Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being crushed by the cost of living. Many families cannot afford rent, groceries or child care. I spoke with a woman last night who shared that she is being evicted from her home, and with a gentleman who lost his home and is on a wait-list for low-income housing. Canadians are falling deeper into debt and being forced to put their future plans on hold. They do not need more announcements from a government that says affordability is the best it has been in a decade. They need relief. Will the government pass our Conservative action plan to save Canadians money and help Canadians get back on track?

Mr. Speaker, under the current government, people are being evicted from their home. In many cases, their credit cards are maxed. Something needs to give. The government often claims that the opposition only criticizes, so here is part of our plan: Instead of wasting billions of dollars on Alto high-speed rail, let us put that in the pockets of hard-working Canadians who are barely surviving from paycheque to paycheque. The Liberals are so out of touch with Canadians' priorities, and Canadians are out of money, so my question is simple: Will the government support our Conservative economic action plan, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, as members of the Jewish community gathered at the Sons of Jacob Synagogue to observe Yom Kippur, the holiest and most solemn day in Judaism, gunfire erupted outside their place of worship. Constable Jeff Smith of the Belleville Police Service was seriously wounded while defending the synagogue and members of the Jewish community gathered inside. Every Canadian has the right to worship, gather with their community and practise their faith in peace and without fear. Anti-Semitism, hatred and violence have no place in Belleville or anywhere in this country, and significant action is urgently needed to end this hateful ideology. I know the collective support of the House is with Constable Smith and his family, colleagues at the Belleville Police Service, members of the Sons of the Jacob congregation and the broader Jewish community, which has been shaken by this cowardly attack. I would also like to acknowledge my neighbour and colleague, the member for Bay of Quinte. In moments such as these, politics must give way to our shared responsibility to the people we represent.

Mr. Speaker, at 10 o'clock this evening, I think it is fair to recognize, as all of us can acknowledge, that it has been a long day. Nonetheless, it is certainly very much the case that this issue is important. As we return to the House, I believe it is worth reminding ourselves of something that can be lost amid the disagreements of this place. Canadians expect us to come here not simply to argue but to deliver results. They expect us to scrutinize legislation. They expect us to ask difficult questions. They expect us, as an opposition, to hold the government to account. However, they also expect us to recognize a good idea when we see one and to work together when legislation can make life a little easier for the people we were elected to serve. That is the spirit in which we approach Bill C-38. On this side of the House, we have long said that we are prepared to support sensible measures that provide meaningful financial relief to Canadians. There is nothing contradictory about challenging legislation when we believe it falls short and supporting legislation when it moves in the right direction. That is not partisanship. That is Parliament doing its job. Bill C-38 is a measure we can support because its central objective is one that I believe members across the House should be able to agree upon: Canadians need some breathing room. Families are making very difficult choices right now. Parents are looking at the grocery bill and deciding what can wait until next week. Young Canadians are wondering whether home ownership will ever be within reach. Seniors on fixed incomes are watching every single dollar, and small business owners are absorbing higher costs whenever they can. Farmers and producers are paying to fuel the equipment and vehicles they need simply to do their jobs. Governments cannot and should not solve every challenge confronting a household, but governments can make choices that leave Canadians with more of their own money and avoid unnecessarily adding to the cost of everyday life. Of course, permanent relief is better than temporary relief, but as we return to Ottawa, members on all sides should reflect on what we heard in our communities over the summer. For me, and I suspect members from every party, one subject came up again and again, and that is affordability. People in Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga are not speaking about affordability as an abstract economic concept. They are talking about what remains in their bank accounts after their mortgage or rent is paid. They are talking about the cost of groceries, heating their homes, getting their children to hockey practices and filling the tank so they can get to work. That last expense matters enormously, especially in rural and small-town Canada. That is not to diminish the very real affordability challenges facing people in Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal or other major urban centres, but transportation looks very different outside Canada's largest cities. For millions of Canadians, driving is not a lifestyle choice; it is a necessity. There is no subway in many locations. There may be no commuter train. In many communities, there may be little or no public transit whatsoever. The grocery store may be kilometres away. A medical appointment may require travelling to another community. Getting to work, taking a child to school or operating a farm may mean getting behind the wheel because there simply is no other practical alternative. When fuel costs rise, those Canadians cannot simply choose not to drive. They have to find the money somewhere else in their family budget. That is why federal fuel tax relief matters. The government's temporary suspension reduced the federal excise tax by 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel, among other fuel categories. The government itself estimated that the temporary measure would provide more than $2.4 million in tax relief in 2026. Extending that relief is therefore a step in the right direction, and Conservatives support doing so, but it also raises a reasonable question: If removing this tax temporarily provides meaningful relief to families, workers, farmers and businesses, then why should Parliament not have a serious discussion about making that very relief permanent? That is the larger conversation we believe Canadians deserve, because every single dollar matters to a household that is stretched. Ten cents on a litre may look small when written on a spreadsheet in Ottawa, but Canadians do not buy one litre of gasoline at a time. A farmer does not operate one piece of equipment for one kilometre. A tradesman does not drive up to one job site a year, and a parent in rural Canada does not make one trip to the grocery store. Those costs accumulate. So do savings when government chooses to reduce them. We would prefer permanent relief. We have been clear about that from the get-go, but we should also remember the old principle that we ought not allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good. If this legislation means Canadians keep more of what they earn, then it deserves our support. Perhaps it represents something else as well: an acknowledgement that the concerns expressed for years by rural Canadians, small-town families, farmers, tradesmen and commuters are legitimate and deserve to be heard in this very chamber. The affordability challenge, however, extends far beyond the gas pump. Statistics Canada released new results from the 2024 Canadian housing survey showing that 23.2% of Canadian households were living in housing considered unaffordable under the conventional measure of spending 30% or more of household income on shelter costs. Among renters, that figure was 33.7%. That same survey tells another troubling story. In 2018, 11.1% of Canadian households reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with housing affordability. By 2022, that had risen to 14.5%. In 2024, it reached 23.3%. In other words, dissatisfaction with housing affordability more than doubled between 2018 and 2024, including an increase of 8.8 percentage points in just two years. Behind every one of those statistics is a person. It is the young couple wondering whether they should postpone starting a family because they cannot afford a larger home. It is the renter watching another lease renewal approach with anxiety. It is the family whose mortgage payment has increased and who now has to decide what else can be cut from the monthly budget. The pressure is not confined to housing. Statistics Canada reported that in the spring of 2024, 45% of Canadians said that rising prices were greatly affecting their ability to meet day-to-day expenses. That was up 33% from just two years earlier. The burden was particularly pronounced among Canadians with lower incomes. Fifty-nine per cent of people in the lowest income quintile reported being greatly affected, as did 52% in the second and 48% in the third. More than half of Canadians between the ages of 25 and 44, or 55%, said rising prices were greatly affecting their ability to meet everyday expenses. Those numbers should command the attention of every member of this House regardless of partisanship, because affordability should not be simply a slogan we deploy when convenient. It should be a test we apply to the decisions we make right here. Does a measure make it easier or harder for a Canadian family to balance its budget? Does it leave a worker with more or less money at the end of the month? Does it recognize the realities facing a farmer, a senior, a young person or someone living in a community where driving is not optional? These are practical questions, and Canadians deserve practical answers. Bill C-38 would not solve Canada's affordability challenges. No responsible member of the House should pretend it does, but it would provide relief. It recognizes the real pressures facing Canadian households, and it moves, however incrementally, in the direction of allowing Canadians to keep more of their own money. We will continue to argue for permanent fuel tax relief. We will continue to challenge the government where we believe Canadians deserve better. That is our responsibility as His Majesty's loyal opposition, but our responsibility is also to support measures that help Canadians when they come before the House. Canadians are making difficult choices every day. Parliament should be looking for responsible ways to make some of those choices a little less difficult. On this measure, we have the opportunity to do precisely that, and that is why we will support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to reconcile what I am suggesting tonight, and that is the fact that we need to get the government to stop spending. We need to get spending under control. The deficit has doubled from what the government inherited. We, as an opposition, have identified $150 billion in potential savings, roughly $10,000 for every Canadian. Instead of having money swallowed up by unnecessary spending, like spending money on consultants or the boondoggle that is the Alto project, perhaps the government needs to put its money where its mouth is and look after Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, our support for this measure is very straightforward. When Parliament has an opportunity to leave more money in Canadians' pockets through lower fuel taxes, this measure is just a common-sense prerogative. I know, from people in Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, that when I am at the grocery store, when I am out at different community events, the tone is consistent. The concern is consistent, that affordability is the number one issue and that we need to get this under control.

