Parliamentary Speeches

Madam Speaker, I especially appreciate the focus that my colleague provided on small businesses. One of the things we have seen with the tariff relief is that for most of the programs, almost nothing is available to businesses under $1 million, like the coffee shop that she was discussing. I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on that and talk about how that is playing out in her community.

Madam Speaker, my colleague seems to have lost his way in the last answer, but I am grateful for the fact that he acknowledged the collaboration that has been taking place among the parties in order to provide relief to Canadians. My colleague from Mirabel noted that the price pressures here are not short-term and yet the relief is short-term. I wonder if the member can explain why this relief is short-term and why we are not taking the longer-term actions that would bring stability to things like food costs by extending this indefinitely.

Mr. Speaker, over the summer, I spent time at local food banks, and I can tell everyone that it is getting harder and harder to make ends meet for laid-off workers, full-time employees, working families, people with disabilities, single parents, seniors and kids. I saw real poverty lining up alongside people on the cusp of it. These people know that the Liberal government is all talk and no results for them. The volunteers doing the work that government has walked away from know it too. I want to know: When is the government going to listen to Conservatives, stop spending our money on consultants and Liberal insiders, and really take care of Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, that out-of-touch thoughts and prayers answer is not going to help the man who sent me his résumé and asked if I could help him find a job, or the couple who came into my office with their bank account statements and their household budget and asked me how they are going to keep a roof over their heads. It is not going to help the woman who shouted at me from a place of extreme fear that she had eight to 10 months before she has to consider medical assistance in dying because she cannot afford to live. I join them in wanting to know when the Liberal government will truly see the people who are struggling and adopt the policies Conservatives have proposed to restore the promise of Canada.

Madam Speaker, one of the things the member said in his remarks was that the problem is not a short-term problem and that he could see the government having to extend this again depending on the circumstances. Given the value that stability has to food prices in particular, why is the government not considering our recommendation that it should be extended right now permanently for the foreseeable future?

Mr. Speaker, it has been really heartening to hear today the recognition from the Liberal benches of the degree to which the excise tax impacts affordability. One of the things, though, that we have also heard is that, especially with the way the price of diesel is going, the impact on the price of food is going to continue to be felt. It is not going to be a short-term problem, yet the government is proposing a short-term solution. Therefore, I am wondering if the member can explain why the government has chosen to put itself in a position where it has to keep renewing this, and spending time in the House on it, when it is a problem that is clearly going to be a long-term problem. They could make this a long-term solution, cancel the tax and help, particularly food producers, with affordability by providing stability in that environment.

Mr. Speaker, I was really struck by my colleague's remarks, particularly his remarks near the end of his speech about how, if it is right for Canadians now, then why would the Liberals not go the whole way and take the tax off permanently? The reason that resonated with me so much is that there is a cost to uncertainty. We are here in the House renewing this exemption, and it has been admitted today that we may be doing it again and again. With there being so much to accomplish in the House, I am wondering if my colleague would expand a bit on his remarks and talk about some of the other things we could do for Canadians if we did not have to come back to spend a day on this topic every three months.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said a few times today, it is heartening to hear my colleagues across the aisle recognize that diesel and gas prices have an impact on affordability. It is good of them to recognize that their constituents are calling for this kind of relief. I wonder why they are again resorting to short-term measures. They have acknowledged that this is a conflict that is not going away, that has an impact. They have acknowledged the need to work on the things they can control. Why stop here?

Mr. Speaker, like lasagna or moussaka, food prices are built in layers. Four cents of excise tax sits on top of a freight surcharge, which is layered on top of additional labelling requirements, new packaging restrictions and the cost of fertilizer, refrigeration, shipping, tariffs and taxes. No single cost explains the whole grocery bill, but the grocery bill comes at the end of a long conveyor belt, and every additional cost placed on that belt eventually moves toward the consumer. At a time of record food bank use, when those of us who shop animatedly compare prices with each other in disbelief, when people are skipping meals to save money, we owe it to Canadians to ask what every decision we make in this place means for the cost of food. When the Prime Minister claims, as he did in this chamber on March 25, that “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade”, it is clear to me that he has not been to the grocery store. Food prices are now 29% higher than they were five years ago, while they rose only 9% over the previous five years. If we feel like food inflation has accelerated, that is because it has. Bill C-38 is a very short bill that would do three things. It would extend the fuel tax holiday on gasoline, avgas and diesel until January 31, 2027; it would bring back half the normal rate from February 1 to March 31; and then it would restore the full tax on April 1, 2027. I support this relief, but I think it should not be fleeting. The cycle of providing temporary relief, panicking at the expiry date and extending it for a few more months leaves too many businesses wondering what will happen next. Diesel prices are already extraordinarily volatile. Statistics Canada reported on September 17 that producer prices for diesel rose 9.6% in August alone and were 75% higher than a year ago. These are enormous movements in the price of an essential business input. Now, Ottawa cannot set the world price of oil. Parliament cannot legislate peace in the Middle East or guarantee the price of a barrel of crude next spring, but when the market is unstable, there is an even greater responsibility for government to provide stability in the things that it does control. Nowhere is that more important than in food. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada estimates that transportation accounts for seven cents of every dollar Canadians spend on domestically produced food. The comparable figure in the United States is less than five cents. This is because Canada has longer distances, a more dispersed population and a climate that requires us to move food enormous distances, particularly through the winter. Fuel prices, therefore, have a direct relationship with the cost of feeding our country. We see this in my home communities on Vancouver Island. Out here, people speak of planes, trains and automobiles, while in B.C., we also have seaplanes, helicopters and ferries to contend with. Much of our food arrives after travelling by truck, rail, ship or some combination of the three. There is always another transportation leg before it reaches a grocery store in Nanaimo, Ladysmith or Gabriola. The cost of diesel, therefore, enters our food system long before the produce truck arrives at the grocery store loading dock. Farmers use diesel to fuel their equipment during planting and harvest. Ingredients travel to processors. Packaging has to be manufactured and delivered. Warehouses consume energy. Refrigerated warehouses consume even more energy. Finished products travel to distribution centres, grocery stores, restaurants and institutions. I am chairing a national food affordability task force, and I heard about the cost of diesel at every farm, every processor and every grocer I visited this summer. High diesel costs have a cascading effect across the supply chain, and uncertainty amplifies that effect. The Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University has found that diesel and grocery prices have moved remarkably closely together over the last 30 years. That does not mean diesel alone determines the price of food, but it confirms what anyone involved in the food supply chain already knows, which is that energy and transportation costs, that is, gasoline, aviation gasoline and diesel, are deeply connected to what Canadians eventually pay at the grocery store. The Dalhousie lab has modelled what the present diesel shock could mean. If high prices persist through the winter, grocery inflation could peak between one-half and seven-tenths of a percentage point higher. A shorter-lived spike could produce an effect closer to three-tenths or four-tenths of a point. Either way, it is going to cost us. The Dalhousie analysis works the diesel and other cost shocks through contracts, inventories and the supply chain over many months and provides a solid basis for believing, as many members have said today when answering questions and in their remarks, that the government will need to extend this measure again and, very possibly, again. We spend enormous effort in this place debating grocery prices after they have risen. We need to start thinking about affordability problems before they show up at the checkout because uncertainty and volatility have a price. Businesses protect themselves against it through shorter contracts, larger contingencies, higher working capital requirements or delayed investment. Smaller businesses generally have fewer ways to hedge their exposure and less balance sheet capacity to absorb a sudden change. Dalhousie's agri-food lab has highlighted precisely that vulnerability among smaller processors and independent distributors as one of the many explanations for why we are experiencing food inflation. As well, there is a broader principle here that does not depend on agreement about the ultimate tax rate. If the policy objective is to hold this tax at zero while energy markets remain severely disrupted, then why do we not give businesses a horizon measured in years rather than in weeks or months? Our food costs would really benefit from that. A government faced with volatile markets should be trying to reduce uncertainty, not add another layer to it. The Prime Minister talks a lot about the things we can control. Well, government taxation is one of those things. Not every increase in food prices has the same cause, and government cannot control all of them, but where government itself is adding cost or uncertainty, we have an obligation and an opportunity to act. Agriculture and food businesses experience individual departmental policy decisions cumulatively. That means they pay the transportation cost, the packaging cost, the tariff, the regulatory cost, the energy cost and the tax at the same time. Each department may conclude that its individual measure may have a modest effect, but grocery costs do not stay nicely in departmental silos, and the cost of the whole is sometimes more than its parts. The final price reflects the entire supply chain and all of the policy changes along the way. Canada will always be a country in which food travels considerable distances. Diesel and avgas are critical inputs. Temporary relief can buy time. We should use that time. Four cents a litre is only one layer in the price of food, but it is a layer entirely within Parliament's control. When diesel prices are already up 75% in a year, we should be looking for layers we can take off, not deciding when to put them back on. I support the relief contained in Bill C-38. I would like us to go further, however, and provide the long-term certainty that lets businesses plan.

