Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are saying that they are putting forward legislation in an attempt to make Canada safer, to be harder on criminals and to support victims of crime. However, in my own city of Calgary, in the last 10 days alone, we have had four shootings. What this is indicating to me is that Canada, under Liberal rule, is not any safer. I am really beginning to question, as I am sure many Canadians are, and I know certainly Calgarians are, if the legislation that the Liberal government has been putting forward for 10 years now is really contributing to a safer Canada. I would like to know what the member thinks about that.

Mr. Speaker, I was really disappointed to hear, this evening, that Bill C‑9 passed thanks to a deal between the government and the Bloc Québécois. In my view, that is not fair. That is not really how we should be making laws. I want to know whether my colleague thinks that this is really how she wants laws to be created here, that is, with deals, agreements and bartering, instead of being transparent with Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to present e-petition 7284. This petition, which was signed by 1,160 concerned Canadians, calls upon the president of the Treasury Board to remove proposals in the legislative review of the Access to Information Act that seek to dampen transparency and accountability, such as those altering the definition of “official record” to exclude emails and text messages. The petition also calls on the president to wholly and transparently seek input from the independent Information Commissioner of Canada regarding any proposed amendments in the act.

Mr. Speaker, as an MP from Alberta, I can tell members that the foundation of our present environment is decades of being ignored or even harmed by years of ideological Liberal government. Albertans want to be treated the same way they feel about their fellow Canadians: with amity, with respect and with the opportunity to not only grow as a province but also fully contribute to the Confederation. Sadly, this has not been the case. Liberal governments have perpetually ignored Alberta, stifled our growth and, therefore, limited the growth of this nation, leading to our current situation of economic despair, no housing and two million Canadians visiting food banks. I firmly believe that not only Albertans but also Canadians deserve a government that believes in every corner of this nation and that would allow Canadians to contribute and prosper to their full capacity. Only a federal Conservative government can save Canada.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had it with the Prime Minister's costly credit card budget. The deficit is $65.3 billion, and this year, Canadians will pay $58.7 billion on debt interest. Food inflation rose 3.8% in April, with gas prices surging 28.6% last month alone. Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession. The Prime Minister is more focused on his American stock portfolio and his friends at Brookfield than on Canadians. How many more negative quarters of growth will it take for him to change course?

Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy is palpable. Canadians were promised relief, but the Prime Minister's costly credit card budget is driving up costs for Canadians while driving investment away. Twenty billion dollars' worth of investment has left Canada in the last four quarters alone. Over $1 trillion has left since 2015. As a result, Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession. Instead of putting his friends at Alto and Brookfield first, the Prime Minister should put Canadians first so they can finally get ahead instead of constantly being left behind. How many more quarters of negative growth will it take for the Prime Minister to choose Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today from my seat in the House of Commons to present e-petition 7359. The petitioners were alarmed by recent reporting that noted a concerning number of absences by the Prime Minister during question period, and they sponsored this petition, which over 2,100 Canadians have signed, calling on him to attend question period on a weekly basis and to wholly and truthfully answer questions from members of Parliament during those sessions, including on luxury items consumed.

Mr. Speaker, Liberals like to claim they are efficient stewards of public funds. However, by 2030, they will have added $1 trillion to the national debt since taking office. Their reckless spending means taxpayers will pay $59 billion servicing that debt this year alone. That is $3,400 for every single Canadian family. This is not sustainable, and it is not something a government that cares about our finances or our future would do. In fact, their so-called savings plan is so low on the priority list that it was barely mentioned in the costly Liberal budget. With this Prime Minister, it is more cost, more debt and more of the same. Seniors who built this nation deserve better. Families just trying to survive deserve better. The future of our nation, our youth, deserves better. Under a Conservative government, Canada can and will get back on the path of prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to rise on behalf of the wonderful citizens of Calgary Midnapore to speak on their behalf. The citizens of Calgary Midnapore recently went through something all Canadians went through, and that is tax filing at the end of April. Of course, this is the time when we all must do our duty to society and pay our fair share of taxes. At least, this is what we are supposed to do. Of course, there are always those who make the decision to not file their taxes. There are those who perhaps cannot pay what they owe or are reluctant to pay what they owe. Certainly, it is a problem that compounds over time, but the majority of Canadians, certainly more than a fair share of Canadians, want to do the right thing, and that is pay their part to society and contribute to this incredible nation that we live in. One way we do that is by paying our taxes. I want to thank the member for Simcoe North, who had the foresight to recognize that there was this lack of oversight in Canadian society and that there are corporate members who are not necessarily filing taxes for one reason or another. They owe an amount of tax to our society but are not paying it, and it is not being recognized that they have not kept their