Debates of Dec. 4th, 2025

Government Response to Petitions

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

École Polytechnique de Montréal

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, 36 years ago our country was irrevocably shaken by a horrific act of gender-based violence. On December 6, 1989, a gunman entered École Polytechnique in Montreal, forced women and men apart, and then launched a violent shooting, murdering 14 young women and injuring 13 others, solely because they were women.

As we mark the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women, we recognize and mourn the young women whose lives were stolen at École Polytechnique by an act of misogynistic hate that changed us all forever. We remember Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte and Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz.

These brilliant women were daughters, sisters and friends, and they were students with bright futures, potential and dreams that were never given the chance to be realized. Thirty-six years later, their impact endures. Their stories continue to be felt in every corner of Canada, reminding us not only of the devastating cost of gender-based violence but also of our collective responsibility to confront it.

Of course, we honour the story and courage of our fellow colleague, the Secretary of State for Nature, who survived this horrific act and since then has dedicated herself to advocacy and public service. This is very personal to me as well, since I too was an engineering student.

In Canada, a woman or girl is killed in an act of gender-based violence every 48 hours. That is 240 women and girls murdered in 2024. Most of these gender-related murders were committed by men they knew, an intimate partner or a family member. I too know what this is like, since I lost a cousin to gender-based violence. She was brutally murdered and stabbed 85 times with a kitchen knife and was found by another of my cousins.

The toll of gender-based violence extends far beyond tragic deaths. Survivors face physical, emotional and financial harm that can last a lifetime. Families and communities are left to cope with trauma and loss, and society bears the costs of health care, social services and the justice system. Indigenous women, women of colour, women with disabilities and 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals face these dangers at disproportionately higher rates. All too often, when they do come forward, they are not believed and they continue to face barriers to justice.

Gender-based violence is not just a personal tragedy. It is a social crisis that weakens the very fabric of our communities. That is why we must do more than just remember.

We must act. We must create a Canada where every woman and girl can live free from fear, where their potential is never limited by violence and where justice is real and immediate. That is what we owe to every woman and girl in this country, like my cousin. To build a safe and prosperous society, we must continue to work together at all levels of government to end gender-based violence.

This work includes implementing the national action plan to end gender-based violence, through which we have invested over half a billion dollars to prevent violence, support survivors and strengthen community-based organizations on the ground to ensure that they are responding to gender-based violence in a timely manner. The plan provides targeted funding and resources to address the unique needs of survivors, including indigenous women and girls, racialized communities, and 2SLGBTQIA+ communities as well. It supports programs that prevent violence before it occurs. It helps survivors access the services they need.

Through these coordinated efforts, we are taking meaningful steps to create a Canada where every woman and girl can live free from fear and reach their full potential. Prevention is only part of the equation; survivors must also be able to rely on a justice system that is fair, accessible and trauma-informed. That is why we will take steps to further protect victims of intimate partner violence, ensuring that survivors are supported and not revictimized when they seek justice.

There is always more work to be done. We will continue to support survivors, remove barriers in the justice system and build a Canada where safety, dignity and justice are not privileges but guaranteed rights for all women and girls.

By working hand in hand with survivors, advocates and communities, we, and that is all members of the chamber, can build a future where every woman and girl can live free from fear. Ending gender-based violence requires all of us, united in a belief that every woman deserves safety, dignity and the ability to thrive. I think about my daughter Cassidy, who is 10 years old, every single day while I stand here in the chamber.

Therefore, as we reflect on that shared responsibility, let us carry the names of these 14 women forward as a reminder of what we must never give up and why our commitment to ending gender-based violence must remain unchanging.

We honour the women who came before us whose courage, stories and lived experience created the space for these conversations to exist, survivors whose voices shifted public attitudes and broke barriers. We remember the lives that were cut short, the stories that were never told and the survivors who, out of fear, have not yet spoken, as well as those who are still waiting for a safe moment to do so.

Gender-based violence is not a chapter of our past; it is a persistent and pervasive reality in Canada. It remains woven into the story of our country, and it demands urgent action.

Therefore, today we recommit ourselves to this work. We stand with survivors. We honour their strength and ensure that their voices and stories are never forgotten, but championed, as we continue to fight for change, equality and justice.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Like all members of the House, I am very sorry and shocked to hear that. I was not personally aware of the tragedy the hon. member's family has suffered. The trauma, I am sure, continues to haunt the family.

The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit difficult to rise to speak after listening to such a heartbreaking and personal account. What we heard from the Minister of Women and Gender Equality this morning was a cry from the heart. It is essentially an appeal to us to work together, to make sure that we live in a society, a country, a city, a town where every person is respected for who he or she is, with his or her own unique strengths, weaknesses, values and beliefs, regardless of sex. That is in part what we heard from the minister this morning.

She also spoke to us about our shared responsibility. That is absolutely true. We will get there only if we work hand in hand, whether we are in government in Ottawa, in Quebec City, in Alberta or somewhere else. This morning, I hope that Canadians were able to see how connected we can be. We may sit on opposite sides of the House, but beyond that, we are men and women. Women stand up for each other and must support one another because, as I was saying at committee this week, right now is a terrible time for women.

It is not easy. Violence against women is on the rise. The rate of violence is not slowing down or stopping. It is going up, and I see this clearly as a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, along with my Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois colleagues. We have conducted nine studies in four years and have issued recommendations to strengthen women's safety. Why? It is because the situation is not improving.

Today is the day we set aside to commemorate a past event that is difficult to revisit. It is difficult for me to speak about it here today. It is difficult for the Minister of Women and Gender Equality. It is difficult for our colleague from Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, who was at École Polytechnique in Montreal on the evening of December 6, 1989, when a young man walked in, armed to the teeth. He separated the men from the women. The men were spared.

This was a shocking femicide: Fourteen women lost their lives that night, and for what? It was primarily because they were women. The young man in question was angry because these women were studying for a career in engineering which, at the time, was viewed predominantly as a career for men. In this House, we are fortunate to have among our colleagues the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, who is, I believe, the first female engineer to be elected to Parliament.

That act of violence took place 36 years ago, and we are still talking about it today. Unfortunately, I think we will be talking about it next year and the one after that, since the situation is not currently improving. I remember that event, because I was the same age as those women. I was at university when it happened. At that age, namely, 21, 22 or 23 years old, we were thinking about the future. Life was good. We were studying; the holidays were approaching; the excitement was palpable; studies were drawing to a close, and we had our lives ahead of us. For me, life continued. For those 14 women, life was brutally stopped that night. Other women were also injured that night, and families were broken forever. As I said last week when we were commemorating the start of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence, what happened on December 6, 1989, is deeply painful for Quebeckers and Canadians to remember.

I will say the names of the women who were murdered that day so we never forget who they were: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte. Their future was cut short because one day, a man decided they were unwanted, especially in a field like engineering.

In Canada, a woman is murdered every 48 hours. Last year, 240 women and girls lost their lives just because they were women and girls. The numbers keep going up. According to a statement by the Minister of Justice in a recent press release, violent crime in Canada is up 41% since 2015. Canadian police forces report a 39% increase in domestic violence and a 76% increase in sexual assaults. How can we accept that?

Quebec has recorded around 15 cases of femicide since the beginning of the year. This figure varies depending on definitions. Why do my sisters and I have to be afraid when we go out at night? It is not normal for us to live in a constant state of hypervigilance. On top of that, if we cannot go to work or go to school without wondering whether something is going to happen to us, that means we are living in a very sick society. We must do something about that.

However, there is some good news. There was a great show of solidarity on Parliament Hill yesterday when parliamentarians from all parties stood together. In the past few weeks, our colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola introduced Bill C-225, which seeks to strengthen safety for women who are caught in situations of intimate partner violence. The bill was supported by all members of the House. We should be proud of the wonderful moments of humanity we shared this morning, with heartfelt testimonies, including from the Minister of Women and Gender Equality, and of the vote on a private member's bill that took place yesterday. This is not a government bill. It is a private member's bill. I think we can be extremely proud of that.

In fact, this law that was passed yesterday is going to be called Bailey's law. Everyone remembers the story of this woman who was murdered by an ex-partner who had previously been convicted. There were warning signs that this was coming. We will also remember Ms. Renaud, who recently suffered a similar fate in Quebec.

I want to acknowledge the families of our sisters who were gunned down on December 6, 1989. I want us all to remember that we are greatly responsible for each other's safety and, given the circumstances, for the safety of women in particular. Many of us have daughters, wives and mothers. We must make sure women are protected.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to express my condolences to the minister on her cousin's death, her cousin's femicide, if I understood correctly.

We will never forget these women: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault and Annie Turcotte. Thousands of us have their names etched in our hearts. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of us carry their names with us. We accept the responsibility that comes with remembering them.

I see before us their friend and colleague, who is now an MP. Although she and I do not always agree, she knows that we share the same aspirations for women. She knows that we are allies in the fight that she has been waging for over 30 years. After all these years, the women who were taken from us on December 6, 1989, continue to unite Quebeckers who want to see an end to misogyny and violence against women. They have become our guiding light when we no longer know which way to turn.

We have made some progress on their behalf. Despite their memory, we have suffered some setbacks and bitter defeats, but we are staying the course. We think of them when we see women in Quebec succeed. We think about the path that these pioneers chose to take, and we see other young women taking that same path. We are so proud, as we know they would have been. We can only be grateful to them.

However, they need to know that things are far from perfect. They need to know that their memory also instills in us a duty to be outraged, perhaps too often. We are outraged, and we still rise up in anger today on their behalf.

When the firearms registry is abolished; when the assault-style weapon buyback program is met with ire; when one, ten, a thousand women are murdered because they are women; when our sisters are beaten, raped, assaulted, bruised and broken because they are women; when some give up and stop fighting; when some remain impassive in the face of violence against women; when the word “feminist” is rejected as though it has a pejorative connotation; when people move on to other matters and grow tired of hearing about these women; when their names are eroded by time and indifference, then, yes, of course we rise up, indignant.

Their names are forever etched on our hearts, and those same hearts are filled with anger. However, it is not the kind of anger that immobilizes us; it has been driving us to action for 36 years. It awakens our senses and pushes us to act.

These women, like me, understand human nature, and they know, as I do, that we will never be able to completely eradicate violence.

We are striving to contain limit it. We can restrict it, constrain it, condemn it. We can all work together to make women's lives safer, more pleasant, more beautiful. A woman who knows she is in danger is not a free woman. The fight we are waging for them and on their behalf is the fight for women's liberation.

This fight is not over. We are keeping up the fight for them too: Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte.

We will not forget these girls. Thousands of us have their names etched in our hearts. Thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of us carry their names with us. Thousands of us continue the fight.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I see the member for Winnipeg Centre rising. I believe it is to seek unanimous consent to reply to today's statement.

All those opposed to the hon. member speaking will please say nay.

It is agreed.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by offering my condolences to the minister and noting her courage for sharing her story, her family story of violence. No family is free from gender-based violence. I honour her today, as well as all the women in the chamber. This is a sombre day, but it is a day of solidarity. As my Conservative colleague and my Bloc colleague said, we are united against violence.

Today I rise with a heart that carries many stories of loss. I rise first to honour the 14 young women murdered at École Polytechnique simply because they were women: Geneviève Bergeron, Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte.

They were 14 lives full of promise, 14 dreams interrupted by hatred. Their brilliance, their courage, and their futures were stolen in a single violent act that shook our country to its core. We say their names because their lives mattered. We say their names because their work mattered. We say their names because their presence mattered. The world they were building deserved to continue. Their family members, who I wish to honour today, live with a grief that does not fade. Their classmates, including our colleague, and community still carry the memory of that day.

Across the country, women still carry the knowledge that they were targeted because of who they were, because they were women. The tragedy at École Polytechnique was not an isolated event. It was an expression of misogyny that continues to shape the lives of women everywhere. It reminds us that gender-based violence is not an old wound healed by time. It is a living wound that demands action, compassion, real investment and truth.

