Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition in support of Bill C-218, the right to recover act. Petitioners are concerned with the planned expansion of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying medical condition is mental illness. They note that mental illness can be treatable, that recovery is possible and that many Canadians still face barriers to accessing timely mental health care. Petitioners are concerned that vulnerable Canadians could seek MAID before receiving the treatment they so badly need. They therefore call on the government to pass Bill C-218 and permanently exclude mental illness alone for MAID eligibility.

Mr. Speaker, this summer, I got a letter from Harjeet. He wrote, “I've been doing two jobs for the last six years. My wife works too. Even after working that much, it is a stretch.” Think about what six years of two jobs looks like: leaving before the neighbourhood even wakes up, working all day and then heading to job number two while everyone else goes home for dinner. He gets home late. The kitchen is dark. Dinner is in the fridge because his wife has already left for her shift. Then they do it again tomorrow. People like Harjeet are not afraid of hard work. They are exhausted from working harder and falling further behind. That is why our Conservative economic action plan will save Canadian families $10,000. We have identified $150 billion in savings by cutting Ottawa's waste, bureaucracy, consultants and corporate welfare. Harjeet has done his part while the Liberals are costing him more. Our plan will save Harjeet money; theirs will not.

Madam Speaker, I will begin by grounding the end of this debate in remembering young Kiano Vafaeian who lost his life to MAID. He was 26 years old, and he had lived with type 1 diabetes since he was four. After a serious car accident as a teenager, he also struggled with his mental health, and later he lost vision in one eye. In 2022, when he was just 23 years old, Kiano sought MAID in Ontario. His mother, Margaret, fought desperately to keep her son alive, and she succeeded for a time, but Kiano had become obsessed with getting MAID. He continued to request it from Ontario Health until they told him straight out that he would never qualify in Ontario, but shockingly, they suggested other jurisdictions he could contact in his quest to end his life. Sadly, he found a willing doctor in B.C., where he received MAID on December 30, 2025, from the now infamous Dr. Ellen Wiebe. He was 26 years old. When I heard Kiano's story, I could not stop thinking about my own little brother Johan. In 2023, he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. He knew he was dying, but he wanted to live. However, the medical staff at the Abbotsford hospital seemed to want to end his life. While lying on a bed in the hallway on the oncology ward, he was asked not once, not twice, not three, four or five times but six separate times if he wanted MAID. They were relentless. They pressed him, saying that they did not think they would be able to control his pain, scaring him out of his wits, but he still had a will to live. I am very proud of my little brother for standing up for his life, for having the courage and the commitment to make a statement that his life was still worth living, even if it was for only another eight or ten months. He had time to mend fences, make friends with the people at the hospice and say goodbye to his family. This is why Bill C-218 is necessary, because not everyone will have the will and the ability to fight the way my brother fought. Not everyone will have the strength to say no six times. When someone is sick, frightened, depressed or unable to see any hope for tomorrow, surely the responsibility of our medical system is not to reinforce the despair but to protect them while they are vulnerable and help them find their way back to hope. This is particularly true when we are talking about mental illness. For years, Conservatives have warned that expanding MAID to people suffering solely from mental illness crosses a line we should not cross. We were told that the safeguards would be enough. We were told that the system could be made ready. However, the implementation has been delayed again and again, while the fundamental question remains unanswered: How can we declare that a person's mental illness is irremediable when we cannot reliably know that they will never recover? However, we do know one thing with absolute certainty: Once that life is ended, there is no tomorrow. When we first debated the bill, members told us to wait for the special joint committee to do its work. Well, it has. The committee heard the evidence and recommended that people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness be indefinitely excluded from MAID eligibility. Parliament asked for that review. We now have its answer. If the concern with Bill C-218 is the wording and the use of the term “mental disorder” instead of “mental illness”, then let us fix the wording at committee. We are prepared to work with the government at committee to make the technical changes. A bill should not be defeated at second reading over one word when there is agreement on the principle. Time is of the essence. The scheduled expansion is coming in March. Let us work together and send the bill to committee. The measure of a compassionate society is not how efficiently it helps people die. It is whether in the moment when someone can no longer see the value of their own life, the rest of us are prepared to see it for them. Our answer to suffering should be care. Our answer to despair should be hope. When someone believes there is no possibility of recovery, Canada should never be the one to agree with them. That is why I am asking my colleagues to vote for Bill C-218. Give Canadians the time, the care and the hope that they need. Give them the right to recover.