commitment to Canadian society in not having paid these amounts. I just want to take a moment to thank the member for Simcoe North, who went through so much effort and recognized this was a problem. He is an expert in finance. I have been in his office when he has CNBC on and is following the financial markets, so it is no surprise to me that he would have this type of thinking and that he would recognize this as something that needs to be fixed. I also want to thank him for taking the time to work with the other parties to gain their collaboration in bringing the bill forward and seeing it successfully to this stage in our process at the House. That is something very rare and special to do. I have never drawn higher than 238th in the private member's bill draw, so I am very grateful that, first of all, he had this good fortune; second, that he was able to see this idea; and third, that he had the tenacity and the persistence to work through the bill with the government. I would also like to recognize the government's piece in this collaboration. Of course, as sitting members of the public accounts committee, we went through the bill in detail. We thought about all of the different aspects that would have to be considered. There was compromise on all sides, and again I want to thank the member for his compromise in that regard as well, because it is very easy to get very stubborn when it comes to one's own legislation. There could be something that they think should be a part of the bill, that they think is more accurate or that they do not want to include, but the member went beyond that. Of course, we know that the Canada Revenue Agency is responsible for collecting debts owing to the government, but in recent years, the CRA has been waiving debts owing to the government in record numbers. Last year, the government wrote off $4.7 billion. It forgave $10.9 billion. In remissions it had $0.4 billion, and in waivers it had $2.6 billion. This is a total of $18.4 billion, which at this point would actually be close to 25% of the deficit we have, not only this year, but also last year. At a time when we are encroaching upon $1.63 trillion in national debt, which we will get to by 2030, every single dollar counts, so I am grateful that the member saw this as the right thing to do for society. It is important for corporations to pay their fair share. At this time when we are in need of such fiscal prudence and responsibility, everyone is required to pay their fair share at this time, and that includes corporations. The member for Simcoe North is not the only one who recognized this lack of oversight, this lack of acknowledgement, of people who are not paying their fair share. There are media outlets such as The Globe and Mail, and Bill Curry of course has done an excellent job of following the public accounts committee and the Treasury Board. Speaking of which, I am going to do a little promotion. On June 2, I am looking very much forward to taping, with the ArriveCAN team, the ArriveCAN second-year anniversary, and we will be distributing that at the end of June. Bill Curry has been fantastic in terms of following stories such as these. CBC News also did a story on the $133 million written off that was owed by a single taxpayer, so this definitely is something that needed to be addressed. Write-offs and waivers for taxes owing to the government were done in secret because of privacy provisions in the Income Tax Act, and the member wanted to bring these numbers to light. Historically, while the CRA spends a lot of time pursuing small businesses and ordinary Canadians who owe minor amounts to the CRA and to Canada, some major corporations have gone unaccountable and unnamed. The legislation would create a public registry that would require the Treasury Board to annually publish a list of corporate entities that had debts owing to the government waived, forgiven or written off. The amount we put forward originally, the member was thinking, was somewhere from $1 million to $5 million. The number that was landed upon was $2 million, which is certainly a substantial amount, but I think it is a good amount that would really provide corporations with an incentive to pay their taxes so they do not end up on this list as well. The contents of the public registry would have to include the following information in relation to each debt: the name, including any business name of the corporation, trust company or partnership that owes the debt or obligation to which His Majesty has a claim; the specific amount that was waived, written off or forgiven; the period to which the amount relates; the act under which the debt, obligation or claim arose; and any other information that the president of the Treasury Board may require. The enactment would amend the Financial Administration Act to require the president of the Treasury Board to establish and maintain this public registry of certain large debts and obligations owed by businesses to His Majesty, as well as claims by His Majesty against businesses that have been waived, written off or forgiven. It would also make consequential amendments to other acts. Here are some observations in relation to this. In 2023-2024, 11 companies received $1.2 billion in combined write-offs for tax debt and other obligations, and 11 companies accounted for nearly one-quarter of the $4.9 billion in write-offs in fiscal year 2023-2024. We are talking about a small number of bad players. The bill's being passed would be a huge step in the direction of transparency. Certainly, on this side, we have always attempted to fight for transparency, such as in the appointment of a parliamentary budget officer who will always stand up for transparency and call the government out on things that do not appear to be accounted for. Of course, we advocate against tax increases and new tax measures for everyday Canadians. Why should corporations get enormous debt write-offs when they target the little guy for significantly smaller amounts? In summary, I want to again thank the member for Simcoe North for bringing forward the legislation. The right thing to do in society is to pay one's fair share that is owed to Canada and to one's fellow citizens. In addition, we are unfortunately in a terrible fiscal position, with significant debt as well as deficits, including $65 billion this year alone, and deficits for the last 15 years. The piece of legislation that is before us looks to remedy this.