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years under the Liberal government, Canadian families and businesses are under growing economic strain. Households are seeing wages fail to keep pace with inflation and with the cost of essentials such as housing, groceries and transportation, leaving less room in family budgets and less opportunity to get ahead. Businesses are facing weaker demands, higher costs and declining confidence to invest and expand, for five consecutive quarters. Canada is in a full-scale recession, reflected in sustained weakness and investment, failing real income and reduced economic momentum across key sectors of our economy. Liberal policy responses are not adequately addressing the root causes: productivity, competitiveness and long-term affordability. The task before this House is not to manage decline but to restore growth; to rebuild investment confidence, strength and productivity; and to ensure Canadian families and businesses can move forward with stability, dignity, security and opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was very good. Two weeks ago, we visited several communities in Quebec and we heard the same concern in all of them. Workers and businesses are worried about the tariffs and about the uncertainty surrounding CUSMA. My question is simple. In your opinion, what impact will this have on Quebec's economy, and what can the government do to reassure people and support Quebec businesses?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is in a recession. It is a distinction no other G7 nation shares. Despite facing the same international pressures as our allies, including American tariffs and global energy constraints, Canada stands alone in this regard. The government needs to take a hard look at why. In fact, the Liberal government routinely claims that Canada has the best tariff deal in the world with the U.S. Just last week, appearing before a committee, the Minister of Finance stated that Canada has one of the lowest tariff rates overall, so why is Canada in a recession? Poor domestic policy has driven a $20-billion loss in net investment over the past year, the loss of more than 100,000 jobs in the last three months alone and inflationary spending that continues to drive up the cost of living. I urge the Liberal government to recognize the gravity of the situation and take the necessary steps to pull Canada back from the brink of economic calamity.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about the recent CRTC decision, what it means for the ongoing trade relationship between Canada and the United States, and both how this decision will directly hit Canadians at home and its broader implications on negotiations on 232 tariffs and CUSMA. I first want to address the first point of defence that the government uses, which is that this is not a government decision but a CRTC decision. This is a gross mis-characterization of the process. The CRTC's own press release clearly indicates that the decision is a direct result of the organization's attempt to meet criteria set out in legislation introduced and passed by the government. The CRTC presser acknowledges: The CRTC is taking important steps to implement the modernized Broadcasting Act (the Act) by updating how Canadian and Indigenous content is supported and made available. The Act requires the CRTC to modernize Canada’s broadcasting framework and ensure that online broadcasters make meaningful contributions to Canadian and Indigenous content. That instruction came in the last Parliament, under Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. I will remind the House that Conservatives raised objections to this legislation, including to its potential impact to CUSMA negotiations, months prior to the U.S. election. We voted against the legislation specifically because of our concerns of impacts to the trading relationship between Canada and the U.S. even during the Biden administration and before the current administration's battery of unjust and unfair tariffs was levied against Canadian industry. Outside the House, we were not alone in our concerns. In June 2024, in a meeting with the international trade committee, Dr. Meredith Lilly, associate professor and Simon Reisman chair in international economic policy at Carleton University in Ottawa, stated in her opening remarks: ...implementing CUSMA in good faith also means not adopting legislation and regulatory measures that contravene CUSMA and antagonize the Americans. For example, on digital trade, the Online Streaming Act would be in violation of the chapter of CUSMA on digital trade were it not for Canada's cultural exemption. Similarly, unilateral action by Canada to introduce a digital services tax would discriminate against large U.S. firms. We should be prepared for U.S. retaliation if these measures are enacted, and Canadian lawmakers should be aware of the damaging consequences for the broader CUSMA review process. Similarly, Sean Heather, senior vice-president for international regulatory affairs and antitrust at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, stated: Consequently, Americans find it ironic that Bill C‑11 specifically targets U.S. companies in a manner that may violate Canada's international trading obligations, including those under CUSMA. This action appears to contravene commitments that guarantee a minimal standard of treatment, require equal treatment of foreigners and local enterprises, and obligate Canada to refrain from imposing certain performance requirements on foreign direct investment. While addressing a press conference in 1947, standing alongside Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, President Harry Truman said, “The record proves that in peaceful commerce the combined efforts of our countries can produce outstanding results. Our trade with each other is far greater than that of any other two nations on earth.” Everyone was telling not just the government but all members of the House that the Online Streaming Act would have a negative effect on CUSMA talks. Now we have the added issue of tariff negotiations as well, and all of this is just for the initial 5%. Bill C-11 gave the CRTC the power to do what it is doing. As a result, that 5% has now tripled to 15%, and the timing could not have been worse. The Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade is heading down to Washington to negotiate with our American counterparts, which is a difficult prospect on the best of days. Now he has to contend with a regulatory body's recently tripling what the Americans have viewed since 2024 as a trade irritant. I will be quite candid. I would love for the minister to succeed. There would be no member of the House happier than me if he came home with a paper in hand that ends the 232 tariffs sets the groundwork for a successful CUSMA review, but decisions like the recent CRTC announcement make it unnecessarily harder for him, especially considering that the initial levy is still being argued before the courts. We need, collectively, to set him up to succeed, not to fail. Supporting the decision by the CRTC, and refusing to accept responsibility for giving it the authority and mandate to do what everyone warned it would do, is not supporting the minister in his duties but actively torpedoing him. I would also like to take the opportunity to head off the argument that by opposing this tax hike, and tax in general, we are attacking Canadian and indigenous media and content producers. This is simply false. The government has innumerable ways to help out these sectors financially. The only thing we are saying is to not create an additional irritant in a trillion-dollar relationship in order to get there. I have the perfect solution. The CRTC estimates that the tax will mean $2 billion in revenue. I know how we can supplement that for the next 45 years, and it will not cost the government a single cent of additional committed funding: cancel the $90-billion Alto high-speed rail vanity project. Using public funds to unite Canadians through media, among a dozen other concerns, is a far better use of taxpayers' dollars than paying for a project that no one asked for and that will involve the permanent expropriation of private lands and tear rural communities asunder. Naturally, yes, I am singling out the Alto high-speed rail project because it is topical and relevant to my riding, but the broader point is that there are a number of programs or revenue-raising mechanisms that can be used instead of a tax on these digital service providers. What gets lost in these conversations is the reality of these investments in Canada. These companies, while American-owned, provide economic benefits alongside Canadian digital service providers. They provided $4.6 billion in 2024-25 and were responsible for 86% of foreign productions that year. They support an estimated 85,000 Canadian jobs, and of course, they are not happy. Motion Picture Association CEO Charles Rivkin issued a statement on this matter, which in part reads, “This burdensome framework unfairly targets global streamers with requirements that directly violate Canada's obligations under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.... The decision also undermines the open, market-based system that has helped fuel investment, job creation, and creative partnerships across North America”. It is important to remember that these concerns about Bill C-11, which led to the recent CRTC decisions affecting the Canada-U.S. relationship, predated the Trump administration. They predated elbows up. They predated the current trade war. It may feel great to some listeners to dismiss the importance of this relationship and say to move on. If they are not willing to listen to the economic argument against that, I would encourage them to think about what that means for their daughter-in-law who works in the local steel mill, their father who is on the line at the auto plant or their sister who is working at the pulp mill. Their economic well-being, as well as the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who depend on the nearly $1 trillion of trade that flows between our two nations annually, is the cost of that good feeling. As a legislator, I am not prepared to pay that cost. Speaking to the importance and defence of Canada-U.S. trade is not a defence of or attack against any one administration, Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative. It is a plea to cut through the rhetoric and noise and to repair and reinvigorate the relationship between our two great nations. We as legislators need to think beyond the current news cycle. We need to plan for 10, 20, 50 and 100 years into the future. Yes, that means diversification, but as the Prime Minister himself recently said, that also means deeper integration while building fortress North America. Leaders on both sides of the border cannot change that one part proximity, but we need certainty to change everything we can to restore those nine parts goodwill and common sense. Getting rid of this tax hike is certainly a step in the right direction.