Gender-based violence does not come in degrees. It does not rank itself. It does not make one group more worthy of mourning than another. Every woman harmed, every girl targeted, every gender-diverse person threatened and every life stolen by hatred is a profound loss for the people, for their family, for their community and for this country. The sorrow of one does not diminish the sorrow of another. These tragedies stand beside one another, each deserving our full attention and our full commitment to change, yet we must speak honestly.

While gender-based violence harms women everywhere, it does not harm all women equally. Indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people live with a level of violence that is not only severe but also systemic. Their families endure disappearances that are met with silence. Our lives are threatened by conditions created through generations of colonial policy. Our safety is undermined by poverty and racism, by the lack of services, and by failures of institutions meant to protect them. We are in a constant state of grief. It is constant, unrelenting and violent.

This is not a parallel issue. It is not a separate crisis. It is part of the same violent web that took the lives of those young women at École Polytechnique. It is part of the same misogyny intensified and sharpened by the deep roots of colonialism. We must tell the truth.

The targeting of indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people is part of an ongoing genocide in this country. It is something that was acknowledged by the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau as an ongoing genocide, not a metaphor. It is also something for which, even in this year's budget, there was zero budgetary allocation to deal with this crisis. That hurts. That is systemic violence that continues to wound us because we are valuable, we are precious, we are sacred and we are worthy of safety and dignity.

It is the lived realities of families who search for loved ones without the support they deserve. It is the lived reality of mothers who hold vigils year after year. It is the lived reality of communities who bury daughters and aunties far too young, the women who go missing outside of my front door, the very front door that is a block and a half away from where women were taken by a serial killer and left in a landfill, and people are refusing to search for us. We are valuable. We are worthy. We are precious. Our humanity, and seeing our humanity, matters.

To honour the women of École Polytechnique is to honour all women who face violence, and to honour all women is to confront the specific violence faced by indigenous women and girls and gender-diverse people. These truths do not compete. They reinforce one another. One teaches us the cost of misogyny; the other shows us what happens when misogyny is multiplied by racism, colonial history and state neglect. Both demand that we act with urgency and courage. The response must be as full and determined as the sorrow we carry.

We honour the 14 women murdered at École Polytechnique by refusing to accept violence as inevitable. We honour indigenous women and girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people by refusing to allow their names to fade into silence. We honour all survivors by creating a world where equality is not an aspiration but a guarantee. That means real investments in safety for everyone. That means implementing the calls for justice. That means culturally grounded healing programs, safe housing, mental health supports, protection for two-spirit identity and accountability for institutions that have failed communities again and again. That means recognizing that no woman's life is disposable, no child's future is negotiable and no family's grief should be ignored.

Let us build a country where the names of the 14 women who were taken at École Polytechnique are held with love; a country where indigenous families no longer stand in the snow and rain holding candles, time and time again, for their loved ones, particularly their daughters who never come home; a country where justice is not symbolic but lived; and a country where safety is an expectation, not a privilege. For those taken too early, for those still missing, for those carrying wounds, both visible and invisible, for those yet to be born, let this be the moment we choose action over sorrow, truth over silence, justice over delay. We owe it to all of them.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I believe the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is seeking unanimous consent to reply to today's statement.

All those opposed to the hon. member speaking will please say nay.

It is agreed.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues in the House this morning. Unfortunately, I had to stay in my riding. I love my riding, but today I would have preferred to be with my colleagues in the House. We heard some very important speeches this morning. We are united, as my colleagues have already said.

December 6, 1989, will forever be a tragic day. I remember it. I think everyone remembers it. We will never forget the events that took place at École Polytechnique.

I want to begin by saying a big thank you to our Minister of Women and Gender Equality.

I also want to express, as others have, condolences and sympathies for her family's loss.

I would also like to thank our Conservative Party colleague; our Bloc Québécois colleague, the member for Shefford; and our NDP colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre. The message really is that it is senseless for such a thing to happen in our country.

We are a country that wants to reject violence. I know that my male colleagues in this place do not harbour a hatred of women, and I could not imagine what would unleash such hatred to kill women because they are women. We know that it happened in one specific location that we remember today, but it happens every day. As our colleague for Winnipeg Centre said, it particularly happens to indigenous women and girls.

I am blessed to have so many friends across the country, but it is only my women friends who are indigenous who always have a story. They tell me, “My mother died on the lower east side,” or “My sister went missing,” or “My auntie went missing.” One of my close friends in the indigenous community here in Saanich—Gulf Islands said to me once, “I was left for dead in a dumpster.” She then continued the conversation as if I would not be shattered by hearing that, because it is the common experience of our indigenous women and girls, our friends, the aunties, mommies and sisters. This is a common life experience, and we act as a country as if it is not an emergency that requires immediate attention.

Yes, today we remember the horrors of a killer walking into a classroom, sending the men outside. I must say, for those surviving men, what a horror. We know one took his own life afterward because how does someone get over that? They would be constantly struggling, thinking about what they should have done. They did not know what the killer intended; they were sent outside.

On this day particularly, I want to speak to and send love and support to our hon. Secretary of State for Nature. We had an earlier recognition of the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I spoke to her afterwards, gave her a hug and said that this must be such a tough day for her. She said, “No, December 6 is the tough day.”

For what she will experience and for everyone who remembers, the anniversary dates are always searing. Two days from now, please remember to send love and prayers to all those who are the surviving family members.

The Secretary of State for Nature suffered. She was wounded. She now serves Canada's public interest in another way, but we will never forget.

We can take up the cause again, as other women have said in this place.

As an activist and a feminist, our colleague, the member for Shefford, has never stopped fighting violence. Every one of us needs to do more. This is a sad and sombre moment, but it is something else, too.

This is an opportunity to say aloud the names of the women engineering students who were killed and whom we honour this day. It is important, as the member for Shefford has said, that their names are engraved on our hearts.

We know, as our colleague from Winnipeg Centre has said, that these are not competing issues. They are all from one and the same fabric of hatred and violence. We do not have solutions today. I do not think any of us know why this persists. There is a patriarchy. There is an assumption that men are in charge. There are all kinds of assumptions, but it does not account for violent misogyny, intimate partner violence and our failure to end them.

Today, we remember and we hold in our hearts Geneviève Bergeron, Hélène Colgan, Nathalie Croteau, Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Maryse Laganière, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michèle Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte and Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz.

I would like to say one thing to the women who were murdered in the Polytechnique massacre.

We will never, ever forget them. We will not rest until the violence ends. We will do whatever it takes in this country.

God help us figure out how to end the hatred of women in the hearts of some men, find an end to violence and ensure the safety of those in marginalized communities in particular, such as the LGBTQIA+ community, the trans women who are increasingly at risk, indigenous women and girls, and women who are at risk simply because we are women.

There is no room for hatred or violence in a civilized society, and we must embrace the compassion and forgiveness that help us help those who are consumed by hatred. It is not easy to figure out how to solve misogyny. It is horrific, but if we keep our hearts open, we make a commitment to act and we thank each other when we are unified, as we are today, we will find our way.

Each one of us today must be committed, regardless of our party, to say we will not rest until violence against women ends.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I want to thank the members for sharing such profound, wise and moving messages.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 46 minutes.

Fisheries and Oceans

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B), 2025-26: Votes 1b, 5b and 10b under Department of Fisheries and Oceans”. The committee has considered the votes referred and reports the same.

Government Operations and Estimates

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, also known as the mighty OGGO, entitled “Supplementary Estimates (B) 2025-26”.

Instruction to Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that, during its consideration of Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), the committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South. I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague, the hon. member for Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

We are moving this motion because we believe it is critical that the justice committee give Bill C-9 proper scrutiny, given the alarming details we have learned in the last few days that the Liberal government has reached a secret deal with the Bloc Québécois to have a full-out assault on the religious freedom of Canadians. There was a story in the National Post on the weekend, revealing that the Bloc Québécois desire to remove fundamental safeguards for religious freedom from the Criminal Code was going to be supported by the Liberals in exchange for Bloc Québécois support for Bill C-9.

In the days since this, the Conservatives have tried to do proper legislative scrutiny of Bill C-9. The Liberals dared to accuse the Conservatives of filibustering and obstructing, but I want to explain two critical things that have just happened.

The interesting thing here is that we had the resources to do our committee's work on Tuesday from 3.30 p.m., when the justice committee meeting started, until midnight. Conservative members were prepared to go line by line and clause by clause through Bill C-9, but the Liberals adjourned the meeting at 5:30, after we had agreed on and adopted only one clause as a committee.

Yesterday, in question period, one of my colleagues, who is a Liberal member on the justice committee, got up and demanded that we continue our work on Thursday, which is today. This morning, I looked at my email and I saw that the Liberal committee chair had cancelled today's committee meeting. The clause-by-clause review of Bill C-9, which the Liberal government said the Conservatives were obstructing, has been obstructed by the Liberals.

I do not ever make the mistake of accusing the Liberals of competence, but they are filibustering themselves. They are obstructing their own agenda. The Conservatives are ready to do the work.

What I suspect may have happened is that the Liberal government has been receiving similar calls and emails to the ones that have been coming in to my office from Canadians who are very alarmed by this amendment and, in general, by what Bill C-9 would mean for freedom of expression and religious freedom. People are alarmed by this. I have received calls from members of the Jewish community, the Muslim community and the Christian community and from Hindus and Sikhs. All of them are saying they do not trust that their religious freedom would be preserved if the Liberal government proceeded with this secret deal it has with the Bloc Québécois to remove fundamental religious safeguards from the Criminal Code.

The Liberal government could clear this up very easily. It could come out and say it is backing away from this and no longer proceeding with its plans to take aim at religious freedom. I would love to hear one of my Liberal colleagues over there say that. In fact, I hear a great deal of chatter from my Liberal colleagues now. If one of them could get up and say they will not be proceeding with these assaults on religious expression and freedom of religion, it would make this country a better place.

We need to do the proper work as a committee. We need to be able to speak to the Canadians who would be affected by this and who are alarmed by this. We need to be able to speak directly to the groups of people who have been excluded from the Bill C-9 study because of the Liberal government's desire to obstruct and filibuster its own agenda.

The reason I am rising with this motion is that we need to proceed with a proper study. We need to go into all of these communities in Canada and speak directly to those people who are so often excluded from the process. I am thinking specifically of people in ethnic communities, who do not necessarily consume mainstream media, and are likely better for it. I am speaking, of course, of people in remote communities, for whom accessing committee proceedings in Ottawa is a great challenge. In doing this, we would be able to have a full accounting of exactly what Pandora's box the Liberal government would unleash on Canadians with its proposed Bill C-9 and the amendments that would remove religious safeguards.

There are going to be, I suspect, some interventions from my Liberal colleagues, who will say, “No, we are not talking about freedom of religion in general. We are just talking about people who conceal hateful, criminal and violent rhetoric in religious language.” I have some news for those members: That is already illegal. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who incite genocide. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who threaten violence. There is no protection in the Criminal Code for people who incite hatred. These religious defences in the Criminal Code exist for only two particular charges: the wilful promotion of hatred—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member.

Can we have order while a member is making a speech? There are to be no conversations going on.

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

Did she really say that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. I am not going to intervene on this. Can we let the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South conclude his speech?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is another example of Liberals trying to silence and censor people they do not agree with. This is exactly why we cannot let in what they are trying to sneak in through the back door with Bill C-9 passing. This is a Liberal government that has taken every opportunity to put religious freedom and freedom of expression in its crosshairs. This is a Liberal government that freezes the bank accounts of protesters. This is a Liberal government that, under the guise of protecting children, tries to expand the Canadian Human Rights Act to block what Canadian people can say on the Internet. Absolutely, I will take no lectures from any member opposite when we are trying to protect the freedoms of Canadians of all faiths.

Incidentally, I will point out the fact that we cannot view any of this in isolation. These amendments to Bill C-9 must also be understood alongside the fact that the Liberal government would change the definition of hate in Bill C-9. In doing so, as civil liberties experts and advocates from the political left and political right have said, they are putting in a murky definition that would make it easier to prosecute people for their thoughts, their beliefs and, in particular, their religious expression.

