are yet again dealing with another announcement and a “no results in sight” type of proclamation. We continuously hear the members on the other side making grand announcements and pronouncements but with really no sincere or legitimate prospects of delivery. What we are hearing in the bill is, once again, a government that is high in the art of optics but really, really grades low as it relates to actual deliverables and measurable results. I could not help but think of an old story I was told several years ago, before I was elected, by a gentleman who is quite astute, who follows politics in New Brunswick and nationally and has for some time. He told me this story a few years ago, and it came back to me as I was preparing my remarks. He said there is always a tell in politics. He said we can tell when we are being set up for something. I asked him what it was. I said, “Please, do tell.” He said that oftentimes we know we are being set up when in politics, a politician or parliamentarian or legislator sits us down and hears our story. They nod their head. They show an empathetic look and even a listening ear. They nod graciously, and they will agree occasionally. They will sigh when it is appropriate to sigh, and they will shake their head when it is appropriate to shake their head. They will look greatly concerned. However, he said, we can tell for sure that probably not a whole lot is going to get done that matters or is consequential when they say they are seized with this matter, that they are laser focused on this matter and are absolutely consumed with this matter. They will say it is a high priority for them to make sure that this matter is dealt with. In fact, they are so concerned with this matter that they are going to put it under active study. They are going to establish a committee and a commission to further examine the problem that we have brought to them here today. He said, “Young man, I want to assure you, as soon as a politician or parliamentarian or legislator begins to talk like that, I can guarantee you that your issue is not their priority.” I walked away from that meeting realizing I had probably heard a sound lesson in politics. How often have we heard in the House that the Liberals are laser focused on this matter, that they are seized with this issue, that this is of the utmost priority for the government, that they will put that under active study, enact another commission and appoint a commissioner to look at it? That commissioner has no real authority and does not really have any responsibility, but they want us to know they are seized with the issue, so we should take great comfort in that. Thus, I draw the conclusion that, likely, we had better take this particular pronouncement with a whole lot of salt. I will go on further to say to Canadians that I know our aspirations may be good in this and our intentions may be well, but I hear, as it were, the old song that says what we are looking for is a little less talk and a whole lot more action. I find myself kind of thinking that what we are looking for is a little R-E-S-P-E-C-T. It is time that we had a little more respect and a little more action that is concrete, tangible and measurable, and that has results and metrics by which we can determine whether they have actually implemented the grandiose response to the urgent need before the House. I will say that after all of this, I have come to the conclusion that the bill would be, once again, great in optics but probably not overwhelmingly successful in outcomes. I think what we want is to get to the place where outcomes are going to be the priority of any of these types of implementations. It is one thing that we have treaties, and that is important, and they need to be respected and acted upon. Modern treaties can be done. We know this can happen because under the previous Conservative government, no fewer than six treaties were implemented in five years, and believe it not, they did not have a commissioner. The Crown, the government and the minister took on their area of responsibility and implemented the treaty. Oh my land, it is an amazing concept. When that concept is embraced by our dear friends on the other side of the aisle, I know Canadians will be thrilled and satisfied with real results rather than yet another announcement of a grand commissioner and a grand commission to further examine, illustrate, study and review. Let us come up with someone who is going to take action, and that can be the government or the minister, acting upon the treaties that are agreed to, to get real projects done that will enhance the lives of all Canadians, our indigenous friends as well as all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. I get excited about the potential of these things getting enacted. However, like a lot of Canadians, I view this with a little skepticism when it comes to yet another proclamation of another layer of bureaucracy. We do not need another office established. We do not need another commission established. We do not need yet another person hired or more consultants hired or another grand project announced. What we need is action on what has already been laid out and put forward by many of our indigenous friends across the country, as well as those who have great insights: provincial governments, municipal governments and the private sector with projects they would like to undertake, in agreement and in accordance with our indigenous friends. Why not start to implement those good ideas rather than establishing another layer of government? Let us get beyond that and start enacting these things. I think when we do, then Canadians will be encouraged. I am going to conclude quickly. I could not help but think of a famous story, an ancient story. It goes back some time. As I was reflecting on my remarks today, I could not help but think of it. It is a story of a father who had two sons. He approached the first son, and he said, “Son, I need you to go and take care of this.” The first son, he was really matter-of-fact: “No, I can't do that. Sorry, I can't do it.” He ended up saying no, but the more he thought about it later, he felt bad. He repented of that and said, “I am going to go and do what's right,” and he ended up doing it. The second son, when he was approached by the father, enthusiastically said, “Oh yes, we're going to do this. I'll do it, Father. Don't you worry.” However, he decided not to do it. He said great things but did bad things. The other son did not have the right initial response, but he took the right action. Guess which son pleased the father. Obviously it was the first son. Even though his initial response was not good, he did the right thing in the end. I believe our indigenous friends and our Canadian friends from coast to coast to coast are looking to us in this House. I know we have not always gotten it right, and I know it has not always been done right in the past, but let us do what is right now, turn from the things that are wrong, take the right steps, do a lot less talking and a lot more walking, and get things done that are right for Canada without another grand commission.

