Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from dozens of Canadians in support of Bill C-218, which is commonly referred to as the right to recover act. The petitioners recognize that the Canadian government intends to expand medical assistance in dying to individuals whose sole medical condition is mental illness. They also recognize that mental illness is treatable and curable. The experts have acknowledged that there is no way to determine when mental illness is irremediable. The petitioners are asking the government to not proceed with its intention to make mental illness a sole underlying condition for the expansion of MAID. They would like all parliamentarians to support Bill C-218, which would permanently remove that possibility from being considered.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are losing sleep because of the Prime Minister. A new United Way report confirms that 40% say they lie awake, worrying how to stretch their paycheque to pay for food, gas and housing. While Canadians are awake with anxiety, these Liberals are asleep at the wheel, refusing to acknowledge that they have driven Canada into the only recession in the G20. Canadians carry the stress and lose the sleep while the Liberals keep hitting the snooze button on the consequences. Will the Prime Minister wake up and reverse his costly policies that are keeping Canadians awake at night?

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Just like he manufactured a Liberal majority government, he has now manufactured a full-blown Liberal recession. Instead of building the second-fastest growing economy he promised, he has actually shrunk it. All of this is from the same Prime Minister who described himself as the best person equipped to manage an economic crisis. In any other industry, that alone would call for a performance review. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just reported that there is only a 1% chance the government will meet and maintain its fiscal anchor of shrinking the deficit. Canada now has the highest household debt, the worst housing costs and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Excuses simply do not cut it for children with empty stomachs, moms with empty grocery carts and parents with hollow bank accounts. The Liberals need to admit their policies have failed, reverse course and position Canada for the win. It is time to get Canada back on track.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her excellent analysis of the situation we find ourselves in here in Canada, where the Liberals, and the Prime Minister in particular, refuse to acknowledge the data provided by Stats Canada that we are in a recession and are the only country in the G7 in a recession. I am wondering if the member has any thoughts on why the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues refuse to admit the seriousness of our financial situation here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in recognizing that there is an affordability crisis and that Canadians need relief. It would certainly provide a lot of relief to almost every single Canadian family to have the price of gas reduced by the amount of taxes being charged by the Liberal government. We cannot control global oil prices, so those profits with the oil companies would be there. However, they are also going to generate a lot of corporate taxes to the federal government, which would offset the loss from reducing the excise tax, the GST and the industrial carbon tax on the price of fuel. Would the member agree with me that this would be a good start?

Mr. Speaker, it sure did not take long for the Liberals to show their true character. Time allocation and closure motions are the kind of stuff we do when we want to ram things through without proper debate. I know my constituents expect me to come here and to thoroughly debate every single piece of legislation, to ensure that every avenue has been explored. They expect that we go down every rabbit hole and that we know what we are ending up with is a product we can all be pleased with. I think the justice system needs to be modernized. This has become clear at committee. I think it would be prudent for us to make sure we listen to the survivors and victims of the sexual abuse that has happened in the military to make sure this act really represents the justice they deserve. Has the minister personally met with any of the victims or survivors of sexual abuse in the military?

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-276, An Act to establish a framework for the continued access to and use of cash in Canada and to make related amendments to other Acts. Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to introduce the bill that would establish a national framework to protect Canadians' ability to access and use physical cash and to ensure that no central bank digital currency can be created without the express authorization of Parliament. In recent years, digital transactions have grown rapidly, but millions of Canadians still depend on cash for daily life. Seniors, indigenous communities, newcomers, people living in poverty, those in remote rural regions and victims of financial or domestic abuse rely on cash because it is accessible, reliable and safe. Cash is the only form of payment that does not depend on Internet or the electrical grid. Cash does not fail. It works every time in every circumstance for every person. The framework this bill would establish would ensure that cash infrastructure remains resilient. Cash protects privacy at a time when government, corporate and financial sector data collection is expanding dramatically. It is also the only truly anonymous payment method. This bill would amend the Bank of Canada Act to require parliamentary approval before a central bank digital currency could be developed or issued. This legislation would ensure that future digital systems remain optional, not forced, and that Canadians retain control over their own finances. It would protect privacy, strengthen resilience and defend those who depend on physical currency. I am proud to introduce this framework on the access to and the use of cash. I urge all members to support it. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, today, I congratulate an extraordinary team from Provencher, the Niverville Nighthawks, on capturing the Manitoba Junior Hockey League championship. In just its fourth season, the Nighthawks achieved a record-setting 51‑6‑1 regular season and established itself as one of the most dominant teams in league history. It carried that success through the playoffs, defeating the Virden Oil Caps to capture the Turnbull Cup and become MJHL champions. The accomplishment is the result of a team effort, highlighted by exceptional individual performances and leadership throughout the organization. Goaltender Austin Dubinsky was named playoff MVP, Captain Adam Vigfusson led by example, Merik Boles was recognized with the top sportsmanship award and Coach Dwight Hirst was named coach of the year. Now the team will represent Manitoba at the Centennial Cup in Prince Edward Island, competing against the best junior A teams from across Canada. On behalf of the House, I congratulate the Niverville Nighthawks on its incredible achievement and wish the team continued success as it pursues a national championship. Go, Nighthawks.

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in life when one looks back and says, “I could have. I would have. I should have.” We just could be at one of those moments. The Liberal government is only cancelling a third of the gas tax and for only a third of the year. Canadians do not want to get fooled; they want to get fuelled. Inflation is hurting, and the government can make the right decision to change that. Removing the full 25¢-per-litre of gas taxes could help families get to their child's activities, drive to work and pick up groceries. Conservatives want a country where Canadians do not have to choose between a full grocery cart and a full tank of gas. Removing all the taxes on gas and diesel for the rest of the year would save the average Canadian family $1,200 per year. That is a huge amount. Let us not look back on this moment with regret. The Liberals must seize the moment, take our Conservative plan and provide real relief for Canadians today.