If members want to know what the Liberals think about this, I would refer them to what the former Liberal justice committee chair said: Religious scriptures, and he mentioned three entire books of the Bible and Torah, are “hateful” at times. He said that it should be criminal to quote certain scriptures.

We have a pluralistic country. There are people in the House of Commons and the Liberal Party who have a range of views. It is possible that the committee chair was out of line and not speaking for the Liberal government. I am very grateful that, just a couple of weeks after the member chairing the justice committee said that people should be criminally prosecuted for quoting scripture, he was removed from his post. The Liberals removed him as the justice committee chair, but that was to promote him. He is now the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture. The Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said that prosecutors should be able to, in his words, “press charges” against people quoting scriptures that he finds offensive and that the Liberal government finds offensive.

This is something the Liberal government has demanded Conservatives go along with in its agenda. When we said to let us review, line by line, exactly what they are trying to do, they cancelled the meeting, so we do not know when the Liberal government will decide to get around to this. Perhaps they are dealing with some tumult within their own ranks over how to deal with this.

I have had a number of conversations with all members of the House, and I realize there are people representing a variety of faith backgrounds who are members of Parliament for different parties. Perhaps some Liberals who are members of religious communities, or who represent people who are, are starting to wonder why the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are trying to remove protections on expressing religious belief from the Criminal Code, opening faith leaders and individual people of faith to criminal prosecution if their religious beliefs do not conform to the Liberal government's.

We need to be able to do real work as legislators. The justice committee must be able to do real work on Bill C-9. If the Liberals stopped obstructing their own agenda and stood by or rejected this amendment, doing so publicly and clearly, they could do it right now. Any member can get up in questions and comments and say that they have listened to Canadians and are backing away from this. I invite them to do it this very second.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is important, especially given the kind of day we have had: We just had the Minister of Women and Gender Equality, our Conservative colleagues from the opposite side, and the Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green parties speak about the importance of the Polytechnique attack on women that happened. The member opposite called it a “feminazi” hoax.

Can the member apologize in the House for saying that?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I was young, I said a great many things I regret, have paid the price for and apologized for.

I was proud to stand in the House yesterday and support the bill of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola to put in strict penalties for people who commit intimate partner violence. However, when the Liberals engage in this cancel culture game, they are proving why they cannot be trusted to hold the authority to put people away for what they say.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am having a very hard time understanding the Conservatives' position on this issue. The Conservative Party is known as the party of law and order, but they are completely off track when it comes to the religious exemption in the Criminal Code.

Last year, when we proposed repealing the religious exemption, a Conservative member came to tell me that his party was opposed to the idea. He said that his pastor wanted to be able to speak out against homosexuality because he objects to it based on his interpretation of the Bible. I told him that his pastor is welcome do so if that is how he interprets the Bible. However, I want to ask my colleague this. If the pastor who objects to homosexuality based on his reading of the Bible called on members of his congregation to cut the throats of homosexuals because they are gay and because that is how he interprets the Bible, would my colleague consider that a good idea?

All this religious exemption does is protect incitement to hatred and violence under the guise of religion. That is all it does. This is in no way an attack on freedom of expression. I would like to know whether my colleague would agree with statements like that being supported under this exemption to the Criminal Code.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a disgusting misrepresentation of what people of faith stand up for and do for this country every day. It is this rhetoric to which the Liberal government has decided to hitch its wagon in pushing forward with this amendment. Violent rhetoric, regardless of whether it is cloaked in religious belief or not, is inexcusable, already illegal and not subject to the religious defence here. When prosecutors do not charge people for inciting violence, it is a lack of political leadership.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say how proud I am to second this motion and the remarks the hon. member made this morning. Like my colleague, I have received a number of emails from faith leaders in my riding and would like the member to comment on this.

One of the things that unite faith leaders across this country is the fact that their congregations are composed of people of all political stripes. One of the comments I received from more than one faith leader in my riding is this: The reason they are contacting me, in many cases for the first time, is that, while they would prefer to remain apolitical, the Liberal government, through its support for the amendments to this bill, has politicized their role here and in their congregations.

I would like my colleague to respond to that.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith for all she has done to champion the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians, and certainly those of faith.

What is so important here is that this legislation was brought in under the guise of protecting religious communities from hate. That was how the Liberal government sold this legislation. However, the most vocal critics of it have been religious individuals and groups themselves, who now see the devil, pardon the pun, in the details that will be used to crack down on religious expression.

The point I will make is that politics have no place governing legislators or what is said at the pulpit, whether we are talking about Christians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else. We need to stand up for all people of faith. It is not for us in the chamber to legislate, govern or regulate what Canadians with deeply held religious convictions say. Again, it is certainly not in the government's purview to define hate in a way that tramples down the liberties of Canadians.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the good people of Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations.

I, too, share many of the concerns of my colleague who just spoke. We have seen first-hand, in my respectful opinion, a master class of Liberal hypocrisy.

On full display yesterday, during question period, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, who is a sitting Liberal member of the committee, said:

Mr. Speaker...after weeks of Conservative delays, the justice committee finally resumed its work on the combatting hate act, and we will continue that work on Thursday [meaning today].

Will the Conservatives make sure bail reform is passed before Christmas? Could the minister speak to the importance of keeping this work moving so Canadians can have these important justice reforms take place?

Clearly, it was a question posed to the secretary of state, who responded, in turn, by saying:

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been clear that they want stronger protections in the face of rising hate and that they want meaningful bail reform. After weeks of Conservative delay tactics and stalling in committee, I am really happy to see that they might move forward on the combatting hate crime legislation on Thursday.

Much to my surprise, and to the surprise of all my colleagues, I got to the office this morning at 8.30 a.m., looked at my P9 inbox and saw a message from the clerk of the justice committee announcing that today's important meeting was cancelled by the Liberal chair. It is probably as a result of the absolute split in the Liberal caucus over how to properly deal with this particular religious exemption defence.

At no time did the Liberal government ever project any intention of removing that religious exemption. Behind closed doors over the past weekend, they approached the Bloc Québécois member who has been steadfast in his position that this particular exemption needs to be removed. They worked out a deal that they would support this particular amendment, largely, if the Bloc Québécois would continue to support the eventual passage of Bill C-9. This is very dangerous, and hypocrisy at its finest.

We have experienced, as my colleague indicated, abrupt cancellations of meetings. We have had abrupt endings of meetings. We had allocated resources to go to midnight this past Tuesday, but the meeting abruptly ended at 5:30 p.m. as a result of religious leaders following this not only locally but also right across Canada. I, too, am receiving a lot of feedback expressing concerns about what the Liberal government is prepared to do. They abruptly adjourned, so I can only surmise that there is a lot of internal conflict between the justice committee and direction from the PMO on this particular issue.

At the heart of the Bloc Québécois amendment is something its members tried to pass through a couple of years ago that did not make it past first reading. They referred to an incident of a radical imam from Quebec, in October 2023, giving a speech at a pro-Palestinian rally.

He said:

Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don’t spare any of them.

That is what they are relying upon. As I will explain further in my speech, ultimately, the prosecution service in the province of Quebec declined to proceed.

Today, in the National Post, I read a very interesting article from Christine Van Geyn, one of the top constitutional lawyers in this country, part of the Canadian Constitution Foundation. The title of the article is “Changes to Bill C-9 aren't combatting hate—they're criminalizing faith”.

She wrote, “To secure Bloc Québécois support for its censorious Bill C-9, the Liberals have reportedly agreed to a troubling trade: removing the long-standing religious defence from Canada's hate-speech laws. This would be a mistake...Throughout the justice committee's hearings, Bloc MPs fixated on this defence. Their central example, repeated to nearly every witness, was” the example of the imam that I just referred to.

She continued:

Those comments were rightly condemned. They are grotesque. Complaints about them were investigated, and the RCMP prepared a report. It was reviewed by three Crown prosecutors, who concluded that no charges were warranted.

As Quebec's director of criminal and penal prosecutions put it, “The evidence does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the words spoken constitute incitement to hatred against an identifiable group” under Sec. 3 19 of the Criminal Code.

One may argue that “Zionist” was just code for “Jews.” One may also believe that praying for death is morally abhorrent. But the decision not to charge Charkaoui turned on the basic threshold of incitement to hatred, not on the religious defence [under section 319].

That is a very important distinction that the Bloc never repeats and that the Liberal government has never cited. There was no indication for the prosecution service that the religious defence was an impediment to prosecute or that it was even considered.

Logically speaking, it is also true that anyone who thinks Charkaoui was not charged because of the religious defence must also believe that his speech was given in good faith and, therefore, was reasonable and delivered without malicious intent.

She wrote further that “even if it had involved the defence, one inflammatory prayer at a political rally is not a justification for dismantling a safeguard that protects millions of Canadians from state intrusion into matters of faith.” That is what the Liberal government continues to do and has done, not only in this particular Parliament but in the 44th.

She continued:

The religious defence has also been essential to the constitutionality of the hate-speech prohibition itself. In R v Keegstra, the Supreme Court wrote that the offence is a minimal impairment on the right to freedom of expression, in part because of “the presence of the Sec. 319(3) defences.” The courts upheld the law because the religious exemption exists. Remove it, and the constitutional floor collapses.

But even beyond constitutional risk, removing the defence is a profound moral and civil liberties mistake. We should not want, let alone empower, prosecutors to criminalize any form of prayer.

Religious texts across traditions contain pleas for justice against enemies, metaphors for divine retribution and expressions of anguish, symbolism and cosmic struggle. This is not the realm of the police. If the state begins parsing Psalms...line-by-line in a courtroom, then we have forgotten why the Charter exists at all.

This is all the more reason for everyone in the House to support our motion to ensure that every major stakeholder who wishes to express an opinion to defend the religious expression that we have in the charter needs to be heard. If the Liberals will not do it on their own, we are asking collectively for the House to do it.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to reassure my Conservative colleagues. The Bloc Québécois is not on a mission against people of faith or people who preach. The Bloc Québécois is on a mission—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will ask the member to wait a moment while the member puts on his earpiece.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to reassure my colleagues: The Bloc Québécois is not on a mission against people of faith, believers or those who represent different religions. That is not the case at all. The Bloc Québécois wants to remove a provision of the Criminal Code that makes it possible to incite hatred under the guise of religion.

Take, for example, Mr. Charkaoui. Unless I am mistaken, the members who rise the most in the House to support the Jewish community are my Conservative colleagues. The Jewish community in Quebec was extremely concerned about what he did, but criminal charges have not even been brought against him. Many people are saying it is because of the religious exemption in the Criminal Code. Quebec's Jewish community supports the Bloc Québécois in its efforts. There is a general consensus in Quebec to support the Bloc Québécois's mission to remove this provision from the Criminal Code.

What does my colleague have to say to the Quebec National Assembly, which unanimously supports the Bloc Québécois's position on this issue and is calling for the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member clearly did not listen to my speech. The issue is not the religious exemption itself. It is the legal threshold that prosecutors must look at when presented with a case: Is there a reasonable prospect of a conviction? Is it in the public interest? As I indicated, the words of that radical Islamist were disgusting, absolutely abhorrent, but they do not meet the threshold of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. They have absolutely nothing to do with section 319. That was the heart of my speech.

If there is a lawyer within his caucus, perhaps that lawyer can do a little bit of research for the member, because the member needs to realize that for several decades that particular defence has been seldom used. It has had no success whatsoever, because of the existence of the current criminal provisions that deal with incitement to hatred.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, that was a great speech. I am part of the Christian community. Many Christians across Canada are concerned about threats posed to the very Bible itself.

Do Christians need to be concerned about this legislation? Does it really threaten the Bible and free speech in Canada?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, they should be very afraid. Every faith leader should be very afraid about what the Liberal government, with the support of the Bloc Québécois, wishes to do. As I indicated, religious freedom is under attack at the hands of the Liberal government. They absolutely need to speak out loud and clear.