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague on the other side of the aisle as well and enjoy our conversations. I must say the position we are taking is with respect to removing yet another barrier to direct communications between those who want to put the actions into place and get the projects done. Why not have those direct consultations, those direct conversations with the ministers, the Crown and the indigenous peoples and then get the projects done? I think that removes a layer of bureaucracy that is not necessary at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this with respect to scapegoating, which is an old practice for sure: someone else always ends up bearing the responsibility for the sins of others. I think what is happening is that we are seeing a tendency in politics of late, and this can happen in any political party but is evidently in place here now, where it is always the fault of someone else, somewhere else, some other jurisdiction or some other nation somewhere around the world. Real responsibility starts at home. We must get our own house in order so we can bring about change here. The real responsibility is here, in this House, with us making the right decisions for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes when there are more layers between the ultimate decision-makers and those who are on the receiving end of those decisions, it is a means of protection, a means of shielding. The ultimate responsibility is when we peel back the layers and say that it is time we took action, took responsibility and got to work, because to delay and to further delay is to ultimately deny. What we need to do is get to where we take action and implement the modern treaties to help put in place the infrastructure that is going to help all Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, by no means was any disrespect intended, ever, toward our indigenous friends. We are having a lively discussion about the implementation of a particular recommendation of government. I will say that we have had some of our indigenous friends and colleagues from this side of the House speak very adamantly and passionately against this proposal as well. That includes some indigenous friends who serve on this side of the House. I am sure they would not expect an apology—

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. Mothers play a defining role in shaping our future. When our world falls apart, they hold us together. They care and pray for us. As we approach Mother's Day, I want to thank all mothers who continue to do what only they can. Without them, there is no future. On a personal note, I want to pay tribute to the mothers in my life who have helped shape me and my family, including my incredible wife, Crystal, the mother of our three children; my mother-in-law, Lillian Cole; my great-grandmother Vada Sullivan; and especially my mom, who recently celebrated her 72nd birthday and is battling a debilitating disease. She raised four children and several grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Her love, resilience, humour and faith are an example to us all. Though her speech is somewhat broken and her steps are now unsteady, her hope is steadfast and her legacy is assured. From the floor of the people's House, the House of Commons of Canada, I thank my mom. I love her, and I am proud to be called her son. I wish my mom a happy Mother's Day.

Mr. Speaker, in rural Canada, families and small businesses have no choice but to drive long distances for work, school and basic services, and they are being hit the hardest by soaring costs and soaring fuel prices. Meanwhile, the Liberals stand to collect up to $9 billion in extra taxes and revenue from these higher prices. Will the Liberals adopt our plan to cut 25¢ per litre and make rural Canadians' lives more affordable?

Mr. Speaker, rural Canadians, and Canadians across the country, for that matter, know that our biggest challenges are not coming from without. They are coming from within through overtaxation and over-regulation. When will the government, knowing that it is going to be collecting billions more because of these high taxes, come up with a plan, adopt our plan to reduce the cost on fuels by 25¢ a litre and provide $1,200 more per year in immediate relief for Canadian families? Why will the government not stop the delays and finally give Canadians a break at the pump?

