Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, if a CEO took control of a company and invented new financial definitions to make the books look better, shareholders would have questions, but if he could not even apply those definitions consistently, they would ask if he even understood his own definitions. This is exactly what is happening with Canada's finances. The Prime Minister invented new definitions used nowhere else in the world. The PBO said that he relabelled $94 billion of operating expenses as investments. The IMF has called for greater alignment with international standards and independent verification. The new PBO says that classifications cannot be independently replicated and are being used inconsistently. In the financial world, this is completely unacceptable. I call on the Liberal government to scrap this fake accounting scheme.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister sold Canadians on his financial credentials, and then when they were not looking, he took advantage of that trust by inventing financial definitions used nowhere else in the world. He relabelled $94 billion of expenses as investments. This is like calling a grocery bill an investment. The former PBO and the IMF called them out, and now the new PBO has gone even further by saying that these invented definitions are not even being applied consistently. Why is this Liberal government destroying the integrity of Canada's books?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that if a CEO invented new financial definitions that were used nowhere else in the world and then applied them inconsistently, shareholders would wonder if he did not know how to budget or if he was trying to manipulate the budget. The Prime Minister stood in front of international investors and said that he would balance the operating budget a year early, but he is using invented definitions used nowhere else in the world, and on top of that, they are being used inconsistently. Will the Liberal government restore our original financial definitions and scrap this fake accounting scheme?

Mr. Speaker, there should be some things in this House that rise above politics, and protecting our children is one of them. That is why Bill S-209 has earned support from across party lines and across political traditions. Whether we sit on the government benches or the opposition benches, or whether we are Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc or independent, surely we can agree on something this basic: A child should not be one click away from pornography. I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill S-209. I would like to thank Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne for bringing this bill forward once again and for the many years of work she has poured into it. This bill would require commercial pornography websites to take meaningful steps to prevent children from accessing their content. As a mother, I find it deeply troubling that it is 2026, and we still have to debate whether those safeguards should exist. We would never accept a 10-year-old walking into a liquor store and being told, “We trust you to make choices on your own because you're old enough.” We would never accept a child walking into a casino without checking their age. However, today, a child can pick up a phone, click a link and enter a commercial pornography website. That makes no sense and parents know it. As a mother, I think about the moment when our children begin exploring the world on their own. They ask questions. They become curious. They start using a phone or a tablet to look something up, watch a video or talk to a friend. As parents, we want to give them the room to learn and grow, but we also need reasonable safeguards while they do. Right now, a child can encounter pornography without even looking for it. A link can appear in a group chat, a search can land somewhere unexpected or something can appear on the screen before a child can even understand what they are seeing. Once a child sees it, parents cannot make them unsee it. Of course, we all know that once a child has lost their innocence, it cannot be gained back. That alone is a main concern. However, this issue goes beyond accidental exposure. As children grow, they naturally begin asking questions about themselves, relationships and the world around them. That curiosity is part of growing up. The problem is that today, a commercial pornography website can only be one click away, often without a meaningful check that the person entering is actually an adult. What might a child find there? They may see violence or degradation. They may see women and girls treated as though their wishes do not matter. Without the maturity to understand what they are watching, they may begin to mistake pornography for an education in relationships. Those are lessons no child should be learning from a pornographic website. Research puts the average age of the first exposure at 12. One-third of children are exposed by the age of 10 years old. At 10, many children are still learning how to understand their own feelings, let alone how to interpret explicit material created for adults. Research has associated young people's exposure to pornography with harmful beliefs about relationships, including beliefs concerning consent and the treatment of women and girls. The bill recognizes concerns about material depicting violence, reinforcing gender stereotypes and contributing to attitudes favourable to harassment and violence. There are legitimate concerns about children's development and safety, because children are still developing their understanding of relationships, boundaries and behaviour. Repeated exposure to pornography can shape what a young person begins to see as normal and expected, and that has real consequences for how they understand themselves and others. What does commercial pornography teach children about consent, dignity and respect? Those are questions that matter to parents raising their children, and they matter to the society those children will inherit. Parents are already doing everything they can to help their children navigate these issues with care and with honesty, but no parent can watch every screen, every search result, every message and every link every minute of the day. Children can use the Internet at home, at school and with their friends, so yes, we should give parents the tool, but we should also expect the companies making money from this content to take responsibility. The principle behind Bill S-209 is simple: If someone makes money selling adult content, they have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the person accessing it is actually an adult. That should not be controversial. We already accept that principle in the physical world. We place age restrictions on alcohol, cannabis and gambling. We do not tell parents that it is entirely their responsibility; we require the business to check. Why should the online world be any different? Children deserve better, and we owe them better. They deserve the freedom to be curious and to discover the world without being confronted with explicit material they are simply too young to understand. Protecting childhood is part of our responsibility as adults, as parents and as legislators. Bill S-209 would give that responsibility practical meaning. It would make it an offence for an organization to make pornographic material available online for commercial purposes to a person under 18 years of age. A company could not simply say that it is assumed that a visitor was an adult. It would have to demonstrate it used an approved method of determining age. The bill would also establish significant fines for companies that fail to take that responsibility seriously. We know that many of these websites operate outside Canada, but the fact that a company is somewhere else in the world does not make its content any less accessible to a child sitting in a bedroom in Newmarket, Aurora or anywhere else in this country. That is why the bill would provide an enforcement process where, after notice and continued non-compliance, the enforcement authority could seek a federal court order requiring Internet service providers to prevent access to the material in Canada. Ultimately, a court would make that decision. The principle remains the same, though: Responsibility belongs to the organizations commercially distributing the pornography. If they profit from providing adult content, they must take meaningful steps to keep children from accessing it. Some people have raised legitimate concerns about privacy, and those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. Bill S-209 would take them seriously. Approved methods would have to meet privacy requirements, including limiting the collection of personal information, using information for age-assurance purposes and destroying information once the process is complete. Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, has supported the objective of Bill S-209 and has said that privacy-protective age assurance can be an appropriate tool for creating safer online experiences for children. We do not have to choose between protecting privacy and protecting children from pornography. We can and should do both. No law can guarantee that a child will never encounter pornography online. Children are resourceful, and technology changes, but the fact that we cannot prevent every exposure is no excuse for preventing none. Age restrictions do not prevent every underage person from obtaining alcohol. We still require them, because safeguards matter, accountability matters and making it harder for children to access something intended for adults matters. For me as a mother, this is where the issue becomes very simple. We cannot keep our children little forever, nor should we. They will grow, and they will ask questions, and part of being a parent is answering those questions honestly and helping our children understand the world they are entering. However, children deserve the opportunity to learn about relationships, consent, dignity and respect from the people who love them and care about the adults they will become. Parents are doing their part every day. Let us give our children the time and space to simply be children.