Those members of religious organizations across this country in Liberal-held ridings, in Bloc ridings, need to reach out to their members to express very clearly that they do not support this attack on religious freedom.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Conservative Party, and in particular the member, who has been involved in the judicial system, for planting fear in the minds of Canadians. That is all the Conservative Party of Canada is doing today. It is shameful.

The member knows full well that this is not an infringement on the freedom of religion. If he had an ounce of integrity, he would indicate very clearly that pastors, preachers and imams have nothing to fear—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The comments made were clearly unparliamentary. I do not think I need to explain why.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That was a question; it was not an accusation. The hon. member would perhaps wish to reword his question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate why they are a little sensitive to the truth. At the end of the day, this has no infringement on the freedom of religion.

The member knows that. Why will he not say that?

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, that particular member just spews hatred and spews disgust. He impugns the integrity of every one of my Conservative colleagues. I am so disgusted in that particular framing of the question and the content of that question that I am not even going to respond. It is just not worthy of it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of issues I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the individuals who are following this debate.

People should be concerned about two different things. First is the subject matter itself. If I had enough time, I would go through some of the things provided to me. I usually do not like to reference things provided to me in written format, but I might end up doing that just to provide some assurances to people who are following the debate. This is in regard to the subject matter itself.

I have another area of concern, which is the way the Conservative Party of Canada continues to be a destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons, because it does a great disservice to Canadians. Canadians should be aware of that.

First, very briefly, I will deal with the subject matter. Back in the 1970s, Canada adopted the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To the best of my knowledge, all members of the House support the charter. It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who brought it in, and I remember witnessing, from my own home, the signing of that particular document. It is one of the reasons I took an interest in politics.

Canadians are very proud of the Charter of Rights. I believe it has made Canada a leader throughout the world in terms of our fundamental principles, such as democracy and the rule of law. The Charter of Rights provides a high level of comfort on a wide variety of issues.

The Charter of Rights, which any Canadian can acquire a copy of, reads, under “Fundamental Freedoms”:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, even the Conservative member applauds it, and justifiably so. The Charter of Rights trumps all the legislation we might want to pass. That is why we often ask if the legislation is charter-proof or if someone has actually done their homework and found out if it is charter-compliant. Otherwise, the Supreme Court of Canada will say that we messed up and we need to make a change.

The Harper regime was really good at that. It passed criminal laws that constantly were in contradiction of the Charter of Rights. As a direct result, the Supreme Court of Canada dictated that we needed to make changes. Look at even some of the private members' legislation.

My first recommendation, for those individuals who are concerned about the propaganda and the misinformation that floods out of the Conservative caucus, is to take a look at the Charter of Rights. Any legislation that passes has to be in compliance with the Charter of Rights, and the critic is very much aware of that.

The Conservatives try to give this false impression that if someone is a pastor, a priest or an imam and talks about something in the Bible or in the Quran, they will go to jail—

[An hon. member]

That's exactly what they said.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, that is not what it says.

Madam Speaker, that just goes to show that the Conservatives are drinking too much of that blue kool-aid.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

They really need to get an understanding of the law—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

We heard a speech just before this, and people were listening. Now I would ask the hon. members to listen to the parliamentary secretary until it is time for questions and comments.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can appreciate that members are really sensitive on this. After all, they just heard a speech of garbage, with all sorts of misinformation. I would suggest—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Whoa, whoa, the prosecutor is getting a little aggressive, Madam Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Members are getting very excited about this. Can we be respectful of one another?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I heard.

I would ask that we be respectful of one another and stop calling each other names.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We sit in the House and listen to, a lot of times, pure nonsense from the member on a regular basis, but we have never called it “garbage”. We respect the member's right to speak his mind, even though he says a lot of words but does not say much.

For him to say that the member's speech was “garbage” is absolute nonsense and unparliamentary. Every member—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I understand what the hon. member is trying to say, and it will be seen as a point of order because it caused disruption. That is the rule.

The hon. chief government whip.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative shadow critic for justice yelled across the way to the member speaking, saying that he was garbage. You said you heard it. At the very least, the member needs to stand up, apologize and retract that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to use an expression that I think fits the situation, which is “pot and kettle”. If one starts calling something garbage, they will get an answer of garbage.

I ask that we be respectful of one another and stop using those terms, because it will cause disruption and the speeches will never be done properly.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, may I start from the top?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the members across the way should be a little courteous.

I started off by saying that there are two concerns. The first was in regard to what type of information the Conservative Party of Canada is using. I have not verified it yet, but no doubt it will appear on social media, because the Conservatives are trying to give a false impression, based on fear, to people who are faithful to the religions they believe in and the leadership of those religions. I find that very disturbing, because it is definitely misleading; there is no doubt about that. That is the primary concern I have about the content of the legislation.

Now let us talk about the motivation of the legislation. Why is the Conservative Party choosing to do this on the floor of the House of Commons? They have options, but the Conservatives choose to use this as their motivation, in order to prevent government legislation from passing.

[An hon. member]

Oh. oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are supposed to be debating the budget implementation legislation today, but what we hear from the Conservatives is a bunch of crying: “waah, waah, waah”, to quote the member opposite.

The member opposite might not care, but every Canadian in every region of the country cares, because this is a budget to support Canadians. It is a part of a plan the Prime Minister has presented to Canada to build a country that is stronger and healthier and that works toward making Canada the strongest country in the G7. That is what the budget implementation act is all about.

If we factor in the efforts of the Prime Minister and the government in pursuing trade opportunities that can even go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border, members will find that they complement each other. All the members of the House, have a responsibility to co-operate and to actually serve our constituents first and foremost.

Time and time again, far too often, I witness the Conservatives' being more interested in serving the Conservative Party of Canada as opposed to serving Canadians, and we see that in their behaviour. Let me give a tangible example, dealing with Bill C-9. There is a committee that is supposed to be dealing with Bill C-9, but we have gone through hours of filibustering coming from the other side.

We cannot deal with Bill C-14 until we are finished with Bill C-9. Bill C-14 is the bail reform legislation. The Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians to bring forward bail reform legislation. Provinces, law enforcement, other stakeholders, and Canadians as a whole want bail reform legislation. The biggest roadblock, the only roadblock, in Canada today to prevent that from happening is the Conservative Party of Canada.

I say shame on each and every one of the members who continue to filibuster to prevent Canadians from getting substantial changes to our bail reform legislation. They should be ashamed of themselves, because that was in the election platform. Time and time again, Conservative member after Conservative member is preventing the passage of important legislation, whether it is at the committee stage or on the floor of the House of Commons.

This is the type of thing we see from the Conservative Party far too often. That is the motivation for today. Conservatives do not want to debate the budget legislation, again. It is not like this is the first time they have brought in concurrence reports. They cry, and they say they want more time and more debate on legislation. The other day I stood up and I said, “Well, Canadians work overtime. Canadians work past six o'clock in the evening.” I asked if the Conservatives would be prepared to sit until midnight. They said, “No, we do not do that.”

Conservatives do not like to work hard. They like to talk and complain. The next word I was going to use is a little unparliamentary, so I will not say it. At the end of the day, they do not like working for Canadians.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member says, “Come on.” I will challenge any member on the other side to stand up and tell me that they are prepared to work until midnight for the next two weeks in order for us have more debate on the floor of the House of Commons.

I would ask for unanimous consent to allow the House to sit until midnight for the rest of this session. Can they—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary.

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith is rising on a point of order.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I apologize if I do not have this right because I am a new member, but we are having this debate because the Liberals cancelled a meeting, and the member is actually—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is not a point of order. The members have a lot of latitude.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for unanimous consent to enable the House to sit until midnight for the rest of the session.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

There is no unanimous consent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, wow, that is truly amazing. I just finished challenging them to sit until midnight, and they all jumped up to say that they would sit until midnight. I called their bluff and asked if there was unanimous consent to sit until midnight. What did we see? The people who were jumping up then said, “No, no.” This proves the point. Do we not see it? The Conservative line is, “Do not allow legislation to pass. Let us do whatever we can to prevent that from happening and continue to deny Canadians bail reform legislation.” This is what the Conservative Party's position is.

We have Bill C-2, Bill C-9 and Bill C-12, all of which would make our communities safer, and all of which the Conservative Party of Canada is preventing from passing. Then, when I say, “We should debate it”, they say they do not have enough time because they have more members who want to speak. They cry us a river. When they are provided with an opportunity to have more time to debate, what do they do? They sit on their hands and say nothing except, “No, no, we do not sit past six o'clock.” Do they know how many Canadians work past six o'clock across the country? It is a whole lot of Canadians. Let me leave it at that.

I will tell the House something: The only thing here is a Conservative Party of Canada that does not see the merit. If they really want more debate, why would they not agree to unanimous consent? Seriously, why would they not do it? It is not as if all of them have to be present for it. It just means they have to debate it. After all, that is kind of what they wanted, but they avoid it.

[An hon. member]

Their single speechwriter is going to have to write more speeches.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, but now they have AI. They have ChatGPT. Those will help them with their speeches if they are running out of speeches to give.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the interests of Canadians, what we hear from the Conservative Party is something purely focused on one thing: what is in the best interest of the Conservative Party, not what is in the interest of Canadians. This is what we find unfortunate. We see it during question period. During question period, it is all about personal attacks. It is about character assassination. It is not about substantive questions. They attack the Prime Minister with personal attacks whenever they get the opportunity and prevent anything from passing in the House of Commons. Then they will say that the government is unable to pass anything. Well, duh. If they gave me 12 students from Sisler, Maples or any high school in Canada, I would be able to filibuster a bill indefinitely.

This is the type of mischief we see day in and day out coming from the Conservatives. We tried to get a commitment. Weeks ago, I was standing here and saying to members opposite, “Bail reform legislation is before us today.” I was debating it that day and all I asked for were commitments to allow the legislation to pass before the end of the year. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask for.

One of the Conservatives brought forward a private member's bill. It has a substantive change. He is standing up saying that he wants unanimous consent to pass it all today. “It is out of second reading, so there is no need for a committee meeting. It is out of report stage and third reading, so let us send it over to the Senate. We do not need to debate the legislation.” This is what Conservative members talk about for their private member's bills.

When it comes to government legislation, they say, “Oh, just hold on a second.” They want to give the false impression that the government does not know how to handle legislation, so they filibuster here on the floor of the House of Commons. They filibuster in the committee. They work on trying to come up with creative amendments in certain situations to prevent legislation from ultimately advancing. This is the behaviour we see from the Conservative Party. How productive is that?

Let us remember that, in the last federal election, Canadians told all of us, not just the government, that this was going to be a minority government. The expectation was that all parties would work together. That does not mean they have to support everything the government does, nor does the government have to support everything the opposition wants. However, there was an expectation that, when things are good for Canadians and in their best interest, there would be a sense of co-operation.

Do we see that today? We do not see an official opposition that is prepared to co-operate. How many times have we brought forward the budget implementation bill because Conservative after Conservative wanted to speak to it? They will not sit late so that more of them can speak to it, but they want to be able to speak to it. Why not allow the bill to pass to committee? If it goes to committee, it can be broken down, and several committees can go into it in great detail. They will not, though, because it is not in the Conservative Party's best interest. It might be in the interest of Canadians or Parliament as a whole, but it is not in the best interest of the Conservative Party. As a direct result, they are not going to deal with it. They have made the determination that they want to prevent the legislation from passing.

I can already imagine it today. We see the wind-up as the fall session comes to an end. My recommendation is that we come back for Christmas. I am okay with doing that. My colleagues might feel a little uneasy about it, but I will put the interests of Canadians ahead of my personal interests and the interests of Parliament. If it means we need to put in extra days, we should do that. If the Conservatives really and truly want more debate and are concerned about debate time, I am prepared to advocate that we sit longer hours and more days. They will not get any opposition from me on that. I can tell members that, at the end of the day, chances are that I will probably be around more than most others in order to listen to and participate in that debate.