Mr. Speaker, very boldly, I will reiterate for the record, the USTR warned Canada again and again not to institute this Netflix tax. The USTR, Ambassador Jamieson Greer, in testimony to the ways and means committee of the U.S. Congress, specifically cited the implementation of the Online Streaming Act as a trade irritant, and I can attach that for the record in the House of Commons. We in the House have to acknowledge that this is a big picture. We cannot get caught up in the noise and the rhetoric. This is significant information and data that needs to be addressed, and this is a careless act by the government.

Mr. Speaker, every single time I am back in the riding and throughout the weeks when I am serving the people in the House of Commons in Ottawa, I continuously listen to the concerns of Canadians. In concert with working on the file as shadow minister of Canada-U.S. trade, I am continuously reminded of the hardships that Canadians are facing, especially in the industries affected by the tariffs and the pending CUSMA review. July 1 is a benchmark, but we need to move forward with specific action. We need to lose the rhetoric, lose the noise, get to the table and have a conversation. Mexico is at the table. Mexico is having a conversation. I urge the Minister of Canada-U.S. Trade to do what he does best, to sit down and work this out, in coordination with a willing shadow minister of Canada-U.S. trade. We are able to work together. We have a lot of people at the table, a lot of stakeholders with a lot of expertise, who are willing to make this work. Let us get it done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the strong community spirit across Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga. From Lake Ontario to Algonquin Park, communities across our region are coming alive, with local fairs, farmers markets and volunteer events that reflect what makes rural Ontario special. From plowing matches and demolition derbies to theatre productions, musical rides, car shows, strawberry picking and visits to our many heritage sites, these traditions continue to celebrate the character of our communities. I would like to recognize the volunteers, small business owners, first responders, service clubs and local organizations whose commitment helps make our communities welcoming places to live and raise a family. Whether it is supporting local food banks, encouraging young athletes, recognizing the contributions of our seniors or celebrating indigenous and agricultural heritage, people across the region continue to set an example through their service and dedication to others. The strength of Canada is built up every single day by people who step up, help out and look after one another.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to table several petitions signed by thousands of concerned constituents who are calling on the government to immediately halt the Alto high-speed rail project. They cite a number of very legitimate concerns, including heavy-handed expropriation, dividing up communities with no level crossings, the proposed costs and the questionable benefits the project offers. I would like to thank the countless citizens of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, and those all across Canada, for their continued efforts in raising awareness of the negative consequences of this project.