Mr. Speaker, I too rise in the House to once again present a petition on behalf of Canadians from coast to coast who are gravely concerned with the passage of Bill C-9 through the House. Their concerns relate, in particular, to the Liberal-Bloc amendment pertaining to Bill C-9, which was passed at the justice committee, that removes the good-faith religious defence clause from the Criminal Code of Canada. Bill C-9 would allow the government to criminalize passages from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah and other sacred texts. Bill C-9 would allow the state to prosecute those who express deeply held religious beliefs the government finds offensive. The punishment for such charges is up to two years in prison. The state has no place in the religious texts or teachings of any faith community. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be preserved. The petitioners ask that the government withdraw Bill C-9 to protect religious freedom and uphold the right to read and share and practice from their sacred text and prevent government intrusion in the practice thereof.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians the strongest economy in the G7, but today we are falling behind. We now have the only shrinking economy in the G7 and among the highest unemployment and the highest household debt. In rural communities, families are being hit really hard. Farmers and producers are facing soaring input costs and blocked resource projects that drive local economies. Canada is struggling because of Liberal policies that have stifled growth. When will the Prime Minister turn from these failed policies that have left Canadians behind?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today as the chair of the 60th annual National Prayer Breakfast. This is truly a historic event that takes place on the Hill each year, where we gather in the spirit of Christ and pray for our country. This non-partisan Christian event is the highlight for many of us, and I am pleased to say that we had a record attendance. This year's theme is that we are not alone, for we are assured that God is with us and that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, as is stated in scripture. It is a message that calls us to remember those who came before us, the enduring role of faith and the role it has played in shaping Canada's history, institutions and sense of service. I offer a special thanks to my colleagues, as well as our staff, the volunteers and all the attendees who are praying with us either in person or from across the country. This event would not be possible without them. We pray that Canada will continue to be the true north, strong and free. As our beloved national anthem declares, may God continue to “keep our land glorious and free”.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, four reports of the Canadian section of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group, or CEUS. The first concerns the IPG's participation at the Council of State Governments, CSG, in South Carolina, at the South Southern Legislative Annual Conference, from July 8 to July 12, 2023. The second concerns the IPG's participation at the Pacific Northwest Economic Region Annual Summit, known as PNWER, in Boise, Idaho, from July 16 to July 20, 2023. The third concerns the IPG's participation at the annual meeting of the Council of State Governments Western Legislative Conference in Los Angeles, California, from November 12 to November 15, 2023. The fourth concerns the IPG's annual congressional visit to Washington, D.C., from May 15 to May 16, 2024.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians know we cannot control what happens abroad, but the government controls the policies here at home. Under the Liberal government, Canada now has the worst food price inflation in the G7 and the only shrinking economy in the G7. Our families, seniors, workers and those who transport our food have no alternative but to use fuel. These costs are imposed here at home, not abroad. When will the Liberals end the era of self-sabotage and remove the policies that are driving up costs here at home?

Mr. Speaker, tell that to the producers and farmers in Victoria, Carleton and York counties in New Brunswick, who are being hit by the Liberals' newly renamed carbon tax, the clean fuel standard, which adds seven cents a litre. At the same time, the Liberals have raised the industrial carbon tax on steel, aluminum and farm equipment. All this is driving up costs for dairy, beef and poultry producers in my region and throughout the country. These costs are imposed here at home. I will ask again. When will the Liberals end their era of self-sabotage and remove the policies that are making life more expensive for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition, as many people have reached out to my office and contacted me repeatedly from various faith communities concerned about Bill C-9. This petition calls for there to be free expression, and the protection of freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of belief, which are fundamental rights. I cannot help but think of Canada's 13th prime minister, Sir John G. Diefenbaker, when he said, “I am Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold—