Mr. Speaker, I feel as though I should buy a lottery ticket. Thank you for those kind words, and thank you for the recognition that we are here today extending this relief to Canadians because Conservatives have pushed this point over and over again. It is because we continue to bring up affordability, we continue to focus on the people we serve in our communities and we continue to bring their stories to the House over and over again. I would say that it is wonderful to work together, but I would like to see you paying—

Mr. Speaker, it is very late, and I apologize for not speaking through you. I have the utmost respect for you, both as a person and as an institution. I would say to the members opposite that the best ideas never rise to the top without debate and without listening. The government pushed a lot of things through in the spring. I would urge it to take the time to listen and to allow us to do our job as the opposition, which is to provide constructive commentary that hopefully helps the government see that it could do more. In this case, that is extending the excise tax relief more permanently.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague brought up the concept of control. One reason we want the gas tax relief extended and made permanent is so we can give businesses the chance to exercise that control themselves. We know that farmers plan around growing seasons. I have, of course, spoken to farmers who tell me over and over again that energy costs are hampering their ability to plan. Trucking companies negotiate contracts, but their margins are so slim that they are struggling to stay afloat, and certainty around the cost of fuel for the long term would make a big difference. Grocery distributors build networks, but changing buying patterns based on volatile pricing is actually messing with inventory levels and even creating extra food waste. Processors make investments that they have to pay for over years, and uncertainty is making them blink, which is stifling innovation and further impeding productivity. The government talks about wanting to control the things that we can control. Relieving the tax burden on a permanent basis would not only allow us to control the things that we need to control but would also allow businesses to plan.

Mr. Speaker, here is the thing: The Cowichan Tribe decision introduced uncertainty around how aboriginal title interacts with private property in B.C. While the Supreme Court declined an appeal in Wolastoqey, a refusal of leave is not a decision on the merits and does not create binding national precedent. This leaves Canadians with competing legal approaches on a critical legal question, all while Liberal directive 14, which discourages private property defences, remains in force and a Cowichan appeal is many months away. B.C. deserves to know now how the Liberals will provide the certainty we need. Where—

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is useful to know that instead of reports, we are going to get consultations. Maybe we will get an answer to the next question. CPP disability applications are supposed to be decided within 120 days, 80% of the time. Last year, the Liberals managed only 49.3%, less than half. Why are disabled Canadians being left for months without income while the minister misses her own deadline?