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge that, today, May 5, is Red Dress Day, when Canadians and our indigenous partners acknowledge, honour and learn about the epidemic of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls in Canada. I would like to thank the advocates from coast to coast to coast for their advocacy and teaching on this matter. I would especially like to thank the member for Winnipeg Centre for her efforts in bringing the issue into the public consciousness and into this chamber. I am happy to rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion condemning the United States' unfair and unjustifiable tariffs on Canada and, as the motion states, Quebec. I will lead with one comment. I was fairly certain that this motion, which was tabled the Friday prior to the government's announcement yesterday, would be a castoff. I suspect that the only questions and speeches we will hear from the government are about how the $1.5 billion announced yesterday is going to magically fix billions of dollars in lost tariffs. However, I am happy for any opportunity to speak to the broader issue of the source of this malaise: tariffs. Yes, the Liberals announced something. Granted, it took over one year, but the point still remains. The issue here is that people do not want a handout. They do not want a band-aid. They want a deal, and patience is wearing thin. Being in constant conversation with the affected industries, I want to thank all members in this place for the pan-partisan support the affected industries and, more importantly, their workers have received from all parties in this place during this trade war. It is always good to be reminded that although we may have differing views on the best path, generally speaking, this place has the same goals in mind. I have to imagine that the vast majority of members in this place have at one point or another met with local industries in their ridings that are part of the downstream from the three specific industries mentioned in the motion from my colleague from Joliette—Manawan: steel, copper and aluminum. Of course, these punitive tariffs affect far more than just these three industries, but they are by and large the major targets in this current trade war. The very unfortunate reality is that these protectionist attacks on Canadian workers are working. The government has been extremely clear. It is the negotiator, and it does not want any help. Canadians may not know this, but this is in sharp contrast to previous trade negotiations with the U.S., when the previous government was more than happy to march hand in hand with the opposition down to Washington, where we remained a silent but willing partner to help the government do what was best for Canada. That is the government's prerogative, as is the self-described slow approach, but this brings pitfalls. However, given the Liberals' current polling, the pitfalls are not for them. It is no secret that the U.S. administration's actions in this situation have broadly galvanized the average Canadian into a patriotic fever, granting a wide breadth to the current government and propelling the Liberals in the polls. The voting public is, by and large, content with the Prime Minister's approach. This is what the polls tell us. I am not here to argue with the pollsters, but I am here to talk about the element that is never brought up in the various community Facebook groups or at the coffee tables of the nation, which is the unseen, unspoken victims of this approach. According to Statistics Canada, “iron and steel mills and ferro-alloy manufacturing (-19.1%) recorded its steepest decline since April 2020, coinciding with lower exports of steel products, as the US tariffs on Canadian steel imports doubled to 50% at the beginning of June.” To reiterate, the last time steel took this big a hit globally, trade shut down. The economic equivalent of the current U.S. tariffs on the Canadian industry is a once-in-a-century global pandemic, which brought global trade to its knees. This is the economic reality of Canadian trade. Pre-tariffs, 80% of exports went to the United States. Nearly $1 trillion in trade flowed annually across our borders. Now, hundreds of thousands of Canadians employed in the industry are affected in one way or another by trade between two of the longest and strongest allies the world has ever seen. The Prime Minister did not start this trade war, and his predecessor did not start this trade war, but he can end it. Every day this trade war drags on, it costs Canadians jobs and hammers our economy. I am not asking the Prime Minister to take any old deal. I am asking him to start negotiating for a serious resolution to this dispute. He has the political capital to wait. Canadian workers and families do not. I want to finish off by thanking the various industry associations, manufacturers, unions and workers for their work. They have tirelessly raised the various issues these unjustified and unfair tariffs have brought to their lives. This is a massively convoluted and complex issue that requires pan‑partisan support on both sides of the border to resolve. I will again offer to the government my support, as well as that of my caucus colleagues, to collaborate and co‑operate with them in any way we can, whether at home or abroad. I mentioned earlier that there was a bit of good luck on the government side that this opposition day motion will give it the opportunity to highlight its recent announcement, but serendipity does not shine exclusively on the government members today. While I do not have the authority to sign off on billions of economic loans or a trade deal yet, we here in the opposition do have other tools at our disposal. To deflect from its failing trade talks, the government often touts the philosophy of controlling what we can at home, so I took that to heart. Far too many representatives of these industry-critical organizations have told me that they feel left out and ignored by the government. They do not know what is going on in D.C. or in Ottawa and resort to rumours and speculation to field some sense of understanding. To be clear, this is coming not only from the mom-and-pop shops in Bancroft but also from national and international industry associations headquartered in Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal, New York and Washington. This is a sin being committed by administrations on both sides of the border. As a result, next month, in conjunction with my colleagues from la belle nation de Québec, I am joining a series of round tables in numerous Quebec cities and towns that are directly affected by the tariffs on steel, aluminum, copper and softwood lumber. It is my responsibility, and I am humbled to be invited to visit with Québécois workers and industry leaders up and down the St. Lawrence River, from major urban centres to humble regional industrial hubs, to talk to affected workers, en français, of the very real effects the U.S. tariffs have had on Canadian strategic resources. I want to finish with one final comment. Frustrations on both sides of the border are extremely clear, whether it is with our own administration or each other's. I share many of them, but we must remember that the relationship between Canada and the United States is forged in fire and bounded by blood. It is among, if it is not the, single strongest relationship between any two nations in the world today. To close, I want to selectively re-enter into Hansard something that was spoken in this very place 68 years ago by President Dwight D. Eisenhower when he addressed Parliament: ...change is the law of life and of relations between nations. When two great peoples such as ours, energetic and optimistic, live side by side in all the diversity that freedom offers, change is rapid and brings in its wake problems, sometimes frictions. ...by mutual respect, understanding and with good will we can find acceptable solutions to any problems which exist or may arise between us.... There must never be a final word between friends.