Therefore, I look to my Conservative friends on the opposite side and appeal to them to look at the substantive legislation we have today, which has been filibustered. I ask them to work with the government, as the government will work with the opposition, so that we can in fact have substantive legislative changes, such as the bail reform legislation. That would be one for me personally, and it would also be an awesome thing to happen for Canadians. We could actually do it before Christmas, but everyone here knows it can only happen if the Conservative Party participates in it fully.

In the spirit of being a parliamentarian who has a deep amount of respect for the process, I apologize to the member opposite for saying that his speech was garbage. I respect all speeches delivered inside the House.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Madam Speaker, the election was at the end of April. We returned to Parliament at the end of May. We had approximately five to six weeks of sitting. We then broke for the summer. Approximately six months have passed since the election, and the very first piece of criminal justice legislation brought forward by the Attorney General is Bill C-9. The Liberals are prioritizing it. We had our debate. We got it to committee. Members heard, in my speech, about delays, cancelled meetings or meetings ending abruptly, which was all done by the Liberal chair at the time, who is now a minister. I listened to the member talk about obstruction and delays. He is a master of hypocrisy.

We were prepared to sit until midnight this past Tuesday. We are prepared to sit until midnight today to get to the heart of Bill C-9. Why did your government cancel the meeting abruptly?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member is supposed to be speaking through me.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

First of all, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the work the standing committees do. I recognize that, as a government, we are a minority. If the Bloc and the Conservatives choose to take certain actions, at times that could cause some issues where the government might need to see some sort of adjournment.

I think there is a practicality in what takes place at committee. I do not sit on that committee. I spend a lot of time inside the chamber. That is the reason I made the suggestion that we could, from my perspective, sit until midnight. That is why I asked for unanimous consent. I do not have a problem doing that. I will even go beyond that if it makes the member happy enough. I know we can get some legislation passed. It would be a wonderful thing for Canada and all Canadians.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, for years, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for the Criminal Code to stop protecting hate speech under the guise of religion. The law must apply equally to all. Religion must never justify hate.

Once again, we see that, within Canada, Quebec is regressing or stagnating. The same thing happened with secularism, conversion therapy and medical assistance in dying. Quebec settled these debates a long time ago. This is proof that our values are not compatible with this country's values and that it does not understand us either. Quebec deserves to function in accordance with its values. There is only one solution for that: Quebec must be independent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, one thing I love about Canada and about living in a federalist country is this: All areas have a high sense of uniqueness and a distinct character to them. I cherish, for example, the province of Quebec for the French language and the in-depth culture and arts programming it has. In many ways, it leads the country in different areas. Quebec and Manitoba share a lot in common. We both have hydro development. We both have a healthy aerospace industry. Manitoba has a growing francophone community.

That is one of the reasons I suggest that Canada is the best country in the world to call home. We appreciate the differences and the contributions of all communities, which make our country the great country it is.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's intervention today was extremely revealing. It revealed a lot about the Conservatives, especially in the way they acted in the House during the speech. We can look at what they were doing when he was talking versus the way they acted when it came to actually voting on the words they had just used moments before.

What underpins all of this, and the member brought it up in his speech, is how, exactly, the Conservatives approach their role in the House. They believe their role here is to obstruct at every possible opportunity. In reality, in a Westminster parliamentary system, the role of the opposition is to challenge the government to do better and be better, not to systematically, at every single opportunity, try to dismantle every piece of legislation and policy the government puts forward because the opposition could never imagine allowing it to have a win on something.

Could the member please expand on the thoughts he brought up earlier about the genuine role of the opposition and how the Reform Party across the way has completely lost its way?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if Preston Manning would have liked the member calling the Conservatives “the Reform Party”. They are probably a little farther to the right than the Reform Party ever was, in many ways.

Having said that, it was interesting. I will put it this way: Coming out of the election, I thought there might be a chance to see a different type of Conservative Party, especially when the leader of the Conservative Party lost his seat in Carleton. I recall how, when the leader was not here, or when the Conservative leader's office was in fact not as strong as it is today, we passed Bill C-5. That was co-operative. We could not have done it without the support of the Conservative Party. I am grateful for that, because it helps us build one Canadian economy and build the national priority projects. We got billions of dollars of investment because of that legislation.

Prior to the leader of the Conservative Party winning the by-election in August, there seemed to be more co-operation, but it seems we have gone back to where we were a year ago. The Conservative right once again dominates the party.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the reason we are here this morning is that the justice committee is asking for the opportunity to hear from Canadians, and to travel to do so. A travel motion before the House of Commons is, in fact, very rare. At the heart of why we need this travel motion is section 319 of the Criminal Code.

I would like to ask the member for Winnipeg North if he could clarify, in good faith, the position of the government and whether it does in fact want to remove paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which states, “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”.

As a person of faith, I never thought I would have this argument in this chamber, in this country. It is hard to stand here today, but this is why I am here. The Liberals challenged us on why we are here. I am here to stand up for people of all faiths in my nation, so they have freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights.

Will the member clarify? Do the Liberals want to remove that section from the Criminal Code?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know we are not supposed to use props, so I am going to put my Canadian Charter of Rights down.

I would say to the member that every member of the Liberal caucus, from the Prime Minister to every member, supports the Charter of Rights. I highly recommend that the member read in the Charter of Rights where it guarantees the right of freedom of religion.

I think of what a pastor, a priest or an imam says to their congregation, and there is no reason for people to be fearful. The only fear factor out there is the Conservative Party's trying to turn it into a wedge issue. If it is anything like their crime file, the reason they are doing it is fundraising purposes, and fundraising purposes alone.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I wonder what is in the Kool-Aid that the religious right is giving to the Conservatives. It must be pretty strong, because it is effective. The Conservatives seem to really believe what they are saying. They are claiming that this measure is directed at freedom of religious expression or freedom of religion. It is unbelievable.

My question is for the member for Winnipeg North, who seems to support removing the religious exemption in exchange for the Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C-9. In 2023, the Liberals did not support us on that issue. In 2024, I clearly remember that the minister at the time, Mr. Virani, proposed including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-63 to get the Bloc Québécois's support for the bill. We were already being pretty flexible. Now the same thing is being proposed once again, that is, including the removal of the religious exemption in Bill C-9. However, the Liberals are facing a bit of resistance, so now they are getting cold feet, so to speak, and have decided not to convene the committee so that they do not have to move forward on this.

I would really like my colleague from Winnipeg North to tell me whether the Liberals are serious this time. Are they really going to move forward on this? If so, why is the committee not sitting in order to finally put an end to this religious exemption, which is truly a disgrace in the Canadian system?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the best I can do is reinforce the Charter of Rights, which is something I believe in and every Liberal member of Parliament believes in.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Drummond.

That said, I too am having a hard time following my Liberal colleague from Winnipeg North. He is saying that there is some sort of agreement between the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois to not sit. Well, wait a minute. I was here yesterday. I was prepared to work until midnight. I am prepared to do so again tonight. What we asked, and I personally asked both the minister and the Liberal representative on the committee, was for Bill C‑9 to be passed before Christmas. It could not be any clearer than that. When I hear the member say that the Bloc Québécois is against this, I say, “Wait a minute, that is not right”.

Now, what is the Liberals' real position? As my colleague from Drummond said, we do not really know what to think of them anymore. I need someone to tell me whether the Liberals are actually afraid of religious lobbies. Is that why they are refusing to rid the Criminal Code of a provision that allows people to spread hate and incite hate as long as it is based on a religious text? That would be crazy. If that is really their position, they should say so clearly.

I do not think that is their position. It is not what I heard from the Minister of Justice. It is not what I am hearing from the Liberals I speak to. However, it seems to me that, on this matter, we keep taking one step forward and two steps back, and it is not only this week; it has been like that for years.

The Conservative motion we are debating today asks that the committee be allowed to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties. We are not against democracy, obviously. Listening to people tell us what they think of a bill is a good thing. However, travelling around is not the only way to get a viewpoint across. Committee travel is one thing, but having witnesses travel is another thing altogether.

So far, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has received some 30 witnesses. They have come to give testimony and express their viewpoints on Bill C‑9. We have also received around 40 briefs on this bill from various groups, individuals and experts. I think the work has been done. Could we hear from more witnesses? Of course. We can hear from as many witnesses and read as many briefs as we like, but at some point, we are going to have to move forward. We cannot sit and listen to people endlessly without ever taking action. Our job in this House is to be parliamentarians and to make laws.

The government tabled Bill C‑9. At the outset, I was not in agreement with it. I said as much to the minister. Amendments were put forward. He did not agree. We discussed it and we came to an agreement on a certain number of things that we brought forward at committee and that we hope will be finalized before the holidays. Instead, however, we are being told that we are starting over. We are going to go back to hearing from witnesses, and this time, we are going to go travelling around to make sure it takes as long as possible. Personally, I am not on board. I find all this rather disappointing.

I have Conservative colleagues whom I respect greatly, and I am sure they want us to work and move forward. However, there is something childish about all this. We have to face up to the situation. There is pressure from religious groups, that is true. My assistant called me half an hour before I entered the House. My constituency office received over 100 calls this morning from organizations and individuals telling us that Bill C-9 is very frightening and that we must vote against it.

I am not alone. I am sure that there are other parliamentarians in the House experiencing the same thing. This adds pressure. It is not fun to be under pressure. However, there is an expression that I often hear in English: “If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen”. Our job is to make laws.

We are being pressured by people who say one particular bill is great and another is not. That is normal. We have to stay the course despite that pressure or we are not worthy of captaining the ship. We represent people who expect us to take action. I like the idea of travelling around Canada, but I would be happy to do that next summer, during my time off.

For the time being, we are here to work, and Bill C‑9 is an important bill that deserves to be voted on and passed as quickly as possible.

Once again, religious pressure is the only explanation I have been given on that subject. As my esteemed Conservative colleague asked earlier, does this mean that we really want to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code? Yes, but contrary to what I have heard and what I often hear, this does not mean that people will no longer be able to read the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text. People will still be able to read these texts. People will still be able to practise whatever faith they choose, where they choose and as they see fit, which is great. That is freedom, and we support that.

Section 319 of the Criminal Code does not say that people are free to read the Quran, the Bible, the Torah or any other texts. Section 319 says spreading hate is prohibited. That is what section 319 is all about. The part we want to repeal states that spreading hate is allowed if it is based on a religious text someone believes in. We are saying that that is not okay.

If a person's religion demands that they hate and spread hate, that will not work in Canada. I have a lot of respect for individuals, but that will not work. It will not work in Quebec, and from what I know, it will not work in Canada either. We do not condone that. Individuals are free to change their religion, practise it elsewhere or set aside certain beliefs, but no one in either Quebec or Canada has the right to spread hate or incite hatred. It is prohibited, irrespective of whether the person is relying on a religious text, a philosophical text or anything else, and this should not change. Allowing the spread of hate for any reason whatsoever is at odds with our legal system.

That said, I still have the right to read the Bible, the Torah and the Quran. I still have the right to practise a faith and to take inspiration from those texts. The three texts I am referring to and many other similar texts are full of grand principles and wisdom that we could learn from. Religions are normally a good thing. We can take inspiration from them, both for making laws and for living in society. However, they should not be taken at face value.

Life is very different today from what it was 3,000 years ago. I am sorry, but I do not approve of stoning women for adultery. If I was ever in favour of that in another life—if in fact I had another life—it is clear to me that this is totally wrong today in 2025. I have a lot of respect for Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son for God, but I would not sacrifice my own children for any religious belief. Religious wars were once fought by valiant soldiers and people who were fighting for their belief systems, points of view and religions. While that made a lot of sense at the time, it no longer makes sense today. I hope that neither I nor my children and grandchildren will ever live through religious wars.

All that is history, but it is something we should draw on for inspiration. The general principles are good. Seeking peace and love and promoting them is a good thing. However, the words in those texts were written 3,000 years ago by an unknown individual who was laying out their view of religion. Today, some people are taking the message literally and using these words not to spread lofty principles of love, peace and togetherness, but to say that religious wars were acceptable and would be worth starting again. No, we do not approve of that. It makes no sense to us. It has no place in the Criminal Code. We are asking that it be purged from our laws. I am asking for it, the Bloc Québécois is asking for it and roughly 75% of Quebeckers are asking for it. I cannot remember the exact figures, but I believe that over 55% of the Canadian population is asking for it.