Mr. Speaker, hate is real, and it is doing damage in communities across this country. No Canadian should be intimidated because of who they are, how they worship, what they look like, where they come from or what they believe. The question before us is not whether hate should be taken seriously. The question is whether Bill C-9 would actually make Canadians safer. The problem we hear about again and again is not the absence of words in the Criminal Code; it is the failure to act when people break the law. Communities are not safer when Parliament adds more words. They are safer when police respond quickly, when charges are laid where evidence supports them, when prosecutors have the resources to move cases forward, when repeat offenders face real consequences and when victims have confidence that the justice system is willing to protect them. The number and range of organizations that have raised alarms about Bill C-9 are stunning. It is not just one political party, it is not just one faith community and it is not just one type of advocacy group. Civil liberties organizations across the political spectrum have warned that this bill risks sweeping too broadly and chilling lawful expression and peaceful protest. A broad array of community organizations from across the political spectrum have warned that vague criminal law can be used unevenly and can fall hardest on the very communities it claims to protect. Progressive and traditional faith groups alike have warned about the removal of long-standing protections for good-faith religious expression. Legal and constitutional voices have raised serious concerns about the balance between public safety and fundamental freedoms. That breadth of opposition should give every member of the House pause, because when civil liberties groups, religious organizations, community advocates, legal experts and grassroots coalitions from so many walks of life all tell Parliament it is on the wrong track, the responsible thing to do is to listen. It is not to push ahead and dismiss those concerns as being fringe, unserious or misleading. The people raising these concerns are not defending hate. Many of them work every day, tirelessly, against hate, racism and violence. Their point, when they came to this place and to the other place to share their views on this bill, was to tell us that bad law can make hard problems worse. Their point has been that criminal law must be precise, fair and enforceable. When Parliament writes vague laws in the name of safety, it can create uncertainty and the opposite of safety for ordinary Canadians, while doing little to stop those who are already willing to break the law. That is the core weakness of Bill C-9. It tries to show strength through wording rather than through action or results, and yet it is remarkably confusing and imprecise in its wording. In that, Bill C-9 risks blurring the line between hateful conduct, which must be punished, and lawful expression, which must remain protected even when it is controversial, offensive and deeply unpopular. A mature democracy can punish violence and intimidation without giving the state a vague mandate to police belief, scripture, protest or political speech. For the communities that are counting on this bill, the Minister of Artificial Intelligence failed just last night to answer the key question they are asking: Who would the police be able to arrest when this law is passed who they cannot arrest today? How would this bill help bring order to the chaos that has taken over the streets in some communities right now? How would this bill actually stop the bullets, the fires and the death threats? Instead of providing answers and safety, the government brought forward a bill that has divided communities, alarmed civil society and created uncertainty about how far the long arm of the criminal law would reach. That is not careful work. That is not the careful work that Canadians expect from the House. It is not the careful work that is required when fundamental freedoms are at stake. Opposing the bill does not mean accepting hate. What it means is demanding a better answer. I will be the last speaker on the bill, not because members of Parliament have nothing left to say, not because the concerns of the groups that have come to the committee to meet with members of Parliament have had their concerns answered and not because the communities that are so worried that they will be affected by the bill have been heard. I will be the last speaker on the bill because the government has chosen to end the debate. I have said, many times in the House, that just because the Liberal majority can do something, it does not mean it should. Power gives a government the ability to move quickly but it does not give it wisdom. It does not turn a flawed bill into a good one. It does not turn words into results. In the coming weeks and months, Canadians will see what the bill would not do. It would not make a synagogue safer when threats are not met with enforcement. It would not make a mosque safer when police do not have the tools or resources to act quickly. It would not make a church, temple, school or community centre safer if the justice system still cannot follow through. It would not reassure vulnerable Canadians if the government confuses passing a bill with solving a problem. When those failures become clear, no one on that side of the House should pretend they were not warned. They were warned by civil liberties groups. They were warned by faith communities of all kinds. They were warned by legal experts. They were warned by organizations from many different walks of life, many of whom rarely agree on much else but agreed on this. They agreed that Bill C-9 is not the careful, enforceable, unifying response that Canadians deserve. The government had a choice. It could have listened. It could have fixed the bill. It could have spent the time necessary to work with the provinces to truly hear what they need, not in terms of words but in terms of enforcement, in terms of resources, in terms of real support. It could have brought forward a measure focused on real enforcement, real protection and real accountability. Instead, the government chose closure. They chose more words on paper. None of us are safer or more united for those choices. If this government is not interested in meaningful debate, we might as well save our breath. I move: That this House do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have stood in the House in the last few days to talk about the government's again ramming a bill through the House. In this case, the bill has not had the benefit of second reading, committee study, third reading or report stage. It has not been to the Senate. It has not had the benefit of being studied in either House. It concerns an extremely important area of policy and law in this country, and we have seen the unintended consequences of badly drafted Liberal bills being rammed through the House. We saw it with Bill C-3, wherein there are unintended consequences, including lots of Americans who are discovering their connections to Canada. We have seen it with the minister's actions when he was the mayor of Vancouver. This is an area that we have to get right, and I would urge the government not to do this. I would challenge the minister to explain why Canadians should not get the benefit of debate on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a variety of arguments from this side of the House as to why cutting debate off on this bill is short-sighted, but perhaps one of the most important reasons is because, as my hon. colleague explained, it does not just cut off debate in the House; it also means this bill will never go to committee. What that means is that the experts, the constituents, the members of civil society in this country who might have something to say with respect to this bill, which might actually be useful to the government, will not get the chance to be heard. I certainly understand why the member does not want to go to committee. I have seen him there, and it is not good, but I want to know why the minister is also cutting off Canadians from having their say about the bill through our committee process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S‑201, the national framework on sickle cell disease act. The bill deals with a serious, painful and lifelong illness. Sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder that affects hemoglobin. It can cause chronic pain, severe infections, organ damage, stroke and shortened life expectancy. It affects roughly 6,000 Canadians. Bill S‑201 would require the Minister of Health to develop and table a national framework on sickle cell disease within one year. The framework would cover training for health care professionals, a national research network and registry, evidence-based national standards, universal neonatal screening, public awareness, blood donation promotion, analysis of a possible tax credit, inclusion in existing disability benefits, and an analysis of whether treatments should be included in public drug insurance plans. A follow-up implementation report would be required within three years. These are serious proposals, some of which are partially implemented or implemented in various provinces. They deserve careful study. Conservatives supported the recognition of June 19 as National Sickle Cell Awareness Day. We support better awareness, earlier diagnosis, improved screening, and stronger care for Canadians living with sickle cell disease. We support practical steps that help patients and families, especially when those steps are shaped by evidence and by the people most affected. At the same time, Parliament has a duty to get the details right. As we know, health care delivery is provincial. The provinces run hospitals, manage newborn screening and make many of the direct decisions that determine whether any patient, including those with sickle cell disease, receives care quickly, safely and close to home. A federal framework can be useful if it brings people together, improves data, shares best practices and supports better outcomes. However, it is useless and can even be very damaging if it produces yet another Ottawa document written far from the people who must deliver care on the ground, without taking their needs into account. That is the difference between a framework that helps patients and families and one that sits on the shelf and gathers dust or, worse, is used as an excuse not to act. When the bill goes to committee, Conservatives will seek to ensure that the structural framework discussed in it results in a strategy that would be developed in genuine and respectful partnership with the provinces and territories. Patients deserve the benefit of better coordination. If the federal government uses its convening power well and with intent, better coordination can yield better outcomes. Families need real answers, not announcements. The same is true for cost. Bill S‑201 would not include a fiscal appropriation, but the framework points to initiatives that could carry major downstream costs. A national research network, a patient registry, public awareness campaigns, professional training, expanded screening, drug coverage analysis, disability benefit inclusion and a possible tax credit all raise financial questions. Compassion requires honesty. Before this framework is finalized, Parliament should require a Parliamentary Budget Officer cost estimate. If the government is asking Canadians to support a national framework, it should be clear about the costs, timelines, responsibilities and expected results. That is not opposition to the bill. It is respect for the patients who are counting on it. The bill would also connect with areas where Conservatives have already put forward practical policy. We have supported making the caregiver tax credit refundable. We have called for the disability tax credit to be streamlined and simplified, including automatic eligibility for related programs where appropriate. We have supported safer, faster access to drugs already approved by trusted peer jurisdictions, better pediatric drug data, and a rare disease strategy that supports treatment development. Those ideas matter here. Patients and caregivers need systems that are simple, fair and practical. They do not need more paperwork, more overlapping programs or federal announcements that create confusion among departments, provinces and providers. They need care that works. Bill S-201 raises this broader question, because it would not be the only bill of its kind. In Parliament, members and senators have brought forward several health-related bills on rare disease access, forced and coerced sterilization, heart failure, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, food allergies, women's health, brain injuries, ADHD, medical assistance in dying, natural health products, living organ donors, supervised consumption sites, and mental health. Each of these bills speaks to a real concern and has its own patients, families, advocates, experts and evidence. Some deal with disease-specific frameworks. Some deal with treatment access. Some deal with criminal law protections. Some deal with long-neglected gaps in the system. Taken together, what these bills reveal is something the Liberal government should not be proud of: Canada's health care file is being patched, one private member's bill at a time. Private members' bills do have an important role. They can raise issues government has missed, bring neglected voices to Parliament or force attention where attention is overdue, but in this quantity, they show that they are becoming a substitute for a competent government that actually cares about the health of Canadians. A well-run health file would not need Parliament to keep discovering one gap after another through separate private members' bills. It would not need one bill for one disease, another for another treatment pathway, another for one group of patients and another for one failure that should have been addressed years ago. The federal government has a Minister of Health, departments, agencies, regulators, health transfers, data systems and provincial-federal tables. It has the tools to lead while respecting provincial jurisdiction, yet again and again, patients and families are left to organize, to advocate and to wait until someone brings forward a bill. Canadians deserve better than fragmented attention on the health file. They deserve a health care approach that identifies gaps before families have to plead for help. They deserve better data, faster diagnosis, clearer accountability, responsible spending and practical support for provinces and territories. In short, they deserve federal leadership that knows the difference between coordination and interference. For Bill S-201, we will work with the government to move the bill forward in a constructive way. We will support better awareness of sickle cell disease, earlier diagnosis, better data, stronger research, improved training for health care professionals and a more diverse blood supply. We would listen to patients, caregivers, clinicians, researchers, community organizations and provinces and territories when they come to committee, but we would also insist on amendments that would make the bill clearer and more useful. The framework should be developed in partnership with provinces and territories. It should respect jurisdiction, avoid duplicating the existing national strategy for drugs and rare diseases, use accurate language around guidelines and best practices, include cost transparency and, most of all, be judged by whether it improves care. People living with sickle cell disease do not need Parliament to pass bills that feel good but change little. This debate must result in more than just another report for the Ottawa shelves. Canadians deserve better, which is what Conservatives will continue to relentlessly fight for in the House.