Mr. Speaker, behind all the talk, the Prime Minister is just another Liberal. He is more expensive, more anti-resource and more misleading. He is well aware that Canada already has free trade agreements with Europe. Those are all in place. What we need is for he and his government to just get out of the way and stop blocking our biggest export. He said we would build at speeds never seen before, but so far our biggest exports under the government are speeches, handshakes and photo ops. Does the Prime Minister know when the first shipment of Canadian LNG will arrive in Europe?

Mr. Speaker, let us deal in facts. It is a fact that the Prime Minister has not signed any new free trade deals. He signed empty, non-binding MOUs and burned taxpayer dollars to jet around the world for his chief export: hot air. It is a fact that Canadians need results, not illusions. They need tariffs dropped and the Prime Minister to keep his promise to protect Canadian jobs. It is a fact that Europeans have been pleading for a secure and stable source of energy. While the Prime Minister is overseas, will he tell us when his new pipeline will deliver LNG to Europeans? I would like just the date.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues. It is always a pleasure to be here in the House to speak on behalf of the good people of Calgary Midnapore. The people of Calgary Midnapore, of course, reside in the wonderful province of Alberta, and I am going to start my speech today with great words that came out of a campaign in Alberta in the year 2015. Those words are “I believe you”. This was a campaign created in 2015 by the Association of Alberta Sexual Assault Services to support victims of sexual assault. When someone comes forward and claims that they are a victim of sexual assault, there should be no other response than “I believe you”, yet 97% of sexual assaults go unreported. That means 97% of persons who have been the victims of sexual assault do not have the courage to come forward to tell someone their story, what happened to them, because they are unsure that they will hear the words “I believe you”. This is the one line that a survivor of sexual assault needs to hear. What we are hearing today from the government, what it is saying to victims of sexual assault, is that it does not believe them. The Liberals need to say to these victims that they believe them. This was the crux of this incredible campaign that came out of Alberta: “I believe you”. Of course, Conservatives are proud of and support all of our men and women in uniform, who serve Canada. We believe that we must continue to address sexual misconduct, as well as discrimination, racism and other forms of harassment, because all military members deserve to have a safe and respectful workplace. The greatest way we can do that today is by saying that, regarding Bill C-11, “I believe you”, that we believe them, that the House believes them. The previous Conservative government accepted all recommendations from the Deschamps report to eliminate all forms of sexual harassment in the CAF, but after 11 long years of Liberal government and two more reports from Supreme Court justices, victims of military sexual misconduct are still no closer to having their cases dealt with properly. The Liberals' only idea on military sexual misconduct is to force those cases into the overburdened and even slower civilian justice system without providing resources to local police forces or provincial courts to deal with military cases. When victims of sexual assault hear that these processes are being delayed, that they are being pushed off by the federal government, what they are hearing is that the government does not believe them. What these victims need to hear is “I believe you”. The Liberals are trying to do what is politically expedient. They want to punt this off to the provinces and municipalities by pushing sexual assault cases off their table and into an already overburdened civilian police and court system. We have seen this time and time again. I think of a great example in my incredible riding of Calgary Midnapore, which is cell phone towers. Constituents are very concerned every time another cell phone tower goes up. They create a petition that they bring it to my attention, and I forward it to the Minister of Industry. I say that my constituents are very concerned about these cell phone towers, about the impacts that they will have on their safety and well-being. What the minister does is punt it off to the municipal level of government. She puts off making a decision and taking responsibility for the actions of the government, particularly on an issue that is so relevant to the health and well-being of Canadians, certainly as much as the issue being discussed here today is. However, this is what Liberals do. They deflect responsibility. They try to muddy the waters by not taking jurisdiction of the decision. Instead, they try to defuse the decision-making process to avoid the responsibility. That is what we are seeing here today. Instead of listening to the legal experts and increasing independence in the military justice system, the Liberals want to ensure that they can politically interfere with ministerial directives and ensure that the director of defence counsel services, the director of military prosecutions and the provost marshal general stay under the thumb of the chain of command of the chief. That is what we are seeing. It is essentially the Minister of Defence saying, “I don't believe you”. Conservatives carefully studied Bill C-11 to ensure concerns from all stakeholders were taken into consideration. We are proud of the progress we made at the Standing Committee on National Defence to improve Bill C-11 and to ensure that the voices of victims and survivors were heard and considered in the studying and amending of this legislation, but most of the witnesses at the committee are asking that victims of military sexual assault be given the choice of what justice system they make their report to. Is that not the very least that we can do for these victims, these individuals who have received the greatest offence a person can possibly go through, to have their person violated? The very least we can do is give them power in the decision to decide how this abuse of trust would be handled, but the government is not willing to do that. The Liberals are essentially saying, “I don't believe you”. The brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have put in the work for decades to ensure that no one else has to experience what they went through. It is time for all of us to stand up, be allies to them and say, “I believe you”. We need to do what we know is the right thing for the next generation, for both our sons and our daughters, not only for those serving in the CAF, but across Canada. As the mother of a son, I will tell members that my husband and I have had this conversation with him. We hope he will carry it forward with him in all the decisions he makes. Removing victim choice on how to report sexual offences does nothing to solve the problem. It only deepens it. After 11 long years, the Liberals are, once again, letting down the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces by saying, “We don't believe you”. If Parliament is serious about doing all it can to support those who serve, then all members of Parliament must retain the ability for military victims to choose which reporting path is the safest, most credible and most operationally workable for them, regardless of where they are in Canada. We need to speak with one voice as a House and say this to them: “We believe you. We recognize what you have been through, and we honour you by giving you the choice with how you are going to deal with this violation that has occurred to you. We believe you.” In closing, I want to share another incredible story about Alberta, and it is the #NotInMyCity campaign, which was created to deal with the horrific problem of human trafficking. We have seen the incredible ambassador Paul Brandt and heard his message in his song Alberta Bound. Extending beyond musical capabilities, as he and his wife are true songbirds, they advocate for those who are the victims of human trafficking. We should say each and every day, not only in my great province of Alberta, but also across Canada and in this chamber, “We believe you” and “I believe you”. Members of CAF should be given the opportunity to make their decisions as such.

Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to listen to this member talk about harassment when he sits with ministers who have been not only accused but also found guilty of harassment. That is disgraceful. I do not like to be lectured by a member of a party whose ministers have been found guilty of harassment. I will mention a quote: “Arbour's knowledge of international law is as questionable as her understanding of morality”. That is a direct quote from Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, a well-regarded international jurist. He said this in 2006. The member should think about who he is referring to as an example.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Bloc Québécois and the NDP worked hard with Conservative members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to move this bill forward. I am pleased to see that the members of the Bloc Québécois are still keen to try to achieve the goal of Bill C-11. Unfortunately, I understand that we have lost the NDP member, who decided to join the Liberals. The Conservative MPs and I agree on most of the ideas for moving Bill C-11 forward, and that includes the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, before doing the “I believe you” campaign, the researchers talked to numerous victims of the most heinous crime a person can receive, to be violated as a person. What the researchers were told, time and time again, was that the victims just wanted to hear someone say, “I believe you”. Right now, the Liberal government is not saying “I believe you” to the victims of sexual assault, and that needs to change. It starts with Bill C-11.