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again rise here in the people's House, this time in support of the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas's bill, Bill C-237, which brings to the floor of the House a concern that originated in a local community. The rural parts of this country are the often overlooked regions that far too often get neglected when it comes to policy considerations, including the formation of policies around fisheries. Too many times decisions have been made that have had devastating consequences for local communities and those communities where livelihoods depend upon access to stable resources and fisheries. They have been willing to make sacrifices to conserve the species that were at risk, and they have proven that. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have proven that time and time again. They have paid a huge personal price to protect the species that are risk, including, and namely, cod. We are in a circumstance where this is coming from those very communities that are very much connected to the waters. Many that are connected to the commercial fishery are on those waters, and they recognize when stocks are rebounding. They know when stock quotas are improving, when the health of a certain stock of fish is coming into a better zone and when there are more plentiful resources available to people. They want to be able to enjoy that resource again. It is a part of their way of life. It is a part of what they have done as families for years. Not only have they made their livings off the water, but it has also become a means of food security for many families. They want to be able to gain meaningful access again. What they are asking for is not something that is unreasonable. They want to be put on par with other Atlantic Canadian provinces. There is a huge disparity. When Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have different sets of rules than Newfoundland and Labrador, that is an inequity that needs to be addressed, and it should be addressed expeditiously. This bill goes toward that. It is to restore fairness when it comes to the recreational fishery and obtaining access to the cod that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so love and are most acquainted with. If there is a group of Canadians that is fully invested in the health of the stocks of cod, it would be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If those who are most affected by this are feeling that this is something important to them and would be good because it would put more people on the water and allow them to regularly monitor the health of those stocks and how they are doing, that would be a good thing. It could unify the region. It would cause a ceasing of the disparity between one Atlantic province and another. This bill would go a long way to levelling that playing field, and we should pursue it. I commend my colleague, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas for his hard work on this. He worked with his colleagues, the members for Long Range Mountains and Central Nova, to make sure that this is a reflection of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want. It would behoove those who represent Canadians from all parts of the country, from coast to coast to coast, to do our due diligence and listen to those voices that would be most affected by this bill. Those who would be most impacted are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and they are saying that they would love to see this bill enacted. They want it brought in. They want fairness restored. They want access to a fishery that was a tremendously overwhelming part of their lives and heritage for a long time. It is only right that we, as the people's representatives here in the House, listen to those in Newfoundland and Labrador who are saying, “Pass this bill. Allow us to gain access to this fishery. Let us do what we enjoy doing.” They are, trust me, more invested in the health of the cod stocks than any of us in this room. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are passionate about making sure that the cod fishery is sustainable and endures for as long as Canada does. We want this to be not only a part of Canadian heritage but also a part of Canada's future. That happens by taking this step, bringing this bill to committee, letting us study it and getting to the bottom of it. It does get a bit rich when I hear the opponents of this bill stand up to talk about how we have to protect the resource and how these families going out to fish five cod a day would be detrimental to the health of the cod stocks. It gets really rich when, for the last 11 years, the government has done absolutely nothing about the biggest predator, the overwhelming risk to the health of the cod stocks for years, which is the explosion of the pinniped population in that part of our country. There has been study after study. I have been on the fisheries committee, and I have heard the fish harvesters who have come in. They have given testimony about what is quite literally the elephant in the waters, and that needs to be addressed if we want to protect all kinds of fish stocks and their futures. The government has not done anything about that for 11 years, but it would single out recreational fishers who want to recapture part of their way of life. I think it is a misplaced priority. In fact, I know it is a misplaced priority. Let us get back to common sense. Let us allow this bill to get to committee to have that discussion. Let us talk about the future of the cod fishery. Let us talk about the health of the cod stocks, and let us hear from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, those who live in our coastal and rural communities who are most affected by these types of decisions. Let us give this bill a chance and get it to committee. That way, we would bring cohesion to Atlantic provinces, so we would not be pitting one province against another, having one set of rules for Prince Edward Islanders, another set for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, another set for Nova Scotians and another one for New Brunswickers. No, let us make sure that they come into the equation and that there is consistency. This bill would go a long way to establishing that. I want to commend my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador for listening to their people, those who are most impacted by this decision. It takes a member of Parliament who is connected to his or her region to make sure that those concerns get brought to this floor and are debated. I know these colleagues well. This young man would not have brought this bill forward if he did not feel this was important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let us listen to what they are saying, hear their concerns, support this bill and get it to committee. I appreciate the members' time and attention.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are a resilient people who believe that if they work hard, care for their neighbours and contribute to their communities, they should be able to build a good life. Canadians are now feeling overwhelmed and weighed down, wondering how they will afford a home, put food on the table or plan for tomorrow, but hope is not lost. It is found in our foundations as a nation, in the shared values that bind us together, and in the enduring belief that a better country is built through hard work, good policy and steady leadership. Conservatives are united by our belief in shared dignity and opportunity. We believe governments should let Canadians thrive. We need to let the farmers farm, let the producers produce and let the workers work. They are the very ones who helped build this country, and they will be key to our nation's comeback. When the House puts forward serious, effective ideas that truly help Canadians, Conservatives will work in good faith to fast-track those results, because we believe in Canada, and we will always put our fellow Canadians ahead of politics.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today and speak to this important motion that our party's leader brought forward. We recognize that the challenges Canadians are facing are serious and very real. Canadians do not have to look at an economics chart or study statistics to realize that the cost of putting food on the table is going up exponentially each and every month and year. In fact, we have seen, just this year, that the average cost of groceries to feed a family of four has hit over $17,000 per year and is expected to go up another $1,000 in a year. I have a feeling that many Canadians look at this and wonder how they are ever going to make ends meet. We have to look at it holistically and realize that this pain is real. It is not just some table or statistic. It is a reality that families are experiencing day in and day out, and we are hearing about it. I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the House get the same types of call I get. We do not even have to wait in our offices for a phone call. We can just visit the local grocery store and talk to those who are purchasing groceries. They recognize that the problem is not with the farmer, because it is not the farmer who determines the price. It is also not the trucking company that determines the price. Domestic government policy and the government's priorities are impacting the price of food. It is time we put the priorities straight and put the cost of living first and foremost on the priority list of the government. We must not be distracted. We must address the root cause of soaring inflation in this country. We are not ranked number one in the G7 for food inflation without having responsibility for that. It is easy to scapegoat or point the finger at some vast, outside influence causing it, but we have to check within our own house and see what needs to be fixed. I would humbly present before the House that we must start with the foundation. I was reminded of an ancient story, and perhaps some members will recognize it. It refers to those who were wise about where they built. They chose to build upon a rock, and when the winds, adversity and trouble came, their house withstood those storms because their foundation was firm. The foolish builders decided to build on sand, and when the winds and rains came and beat against the house, the structure looked similar. It looked great and wonderful, but what was underneath the structure was faulty. As a result, it began to falter when pressure came. Now, we can curse the wind and blast the storms. We can holler at them and say they are terrible, awful and unjust, or we can look at the foundation and say, “It is time to fix it and make sure we are building on the right place.” We have a choice to make. We could continue to build on sand and grow the size of government, grow programs and spend more money. At the end of the day, we can spend and spend and never solve any problems if the foundation does not get fixed. It is time we fixed the foundation and addressed the real issues at the core of the challenges we are facing as they relate to affordability, which Canadians are struggling with.