Mr. Speaker, the world is moving forward, but Canada is getting stuck. The OECD has cut Canada's growth forecast by 25%. Only Canada and France were downgraded, while the rest of the G7 went up, and Canadians feel that failure. A lady in my community lives in her car and goes to the gym only to take a shower. The Liberals are all talk and no results. The Liberal government announces with urgency but delivers at a crawl. When will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians can afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Liberals are driving the economy down. The Prime Minister himself said that we are in a trade war, but the projects we need to fight it are years, if not decades, away. The port of Churchill has no firm completion date. Gull Island hydro is 2037. Major LNG projects are into the 2030s. The Vancouver port expansion is years away. We cannot fight a trade war with business-as-usual timelines. The Liberal government is all talk and no results. When will it stop the announcements and start delivering?

Mr. Speaker, Romeo, a man in Aurora, has worked at a window manufacturer for over 30 years. He used to work overtime, in fact. Now he is down to two days a week. Homes are just not being built. He called me worried about his mortgage, his groceries and how he is going to provide for his family. He has heard all the announcements, but he cannot pay his mortgage with the announcements. He is tired of talk with no results. He needs work. When will the Liberal government finally keep its promise and get homes built so parents like him can get back to a full week's work?

Mr. Speaker, this is how out of touch the Liberals are. Romeo is looking for a full-time job, not to line up for programs. In May 2025, the government announced a GST rebate, but for nearly 10 months, it failed to pass the legislation. In the meantime, builders and buyers were left in limbo. The Canadian Home Builders' Association says construction suffered. This has become a pattern. The Liberals make a grand announcement and maybe deliver later, and in the meantime, families are left without work. Canadians are tired of all the talk with no results. When will the Liberals stop governing by announcements and start delivering—

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are taxed at every turn. They are taxed when they earn a paycheque, when they spend money, when they own something, when they fill their tank and when they buy a drink. Even when they die, they are taxed. Every single dollar that the Liberal government spends was first earned by a hard-working Canadian, yet Conservatives have found $150 billion in savings. When will the Liberal government respect taxpayers, cut consultants, rein in spending, save Canadians money and adopt the Conservative economic action plan?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is spending more than any government in Canadian history. That is what Canadians will remember. Alto, for example, is three times the cost for 2% of the daily passengers. The Liberals want to spend $90 billion on the Alto project, which, in 30 years, will maybe carry 66,000 passengers a year. Compare that to the last decade. Ottawa committed $30 billion to serve millions every day. This is three times the cost and 2% of the daily users. Will the government cancel the wasteful project, save Canadians money and adopt the Conservative economic action plan?