Mr. Speaker, a year after the federal election, the Prime Minister has shown that he is just another high-spending Liberal. His costly credit card budgeting is forcing Canadians to use their credit cards. We have $90 billion in new spending and spending is up 9% this year alone. When the finance minister presents his spring economic statement this afternoon, will he commit to no credit card budgeting so that Canadians can finally afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, as a former governor of the Bank of Canada, the Prime Minister should know that fiscal discipline is non-negotiable and that deficits undermine investor confidence and harm Canadian workers. Conservatives are asking the Liberals to stop their credit card budgeting and to show some fiscal restraint. When the Prime Minister presents his spring economic statement this afternoon, will he commit to a deficit of no greater than $31 billion for the sake of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the incredible citizens of Calgary Midnapore. We are here today to debate Motion No. 9, a motion that causes a lot of concern not only for me and for my movement but for many citizens across Canada, citizens who cast their vote believing that it mattered, that their vote would be reflected in the composition of not only the House but also committees. We find, with Motion No. 9, that this is not the will of the government, even though it was the will of the people, the will of the citizens. These changes would be thrust upon committees without the will of the citizens who voted for representatives to represent them not only in the House but in committees as well. I find this particularly troubling for three reasons. The first is that, in the words of the CBC, there is a complete lack of accountability. This is a government that needs accountability. The Liberals have failed to deliver for Canadians on a number of fronts, and Canadians continue to feel the pain of their decisions across their lives. We hear, consistently, about the trouble with the cost of living, and with groceries in particular. Every time I go to the grocery store, I am surrounded by citizens who are scared to put items in their grocery basket because they are not certain they can afford them. I think of purchasing a simple item like a basket of berries. We cannot even do this now for less than $10 usually. It is encroaching upon a double-digit dollar number just to purchase a basket of berries. The same goes for meat. There was a time, coming from Alberta, that citizens could enjoy our wonderful beef without concern. Now this is seen as a luxury. It is a result of the government doing a terrible job of managing the cost of living with their policies. As well, we have seen this reflected recently in fuel prices. Fuel is something we have an abundant amount of here in this great country of Canada. I personally do not accept the idea that there is a global shortage and that Canadians should have to suffer. If the government had been doing its job over the last decade, it would have put in place the infrastructure and the mechanisms so that we would have an endless supply of fuel instead of, now, forcing our citizens to compensate for its lack of oversight over the last decade. That is before we even talk about the carbon tax that the Liberals imposed and the industrial carbon tax that remains. The result of this, of course, is low productivity. We know that the U.S. has beaten Canada in productivity. It limits wage gains for workers significantly, resulting in high unemployment rates. It is no wonder that Canada lost 100,000 jobs in a single month and that our rate of unemployment continues to hover in the high sixes and low sevens. It is a result of poor policies of a government that requires accountability. Our productivity gap has become so acute in the last eight years that, according to numbers that have been cited, Canadian business productivity slipped 0.6% from 2017 to 2024, and nearly half of last year's inflow came through mergers and acquisitions of existing Canadian businesses, well above the historical norm of around one-third. That is not new capital creation. It is not adding anything to our economy. It is not adding jobs for our young Canadian citizens. Today, the announcement of the sovereign capital fund is just ridiculous because there is nothing to go into the fund. Other nations that have created this kind of fund had a surplus. Instead, here, we see a history of deficits. For every consecutive year, since 2015, there has been a deficit. We see that again this past fiscal year with one of $80 billion. We do not know what to expect tomorrow, but we are concerned and worried. Nearly 80% of Canadians are saying that the cost of living outpaces their income. The government demands accountability. The fact it is creating these committee rules to not allow for this accountability is absolutely by design so it will not be held accountable by the official opposition. Second, this is a government that talks a good game about team Canada, but it really wants to do things by itself. It really does not want us to have the team Canada approach. Anyone who has any ideas that are not the Liberals' are deemed un-Canadian. It is absolutely insulting to the so many Canadians who have ideas that are different from theirs. The Liberals said that we were not working with them in their effort to achieve things for Canadians. This is also not true. We passed Bill C-5, which gave them carte blanche to achieve anything they possibly wanted to, yet we are stalled out again with respect to major projects and achieving things for Canadians. They are driving the unity crisis as a result of this type of mentality, which has played out in the creation of these committees. I received a note this week: “I am so disappointed in our so-called democratic system. What a clown show. There is nothing democratic about floor crossing. When is this nonsense going to end? Who is overseeing this, and when will they fall in their job? Let's just start with the lack of answers during the question and period segments. When a question is asked, it should be obligatory to provide an intelligent reply that actually relates to the question and not merely dodges the question. The Prime Minister should be removed from office for his endless conflicts of interest. I can't wait for October 19th to vote for an independent Alberta.” That is what the government is driving with its authoritarianism, and that includes this committee constitution motion. I will also point out that the Prime Minister literally won office because he promised Canadians that he would be the individual who could get a deal with the U.S., but to date we have yet to see it. We have only seen his ever-changing position on the trade deal with our neighbours to the south. During the leadership race, he said that dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs by Canada should be given and should be aimed where their impacts in the United States would be felt the hardest. Then, on July 15, 2025, he said that a trade deal with Trump without tariffs is unlikely because there is not a lot of evidence right now that the U.S. is willing to make one. Again, he ran on this and he has not gotten a deal for us. In October, he said, “We are still negotiating further gains in [our] major sectors”. He also said, “As we speak, our team is negotiating. This is just not words. We will get a deal.” Then, in November, he said, “Who cares?” He said that we would make a deal as it was necessary, saying “It's a detail.... I'll speak to him again when it matters.” I will tell the House that it matters to Canadians. Then, as of this week, he said, “Many of our former strengths, based on our close ties to America, have become [our] weaknesses”, but just three days later he said, “We can come to a mutually successful outcome.” As I said, the Prime Minister won the election with the promise that he would get a deal for Canadians. The government talks a good game about wanting us to work together, but really he, as described by the CBC, is “authoritarian”. This move to take control of committees points to that. I will say that the third and final reason is that it is fundamentally undemocratic that committees are constructed in this format. The government got 169 seats in the last election, which is 43.76% of the popular vote, with the CPC getting 144, which is 41.31%. In the words of the CBC, this is overreach. It has an authoritarian streak. Canadians did not ask for this, so it should not be done.