Mr. Speaker, I am starting to feel a bit comfortable, but I have to wind down because I am going to get interrupted. I will be giving colleagues a high-five and doing all that good stuff here in just a second. If we are going to address the faulty foundation, we have to deal with the four Fs. I will get into them in my second segment. I am just warming up. Let us talk about the cost of food and the soaring input costs that farms are facing. We must also talk about fuel, because fuel is what drives and gets our food to market and on the grocery shelves. When the price of fuel goes up, the price of food goes up, so we have to address fuel. Once we get beyond fuel, we had better check the foundation so we can build a future of prosperity and affordability for every Canadian. It is time to check the foundation, to get the country back on the right foundation, to stop building on sand and to start building on a firm foundation.

Mr. Speaker, as I was stating, it is so important at a time like this that we check the foundation. If we just continue to build and build, without making sure that the foundation is right and the thing upon which we are building is sound and secure, many times we are going to have even more problems. Canadians are demanding that we check the foundation to make sure we get it right. The foundations I am talking about are the very sectors that helped build this country in the first place: the foundations of farming, forestry, fisheries, the fuel sector and natural resource development. Those things help provide food security and economic security for our people. However, what we have seen since that time is an ever-expanding growth in government, and a dependency upon government and growing its programs, without growing, developing and ensuring that the economics upon which they are built and established are firm and successful. Those are the very sectors that provide the revenue and the strength to sustain those programs. Too many times we are looking to another new and expansive government program that costs Canadian taxpayers more and more money—

Mr. Speaker, I want to draw our attention to one of the big challenges we are facing. We have gotten away from our foundation, which is the affordability of food. When we look at the cost of groceries affecting each and every Canadian right now and their households, when we look at the fact that Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7, that is not bad luck. That is just plain bad policy. Food inflation is twice as high now as when the Prime Minister took office. After nearly a decade of Liberal rule, life costs more, not less. Food inflation is said to now be double that in the United States, and it is obviously more than in all of the other G7 countries. They face the same weather and climatic changes that we do. They face the same global supply chain challenges and shocks that we do. What is the difference? It is a difference in governments and the approach and fiscal policies they undertake. When we consider that our food banks are being overrun, we have a situation that no longer is just an urban issue but has also spread into our rural communities. I have talked to the food bank workers in our areas. They are exhausted. They work harder and harder and put in more and more hours. They give out more food than ever before. With these growing challenges, 2.2 million visitors go to food banks every month. These are historic numbers, and they are troubling numbers. When we consider that food processing costs have continued to soar and that the input costs on our farmers have continued to soar, we realize we are expanding in all the wrong indicators and at all the wrong times. It is time we check our foundation, get back to what works and get away from the things that are detrimental to the growth of the very sectors of our economy that built this nation into the greatest nation there is. This great nation we live in is facing a great challenge, and it is because we have expanded in the areas we should be pulling back from. We have retreated in the areas we should be growing in, which are the areas of our future prosperity and the same as our past prosperity: the sectors of farming and natural resource development, and our fuel and oil and gas sectors. The ones that helped build the country are the ones that are going to help restore the country's prosperity. We must reverse course, stop putting the boot on our producers and on our farmers, and address the food inflationary challenges that every Canadian is facing right now, by getting out of the way and removing some of the regulatory and tax burdens that are overwhelming our farmers, our producers and our citizens. It is time to get back and fix the foundation.