Madam Speaker, I want to tell members about a man I will call David. David owns a little coffee shop on a main street that could be in almost any town in Canada. It is not fancy. There are a dozen small tables, a chalkboard menu behind the counter and a bell above the door that has probably rung a million times. He turns on the lights, ties on his apron and starts getting ready for the morning rush. He has been doing this for 20 years now, and he knows his customers well. He knows who wants an extra shot of espresso and which construction crew will go through that door just after six. David loves his business, but lately he has begun to dread opening the envelopes that arrive in the mail. The price of everything he buys has gone up under the Liberal government. The coffee beans cost more. The milk costs more. The cardboard cups cost more, and so does his insurance, his electricity and his rent. David cannot simply pass every increase along to his customer because he knows they are struggling too. He sees it in his customer who used to order breakfast and now just gets coffee, or the young mom who used to stop in three mornings a week and now comes once, so David absorbs what he can. Then there is the espresso machine. It has been sitting behind the counter for nearly 15 years. Every morning, David listens to it wheeze and rattle and hopes it makes it through another day. A new one would make the shop more efficient, use less power and let him serve customers faster. Maybe he could even expand his business a little. However, by the time David has paid his employees, his landlord, his suppliers and the government, the money he thought he might put toward a new machine is gone, so he calls the repairman again, replaces another part and tells himself, “Maybe next year.” Do members remember that young mom David used to see three mornings a week? Let us follow her home. She and her husband live only a few streets away. They are not poor. They both work. They have a modest house, two kids and two incomes, and 10 years ago they thought they were doing pretty well. They were the kind of family we used to call comfortably middle class, but lately, comfortable is not the word they would use. Their family car is 15 years old now. There is a warning light on the dashboard. The mechanic has told them that there is another big repair bill coming, and they know they really should replace it. Ten years ago, they probably would have. Today, they look at the price of a new car, look at the payment and decide the old car will have to last another winter. Let us now leave the family's kitchen, and come with me to a very different room. Imagine a glass boardroom high above a city. Around the table are not mom and dad wondering whether the roof can survive another winter. There are executives, accountants, lawyers and investment advisers deciding where a multinational corporation should put its next billion dollars. Now Ottawa has put something new on that boardroom table: the mega deduction, a major new tax break designed to convince companies with capital, like, let us say, Brookfield, to invest here. Put those three rooms side by side. At the kitchen table, mom and dad have already gone through the bills twice. They need a new car and the roof needs work, but none of these qualify for this new Liberal mega deduction. What Ottawa offers them is Bill C-38, a few pennies per litre when they fill their gas tank. A few streets away, David may be able to use the mega deduction if he buys that new espresso machine, but first he has to find the money to buy it. After paying his employees, his suppliers, his rent and his taxes, there is not enough left. Let us face it. A deduction on something someone cannot afford is not too much help. His tax break is much the same as the family's: a few pennies of relief when he gases up. Then there is the third room, where the numbers have a lot more zeros. Here is a corporation headquartered in New York with the capital to make enormous investments and a team of accountants who can calculate exactly how much a new tax deduction changes the return. Lucky for them, their former board member is now the Prime Minister of Canada. For that room, Ottawa is proposing a massive tax advantage, and this is where I think something has gone badly wrong. Do not get me wrong. Lower taxes have always been a Conservative principle. I want businesses investing in Canada, expanding here and creating good jobs, but lower taxes should not be a privilege reserved for the people with enough money and the right high-powered friends to be able to take advantage of them. If lower taxes help a multinational invest and grow, why would we not want that same breathing room for David? Why would we not want it for the families sitting around the kitchen table? They have spent years watching more of their paycheques disappear into taxes, while the cost of housing, food and fuel has climbed. Small businesses have faced the same rising costs, along with layer after layer of taxes, paperwork and government rules. Now, after making it harder and harder for them to get ahead, governments arrive with a few pennies of temporary relief on their gas and expect them to be grateful. Canadians deserve better than that. David does not need Ottawa to run his coffee shop or a government program to tell him that a new espresso machine would make his business more productive. He already knows that. He needs enough money left at the end of the month to buy it. That family does not need Ottawa deciding where its money would be most productive either. Mom and dad already know exactly where their next $100 needs to go. That is their decision because it is their money. Yes, let us give them the fuel tax relief in Bill C-38, but let us not call a few months of relief a solution. Conservatives have been pushing for relief at the pumps for a long time, years in fact, so we are glad the Liberals have finally discovered that lower taxes can actually help people. However, this is what happens when a Liberal government tries to borrow a Conservative idea without understanding the principle behind it. Canadians do not need a temporary break from high prices. They need policies that actually bring prices down. Gas prices have skyrocketed, and while Canada sits on some of the largest energy resources in the world, years of taxes, regulations and barriers to developing those resources have left us more vulnerable when global energy prices rise. This is a trap the Liberals created themselves. Relief means lower taxes, affordable energy and developing the resources Canadians already own. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who produce, work, hire and raise families in this country. Let us stop piling costs onto the people who are working to raise their families in this country. Let us stop treating small business like an endless source of tax revenue and paperwork. Let us stop taking from Canadians only to decide in Ottawa which multinational will get it back. Instead, let us remove the barriers that have been squeezing the middle class and small business, and then give Canadians room to do what they have always done. Here is what Ottawa seems to be missing: We would not have to wait 10 years for some foreign company's investment to trickle down to the rest of us. Small and medium-sized businesses employ nearly two-thirds of Canada's private sector workers. If thousands of businesses like David's had a little more room to breathe, the effect would begin on main street across this country almost immediately. David does not need 10 years to decide what to do with another few thousand dollars left in his business. He already knows. He fixes the machine, buys equipment, gives an employee another shift or finally hires a person he has needed for months. Maybe mom starts stopping at David's coffee shop three mornings a week again. Her five dollars goes into David's till. David pays his employee. His employee buys lunch down the street. A roofer gets the family's business. The mechanic gets paid. People begin making plans again instead of putting them off for another year. Nobody in Ottawa had to decide where those dollars should go. Ordinary Canadians did that themselves. That is what prosperity looks like: Canadians keeping more of what they earn, making their own choices, building their businesses, looking after their families and creating a better life for the people they love. That is what a real Conservative government would fight for.

Madam Speaker, we support giving Canadians relief from federal fuel taxes. The question is whether the government is even going far enough. Bill C-38 would keep the excise tax at zero only until January 31. It would then bring back half the tax in February and March, before the regular rates return in April. Canadians' affordability challenges do not suddenly disappear in February. Families will still need to drive to work. Businesses will still need to move goods. Farmers and producers will still face fuel costs. That is why Conservatives have called for fuel tax relief to continue through Canada Day as part of a broader action to lower costs.

Madam Speaker, I cannot begin to tell members how many times in the last couple of weeks I have heard about the cost of diesel. Fuel costs affect much more than what a family pays when they fill up their vehicle. Fuel is an input into producing and transporting goods across the country, which we hear everywhere. Farmers need it to operate equipment. Truckers need it to move products. Businesses need it throughout their supply chains. When those costs increase, they do not simply disappear. They place additional pressures on producers, businesses and ultimately consumers. Extending relief means continuing to lower one of those costs during a period when Canadians and Canadian businesses are already dealing with significant economic uncertainty. The objective should be to keep costs down rather than to begin putting them back up again.

Madam Speaker, I am hearing that everywhere I go. We had a large picnic on the weekend before we came back, and everybody was talking about the fact that this is making it very difficult for businesses to continue. Fuel tax relief is only one part of a broader economic approach. The Conservatives' economic action plan has called for gas tax relief to continue through Canada Day, faster approval of projects awaiting federal permits, removing the GST from Canadian-made automobiles, eliminating the capital gains tax on reinvestment in Canada and reducing other barriers facing Canadian investment. The principle connecting these measures is straightforward: lower the costs facing families and employers and create better conditions for investment, employment and growth.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Surrey families received two disturbing police warnings. High-risk offender Skylar Pelletier, with a history of violent and sexual offences, was released into our community. The very next day Jonathon Muzychka, another high-risk offender with a history of violence, was released into Surrey. We grandmothers are terrified watching our grandchildren walk to the park or to school. We should not have to worry about dangerous offenders being let out into our city. I am begging on their behalf. When will the Liberals end their dangerous catch-and-release policies and put families first, before repeat offenders?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Conservative members of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying to table, in both official languages, our supplementary opinion. Conservatives welcome the committee's recommendation that individuals whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness be indefinitely excluded from eligibility for medical assistance in dying. This will save thousands of lives. This is the position that Conservatives have held from the beginning. Conservatives opposed the Senate amendment to Bill C-7, which set this proposed expansion in motion. We have consistently echoed the warnings of experts that the expansion cannot be implemented safely. We call on the government to accept the committee's recommendation and support Bill C-218, which is already before the House and which would accomplish the policy objective the committee recommends. Conservatives are prepared to work collaboratively with the government to that end. Our supplementary opinion also notes that over the course of the committee study, as we were examining system readiness for expansion, many witnesses questioned the effectiveness and enforceability of the current MAID safeguards. Conservatives encourage the government to undertake a review of the current safeguards to ensure that no vulnerable Canadians fall through the cracks of a system that is supposed to protect them.