Mr. Speaker, this is incredibly shameful. What we are seeing here is the Liberal government, immediately upon swearing in three new members today, calling for a closure motion on a very important debate that Canadians expect this Parliament to hold. The Liberals were not given a majority by Canadians. They stole a majority. Now, they are immediately abusing the power of a majority government to bring in this motion to give themselves a supermajority at committees so that they can ram through their legislation without proper debate. Canadians expect more from this Parliament than what the Liberals are offering today, and presenting a motion of closure is just inappropriate at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member highlighted a lot of areas. We know that with the stolen seats that the Liberals recently acquired from opposition members, they now have 50.8% of the seats in this House. What they are trying to do with this motion is acquire 58.3% of the seats in committees. That is actually very unreasonable. They are looking to have seven out of 12 members be Liberal members. Why would they not be happy with six out of 11? If the Liberals are so bent on having control of the voting, why do they not give up the chairmanship of those committees? Then they could have control of the votes. Would that not make them happy, if they had maybe 54% of the representation instead of 58%?

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the parliamentary secretary's speech. He talked about the rising cost of oil on the global markets and how that is affecting the price of gas and diesel fuel here. What he did not say is that when the price of fuel rises, the amount of taxes charged on that fuel also increases significantly. He did not talk about the $10 billion in extra revenue that the Liberal government is going to be realizing on the increased pricing. Yesterday, I asked the Prime Minister if he would consider four things: removing the federal excise tax on gas and diesel, removing the fuel standard tax, removing the industrial carbon tax and removing the GST for the balance of the year. That would have put $5 billion back into the pockets of Canadians at 25¢ a litre. The Prime Minister has only gone part of that way, with 10¢ a litre on gas and four cents a litre on diesel fuel. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me why the government is only putting that measure in until September—

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are pinching pennies as the Liberal government continues to pinch Canadians. Canadian families are struggling while the Liberal government is taking in cash every time Canadians fill up their gas tanks. Fuel prices have skyrocketed, and the Liberals stand to collect almost $10 billion in additional revenue because Canadians have to pay more at the pumps. Yesterday, when asked how he would help Canadians facing rising gas prices, the Prime Minister said he was still “looking” at it. Canadians do not need any more studying, waiting or another MOU. They need relief right now. Here is an idea for the Prime Minister: suspend all federal taxes on gas and diesel until the end of 2026, remove the fuel excise tax, permanently scrap the industrial carbon and clean fuel standard taxes, and eliminate the GST on fuel. Ending those four taxes would save almost 25¢ a litre, saving Canadian families roughly 20 bucks every time they fill up the tank. Canadians have been sacrificing long enough under the Liberal government. Suspend the fuel taxes, give Canadians—

Mr. Speaker, I also bring forward a petition addressing Bill C-9, which will be voted on later today. The petitioning Canadian citizens wish to bring to the attention of the government the fact that the Liberals have proposed removing from the Criminal Code safeguards that protect good-faith expressions of sincerely held religious beliefs, including those based on religious texts like the Bible, the Quran or the Torah. Canadians share the Liberals' desire to combat acts that propagate and normalize hate, but the proposal would not achieve that goal and would instead result in the persecution of people who hold and express in good faith sincerely held religious beliefs. Violence and threats are by definition excluded from the scope of that protection for freedom of expression and could never be expressed in good faith. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms worthy of protection and promotion, not persecution. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to withdraw this proposal and oppose any similar proposals in the future, and to protect and promote the religious freedoms of all Canadians, uphold their right to read and share sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into all matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from dozens of Canadians who are concerned about mental illness and recognize that mental illness is a serious and real illness, but who are calling on the House to support Bill C-218, which would reverse the law extending eligibility for MAID to people with mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition. They believe that mental illness should be treated and not given a death sentence.

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North, early in his speech, confirm to the House and Canadians that the auto pact plan, presented by the Conservatives through the member for Dufferin—Caledon and the leader of the official opposition, holds water. Those were the words he spoke. We know the plan that the Liberals have been following does not hold water. We have seen more and more plant closures and increased unemployment in the auto industry. Other than the comment of the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek about waiting to see what happens, does the member have any other plan for the auto industry here in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House to give my thoughts on Bill C-9. Hate, threats and intimidation are real. The issue is not whether hate exists, because it does. As a Christian, I condemn it. The issue is the Liberals using Bill C-9 to criminalize lawful speech, emotion and expression, sincerely held religious beliefs and ordinary public discourse. That is what this bill is attempting to do and it is what is at stake in this bill. Bill C-9 would give the government more power over freedom of speech and expression. It would hand a small, elite group of politicians, prosecutors and activists more power to decide which views held by ordinary Canadians are acceptable and which words should trigger criminal investigations. This should concern every single member of the House. This bill would move criminal law away from punishing clear criminal acts to punishing contested ideas, alleged motives and beliefs that are at odds with the political agenda of the government. It would put the sincerely held religious beliefs of Canadians in the crosshairs, which are beliefs held by many Canadians today and by most Canadians throughout history. Violence against Christians is real. When churches are burned, schools are no longer safe and community spaces are targeted, Canadians expect the law to respond and Parliament to speak clearly. The Liberal government has not done that. Many Canadians were stunned that the House could not unanimously condemn church burnings and attacks on religious freedom. Since 2021, there have been more than 100 churches in Canada burned, vandalized or desecrated. Canadians saw it happen. The Liberal government also saw it happen, but it was silent, “crickets”. Before Liberals begin lecturing Canadians about hate, they should explain why they have been so weak when Christian communities have been attacked in this country. Canadians do not have to guess where this bill is going because the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture already said it plainly. When he was the chair at the justice committee studying this bill, he said that books in the Bible, “Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans” were books of “clear hatred” and there “should perhaps be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.” Those are serious words. What does Romans actually say? Romans is a book in the New Testament of the Holy Bible that was written by the Apostle Paul. We have to understand that Paul was born a Jew. He was raised and educated in strict Jewish observance of laws, practices and theology, then he had an experience with Jesus and became a Christian. He gave his life to Jesus Christ through faith in him. The central theme of Romans, a book that Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, is the gospel of the revelation of God's righteousness, offering salvation to everyone who believes, regardless of Jewish or gentile background. It focuses on justification by faith alone, the universal need for salvation due to sin and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