I can confirm what was said earlier. The Bloc Québécois had reached an agreement with Liberal Party representatives, including the Minister of Justice, to have these provisions stricken from the Criminal Code. I hope that we will be able to do so. I hope that we can get that wrapped up before Christmas and shake hands in peace and love before leaving for the holiday break, safe in the knowledge that people will be able to continue living in peace in both Quebec and Canada.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech, which included several points on which we agree. I would like him to comment on the second section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which relates to fundamental freedoms.

What does the Bloc Québécois understand these fundamental freedoms to mean?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague that the Bloc Québécois understands these provisions as they are written, and as everyone should read and understand them, I think, although we do recognize that the courts interpret these provisions broadly and frequently.

These are important provisions. We all agree on the importance of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. However, we know that freedom of expression and all such freedoms have limits, without which there would be chaos. I am free to protest and say what I think, but if I tell someone to do something illegal, for example if I advise them to kill their wife because they learned that she has slept with the neighbour, that is incitement to violence and has no place in a society that claims to be peaceful.

We agree with everything that is there. We have the same thing in Quebec. We have our legislative provisions, including our Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. We agree on that, but it must be interpreted in a reasonable way based on the context.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear my friend, the Bloc member, and I enjoy working with him at committee. I would like to understand if he has any knowledge of what is actually happening at the justice committee. He just referred to the Bloc having an agreement in the past tense. The meeting was cancelled last Tuesday and tonight's meeting has been cancelled. We have major pieces of legislation between us, but it appears as though the Liberals do not want us to convene.

I would like to follow up on something. My friend appears to suggest that the rationale for the amendment is the case of Adil Charkaoui in Montreal, who called for the extermination of the enemies of Allah. The Bloc seems to suggest that it is on the basis of this exception that charges were not instituted, but the prosecutorial service in Quebec said that is not the case; it is because it was not an identifiable group of people against whom he incited violence—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order, please.

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Adil Charkaoui's comments last year are indeed a good example, and no, I obviously do not have any proof that he was not charged because of the Criminal Code or the content of the Criminal Code.

What I am saying is that such provisions may not necessarily lead to acquittals, but they do lead Crown prosecutors to be more cautious in their approach. Let us say that I am a Crown prosecutor and I have to send the lawyers from my office to work on a case. When I read the indictment, I see that there is an easy defence for the person we want to prosecute, because the Criminal Code says that people have the right to engage in this type of speech if they do so based on a religious text. I am not going to have those lawyers argue in court for two or three years all the way up to the Supreme Court, just for them to be told something that we already know.

That is the problem with the religious exemption. It is not the acquittals that we are worried about. It is the fact that prosecutors do not even want to try to bring charges when they should because they know they cannot win.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we obviously disagree with the Bloc Québécois in this regard, but I would like to ask a question about the Liberal Party's position and the discussions that have taken place between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party.

We learned through the media on Monday, and this was confirmed by a Liberal spokesperson, that the government came to an agreement with the Bloc Québécois to move forward with this measure, which we believe is against religious freedom. Can the Bloc Québécois confirm the government's position?

It is rather strange that the government does not have the courage to tell us today where it stands. Can the Bloc Québécois confirm that the government stated its position on this issue with the agreement in question?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that that is indeed the case. We had an agreement regarding these provisions, regarding our amendment. I can also confirm that I, too, deplore this lack of courage that resulted in the cancellation of yesterday's meeting.

I urge the Minister of Justice and our colleagues on the committee to come to their senses and convene the committee so that we can work on these provisions and pass Bill C-9 as early as next week.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague from Rivière‑du‑Nord for his brilliant speech and for his thorough work on this file, which he has been adeptly looking after for years. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for this religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code to be repealed for quite some time, long before this year and long before this Parliament.

Earlier, my colleague spoke about support for this measure that, as I stated before, the Bloc Québécois has proposed many times. According to a Leger poll conducted last year, 75% of Quebeckers support this measure. It also has strong support in the rest of Canada. My colleague from Rivière-du-Nord said the figure was at least 55%. Actually, 66% of Canadians support this provision. That 66% of Canadians are the 66% of Canadians who fully understand what this measure means, and they are not fooled by populist rhetoric aimed at making them fear for their freedom of religion, which I find appalling. I think it is appalling and I will say why. It is because, as politicians, as elected representatives, as members of Parliament, we have a responsibility to be upfront with our constituents and to tell them the truth. We have a duty not to sway them into believing certain things that align with our personal views, our party's stance, or worse, the position that lobby groups are forcing on our parties.

I take this responsibility very seriously, and that is why, when people call my constituency office, as many did this morning, asking us to vote against Bill C-9 because it will allegedly violate their freedom of religion, like my colleagues, I tell my team to ask the callers to provide examples. We do not simply thank them for calling and tell them that we have taken note of their views and will take them into consideration. We ask them for examples of cases where, in the practice of their religion or faith or the practice of the minister, pastor, imam or priest delivering sermons in a church, temple, mosque or synagogue, there is something that could require protection under the religious exemption in section 319 of the Criminal Code.

No one is able to come up with an answer, and that is because any logical answer would be so awful, because this is so huge, because the people who call us in good faith, frightened by the Conservatives' narrative, think they are being told that their priest is no longer allowed to read the Bible or their imam is no longer allowed to quote the Quran or parts of the Quran because of this provision. That is not the case at all. Whatever reasons the director of criminal and penal prosecutions and the RCMP had for deciding that Adil Charkaoui's statements did not warrant charges being laid, I am going to repeat those words anyway, because they gave rise to much debate. They were widely discussed in Quebec and they are being discussed here as well, right now, in the House of Commons. At a pro-Palestine, pro-Gaza rally, Adil Charkaoui said, “Allah, take care of these Zionist aggressors. Allah, take care of the enemies of the people of Gaza. Allah, identify them all, then exterminate them. And don't spare any of them.”

Anyone who utters words like that is not sharing a religion of love or a message of hope and peace. Such a person is propagating hate. The fact that a decision was made by the prosecution service in Quebec, on the recommendation and evaluation of the report provided by the RCMP at the time, not to lay charges against a preacher like Adil Charkaoui, who had already had more than one run-in with the law, does not mean that we can set this aside and just move on and say there is nothing to see here. This is serious.

That is why we in the Bloc Québécois are here defending Quebec's values, and also the values of freedom of expression that are so precious to Quebeckers and Canadians alike, with measures like this one. It is a measure that simply says people do not have the right to say that, and additionally, they do not have the right to use religion as a shield to spread hate or call for violence or call for the extermination of anyone. The Conservatives are changing or redirecting or even embellishing the narrative in order to strike fear into their voters that their freedom of religion is under attack, and I find that to be irresponsible. I am going to stick with that word, although I could use other words that would not be as civil, and I do want to remain civil.

I also have a problem with how my Liberal colleagues have handled this specific file. As I said earlier when I asked my colleague from Winnipeg North a question, during the last Parliament, we studied Bill C-63, which sought to combat hatred. However, it did not work. The Bloc Québécois made what I felt was a very reasonable request to split the bill in two. One part of the bill had quite a bit of consensus among all the parties in the House. That part of the bill sought to protect vulnerable people from hateful content, including online content. As the Conservatives said at the time, that part of the bill was a matter of common sense. The other part focused on the concept of hatred and issues that were perhaps more suitable for debate and dissent. It needed to be discussed, but the Liberals did not want that. The Liberals were offering to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code in exchange for our support for Bill C-63 as a whole. That did not work because there were genuine concerns about freedom of expression and freedom of religion, and we could not go that far.

The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is currently studying the effects of influencers and social media on children and adolescents. Yesterday, we heard from professor David Morin and professor Marie-Ève Carignan, two eminent scholars from the UNESCO chair in the prevention of violent radicalization and extremism. Their appearance helped us realize that had this part of Bill C-63 been adopted, we would already have made a big step forward in protecting vulnerable persons. This brings me to the point that sometimes we delay the implementation of necessary and urgent legislation for political games. The longer implementation is delayed, the longer vulnerable persons are put in vulnerable situations. These individuals, including children, adolescents and numerous other vulnerable groups whom I need not list are left in harm's way.

In conclusion, I am disappointed with the discussion we are having today. I wish we could have risen above political partisanship or pressure from religious groups. I would have liked for us to stick to the facts and take this Bloc Québécois proposal for what it is: an extremely sensible measure that perhaps warrants discussion on the basis of personal convictions. However, we must stop anaesthetizing people with falsehoods and make sure we are bringing true facts to light so that we can have a frank and honest discussion.

I have not set foot in a church in a very long time, and that is something I must confess, if I can be allowed a little play on words. It has been a long time since I last heard a priest give a sermon, but I was an altar boy as a teenager, and I do not recall a single statement from a priest, a single sermon in which violence was promoted based on what the Bible says. Never in a million years can I imagine a pastor, a priest, a preacher, a minister, engaging in hateful speech, propagating hate or calling for violence in a religious message.

I would be very curious to find out more about the places of worship my Conservative friends attend and the ministers there. What is being said in those churches? A Conservative member once told me they are very afraid that removing this provision will put their ministers in danger for something they might say about homosexuals. What could they possibly say about homosexuals that would make them fear being prosecuted? Are they calling for their heads to be chopped off? What can they be saying? I fail to understand what speech they are trying to defend by opposing the removal of the religious exemption from the Criminal Code.

As a very important reminder, 75% of Quebeckers and 66% of Canadians are in favour of this measure. That is a pretty good consensus for at least having an honest discussion about the issue.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for speaking today on the important issue of online dangers for children. I also thank him for his work on the committee.

What is the Bloc's position on improving the safety of online platforms and social media for young people in Canada? What measures should the federal government take to better protect minors online? What activities should be promoted to encourage positive social habits?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I made a passing reference to that in my speech, but it was not really the main point of my speech.

That said, I will reserve my comments and response for later, once we have completed the study that is currently being conducted. With each new meeting during this study, we are learning some extremely interesting things.

The report on this study will be published at some point. At that point, we will be able to discuss the conclusions we have drawn from the study in committee.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the member, but does he understand that it is already illegal to make statements that incite violence?

It is already illegal. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and will violate the rights and freedoms of 27 million Canadians.

Does my colleague understand that?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my colleague is not reading that right. That is not at all the case.

I will take another approach. Hate speech and the propagation of hatred are indeed prohibited under section 319, but there is a religious exemption. If the religious exemption is not needed, then let us simply remove it. If it has not been used as a defence or has not been successfully used as a defence, then let us simply agree to remove it.

If my Conservative colleagues think that the safeguards that are already in place are strong enough, then why are they opposed to removing these two provisions of section 319 that allow for the propagation of hatred and violence under the guise of religion?

Let us simply remove those provisions if they serve no purpose.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are having a strange debate today.

From what I understand, the Liberals do not want to debate this in committee and the Conservatives are clearly against the provision. However, as my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord pointed out in his speech earlier, there was an agreement.

As my colleague from Drummond said—and I thank him for his excellent speech, by the way—75% of Quebeckers are in favour of the Bloc Québécois's proposal. What is more, the Quebec National Assembly has made a unanimous request for this. The 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly, across party lines, have asked the government to support the Bloc Québécois's proposal.

My question for my colleague is this: Does he know very many members of the Conservative caucus from Quebec who are saying that the Bloc Québécois's proposal is unacceptable?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that when we ask the Conservative caucus from Quebec this question, we do not get an answer right away. I look forward to hearing a speech on this from a Quebec Conservative. We might hear a bit more about their position and their arguments.

That was an excellent question from my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak forcefully against the motion—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We are in questions and comments.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has time for a very brief question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member can provide his assurance when he talked about telling the truth. I think it is important that we tell the truth because misleading information causes a great deal of fear.