Mr. Speaker, the press reports that Liberal MPs say the President of the Treasury Board is not very present, not very diligent and struggling to master his files. Last week, Canadians watched him stand in this House, unable to answer a very basic question about his own department. If the Prime Minister demands confidence from his ministers, does he still have confidence in the President of the Treasury Board, yes or no?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent 10 years telling Canadians that the solution to every problem is more government spending. Canadians now face some of the least affordable housing in the G7, record food bank usage and the highest household debt in the G7, and ours is the only country in the G20 in a recession. At what point does the government admit that its spending is not solving the affordability crisis, but contributing to it?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. The government has asked us today to accelerate consideration of the spring economic update because we are told time is short. What the government neglects to mention is that much of the time pressure is entirely of its own making. Let us be clear about what this motion would do. It would force all remaining amendments at committee to be moved and voted on without further debate. That is not a normal legislative process. It is Parliament being asked to do less of its most important job. A budget is supposed to be a statement of priorities. It is supposed to tell Canadians what the government intends to do, how much it intends to spend and how it intends to pay for it, yet within weeks of presenting budget 2025, the Prime Minister began announcing billions of dollars in new spending commitments that had not been presented when the budget was tabled. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that these additional measures are roughly $48 billion over five years. Basically, a second budget is being unveiled piecemeal through press conferences and announcements, while Parliament is expected to simply keep up. The most striking example is the newly announced Canada Strong fund, a $25-billion sovereign debt fund that did not appear as a central feature of the government's original plan. When a government finds $25 billion for a brand-new sovereign debt fund, only weeks after presenting a budget, Parliament should begin to wonder if perhaps these programs are not emerging from a coherent economic plan, but are being invented on the fly whenever the government finds itself in need of a new announcement. The same pattern can be seen in the government's new commitments on defence and international affairs. Billions of dollars have now been announced for new defence procurement structures, a Defence Investment Agency and a defence industrial strategy. Why do so many huge financial commitments continue to emerge after the government's fiscal plan was supposedly complete? The Prime Minister has also unveiled team Canada strong, a multi-billion-dollar labour strategy. Then came the government's new electricity initiative. Canadians were told that billions more would be going towards transmission infrastructure, electricity corridors and long-term transformation of Canada's power grid. Once again, the government presented the announcement as though it had just came up with the idea at the last minute. How come these were not in the budget in the first place? Then, last week, the government announced a $3-billion national food strategy. The government appears to believe that food security can be achieved through creating funds, hubs, agencies, financing mechanisms, planning structures and administrative frameworks. Food security has never been created by government planners. It has always been created by farmers, truckers, processors, retailers and entrepreneurs who bring the food from the field to the table. The announcement contains billions of dollars in new programs, but remarkably little discussion of the policies that have made food more expensive in the first place. Food security depends on farmers who can afford to farm, processors who can afford to process, truckers who can afford to transport goods and businesses that can operate in a competitive environment, yet after years of inflationary Liberal policies that have increased costs throughout the supply chain, the government now proposes another layer of inflationary programs and administration as the solution. Each one of these announcements arrives with a new price tag attached to the national credit card. Every few weeks, Canadians are presented with another announcement, another commitment, another expenditure and another promise that government spending will somehow unlock future prosperity, yet after 10 years of this approach, Canadians have become entitled to ask a reasonable question: If government spending were the key to economic growth, why have the billions of dollars of new spending not made anything better? The government would like Canadians to believe that these new programs are finally going to make life more affordable, but it is just an illusion. Every new fund, every new agency, every new strategy and every new spending commitment ultimately lands on the country's credit card. The bill always arrives. It arrives in the form of larger deficits, higher debt, rising interest costs and, ultimately, a higher cost of living for the very people the government claims it is trying to help. Bill C‑30 is simply the latest example of what has become a familiar Liberal pattern: more spending, more borrowing, more debt and higher costs for Canadians. The Prime Minister promised fiscal responsibility. Instead, this budget more than doubles the deficit left behind by Justin Trudeau, from $31 billion to $72 billion. Outside the pandemic, this is the largest deficit in Canadian history. Canadians were promised a new approach, but it turns out that the new approach means spending way more than Trudeau could ever have imagined. What makes this particularly troubling is that all of this is happening while Canada stands alone among the G20 countries as the only one in recession. The government continues to insist that more spending is the solution, yet with all that spending, Canada is the only G20 nation that has managed to achieve this disastrous distinction. One would think that after 10 years of disappointing results, the government might pause long enough to consider the fact that the remedy it keeps prescribing is actually making the illness worse. Canadians are already carrying the highest household debt burden in the G7. They are coping with some of the least affordable housing in the developed world. Food bank usage has reached record lows and young families can only dream of home ownership. Seniors are stretching fixed incomes further every month. Working parents are making impossible choices between groceries, rent, transportation and basic necessities. The Prime Minister did not campaign on doubling deficits. He did not campaign on larger government and ever-expanding spending commitments. He presented himself as the supposed adult in the room, the person who would restore fiscal discipline, bring competence back to the government and provide a new economic direction for the country. However, only months later, Canadians are looking at a $72-billion deficit, the largest deficit in Canadian history outside of the pandemic, and billions of dollars in additional spending commitments that were not even included in the budget. The Prime Minister promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. This budget shows it is rising. He promised spending discipline. Spending is increasing faster than inflation and faster than economic growth. He promised economic renewal. Canada remains the only G20 country in recession. He promised to build faster, yet despite his creating new offices, new agencies and new approval processes, Canadians are still waiting to see any results. The concern is not simply that these promises have been broken. The concern is that the government appears not to have learned anything from the experience of the last decade. For 10 years, Canadians have been told that another spending program, another fund, another agency or another strategy will solve the problem, yet the problem continues to grow as the government continues to grow. The result is a country carrying more debt, paying more interest, experiencing weaker growth and facing higher costs than Canadians were promised. At some point, governments must be judged not by the announcements they make but by the results they achieve. Now the government has asked Parliament to spend less time examining legislation at the very moment it is asking Canadians to accept more spending, more borrowing and more debt. That is backwards. When a government announces another $48 billion in commitments after tabling a budget, scrutiny becomes more important, not less. When deficits are growing, debate becomes more important, not less. When Canadians are struggling to afford groceries, housing and everyday necessities, accountability becomes more important, not less. Parliament was not created to rubber-stamp government announcements. It exists to test them, challenge them and ensure taxpayers understand the consequences before the bill arrives. After 10 years of rising debt, rising costs and declining affordability, Canadians have every right to ask whether more spending will solve the problem or simply make it worse. The government might not like that, but it is not a reason to curtail debate. It is the very reason debate exists. That is why Conservatives support the amendment moved by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. His amendment would allow the finance committee to continue its work instead of forcing members to vote on remaining clauses and amendments without debate. It would restore the basic principle that Parliament should examine legislation before passing it. Canadians can no longer afford more of the same, and they certainly cannot afford less scrutiny of the policies that brought us here.

