Parliamentary Speeches

moved that Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Madam Speaker, we know that the Internet gives us access to almost anything. With just a few clicks, we can watch a movie, learn a new skill on YouTube, find a new recipe, research any topic or talk to a friend down the street or even on the other side of the world. Within my own lifetime, the Internet has gone from something new to something that is fully integrated into our everyday lives. The Internet is without a doubt a big part of everyday life for every generation, including our children. They use it to do their homework. They play games. They watch videos. They connect with their friends. However, the Internet also gives children access to things that they are not ready to see, understand or even process. One thing that is readily available to kids is pornography. Research shows that children can be exposed to pornography online without ever even intending to look for it. They can come across it in an unintended search result. They can click on the wrong link. It can be shared by another child, or it can appear through an advertisement. Once a child sees it, we cannot assume they understand what they are seeing. They do not have the experience or maturity to understand what they are looking at, or what it means for a healthy relationship. Parents may not even know that this has happened. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection says children as young as eight and nine can easily come across sexually graphic material online. An Alberta study found that one-third of adolescents in this study had first been exposed to pornography by the age of 10. Other research has reported exposure at even younger ages, including children as young as five. Let us just sit with that for a moment and think about that. At five years old, a child is just beginning school. They are learning to read. They are learning how to make friends. They are learning about the world around them. They should not be exposed to pornography, and they certainly do not have the capacity to understand it. Children are being exposed to pornography online, sometimes at a very young age. The graphic and often violent content is not appropriate for a child. Their brains are still developing, and they are learning how to understand relationships, emotions, boundaries and the world around them. When a child is exposed to pornography, they do not have the maturity to understand what they are seeing. They may start to believe that what they are watching is healthy, and it can shape their ideas about sex, relationships and how people should treat one another. There is another concern. What might start as accidental exposure or curiosity can become a habit. A child may return to that content again and again. Over time, repeated use can become compulsive, and for some young people it can develop into an addiction. There is certainly evidence that compulsive consumption is a widespread and growing public health issue. One Canadian survey examined students from grade 7 to 11. Among the grade 8 students surveyed, 88% of boys and 72% of girls reported seeing sexually explicit content, and 35% of boys said they had seen pornography too many times to count. To be clear, these are children. They are still developing their understanding of sex, relationships and what is healthy, yet some are already being exposed to pornography on a regular basis. This is not something we should ignore, because that repeated exposure is rewiring the brains of the kids who are consuming it. Over time, repeated exposure can shape what a young person comes to see as healthy. It can shape their expectations about sex and relationships, and those ideas do not simply disappear once a child turns 18. What a young person sees while they are still developing can influence how they understand relationships later in life. We can see examples of this in the way that some harmful sexual behaviours have become normalized among young people. A recent article by sex neuroscientist Debra Soh examined the growing normalization of sexual choking among young people. She makes the case that pornography has played a role in making behaviour that was once clearly understood as dangerous seem normal or even expected in some relationships. These harms can affect how young people understand sex, relationships and consent, and the consequences can extend beyond a child who is viewing the content. When harmful behaviours are normalized, there can be victims on the other side of those behaviours. Young women and girls can be affected by expectations placed on them by partners who have learned distorted ideas about sex and relationships. We need to think about the young people who may be pressured to accept behaviour because they have been told it is normal. We also need to think about those who may experience sexual violence or abuse as a result. Protecting children from harmful content is not just about what they see on a screen. It is also about the kinds of relationships and expectations we want them to carry into adulthood, yet there are currently no safeguards in place to make sure children cannot easily access this content online. That is a disservice to our children. Bill S-209 is a response to that lack of a safeguard. I am grateful to Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne for her persistence and dedication in addressing this issue and for her commitment to protecting children online. I share that commitment. To be clear, the bill is very targeted. It would not ban pornography. What it would do is require commercial pornography websites to take responsible steps to make sure their content is not being viewed by children. If a website makes money by providing pornography, it should have a responsibility to help keep that content away from children. Bill S-209 would require these websites to use effective age verification or age estimation measures. In other words, if the content is intended for adults, there should be a reasonable way to make sure that the person accessing it is actually an adult. This is about putting in age restrictions where ones should already exist. We have age restrictions for many things in the real world. One has to be a certain age to buy alcohol. One has to be a certain age to gamble. One has to be a certain age to purchase pornography. We expect businesses to follow these rules. Frankly, we should expect the same online. Children deserve that protection. That is what the bill would do, while also taking into account the privacy of Canadians. It is not a matter of protecting children or protecting privacy. We can and we should do both. Bill S-209 includes safeguards to protect the personal information of Canadians while making sure that children cannot easily access pornography. The bill would put clear requirements in place for any age verification or age estimation method that is prescribed. The method must be highly effective. It must be operated by an independent third party. It must protect the privacy of users and their personal information. It can only collect and use information that is necessary to verify or estimate a person's age. Once the process is complete, that information must be destroyed. The goal is to confirm that someone is old enough to access adult content. It is not to create a record of what Canadians are looking at online. It is certainly worth noting that Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, has expressed support for Bill S-209 and welcomed the privacy protections included in the legislation. When we are talking about children, there is another important part of this conversation that we cannot overlook, and that is parents. Parents have the primary responsibility for raising their children. They teach their children right from wrong. They set boundaries. They talk to their children about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. Parents do everything they can to keep their children safe. This legislation in no way undermines the authority of parents. It does not replace the role of parents. It does not tell parents how to raise their children. Instead, it gives parents another tool to help protect their children online, because the reality is that no matter how hard parents try, they cannot monitor everything their children see online. They cannot be there for every search, every click, every message and every video. Parents can use parental controls and other safeguards on their children's devices, and those tools can certainly help, but they cannot protect every child from coming across inappropriate content. That is where this legislation can help. It would add another layer of protection. It would put responsibility on the companies that profit from providing pornography to make sure that children cannot easily access it. Parents should not have to carry that responsibility alone. They are already doing everything they can. This bill would simply give them another tool to help keep their children safe online. When I was home in my riding over the summer, I spoke with many parents about this issue. The message I heard was very clear: Parents want to protect their children. They know they cannot monitor everything their children do online, and they see this legislation as a reasonable step that can help them do that. It is widely understood that early exposure to pornography is harmful to children. After decades of widespread access to online pornography, we have research showing the negative impact that early and repeated exposure can have on young people, and we as legislators have a responsibility to act on what we know. That means putting reasonable safeguards in place, supporting parents and making sure commercial pornography companies have effective age restrictions in place to keep their content away from children. Bill S-209 would do exactly that. It would create a barrier between children and pornography that does not currently exist. It would help prevent unintended exposure and make it more difficult for children to access this content. It would give parents another tool while recognizing that parents cannot do this alone, and it would do so while respecting the privacy of Canadians. This bill would not ban pornography. It would not replace parents. It would simply recognize that protecting children online is a shared responsibility. Children deserve reasonable safeguards and guardrails to protect them from online pornography. Parents deserve the tools to help protect them, and Canadians deserve privacy protections. Bill S-209 would bring these priorities together. I hope that all members of this House recognize the urgency of this issue and support the protections that our children deserve.