Mr. Speaker, 100 years is a century of memories, service and stories. In Newmarket—Aurora, we are preparing to celebrate a very special milestone as our friend and local Second World War veteran Mr. Jeffrey Reynolds turns 100 years old on June 29. At just 18 years old, he enlisted in the North Staffordshire Regiment, joining a generation that answered the call when freedom itself was under threat. Like so many who served, Jeff rarely speaks about his sacrifices. Instead, he is full of stories of growing up as a young boy, stories that remind us how much the world has changed over the last century and stories that connect us to a generation whose sacrifices shaped the country we know today. Turning 100 years old is an extraordinary achievement, but it also carries even greater meaning when that life was dedicated to serving others before it had fully begun. I ask all members of the House to join me in wishing Jeffrey Reynolds a very happy 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and the state of the economy is dire. The economy has shrunk three out of the last four quarters, per capita GDP shows annualized growth of only 0.2% per year over the last seven years, capital investment has declined for five quarters in a row and bankruptcies have hit rates not seen since 2009. At what point do the Liberals stop calling these technicalities and start admitting that Canadians were promised growth and fiscal responsibility but got a recession instead?

Mr. Speaker, if denial could grow the economy, we would certainly be leading in the G20. Canada is in a recession. Scotiabank has forecast growth of just 0.8% and BMO 0.5% for this year. The Bank of Canada warns that one in 10 homeowners in Toronto might not be able to renew their mortgage. While the Liberals may try to dismiss this recession, Canadians cannot ignore losing their jobs and businesses or delaying retirement. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge these recessionary conditions Canadians are facing are real, or are those just technicalities too?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of this motion because it tells the truth about what the Liberals have done to this country. The reality is that Canada is in a recession. This is not a slowdown. This is not a rough patch. It is a recession. In fact, it is the only country in a recession in the G20. Canadians in Newmarket—Aurora are living it every day. They are paying more for groceries. They are watching their mortgage payments climb. They are wondering whether their kids will be able to afford a home in the community they grew up in. They are asking a simple question: How did it come to this? The answer is 11 years of poor Liberal policies and spending without limits. The numbers do not lie. Scotiabank has downgraded Canada's growth to 0.8% this year, and the Bank of Montreal has downgraded Canada's growth to 0.5% this year. Then, there is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent, non-partisan officer of this Parliament, and her latest report does not mince words. There is slowing growth, a weakening fiscal outlook and a deficit that is bigger than promised. The probability of the government meeting its own fiscal anchor is 1%. Let us remember that this is after the government chose to give up the last fiscal anchor it also could not meet. If a student handed in a business plan with a 1% chance of success, they would fail the course. If a CEO presented a strategy with a 1% chance of meeting its targets, the board would show them the door. However, the government members stand here and ask Canadians to trust them with the national finances, with a 1% chance of keeping their own promises. Let us not forget they revised this fiscal anchor after they already failed to meet their last one. I should mention I am splitting my time. The government will stand and say this is all external, that it is caused by global headwinds, tariff uncertainty, forces beyond its control. Canadians have heard that before. They heard it when inflation hit 40‑year highs. They heard it when housing costs skyrocketed. They heard it when the debt doubled. There is always an excuse from the Liberal government. There is never accountability. Here is what it cannot explain away: Every other G20 country is growing. Canada is an outlier. Canada is the exception. Even Mexico, which also shares a border with the U.S. and has been significantly impacted by tariffs, has managed to steer clear of a recession. When we are the only country in the world's 20 largest economies to be in a recession, that is a local policy problem. Still, the Liberal government has chosen to respond with more of the same: denial, increased spending, higher taxes, more regulation and more debt. It continues to choose to make life more expensive for the very Canadians who were already stretched to the limit. I want to speak directly to what this means to the families I represent in Newmarket—Aurora. I heard from a young couple, both working, both doing everything right, who cannot afford a down payment because their rent has eaten up every dollar they saved. I heard from a small business owner on Davis Drive who is watching her customer base shrink because people simply do not have money left over at the end of the month. I heard from a senior on a fixed income who never thought he would have to choose between his bills and groceries. This is deeply concerning for me because my own grandfather lives in Aurora and we have this conversation all too often. Seniors, who spent their entire life working hard, who gave it their all, are now on a fixed income and have to make these impossible choices. They are not statistics. They are neighbours and friends. They are family members, in fact. They deserve a government that is honest about the damage that it has caused and is serious about fixing it. This motion calls for exactly that. Today's motion does not ask the impossible. It does not ask the government to undo every mistake overnight. It asks for something straightforward: reverse the costly inflationary policies that brought Canada to this point; stop the reckless spending that drives up debt and keeps interest rates higher for longer; stop layering on new taxes and new regulatory burdens on businesses that are trying to hire, invest and grow; and stop the costly credit card budgeting that future generations will be asked to pay for. On this point, I had a discussion with a group of youth just a few weeks back. They told me they felt like they were on a bus where the driver did not care about the passengers and did not care about the direction that the passengers wanted to go in. They felt that they were the passengers, because the government was driving them into incredible amounts of debt that they would eventually inherit. The government can start with its $750-million gun grab, the $90-billion train or the $25 billion of debt it will be taking on for the so-called sovereign wealth fund or the $20 billion on consultants. Those are just to name a few. I am talking about Canada's conditions for real, sustainable growth, not politically convenient announcements, but the kind of economic environment where businesses expand, investors can invest, workers earn more and businesses can actually get ahead. Today's motion is simple. It is honest. It is necessary. Canada is in a recession, the only country in the G20. The banks have downgraded growth projections. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has sounded the alarm. The numbers do not lie, even when the government's talking points are trying to obscure them. Conservatives will always stand on the side of fiscal responsibility, economic growth and the hard-working Canadians who deserve a government that respects every hard-earned dollar that they make, and to work as hard as they do. With that, I urge all members of this chamber to support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I brought up youth because I have been hearing these concerns for quite some time. Of course, for youth, it is about that first job opportunity. It is an opportunity to build a career and have a future here in our country. Most of the concerns are with unemployment that is highly concentrated in youth. It is a concern for them because they tell me it is not a situation where they can just walk in and get a job any more, or submit a résumé and get a job any more. A lot of them are not able to find that job. When they do, because some of the industries, especially the trades, do not have senior people there any more to train them, they find their futures are actually quite difficult.