Mr. Speaker, I always thank my hon. colleague for his many hours here in the House. He works tirelessly. I must say, though, he is profoundly wrong in this regard. Canadians are not saying to me, at least in my constituency office, that they have never had it so good, that it is so wonderful how well they are doing, that they have never had more money in their pocket. No, it is the exact opposite. They are frustrated because of the policies of the government. Ladies and gentlemen, it is like saying to the arsonist, go put out the fire you started; we will trust you. It was not this side of the House that said no to pipelines. It was not this side of the House that put carbon taxes on our farmers. It was not this side of the House that erected interprovincial trade barriers. It was that side of the House. It is time they get their side of the House in order.

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit beyond rich when recipients of transfer payments that come from the oil and gas sector, to the tune of $13 billion to $14 billion a year, then turn around and say to that very sector that it is the cause of food inflation. I say no. If they are so principled against those who produce our oil and gas, they should say no to the transfer payments, and we will redistribute it to the provinces that appreciate it.

Mr. Speaker, yes, we in New Brunswick, and in my part of the country that I represent, appreciate the hard work of our friends in Alberta and those, in particular, in the oil and gas sector, who help produce the fuel to fill up the trucks, fill up the ships and fuel the trains that transport the food from that part of the country to our part of the country and the energy from one part of the country to the others and also produce the revenues through which our regions of the country that sometimes struggle fiscally have the means to feed, work, build schools, build hospitals and maintain things. If we want to build a country that has food security, economic security and energy security, we had better work together and appreciate all regions of this country, and that includes our oil and gas producers.

Mr. Speaker, food security is national security. Statistics Canada confirms food inflation has hit 6.2%, the highest in the G7. It now costs $17,600 to feed a family of four, $1,000 more than last year, with food prices rising twice as fast as in the U.S. Canadians know why. The industrial carbon fuel and packaging taxes drive up the cost of farm equipment, fertilizer and trucking. Will the government move now to eliminate these taxes, boost grocery competition and cut the red tape on farmers, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, people in my riding and across this country are tired of the Liberals taking far more money out of their back pockets than they are putting in their front pockets. Food banks now see 2.2 million visits every month. Food prices are rising twice as fast as when the Prime Minister first took office. The Liberals' own reports admit that fuel standard taxes add 7¢ a litre today and are rising to 17¢, hitting rural Canadians the hardest. Again, will the government finally act to remove these taxes, increase grocery competition and support farmers, or will it keep forcing Canadians to pay the highest food inflation in the G7?

Madam Speaker, I find my hon. colleague's question somewhat perplexing. I think many Canadians share in being confounded by that, in that it is a lot like voodoo economics. Spending is spending is spending. We can call it investment, or we can call it this or that, but spending is spending, debt is debt and deficits are deficits. What we need is a government that is going to prioritize the needs of Canadians, unleash our private sector, stop standing on the backs of our industry, stop standing on the backs of our farmers, stop standing on the backs of our oil and gas sector, unleash that potential and build the infrastructure necessary to get Canadian goods to market. Then we will turn the economy around and be much more self-reliant in doing so.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec. It is a pleasure for me to speak about the budget again here in the House of Commons. The member raises a very valid point. The priority of Canadians is cost of living, and the last thing they need is another grandiose announcement, a big promise that sets expectations high, with results never to be seen for years, oftentimes even decades. The Liberals say that someday or tomorrow they are going to do this and they are going to do that, sometime in the future, but after a while, a promise without delivery leaves people feeling hopeless and desperate. Canadians need results and action, not just more spending and announcements. They need real results, not rhetoric. What we intend to do on this side of the House is deliver results for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. Liberals have totally missed the mark when it comes to delivering results for Canadians. They make promises without being grounded in reality and in tangible, measurable results for Canadians. The Liberals cannot talk down the very sectors that have helped make Canada the greatest country in the world historically. They cannot keep talking down those sectors and then expect, all of a sudden, to turn on a dime, say they are champions for Canada now and invite everyone to do business here. Canada is the highest tax jurisdiction in the advanced economy. They have put more regulations and taxes on our energy sector than in most other economies, then they wonder why they are not effective or delivering results. It is because they have misplaced priorities for years and talked down the best of the Canadian economy. Let us get out of the way and let Canada do what it does best: produce and work.