Mr. Speaker, it is better not to give them more ideas as to the abuse of our democracy and the democratic process. The Liberals are capable of coming up with these types of ideas on their own. Again, it is such a sad day for Canadians because they did not vote for this and they did not ask for this. They asked for an official opposition that has all of the powers and the benefits of being the official opposition, and that was stolen from us today.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford. I also want to thank my colleague from the Bloc Québécois for moving the concurrence motion today. I believe this issue is truly important to Canadians. I am always happy to speak out against government waste. I am very fortunate to have had the position of shadow minister for the Treasury Board for three and a half years. I am very grateful that the Leader of the Opposition gave me the role all that time ago. At the time, he told me it was a result not only of my Master of Business Administration degree but also of the time I had spent as a public servant within the federal government. I have been following these issues and the waste for close to four years, and we see these consistent problems with the government time and time again. What I have learned is that Canadians hate two things. There are many other issues they disagree on or perhaps do not have consensus on, but Canadians hate waste, first of all, and they hate inefficiency. I have some data to support that. A poll by Arcus indicates that 73.9% of Canadians believe that the federal government is inefficient, and 50% believe in making government more efficient without reducing services. Canadians recognize the waste and inefficiency of the current government. This is something it has a very good track record of and has chosen time and time again in the many situations where they have failed. Just this week, the Auditor General tabled her evaluation of modernizing the pay system. This is a major project, with $4.2 billion of Canadian taxpayer funds being used to overhaul the system, yet the government is failing. It is failing to do the transfer from the old system to the new system, and that is costing Canadians $4 million a year. Over several years, this is millions of dollars to add to the $4.2-billion project. With that, it is a significant failure. There is currently still a backlog of 235,000 cases, with many of them more than a year old. The Auditor General went on to say that the government “need[s] to simplify and standardize pay rules before introducing a new system”, something the government should have learned from the Phoenix evaluation and the Phoenix fiasco but did not learn. The government continues to waste Canadian taxpayer dollars and continues to be inefficient. Worst of all, it is not learning the lessons. We saw that in the presentation of the Auditor General's report on Monday, but not just there. In 2025, the Auditor General also tabled the review of the ArriveCAN application. Again, her report showed more of the same, with the Liberals not having learned their lesson when it comes to being able to deliver effective and efficient services for Canadians. In addition, they have a significant problem enforcing their own rules. Not only are the Liberals incompetent, but they are also unable to provide a clear standard of service across their government when improving something or implementing something. The examples in the ArriveCAN review included that 21% of the individuals who were brought in to work on the project lacked security clearance, 33% of contracts could not show contract resources had the experience and the qualifications needed to complete the required work, and 58% did not document assessment of evaluation of ongoing bids. Again, this is a waste. The Liberals are not doing a comparison of value for money to see whether they are receiving the best bid, the best value for money. Fifty per cent of individuals in the sample did not have adequate security clearance, in addition to the 21% with no security clearance; 58% had poorly documented time sheets of individuals who submitted documents within the project; and 82% of federal organizations could not prove that fees did not exceed the market rates. This is why the Liberals are failing as a government. They are incapable of achieving market rates, something that small businesses, medium-sized businesses and large corporations have as a practice and must do within Canada. The Liberals are not capable of doing it, and they are not capable of learning how to do it, as these repeated reports of failure keep coming in from the Auditor General and elsewhere. In only 54% of contracts could the government prove that deliverables were received. When we go to the grocery store and pay for a tomato, we have the tomato. When we buy a T-shirt, we have the T-shirt. The government could not do this. It could not prove that it actually received what it had paid for. We can point to another example if we go back to the 2024 ArriveCAN report, which stated that the Canada Border Services Agency, the Public Health Agency, and Public Services and Procurement Canada repeatedly failed to follow good management practices in the contracting, development and implementation of the ArriveCAN application. As a result of the many gaps and weaknesses, the Auditor General found issues with the project's design, oversight and accountability, and stated that it did not deliver the best value for the taxpayer dollars spent. Again we see the waste and the inefficiency. The enduring benefit of the ArriveCAN application cannot be proven, and, thank goodness, as of October 2022, ArriveCAN has no longer been used to collect travellers' health and contact information, although I do think I have seen it recently. It goes further back than that, to the 2023 Auditor General report on the transformation of systems delivering critical benefits to Canadians, the benefits delivery modernization program, which had experienced repeated delays, cost increases and staff challenges since its launch in 2017. We always hear the Liberals blaming the previous administration. They have had a decade now to clean up what was reported on the modernization pay system. There is a new system in addition to Phoenix, called Dayforce, which the Liberals are failing on as well. Going back to the benefits delivery modernization system, we are seeing failure in a benefits system, failure in a system that was supposed to help Canadians at a critical time in our history, and then failure for public servants in the pay system. There is a history of failure with the government. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, I have been in this role for a long time now, and I have consistently seen three problems with the government. I will summarize them. Number one is that the government really likes to get its friends to do things. We saw this with McKinsey in the last Parliament. We could pull in so many different government departments, such as immigration, housing and infrastructure, that use their friends from McKinsey. If we go to our friend, are we going to get a good deal? No, we are not. The government wants to help its close friends and insiders. The Canadian taxpayer loses. The Canadian taxpayer does not benefit when the government gets a good deal for its friend. Number two is that the Liberals are incapable of maintaining a project within its scope and not having an overrun. All three of the examples in the reports I have mentioned today have shown overruns and a lack of capacity to get things done efficiently, on time and within the parameters that were described. Finally, number three, is that no one in the government ever takes accountability. It is always the last administration's fault or some director general's fault. We saw this with ArriveCAN. The government would rather ruin the life of an individual than take accountability for the mistakes it made. We see time and time again with the current government that it is incapable of efficiency, and it does nothing but waste the money of the taxpayer. All these examples prove it. I am happy to stand up here and talk on and on about that today, because it is so easy to.

Madam Speaker, I think we agree. That is why we are having this debate today. It is because we agree that there are serious problems. The government is incapable of avoiding waste and lacks the ability to do things right. As my colleague said, we could look for examples of good projects and improve the way things are done, but right now, that is not an option under this government. Like my colleague, I want to note that the Liberals have been in power for over 10 years. It is unbelievable. We agree that we must continue to demand that our government do better.

Madam Speaker, what I support is a government that chooses to do better. That was the trademark of the Liberals' previous prime minister. In the previous iteration of the government, which continues to this day, that was the mantra, that it could do better. Does doing better mean 2.2 million Canadians going to the food bank? Does doing better mean an $80-billion deficit? Does doing better mean 100,000 job losses in a single month? I continue to urge the government, and the member, to try to do better, because for a decade it said it was going to, and it has not.

Madam Speaker, the government does not care. It does not care about Canadians. It does not care that there are 2.2 million Canadians going to the food bank. It is willing to waste $80 billion of your money just this year alone. It is willing to allow 100,000 people in a single month, your dad, your brother, your son, to go without a job. If it really cared, it would try to do better, and it does not.

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured by the opportunity to recognize Easter Seals for the incredible work it does. Since 1922, it has been a tireless advocate for the disability community, helping to create a more inclusive and accessible society. Last year alone, the organization sent more than 6,000 people of all ages to camp and worked with more than 150,000 individuals across Canada. Raising awareness and funds, its ultimate mission is to ensure that everyone living with a disability has access to the services, equipment, programs and support they need in order to live their life to the fullest. As we mark Easter Seals Month, I want to thank the national and provincial organizations and all their dedicated volunteers for the work they do for the organizations and for their fellow Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General dropped another scathing report on the modernization of the pay system. This pay system is now costing taxpayers over $4.2 billion, but the government fails to learn from the Phoenix fiasco, which is costing millions of dollars more for taxpayers every single year. The government has had an entire decade. When will it fix the system and stop wasting taxpayers' money?