Mr. Speaker, one of my priorities is to be the voice of the youth who are struggling today. As I mentioned before, it is quite concerning for them because of how critical that first job is. They are looking for these jobs in all sorts of industries, but we are seeing that business investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters and that more businesses are shutting down than opening up. Retail, which is one of the largest employers for our youth, is being hit particularly hard. There is no initiative right now from the government to actually remove some of the barriers that these businesses are challenged with, when it comes to overtaxation, over-regulation and actually being able to expand their business.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Canadians are struggling with food affordability. One in four is now food insecure, yet the Prime Minister racks up $200,000 in airplane catering in three trips. He spent $17,000 on salmon alone, which is more than most families spend on food in an entire year. If the Prime Minister cannot control his own reckless spending, how can Canadians trust him to get us out of this recession, or is it technically not his problem?

Mr. Speaker, $94,000 was spent on a single flight. Only a member of the Liberal insider class cannot see a problem with that. It is more than five families spend in an entire year on groceries. Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and Canadians are struggling. If one is in the Prime Minister's entourage, well, one can expect $200,000 in catering. Federal executives get tens of millions of dollars in bonuses despite missing performance targets. If the Prime Minister thinks sacrifice is necessary, why are he and everyone in his inner circle exempt from it, especially in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe that this recession is the fault of the world. Tariffs, energy prices and global uncertainty are all convenient Liberal excuses. However, every nation in the G7 face those same conditions, yet Canada alone has fallen into a recession. Twenty billion dollars in net investment has fled this country under his watch. That is a failure of Liberal economic policy. If the world is to blame, then why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

Mr. Speaker, the member can spin, deflect and dress up this issue however he likes, but why should Canadians believe that the Liberal government's promises about the future are true, when the numbers today prove that the Liberals cannot manage the present? Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. The Prime Minister told Canadians that we have the best deal in the world with the U.S. Oil prices are surging. Canada should be thriving. Instead, our economy has contracted three out of the last four quarters. I will ask again, if the world is to blame, then why—