Mr. Speaker, when I left off before question period, I was talking about a comment that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture made at committee. He said that books from the Holy Bible, such as Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Romans, would be considered hate language. We were just diving into Romans and found out that the author was the apostle Paul, who was raised as a Jew in the strict sect of the Pharisees. He had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus and became a follower of Jesus. He also wrote many of the books in the Gospel of the New Testament. It is in that sense that we take a deeper look at Romans to see exactly what the minister might mean by “hate language”. We are going to start with what is known as the Romans road, which begins in Romans, chapter 3, verse 10, where it says, “As it is written: ‘There is none righteous, not even one...’”. A few verses later, it says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”. That talks about all of us. We have all sinned, and we know that. Then Romans, chapter 5, verse 8, says, “But God demonstrates his own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” As for the posture in which Christ died, we are going to be celebrating that at Easter. It was on a cross with his arms stretched out, the posture of invitation, that he said, “Come to me. I have the answer for all your sins and your brokenness.” That is how he died. The next one is found in Romans 10, verse 9, where it says, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” It is followed up a few verses later with the assurance that whoever calls on the name of Jesus will be saved. That does not sound like hate language to me. That sounds like God's love language. When a Liberal member says passages from the Bible are clearly hateful, that perhaps that should not be available as a defence and that prosecutors should perhaps have discretion to press criminal charges, Canadians need to pay attention. It tells us a great deal about how the government is approaching speech, religion and criminal law. He was not talking about violent criminals. He was talking about the Holy Bible, scriptures that are inscribed and embedded into the architecture of Parliament, that have guided parliamentarians for the past 158 years. These scriptures have shaped our country and guided generations of Canadians; most Canadians still believe them today. That is why this matters so much. Once politicians start treating protected religious expression, because they do not necessarily agree with it, as presumptively hateful, the danger is no longer theoretical. It is immediate, visible and real. If passages from the Bible can be spoken of this way by people shaping criminal law, then this bill reaches into sermons, teaching, public witness and the ordinary expression of religious belief. That is the deeper and greater problem with Bill C-9. It reflects a mindset that treats long-standing religious belief as something criminal. If the Prime Minister disagrees with that mindset, he should stand in this House and clearly condemn the comments from his minister. This would send a clear message to Canadians that he will protect the charter rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion and that he will vote against this amendment. Canadians should never have to fear prosecution for quoting the Bible, teaching its doctrine or discussing scriptures in good faith. The Liberal-Bloc amendment in Bill C-9 would remove the current defence for good-faith religious opinion and opinion based on religious text as hate propaganda. This is not some abstract concern. Christians see exactly what it means. It means the government is willing to look at our faith and our biblical scriptures through the lens of criminality. That is a line we must never cross. Broad speech laws rarely remain limited to the extreme cases used to justify them. They begin there and expand outward into lawful disagreement or contentious public matters. Once the government is given broader power to regulate expression, that power seldom stays confined to real threats, violence or criminal incitement. It starts to extend into ordinary democratic discussion in which Canadians are speaking in good faith about real issues. Canadians should never have to wonder whether taking a clear position on a major public issue could place them under legal suspicion. A free society does not build confidence in the law that way. Parliament should punish actual crimes and protect space for lawful debate on the questions that will determine this country's direction. This is why the bill presents such a clear and serious danger. It goes beyond stopping violent acts. It opens the door for what is lawful expression, religious belief and principled disagreement today to be criminalized. The House should not permit that. Conservatives are not defending violence, threats, intimidation or genocide. Those acts are already crimes. The Criminal Code already bans advocating genocide; it already bans public incitement of hatred likely to lead to a breach of the public peace, and it already bans wilful promotion of hatred. The question before us is not whether real criminal hate should be punished. It already can and should be. The question is whether the Liberal government is using real criminal hatred as a reason to widen the law into speech, belief, emotion and motive. This is what Bill C-9 would do. It would remove safeguards and expand the reach of hate-related offences beyond the law we already have. We have seen, in the U.K. and Australia, that dissenting voices are already being prosecuted. Once governments give themselves broad power over speech and expression, they tend to keep using it. When governments get used to treating speech as a problem to manage, the law starts to move in the wrong direction, and that is why Canadians should pay attention not only to what Bill C-9 says but to where it points. Religious Canadians are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for the continued charter right to live in freedom according to their beliefs without being criminalized by their own government. They are asking to read their scriptures, teach their children, speak plainly in public and worship without fearing their long-held religious convictions. To wrap up, this should not be controversial. It should be the minimum standard in a free country. Conservatives believe that public safety matters. We also believe that Canadians should be free to live in their faith and speak plainly without being treated as criminals for holding traditional beliefs, and that is why Bill C-9 is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, and as Canadians should know, the Liberals made a deal with the Bloc to garner support for the bill. The Bloc had one request: to remove the good-faith religious exemption from the Criminal Code. The Liberals said, “Sure, we'll throw them under the bus. We really don't care. We want this legislation passed. We want to be able to control speech, emotion, thought and dissent, and if it means religious freedom, we'll do that too.” That is what is in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the member is conflating many different thoughts in his question. The minister made it very clear when he was the chairman of the committee that books in the Bible, such as Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Romans, were, in his opinion, hate language. If a pastor or a Sunday school teacher were to teach, in a good-faith way, what is written in those books, then under the removal of that particular protection in the criminal law, such an individual could be criminalized and could be prosecuted for teaching those passages.