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize what Bill C-34 is encapsulating. Bill C-34 specifically applies to regulated social media services and regulated chatbot services, so that is user-generated content. What Bill S-209 is targeting is pornographic content from online porn companies. They are two different things. I believe there is a hole in Bill C-34 where this is not covered. Online porn companies are not covered in Bill C-34. Bill S-209 is a targeted piece of legislation that will close that hole.

Mr. Speaker, we do sit together on HUMA, and I very much appreciate working with the member. We know the Privacy Commissioner has endorsed this bill. There are specific provisions in section 12(2) that would ensure that whatever method is chosen needs to be highly effective, be operated by a third party organization, and maintain user privacy and protect personal information. The fact that the Privacy Commissioner has endorsed this bill says leaps and bounds, because his job is to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is respected. For sure, I think this would be great to go to committee, where we can have a deeper dive on those conversations regarding Bill S-209.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very long time. It has been over 10 years that we have known this is an issue. Not long ago, there was an article in The Globe and Mail, which I referred to in my remarks, about sexual strangulation derailing a generation of girls. This is how pornography is affecting children, the next generation. It is a distorted version of what relationships and sex are. It is time this legislation passes so that we are able to move forward and take it to committee.

Mr. Speaker, a survey released yesterday by the National Payroll Institute found that half of employed Canadians are now spending all or more of their take-home pay, leaving nothing for savings. Liberal taxes and wasteful government spending are only making things more expensive for Canadians. Our Conservative plan will save Canadians money. We have identified nearly $10,000 in savings for every Canadian family. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians can keep more of their money and afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, let us listen to how out of touch the Liberals are. More than one in four Canadians say they “would struggle to meet their financial obligations if their [paycheque] was delayed by just one week.” Canadians need a government focused on lowering their costs and helping them get ahead. As I said, our Conservative economic action plan identifies nearly $10,000 in savings for every Canadian family. I hear the Liberals scoffing, because they think that is not a lot of money. I am going to ask again, will the Liberals adopt our plan so Canadians can save money and afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying more for everything. Glen has shared with me that he is working three jobs just to stay afloat, and Leonard is struggling to afford to travel to see his grandchildren. These are real Canadians who are being forced to make difficult decisions just to get by. While families are cutting back, these Liberals keep spending billions on wasteful bureaucracy, consultants and corporate welfare. Our Conservative economic plan has identified over $150 billion in wasteful spending and nearly $10,000 in savings per family. Will the Liberals adopt our plan?

Mr. Speaker, just because the out-of-touch Prime Minister says affordability is the best it has been in a decade does not make it true. It does not fill Leonard's fuel tank to visit his grandkids, and it does not afford Glen a day off. Canadians are still facing high costs every single day, and the Liberal industrial gas tax makes it more expensive to produce and move the goods Canadians rely on. Canadians need action on affordability right now. Will the Liberals scrap the industrial gas tax, lower fuel costs and adopt our Conservative economic action plan instead of sitting there and making personal attacks?