Madam Speaker, as my colleague described, waste heat to power is a well‑established technology that captures excess heat from industrial processes and converts it into reliable baseload electricity, while producing no additional emissions or fuel use. Can my hon. colleague explain how this pan‑Canadian opportunity would be especially beneficial to the forestry sector and other resource sectors in western Canada, and particularly in British Columbia?

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of being at the finance committee over the last week or so for a number of the hours the member is speaking about, and I can say that it has not been about filibustering. It has been about asking questions in the only venue that has been made available to us to examine this bill. I have received many emails, phone calls and comments from constituents who are concerned about some of the things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about, such as the pesticide clauses and other changes that are happening to a wide variety of bills. For a bill that would touch so many acts, 30 hours is not enough. We need to be able to examine this bill properly. I am wondering why the government is determined to ram things through without adequate consultation and risk unintended consequences of bills, as we have seen with Bill C-30.

Madam Speaker, when we sit in a committee with members opposite and officials who are unwilling to answer questions, we make whatever analogies we can to try to convince them to answer those questions. What we were talking about in committee, which was very important and very serious, was how we explain to Canadians what we are doing with CPP. That is very important to those in this country. Following the supposed filibuster that they are talking about, which was really questions about CPP, I got a phone call from a very senior finance executive who has worked for not one but two of the maple eight pension funds, telling me how important the work we are doing in finance committee is and saying how important it is to produce reports that explain, in plain English, what we are doing in the House to Canadians' pensions. If the members opposite do not understand how important it is to make sure that there are no unintended consequences through the drafting of bills that affect Canadians' pensions, then I do not know what to do. Perhaps the member could explain why he does not think Canadians should be able to get a full explanation about what the government is doing to Canadians' pensions?

Mr. Speaker, I will remind that member that today the Prime Minister is at the G7 summit as the only leader in the G20 who has caused a recession in his own country, technical or otherwise. He says the data can be uneven. What is not uneven is the pain. Food bank use is at record levels, while two in five Canadians struggle to eat and full-time workers live in people's driveways because a paycheque no longer buys a home. This is all while the Prime Minister's inflight catering bill for just 14 trips could feed a family for 55 years. When will this Prime Minister reverse his costly policies and make good on his announcements so Canadians can afford to live again?

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan. If the motion before the House, which we are considering today, is passed unamended, it will force a major fiscal bill through committee, cut off clause-by-clause review after only 30 minutes, deem amendments moved without meaningful debate, skip real report stage consideration, limit third reading to only a handful of speeches and restrict ordinary procedural tools after 6.30 p.m., while preserving special flexibility for cabinet ministers, but not for regular members of Parliament. That would be a lot, and it would not be a minor adjustment to the parliamentary calendar. It would be a serious and unconscionable shift in power away from Parliament and toward the executive. That is why I rise today to support the amendments and ask the government to reconsider its current plans to ram this important legislation through the House. Bill C-30 is broad. It would impact taxation, excise duties, fuel taxes, alcohol duties, housing-related rules, labour mobility, worker ownership, greenhouse building, banking payments, transportation information, employment measures, food inspection, pesticides and other areas of federal law. A bill of that breadth deserves Parliament's full attention. The government is asking the House to accept the appearance of scrutiny while bypassing proper review. If the world is in crisis and if Canada is at a crossroads where we are attempting to do big things fast, to diversify our economy and our trade relationships, then we cannot afford to get this wrong. We need the best ideas to rise to the top, and that is the role of opposition. That is the role of committee. That is the role of clause-by-clause study. There is no boardroom table in a successful company that I know of where no dissent is allowed, where shortcuts get the best results or where the fastest policies are the best policies. Clause-by-clause study matters. It is where members examine the actual words of the bill, not the press release around it. It is where we ask officials what a clause would do, how it would work, who it would affect and what would happen if were misused. It is where amendments are proposed and can be explained, tested and improved. It is where witnesses, members and sometimes the public catch drafting problems, unintended consequences and overly broad powers before they become law. That is not obstruction. That is how the best ideas rise to the top. Under the motion, the committee would meet at 9 a.m., and, if clause-by-clause were not finished by 9:30 a.m., the remaining amendments would be deemed moved and then are voted on without further debate. This motion is a stopwatch, and in a time of global crisis, Canada cannot afford stopwatch law-making. The government's inability to manage a legislative agenda is not the opposition's crisis, no matter how much the government tries to bully us into submission. This week, I spent some time at the public safety committee, examining witnesses about a Liberal subamendment to a Bloc amendment that related to privacy concerns that had been expressed to me by numerous people in my community. Others did the same. By the end of the interventions, we all understood and supported the clause as amended and subamended, and we had explained it in committee in a way that should reassure those watching from home that the clause would not cause undue harm to people's privacy. That is the kind of collaboration the government claims it wants, and when it comes to Canadians' privacy, it is what we all need, so why the government is shutting it down here in the House is beyond me. The motion would short-circuit report stage. Then, at third reading, it would allow only a very limited number of speeches. Members do not come here as ornaments, here to decorate the government's bills with a few words. We come here to bring the lived and living experiences of Canadians into the policy choices that are before this country. When debate is reduced to a few speeches, those voices are marginalized. Canadians lose the benefit of having competing arguments tested before a vote takes place. In an unstable, volatile world, there is all the more reason for Parliament to take its time to make sure that Canada gets its policies right. The proposed amendments would let the committee continue its work and protect the stages of review that help Parliament separate strong policy from weak policy before a law is passed. Some parts of Bill C‑30 deserve much closer public scrutiny than they are going to get, because they raise serious concerns about how the government now thinks about power. One of the most troubling examples is the proposed change to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. Buried in this spring economic update bill is a power that would allow cabinet, by order, to exempt persons, things or activities from the application of laws or regulations administered or enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In plain English, cabinet could create exemptions from food and agricultural rules for up to three years, and then extend them for another three years. That means there could be a possible six-year exemption from rules that exist to protect Canadians, our food supply, our producers, our markets and our public confidence. Canadians should not have to guess about questions like, “What is an unreasonable risk? Who makes the decisions, and on what evidence? What notice would Canadians receive and what recourse would they have if the power were used badly?” Food safety should not depend on vague language and cabinet decisions. Those are all questions that I will never get to ask because of the way the government is planning to ram through this bill. Canadians expect food safety rules to be clear, public, stable and enforced. They expect science, inspection and accountability. They do not expect broad exemption powers to be tucked into a budget-style bill and rushed through committee. That same concern appears in the proposed changes to the Pest Control Products Act. Those provisions would allow cabinet to authorize or reinstate the use of a pest control product, even after the responsible minister has determined that the environmental risks are not acceptable, if cabinet decides that the product is needed for economic or food security. That should make every member pause. The regulatory process could say an environmental risk is unacceptable, and cabinet could still step in and permit the product. There may be rare, emergency cases when flexibility is needed, and reasonable people can accept that, but emergency powers should be narrow, clearly defined, transparent, time-limited and subject to strong oversight. They should not be drafted so broadly that Parliament is asked to trust cabinet first and ask questions later. These two brief examples demonstrate why clause-by-clause matters and why committees matter. Canadians need more than abstract, procedural debates. We need safeguards. We ought to make space for members to find provisions such as these, ask what they mean, test the government's explanations, hear from officials and affected groups and improve the law before Canadians have to live with it. A government that is confident in its agenda should be willing to explain it, defend its legislation line by line and accept amendments that add clarity, accountability and limits. Canadians should pay attention, because the kinds of motions we are debating here today are becoming a trend. Too often, the government seems to believe that if it has the power to do something, that is reason enough to do it. That is not how responsible government works. Just because a government can use a procedure to limit scrutiny, it does not mean that it should. The House of Commons is not an inconvenience in the legislative process, and it ought not be treated as such. It is the central democratic forum of this country, where public money is authorized, laws are tested, ministers are held to account and the executive must answer questions before it changes the lives of Canadians. The Prime Minister should be willing to propose and defend his vision for Canada here, in this chamber, reserved for commoners. We are everyday Canadians who deserve answers. The government has the votes and the procedural tools to force this through, but just because it can, it does not mean that it should. A serious government should not ask members to vote first and understand later. For those reasons, I urge all members of this House to support these amendments. I urge the House to reject this shortcut, protect Parliament's role and allow Bill C‑30 to receive the scrutiny it deserves.