Mr. Speaker, I would not agree that the Liberals were elected to make a whole bunch of announcements and get nothing done. Conservatives believe in the basic principle that government does not create prosperity by endlessly spending borrowed money. We would focus on getting costs down, removing barriers to investments, speeding up approvals, supporting the workers and businesses that actually build homes and grow food, and restoring discipline to federal spending. Canadians do not need more slogans, funds, agencies and strategies. They need a government that measures success by results: lower costs, more homes, stronger paycheques and a more competitive economy.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that there are many examples of where the Liberals have gone wrong in this budget. The PBO found that the government used most of the additional fiscal room for new policy priorities, leaving the deficit track substantially unchanged. In other words, when the government had some breathing room, it did not use that room to meaningfully lower the deficit or give taxpayers real relief. It used it to fund more spending. That is the pattern Canadians have seen for the last decade: more spending, announcements and promises. However, families are still struggling with groceries, housing, taxes and debt. Conservatives are saying that improved fiscal room should not be treated as permission to keep spending.

Mr. Speaker, I actually want to talk about the fact that what we are opposing is a process that weakens accountability and a fiscal plan that seems to be planned out on the back of a napkin. Parliament exists to examine legislation, improve it and hold the government accountable for taxpayer dollars. That should not be controversial. The amendment moved by my Conservative colleague would allow committee work to continue and would remove the parts of the motion that cut off debate and scrutiny. That is a reasonable position. If the government's legislation is strong, it should survive committee review. If its spending is justified, ministers should be able to defend it. If the plan is working, Canadians should be seeing results. Instead, Canadians are seeing higher costs, weak growth and more debt.

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep telling Canadians that their safety valve measure in the bill, or, more accurately, a poison pill, a get-out-of-jail-free card, will be used only in rare and exceptional cases. If that is true, why were they unwilling to exclude serious offences such as aggravated sexual assault, extortion, and child sexual offences? If it is truly meant to be narrow, why is it written so broadly?

Madam Speaker, Canadians did not need a Parliamentary Budget Officer report to tell them that the economy was in trouble; families knew it when their groceries kept getting more expensive, when their mortgage payments doubled and when young people gave up on owning their own home. For years we have been sounding the alarms, yet the Liberals kept telling us, “Everything is fine.” Now, the PBO confirms that we have a bigger deficit, weaker growth, lower wages and only a 1% chance of meeting the government's own fiscal anchor. Why does my colleague think it took the Liberal government so long to admit what Canadians already knew, and why are they still refusing to change the costly policies that are making life less affordable?

Mr. Speaker, the grandparents listened to the Liberal members dismiss concerns about the recession, rising debt and the cost of living. They told me they wished they could call and tell the government what they were seeing in their own lives, as seniors struggling to make ends meet. They talked about grocery bills that keep climbing, adult children who are struggling to get ahead, and their grandchildren facing a future that looks less affordable than the one they inherited. Can my colleague explain to me why so many ordinary Canadians can see we are in a recession, while the Liberal government continues to downplay the very real economic struggles that families are facing every day?