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Heritage had suggested that passages of religious scripture could be viewed as hateful. We know that this government, which the member is a part of, has moved to limit debate once again, specifically on Bill C-9, since that is what we are debating, but it is happening on a lot of things. I am wondering why the member thinks that his government should continue to ram this bill through before the end of the session instead of killing the bill and coming back with something that is not so divisive and that actually can unite Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, off the top, I will note that I will be splitting my time with the member for London—Fanshawe. Canadians of faith must be free to practise their beliefs without fear of intimidation, violence or persecution. That freedom is fundamental. It was secured by the generations that came before us, and it has been defended time and again. It remains our responsibility to protect and safeguard it for generations to come. There is no doubt that we are seeing a troubling rise in hate crimes across our country: Christian churches have been burned and vandalized, synagogues have been shot at and firebombed, mosques have been targeted and temples have been attacked. These are not just acts of vandalism; they target entire faith communities, undermine the sense of belonging and safety that these places provide and erode the fundamental freedom of Canadians to gather, worship and live out their beliefs in peace. This trend is serious. It demands attention. These crimes must be met with real consequences. Those who commit them must be prosecuted. The law must be enforced, and the government must show leadership. Threatening the religious freedom and expression of the very people being targeted is not the solution. That remains the serious concern with Bill C‑9. It would not target just hate. Even as amended, Bill C‑9 would still risk undermining the very religious freedom and freedom of expression that it should be strengthening. While the amended bill would add to the list of prohibited hate symbols, it would not undo the proposed removal of the religious defence in the Criminal Code. This defence has long been part of Canadian law. It was introduced when Parliament created our modern hate propaganda laws. At the time, Parliament made a deliberate choice to create strong laws to combat hate, but also to include clear safeguards. Those safeguards include defences for truth, for statements made in the public interest, for lack of intent and for good‑faith religious expression. The purpose was simple: to ensure that while we prohibit hate, we do not criminalize belief; that Canadians can speak out about their faith; and that religious texts can be discussed, taught and debated without fear. Let me be clear: The defence has never protected hate speech or calls to violence. If somebody promotes hatred or incites violence, that is already illegal, and it has always been illegal. The religious defence does not change that. It simply ensures that good-faith expression of religious belief is not swept into the Criminal Code. That balance has worked for decades. It is part of what has made our laws constitutional. In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized this protection as essential to keeping Canada's hate speech laws constitutional. It is part of what has protected both freedom of expression and freedom of religion in this country. This bill, in its current form, would remove that safeguard, and it would do so not after years of study, a major review of the Criminal Code or broad consultation with Canadians. In fact, it was not even in the government's original bill, but was added later without evidence to support it. This would be a significant change to Canadian criminal law, and changes like this are rare. When Parliament has changed or removed legal defences in the past, it is done so carefully, after serious study, hearing from experts and consulting with Canadians. That did not happen here. Witnesses did not call for the change, nor did religious communities ask for this, yet the Liberals are pushing it through anyway. They could have split the bill and built consensus around those measures, and they would have had broad support. Instead, the Liberals are using procedural tools to limit debate and accelerate the passage of this divisive bill. That should concern every single member of the House, because this would not be a minor, technical change, but the removal of a long‑standing protection that has been part of the balance in our law for over half a century. It would be removed without careful consideration that such a decision demands. Canadians are paying attention, and they are sounding the alarm. I am hearing from my constituents, and I know colleagues in the House are hearing from theirs as well. We do know that more than 200,000 postcards were sent to members in the other place, urging them to reject this change, yet those postcards were withheld and not delivered immediately. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure the voices of Canadians are received and considered. This level of public engagement demonstrates just how deeply Canadians care about protecting their freedoms. Faith leaders are speaking out. Experts are raising concerns. These are not fringe voices. These are thoughtful, engaged Canadians who understand what is at stake. The Liberal government has once again limited debate on this issue. It is shutting down the voices in this place, and it is ignoring the voices of Canadians. The Liberals are asking Canadians to trust them and to trust their intentions, but the Liberal Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has already suggested that passages from the Bible are clearly hateful. He has said that prosecutors should have the discretion to lay charges in those cases. This is not a hypothetical concern. It is a stated view on the record from a Liberal minister. Canadians are also looking at the government's record. This is not an isolated case. There is a broader pattern here, a pattern of shutting down debate, dismissing experts and stakeholders, pushing through legislation without proper review and introducing policies that chip away at fundamental freedoms. We saw it with the Canada summer jobs attestation. Canadians were told that if they did not affirm to certain beliefs, they could not access funding. We saw it when the finance committee suggested removing charitable status from churches. That recommendation was an attack on religious freedom and completely dismissed the incredible work faith communities across this country do every single day. We also saw freedom of religion threatened when the Liberals banned public prayer at Remembrance Day ceremonies. Over and over again, when it comes to faith and expression, the government has shown its willingness to draw lines around what Canadians can say and what they can believe. This is why Canadians are uneasy. When a government asks for trust while limiting debate, while dismissing and ignoring legitimate concerns, and while removing long-standing protections, Canadians are justifiably concerned. This is exactly what we are seeing in Bill C-9. What is needed right now is leadership. The growing number of hate crimes must be confronted, but we must also recognize that the rise has happened under the Liberal government's watch. The Liberal government has failed to show leadership. It has failed to enforce laws that already exist. Many of the measures in this bill are already covered in current law. Actions such as obstructing access to places of worship, acts of intimidation, promoting hatred and inciting violence are all already illegal. Conservatives offered a reasonable path forward with this bill. We offered to split the bill, to pass the parts everyone agrees on right away to protect Canadians and places of worship without delay, but the Liberals refused. They also rejected Conservative efforts to add clear language to the bill that would protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Canadians should be free to practise their religion and express their beliefs without fear, and that includes being free from overreach by the Liberal government. We must not criminalize peaceful expression. We must not open the door to the persecution of faith. It is time for the government to reconsider. This bill should be completely withdrawn. Rather than rushing this divisive legislation through the House, the minister needs to bring forward legislation that combats hate while fully protecting religious freedom and freedom of expression. It is time to listen to Canadians, and it is time for these Liberals to stop chipping away at the freedoms that define us as Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, there was lack of consultation with this bill. We know there was lack of consultation when it came to religious organizations, civil liberty groups, legal experts and faith communities across Canada, and I would say individual Canadians as well. I will also note that stakeholders have publicly raised concerns about this, many of them, including the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Council of Imams, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, ARPA Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. There have been many organizations, not just one particular faith group, that have brought forward the concerns of not being consulted or seeing issues with the bill. I will also note, though, that there are sections within the Criminal Code that address crimes against places of worship and obstruction. That would be section 176, for example. Acts of intimidation are in section 423.1. I could go on and on.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we can kill this bill. This bill can be withdrawn. The government can do that and bring forward legislation that is uniting to Canadians, that immediately addresses the concerns that I mentioned in my speech. I will say that the government cannot be trusted. We know that a minister of the Crown said there are parts of scripture that should be criminalized. That is the intent and goal of this. We cannot just take what Liberals say at face value. In my speech, I gave multiple examples of where the government is limiting Canadians' religious freedom and freedom of expression.