Mr. Speaker, Alto cannot proceed. I am dead against it. It is $90 billion, and that is just a fraction of the cost that we are looking at. Individuals, businesses, farms and communities across our riding of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga are being threatened with loss of income. Their homes are being uprooted. This is the situation across the board. Expropriation is worrisome, and with the idea that Alto is going to be the grand fix when the situation across our country is dire, this is a tough and strange question from the government.

Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize trade diversification is important. It always has been. In fact, the years between 2002 and 2009 were the key years with highlights on diversification. Going back to this presumption of the importance of trade diversification now is going back to what has always been done. Countries such as Brazil, Indonesia and China need what we make, so diversification with other countries is not the only option. It does not have to be an either-or, but we must always maintain that trading relationship with the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit confused. At committee, there were a number of veterans who spoke and shared their heart-wrenching stories. We heard time and time again the importance of survivors wanting choice. At committee, the Minister of National Defence said, of the members of the Canadian Armed Forces, that we have to be able to look them in the eye, and tell them that we have a well-run and transparent system, and that they can trust the system to help them when problems arise. How is denying survivors choice and forcing them into an overburdened civilian system that does not understand the realities of military service compatible with the minister's promise of a transparent, well-run system that they can trust?

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to table a petition spearheaded by a constituent of mine, aimed at bringing tax fairness to our indigenous partners. The petition calls on the government to simply rectify an overlooked error in the current tax filing regime that results in the comparative overrepresentation of tax reassessment claims of indigenous Canadians by updating and modernizing the T4RIF, the T4RSP and the T4A(P) tax slips; update CRA contribution tracking methods; ensure efficient handling of tax-exempt returns, including those of indigenous Canadians; and implement a team of first nations tax specialists within the CRA.

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to be able to rise today to speak to Bill C-11. In the previous Parliament, I was able to speak to this legislation's precursor, Bill C-66. In that speech, I spoke about the two committees I primarily sat on during the previous session, the status of women and national defence. I was able to provide a unique perspective as it related to what was, at the time, Bill C-66. At FEWO, we studied a number of issues related to violence against women. The committee studied violence against indigenous women in the context of resource development, intimate partner violence and coercive control. Prior to that, when I sat on the national defence committee, we studied transparency in the Canadian Armed Forces. During that study, we did hear testimony about how complicated and daunting the entire investigative process can be for armed forces members. I will now re-enter into the record the testimony of Patrick White: First of all, you need to put yourself in the perspective of the most vulnerable kind of person. Respectfully, that's actually not me. I'm an attorney. I have some legal knowledge. I'm not the most vulnerable kind of person. The most vulnerable kind of person may be the 16-year-old who gets parental consent to join. They may be the person who is so affected by aggravated sexual trauma that they can't even put their hand on the doorknob to get into work, or may vomit when putting on their uniform. That's just an example. If you design a system so that individuals like that can navigate it rather than requiring us to be Rory Fowler or Michel Drapeau, you will succeed in having a system that works for everyone. The grievance system, as it stands, requires individuals like me and others to spend our limited part-time, our free time, to fight a system that is paid and employed full-time to fight back. That's the challenge I have. I am not an expert on military regulation, military law, etc., but they have access to all of those resources. They also have access to legal advice on those issues. Members don't. What particularly struck me was something Mr. White said after the meeting. He highlighted the labyrinth of regulations, the myriad of hidden file numbers, the thousands of initialisms, acronyms and faceless department nooks and crannies in the depths of DND that one has to know the name of in order to get the paperwork. Patrick was a lawyer, a former staffer, someone who was intimately familiar with the machinations of bureaucracy. He knew where he needed to go and what he wanted, and he found it nearly impossible. In any event, Bill C-66 never got beyond second reading in this place, before dying on the Order Paper due to the previous election. However, I am very happy to see an ever so slightly amended version tabled in this place, and even happier to be able to speak to it today. While reviewing the initial draft of this speech, I took the time to briefly go over the testimony of survivors and experts at the national defence committee when it studied Bill C-11. It was refreshing to see all parties working collaboratively, especially on such a serious and sensitive issue. This was echoed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman on April 23, when he spoke in this place about Bill C-11. What he also spoke about was a series of unilateral changes brought forward on the day prior by the government. Those changes, only achievable because of a new-found majority, unilaterally changed the determinations of that committee, government members included. In response to his poignant speech, the member for Lac-Saint-Jean asked the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, if he could save one portion of the original pan-partisan Bill C-11, what would that be? My Manitoban colleague responded: Mr. Speaker, the key pieces of the bill that we have to maintain are clause 7 and clause 8 as the bill came back from committee and report stage. Those clauses would instill and enshrine the rights of choice for victims of military sexual misconduct and military sexual assault. Those choices, especially as they fall under the definition of sexual assault in the Criminal Code, would need to be dealt with in both systems. With regard to what clause 7 and clause 8 would do now, with the amendments brought forward by the Minister of National Defence, the minister would be taking away all authority and all investigative and prosecutorial powers from the military and giving them solely to civilian courts and civilian police forces. That is a travesty, and it ignores the rights of the victims. The testimony agrees. On November 18, Dr. Karen Breeck stated: the bill removes choice. Mandating the transfer of all 28 listed sexual offence charges, regardless of severity, is not people-centred. It will reduce reporting. Many would prefer a quick internal military resolution, especially for low-risk cases. I've spoken to many people who fear being labelled disloyal or overreacting if they were to involve civilian police, particularly for the lower-risk sexual assault cases Colonel Bruce MacGregor, retired, similarly reminded us: The expectation that victims would be completely satisfied with the criminal justice system is aspirational and not realistic. Many allegations of sexual assault—if not most—within the military are what we would characterize not as rape but as what may be considered as a lower level of physical violence. Saying this is in no way an attempt to minimize the impact on victims. Christine Wood, a CAF veteran, was unequivocally clear in her testimony. She said: I'm absolutely opposed to the transfer of military sexual offences to the civilian justice system. I support the creation of an independent system of justice for sexual crimes within the military. I support it because the CAF must uphold their own good order and discipline. That responsibility is essential for transparency and accountability. Limiting survivors to a single pathway to justice weakens our agency rather than strengthening it. We want choices. The director of the Survivor Perspectives Consulting Group, Donna Van Leusden, stated: This bill removes choice from survivors and reduces flexibility. For many years, survivors in the Canadian Forces had limited or flawed options, but they still had options. Under this bill, for Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, survivors are given none. Everything has to go directly to civilian police and civilian courts, regardless of what the survivor needs, prefers or feels safe with. That is not trauma-informed, and that is not survivor-centred. It may offer less flexibility than the military system ever did. The consensus is strikingly clear. As anyone who has ever sat on a committee here knows, there is almost always a multitude of sides to any piece of legislation or study that a committee does. It is shockingly rare to have dozens of witnesses across all walks of life, spread over nearly a dozen meetings, a full day of testimony, be nearly unanimous in their calls for specific change. This is not some regulatory change. This was a call for help from brave survivors who have battled a rotted system designed to silence and diminish them, the very thing Bill C-66 and Bill C-11 were supposed to change. For a while, there was hope. The committee heard the witnesses. Members worked collaboratively. They introduced amendments to Bill C-11. For 62 days, these men and women brought change, and they thought change was coming, from the day the report was tabled before the House up until April 22, when the government tabled a battery of amendments that undid months of collaborative work, completely revoking these changes. One of the first things the government did with its newly secured majority, even before the three new members took their seats in this place, was table a sweeping set of changes that eliminated that hard work. Not only is this an insult to the witnesses who were strong enough to come out and give their testimony, but it is disrespectful to the members of the committee, including the government members sitting on that committee. What the government did was worse than simply not listening. What it did was tell these witnesses and the thousands, if not tens of thousands, of survivors, “We hear you. We quite literally brought you before a standing committee of the House of Commons to listen. We sympathize with you. We even amended the legislation, but we no longer need you.” This is not collaboration whatsoever. This is dismissal.