Could the member provide his thoughts on that issue?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, in my speech, I spoke at length about how facts are being distorted and twisted in order to make people who are sincerely concerned accept the position of a political party. I find that unacceptable. I believe we have a duty to be honest. We have a duty to speak responsibly to voters and tell them the truth, the real facts.

In this case, I get the impression that a message of fear has been spread to make people of faith, people who practise a religion, feel threatened. That is completely wrong, and I agree that we have a responsibility to hold debates that respect the truth and the facts.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak very forcefully against Motion No. 219, which was brought forward by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, that seeks to instruct the justice committee to drop its work on the combatting hate act, Bill C-9, and instead launch a taxpayer-funded, cross-country tour as a means of delaying the committee's work.

Let us be clear from the start that this motion is not about hearing from Canadians. This motion is about delaying justice. It is about freezing the combatting hate act.

After weeks of Conservative obstruction, after hours of procedural games, after filibusters, points of order and challenges to the chair, when clause-by-clause analysis of the combatting hate act finally began, Conservatives panicked and pulled the emergency brake on this study and the committees work. This motion is that emergency brake.

Canadians deserve to know exactly what has been happening at the justice committee. For weeks, members opposite have used every trick in the procedural playbook to stall this bill, including points of order, challenges to the chair and attempts to reopen settled motions, which were efforts to drag the committee backward every time it tried to move forward. They were wasting time to block participation by witnesses, who wanted to testify to this bill. When the very first committee meeting on this bill was scheduled, when Canadians expected serious debate, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South shamelessly filibustered for hours, talking for two hours about dogs and cats, not about hate crimes, not about anti-Semitism, not about attacks on LGBTQ Canadians and not about threats against women.

While Canadians are being targeted by hate, Conservatives are entertaining themselves in gumming up the work of this committee and stalling the progress of this bill. They should be ashamed of themselves. Now that this procedural stalling has finally failed, Conservatives are trying a new tactic. They want Parliament to authorize a nationwide tour with flights, hotels and staff entourages, with no timeline to return to the bill and full authority to shut down the clause-by-clause analysis.

Let us call this what it is. It is not consultation. It is not accountability. This is instead a taxpayer-funded Conservative road show that is designed to kill the bill through delay. Canadians have asked us for protection from hate and intimidation. Conservatives have answered with a travel itinerary and an invoice.

I think about the reasons behind Bill C-9 to combat hate, and why this was one of the first bills the government brought forward in this parliamentary session. It is because of the imperative of addressing hate in Canada.

I have heard from people across my community about the importance of this issue and about how hate is on the rise. We have seen 5,000 hate crimes reported in 2024, almost double the number from 2018. Those numbers are probably under-reported compared with the number of Canadians who are actually facing hate crimes in this country. Why are these crimes going under-reported? It is because Canadians believe that the criminal justice system is not currently equipped to deal with the type of hate crimes we are seeing in this country. That is what the bill seeks to address. That is what the committee should be working on, ensuring that we get the bill back into Parliament to pass it so we can increase public safety for Canadians.

Hate is not an issue that is felt by a single community. Jewish Canadians, Muslim Canadians, the LGBTQ community, women and many other communities have all been subject to this rising tide of hate and bigotry, but particularly over the last two years, the Jewish community has felt this acutely and disproportionately, especially in Toronto—St. Paul's and other major cities. Religiously motivated hate crimes are the most reported category of hate crime in Toronto. Of those, 81% were committed against Jewish Canadians last year. Taking action against this rise in hate was a central promise that I made to the people of Toronto—St. Paul's in the recent election.

I firmly believe that the legislation we are debating, which we should be debating and moving forward, will be a critical first step in that direction. Where does that lead us? We are overdue for a conversation in this country about the legitimate boundaries of free expression.

We have seen protests turn more violent and hateful in recent years. We have seen this in Sikh and Hindu temples. We have seen it on the streets with people protesting on Israel and Palestine. We have seen it during COVID with the trucker protests and protests outside hospitals and vaccine clinics. We are grappling with an explosion of hate online that is moving off-line onto our streets and into our communities. Our right to free expression as Canadians is never, nor should it ever be, a shield against accountability. Canadian law has long distinguished between protected speech and wilful harm.

It was under the leadership of our 14th prime minister, Lester Pearson, my favourite, that the government of the day struck a special committee to review hate propaganda in Canada. That committee, which included a little known associate professor of law from the university of Montreal, subsequently our 15th prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, set out in its unanimous report a passage that our Supreme Court has cited:

This Report is a study in the power of words to maim, and what it is that a civilized society can do about it.... every society from time to time draws lines at the point where the intolerable and the impermissible coincide. In a free society such as our own, where the privilege of speech can induce ideas that may change the very order itself, there is a bias weighted heavily in favour of the maximum of rhetoric whatever the cost and consequences. But that bias stops this side of injury to the community itself and to individual members or identifiable groups innocently caught in verbal cross-fire that goes beyond legitimate debate.

When harm is done and injury occurs or violence ensues, we have an obligation to act on behalf of all citizens. The bill in front of the House and in front of the Standing Committee on Justice is a blueprint for action.

We have heard from communities, from law enforcement and from Crown corporations that first we need clarity in our law surrounding hate and speed with how it is enforced. To this end, our bill on combatting hate proposes to create new offences that would target exactly the sort of expression that is meant to terrorize a community rather than express policy or political disagreements, which are healthy in a democracy.

First, the obstruction offence would specifically go after behaviour that harasses users of community spaces belonging to identifiable groups. Blocking access to places where communities gather, such as schools, houses of worship and community centres, is not a form of free expression; it is bullying with the intent of terrifying a community into agreeing with one's views.

As I heard during a round table with community leaders that I hosted in my riding, hate is not limited to the steps outside a local school or synagogue. It can happen anywhere, as we learned in the hate-motivated stabbing of a Jewish woman in a grocery store right here in Ottawa.

Second, the intimidation offence in this bill would criminalize conduct that is done with the intent to intimidate. Speech in a vacuum is often innocuous, but recently we have seen groups of protesters, who are masked, yelling violent insults and hate at members of a targeted community. This is not free expression in a civil society. This is intimidation, pure and simple. Our laws are intended to prevent this. It must be stopped. Police must be empowered to intervene and make arrests before this hateful rhetoric turns into violence.

Third, this bill would create a new hate crime offence, one that could be applied against every offence in the Criminal Code or any other federal law. It would serve to explicitly denounce all criminal conduct motivated by hate.

Fourth, a new hate propaganda offence would prohibit the display of certain symbols associated with the Nazi party, such as the hakenkreuz and the Nazi SS bolts, as well as any symbols associated with a listed terrorist group, such as the flags of Hamas, Hezbollah or the Proud Boys. Importantly, this is an offence against the spreading of hate. It is not criminalizing symbols in an academic setting such as a text book. Our laws are sophisticated; they can distinguish between these things. For many communities, these symbols are deeply traumatic, and the public display of them is not only offensive, but also dehumanizing and terrorizing.

When a terrorist entity in the country is listed by the government and by Parliament, Parliament should prohibit the spreading of hate through the display of its symbols. The public display of these symbols is often done with the explicit intent, more often than not, of scaring people and spreading hate, leading to violence. Criminalizing the wilful public use of these symbols should be an opinion on which there is consensus in the House.

We introduced the combatting hate act alongside the bail and sentencing reform act to respond directly to what communities across Canada are demanding. They are demanding stronger protections against hate. They are demanding stronger consequences for intimidation. They are demanding stronger tools for law enforcement.

From day one, the Minister of Justice has said clearly that we remain open to constructive improvements to the bill in good faith. What we will not accept is bad-faith sabotage and delay dressed up as consultation, which is what we are getting from the other side of the House.

Canadians are not asking for a road show; they are demanding results. They are demanding that we not delay and that we pass the bill with expediency. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, or CIJA, wrote publicly to the Conservative leader, urging him to work with the government to pass Bill C-9 in the spirit of collaboration. Police services, municipal leaders, religious communities and human rights organizations all want the bill passed now.

Let us be honest about what is really going on here. It is clear that the Leader of the Opposition has a divided caucus on the bill. It is clear that he does not want this to go to a vote before his leadership review next month. I ask the members opposite directly why they are more interested in saving the Leader of the Opposition's job than in saving the lives of Canadians who are being targeted by hate and intimidation. Why will they not move the bill forward?

We are hearing something even more reckless from the opposition. They are calling the combatting hate bill a censorship bill. Let me ask them plainly. Do the members opposite think it is okay to see synagogues firebombed? Do the members opposite think it is okay to threaten and target LGBTQ people because of whom they love? Do the members opposite think it is okay to wave a terrorist flag in public and call for the extermination of women and racialized Canadians? Of course not. That is why we need to get behind this bill. That is the type of egregious, hateful conduct that the bill targets. When the opposition screams about censorship, the real question is this: Which form of hate are they trying to protect?

Only Conservatives would call the bill censorship, while all of the following groups stand behind it. We have the Edmonton Police Service, B’nai Brith Canada, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Canadian Hindu alliance and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

It is no surprise that this latest outrage comes from the same political wing that has previously minimized real-world violence and spread reckless rhetoric. Every single delay to the bill right now, including this motion for instruction before the House today, is a delay that belongs to the Conservative Party.

Conservatives talked for two hours about cats and dogs instead of starting the clause-by-clause review of the bill. They challenged the chair. They tried repeatedly to pull the committee off the bill. When clause-by-clause finally started, they dropped this motion to try to shut it down. This motion has one purpose and one purpose only. It is to push the combatting hate act into the deep-freeze. It is not to improve it, not to strengthen it, not to protect Canadians and not to address the rising tide of hate and anti-Semitism we see in the country, but to stop it cold in its tracks and put it off, so that they do not have to face the division in their caucus, take a vote on it and get behind a bill that organizations and communities across this country support.

We will not allow that. We will not stand behind that. Canadians want protection from hate. Conservatives want excuses to stall. Canadians want laws that keep them safe. Conservatives want a trip across the country with flights, hotels and theatrics that they will manufacture.

We will defeat this motion and this stunt, and we will do everything in our power to pass the combatting hate act despite this stunt. It is noise on that side of the House. It cannot distract us from the important issues that have plagued this country. This bill is an important, overdue step forward in combatting hate in the country. This will be a proud part of our Canadian history and the lawful boundaries on freedom of expression when it crosses into a territory that is intimidating and causes Canadians to be fearful in their streets and their neighbourhoods. That is the scourge of hate.

Let us put an end to this. Let us vote down this motion. I encourage the members opposite to put their money where their mouth is, get behind their principles and support a bill that combats hate in Canada.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

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?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with many issues like this, it behooves the members opposite to stand up and actually read the Criminal Code and its definition of hate. Their approach to these issues is to fearmonger and to shed light on situations that are unlikely to see the light of day in a court of law.

The Criminal Code defines hate as:

communicating statements in any public place, [inciting] hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace

We also have Criminal Code provisions preventing the “wilful promotion of hatred”. This bill would give clarity to the definition of hate.

In this country, we should not stand up and permit hate. Those who spread hate need to be accountable for it, and law enforcement needs a tool to police it.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the situation is quite clear today. Religious lobbies are influencing both the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party. The Conservatives are spreading disinformation to mobilize their religious base, while the Liberals have capitulated and withdrawn their support for removing the religious exemption for hate speech.

The Quebec National Assembly has stated clearly and unanimously that this loophole in the Criminal Code, which still allows hate speech on religious grounds, must be closed.

Will the Liberals stop dancing around the issue today? Will they clearly explain why they are turning their backs on Quebeckers at a time when hatred is on the rise in public places?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, the Minister of Justice is open to considering good faith amendments to this bill.

The government does not hold a monopoly on great legislation. Let us move that legislation forward. Let us have those debates in good faith. Let us talk critically about the state of the law and what it actually is, not what the Conservatives want people online to believe it is. Let us look at what the Supreme Court has said about hate and how the law is intended to protect freedoms in our democracy.