Mr. Speaker, actually, all I need to do is look at what happened in this House with Bill C‑3. It is a bill that went to committee. The committee treated it seriously and amended it. The bill came back to the House, and the government showed what it thought of committees. It rejected all of the amendments and used its majority to ram it through. Now we have a situation where there are advertisements in the United States, with companies saying, “You can find a connection to Canada.” We are going to have a big backlog. Americans are suddenly discovering that we have the health care and the country they want. I do not even know what to say. The government does not respect the parliamentary process or committees, and it is going to have unintended consequences.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I brought up two examples in my speech, and here is another one. There is so much substance in this bill to consider. There are recommendations. There are experts whom we need to hear from, but we will not have the opportunity to do that. As every member on the opposition side has made the point, over and over again, that this is a bill that requires more scrutiny and more consideration, the government members have stood up and accused us of all kinds of things in order to ram their bill through.

Mr. Speaker, I was in committee when the first vote happened after the government received its majority. Members can look at the tapes. I sat there and said, “We are going to go upstairs, and when we come back down here, the government is going to use its majority to end the conversation in this committee,” and that is exactly what it did. This is not a government that is starting conversations. It is a government that is ending conversations.

Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have risen just this week to talk about why the government's inability to plan a legislative agenda should not become an emergency in the House. This is yet another move toward time allocation. I want to remind everyone in the House that the rush the Liberals did with Bill C-3, when they rammed it through the House and undid the amendments that were done at committee, showing a disrespect for the committee process, led to unintended consequences, creating a large document backlog, confusion for families and a very broad path to citizenship for people with a limited connection to Canada. I see another bill and another set of unintended consequences, and we have gotten so much mail about this. I would like the member to explain yet again why we cannot take the time to properly consider this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, all members in the House want to combat anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and hate in all of its forms. Our concern is that the bill is performative and that it is more words in a space where there are already too many words. I would like to know if the minister can tell me who can be arrested the day after Bill C-9 passes who cannot be arrested today and that it is going to result in the elimination of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and hate, which he says is going to happen when the bill passes.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asked a serious question and she deserves a serious answer. The position of Canada's independent ombudsman for responsible enterprise has sat vacant for a year. Open cases have stalled, and as a result, victims of modern slavery and exploitation are blocked from justice. Can the minister tell then House the date for when this important position will be filled, and by whom?

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the chance to finish my remarks about Bill C-265, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act regarding a list of therapeutic products pre-approved for special access. In the interregnum between the first and second half of my remarks, members of my community sought me out to discuss how the bill would apply in complex cases. They reminded me of some things that should be considered at committee. First, we should avoid loopholes that could unintentionally weaken Canada's drug approval framework or allow inappropriate products to bypass proper scrutiny. Parliament should closely examine how products would qualify for inclusion on the proposed pre-approved list. While the bill references foreign approvals and clinical evidence, committee members should ensure that those standards are clearly defined and appropriately rigorous. Committee members should also study how oversight would function once a product is granted special access. If adverse outcomes occur, what reporting mechanisms would exist? How would Health Canada monitor safety data? Would there be transparency requirements so that Canadians can understand how these decisions are being made? Those are all reasonable questions. Another issue that deserves scrutiny is whether pharmaceutical companies could exploit the system in unintended ways. Compassionate access programs should exist for patients, not as alternative market entry strategies for manufacturers seeking to avoid the normal approval process. Parliament should ensure that the bill would not inadvertently create incentives for companies to delay seeking full Canadian approval while still gaining widespread access through an expedited pathway. Likewise, safeguards should ensure that access remains focused on exceptional circumstances involving serious or life-threatening conditions where comparable approved Canadian therapies do not exist. Clinical judgment really matters in medicine, and I appreciate that the bill acknowledges the role that physicians play in emergency decision-making. However, clear guardrails would still be necessary to maintain public confidence and consistent application across the country. We should also acknowledge that access alone does not solve every problem. Many advanced therapies are extremely expensive. Some treatments for rare diseases cost hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars annually. Families already struggling emotionally should not be left facing impossible financial uncertainty after finally obtaining access to therapy. That broader conversation around affordability, provincial coverage and rare disease strategy must continue alongside the bill. One thing I hope we can all agree on is that Canadians facing devastating diagnoses should not feel abandoned by their health care system. At the same time, Canadians also expect Parliament to proceed carefully when it comes to medical safety and regulatory oversight. Those principles are not in conflict. Committee work exists precisely for bills like this one. It allows Parliament to hear from physicians, rare disease advocates, pharmacologists, regulators, patient groups, ethicists and health care administrators. It allows members to test assumptions, identify weaknesses and strengthen legislation before it advances further. It also allows parliamentarians to hear from patients. Perhaps committee study will reveal areas where the bill should be amended. Perhaps stronger oversight mechanisms will be needed. Perhaps definitions will need tightening to prevent unintended consequences. That is not a flaw in the legislative process. That is the legislative process working as it should. I also believe that Canadians are increasingly frustrated when Parliament simply shuts down debate at the outset rather than engaging constructively with proposals that may have merit. I think we will see some of that shutting down today on other matters. We should be willing to study good-faith ideas seriously, especially when they concern patients facing life-threatening illnesses. In closing, this is an issue that Parliament should be willing to study seriously, because if we can respond and reduce delays in a responsible manner, especially for cases that are exceptional, and empower physicians while maintaining strong safeguards, then Canadians will thank us.