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in the life of a country when people stop asking for promises and start asking for honesty, and this is one of those moments. Canadians are not confused about what is happening around them. They see it every day, with their bills, when they put groceries back on the shelf or when their adult children move back home because even full-time work no longer guarantees independence. They know something is wrong. What makes it worse is that they are being told not to believe their very own eyes. The Liberal government says that the economy is not in a recession and that affordability has not been this good in 10 years, but Canadians know the truth because they are living the truth. The truth is that under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada has become the only country in a recession in the G7. The truth is that Canadian households now carry the worst debt burden in the G7. The truth is that housing costs in Canada are now among the worst in the industrialized world. The truth is that our unemployment rate is now the second-highest in the G7. This did not happen by accident. Policies have consequences. The Liberal government has governed as though debt were imaginary, as though growth would somehow appear without productivity and as though governments can endlessly spend money they do not have without asking working people to eventually carry the cost, but Canadians are carrying the cost. They carry it every time their rent goes up, every time interest rates rise and mortgages are up for renewal and every time they hear another announcement from a government that mistakes press conferences for progress. The Prime Minister likes to say that Canada will move at speeds not seen in generations. I will say, when Canadians first heard those words, they wanted to believe them. Now, after more than a year of this government, the results have not matched the rhetoric. The Liberal recession means declining growth. It means our economy is shrinking. It means Canada is not moving at speeds not seen in generations. It means Canada is falling behind. This is not just a criticism but the reality that Canadians are living with and that businesses are responding to. The Prime Minister is travelling the world trying to sell Canada to investors, while blowing $200,000 on inflight catering over three flights, but what is he selling? He is selling a Canada where major projects still take too long and approvals are uncertain, a Canada where the tanker ban remains in place and Bill C-69 continues to scare away billions of dollars in investment, a Canada where housing starts are not rising at speeds not seen in generations but slowing to a pace not seen in generations. We hear members opposite boast about the Prime Minister's résumé, but a fancy résumé does not matter to investors looking for opportunities in a business-friendly environment. In fact, in 2025, 45% of all foreign direct investment into Canada, or $44 billion, consisted of foreign purchasers buying up Canadian businesses rather than building new facilities or expanding productive capacity. Canada used to build national champions, but increasingly, we are selling them. We do not need better marketing. We need a Canada that is actually open for business. We have energy, critical minerals, the workers, the talent and the geography. We have people who are hungry to build, to work, to invest and to grow. What we do not have yet is a government creating the conditions for investor confidence. The Liberal government has given itself extraordinary powers. It has the Major Projects Office. It has given itself a majority government through dirty backroom deals, so it should have the ability to move. Where are the major projects? Where is the urgency to meet this moment? The Liberals talk about unleashing Canadian energy, but the tanker ban remains. They talk about building homes, but housing construction in the GTA and in Vancouver has collapsed, and 100,000 people are now out of work. They talk about mines, manufacturing and productivity, but the regulatory reform needed to restore investor confidence is still not there. They talk about moving quickly, but Canadians keep seeing the same pattern: announcement first, action later and, too often, action never. Should we really be surprised? The Prime Minister is surrounded by the same Liberal team that delivered the last decade. He can steal our ideas, but does he really believe in them? We know the team around him is not willing to do what it takes to fully implement those ideas and restore Canada's economy, so Canadians are stuck with the same Liberal pattern: announcement followed by failure to follow through. Conservatives put forward practical ideas more than a year ago, such as the Canadian sovereign act, the removal of industrial carbon tax, the removal of HST on all new homes worth up to $1.3 million, shovel-ready project zones and capital gains deferrals so we can kick-start our economy and bring wealth home for our people. In the last election, we laid out an ambitious agenda for the first 100 days to set the tone on energy, crime, competitiveness and affordability, because urgency matters. Now, more than a year later, only a tiny sliver of that vision has been implemented, and the Liberals are wondering why things have not changed. The Liberals dismissed most of those ideas, and then they copied them halfway and failed in the implementation. The ideas that would have had the biggest impact are still sitting on the sidelines. Half measures will not reverse a lost decade. Yes, Canada faces challenges with the U.S., and trade uncertainty is real, but Canada is not the only country facing those challenges. Still, the government wants to blame every failure on geography. On the one hand, the Prime Minister says Canada has the best trade deal with the U.S. of any country in the world and says he wants to help make America great again. On the other hand, he blames our proximity to the United States for our lack of growth and says there is a permanent rupture in our relationship. Which is it? The truth is that Canada has what the world wants, but the world is not yet convinced that the Liberal government will do what is necessary to unlock it. Let us think about this. Oil prices have soared, yet Canada is still in a recession. We have the best free trade agreement with the U.S., yet Canada is still in a recession. We have the critical minerals the world needs, yet Canada is still in a recession. As I sit in the House, all I hear from the Liberal benches is deflection after deflection and excuse after excuse. They need to wake up and take responsibility. This is not simply something that is happening to Canada. It is a result of slow execution and weak confidence in a government that confuses announcements with achievements. When will the Liberals realize that the cause of the recession is not Canada or Canadians but them and their failed policies? Canadians do not need more hollow speeches. We need ambition in law, in approvals, in construction, in energy, in mining, in manufacturing and in paycheques. We need a government that passes laws and delivers results because the problem is not that Canada lacks potential. The problem is that the Liberal government has not yet had the courage or the urgency to move beyond announcements, get serious about implementation and finally unleash our economy.