Mr. Speaker, this is not something new under the Prime Minister. This was also a continued effort under former prime minister Justin Trudeau. If anybody not wearing Liberal red brought forward thoughtful, meaningful amendments or even questions to debate, there was no entertaining it, which does a disservice. I think this is one of the reasons we have seen members from other parties crossing the floor. They are being enticed by being told they will be heard and listened to, as opposed to the governing party of the day acting like grown-ups, being respectful and thoughtful and having conversations. It is unfortunate that this does not happen in this place under the Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, in just 14 trips, the Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on inflight catering at taxpayers' expense. Meanwhile, two in five Canadians struggle to put food on the table and a record 2.2 million Canadians rely on the food bank in a single month. Liberal inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment policies are driving up costs and weakening our economy. It is always Canadians who are left paying for Liberal waste. Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies that caused this crisis, so Canadians can afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, food affordability is so terrible that there is scurvy in that member's riding. We cannot forget that this Prime Minister is the one who said affordability is the best that it has been in over a decade. He is showing up at the G7 as the only leader who has caused a recession in his own country. That is his Liberal government's record: inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment policies that are driving up costs. It is not global factors; it is the Liberal choices that Canadians cannot afford. When will this government stop making life more expensive for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession, and Canadians are facing the real consequences of that reality. Demand at food banks continues to surge across the country, and Food Banks Canada is now reporting that millions of Canadians are facing historic levels of food insecurity. The fact is, one in four Canadians is now food-insecure. If the Prime Minister says this recession is being driven by global energy markets and tariffs, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, unlike that secretary of state, Canadians do not get to ignore the reality of the recession caused by the Liberal government's terrible policies. Food Banks Canada is reporting that lower-income households are spending more than 100% of their income on basic essentials. Every other G7 country is facing the same global pressures, yet Canada is the only one in a recession. Why are Canadians paying the price for this government's economic failures, while every other G7 country has avoided recession?

Mr. Speaker, we know, and hear in this place almost daily, that Canadians are struggling. We are in an affordability crisis. Canadians are having a hard time being able to house themselves, feed themselves and even fuel up to get where they need to go. We hear a lot from the Liberal government about its so-called affordability measures that it seems to have to put in place, but they are clearly not working because Canadians still cannot afford to feed and house themselves. Why is it that the Liberal government always promotes or wants to increase taxes and does not care when costs keep rising and it is a burden is on Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not proposing measures that will make life more affordable for Canadians. We know that their policies are driving up inflation and making life more expensive. Families are paying more for gas, groceries and housing. Now, Global News is reporting that many Canadians are spending more than their entire income on food and rent. Canadians were promised relief by the Prime Minister, but he has delivered more costs, more taxes and more debt on the national credit card. Conservatives have a real plan to deliver relief by removing all federal fuel taxes for the year. On what date will these Liberals finally adopt it?

moved for leave to introduce Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill S-209. I would like to begin by thanking Senator Miville-Dechêne for her leadership to bring the bill forward. Her continued efforts in advancing this legislation reflect her strong commitment to better protecting children and young people online. I would also like to thank the member for Newmarket—Aurora for seconding the legislation. The bill, and its previous version in the last session, has received support across party lines. It demonstrates a shared commitment among members of the House and the other place to better protect young people. I look forward to working with all colleagues in the House in advancing this important piece of legislation. (Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' costly credit card budget reveals a deficit of $65.3 billion. That is more than double Justin Trudeau's deficit, and it is the largest deficit in our history outside of COVID. This inflationary credit card-style spending does not just stay on the books here in Ottawa. It means higher costs, higher taxes and more debt for Canadians already struggling with affordability. Canadians will now pay $59 billion in debt interest, which is more than federal health transfers and more than GST revenues. Servicing the debt costs the average family about $3,400 annually. This spending also shows up on the bills of every Canadian. That is the real impact. While Liberals pat themselves on the back for deficit spending, Canadians are left paying more, because in the end, there is no such thing as government money. There is only taxpayers' money and it is Canadians who pay the price.

Mr. Speaker, well, despite promising to spend less, the Prime Minister has instead continued the Liberal practice of credit card budgeting. He has added $90 billion in new spending above the previous levels. This costly approach has left Canada with the worst grocery inflation, the worst household debt, the worst housing crisis and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. The Prime Minister runs up deficits and Canadians are the ones who pay the price. Will he end his credit card budgeting so Canadians can actually afford to live?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a couple of petitions. The first one is signed by Canadians who oppose the Liberal government's firearms buyback and confiscation program. The petitioners note that the program targets law-abiding, licensed firearms owners and does nothing at all to address gun smuggling or gang violence, which is responsible for the sharp rise in crime. This program diverts resources from measures that would actually reduce violent crime. The public safety minister has also admitted that this is costly and ineffective. Therefore, petitioners call upon the government to end the buyback program and prioritize public safety through real reforms, including stricter bail for dangerous and repeat offenders.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting today is signed by Canadians who are deeply concerned about the Liberal government's planned expansion of medical assistance in dying to persons whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. The petitioners call on the government to support the right to recover act, Bill C-218, and halt this dangerous expansion. Hope is always possible and that is why we are urging Parliament to prioritize suicide prevention and improve access to mental health supports for vulnerable Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, forestry directly and indirectly supports workers and families in rural communities all across Canada. It is a proud part of our heritage, and in my riding, it is a major economic driver that sustains local jobs, businesses and communities. With mill closures and ongoing challenges facing the sector, communities where forestry is the heart of the local economy are facing growing uncertainty. Each closure hits close to home, and a year into the Prime Minister's leadership, that uncertainty has only grown. Despite the Prime Minister's rhetoric, tariffs remain. There is still no softwood lumber deal, costs are rising and investment is flowing elsewhere instead of supporting growth right here at home. Forestry workers need more than speeches and empty promises. They need expanded market access and a deal that provides the stability to grow, attract investment, and protect their livelihoods and communities.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot control what happens abroad, but the Liberals do control the policies here at home that are making life more expensive for all Canadians. Canada now has the highest food price inflation in the G7 and the only shrinking economy. While fuel prices are soaring, Canadians are paying even more at the pump because of Liberal policies. Gas in Canada averages $1.70 per litre. Members can compare that to $1.45 in the United States. That is nearly 26¢ more per litre. The Prime Minister's industrial carbon tax and fuel standard are already driving up costs, yet he still plans to raise the fuel standard to 17¢ a litre. These costs affect all Canadians. Higher costs to produce and ship food push grocery prices even higher. The Prime Minister cannot hide behind global factors. These are Liberal costs imposed at home, and it is Canadians who are paying for it.