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians hear the government talk about Bill C-16, they probably think it is a bill about protecting victims. They hear about protecting women from abuse. They hear about protecting children from exploitation. They hear about stopping the spread of deepfake pornography. They hear about tougher measures against coercive control in abusive relationships. Most Canadians would hear that list and say, “Who could possibly be against that?” The answer is, nobody could. Conservatives support those objectives because we believe victims deserve protection, children deserve protection and families deserve protection. That is the fundamental job of government: protection of its citizens. The problem is that Bill C-16 is a bit like buying a house because the front porch looks beautiful, only to discover later that the foundation is compromised. The government points Canadians toward the parts of the bill everyone likes, while hoping they do not notice the parts that would change everything. Buried inside this legislation is a poison pill that would allow judges to bypass virtually every mandatory minimum sentence in the Criminal Code. First, we need to understand how we got here. Consecutive Conservative governments had established mandatory minimum sentences for some of the most serious crimes in our Criminal Code. We did that because Canadians expect serious offences to carry serious consequences. Child sexual exploitation, weapons trafficking, armed extortion, drive-by shootings and human trafficking were not treated as ordinary crimes, because the harm they cause is extraordinary. However, for 10 years, the Liberal government has systematically weakened the principle that serious crimes must carry serious consequences. Liberal Bill C-75 weakened bail laws and pushed the justice system toward release at the earliest opportunity. Liberal Bill C-5 removed mandatory minimum penalties for a range of serious offences, including crimes involving firearms and dangerous drugs. Time and again, police officers, prosecutors, victims advocates, premiers and community leaders warned that the government was moving in the wrong direction. Time and again, those warnings were dismissed. Today, Canadians are seeing the consequences. Violent crime has increased dramatically. Human trafficking has increased dramatically. Sexual assault has increased dramatically. Organized criminal networks have become stronger and more sophisticated. Canadians are witnessing the inevitable result of a philosophy that views punishment, rather than crime itself, as the problem, that views the rights of the criminal as more important than the rights of the victim. That is why Bill C-16's “get out of jail free” card is a poison pill that Canadian communities will once again be forced to swallow. The Liberals will say that Conservatives are standing in the way of getting strong laws passed, but I can assure Canadians that Conservatives are standing in the breach, fighting to keep criminals from getting off with a slap on the wrist for serious crimes. Understanding Bill C-16 requires a deeper understanding of the path that led us here. For years, courts have increasingly relied on what are called “reasonable hypotheticals” when reviewing mandatory minimum sentences. Rather than focusing solely on the criminal who is actually on trial, the court judges have increasingly considered hypothetical scenarios involving people who do not exist and who never committed the actual crimes in question. That trend culminated in the Supreme Court's Senneville decision. The facts of that case were horrific. One offender possessed 475 files, including 317 images of children, most between the ages of three and six, and many depicting acts of sexual abuse I cannot bring myself to say out loud here in the House. Another offender possessed more than 800 images and videos involving children as young as five years old being subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse. That is hundreds of images documenting the abuse of vulnerable children. Most Canadians would think that the court would consider those offenders and apply the appropriate mandatory minimum sentence. Instead, the court chose this moment to question mandatory minimums altogether. Judges based their decisions on a hypothetical story of a teenager sending a hypothetical intimate photo to a hypothetical boyfriend or girlfriend, and that hypothetical photo was later shared with a hypothetical someone. The court claimed concern that the same mandatory minimum law could apply, even though the case before them was very real and very serious. Because of that hypothetical case, the court struck down Parliament's mandatory minimum sentence. The government then had a choice. It could have changed the law to deal with that specific concern while keeping strong penalties in place for serious child sexual exploitation offences. Instead, the Liberals used that court decision as the reason for creating the new get-out-of-jail-free card in Bill C-16. That is why Canadians should look carefully at what the bill would actually do rather than what the Liberals say it would do. The government wants Canadians to believe that Bill C-16 is a major public safety initiative. It points to provisions dealing with deepfake pornography. It points to provisions dealing with coercive control. It points to provisions dealing with intimate partner violence. All those measures are designed to attract support. However, while Canadians are focused on those headlines, the Liberal government has inserted this poison pill. It calls it a safety valve, a phrase carefully chosen because it sounds limited, reasonable and harmless. The government insists this power will be used only in exceptional cases, yet when Conservatives proposed reasonable safeguards to ensure that outcome, every safeguard was rejected. Canadians should ask themselves a simple question: If the government truly intended that this be used only rarely, why did it refuse every attempt to define what “rarely” actually means? The answer is obvious. The government is presenting Canadians with one bill while pursuing a very different objective beneath the surface. That objective became even clearer during committee study. Conservatives approached the legislation constructively, because we recognize that there are very good measures that are worth preserving. Our goal is not to destroy the bill; our goal is to strengthen it and ensure that victims remain at the centre of the legislation. We proposed safeguards that would have limited access to the safety valve to offenders with no prior record. We proposed ensuring that sentences would not be reduced below half of Parliament's mandatory minimum. We proposed excluding extortion offences. We proposed excluding aggravated sexual assault. We proposed excluding serious child sexual offences. We proposed excluding some of the most serious crimes that Parliament has already determined deserve firm sentencing consequences. Every one of those amendments was rejected. Conservatives also proposed stronger notification requirements so that victims of intimate partner violence and coercive control would be informed about release decisions affecting offenders. Those amendments were rejected as well. The significance of those votes cannot be ignored. The government did not accidentally create an overly broad get-out-of-jail-free card but deliberately defended it. It did not overlook the concerns raised by Conservatives. It considered those concerns and voted against them. The result is legislation that speaks passionately about victims while systematically rejecting measures that would strengthen their protection. Conservatives support stronger protections for women and children, stronger measures against deepfake exploitation and stronger recognition of the devastating harm caused by coercive control. Those objectives are important and need support. Unfortunately, the poison pill at the heart of Bill C-16 undermines all of those goals, because it continues with the same failed philosophy that has contributed to the crime and chaos Canadians are experiencing today. At a time when communities are demanding greater accountability, the government is creating new opportunities for offenders to avoid consequences. At a time when victims are asking to be heard, the government is focusing its attention on a get-out-of-jail-free card for criminals. At a time when public confidence in the justice system is already fragile, the government is asking members of Parliament to weaken one of the few tools designed to ensure serious crime receives serious punishment. Canadians deserve better than legislation that says one thing and does another. They deserve a justice system that places victims first, supports police officers, protects communities and recognizes that public safety is a fundamental responsibility of government. If the Liberals truly believed in the good parts of the bill, protecting women and children against deepfake exploitation, why did they insist on attaching a poison pill that creates yet another get-out-of-jail-free card for serious offenders?

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives support the parts of the bill that protect women and children, address coercive control and deal with deepfake exploitation. In fact, many of those ideas came from the Conservatives in the first place. The problem is clause 63. The government wrapped good measures around a poison pill that would let judges go below mandatory minimum sentences for serious crimes. Victims deserve protection, but they also deserve consequences for the people who hurt them. That is why Conservatives tried to fix the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have been very clear from the beginning. We support stronger protections for women, children and victims. We support action on coercive control. We support action on deepfake exploitation. We support stronger tools to protect children online. What we do not support is using those victims as a political cover for a clause that attacks mandatory minimum sentences. The government did not have to attach clause 63 to those protections. It chose to do that, and it chose to reject every Conservative attempt to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have been able to tackle some of that in my speech, but the arguments we have heard from the Liberal side do not explain why they rejected every reasonable safeguard Conservatives proposed in order to define things. If their release valve or get-out-of-jail-free card is truly only for rare and exceptional cases, why do they not say that in the bill? Why not limit it to first-time offenders? Why not prevent sentences from dropping below half the mandatory minimum? Why not exclude a child sexual offence, aggravated sexual assault or extortion? The answer is simple. The Liberals wanted this power to be broad, and Canadians should be very concerned about it.

Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. More than 112,000 Canadians have lost their job in just a few months. Food banks are reaching record levels of usage. Families are struggling to pay their mortgage, their rent and even their grocery bill. At a time like this, Canadians would expect members of Parliament to be debating solutions. They would expect their elected representatives to be examining every line of this massive omnibus bill and asking hard questions about it. Instead, the Liberals have decided to shut down debate after only three hours of debate on billions of dollars. If the government's plan is working, why are Canadians falling behind, and if the government is so confident in its plan, why is it so afraid of letting Parliament debate it?

