Sandra Cobena

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, there are no savings. In fact, if we look at the projections going forward, there are even more costs. Even when we look at the spring economic statement or the budget itself, there are hundreds of announcements that they have made that have not been included in those projections.

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?