Mr. Speaker, when I brought up in my remarks the mention of the machinations of this manufactured majority, I was speaking to the relevance of how this is impacting this legislation in the House. We are speaking about victims here. We are talking about Bill C-11. The member across mentioned Justice Arbour. I would like to note that she was indeed invited to committee. She declined her opportunity to speak at committee. Let us put this into perspective: Things have changed since she wrote this report upward of seven years ago, and so has the system.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better, and it is absolutely essential that we do better. For those listening at home, we are talking about the military justice system modernization act, or Bill C-11. We are currently at the report stage. Countless numbers of witnesses testified strongly. This committee heard the voices of these victims. Members of the committee collaborated, they were moving forward and then there was a hard stop. What is the change and why is the change happening? We need to do better in this place. Victims need the government to speak up and represent them. This is not the case with the way the government is acting.

Mr. Speaker, we could speak for hours and debate this bill, but we have to really think hard about what survivors have asked for. Why has this debate not been allowed to go further than the short time today? Supporting victims, supporting survivors, is what we need to get justice, and that is clearly not the case here. I do not understand why the government is rushing to shut down this debate before clear consensus and concerns are heard, and in addition, ignoring and contradicting the actual testimony that was heard.

Mr. Speaker, the latest report from the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University makes it clear: Financial pressure is not easing, Canadians are not getting relief and they are being forced to adapt to permanently higher prices. The Liberal government's recent credit card budget shows that it is doubling down on a spend-now-pay-never fiscal policy that, for over a decade, has driven up the cost of everything from food to fuel to rent. The deficit has doubled, and for what? What tangible benefits has that spending delivered for Canadians? The Prime Minister often touts this new government as some vector of change, but Canadians know it is the same ministers and advisers who buried this nation in debt. Simply swapping the prime minister with the architect of that very policy fools no one. This week presented an opportunity to provide relief and change course. Instead, they doubled the deficit, and that will only deepen the drain on households already stretched to their limits. A better path remains possible that puts affordability and accountability first.