Well, Mr. Speaker, public servants are actually scared to retire, because they do not trust the pay system, and it is no wonder. There are over 230,000 transactions that are backlogged, and many of those are more than a year old. The government has had 10 years, and now it wants to fast-track the old system to the new system. When will they fix the system and give public servants confidence in both their paycheques and their retirement?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak in this incredible House on behalf of the good people of Calgary Midnapore. I cannot believe that this spring it is nine years that I have been in this chamber. I want to thank you so much for your support, Mr. Speaker, as I began this journey so long ago. I have to say that it has been several years of wonder being here every day and not being able to believe that I am in this great House where so many incredible people have come before me. I am surrounded by outstanding individuals, and I am so excited about the future parliamentarians who will come after me. However, within that time, as well as wonder, there has been some disappointment. Here today is a piece of that disappointment, because we are discussing closure. Closure is always disturbing and disappointing because it means that my voice is being silenced in speaking on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Midnapore. It also means that there are other members in the House who will not have the opportunity to speak on behalf of their constituents. I have had many citizens reach out to me on Bill C-9 with their most grave concerns. It is quite sad that these expressions will not get the opportunity to come to light and to be expressed fully in the House. Unfortunately, this is a trend with the current government. Another trend that I see with the government is that it can never seem to present a good piece of legislation without a poison pill. The crux of Bill C-9 is that we are talking about obstructing access to religious institutions. Who could be opposed to the safety, welfare and well-being of those who want to practise their religious freedom at this time? There is a 67% increase in crimes targeting religion in 2023 compared to 2022. In 2024, 1,342 police-reported incidents were motivated by religion, which included 900 incidents against the Jewish population and 211 incidents against the Muslim population, and over 100 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized since 2021. Bill C-9 was a piece of legislation that we could support and get behind, but the Liberal government did what it does. It played politics. It put in the poison pill of removing religious defence from the Criminal Code. Why would the Liberals do that? Why would they remove freedom of expression of the most deepest and dearest sentiments of humans in existence? They would do it for politics. They do not want this bill to pass unanimously. They do not want to see us working with them for Canadians and for the common good of Canada. This is a farce, and it does not elude them. It was planned intentionally for their hopeful political gain. They cannot put forward good legislation for the purpose of us all supporting good legislation. There must always be a poison pill. My grandfather was from Bucha, Ukraine, which is where they found the mass graves. Ukrainian heritage has been a key part of my life since I was a little girl, whether my mum was making pedaheh and kubasa, or we were admiring the paska at family weddings in the beautiful shape of doves. War came to Ukraine with tragedy and sadness. After contributing to Putin's war effort in supplying the turbine to export oil, the Liberal government had the good idea of a trade agreement, which was wonderful. It was an opportunity to show our support in the most tangible way possible: the economy. As Conservatives, we became excited at the prospect of supporting the bill. All of us would be working together for peace and democracy against one of the greatest dictators of our time. However, the Liberals placed a carbon tax in the bill, which their own government claimed to reverse, at least in principle, but at the time it was another poison pill. It was another measure deliberately placed by the Liberal government to give us, the Conservative Party of Canada, hesitation in supporting the legislation. Again, the Liberals say they want us to work together. They claim we are obstructionist, but it is always deliberate and by their design, as I am explaining. They can never just present legislation that is good in its entirety for Canadians. They always have to have a poison pill because they want to play politics and they want to divide. The Building Canada Act provides powers to get major projects approved in Canada, but it does not repeal Bill C-69 or Bill C-48, which would make it palatable to investors. That would have made it even easier for us as Conservatives to support it, even though we did. We gave them every opportunity to create prosperity in this great nation. In Bill C-8, they say they want to protect Canadians from cyber-threats, but their legislation would ultimately give the government the power to secretly cancel Canadians' Internet accounts. Again, they claim they are doing good, but there is always that poison pill. In Bill C-2, they tried to give Canada Post sweeping powers to open any piece of mail, any piece of mail in the land, an incredible invasion of privacy, an incredible invasion of communicator to receiver. They tried to do this and to ban cash payments of over $10,000. It is cash, a way in which business has been done in this nation, a way in which commerce has been conducted, for forever. Conservatives forced the government into splitting the bill into two pieces to take out the poison pills. It is these games that hurt Canadians, in delayed legislation, in amendments, in going back and forth to committees, in discussing these things and, therefore, in delayed outcomes for Canadians on things that would improve, fundamentally, the lives of Canadians. It is all a result of putting these poison pills in pieces of legislation. They really do not want us coming together for the good of Canadians. They want to divide and Bill C-9 is just another example of this. It is intentional. It is never about 95% of the bill. There are always the good clauses, the positive clauses. We can point to good things being done for Canadians. Rather, it is always about that 5%, that one little hitch, that little poison pill that we simply cannot pass. It is like we are eating a hot dog, and then, all of a sudden, we hit that hard piece, and it just ruins the hot dog, or we are eating an olive and, all of a sudden, we hit that little piece of pit, which just ruins the experience, the item, in its entirety. Most of it is good. It was a really good hot dog or a really good olive. It is that small piece that ruins the item in its entirety. It is the same with Liberal legislation. Liberals say it is for the good of Canadians. They say they want us to work together. It is not true. There is always, with the Liberal government, a poison pill. We see this as well within Bill C-9. We can support Canadians being safe in their places of worship. We want Canadians to be free to go to their places of worship, to be able to worship who they want, how they want and when they want. We absolutely support that within Bill C-9. We cannot support the criminalization of merely offensive speech. We cannot leave up for interpretation what is motivated by hatred. We cannot condemn Canadians for speaking their utmost and sacred truths. Apparently, we, the elected representatives, can be silenced for attempting to stand up for and defend those who agree with us in these sentiments. That is shameful.

Mr. Speaker, I do not appreciate being called delusional by the individual across the way. I actually think this is a form of gaslighting. I had the good fortune to meet with a member who fights for the Cuban diaspora yesterday. This is really how all democracies start to fail, by a government questioning people when they know their truth and they know what they stand for. This is what the government does consistently, both in Bill C-9 and in this chamber here today. It is disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee very much for his integrity and his principle, because I am sure everyone has seen his strong sentiments online about how he would never consider abandoning his principles or his values, which of course is something members of the government do on a pretty consistent basis. I feel that even in asking me this question, he has given pause for consideration for the response himself. When I talk about being in wonder and in awe here of the great people who are with me, it certainly includes this member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee.

Mr. Speaker, it is always important to ask questions, but the most important principle is that we are here to protect people of different religions. As I said, it is good to protect people who want to go to certain places to practise their religion. However, I think the problem is that, even thought they have the right to practise their religion, they must also have the right to express their religion. I believe my colleague and I disagree on that, unfortunately.