Madam Speaker, governments that are confident in their ideas welcome debate. Governments that are uncertain of their ideas shut it down. Canada is now the only G7 country in recession. Jobs are disappearing, investment is leaving and families are falling behind, yet instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine a budget that would affect every Canadian, the Liberals are once again shutting down debate. The government tells Canadians to trust its plan. Trust is earned through openness, accountability and debate, not by cutting debate short. Why are the Liberals so determined to prevent Parliament from giving it the scrutiny Canadians deserve?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. People vote with their feet when they have no other way to vote, and investors vote with their dollars every single day. Right now they are voting against Canada. More than 112,000 jobs have disappeared in just three months. Behind every one of those jobs is a Canadian wondering how to pay the rent, buy groceries and keep the lights on. If the Liberals insist this is all because of global conditions, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession? When will the Prime Minister admit that his policies have driven investment and jobs elsewhere?

Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing serious economic challenges. Jobs are disappearing, investment is leaving and families are struggling to make ends meet, yet the government has chosen to shut down debate on a massive omnibus budget bill that would affect every region in the country. I would like to ask my Bloc colleague this. Regardless of our differences on policy, does he believe Canadians are well served when the government limits debate on legislation of this size and importance? What message does it send when a government facing so many economic challenges seems unwilling to allow Parliament the time needed to properly examine its budget?

Madam Speaker, every dollar spent on interest is a dollar that cannot be spent on the future. Canadians will pay more than $50 billion this year simply to pay the interest charges on federal debt. That money produces nothing. It creates no jobs, builds no infrastructure and improves no public services. Could my colleague share her thoughts on the long-term consequences of forcing Canadian families and future generations to carry the cost of today's reckless deficits?

Madam Speaker, one of a federal government's values is how it treats those who served our country. Veterans do not need more announcements. They need timely services, reliable benefits and access to the supports they have earned. With this budget adding more debt and pushing interest costs above $50 billion a year, could my colleague explain how Canadians can have confidence that veterans will remain a priority when so much of the government's revenue is being consumed simply by paying interest on past spending?

Madam Speaker, one of the great questions facing any nation is whether it trusts its people more than it trusts the government. That question lies at the heart of the economic challenges facing Canada today. For most of our history, Canada was a country where ordinary people could arrive with little more than a dollar in their pocket, work hard, take risks, build a business, buy a home, raise a family, and leave their children better off than themselves. It was not because government created prosperity. It was because government created the conditions in which prosperity could grow. New Canadians were allowed to freely create their own opportunities without too much government interference. Today, however, we see the consequence of a very different philosophy. We are told that every problem requires another government program, another regulation and another bureaucracy to oversee it all. Yet, after years of this Liberal central planning approach, Canadians are not becoming more prosperous. They are barely managing to get by. More than 112,000 jobs have disappeared in the first few months of this year. Youth unemployment has climbed above 14%. Business investment continues to flee the country, and household savings have been used up. Families are working harder while falling further behind. This is the disastrous result of a government that cannot keep its hands out of our pockets or their red tape out of our enterprises. The government seems determined to argue about whether Canada is in a technical recession. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would use that same ridiculous argument while standing beside a mother waiting in a food bank line, a young person sending out résumés with no response or a family losing their home. Canadians do not experience recession through Liberal talking points. They experience it through lost jobs, missed mortgage payments, shrinking savings accounts and the growing fear that despite working hard and playing by the rules, they are falling further behind. This recession is the logical consequence of Liberal ideology. The Liberals have a governing philosophy that believes prosperity can be designed by Ottawa in a boardroom, rather than created by millions of Canadians making decisions for themselves. When a government makes it harder to build, invest, hire or expand, it should not be a surprise when investments leave and jobs disappear. What is especially troubling is that Canada is not suffering from a lack of talent, resources, innovation or ambition. We possess all of those things in abundance. What we lack is a government that is willing to remove the barriers that prevent Canadians from putting those strengths to work. Every year it becomes more difficult to build, invest, hire or expand, because government has inserted itself into more and more areas of economic life. The result is a system that satisfies almost no one. Those paying for it feel overburdened, while those depending on it often find that it delivers less than promised. Government grows larger, yet the problems it claims to solve seem only to multiply. Adam Smith understood that prosperity is created when free people are allowed to pursue opportunity and create value for others. We know that liberty is weakened when power becomes concentrated in government institutions. One truth never changes: A nation becomes stronger when its citizens are empowered, not when they are centrally managed. After years of rising bureaucracy, rising spending, rising deficits, rising unemployment and now a recession, when will the government acknowledge that prosperity does not come from Ottawa treating citizens like incapable children, but from smart, hard-working Canadians—

Madam Speaker, what we are witnessing is not simply a recession. It is the predictable result of a government that believes prosperity can be engineered by Ottawa rather than created by Canadians themselves. For a year, the Prime Minister has promised growth. Instead, the economy has shrunk in three of the last four quarters. More than 112,000 jobs have disappeared. Business investment has fallen. Billions of dollars have left this country. None of this should surprise us. When the government makes it more expensive to build, invest, hire and produce, businesses invest less, entrepreneurs take fewer risks and jobs disappear. Ordinary Canadians are paying the price. Food bank use is at record levels. Household debt is the highest in the G7. Families are working harder and getting less. When will the Liberals stop driving Canadians' decline and remove the taxes, red tape and barriers forcing jobs and opportunities out of Canada?