Mr. Speaker, my friend has done a phenomenal job on the justice committee of identifying the problems with Bill C-9 and defending not only the Christian faith but all faiths that would be implicated in this legislation. When I look at my community, I do not think there has been a bill or an issue that has had more correspondence directed to me, or to many members in this House on both sides, with constituents' concerns. When we look at how this could impact faith institutions, these are the institutions that began our universities, that began many of our hospitals and that continue to provide many of the social services in our communities, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and visiting people in prison. Those primarily come out of faith institutions that are motivated by their understanding of scripture and the love of God.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government treats inflation as if it were a natural disaster, something it cannot control, when in reality it is a policy it authored. The Liberals are not just watching prices rise; they are actively driving the spike with a tax-and-spend agenda that ignores the reality of the Canadian kitchen table. The industrial carbon tax is a prime example. It is not just another number on a ledger. It is an extra seven cents a litre today, climbing to 17¢. These taxes and red tape hit our farmers, our truckers and our food processors like a man-made storm. Canadians see the carnage at every stage, from the fuel needed to plant the seed, to the final total at the grocery checkout. This affordability crisis was made right here in Ottawa by the members on the other side of the House. They keep pointing south of the border to shift the blame, but they cannot hide the math. Their taxes are making life more expensive. It is time to stop the excuses and put Canadians first. It is time to cut the taxes that fuel inflation. It is time to make decisions that favour our families. Finally, it is time to bring back hope for a better Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully and my Liberal colleague was speaking, at the end of his speech, about the benefits to an organization like Hatch. Who does Hatch work for? Actually, I want to ask a few more questions. When the Prime Minister travels to China, who gets a billion-dollar loan? When the Prime Minister travels to Washington, who gets an $80-billion nuclear contract? When the Prime Minister travels to Europe, who gets a multi-year lease extension? When the Prime Minister travels to India, who gets a $2.6-billion uranium deal? The answer is the same to each one of those questions: Brookfield does. Part of this agreement is preferential access for Brookfield in Indonesia's renewable energy, clean-tech and critical minerals sectors through reduced barriers. Who is the Prime Minister working for, Canada or Brookfield?

Mr. Speaker, in the petition I am presenting today, petitioners are recognizing that the Government of Canada intends to expand medical assistance in dying to individuals whose only medical condition is mental illness. Mental illness is treatable, recovery is possible and experts agree that it is currently impossible to predict when a mental illness is truly irremediable. Expanding MAID in this way risks suggesting that some lives are beyond saving, while many Canadians still struggle to access timely and effective mental health care. The petitioners say that families and communities are concerned that people who would recover through treatment and support may instead lose their life, and they are asking the Government of Canada to pass Bill C-218 to stop the expansion of MAID to people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. I support the petitioners.

Mr. Speaker, I too am hearing overwhelmingly from my constituents the concern they have about Bill C-9, in general on how it attacks free speech and freedom of expression, but specifically about the amendment tabled by the Liberals and the Bloc to remove the exemption for good-faith religious discussion about texts. We have already heard the former chair of the justice committee, now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, cite several books of the Bible as being hate books, and we know that is blatantly false. Many schools and churches in my riding teach the Bible as it is written. What guarantee would there be under this legislation that the professors and teachers in these institutions would not be criminalized?

Mr. Speaker, I am always intrigued by the fact that the Liberals are not really acquainted with the truth at all. The member kept referring to misinformation, disinformation and falsehoods. She knows full well that the very things she described are not anything that this legislation would touch. It is already addressed in the Criminal Code. This would not change any acts of violence or criminal activity. This is about hate speech and hate expression. My religious community and constituents outside of my religious organizations have bombarded me with emails, phone calls and letters asking me not to let this bill move forward, but to oppose it as long as I possibly can. They are not in favour of it, and I would like to see it end.

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians face rising food costs, rising debt and rising house prices. What else is rising? Their fears about their future are. The Liberal government provides only more excuses, more deficits and more broken promises. In my hometown of Steinbach, the price of a single-family home has gone up 8% this past year. This generation should be building wealth, but instead they are falling further behind despite everything they are doing. With millennials squeezed between rising costs and their desire for home ownership, when will the Liberal government finally lower the costs and make living in Canada affordable again?

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say they are trying to help Canadians who need assistance because of the crisis that they have created in this country with affordability. We know that the cost of food and groceries has increased exponentially and that it is creating a real hardship for many Canadian families. Does the member not realize that there is a much simpler way to address the problem than just another social program, and that the problem really could be resolved quite easily if the Liberals would be committed to eliminating the industrial carbon tax, the fuel standard tax and the front-of-package labelling tax, which are costing manufacturers a lot of money and being passed on to the consumer?