Mr Speaker, I do not even have the words. The member across the way is very emotional, raising his voice to the level that he is about a topic that is very divisive for Canadians. The Liberals, as my colleague from Edmonton Manning has pointed out, have done a very good job of dividing Canadians. There are a lot of reasons why Canadians and Conservatives do not trust Liberals. We know that, but here is my question for the member across the way. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture is a person who sits at the cabinet table. He stated that parts of the Bible should be banned and identified as hate speech. That is why we do not trust the Liberals. What does the member have to say to that?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present some petitions signed by Canadians who are deeply alarmed by the Liberal-Bloc amendments to Bill C-9 that threaten religious freedom. The petitioners warn that removing existing safeguards in the Criminal Code could criminalize the sharing of passages from religious texts. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be upheld. Therefore, they call on the government to withdraw this proposal and to protect the right of Canadians to read and share their sacred texts without the fear of criminal sanction.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful and well-articulated words in this place regarding Bill C-9. I know there have been millions of Canadians across this country from coast to coast to coast sounding the alarm. My office has heard from a plethora of constituents who reside not only in Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake but also outside, who have shared their concerns. They do not want to see the bill passed with this Bloc-Liberal amendment. I wonder whether the member has experienced the same within his own riding.

Mr. Speaker, with rising oil prices, Canada should be well positioned to supply energy to ourselves and our allies. However, a decade of Liberal policies has chased away investment and production. Despite the rhetoric, the Prime Minister has not approved a single new pipeline to tidewater, and the Major Projects Office has not approved a single project. Now another $8-billion project has been put on hold, citing the Liberal industrial carbon tax and regulatory barriers. Canadian consumers used to have some protection when oil prices went up because our dollar did too, but today we produce less oil, and that protection is gone. Canada has the resources to supply our allies and strengthen our economy. Why will the Prime Minister not get out of the way so we can fuel our allies and power paycheques at home?

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member that we voted against their measures because they are band-aid solutions and they do not actually work. I also want to correct the record. I know the previous speaker, the member for Kings—Hants, made a comment that the Conservatives said the consumer carbon tax was the only issue causing the affordability crisis. This is 100% not true. We know it is the Liberals' inflationary spending, the fact that they print money like it is nobody's business and the fact that they do not respect the Canadian taxpayer. The Liberals seem to be very good at lecturing Canadians, telling them where to spend their money, and then taking their money and saying they can apply for this program and the Liberals will give them a little bit back. Why is it that the Liberals seem to always tax Canadians and always lecture Canadians, instead of putting in long-term solutions that will make life more affordable?