Mr. Speaker, in the 1970s, during Britain's energy crisis, there was a saying that the government treats taxpayers like lemons; that every time it needs more money, it just squeezes harder. That is exactly how Canadians feel today every time they pull up to the gas pump. Whether someone is a mom driving their kids to hockey in Cloverdale, a tradesman in Langley filling up his truck before work or a senior cutting back on groceries because of gas prices, they all watch the numbers spin higher and higher while government quietly takes a bigger cut every second that dial moves. If government revenue rises every time gas prices rise, what incentives do the Liberals actually have to bring that cost down? That is the uncomfortable truth at the centre of this debate. Every time families pull up to the pump and watch those numbers climb higher, Ottawa is standing right there with its hand out. There is the GST, the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard, all stacked one on top of the other on every litre we buy. As Canadians watch those numbers click frighteningly higher, government revenues rise automatically. After months of soaring prices and dogged pressure by the Conservatives, the Liberals finally arrived with a tiny, temporary tax break. They presented it as though they performed some great act of economic heroism. In reality, their plan delivers barely one-third of the relief for barely one-third of the year, compared to what Conservatives had proposed. The Liberals want Canadians to believe that the cupboard is bare, that this is the absolute limit of what government can do, when in fact they can remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel tomorrow morning and give some real and actual relief to Canadians. However, that would require government to give up revenue and modern Liberals have become far too comfortable spending other people's money. Instead of real relief, Canadians are handed a carefully staged announcement designed to generate headlines, applause in Ottawa and just enough temporary relief to dull public anger while families continue struggling under the weight of higher energy costs. Meanwhile, the single mother driving to work, the tradesman filling up his truck, and the senior choosing between groceries and fuel are expected to celebrate crumbs while government continues feasting on the loaf. That is why Conservatives brought forward this motion to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year and permanently scrap the costly clean fuel standard so Canadians can finally get some relief. Milton Friedman once joked that if government were put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand within five years. We laugh because we understand the deeper truth behind it, which is that governments interfere too heavily in markets, pile on taxes, add layers of bureaucracy and try to centrally plan the economy from Ottawa boardrooms. The people who can least afford it will eventually pay the price. That is exactly what has happened in Canada. Let us think about it. Back in 2014, oil prices were sitting at roughly the same level they are today, around $100 a barrel, yet Canadians were paying about $1.37 a litre. Today, that same litre costs closer to $1.87. That is roughly 50¢ more per litre, even though the global oil price is essentially the same. What has changed? Liberal taxes have changed, of course. Over the last decade, Canadians have been buried under a growing pile of federal costs layered onto energy. This includes the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard and the GST charge on top of the entire inflated amount. We have tax upon tax upon tax, all justified by politicians who never seem to notice that working people still have to drive to work, farmers still have to harvest their crops and families still have to get their kids to school. Here is the part Canadians are beginning to understand very clearly: Every time gas prices rise, government revenues rise as well. Ottawa profits from expensive energy, while ordinary Canadians are punished by it. That is why the finance minister's comments were astonishingly tone-deaf when he claimed that the Liberals had acted faster and more comprehensively than peer countries. Canadians are not looking for a trophy in international political theatre. They are looking at their bank accounts, they are looking at their grocery bills, they are looking at the cost of filling up the family vehicle and wondering how much further they can stretch a paycheque that already feels exhausted before it even arrives. Meanwhile, countries around the world cut fuel taxes to help their citizens weather rising costs. Conservatives proposed removing all federal taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year to save families roughly 25¢ a litre, or about $1,200 for a family of four. The Liberals' response was to offer barely one-third of the relief for barely one-third of the year, and then they presented it as though they had moved mountains on behalf of struggling Canadians. Margaret Thatcher understood something modern Liberals never seem to grasp: When governments make energy expensive, they make everything expensive. Energy is not a luxury item. Energy moves food across the country. Energy powers tractors, delivery trucks, ambulances, factories, school buses and construction equipment. When energy costs rise, the cost of absolutely everything rises with it. Canadians are already at the breaking point. Nearly three-quarters of Canadians say that rising food and gas prices are straining their finances. More than four in 10 Canadians are less than $200 away from not being able to pay their bills. Members can think about that. The cost of one unexpected repair bill, one extra grocery trip or one tank of gas is how close to the edge millions of Canadians are living after a decade of Liberal credit card budgets, inflationary deficits and economic mismanagement. While ordinary Canadians cut back, governments keep spending like there is no tomorrow. The truckers delivering groceries pay more for fuel. The farmers harvesting crops pay more for fuel. The manufacturers shipping goods pay more for fuel. Every added cost lands on the kitchen tables of ordinary Canadian families. That is the real-world consequence of expensive energy. This is not a theoretical economics discussion over a catered lunch in Ottawa. These are real families making painful decisions every single day. The government acts as though lowering fuel taxes would somehow break the economy. When Conservatives are calling for these tax breaks, we were not proposing another complicated subsidy program with more paperwork, more bureaucracy and more consultants billing taxpayers by the hour. We are simply saying that the government should stop taking so much money from Canadians in the first place and let them keep more of what they earn. That is the simplest form of relief possible. The government's job is not to stand at the gas pump with its hand out every time Canadians try to get to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Liberals' temporary plan would only save the average household about $124 total. Canadians cannot run a family budget on symbolic gestures. Conservatives are proposing relief that would actually have impact. The Liberals simply do not want to give up the revenue. At the heart of this debate lies a very simple question: Who should keep that money? Should it remain in the pockets of the men and women who rise early, work long hours, drive trucks, build the homes, harvest the crops and keep this country moving, or should more of it flow to Ottawa, where the government has developed an endless appetite for spending but remarkably little interest in restraint? Conservatives believe Canadians have already paid enough. After a decade of Liberal deficits and taxes, families are not asking for luxuries. They are asking for breathing room. They want to drive to work without feeling punished every time they fill their tanks. They want to walk through the grocery store without calculating what necessities must be left at the checkout counter. Whenever Canadians raise these concerns, they are told by the Liberals that they have already acted, that the economy is doing great and that it is one of the best economies in the G7. Somehow the answer to rising costs is always more bureaucracy, more intervention and more taxes collected from the people who are already struggling to stay afloat. The House has a choice to make. We can continue down the Liberal path, where expensive energy is treated as a political virtue, where taxes quietly rise every time families fill their tanks and where government grows larger while ordinary Canadians grow poorer, or we can return to the simple principle that built strong economies in the first place, which is that working people are better stewards of their own money than government will ever be.

Mr. Speaker, this ultimately comes down to priorities. The government has become far too comfortable with collecting more money every time gas prices rise while pretending that higher costs are somehow beyond their control. However, Canadians do not have the luxury of pretending. They feel these costs every day when they buy groceries, commute to work, heat their homes or run a small business. Despite all the speeches and headlines, the Liberals are still refusing to take the simple steps that would provide immediate relief, which would be to remove all federal taxes on gas and diesel and to scrap the costly clean fuel standard.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the very same things in my riding. I also heard that, at the end of the day, Canadians are looking for common sense, not political theatre. The Liberals have created a system where rising gas prices benefit government revenues because every increase at the pump means more tax revenue flowing to Ottawa. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians absorb the consequences as higher fuel costs ripple through the entire economy, making food, transportation and everyday life more expensive. There is nothing stopping the government from delivering meaningful relief except its own unwillingness to give up the revenue. Canadians deserve more than symbolic gestures and temporary announcements.

Mr. Speaker, the point is that the government acted too little, too late and only temporarily. The Liberal plan provides a fraction of the relief that Canadians need, and it is for only part of the year, while the other federal costs remain layered on energy. Even according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the average household will only save $124. That may help a little, but it is not serious relief for families facing high gas, grocery, rent and mortgage costs. Canadians need meaningful savings at the pump, not a temporary announcement designed to make the government look like it solved the problem.