Madam Speaker, it is always a privilege to stand and speak in the House on behalf of my constituents. I want to start off by thanking the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his efforts in trying to get this bill at least back to where it was in the previous Parliament, as Bill C-321. We want to recognize the good work that he has done so far, and also that it was unanimously approved by all parties at that time. What is disappointing to me is that it was very clear from the comments made by the member for Winnipeg North that the Liberals are using this piece of legislation as a weapon to get what they want passed as their legislation. It is very unfortunate that it has become partisan like that. A serious country protects those who serve it. The rule of law must be clear and fair, especially when violence is directed at people who show up every day to keep Canadians safe, healthy and alive. Nurses, paramedics and first responders do not choose their moments of risk; they accept them as part of their responsibility to the public. When the law fails to clearly recognize that reality, it sends the wrong message to offenders, victims and the professionals who hold our essential services together. Bill S-233 reflects a Conservative commitment to restoring common sense, accountability and respect for those who stand on the front lines in our communities. It is deliberately narrow: It deals only with assault offences that already exist in the Criminal Code, applies only at the sentencing stage after a person has been found guilty, and applies only to clearly defined victims: people providing health services, including personal care workers and first responders doing their jobs. Bill S-233 directly continues the work of Bill C-321 from the previous Parliament, as I mentioned before. It is back before us because of the prorogation of Parliament, not because Parliament rejected it. That matters, because this bill passed the House of Commons unanimously. The problem that this bill addresses exists across the country and looks the same everywhere. Violence against health care workers and first responders is not limited to one province, one riding or one hospital. Nurses and paramedics report high levels of assaults in emergency rooms, long-term care facilities, community clinics and pre-hospital settings. These are not rare events; they are predictable, recurring parts of frontline work. What is the cause of the crisis faced by our frontline workers? It is a direct result of over a decade of Liberal policies that have weakened bail, normalized repeat violent offending and flooded communities with hard drugs. Liberal catch-and-release bail policies, particularly under Bill C-75, have returned repeat violent offenders to the streets under the least onerous conditions, often within hours or days. These are frequently the same individuals whom police officers, paramedics and emergency room staff encounter again and again, not as one-time offenders but as chronic sources of violence and instability. Through decriminalization experiments and taxpayer-funded hard drug distribution, the Liberal government has enabled an environment in which first responders are routinely dispatched into volatile, unpredictable and violent situations that are driven by severe addiction. First responders now carry naloxone as a daily operational necessity and administer it repeatedly to revive individuals overdosing from fentanyl, often in the same locations and involving the same people. Across Canada, nearly 50,000 people have died from opiate overdoses since 2016, and there has been a 200% increase in yearly deaths. In British Columbia alone, 1,700 people died from toxic drugs in the first nine months of 2024. Police have reported that roughly half of all hydromorphone seizures were diverted from so-called safe supply programs. This is the environment to which nurses, paramedics and police officers are sent. They are required by duty to enter spaces shaped by failed Liberal policies, weakened bail, normalized repeat offending and a drug epidemic that has made frontline service more dangerous than at any point in our recent memory. Bill S-233 responds to this reality by ensuring that the law properly recognizes the heightened risk and vulnerability faced by those who must confront the consequences of these decisions on the ground. Assaults against health care workers and first responders while they are doing their jobs are especially serious, because they occur at the very moment that help is being delivered. When a nurse approaches a patient, or when a paramedic answers a call, they are there to help, not to fight or defend themselves. People who serve in these roles are the ones who run toward danger while others are running away. In my early twenties, I served as a volunteer first responder, as a driver and an attendant for an ambulance, providing patient care on the way to the hospital with training and exposure to emergency and hospital settings. That experience made it clear to me how vulnerable first responders are on duty. In an ambulance or at an emergency scene, first responders cannot control the environment or walk away when violence erupts. They stay because that is what the job requires. What has changed since that time is the level of danger. Liberal bail and drug policies have made frontline work far more volatile. Repeat violent offenders, drug-induced psychosis and fentanyl-driven crime are now routine encounters. Bill S-233 recognizes that change and would ensure that the law reflects the situation today. We see that same reality in health care settings. Recently in Winnipeg, at the St. Boniface Hospital, a nurse was assaulted in a hospital parkade. She was not in a remote location. She was not acting recklessly. She was at her place of work in the course of her employment. The response from nurses' representatives was not surprise but frustration. They said violence and abuse have become commonplace in hospitals and that workers are being pushed out of workplaces that cannot guarantee basic public safety. That is exactly what this bill would address at sentencing. When someone assaults a person who is required by duty to stay in a dangerous situation, the law should recognize their increased vulnerability and the wider harm that follows from it. The harm also does not end with the individual victim. Violence in hospitals, ambulances and emergency scenes disrupts critical services from frontline workers. That is why this bill is about protecting essential public functions. Health care is not a private transaction. It is a public good that every community relies on. Emergency services face the same pressure. First responders who expect violence operate under constant personal risk. If they become overcautious, they are even further at risk. Response times may be slower. In emergencies, those delays can have serious consequences. As a result, the standards of patient care plummet and Canadians are left waiting for the help they need. Over time, this does more harm than good. People begin to question whether those who serve the public are able to provide them with the help they need. Support for Bill S-233 comes from the people who know the problem best. Nurses' organizations have publicly backed this bill because it reflects what their members deal with every day on the job. Paramedic leaders have said the same. Paramedics often work alone or in small teams in unpredictable and uncontrolled situations under intense time pressure. They are unsafely exposed, and they know it. The people doing the work have identified a real failure in how violence against them is treated and deterred. Most importantly, this bill is not about being tougher for the sake of it. It is about role-based vulnerability. Health care workers and first responders face danger because of a service they provide. In a crisis, they cannot walk away. Their job requires them to stay, even when the situation turns violent. Bill S-233 would fully protect individualized sentencing. Every case is still judged on its own facts and merits. Judges continue to look at the details of the offence and the offender. Mitigating and aggregating factors are still weighed together. Proportionality remains the standard, and judicial discretion is not weakened. Across professions, frontline workers agree on one thing: Violence has become normalized, and the legal response has fallen behind. Bill S-233 would respond to that reality carefully and responsibly. At this point, there is no uncertainty left. Parliament has already studied this bill. Parliament has already agreed to it. The only question that remains is whether we are prepared to finish that work. Every delay sends a signal not just to offenders but to the nurses, paramedics, firefighters and first responders who show up every day and are told, in practice, that their safety can wait. That is not a neutral choice. It is a decision, and it has consequences. Passing Bill S-233 now is how Parliament would affirm that violence against those who serve the public, who serve us, would be treated with the seriousness that it deserves. It is how we restore clarity, consistency and confidence in the law for our frontline workers.