Mr. Speaker, usually when members rise in the House to speak to legislation, they do so with energy and exuberance. Today is very different. As a mother of two young women finding their way in the world, I really appreciate the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola for introducing this legislation; however, it is troubling that such legislation is even necessary, though it undeniably is. Far too often, intimate partner violence has persisted as a hidden crisis in our country. It is often left unspoken, pushed to the margins of public discourse and too easily overlooked. In many communities, particularly those already facing systemic barriers, it remains especially difficult to name, confront or escape. Too many Canadians endure this violence in silence. Whether it is due to stigma, manipulation and coercion, or a lack of confidence in the system meant to protect them, victims are too often left feeling unseen and unsupported, regardless of whether they come forward. This is happening to our friends and our families in communities across Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga and our entire nation. It is this reality that brings us to this debate today. Legislation like Bill C-225 represents a strong step toward acknowledging the distinct and serious nature of intimate partner violence. It signals to the tens of thousands of Canadians that the government recognizes these harms and is prepared to equip law enforcement and the justice system with the tools needed to respond effectively and hold perpetrators accountable. Intimate partner violence and related issues, such as coercive control, have occupied a significant part of my time here in Ottawa, especially during the last Parliament, as I had the privilege to chair the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, where we studied these issues extremely closely and thoroughly. We completed studies on gender-based violence and femicides against women, girls and gender-diverse people, as well as coercive behaviour. The committee prided itself, and I hope it still does, on its ability to put partisan differences aside and focus on the matter at hand: Canadians, especially marginalized Canadians, suffering in silence. I know that this spirit of co-operation, championed by my predecessor, Karen Vecchio, will continue with the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, who I want to congratulate on her recent election to that position. I would also like to thank my successor, the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, for her work in the chair over the past year. Despite being one of the lesser-known committees, FEWO is by far the committee with the most to teach members in this place about working co-operatively and collaboratively, a lesson I hope is heeded and remembered as the government moves to amend committee composition. I think it is particularly fitting that the sponsor chose the Standing Committee on the Status of Women as the committee to review this legislation. That is what we need, a non-partisan approach to protect not just women suffering in abusive relationships but men and non-binary Canadians as well. As I was preparing this speech, I went back and took a look at the witness testimony at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women to see what was said and what arguments were put forward both by members and by witnesses. I was particularly struck by the panel that appeared on the very first day, along with the sponsoring member. I am going to first acknowledge the conversation shared by Debbie Henderson. She spoke about the murder of her niece Bailey. She made the argument better than I ever could, so I would like to repeat a portion of her harrowing testimony: The system currently continues to extend the trauma and torment by forcing families to wait and see whether charges will be upgraded to first-degree murder. Our family had four and a half months of stress and anxiety waiting for Bailey's murderer to have his charges upgraded to first degree. No family should have to live with the fear of wondering whether after a conviction they'll be forced, at a parole hearing in 10 years, to face the person who cruelly stole their loved one. Given the severity and predictability of this type of violence, these murders should be treated as what they truly are—intentional, targeted and devastating acts. Killings in the context of intimate partner violence should be classified as automatic first-degree murders with the opportunity to apply for parole only after 25 years. We must also begin labelling violence as what it is. Assault against an intimate partner is not the same as a bar fight or an altercation with a stranger; it's part of a pattern that is rooted in control, fear and escalating harm. Assaults should be clearly identified as intimate partner assaults so that the justice system can properly recognize the heightened risk they carry. Language matters because recognition drives prevention. There must also be stronger safeguards at the point of release. Repeat offenders, especially those convicted of violence or threats against a partner, should not simply be released back into the community following police involvement. They should be required to appear before a judge and be properly assessed for risk, because when the system underestimates danger, families pay the price. There needs to be real accountability within the system that is meant to protect the vulnerable and prevent foreseeable tragedies. Bill C-225 represents an opportunity to close the gaps, to recognize the seriousness of intimate partner violence and to prevent other families from experiencing this unimaginable loss. Bailey should still be here. Her children should still have their mother. Our family should not be learning how to live with her permanent absence. Her words are crystal clear, and they make perfect sense. The murder of a partner is one of the most visceral, raw, intimate things one can do. It is not done in the heat of the moment. It is often the culmination of months, if not years, of verbal, emotional and mental abuse. It is the final act in a series of escalating manipulation and exploitation, a literal living hell where, for far too many, the only escape seems to be cold-blooded murder. Bill C-225 does not seek to, nor should it, address every single element of intimate partner violence. It needs to be considered as part of the wider tool box of public society in fighting this, a tool box that needs to include education, prevention and support for survivors and their families. The bill is an important piece of the puzzle. It would send the message that, God forbid, if someone does this, if someone violates the sanctity of trust, love and commitment of their partner, justice will be delivered, not just to the perpetrator but, more importantly, to the family and memory of the person who was taken out of their lives. This is not vengeance. This is closure.

Mr. Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but democracy usually values open discussion. When I was elected in 2021, I was elected because I was sent here to this place to represent the views of all constituents of Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga. In a time when there is a lot of frustration and cynicism and just confusion about how and what happens in this place, could the government House leader speak to the reduction of the amount of trust that Canadians have in parliamentarians and processes in this place?

Mr. Speaker, there are only 10 weeks left until the CUSMA review and there is still no plan from the Prime Minister. Reports suggest there have been no serious negotiations with D.C. since October, while Mexico is actively engaging in informal CUSMA talks with the U.S. We are at a critical juncture for North American trade and I raise a very straightforward concern. We have 2.6 million Canadian jobs that depend on this negotiation. They need certainty. They need predictability. Why is Canada not actively at the table?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on the promise of being able to negotiate a deal with the United States. He has not delivered and instead, he is walking away. With 76% of our exports bound for the U.S., that reality will not change quickly, certainly not for Canadians already bearing the costs of tariffs. Diversification takes time, especially when negotiations yield no results. When will the Liberal government commit to prioritizing Canada-U.S. trade, return to Washington and secure a deal with a nation that we trade nearly a trillion dollars a year with? What is the plan?

Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are emerging from a long, hard winter, made even more difficult by a historic affordability crisis. Their hard-earned money is putting fewer groceries in their fridges and less gas in their tanks. A steady decline in purchasing power, driven by years of inflationary fiscal policy, is draining the economic backbone of our nation, leaving many Canadians unable to meet even the most basic of needs. We have had no new pipelines, no new trade deals, no repeal of anti-development laws and no progress on interprovincial trade barriers. Instead of piecemeal band-aids, Canadians need action that tackles the root causes of these crises. If we want to be affordable at home, safe at home and strong at home, we must make real change at home. I urge the Prime Minister and his front bench to change course and work with Conservatives to deliver results, because we in this place can wait out a majority government, but struggling Canadians cannot.

Mr. Speaker, in February 2025, the Prime Minister announced a project that will see thousands of property owners across Ontario and Quebec face expropriation, communities divided and Canadians forced to pay over $90 billion. From day one, the government has failed to answer even the most basic questions about the cost, timing, impacts, routes or construction. This is not government vision; it is reckless vanity. Will the minister finally listen to the thousands of concerned property owners in eastern Ontario, cancel the Alto high-speed rail and invest in priorities and infrastructure that Canadians actually need?

Mr. Speaker, almost a year ago, when asked if there would be a barometer for Canadians to hold the Prime Minister accountable, he responded, “Canadians will hold us to account by their experience at the grocery store, when they are paying their electricity bill, when they or their children are looking for a place to live”. Now, 10 months later, groceries are higher than ever, affordable housing is non-existent, and the price of fuel is skyrocketing. This is a direct result of increasing the clean fuel standard tax by 242%. Will the Prime Minister get rid of this tax on food so Canadians can afford to eat?