Mr. Speaker, the government told Canadians its new benefit software program would cost $1.75 billion and that it would not be launched without conditions of success being met. Estimates have the actual cost at almost three times as much, $6.6 billion, and reports confirm that the government's own service standards are not being met. In fact, last month there was a backlog of 85,000 new benefit applications. These are Canadians who need these benefits for basic essentials like food and shelter. Can the minister explain to seniors who are forced to pay the price of yet another failed Liberal program why it is way over budget?

Mr. Speaker, the minister should do her research. She should be well aware that the Auditor General confirmed in 2023 and 2025 that program costs had increased significantly and would continue to rise. A review by the Treasury Board in 2022 came to the same conclusions, and her own department had to push back the OAS migration three times. In fact, three years ago, her bureaucrats admitted that the costs had already doubled for the new program, even though no benefits had yet moved to the new system. Can the minister explain to seniors who are forced to pay the price why yet another failed Liberal program is way over budget?

Mr. Speaker, every winter, tens of thousands of Canadians travel to Mexico to escape from the cold and make lifelong memories with their loved ones. Yesterday, in Jalisco state, including in and around Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta, the normal beach-filled activities of Canadians travelling in Mexico turned to fear and anxiety as violence erupted throughout the region. The House is holding all Canadians in Mexico in our thoughts and prayers, and we will all work for their safe return home. As a former diplomat, I know the hard work our local consular officers are doing right now, and I ask the government to continue to provide the necessary resources and assistance required on the ground. To Canadians in Mexico, please register with the registration of Canadians abroad and follow the advice of local authorities. I pray for peace, stability and safety for all in Mexico. [Member spoke in Spanish]

Madam Speaker, whether it is the Epstein files or Santa Claus, the names on the lists are never released. Society has come to the moral place where those who have done wrong are protected: tax cheaters, offenders living among us or parliamentarians who have worked negatively with foreign governments. Everything is withheld behind the false veil of privacy. Why is it that the government wants to track the information of millions of average Canadians on their laptops but will not go after those who go against one of the most basic social contracts of society, paying taxes? We have a solution in Bill C-230. In recent years, the CRA has been waiving debts owed to government. Last year, the government waived the following debts: $4.7 billion in writeoffs, $10.9 billion in forgiveness, $0.4 billion in remissions and $2.6 billion in waivers, for a total of $18.4 billion. Writeoffs and waivers for taxes owed are done in secret because of privacy provisions under the Income Tax Act. While the CRA is pursuing small businesses and ordinary Canadians for minor amounts owed to government, it is writing off debts owed to government by corporate entities in record amounts. Canadians deserve to know which corporations are benefiting from the CRA's decision not to collect debts to government. The solution in Bill C-230 is to create a public registry that would require the Treasury Board to publish, annually, a list of corporate entities that have debts owed to governments forgiven, written off or waived if that amount exceeds $1 million. One million dollars is a lot of money. It is not forgetting to pay back $20, or “I will get lunch next time.” In 2023-24, 11 companies received $1.2 billion in combined writeoffs. The 11 companies account for nearly a quarter of the $4.9 billion in writeoffs approved in fiscal year 2023-24. What are these companies? Right now, we do not know. How would Canadians feel if these were publicly traded companies posting profits or even record profits? What if Brookfield was one of those companies? Right now, we do not know. Why should big corporations get enormous debt writeoffs when they target the little guy for significantly smaller amounts? I have a message from a constituent, who writes, “They're claiming that I owe them $126 from a payroll account more than 15 years ago”. Another constituent writes: CRA has been holding up my return for months—with no proper timetable for a return—and meanwhile they have sent me to collections—causing me not only a large amount of stress and anxiety—but also causing me serious financial strain—in that I have had to take loans out to pay bills and support payments (which would have been covered in my return) Another constituent is being withheld money from his mother's death benefit due to CRA delays. He writes: I followed every instruction I was given, yet I received no communication for months. I assumed my file was being processed, only to learn that it had been discarded. It is incredibly discouraging. This does not reflect a system that serves the people. It feels like the opposite, and that is deeply concerning. Here's another account from a constituent: Our mom passed away on February 28th, and her death was reported to CRA. A mistake was made and they deposited OAS into her account 2 months after her death, and then sent us a letter telling us we had to pay it back. Our dad passed away on June 8th; again, his death was reported to CRA but we have been receiving...cheques in his name. Now, we've received a letter from CRA saying they overpaid our dad's GIS for the period after our mom passed to when he passed and we owe them over $1,900. How is an agency so incompetent that several mistakes are made [in a single] estate? It is the Conservatives who have always advocated for transparency in government departments, tax policies and procedures. Motion 43 in the 42nd Parliament, put forward by the member for Calgary Crowfoot, was a duty of care to the taxpayer. If someone is found to be not owing, forgive the amount but also pay for legal fees. At our recent convention, this resolution was passed: A Conservative government shall introduce legislation requiring the forgiveness or writing off of any non-personal debt owed to the Government of Canada be publicly announced in the Canada Gazette. Why does the Liberal government like to collect swaths of information about ordinary Canadians to place moral decision-making into its own hands but will not ever release the names of those who have violated one of the two basic tenets of our society? These are, pay one's taxes, and, pay one's fair share so we can attempt to live in a functioning and compassionate society. The government has also not released the names regarding foreign interference. The government refused to share which federal politicians wittingly co-operated with foreign interference. The former member of Parliament for University—Rosedale only said, “our government takes foreign interference very, very seriously”. The current Minister of Justice also defended this position. This report outlined several activities, such as collaborating with countries like China, including accepting money or favours from diplomats. The National Security Intelligence Committee was chaired by the current defence minister. Why do they not release the names? They concealed the scope of the federal job cuts from analysts at the budget office. On November 5, 2025, the budget office asked federal managers for a breakdown of planned savings by program, but public servants and Canadians were left in the dark as to which departments would be affected or how it would impact services. Release the names on the list. The federal government may not want to release information for the benefit of Canadians, but it is eager to pass legislation to infringe upon the privacy and actions of ordinary Canadians. Bill C-8, an act respecting cybersecurity, states that cabinet “may...prohibit a [telecom] service provider from using all products and services provided by a specified person” if it “believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so to secure the Canadian telecommunications system against any threat”. This order may be kept secret. No warrants are required. This was also attempted in Bill C-2. Bill C-63, in the last Parliament, proposed increasing the maximum sentence for hate speech, which carried a sentence of five years to life under the Criminal Code. This would have placed it among the most serious offences, such as manslaughter and aggravated sexual assault, which also carry life sentences. That could have effectively resulted in someone being sentenced to life for hate speech, while someone convicted of the sexual assault of a minor receives a maximum of only 14 years, or it is a maximum of 10 years for an individual found guilty of assault with a weapon. The bill also proposed that anyone who breaks any other federal law motivated by hate be found guilty of a hate crime and subject to a maximum of a life sentence, yet it is no problem at all to forgo paying millions in taxes. When it comes to protecting their friends and political interests, the Liberals have no problem withholding information or giving cover to their allies to do so. However, when it comes to our privacy and personal information, such as who we like, what we like, where we eat, where we shop or who we communicate with, the Liberals have no problem holding us to account and taking away our rights. Paying one's fair share of taxes is a basic tenet of Canadian society that allows for the smooth functioning of our society. This is why Bill C-230 should come to pass. Canadians could be made aware of who is paying their fair share to society and, more importantly, why. The government does not want Canadians to know, perhaps because of who is on the list. What pieces of indigenous art are missing? What are the names in the green slush fund documents? Who approved ArriveCAN? We may never know, but the government has the opportunity, in this moment, to shed some light on society and hold everyone to account regarding paying their fair share. Let us pass Bill C-230 and work towards starting to achieve this.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is doing everything possible to ignore the reality that Canadians are facing in their daily lives. Food inflation in Canada is twice as high as it is in the United States, and the temporary measures that the Liberals are offering will not result in a single grocery price reduction. They had an opportunity to collaborate yesterday and pass our motion, which would have lowered prices at the grocery store, but they voted against it. Why is it that the Prime Minister's personal agenda always comes before the needs of everyday Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is travelling around the world and making big speeches, but what is he really achieving for Canadians? Food inflation is twice as high as when the Prime Minister took office, and Canada now leads the G7 in food inflation. The Prime Minister promised to be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Yesterday, Conservatives tried to help by presenting a real solution to lower grocery prices for Canadians, yet the Liberals voted against this common-sense motion. Will the Prime Minister now eat his words, because Canadians cannot?