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has doubled down again. Since he took office, food inflation has doubled. Compared to that in the United States, food inflation has doubled. Since the Liberals took power, food bank usage has doubled. The Liberal fuel standard tax already adds 7¢ per litre to the cost of fuel; the Prime Minister wants to more than double that to 17¢ per litre, further increasing food inflation. Will the Liberal government support our food affordability plan by eliminating both the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax, which would provide double the relief for Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to the bill before us. Canadians are not confused at the grocery store; they are frustrated and angry, yes, as they are being crushed by prices that keep rising while the Liberals here in Ottawa just keep talking. The Conservative approach is straightforward and is grounded in reality: If the government wants lower grocery prices, it must stop doing the things that make groceries more expensive. That means ending inflationary deficits that devalue paycheques. It means removing the hidden taxes on farmers, truckers, processors and retailers that get passed directly on to consumers. It means cutting red tape that raises operating costs and limits supply. It means strengthening competition so Canadians have real choice and real downward pressure on prices. Canadians are reaching out for the first time in their life, many of them, because some are being forced to choose between food, heat, rent and medication. Food banks across Canada are reporting record demand, with nearly two million visits in a single month last year, and food bank usage has almost doubled in just four years. Many of the people turning to food banks are working Canadians who have never before needed help. At the same time, families are paying hundreds of dollars more per year for groceries, while rent, mortgage payments and interest costs have surged. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, federal taxes and inflationary policies are driving up costs throughout the food supply chain, meaning that Canadians are paying more not because they are confused but because government policy has made essentials more expensive. None of my constituents have asked for federal framework or an explanation of price labels. They do not ask Ottawa to explain inflation to them; they ask when the government will stop driving up costs and start delivering the relief they can see at the checkout counter. Here is what Bill C-226 is actually proposing to do, in simple terms. It would instruct the Minister of Industry to consult with provinces and create a national framework about how grocery prices are displayed. That framework would set out standards for unit pricing, outline price increases and promote consumer education about how to read unit prices. The bill would not change prices. It would not regulate supply costs or competition. It would not cap prices or reduce taxes. It would create a process. First there would be consultations, then a written framework and then a report to Parliament within 18 months. Then, five years later, there would be another review and another report on how that framework worked. In other words, Bill C-226 is about explaining the problem, not fixing it. Families need relief now. Bill C-226 would offer a report in 18 months and a review in five years. The timeline may suit a bureaucracy, but it would do nothing for Canadians facing higher food prices this week. Bill C-226 would require more new federal spending to design, manage and oversee a national framework, followed by ongoing reporting and reviews. None of that is free; it is funded by the taxpayer and financed in an environment where deficits are already massive. Every dollar spent by the government adds to inflationary pressure, and inflation is the tax that Canadians pay every time they buy food. When the government creates new rules, standards and compliance requirements, businesses absorb those costs only on paper. In reality, they are passed on to consumers through higher prices. Canadians are already paying too much for food. They do not want policies that make groceries more expensive in exchange for better explanations for why groceries are expensive; they want cheaper food. There is also a credibility problem that Canadians recognize almost immediately. The government has already failed to control inflation, failed to keep deficits in check and failed to make life more affordable. Now it is asking Canadians to trust that the same government can fix grocery prices by supervising how they are going to be displayed in the grocery store. The bill treats public frustration as a communication failure rather than as a policy failure. It assumes that if prices are explained better, families will feel relief, but families do not feel explanations. They feel higher bills. They feel paycheques that buy less. They feel interest rates and grocery prices that are rising. If the government were serious about affordability, it would start by fixing what it can control: inflationary spending, punitive taxes, and policies that raise costs across the economy. Some members will say this is harmless. They will say that we can have transparency and affordability at the same time, but government capacity is not infinite, and neither is the patience of Canadians facing record food prices. Every dollar spent, every regulation imposed and every hour of legislation time devoted to this framework is a dollar, a regulation and an hour not used to reduce costs, cut taxes or bring inflation under control. In an affordability crisis, priorities matter. When the government chooses a process over price relief, it hurts Canadians. I do not doubt that some members supporting the bill believe it is helpful, but belief does not lower grocery prices. Intent does not reduce inflation. Only policy that cuts costs delivers relief to Canadians. When Canadians look at this bill in context, a pattern becomes clear. Instead of tackling the hard issues of grocery prices, the government reaches for measures that look like action without producing results. Frameworks, consultation, education campaigns and reports create the appearance of concern, but they do not tackle the real issue and change what families actually have to pay. This is why Conservatives call this bill a distraction. It treats frustration with prices as a communication problem rather than an affordability problem. It assumes Canadians need an explanation, when what they actually need is action from their government and results that are measured at the checkout counter, not in federal reports. A government that caused the affordability crisis cannot fix it with better messaging; only policy change produces results. This bill fits a familiar Liberal pattern: When prices rise, they spend more, regulate more and explain more, while Canadians pay more. Conservatives would end inflationary deficits. When the government spends beyond its means, year after year, the cost is paid through higher prices and weaker purchasing power. Affordability begins with fiscal discipline. The government cannot restore buying power while continuing to flood the economy with borrowed money. Conservatives would also remove the hidden Liberal taxes that drive up the cost of food, like taxes on fuel, fertilizer, energy and packaging costs, which raise costs for farmers, processors, truckers and retailers. These costs do not stay in Ottawa. They are built into grocery prices. Cutting these taxes would deliver immediate and permanent relief at the checkout counter. More, Conservatives would cut red tape, which raises operating costs and restricts supply. Excessive regulation slows production, raises compliance costs and limits competition. Reducing these burdens would allow businesses to operate more efficiently and pass savings on to consumers. A Conservative government would encourage real competition in the grocery. Competition, not bureaucracy, is what lowers prices and protects consumers over the long term. This approach does not require new frameworks, new reports or new explanations; it requires a political will. Conservatives have put these solutions on the table, and the government has voted them down. That is the difference: While Liberals focus on managing frustration with prices, Conservatives focus on lowering prices. Bill C-226 would not lower prices, reduce inflation or cut costs in the food supply chain. It would add federal process, spending, compliance costs and duplication, while families continue to struggle. Canadians do not need Ottawa to explain their grocery bill to them. They need Ottawa to stop making it bigger. Conservatives will always support transparency, but transparency without affordability is not relief. Canadians cannot eat a framework. They cannot feed their families with an 18-month report or a five-year review. What they need is a responsible government that will lower taxes, reduce red tape and promote competition. That is what will deliver lower prices. That is why Conservatives oppose Bill C-226. Canadians deserve results at the checkout counter, not more Liberal political theatre.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today on behalf of Canadians who are petitioning the government to take special note of the Liberal-Bloc amendment that would affect Bill C-9. The petitioners want the government to recognize that the state has no place in the writings of any sacred text, including the Bible. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are fundamental rights that must be protected. Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Liberal Government of Canada to protect religious freedom, uphold the rights of freedom of expression and of Canadians to read and share the Bible and other sacred texts, and prevent government overreach into matters of faith.