Mr. Speaker, the member says that we appear to be gleeful, when the only ones in the House who stand up question period after question period to say, “We have good news” are on that side of the aisle. The reality is we are talking about statistics. Our economy has shrunk in three out of the last four quarters. Canada is the only country in the G7 to be in a recession, with the worst household debt in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. We have countless indicators to tell us a story. What is most concerning is that the member wants to deny all of this and pretend it is not happening. The Liberals are never going to fix this problem.

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Part of drafting a solution is actually acknowledging the problem, which is what the Liberal government is failing to do. The Conservatives put forward practical ideas more than a year ago, and I provided a list, which I will repeat: the Canadian sovereignty act, the removal of the industrial carbon tax, the removal of the HST on all new homes worth up to $1.3 million, shovel-ready project zones and the capital gains deferral so we can kick-start our economy and bring wealth home to our people. In fact, we had provided a plan for the first 100 days to set the tone on energy, crime, competitiveness and affordability. This is the plan the Conservatives have put forward and have been advocating for.

Mr. Speaker, it is inconvenient for the Prime Minister to acknowledge the reality and it goes completely against what he campaigned for and what he says every single day. He talks about moving at speeds not seen in generations. He delivers grand speeches, but the reality is these indicators we are looking at in terms of the economy are confirming the stories we have heard from the people in our ridings, the people who are struggling. They already knew these indicators were about to be released because they have been living them. They know the truth, but the Prime Minister is so disconnected that he cannot even acknowledge the reality that Canadians are living.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has entered a recession, the only country in the G7 to do so. Our economy has shrunk three out of the past four quarters, but what does this mean? This means jobs are at risk, paycheques do not go as far, housing is out of reach and one in four Canadians are now food-insecure. We have neighbours who are saying that they are leaving our country in search of better opportunities elsewhere, yet, this Liberal Prime Minister says that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. I hate to break it to him, but Canadians do not get to blow $200,000 worth of inflight catering on the taxpayer credit card like he does. Canadians deserve fiscal responsibility today, where every tax dollar taken from them is respected. Conservatives are committed to cutting taxes, removing red tape and ending wasteful spending to finally get Canada building, hiring and growing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Canadians who feel that every month brings yet another bill. However, they cannot afford it. Canadians are tired of opening their bills and finding them higher than the last month. Families are tightening their belts, reducing subscriptions, delaying purchases and working overtime, yet somehow their bills keep growing and they cannot get ahead. What frustrates Canadians most is that so many of these rising costs are not accidents. They are policy choices. Today, we are talking about the CRTC's decision to triple the streaming tax from 5% to 15% on online platforms like Netflix, Spotify, YouTube and others. However, let us be honest about what this really is. This is another example of a government and its agencies believing they know better than Canadians how Canadians should spend their own money. Let us be clear about what just happened. On May 21, the CRTC announced it was tripling the levy on online streamers, not increasing it modestly, not adjusting it to inflation, but tripling it, going from 5% to 15% in one announcement. Here is what makes that even more remarkable: The original 5% levy has not even cleared the courts yet. Streamers launched legal challenges against the original rate, challenges that are still before the courts today. The CRTC has not collected a single dollar from those original obligations, so what did the CRTC do? It tripled it anyway. That is a government agency operating without discipline, without accountability and without any apparent concern for the consequences its decisions have on real Canadians. Let us talk about those consequences. When we triple the tax on online streaming services, we do not hurt Netflix shareholders. We do not inconvenience executives in California. We do not stress out shareholders or investors. It is the single mother in Aurora, using Netflix at the end of a long day with her kids. It is the senior in Newmarket who cancelled cable years ago because streaming was more affordable. It is a young couple already wondering how they are going to manage rising rent and grocery prices in the dimming dreams of starting a family. For many Canadians, streaming is no longer a luxury. It is one of the few affordable forms of entertainment left. The government talks constantly about affordability. The Prime Minister himself campaigned on it, yet here we are: another tax, another cost, another burden placed on the backs of Canadians who are already carrying too much. Let us not pretend that this is the only one. It is the latest, in fact, in a long list of punitive measures from the Liberal government that, together, are squeezing Canadians in every direction. The cumulative weight of all these decisions lands on a family's kitchen table, and they feel it. Now let me turn to the longer-term damage, because this is where it truly gets serious. When we triple the tax on online streaming services, Canada becomes one of the most expensive operating jurisdictions