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary explained in her very clear speech, Bill C-25 would create new rules around knowingly false or misleading election information. I have been doing some reading because the Prime Minister is a fan of Václav Havel. I learned that his first full-length play that was ever publicly performed is quite relevant to this debate. It is entitled The Garden Party. It warns us about systems where official language becomes so polished and circular that people stop asking what is actually true, and people become sort of fluent in a kind of nonsense. I am wondering if the member could elaborate on the exact guardrails that she would support to make sure the bill targets deception and—

Mr. Speaker, among other things that I am continuing in my speech from the other day, Bill C-20 aspires to help Canadians build more homes faster and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing sector. That goal matters deeply in communities such as Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Across the mid-island, families are facing the same housing pressures we see across the country. Young people are wondering whether they will ever be able to afford a home, seniors are looking for options that allow them to downsize while staying close to family and workers are struggling to live near the jobs that keep our communities running. We agree that we cannot meet that challenge with old thinking alone. We need to build differently, build faster and make use of better and new methods and Canadian standards, as well as local business that are already doing the work. The mid-island did not wait for legislation. We know we cannot rely on the government to solve our problems for us. Local innovators have already risen to the occasion to make the mid-island an emerging hub for modular and innovative construction. I recently toured Cueva Homes, which is headquartered in Nanaimo. There, I saw exactly the kind of practical innovation this country needs. Cueva Homes is focused on modular homes, backyard suites, ADUs and smaller housing options that can help communities add supply without changing the character of every neighbourhood. The folks at Cueva Homes are ready to go. These are real homes designed for real lots, and they are built with the kind of efficiency that could help address the housing shortage. They are especially well suited for communities like ours, where many families need options for aging parents, adult children, renters and first-time buyers. Cueva Homes' work also shows why standards matter. When homes are CSA-compliant, even if they are fabricated abroad with a significant proportion of local materials exported from the island for that purpose, communities can have confidence that innovation is not coming at the expense of safety, quality or code compliance. That should be central to the purpose of Bill C-20. I also want to recognize Wescon Doors, another Vancouver Island business contributing to this same housing ecosystem. Wescon manufactures doors built for our climate and to meet applicable Canadian standards. Businesses like Wescon Doors remind us that housing innovation is not only about the finished home, but also about the local supply chain, components, skilled workers and manufacturers that make faster, better building possible. If Bill C-20 is truly about supporting innovative and efficient building techniques, then the government must recognize communities such as ours. We already have businesses working in modular housing, prefabricated systems with high-quality components and climate-appropriate construction. The opportunity now is to connect federal policy with local capacity. Nanaimo—Ladysmith is ready to be part of that solution

Mr. Speaker, for his benefit, I would like to share with the member opposite what I am hearing on the ground. We are also concerned about the fact that there are multiple bureaucracies already in place. We are very concerned about Build Canada Homes and making sure that it does not become another Ottawa-driven program that overlooks the builders and manufacturers already solving problems on the ground in communities such as mine. We would like a commitment from the government that it will help and support practical, CSA-compliant, scalable solutions such as those found in our communities.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question, because just last night in my community, our local city council was holding a special meeting about the need for sober housing specifically. All kinds of housing in our communities came up. The provinces, especially provinces like mine, are really struggling in the context of this economy. Of course, this means that municipalities are struggling as well. If the government is going to allocate funds toward housing, it really needs to work harder to address those issues in communities like Nanaimo—Ladysmith and beyond.

Mr. Speaker, if the member believes market housing is working well in Nanaimo, he really does not understand British Columbia. We are the missing middle. We have the missing market housing and the missing supportive housing. We are in the throes of an addictions crisis. Last night, we heard testimony about how hard it is for someone to resist the lures of addiction when they are down, homeless and sleeping on the street. That question was an insult to my communities.

Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up, my childhood home backed onto a ravine. It sat near the end of a long street, with no houses for the first few hundred metres. In the winter, I would get off the bus in the dark and walk that stretch home alone. As a teenager, every sound felt sharp and every shadow felt close, because I knew, thanks to the nightly news, that there was a man out there attacking girls like me. They called him the “Scarborough Rapist.” I lived in North York, but the ravines are all connected. I was terrified, even as I tried not to show it. I learned to be careful, to hurry home, to put my key between my fingers, to watch behind me and to never assume that I was safe. Paul Bernardo never touched me. I never met him. However, he was truly one of the monsters of my childhood. His heinous crimes destroyed families and changed the way a generation of girls moved through the world. He taught us fear before we even had the words to explain it. If my heart rate goes up and if my stomach tightens when I think of Paul Bernardo in a medium-security prison, I cannot imagine how the families of the young women and girls he raped, tortured and murdered feel about it. For them, this is not an abstract fear. It is a gaping wound that never closes. Today, I rise in strong support of Bill C-232, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, brought forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake. This bill is clear, modest and necessary. It says that when an offender has been found by a court to be a dangerous offender or when an offender has been convicted of more than one first-degree murder, that person will be classified as maximum security and will remain in a maximum-security penitentiary or a maximum-security area of the penitentiary. This should not be controversial. In fact, most Canadians I speak to are shocked to learn that it is not already the law. It would have been, except that in 2019, these Liberals passed Bill C-83, which legally requires Correctional Service Canada to place an inmate in the penitentiary that provides the least restrictive environment for that person. While CSC can consider the offender's current institutional behaviour, escape risk, public safety risk if they escape and program participation, it cannot ask whether an offender's crimes are so monstrous that maximum security should be permanent. If the offender behaves in prison, they are assessed as manageable. If officials conclude they do not currently need maximum control, they can be reclassified. That is how a person can commit the most horrific crimes imaginable and still be moved down to medium security. CSC did not violate the law when it moved Paul Bernardo to medium security. Following public outrage over Mr. Bernardo's transfer, a review concluded the transfer was sound, and followed both law and policy. That means that law and policy are the problem here. We have to be honest about what prison behaviour can and cannot tell us. Often, the most dangerous offenders are not dangerous because they cannot control themselves; they are dangerous because they can. They can be patient, they can be charming and they can follow rules when it benefits them. We have heard all of this at committee. A clean institutional record does not erase sadism, predation or the court's finding that a person is a dangerous offender, but it can get the move to medium security. For victims' families, this is unbearable. These families sit through trials, they hear the evidence, they mourn daughters, sisters and friends, and they learn how they were tortured, raped and killed. They live with a life sentence of grief. They cannot unhear what they hear in those courtrooms. Then they learn that the offender has been moved to a lower-security institution, because the focus has shifted from the horror of the offence to the offender's current institutional score. That is not justice, as most Canadians understand it. Let us be clear about what maximum security means here. It is not about revenge, and it is not cruelty or a rejection of basic human rights. It is a recognition that some offenders have crossed a line so grave that public safety, public confidence and respect for victims demand it. A dangerous offender designation is one of the most serious findings a Canadian court can make. It is reserved for offenders who have shown a pattern of serious violence, sexual violence or conduct so brutal that they pose an ongoing threat to the public. Likewise, first-degree murder is planned and deliberate, and it falls into the most serious categories of homicide known in our laws. A person convicted of more than one first-degree murder has not made a tragic mistake. That person has taken multiple lives with intent. Bill C-232 would draw an important line that says dangerous offenders and offenders convicted of more than one first-degree murder must be assigned a maximum-security classification and they must be confined in a maximum-security penitentiary or a maximum-security area of a penitentiary. It would ensure that these offenders are not eligible for unescorted temporary absences. This bill would clearly tell Correctional Service Canada that for a very narrow class of the worst offenders, including household names such as Bernardo, Magnotta and Smich, maximum security is not optional; it is mandatory. Since being elected, I have spent more time than I ever thought I would with grieving families. I am stunned by the scope and scale of violence against women and girls in this country. I had no idea of the extent to which the Liberal government had tipped the scales in favour of offenders, leaving victims and their families to be traumatized and retraumatized. I am against telling women and girls, or their families, that the people who terrorized them, hunted them, raped them or murdered them can one day be managed in a less restrictive environment because enough time has passed or they are playing well with others behind bars. I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake for bringing this bill forward. He has done something important. He has taken the outrage that Canadians feel over cases like those of Bernardo, Magnotta and Smich, who, to the best of my knowledge, all remain in medium-security correctional environments today, and turned it into a practical, legal response. That is what we were sent here to do. Just this weekend, while at home, I met with a woman who spoke to me about violence, fear and the need for leaders to take domestic violence and violence against children and women seriously. I made her a promise that I would stand up in this place, use my voice and not allow these issues to be softened, buried or explained away by bureaucratic language and fancy legal concepts. Today, by supporting Bill C-232, I am keeping that promise, because violence against women is not an abstraction and violence against children is not a talking point. These are wounds carried by families, communities and survivors who need to know that people in this place are prepared to act. Bill C-232 would not undo the evil committed by Bernardo, Smich, Magnotta and others, whose names Canadians invoke with horror, nor would it bring back Leslie Mahaffy, Kristen French, Laura Babcock, Tim Bosma, Jun Lin or any other victim, but it would say that some crimes are so grave and some offenders are so dangerous that maximum security means maximum security. It would also say to every woman, parent, survivor and grieving family watching this debate that their fear is not irrational, their grief is not forgotten and their Parliament has a duty to stand with them. I urge every member of the House to support Bill C-232.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to forced sterilization procedures. This is a short bill, but it deals with a grave wrong. It speaks to bodily autonomy, consent, human dignity, the equal worth of every person and the duty of the state to protect those who have been harmed by the systems that should have protected them. Bill S-228 would amend the Criminal Code to make it crystal clear that a sterilization procedure performed without consent is an act that “wounds or maims a person” for the purpose of an aggravated assault. It would also define what is meant by a “sterilization procedure”, including any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction. At first glance, some may ask why this change is needed. We already have laws against assault. We already have rules around consent in health care. We already have medical standards and professional oversight. However, the painful truth is that those protections have not always protected people equally. They have not always been clear enough. They have not always been enforced. For too many women, especially indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities and others in vulnerable situations, the promise of protection and the promise of consent have been broken in this country. A forced or coerced sterilization is not a minor medical error. It is not a paperwork problem. It is a profound violation of the person. It takes away from someone the ability to make one of the most personal decisions they will ever make in their life. It will affect their body, their mind, their family, their culture and their future. It is a harm that can last for generations. There is a saying in my own culture that when a person saves a life, it is as if they have saved the entire world. The corollary to that is that a person who prevents someone from making a life is preventing them from creating an entire world. No one should be pressured into giving up the ability to have children. No one should be asked for consent while they are in pain, in fear, under the effects medication, in labour or under the control of a person in authority. No one should be treated as though their poverty, identity, disability, race, age, family situation or social standing makes them less worthy of respect. Consent that is forced is not consent, no matter the situation. Consent that is coerced is not consent. Consent given without proper information is not consent. If someone has to ask why we need a bill like this in 2026, they are lucky. They are lucky to not know someone who has been in this situation. They are lucky not to have experienced this in their community. This bill is about drawing a clear line in federal criminal law. It would tell survivors that Parliament sees them. It would tell the health care system that vague language is not enough. It would tell prosecutors, the police, professional bodies and institutions that this is not a grey area and this is not a decision to be made on the fly. This is not something that someone can do because they think it is best in the circumstances. It is violence and it is a violation, and we will have a law in this country that makes it clear that it is to be treated as such. I want to recognize Senator Yvonne Boyer and everyone who has made it possible for all of us who have spoken this morning to stand in this House today to make it clear that this is not just something that Canada recognizes, but something that we will take concrete steps to prevent in the future. Everyone in this House believes in the dignity of the person. We believe in personal freedom, but freedom is not real when a person's body can be controlled by someone else. We believe in accountability, but accountability is not real when the people who commit or enable serious harm to another human being in this country face no clear consequences. We believe in equal justice under the law, but justice is not equal when vulnerable people are less likely to be heard, believed or protected. We have an opportunity in the House today to do the right thing, not just for past generations, but for future generations and for those who are still suffering today with the burden of having had those experiences. The history behind this bill is hard to face. Canada has had a long record of forced and coerced sterilization, often tied to racism, eugenics, colonization and the idea that some lives are less vulnerable than others. Those ideas were not harmless theories. They shaped policies, institutions and medical practices. They harmed first nations, Métis, Inuit and other indigenous peoples in this country. They harmed Black and racialized women. They harmed people with disabilities, people living in poverty and people who were placed in institutions and stripped of control in their own lives. By acknowledging these wrongs in the House, by putting them into the record of this place to be read and seen by future generations, we do not make Canada weaker; we make Canada stronger. We must also be honest about the fact that this is not only history. Survivors have come forward in recent years. They have spoken about being pressured in their most vulnerable moments. They have spoken of procedures that they did not understand, did not freely choose and did not consent to. They have also spoken of the shame, grief, fear, distrust and deep injury that has come with that. That is a second, additional injury that we have done to those people in this country, on top of the forced sterilization they had to endure without their consent. Many have had to carry that pain in silence, so all who speak to this bill in the House this morning lend our voices to them. We want to make sure they know that they do not have to suffer in silence, but even when they have to suffer in silence, we in this place will suffer with them. When survivors share these stories, our first duty is to listen, but our second duty is to act. Bill S-228 would not fix every harm in this country, but it is a start. Criminal law is a tool. Health care is, of course, largely within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Professional regulation belongs to colleges and licensing bodies. Hospitals, health authorities, medical schools and governments all have work to do. There must be better training on informed consent. There must be cultural safety. There must be clear reporting pathways. What we have done this morning in the House, and what my colleagues have done with Bill S-228, is a start. We have made a powerful pronouncement about what is to be tolerated in this country. Hopefully, in doing that, we will not only make sure that these atrocities do not happen to future generations but bring comfort to the people who have come to this place to advocate for the bill, letting them know that their advocacy, their actions, the things they have done and the messages they have brought to this place have been heard, that their sacrifices and the things they have done matter and that they have been a part of the solution for future generations. I urge every member of the House to stand with survivors and with those who were never able to be born, today and always, through this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a lot of expertise in the area of trade. I, of course, come from a riding and a place in this country that is heavily dependent on resources, on trade, on forestry and on north-south exports and imports. Unemployment in my riding is now at 8.5%. I wonder if the member could talk about how the economy is not being felt the same in different parts of the country and, perhaps, explain to the members opposite why their economic policies are hurting ridings like mine in particular.