Mr. Speaker, many faith leaders and individuals in my community have reached out to me with concerns about Bill C-9 and the infringement on freedom of speech, and, in particular, the amendment that was brought forward that would remove the religious exemption and potentially target pastors while reading passages out of the Bible. The chair of that committee, who has since been promoted to Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, said that passages like those in Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans would be considered hateful. Does the member agree with the past committee chair's representation of those passages?

Mr. Speaker, as Canadians, Christmas reminds us of the many blessings we enjoy. The greatest among them is the gift of Jesus Christ, when God became man to redeem humanity and bring light into a dark world. During the Christmas season, we are reminded that the Bible was the foundation that shaped the roots of Canada. From the words of Psalm 72, “He shall have dominion...from sea to sea”, that are inscribed on the stones of Parliament and enshrined as the motto of our nation to our values of freedom, hope and charity, we are reminded that the Christian faith has been woven into the fabric of our nation. This heritage has blessed us with our traditions, our values and our holidays. It has helped create a nation that prizes freedom, honours human dignity and seeks justice and compassion for all. This Christmas, may we, in our hearts, accept Jesus, God's gift to us, and continue working to preserve the nation that God has entrusted to us, a nation glorious and free. To you, Mr. Speaker, to my constituents of Provencher and to all Canadians, I wish a merry Christmas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present two petitions this morning. The first petition is from a group of individuals who are asking the House of Commons to urge the Government of Canada to call for the end of persecution of the Falun Gong in China and to take strong measures to combat the Chinese Communist Party's transnational repression in Canada. The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of the Falun Gong in China and transnational repression abroad, continue to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability for the CCP officials and proxies responsible for these human rights violations, and take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community, which is targeted by foreign repression.

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from a group of individuals who say that choosing medical assistance in dying because of a lack of available services or treatments is not a real choice. Allowing medical assistance in dying for those with disabilities or chronic illnesses who are not dying devalues their lives, tacitly endorsing the notion that life with disability is optional and, by extension, dispensable. Offering medical assistance in dying as a solution for disability or chronic illnesses reduces incentives to improve treatment and care for people with those conditions. Canadians do not want an ableist health care system in which the lives of those with disabilities are seen as not worth living. Many disability advocates in Canada have expressed opposition to allowing MAID for people with disabilities. Therefore, these citizens and residents of Canada call upon the government to protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting medical assistance in dying for those whose prognosis for natural death is more than six months.