in the entire world for streaming services; not the most expensive in the G7, not among the most expensive in the western world, but among the most expensive on earth. What does that signal to investors? What does that say to a company sitting in a boardroom in Los Angeles, London or Seoul, deciding where to put its next production studio, its next animation facility or its next regional headquarters? It says Canada is expensive. It says Canada is unpredictable. Canada is harder to do business in. I want to give the House a concrete example of exactly what is at stake here, because I think sometimes these debates can feel abstract. Let me make it tangible. Netflix recently opened Netflix Animation Studios in Vancouver. That facility created more than 450 good-paying jobs. It brought significant investment to British Columbia. It put Canadian artists, animators and storytellers to work doing world-class creative work right here at home. That is exactly the kind of investment we should be encouraging. That is exactly the kind of economic activity we should be competing to attract. The Online Streaming Act, combined with this triple levy, sends precisely the opposite message. It tells companies like Netflix to think twice before they build something here and to think twice before they hire here. If a company succeeds in Canada, we will tax it for it. That is devastating, not just for Vancouver and Toronto but for every Canadian who works in the film and television industry, and for every community that benefits from that investment. There is then the trade dimension. This may be the most reckless aspect of all. When one triples the tax on online streaming services, it is not in isolation. We are in the middle of a critical review of CUSMA, the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. Our trading relationship with the U.S. is under more scrutiny than it has been in a generation. The Trump administration has been clear and consistent. It views the Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant. This is not speculation. This is not opposition talking points. The Americans have said so directly and repeatedly. Just recently, the United States Ambassador to Canada stated, and I am going to be careful to represent this accurately, that the “CRTC’s decision to triple the tax rate on leading streaming services is making a bad situation worse”, that it targets and taxes American companies, puts up new discriminatory trade barriers and worsens the investment climate for American businesses. That is a warning. What is the Carney Liberal government's response? Its response is silence, indifference and a shrug. At the exact moment when Canada needs to be demonstrating to our largest trading partner that we are a serious, reliable and competitive economy, the government is escalating a fight that nobody in the country asked for over a policy that helps nobody in the country. That is negligence. I want to address something directly because I know that the government will raise it. When one triples the tax on online streaming services, it is a tax on investment in the arts and culture. Conservatives believe in Canadian culture and have defended it for a decade, over a decade, from Liberal postnational attacks. We believe in Canadian artists, storytellers and creators. We are proud of what the country produces in music, film, television and literature. That pride is real and it is not a partisan position. It belongs to us all. One does not strengthen Canadian culture by punishing investment. One does not support Canadian creators by driving away the platforms and production companies that employ them. One does not build a vibrant, creative economy by making Canada one of the most expensive places in the world to operate a streaming service. Real support for Canadian culture means creating conditions where great Canadian content can be made, can find an audience and can compete with the best in the world on its merits. It does not mean turning a government agency into an Internet czar that picks winners and losers, removes choice from viewers and tells Canadians what they should be watching. That is not cultural policy. That is paternalism and Canadians deserve better. Let me say something about the constitutional dimensions, as well. For over 800 years, the parliamentary tradition we have inherited, the tradition that is the foundation of this very institution, has been clear. The power to tax belongs to Parliament, not to agencies and regulators, not to appointed officials who are not accountable to the people of this country at the ballot box. The CRTC does not have a mandate from Canadians to triple a levy on streaming services. It was not elected and cannot be defeated at the polls, yet here it is making decisions with real tax consequences for millions of Canadians. The Prime Minister and the Liberal government must reject this decision.

Mr. Speaker, the question reflects how disconnected the member is from the film industry. I used to finance many of these projects and have spoken to people on the ground. What they are saying is that they want opportunity. They want investment. They want the opportunity to showcase their work and their talent. Allowing for this levy, which will chase away investment and shrink the industry, is not going to be helpful. That is what this comes down to.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the member that this is not about American companies. It is disappointing to hear the question framed as if a Canadian would put the interests of an American company ahead of the people we represent. That is unacceptable. The principle we are talking about here is chasing away investment and opportunity for Canadians and Canadian content. That is what this is about. Whether it is an American or a European company investing here, it does not matter. At the heart of this debate are the Canadian creators and artists who are fighting for a chance to showcase their work.