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years, the only thing the Liberal government is focused on is consistently delivering excuses. The government needs to look at home for the root causes that have created a decade of debt and deficits, like the government's own economic and monetary policies. The government continuously raids the bank accounts of Canadians to fund vanity projects like Alto rail, instead of investing in much-needed infrastructure and housing. Again, will the government scrap the fuel standard tax so struggling Canadians can get a modicum of relief?

Mr. Speaker, February's job numbers send a troubling signal for Canada's economy. More than 100,000 full-time jobs have disappeared, youth unemployment has climbed above 14%, and our economy is now among the weakest performers in the G7. Young Canadians are trying to start their careers at a time when opportunity is sinking. When will the Liberal government start working with the opposition to advance practical solutions, including our youth jobs plan, and to remove taxes and red tape that is making it harder for businesses to create jobs?

Mr. Speaker, February's jobs report demands serious attention. Instead, Canadians are hearing dismissive responses to legitimate concerns. The government's very own data shows that last month's decline in full-time employment was the largest decline, outside of COVID, since 2009. Canadians were promised strong economic leadership. If the Liberal government cannot deliver jobs, growth or hope for the next generation, why should Canadians have any confidence that its economic plan will work at all?

Mr. Speaker, one in five seniors cannot afford necessities, such as food and housing. Women, renters and seniors with health challenges are being hit the hardest, living in conditions comparable to the poverty line. The Liberal government often blames global pressures when the fact is that Canada has the worst food price inflation in the G7. The Prime Minister's rebranded carbon tax, now increasing to 17¢ a litre, is a policy entirely within his control. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility, scrap the taxes and cut the regulations that are driving up food prices and start making life more affordable for the Canadians who are struggling?

Mr. Speaker, I, too, share a lot of the concerns that the hon. member has spoken to, and I applaud him for his remarks in the House tonight. We have to remember that we are in the House of the common people. We, as opposition and government, are representing the views of our constituents. I have had hundreds of thousands of contacts in my riding, which neighbours that of the gentleman to my left, and they have similar concerns. Could the member speak to the economic realism? Is this ever going to happen? If it does happen, what will the cost be? There is so much concern, disruption and fear in the world right now, along with how much everything costs. With the troubles that people are having on a day-to-day basis just to survive, how can this project necessarily be a priority for the government? Indeed, I respect and support infrastructure and advancing infrastructure, but there has to be some answers as to how, when and why this is happening right now.

Mr. Speaker, February is Heart Month, a time to focus on the health of our own hearts and to stand in solidarity with families affected by heart conditions, including congenital heart defects. It is a reminder that heart health begins with everyday choices. Small, consistent steps can play a powerful role in prevention and long-term wellness. At the same time, we recognize those affected by congenital heart defects. Medical advances have transformed survival and quality of life, yet many families still navigate complex surgeries, specialized care and lifelong monitoring. We also honour those families who have experienced the heartbreak of losing a child due to these conditions. Let us embrace both prevention and advocacy, caring for our own hearts while championing those whose paths began with unique challenges. With knowledge, healthy living and collective resolve, we can stand beside one another, honour every family's story and, together, work toward healthier hearts for all.

Mr. Speaker, since 2023, the finance minister has promised to stabilize food prices. Instead, Canadians continue to face out-of-control grocery costs, something anyone who shops in our communities sees every single day. A temporary rebate will not fix the root cause: poor economic policy. The last time rebates were used, Canada ended up with the highest food inflation in the G7. Why now should Canadians trust the finance minister to actually lower grocery prices?

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 would not lower food prices, but we will not block a small rebate for the people who actually qualify for it. Over the past three years, the prices of beef, lettuce and baby formula have all surged. Even basic student staples like Kraft dinner and canned beans are more expensive. Canadians need leadership that delivers. That means eliminating the industrial carbon tax, removing the fuel standard tax and strengthening competition in the grocery store. When will the government start governing responsibly and lift these burdens so Canadians can afford groceries on their paycheques?

Mr. Speaker, the government has had 10 years. This is too little too late. It is pitting province against province and sector against sector. With all due respect, it has been a year. If we want to talk numbers, the current deficit has doubled and food inflation is the worst in the G7. If we want to talk crime, Liberal bail continues to release violent repeat offenders. No pipelines have been approved. New and increasing tariffs are shutting down mills, factories and businesses across the country. If the member thinks I am talking negatively, it is because we have a really dire situation here in Canada, and something needs to be done about it.

Mr. Speaker, I mean no disrespect, but we are talking about the opposition day motion for a Canadian sovereignty act. This would touch energy, the economy and the environment. The bottom line is that we need to cut taxes, unlock investment and let builders build. Canadians have no appetite for partisanship and throwing stones both ways. We need to get rid of the politics and partisanship. We need pragmatic plans that restore and support economic sovereignty here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we have to recognize that Canada and the U.S. still have the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world. We have been diversifying with other nations for many years, long before the current government came into play. Diversification does not need to be an either-or. We do not need to stop international trade with the U.S. We need to restore and reinvigorate that relationship while, at the same time, fostering the new and current trade relationships we have with other countries.

Mr. Speaker, Stats Canada confirmed what Canadians feel every single day: Life is more expensive. Fact: Canada is now leading the G7 in food inflation. Fact: Food prices in Canada are rising twice as fast as they are in the U.S. Fact: Nearly 2.2 million people visit food banks in Canada in a single month. Rising food prices are hitting Canadians hard. Conservatives will support legislation that cuts red tape on farmers so they and Canada can grow. The question is, will the government table it?

Mr. Speaker, our goal is to help stop the struggle. Taxes such as the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standards tax are directly contributing to the rising cost of food. They are directly and negatively impacting our farmers' ability to affordably grow, produce and transport the food we need to survive. Removing these taxes will help Canadian families afford groceries and farmers produce them. Will the government introduce legislation to eliminate the industrial carbon tax, eliminate the fuel standards tax and cut red tape for farmers?