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand here this morning to speak on behalf of the many hard-working constituents in Provencher, my riding, to address this budget implementation act. A government is judged by the condition of its people. Our Prime Minister stated that he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. As of today, that would be a failing grade. After only eight months, the Prime Minister is already a failure by his own measure. After ten years of Liberal promises, Canadians are poorer, families are struggling to feed themselves, the young cannot start their lives and the old cannot finish their lives in peace. The Parliamentary Budget Officer called the government's path “stupefying”, “shocking” and “unsustainable”, and said, “if you don't change, this is done.” The warning could not be clearer, and it reminds me of an old urban legend. This is a transcript of a radio conversation of a U.S. naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995, and the radio conversation was released by the chief of naval operations on October 10, 1995. The Americans, in their first radio transmission, asked the Canadians to please divert their course 15° to the north to avoid a collision. The Canadians said that they recommend that the Americans divert their course 15° to the south to avoid a collision. The captain of the U.S. naval ship responded, saying that he is the captain of a U.S. Navy ship, so he would again advise the Canadians to divert their course. The Canadians say again that the Americans should divert their course. The Americans responded that they are the American carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States Atlantic fleet, and that they were accompanied by destroyers, cruisers and support vessels. They demanded that the Canadians change their course 15° north. The Canadians responded that they were in a lighthouse, so it was the Americans' call. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is our lighthouse, and the Liberals have abandoned all of their previous fiscal anchors. It does not matter how large the Prime Minister's ego is, how global his resume is, how many so-called expert bureaucrats he surrounds himself with, or how loudly he insists that the laws of economics will divert 15° any which way to his will. Reality does not move. The collision course is set, and the warning light is fixed, but the government is refusing to turn. The Prime Minister's capital budgeting framework hides debt by counting spending as an investment. The Prime Minister spent his career on Bay Street, so maybe it is no surprise that he is still cooking books. In the private sector, he called it creative finance. In government, he calls it capital budgeting. Conservatives know what it is. It is a credit card budget. Canada now has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7, a $78.3-billion deficit and interest costs of $55.6 billion annually, which is more than the Canada health transfer and more than the government collects in GST. Canadians were promised expert prudence. They got more debt. They asked only for honesty and for a government that lives within its means and tells the truth about the books. The Prime Minister campaigned on the promise that we would do things previously thought impossible at speeds we have not seen in generations, but now he warns young Canadians that, because of his failures, we will not transform our economy easily or in a few months, and it will cost sacrifices and take time. The Prime Minister promised to make life more affordable. Every sign shows the opposite. Food prices are rising nearly 40% faster in Canada than in the U.S. Over 2.1 million Canadians use food banks each and every month, and nearly one in five visitors are employed but still unable to afford food. A few days ago, a friend of mine and his wife went to the grocery store. They set a limit of $200. As they filled their cart, he kept his iPhone calculator in hand, adding up the price of every item. By the time they reached $200, the cart was still nearly empty. It was a few basics, no luxuries, and the bill was already full. That is the reality for families across the country today. Not long ago, that same $200 would have filled the cart to the top. Most Canadians remember it well, before the Liberal lost decade hollowed out the dollar and drove up the cost of everything. While Canadians count every dollar in the checkout line, the Prime Minister pretends to understand their struggle. He may stage his photo ops in grocery aisles, but let us be honest: He is not the one doing the shopping. The global elite, as he refers to himself, do not push their own carts or calculate the cost of milk. This budget would make food even more expensive. The industrial carbon tax hits farmers and agri-food on fertilizer, machinery and manufacturing costs. The Liberal fuel standard adds a 17¢-per-litre cost to the price of diesel and gasoline. The Liberal packaging tax adds billions throughout the food supply chain. Food inflation is now so severe that Food Banks Canada gave the Prime Minister an F on poverty and food insecurity. Canadians do not need to settle for this. They remember a time when a fair wage meant a full grocery cart, when the government lived within its means and when ordinary people could afford an ordinary life. The government said it would build more homes and bring prices down. Instead, housing starts have collapsed 17%, mortgage payments are up two-thirds since 2020, builders are cutting staff and young Canadians with full-time jobs are being told to rent for life. Canada is expected to rank second worst in the OECD for per capita growth from 2025 to 2030. Investment per worker has fallen 10%, while in the United States, it has risen by 22%. The Prime Minister said he would spend less and invest more, but what did we get? We got higher spending, lower investment and a larger deficit. Families now pay the price each time they buy food, renew a mortgage or watch their children give up on home ownership dreams. The new capital budgeting framework was sold as innovation, but was called “overly expansive” and referred to as exceeding international practice by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It counts subsidies and housing programs as assets. Imagine that. It turns spending into investment and shrinks the deficit on paper, while our deficit and debt keep rising. This pattern defines the government's record. The Prime Minister promised discipline, but has increased spending by 8% since taking office. He promised transparency, but delayed the public accounts past its legal deadline. He promised a falling debt-to-GDP ratio, yet the PBO confirms it is climbing for the first time in 30 years. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has done his duty and warned that this path cannot continue. It is Parliament's responsibility to divert its course. Behind every number is a life that's made harder. The over two million food bank visits in March are not statistics; they are families choosing between groceries and rent, seniors skipping meals for medicine and parents working extra shifts so their children can eat. Housing shows the same decline. The government's own agency warns that homebuilding will drop 13% over the next three years. Mortgage rates have reached heights not seen in recent years, builders are cutting staff and couples who might have built families are being forced to wait. Farmers who feed the nation carry the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and machinery, the 17¢ Liberal fuel standard and the billion-dollar packaging tax that adds billions to the food chain. These measures have made Canadian food unaffordable. Canadians deserve a government that treats public money as a trust. The Conservative vision begins with restraint and the discipline to live within our means and spend for the good of everyday Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already warned the government that its fiscal path is unsustainable, and that borrowing will exceed statutory limits by year-end 2026‑27. No government has the right to hand a country steeped in debt to its children and grandchildren. The Conservative plan begins with one rule: Every new dollar of spending must be matched by a dollar saved. Waste in bureaucracy, consultants and corporate welfare must end before new promises are made. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported $53.9 billion in lost investments since the government took office. We will bring that investment home by rewarding production, by lowering taxes on work, homebuilding and energy, and by unlocking resource development instead of delaying it. Taxation must again be fair. Families should not bear the cost of a government that spends for political gains. Ending the industrial carbon tax, the Liberal clean fuel standard of 17¢ a litre and the $1-billion packaging tax will lift the burden on farmers, manufacturers, families and, ultimately, all Canadian households. If the government will not divert its course, the opposition will. A budget that puts Canadians first by telling the truth and respecting taxpayers is not an ambition; it is our responsibility to the Canadian people.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a fellow member of the industry committee, where we talk about economic growth. The first question he asked was about expanding our conversations with India. We know what that has done so far. It has resulted in an increased tariff on our yellow pea products that we have been sending to India. Whenever the Prime Minister travels abroad anywhere, Canadians get nothing substantial in return, other than higher tariffs or restrictions and barriers to access into other markets, while they continue to ship their products into Canada. Take beef and pork from the United Kingdom as an example. When the Prime Minister visited, we received nothing out of a deal except a 150% increase in U.K. imports into Canada on agricultural products. Does the member want me to address the issue of Churchill? No. Okay.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc raises a very important question about what is missing in the budget. There is a lot missing in the budget. What is missing is a pathway for young couples and families in Canada to be able to afford to build a house. Home ownership is missing. Further to the question from my colleague from the other side about Churchill, there is another hollow promise in the budget that an all-weather road to Churchill will be built, but there is no budget allocation line for that kind of thing. There are so many things missing in this budget. The member from the Bloc is bang on. There is a lot missing in this budget, and that is why neither his party nor my party can support the budget. There is just too much missing.

Mr. Speaker, to put it quite bluntly, the consequences for an action like that would be immediate termination, which is exactly what should happen with the Liberal government. It should be immediately terminated if it cannot do what Canadians have asked it to do, which is make life more affordable, open up our resources and get our natural resources to tidewater through the use of pipelines and ports of entry. In the financial world, when the dollars and the cents do not add up and the credits and the debits are not equal, decisions have to be made. The Liberal government has to start making some decisions as well, or Canadians will make that decision for it.