Mr. Speaker, I have one clear example. I talk a lot to entrepreneurs on the ground, one of whom in particular said they had been trying to open up markets in Europe. They had competed with respect to quality and price, yet they still lost the contract. A good company and smart entrepreneur would seek feedback once they had lost a contract, so they contacted the buyer to ask why they lost out. In this case, they lost out to an American company. The buyer said that they were identical with respect to quality and price, but, unfortunately, as Canada is known to be a country that is very difficult to do business with, they decided to buy American.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians were billed $195,000 for inflight catering for the Prime Minister for three trips: Scottish salmon fillet, sautéed beef with world-famous creamy sauce and, for dessert, luxury Normandy butter cups. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends on his elite palate was first taken from a hard-working Canadian. This Prime Minister means more costs, more taxes, more debt and more on the national credit card. Will he cut out his fine dining and rein in his inflationary spending, so Canadians can afford to eat?

Mr. Speaker, is the member saying that $195,000 for steak and fine wine is necessary for the Prime Minister to do his job? That is shameful. In April alone in Canada, Canadians saw gas rise 28%, food rise 3% and hydro rise 20%. At a time like this, Canadians expect fiscal restraint because, for them, the cost of food and shelter is more than 125% of their income. If the Prime Minister really wants luxury Normandy butter cups, can he just put them on his own credit card instead of on the backs of Canadians?

Mr. Chair, my question was about diversifying investments. I did not receive an answer. Norway does not, in fact, invest the funds domestically. The minister is proposing exactly the opposite, to invest only in Canada. My next question is this: Norway, which is the best-in-class example, ensures that the fund is free from political interference, so how can the fund be independent if it is prioritizing public interests selected by politicians like himself?

Mr. Chair, on the one hand, the minister is saying it will not have political influence, but then, in the same sentence, he says “we” will ensure that it will be in the national interest, and “we” will decide which projects those will be. The reality is that Norway has zero political influence, and here the fund will have tons. My question to the minister is this. If the fund does not follow any of the traditional pillars of a traditional sovereign wealth fund, why did the minister tell Canadians that in fact it is one?

Mr. Chair, I am not talking down anything. I am actually asking very simple questions, and I am getting zero answers. The transport committee has recommended that the Canada Infrastructure Bank be abolished because it benefited Liberal-appointed insiders and, in fact, failed to fill infrastructure gaps. Why are the Liberals doubling down on a failed policy and refusing to follow the gold standard practices of other sovereign wealth funds?

Mr. Chair, Canadians are struggling to buy groceries, and the CEO of the Canada Infrastructure Bank is getting paid close to $1 million. It is not delivering. Now the Prime Minister and the minister want to recreate this whole scenario with yet another bureaucracy and another set of executives who will get paid millions of dollars as well. Let us be transparent. How much will the minister pay the new CEO and board of this sovereign wealth fund?

Mr. Chair, if the member was following the golden class example of Norway, with budget surpluses, diversification and no political interference, then yes, it would be a good thing, but here, in fact, it is the opposite, which is why I am asking the questions. He is failing to answer them. Here is another question. We have received zero information in terms of the cost of the fund. I asked the PBO. She did not have it. The Bank of Canada governor referred me to the finance minister's officials. Neither of them had it. I will ask the minister again. How much will the sovereign wealth fund cost Canadians over the next five years?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister's $1-trillion debt means more taxes, more costs and more of the same. After 11 years of Liberals, Canadians are now paying more on interest on our national debt than the government collects on GST and spends on health care. Why will the Liberals not follow our Conservative plan to cut all gas taxes for the rest of the year? Is it because they have lost control of their spending, or is it because they simply do not care?

Mr. Speaker, we can follow the money and we will know what the Liberal government really cares about. It has wasted $750 million on a failed gun grab, $300 million on the PrescribeIT scandal, $80 billion on interest payments for bankers and bondholders and over half a million dollars on the Prime Minister's catering on flights. What was he having, gold flakes on his cappuccinos? Why will the Liberals not cut all taxes on gas for the rest of the year? Is it because they care more about Liberal insiders than everyday Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I do not rely on theory. I rely on the examples that entrepreneurs tell me about. Here is just one. An entrepreneur in my riding applied for a permit to expand operations. He had a contract in hand. The permit took so long that he was at risk of losing the contract. He decided to fly down to the U.S. Within days, he got permits and grants. He walked across the street and got financing. He came back, and he still did not have an update on his Canadian permit. That is what is driving investments out of our country. We do not need announcements. We do not need a forum. We do not need thousands of trips around the world. We need to fix the fundamentals.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we do not have a lot of details on the fund, yet we know that it will resort to borrowed money to fund the seed capital at first. We know that this makes no sense, because sovereign wealth funds function under an environment where they draw on real surpluses, where there is fiscal responsibility and where they are independent of political influence. Here, we would have the power concentrated on the prime minister because he would hand-pick the projects. There is no clear mandate on these projects. There is no fiscal transparency or discipline in the government. The fund will not work.