Mr. Speaker, if those measures worked, Canadians would actually be able to afford their groceries. Lettuce is up 12%, beef is up 16%, apples are up 10% and even baby formula is up another 6%. After 10 years of Liberal inflation and taxes, Canada now leads the G7 with the highest food inflation. Conservatives are ready to fast-track solutions: eliminate the industrial carbon tax, cut the fuel standards tax, boost grocery competition and cut red tape for farmers. Will the Liberal government introduce legislation to implement these solutions and to work with us to finally lower the price of food for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, just off the top, I want to note that I will be splitting my time this afternoon. Canada is rich in natural resources, and our energy sector creates opportunity, growth and prosperity for our country. In my region, energy jobs support families and generate growth for small businesses, contractors, tradespeople and apprentices. These companies do not just produce energy. They create middle-class jobs, they sustain local economies, they invest in local needs and community projects, and they do it while operating under some of the highest environmental and safety standards anywhere in the world. Canada has the energy that we need as a country and that the world needs. In fact, the world wants more Canada. However, for 10 years, the “keep it in the ground” Liberals have done everything possible to hinder energy development in Canada. The Liberals passed Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, a bill that went so far as to give the federal government unprecedented powers over provincial infrastructure, industry and natural resources. Even the Supreme Court has deemed it unconstitutional. They imposed a shipping ban on the northern B.C. coast that blocks responsible Canadian energy from reaching world markets. They have done that while letting foreign ships carrying foreign energy sail freely through the same waters. They have chased away investment, crippled our competitiveness and, in doing so, threatened energy security for not only Canada but also our allies. Now, after a decade of this, the Prime Minister tells Canadians that his government wants to build things previously thought impossible, at speeds we have not seen in generations. He told us he would turn Canada into an energy superpower. He has now signed a memorandum of understanding with Alberta and claimed that at the core of this agreement is a priority to have a pipeline to Asia. Today's motion simply asks the Liberals to vote for the very words their own Prime Minister signed, the same words the Liberals have been celebrating and congratulating themselves over for nearly two weeks. It asks them to support a pipeline to the Pacific. It asks them to stop hiding behind premiers and non-existent vetoes. It asks them to be honest with Canadians about their intentions and their priorities. Already, though, the cracks are showing on that side of the House. Liberal members are openly rejecting the Prime Minister's MOU. The member for Fleetwood—Port Kells said there will be no pipeline without the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. The member for Victoria has plainly said he does not support a pipeline. Premier Eby, to whom the Prime Minister has effectively handed a veto, has been equally clear. He says that a pipeline to the Pacific will not go ahead, that it will never be built and that he refuses to allow the shipping ban to be lifted. Well, the Premier of British Columbia does not have a veto. The Constitution is explicit. Only the federal government has the power to approve an interprovincial pipeline. No premier can stop it, and no province can veto it. The Liberal government knows this. Instead of owning that responsibility, the Prime Minister would rather use Premier Eby as a political shield. The Prime Minister is using him as someone he can point to when he backs away from the pipeline after the next election. If the Liberals cannot stand behind their own MOU in the House, and if they cannot give the private sector the certainty and confidence that it needs to invest in a project of this scale, then this MOU is nothing more than the illusion of progress. It is not real progress. Shamefully, the Liberals have already announced that they will not support today's motion. Liberals are claiming that the motion somehow does not reflect the entire agreement, and that is simply not true. The motion we are debating takes note of the MOU in its entirety. The Liberal government's unwillingness to stand behind it does not instill confidence. Let us not forget the fact that the MOU does not even promise a pipeline. It does not start construction. It does not commit a single metre of pipe to being laid. All it says is that seven months from now, a proposal might be sent to the federal office for two more years of study. The Liberal government is so divided that it cannot even unite behind such a limited proposal. After eight months of promises of building at unimaginable speed, Canadians have seen nothing but paper shuffling, rebranded offices, and more and more press conferences. The Liberal member for Vancouver Granville's comments are quite telling. He called this pipeline “a theoretical conversation right now”. Where do we stand today? There is no route, no proponent, no approval process and, as we are seeing, absolutely no commitment from the Liberal caucus. Canadians cannot afford another Liberal pipe dream, and after 10 years of failed and damaging policies, Canadians cannot afford the Liberal government. The Prime Minister's delays, taxes and regulatory roadblocks have continued to drive investment out of this country. Since he took office, nearly 50,000 more Canadians are unemployed, and nearly $50 billion of investment has fled the country. As the CEO of TC Energy said, the United States continues to be more attractive for investment than Canada. It is not that energy development and prosperity are not possible here in Canada. They are possible. However, the Prime Minister needs to do just one thing for a pipeline to happen, and that is to get out of the way: get out of the way by repealing the industrial carbon tax that drives production out of Canada; get out of the way by repealing the anti-development laws like Bill C-69 and the shipping ban; get out of the way by granting a permit for a pipeline to the Pacific and unlocking the trillions of dollars of private investment that would be ready to build it. Energy CEOs have publicly called on the Prime Minister to cut red tape, reduce timeline approvals and grow energy production. The current trade and global uncertainty is all the more reason to ensure we are doing what we can in Canada to spur economic growth that is within our control. Getting the Liberal government out of the way would boost Canadian paycheques. It would strengthen the Canadian dollar. That in turn would make energy, food and homes more affordable. It would strengthen our self-reliance, security and sovereignty. It is time to do that. Canadians need real action, not press releases, not paper pushing and not theoretical pipelines, no more delays and no more deflections. It is time for the Liberal government to stop talking out of both sides of its mouth, to stop blocking Canada's energy potential, to unlock the trillions of dollars of private sector energy investment, to build profitable pipelines and to enable the shipment of a million barrels of oil to Asia. Canadians are watching today. Do members know who else is watching? Investors are watching. Let us be clear. If Liberals vote against this motion, they are voting against their own commitments. They are voting against the agreement that the Liberal Prime Minister signed and celebrated with the Alberta premier. They are making it once again clear that they cannot be taken at their word.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are all about stealing Conservative ideas. I look at my own private member's bill that the Liberals stole a couple of years ago and said they were going to implement. I had the minister at committee and asked her about it. She had no idea. They had no intention of implementing my private member's bill to give adoptive families equitable access to parental leave. They had no desire to do that. This is just like all of their campaign promises. They will say whatever they need to say to get the vote, and then when it comes time, when the rubber hits the road and they have to be principled and take a decision, we know they will do the opposite.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I mentioned in my speech the amount that energy companies do for local economies and local communities. When someone goes into any hockey rink in my riding, they can see what energy company has donated money to make sure the lights can stay on and the ice can stay Zambonied. For us out west, we definitely have the frustration that, when we have to stop at the pesky rail crossing and we see oil being transferred by rail, we know we could remove that oil and put it into a pipeline. We could then be hauling more of our canola, our potash, our uranium and our grain to market.