Mr. Speaker, economists and business voices across the country are warning that, when people no longer trust the rules around property ownership, investment disappears, housing slows down and affordability gets worse. We are now seeing stalled projects, bankrupt developers and fewer homes being built while young Canadians lose hope of ownership, but the Liberal government calls that fearmongering. Instead of admitting there is a huge problem, they keep acting like everything is just okey-dokey. Did the Liberals vote down our Conservative motion to protect property rights yesterday because they are completely blind to this very real problem?

Mr. Speaker, when the government forces Parliament to shut down debate, Canadians should ask themselves one very simple question: What exactly are the Liberals hoping that Canadians will not notice? The choice to use time allocation is the latest in the government's attempt to shortcut transparency. Debate is cut short, scrutiny is treated like obstruction and billions of taxpayer dollars are pushed through Parliament without good oversight. It is becoming a pattern. They change the rules halfway through the game, dim the lights and hope Canadians cannot see the scoreboard clearly enough to question the result. However, a strong economy depends on trust, trust that the rules are fair, the books are honest and hard work still gets people ahead. Under the Liberal government, Canadians feel like they are in a nightmare game, expected to play blindfolded. Eventually, players stop taking risks, investors stop investing and builders stop building. My question is simple. Why do the Liberals keep shutting off the cameras and using technicalities like time allocation when the trust of Canadians is at its lowest? Honesty and integrity—

Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, people invested in our community because they believed in the future. Families moved there. Builders built there. Small businesses took risks there, but now developers are facing insolvency. Businesses are being extorted. Families are worried about crime and people are starting to wonder if the rules even make sense anymore. After years of mixed signals from the Liberals, sudden policy shifts and weak-on-crime laws, the confidence that built our community is being shaken. When people stop feeling safe, physically, financially and legally, communities start to break apart. Our leader was in Cloverdale last week talking about crime and property rights because this is no longer some abstract political debate. This is about whether ordinary people can still build a future in Canada. When will the Liberal government realize that central planning is, as always, a recipe for disaster?

Mr. Speaker, Canada now has some of the highest household debt and least affordable housing in the G7. Food bank use is at a record high. Seniors are skipping meals. Young families are delaying having children. Working parents are choosing between groceries, rent and medication. However, I have heard the Liberals say over and over today that they are improving affordability and that Canada's economy is doing great. My question is simple. If life is supposedly getting better, why are so many Canadians feeling like they are falling further behind every single month?

Mr. Speaker, families across Canada know that, when their interest payments start eating up their household budget, something is seriously wrong. That is exactly what is happening with the Liberal government. Debt interest costs have now exploded to $59 billion a year, up 10% in just one year alone. Canadians are now paying more in interest than the federal government sends to provinces for health care. In fact, debt interest now costs more than the GST brings in. Members can think about it. Canadians pay taxes and struggle to afford groceries and rent. More and more of that money is simply going toward interest payments instead of the services people need. Is it fair that the Liberals are forcing Canadians to pay thousands of dollars per family just to keep up with the interest on their own reckless spending?

Mr. Speaker, Canada's housing market today looks a lot like a young man driving a road racer down an icy highway in the middle of winter. The engine roars, the tires grip and the driver thinks he is in control and so he presses harder on the gas. Imagine a souped-up, five-litre Mustang with more horsepower than common sense. The speed builds, but suddenly the tires lose traction. The steering becomes unstable, and the vehicle starts sliding. A smart driver would ease off carefully and regain control but, just like a reckless teenager, the Liberal government does not believe in restraint. It believes Ottawa can control markets better than Canadians themselves, and that arrogance is exactly what has driven Canada's housing market into the ditch. First, the Liberals went full throttle on immigration and population growth without building the homes, infrastructure, roads, utilities or skilled labour force needed to support it. Canada added well over one million new residents in a single year, one of the fastest population growth rates in the developed world. The Liberal government drove demand through the roof while supply was trapped behind taxes, red tape, permitting delays and development charges, forcing prices to explode. Young families were suddenly bidding against impossible demand. Rents soared and house prices spiralled. Ordinary Canadians who worked hard and played by the rules found themselves locked out of home ownership altogether. The Liberals treated the housing market like a driver flooring a powerful car on black ice and then acted surprised when the whole thing started fishtailing. Then, after overheating the market, the Liberals pulled the emergency brake, cutting immigration and locking us in a dangerous skid. At the peak, they brought one million international students into the country and then abruptly, this year, came to a screeching halt of less than half. However, when a car is already sliding, hitting the brakes too hard does not restore control; it sends the whole vehicle spinning. Adding to that chaos, the Liberals' so-called build Canada approach threw billions of dollars at the catastrophic crash site. Once again, the Liberals believed they could centrally plan the economy from the top down. They encouraged prefab factories and construction suppliers to tool up for enormous future projects that have not materialized. Billions were announced, bureaucracies expanded, but uncertainty exploded. Development costs climbed even higher. Builders were crushed between rising interest rates, government interference, expensive regulations and constantly changing rules. Instead of stabilizing housing, Liberal central planning created even greater instability. Now, we are seeing the devastating consequences. Across the Fraser Valley, we have warning lights flashing everywhere. Thind Properties, Maskeen Group, Brivia Group, Coromandel Properties, Square Nine Developments, 14 Property Group, Wade Development, and Everest Group are struggling with receiverships, insolvencies, foreclosures, creditor protection, stalled projects, laid-off workers and families left wondering whether the homes they paid for will ever even be built. This is what happens when government distorts markets long enough that confidence itself begins to collapse. Conservatives believe in a common-sense approach. We believe that the people who know how to build homes are builders, not politicians. We believe government should stop choking developments with taxes, delays, gatekeepers and ideological central planning. We believe in getting government out of the way so the private sector can do what it does best: build. Canadians do not need more politicians grabbing the steering wheel. They need a government with enough wisdom to finally let the country get back on track. Will the Liberal government admit that its housing policies are the reason Canadians cannot afford a home?

Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing now is the consequence of years of Liberal market distortion through subsidies, red tape and unpredictable government policy. The Liberals overheated the housing market with record immigration levels and developers responded by investing billions, hiring workers and putting shovels in the ground based on the conditions the government created. Then Ottawa suddenly slammed on the brakes. After years of overheating demand, the Liberals abruptly reversed course without a plan, leaving developers watching the market shift beneath projects already under way as rental vacancy rates jumped more than 40% year over year. Housing projects take years to plan and build. The government cannot pull one policy lever to flood the market and then yank another to choke off demand and expect builders, renters or buyers to have any stability. This is a failure of central planning. The Liberals created this distortion and now Canadians are paying the price.