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members are great at defending the provinces in the House. I think I heard my colleague say that he thinks the federal government's only role in housing should be to transfer money to the provinces. If that is the case, then what would he do with existing federal agencies, like CMHC? Does he think that the federal government should get out of the housing business altogether?

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that my colleague has taken the time to talk about the importance of having targets, measures and accountability in bills, and also about how important it is to have different kinds of housing. I know that the member comes from Vancouver East, which is, like my riding, suffering very much from the addictions crisis. I am wondering if the member could talk about the importance of having sober housing in this environment.

Madam Speaker, as the member pointed out in her speech, there is already the CMHC. Ottawa does not lack agencies with housing powers. On top of that, there is also the Canada Lands Company, which already has the power to develop federal land. There is Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which already manages federal housing funding and agreements. There is the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which already has the power to finance infrastructure that unlocks housing. The last time I checked, it was a minister's job to knit all of that together and to find co-operation, so I am as baffled as she is that there is yet another Crown corporation being created. I wonder whether or not the issue here might be the minister.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to housing, bureaucrats count starts. They count units. They count dollars. They count funds, programs, agencies and promises, but in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we count something different. We count the months our adult children have been living in the spare room because rent has eaten the down payment they were trying to save for. We count the number of graduates who cannot find a job that pays enough to cover rent. We count the number of people with no home at all as we pass them on the way to work. Before I forget, I will be splitting my time. On a more serious note, we count the graves of friends lost to addiction, the treatment beds that are not there, and the people who make it through detox only to be sent back to the same chaos they were trying to escape. We continue to measure the distance between the government's language and our reality. That distance is the distance between a young person with a diploma and a job and having no real path to owning a home in the community they grew up in. It is the distance between a person who is coming out of detox trying to stay clean and housing where drug use is not happening down the hall. Those are not separate crises. They are part of the same failure of government. We have lost the link between housing and hope. Canada does not lack for housing announcements. In the last decade, we have had strategies, accelerators, funds, agencies, accords and photo ops, including some that have their own complete purpose-built backdrop. What we do not have is enough homes that people can afford. In Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we do not have enough of the right homes for people who are trying to rebuild their lives. Now we have Bill C-20, which would create Build Canada Homes to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing. From the speeches, it sounds ambitious. The question is whether it will be useful once the media has packed up and gone home and the sets have been dismantled. All this bill does is create the skeleton. It creates the framework and the corporation itself. The government is presenting Build Canada Homes as a generational housing investment, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it will only have a modest impact. The headline number is $13 billion, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the actual planned spend is $7.3 billion over five years on an accrual basis. The projected result is about 26,000 homes over five years, or roughly 5,200 homes a year across the entire country. This would increase housing completions by only 2.1% above the baseline and address just 3.7% of the estimated housing gap. Even with Build Canada Homes included, planned federal housing spending is set to fall by 56%, from $9.8 billion in 2025-26 to $4.3 billion in 2028-29. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has put the scale of the new housing gap plainly: Canada needs 3.2 million net new housing units by 2035, which means an average of 290,000 units a year for a decade. The PBO also warned that this would still not fully solve affordability in every region, because income, interest rates, regional gaps and the kind of housing built all matter, as my colleagues have pointed out in their speeches. That last point matters the most to growing communities like mine, because we do not just need more housing; we need the right housing in the right places for the people who need it. Housing experts have made this same point over and over again. Mike Moffatt's report says, “Canada needs to build millions more homes, but not just any homes.” They have to be homes built for today's needs, and getting there is going to require bolder reforms, in our opinion, than those that have been put forward so far. Bill C-20 would not speed up local approvals. It would not give our provinces and municipalities the infrastructure they need. It would not service land, and it would not set binding targets for how many homes will be completed by when, for whom, at what price. What Bill C-20 would do is create another federal bureaucracy on top of at least four others in this space. There is CMHC, which already has the power to finance housing, lend, guarantee loans, invest and run federal housing programs. The Canada Lands Company already has the power to develop federal land. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada already manages federal housing funding and agreements. The Canada Infrastructure Bank already has the power to finance infrastructure that unlocks housing. In other words, the functions are already there, and Ottawa does not lack agencies with housing powers. What it lacks is results. Building another bureaucracy means time spent setting it up. Offices need to be set up, executives hired, mandates written, files moved around and programs reorganized, and that is time and money that could be spent getting homes built. That is the problem. The government is using language that Canadians want to hear, but the structure does not match the urgency of the moment. Young Canadians understand this instinctively. We tell them to study, work, save and be patient. Then they graduate into a labour market where entry-level jobs are harder and harder to find, where rent consumes too much of their income and where ownership feels less like a goal than a memory from someone else's Canada. This week, a recent software engineering graduate came to a committee of the House to say that he could still not find entry-level work in his field. When asked whether he was working, he said yes, but not as a software engineer. The Liberal MP's reply was, “At least you're employed.” That answer reveals something deeper than one exchange. It shows a government that has lowered the bar. I will continue my speech when the House resumes next week.