Mr. Speaker, the friendship and the ties between Canada and Ukraine are deep and historic. The first recorded arrival of Ukrainians to Canada took place in the month of September, more than 125 years ago. In the decades that followed, many more Ukrainians made the journey to Canada in search of opportunity. While they settled in communities across the country, their mark is particularly significant on the Prairies. Living in difficult conditions and enduring harsh prairie winters, they worked tirelessly to build new lives and communities. They cleared farmlands, built churches and schools, raised families and helped shape many of the prairie towns and villages that still stand today. For generations, Ukrainian Canadians have played a foundational role in building not only the Prairies but also the very fabric of our nation. They have enriched Canada's social, economic and cultural life by founding businesses, contributing to local economies, advancing the arts, preserving their language and traditions, and strengthening the civic life of their communities. Canadians of Ukrainian heritage have also defended our nation and our values in combat. In fact, Ukrainian Canadians enlisted in great numbers to fight for Canada in the Second World War. Their enlistment rate was the highest of any ethnic group outside those of British descent. In a country like Canada, where hockey occupies such a big place in our hearts, they also brought victories on the ice, with names like Wayne Gretzky coming to mind. A proud Canadian of Ukrainian heritage, I am actually a great-granddaughter of Ukrainian immigrants who settled in southeastern Saskatchewan, on both my mother's and my father's sides. They are the ones who helped plow the land and helped clear the bush. I recall the stories of my grandparents, and even of my parents, who would recall the times when they would be in the field picking stones by hand. It was something we were often threatened with when we were younger, that we would have to go out and pick stones from the field. There is a strong connection between Canada and Ukraine, and this is deeply personal for me. Today I am wearing my vyshyvanka, a traditional embroidered shirt that reflects the rich culture and history of the Ukrainian people. I want to add that my late mother, who passed away five years ago, is the one who embroidered this for me. My parents fought very strongly to preserve our Ukrainian heritage. I actually did Ukrainian dancing for 14 years of my childhood, and this is one of the vyshyvankas that she embroidered for me so that I could display not only our heritage but the importance of preserving it. This represents the endurance of a community that has preserved its language, traditions and culture despite hardship, displacement and attempts to erase its identity. My family, like so many others, settled in the Prairies and passed down values, culture and traditions that continue to shape our communities. Today, the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada stands at nearly 1.4 million people. By designating September as Ukrainian heritage month, we would celebrate this remarkable heritage and honour the contributions of Ukrainian Canadians to our shared history. We would also recognize the nearly 1.4 million Ukrainian Canadians who continue to contribute to our nation, and we would celebrate their traditions, their language and their culture, which they have worked so hard to preserve for generations. The designation of Ukrainian heritage month is significant not just because of the fact that Canada has the third-largest diaspora in the world but also because of the strong bond between Ukraine and Canada. The bond between Canada and Ukraine has always been rooted in our shared values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law. Conservatives have always stood firm in defence of those values, and we have always stood firmly in support of Ukraine. In fact Conservatives have a steadfast record of standing with Ukraine. On August 24, 1991, Ukraine declared its independence from the Kremlin's rule. It was on December 2, 1991, under a Conservative government, that Canada became the first western country to recognize Ukraine's independence. Later, in 2008, it was another Conservative government that officially recognized the Holodomor genocide. This recognition commemorates the deliberate starvation that killed millions of men, women and children in Ukraine between 1932 and 1933, carried out by Stalin's regime. After Putin's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered a blunt message to Vladimir Putin to get out of Crimea. Conservatives also negotiated a free trade agreement, and we launched Operation Unifier, a military training mission to support Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We also imposed the toughest sanctions in the world on those responsible for Russia's aggression at the time. Since Putin launched his full-scale invasion in 2022, we have continued to stand with the Ukrainian people as they defend their freedom, independence and sovereignty. It is against this backdrop of resilience that Ukrainian heritage month takes on an even deeper significance. As members of the House consider the designation of September as Ukrainian heritage month, it is in this context, the context of Ukraine being at war with Putin; the context of democracy, freedom and territorial sovereignty being under attack; and the context of its people standing firm in defence of rules-based international order. A Ukrainian heritage month would offer all Canadians an opportunity to reflect on the values that unite us. It would remind us that freedom is precious and must always be defended. It would remind us of the strength that comes from standing together, and it would reinforce what binds us as a nation. It would celebrate the courage of the people who came before us and the contributions of those who continue to enrich our country today. It would inspire future generations to carry forward these values and contributions with pride and determination. Again, by designating September as Ukrainian heritage month, we would celebrate the rich history and enduring contributions of Ukrainian Canadians to the Canadian story. We would celebrate the nearly 1.4 million Ukrainian Canadians who continue to contribute to our nation in every province and territory. We would recognize the traditions, the language and the culture that they have preserved against tremendous odds. These rich traditions are already celebrated across the country through festivals, provincial proclamations, community events and cultural gatherings. These celebrations inspire pride, reflection and a deeper understanding of the vital role Ukrainian Canadians have played and continue to play in shaping our country. The federal designation would give these celebrations national recognition. It would amplify the message that standing with Ukraine and honouring its people and their heritage remains a priority for Canada. I look forward to supporting Bill S-210, and I hope that the bill will have the support of the members of the House. By embracing the designation, we would do more than celebrate heritage; we would reaffirm our commitment to freedom, to democracy and to the enduring bonds between Canada and Ukraine.