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper was elected as Canada's 22nd prime minister. This week, as his official portrait is unveiled and as Conservatives gather to celebrate the many achievements of his government, I am proud to rise and remember the legacy he left, one of fiscal know-how, strength and unity. Prime Minister Harper successfully led our country through the 2008 economic crisis, resulting in the best recovery in the G7, while cutting taxes and saving real money for Canadians. On the global stage, he held firm to his principles, supporting our allies and having the courage to stand up to those who did not allow for freedom or democracy. It was his leadership that united our Conservative movement and opened the door to millions of Canadians supporting our party. He is right honourable indeed. I thank Prime Minister Harper for his public service and dedication to Canada.

Mr. Speaker, today is a monumental day for Canada's energy sector and for my province of Alberta. We will see if the Liberals stand behind the Prime Minister's promise to build a pipeline for Canada, or if he will do as his predecessor did and submit to his “keep it in the ground” caucus. Families in my riding are worried that the Prime Minister is paying lip service once again and that these are empty words, and it is no surprise as to why, after how the government has destroyed the natural resources sector over the last decade. Will the Liberals stop obstructing a pipeline and vote for our motion, or will Alberta have its hopes dashed again?

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister continues to talk out of both sides of his mouth. He has mastered his predecessor's art of saying one thing in one province and another thing in another. Albertans want the truth. In a pathetic display of misrepresentation, his own Calgary MP could not even defend the leading sector and source of livelihoods for Calgarians. Will the Prime Minister stand in the House and tell the nation, tell Alberta, tell Calgary and tell the member for Calgary Confederation that his government will not blame anyone else and not put this on anyone else and that he will ensure a pipeline is built?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the dissenting opinion on behalf of the members of the Conservative Party. Conservative members on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts agree with the Auditor General's finding that a serious digital divide continues to exist in Canada. This divide is prevalent despite years of promises on universal connectivity from successive Liberal governments. The government has failed to connect hundreds of thousands of rural, remote and indigenous households with essential broadband and mobile coverage, which is critical not only to rural Canadians for full participation in Canada's modern and connected economy, but also for the safety and security of all Canadians. Our Conservative dissenting report provides five recommendations that stand up for rural Canadians and will ensure action is taken to keep them connected. The Government of Canada must act to provide broadband and mobile connectivity to all Canadians, regardless of their postal code. Our common-sense recommendations will ensure that this is the case.

Madam Speaker, I am hearing from the other side that the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is American. The Prime Minister himself actually has three passports: United Kingdom, Ireland and Canada. It is very interesting that they would bring this up. If we are going to talk about that, the Prime Minister has three passports. As I said, his loyalty is not to Canada, and the government cannot seem to get over this. We need serious oversight of the $8.4 billion in foreign aid. We need the Secretary of State for International Development to come and report to the House, because we have a $70-billion deficit, $50 billion of interest on the debt and $414 billion in expenditures this year alone. This is a government that really requires oversight in its expenditures. If we are going to do this foreign aid, this international development, as I have mentioned, we absolutely need the oversight. Finally, with regard to economic partnership, if Canada can benefit from these disbursements, then why not? We should actually be doing things that help the Canadian economy as well. Canada has an incredible non-profit sector. I pointed to Results Canada as one example. If we can benefit Canadian prosperity, then we should be doing that as well. In conclusion, we should be supporting the motion. I remind the government of the greatest gift that we could possibly have given it, and that is Bill C-5. Bill C-5 is a free pass to create incredible prosperity for Canadians, which we need at this time, given the incredible numbers concerning debt, deficit and expenditure I have shared. I will point out that, since taking office in 2015, the Liberals have never once delivered a surplus. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that their new operational versus capital spending framework does not actually provide an operational surplus in 2028-29 as the government projected in budget 2025. Instead, it is an $18-billion deficit. If we are able to get to a place of prosperity, this prosperity—