Madam Speaker, we know that Canadians want a budget that makes life more affordable, but the Liberal government has not delivered on that. The Liberal government's long-awaited budget is costly and also irresponsible. It is, in fact, the most expensive budget in our history outside of the pandemic years. It is what some call a “credit card budget”, and it is Canadians, today and tomorrow, who will be footing this bill. The Prime Minister promised to keep the deficit at $62 billion, and that deficit was already too high. However, the Prime Minister did not even keep that promise. Instead, the budget has a deficit of $78 billion, which is $16 billion more than what was promised and double what former prime minister Justin Trudeau left behind. The increased deficit in the budget is part of a series of broken promises. The Prime Minister promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio, but the debt-to-GDP ratio is going up. The Prime Minister promised his government would spend less, but the Liberals would spend $80 billion more. That equates to $5,400 more in inflationary spending per Canadian household. The Prime Minister promised to help municipalities cut homebuilding taxes in half. Instead, the cost of building homes continues to rise. He also promised more investment, but it is clear that investment is actually collapsing in Canada. Rising uncertainty, taxes, regulations and debt are all contributing to the loss of investment. Unfortunately, it gets worse. In an attempt to appear fiscally disciplined, the Prime Minister worked out a scheme to split operational spending and capital spending, except not everything the Prime Minister deemed an investment is actually an investment. The independent Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed this. The Liberals cooked the books. They made up their own definition of capital spending, one that according to the PBO is overly expansive and expands well beyond the accepted international practice. When the PBO did the real math, capital investment spending was 30% lower. That is a $94-billion difference. That means the Prime Minister's claim that he will balance operational spending over the next five years is also inaccurate. There is no path to balance operational spending in five years, never mind a path to balance the budget overall. This matters to Canadians in a very real way. The spending is not abstract. Debt is not free, and it has real consequences. The more the Liberals spend, the more it costs Canadians. Canadians pay for this spending through inflation and through higher taxes. The cost to service Canada's debt is not insignificant. Canada is now paying more to service the national debt than it pays in health care transfers to the provinces. Every dollar used to service the debt is a dollar that cannot go to services that Canadians rely on. It is a dollar that is taken out of the pockets of Canadians and passed on to bankers and bondholders. The Liberal budget would continue to raise the cost of living for every single Canadian. It would pour fuel on the inflationary fire that the Liberal government has been burning for 10 years. It would make homes more expensive. It would make food more expensive. It would make everything more expensive. Canadians are already facing inflated food prices. Food should be affordable and within reach for every single Canadian. Unfortunately, that is not the reality here in Canada. Food insecurity is on the rise in record-breaking numbers. Food banks and organizations across the country have been sounding the alarm, but the Liberal government is failing to take food affordability seriously. “Canada's Food Price Report”, published just last week, reported that Canadian families will spend nearly $1,000 more on food next year. It forecast that overall food prices will increase by another 4% to 6%. Those increases are on top of year-over-year increases that have made food unaffordable. Nearly 2.2 million people visited food banks in Canada on a monthly basis this year, and one-quarter of Canadian households are already food insecure. That is 25%. While the Liberals in this House claim their policies are working, Canadians know they are not. Four out of five Canadians say food is their top expense pressure. Food inflation has outpaced overall inflation for nine straight months. It took decades in Canada to reach one million monthly food bank visits, and under the Liberal government, it took only half a decade to more than double that number. Canadians are turning to food banks more often, more regularly and for longer periods of time. Nearly one in five Canadians visiting a food bank is employed but still cannot make ends meet. One-third of those visiting food banks are children. Parents are skipping meals just to feed their children. Seniors are forced to choose between groceries and their medication. Some parents are watering down baby formula or even buying opened containers wherever they can find it. This is a clear sign that Canadians are being failed by the Liberal government. These are basic necessities, and for many, they are out of reach. It is no wonder when we look at the prices. Statistics Canada has reported that the cost of baby formula has skyrocketed by nearly 84% since 2017, with a 30% increase in just the last two years. Something is deeply wrong when baby formula is one of the most stolen food items in Canada, yet the Liberal budget would do nothing to make food more affordable. Not a single measure would deal with the root causes of high food prices, and not one serious step would be taken to reduce the cost of producing food in Canada. Instead, the Liberal government is increasing the cost of food. Its industrial carbon tax would be going up, and this would increase the cost of fertilizer and farm equipment. It would increase the cost of grain drying, trucking and food processing. Every step of the food supply chain is becoming more expensive, and these costs do not simply disappear. Our farmers are absorbing significant costs. Compounded by increased market uncertainty, many are struggling to keep their operations viable. This is a growing threat to our food security that cannot be ignored. As these costs increase across the supply chain, it ultimately means significant costs to Canadians at the grocery checkout. This is not the only hidden tax hitting Canadians at the grocery store. The Liberal food packaging tax is a tax on food, the Liberal fuel standard that adds 17¢ per litre is a tax on food, and the Liberals' inflation tax is yet another hidden tax on food. Conservatives have already put forward a motion in the House to cut these hidden taxes on food, and the Liberals rejected that motion. Their budget would double down on their decision. Canadians deserve better than this credit card budget. This budget is not an affordable budget. This budget would mean more debt, more taxes, more inflation and more broken promises. This budget would be a burden on Canadians who are already struggling to pay for basic necessities. Conservatives are focused on restoring fiscal responsibility and making life more affordable for Canadians; removing the Liberal-made barriers that block major projects and slow down growth; cancelling the job-killing industrial carbon tax; and creating the conditions for real, sustainable investments. The Canadian promise that hard work will earn people a roof over their head, food on their table and a safe neighbourhood to live in should be—

Madam Speaker, the member highlighted a huge difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals want a program for everything. They want to regulate everything and want to be in everybody's lives, but we see this in every single aspect of every single bill that the Liberal government brings forward. The member refers to farmers, but I would say we have been the only party, and still are the only party, that has been advocating for the removal of the carbon tax at all levels, whether that is for consumers paying, hidden in their bills, or the industrial carbon tax. If the member would have listened to what I said, the industrial carbon tax is going up. His government doubled down on that position by increasing it in their latest budget. Honestly, the government needs to do better—

Mr. Speaker, amid the joy, light and wonder of the holiday season stands the story of Christmas, as powerful today as it was over 2,000 years ago. Jesus Christ, born as a lowly baby in a manger, fulfilled prophecies long foretold, bringing hope to a waiting world. His birth reminds us that God often works through what is unexpected, using humility and faithfulness to accomplish great purpose. Through his life and humble obedience, Jesus extended to humanity the gift of salvation, enduring hope and transformative love. During this season of Christmas, and in all seasons, this miraculous gift fills hearts with peace, uplifts spirits with renewed faith and blesses all who receive it with a hope and a love that never wanes. To the Speaker, my colleagues in the House and those all across our nation, I wish them all a very merry Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive government in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians, and the Liberals are the ones driving up the cost of everything. Food prices are up 3.4% this year, and they are rising 40% faster here than in the United States. Canadians cannot stretch their paycheques any further. Parents are struggling just to put food on the table, and food insecurity has reached truly alarming levels, but when the Liberals had a chance to lower food costs, they refused. Instead, the Prime Minister is pouring fuel on the fire with a deficit of $78 billion, and he is hiking the industrial carbon tax, yet another hidden food tax. These increased input costs make groceries even more expensive for Canadians. It is time to scrap the hidden taxes and make groceries affordable again.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the words of wisdom in his speech. If the government actually acknowledged that the taxes it has on food are not imaginary, and these are taxes such as the food packaging tax and the fuel standard, and if the government cut taxes in a real, tangible way that Canadians could feel, what would constituents in his riding be able to do with that extra money of their own in their pockets?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians and drives up the cost of everything. The cost of baby formula has jumped nearly 84% since 2017. The growing reports of parents going to desperate measures to feed their babies is truly alarming, yet when the Liberals had a chance to lower food costs, they chose to increase them. Why is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax and making food more expensive?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget and those initiatives are not working. Parents are still struggling to afford baby formula under the Liberal government's watch, and now StatsCan is reporting another year-over-year increase of 6% on the price of baby formula. The Liberals had a chance to lower food costs for Canadians by scrapping the industrial carbon tax, but they chose to make food more expensive by increasing it, so I will ask this again: Why, when so many parents are struggling to feed their babies, is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax and making food more expensive?