When we recognize the scourge of hate, we allow people to live freer lives because they are free of hate, fear and intimidation. That is the purpose of the hate laws that we have had in this country for decades.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I really and truly appreciate the comments from the parliamentary secretary.

The unfortunate reality is that the Conservative Party of Canada's behaviour around this legislation is affecting two pieces of legislation. One deals with hate crimes, and Canadians are not going to be able to see the hate crime legislation before the end of the year. The other deals with bail reform, which is at the same committee. This is something the Prime Minister made a commitment on as part of our election platform.

Liberals want to see both bills passed before the end of the year. The victims here are Canadians and the safety of our communities. Could the member reflect on how selfish the Conservative Party is being by not allowing Canadians to have this legislation passed?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is selfish, and the Conservatives should be ashamed of their behaviour in stalling this bill.

I have to tell members that I speak to constituents in my riding all the time who are affected by the hate on their streets and in their communities. They are scared of dropping their children off at day care or their young students going to university, going on campus or going to downtown Toronto to work, and having to walk through a protest. This is more than words; this is violence.

Our laws are intended to prevent this and protect Canadians from experiencing that fear and intimidation in their day-to-day lives. This is what the combatting hate act seeks to address, and the Conservatives need to stand up and get behind this bill.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a short question. The member opposite listed a number of groups that supported Bill C-9. Does that same list she recited in her speech support the amendment that was just proposed?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would have been great if the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights had been able to hear more witnesses, but because of the Conservatives' filibustering, those on the witness list were not able to appear in front of the committee. The Conservatives were too busy talking about their family pets and filibustering the work that needed to be done.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of religious freedom is in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees religious freedom, yet we have members of the Conservative Party providing, I would suggest, misleading information that is ultimately causing a great deal of concern for those who practise a faith. Unfortunately, as a result, people might receive misinformation and then bring it to their attention. In fact, the Conservatives know they are doing this, and it is causing fear in the minds of many.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on that.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a proud Christian. I am a proud Canadian. I believe in the tenets of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and I believe deeply in our freedom of expression, but I am also a lawyer, and I understand that there is a boundary. When speech crosses a high threshold into hate, inciting fear, inciting violence and calling for the death or extermination of our fellow citizens, it is simply wrong.

Nothing should keep people from being accountable for that type of interpretation and those types of hurtful statements. Everyone is a contributing part of Canadian democracy. We need to uphold it. This is what these laws seek to protect.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I represent one of the largest Jewish communities in the country, and I will not take any lessons from the Liberals on safeguarding the Jewish community.

I am also tired of the other side accusing the Conservatives of slowing this down.

I would like to ask the member a very clear question. Last Tuesday, the justice committee was ready to sit and listen with respect to bail or to Bill C-9, and the Liberals cancelled the meeting. This morning, after I woke up, I was sipping on my cup of coffee and getting ready for Bill C-9 tonight, when I learned that the justice committee meeting tonight had been cancelled by the Liberal chair.

If the Liberals are so determined to move forward with this terrible piece of legislation, why did they cancel tonight's justice committee meeting? I would like an answer, please.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the Conservative bench to stand up and vote in favour of this bill, because I have yet to see evidence that they would support this bill and protect Canadians from hate and intimidation. In the two years since October 7, I have yet to hear a Conservative stand up in favour of safe access zones, for example, in municipalities across this country.

We know exactly where the Conservatives stand. We have heard their debates on this bill in Parliament and at committee. Canadians should know they are all talk when it comes to supporting communities and protecting them from hate. They will not put their votes behind supporting this legislation because they are divided as a caucus on the very measures this bill seeks to promote: protecting Canadians from hate and placing legitimate, lawful boundaries on hate speech.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to pick up on the issue of hate speech, which is very real. The member made reference to several examples of it. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, the legislation is not going to be able to pass, because of Conservative obstruction. I am wondering if she could once again provide her thoughts in regard to the sadness surrounding the legislation's not being—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too have had the experience of working during COVID, when there were protests outside hospitals and vaccine clinics. As a government, we took the same steps. We protected doctors and nurses doing their jobs. We protected Canadians wanting to get vaccines. The same things are happening in Canada today; we need to protect places of worship, community centres and other places where communities gather, because the same fear and intimidation are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today on behalf of my constituents of Bowmanville—Oshawa North to oppose Bill C-9 and to support efforts to further scrutinize and study the legislation.

I will be sharing my time with the member for York Centre.

There are many problems with Bill C-9 and the Liberal attempt to amend Bill C-9 to criminalize the reading and sharing of Bible verses in this country. We oppose this for many reasons, but I do want to draw attention to an area that has not gotten enough attention: the efforts of the Liberal Party to enact a form of cultural imperialism on Christians, Muslims and Jews in this country.

I want to share an academic definition of “cultural imperialism” because I am sure many members of the House probably are not used to hearing that term to describe what the Liberal Party is attempting to do to citizens of our country. This definition comes from EBSCO, a research database. Published in 2024, the definition reads:

Cultural imperialism refers to the imposition of one culture's values, beliefs, and practices over another, often leading to the erosion of the latter's unique cultural identity.... It manifests through various mediums, including education, religion, and media, where dominant cultures often shape and redefine the social and ethical frameworks of less dominant societies....

Cultural imperialism causes changes that are usually faster than would otherwise occur, and in a direction that benefits those from the dominant or influencing culture. The faster pace can mean that the changes have a destabilizing effect on other aspects of the culture, and the association of the changes with benefits accruing to members of the dominant culture, taken together mean that one party is benefiting from actions that are harmful to others.

I share this definition to provide some context for what I believe the Liberal Party is doing right now. It has been in power for over a decade and has tried its very best to exercise influence over every institution in this country. It has abused the power of the federal government to impose its values, beliefs and practices on as many institutions in our country as it possibly can. Today we see evidence of that through Bill C-9 and the Liberal effort to amend Bill C-9, an effort to exercise that cultural imperialism over churches, mosques and synagogues.

I have provided an academic definition of cultural imperialism, but I would also like to provide a pop culture reference. In the hit song from last year, Kendrick Lamar's Not Like Us, Lamar uses some language to describe colonial thinking, in his diss track to Drake. He says:

...you not a colleague,
you a...colonizer

That is precisely what the Liberal Party is attempting to do to Christians, Muslims and Jews in this country. Liberals are not treating the diverse communities of our country with any degree of respect. They are not treating them like colleagues, listening to them, working with them and respecting their traditions and faiths. Instead they are behaving like colonizers, attempting to abuse state power to exercise undue influence by attempting to criminalize things that families in this country have believed in since the very founding of this nation by the English and the French.

The Liberals will make, of course, as they have made throughout this morning and afternoon, efforts to characterize our concerns over the legislation as theatrics, but I bring it back to the actual language used by the now Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who was promoted by the Prime Minister after he made the following comments. As chair of the justice committee, on October 30, he said that three books of the Bible, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, are hateful.

The minister used the language of hate to describe verses in the Bible that people have prayed over, read to their children and shared in communities all across this country for a very long time. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which the Liberal Party pretends, and I emphasize “pretends”, to care about, enshrines the right to religious freedom precisely as a sign of respect for the fact that there are things the government should not have its fingerprints on.

The government should not make its way into churches, mosques and synagogues in an effort to bring Liberal values, nor use the criminal justice system to enforce Liberal values on the private religious lives of Canadian citizens, but that is precisely what a colonizer would do. That is precisely what a cultural imperialist would do. They would look at churches, mosques and synagogues and ask how the federal government can make its way in there. It is wrong, it is unethical and it is against the traditions of this country. It is an insult to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

One thing I have observed in the relatively short time I have been a member of Parliament is that the Liberal Party does something that I do not know what to name; perhaps it is mind games or false presentation. It is making an effort to convince Christians, Muslims and Jews of various cultural backgrounds that they respect them. The Liberals make an effort to show they want to hear them and welcome them into Canadian politics.

I have seen with my own eyes Liberals in the Toronto area running around at cultural events and holidays, eating samosas and jerk chicken and pretending they respect people from diverse community backgrounds. They run around offering people DEI slogans like “Diversity is our strength.” They say all kinds of funny things, like “diversity, vote for me”. I know the kind of attitude they bring around our communities.

What do they do when they come to Ottawa? They want to culturally imperialize the people of this country and their children. They actually have no respect for diversity at all, and any Christians, Muslims, or Jews whose ancestors come from any part of the world must be able to unite in recognizing that the Liberal Party has no respect for our religions, our traditions or our values. The Liberals believe that the federal government is superior to us, and they believe they have the right to impose their values on our churches, mosques and synagogues.

When we talk about the language of colonizers and cultural imperialists, we have to recognize that when they attack scripture, when they attack the Bible, when they attack our religions and when they try to justify bringing the criminal justice system into our places of worship, they are trying to strip away the things that make us well-rounded people. To them we are simply economic inputs. We should have no culture. They believe we should have no meaning in our lives.

They offer us nihilism. They offer us the chance to be a column on a spreadsheet used to calculate GDP. That is all they think of us and of the efforts we make to be well-rounded people, to be part of a community, to believe in something, to have conviction and to be connected to the traditions of our fathers, our mothers, our grandfathers and our grandmothers. They ridicule and they insult. They call it hateful to believe that we come from something.

However, we stand on the shoulders of giants who sacrificed for us to be here. They sacrificed for us to have the life we have today, and we will not denounce the very people who have made our lives possible. We will not denounce the cultures and traditions they come from. We will not sit here quietly and idly while the Liberal Party seeks to call our ancestors hateful. We will not accept that. We will reject their cultural imperialism. We will call them colonizers when they behave like colonizers.

In closing, I will suggest that one of the reasons the Liberals denigrate Canadian history, one of the reasons they keep the Canadian flag at half-mast for a year, and one of the reasons they support teaching our children in this country that our country should be ashamed of its own history, is that they are embarrassed by what they see in the mirror. They have not learned the lessons from history, and they repeat the mistakes made in history of colonizing and imperializing over other people.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, where does the member get off thinking he knows the first thing about me? How does he believe he knows what church I was baptized in, what church I visit every Sunday morning, what church my wife and I got married in or what faith my wife and I both practise? The member has no clue, yet he stands up in the House and decides to preach to us about who we are, when he has absolutely no clue.

Is it even possible, in the member's mind, that perhaps I am deeply faithful to my own religion? I just do not see the need to show that in the House of Commons to everybody else.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know anything about the member for Kingston and the Islands other than what he shows me when I show up to work. What I see when I show up to work is a man with no respect for Christians, Muslims and Jews in this country and a man who supports efforts by the Liberal Party to colonize and imperialize people—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands is a Christian himself and to make the type of allegation that the member just made, I believe he owes—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I will ask the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North to please quiet down.

Could the member for Winnipeg North quickly get to the point of his intervention, please?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the government House whip as a Christian, and it is distasteful for the member to say what he just put on the record. We would ask that he withdraw the comments and apologize.

[An hon. member]

Zero chance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Then he should leave the chamber.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I will stand here all day until the House comes back to order.

I will review what was said on the tapes. I will take a look at the blues and come back to the House if necessary.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[An hon. member]

He should not have the right to speak.

[An hon. member]

Censorship, it is Liberal censorship.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I will invite the member to please not take the floor when he has not been recognized by the Chair.

The hon. chief government whip is rising on the same point of order.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what was said about me, because I will leave it to the member to do the respectful thing and apologize, the member just yelled out to you, Mr. Speaker, that you are participating in Liberal censorship. He owes an apology to the House, to you personally and to the seat that you occupy.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I did not hear that comment, but I do appreciate—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Drummond is rising on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, much has been said about decorum in the House. How many warnings do you have to give, how many times do you have to yell “order” before you dish out consequences? It is starting to get embarrassing, quite frankly.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for bringing some order and for enforcing your authority in the House.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his comment.

We are now on questions and comments, and I am hoping we can get through the next three and a half minutes without further interruptions and interjections. I will just ask all members to please have some respect. This is a place of debate. This is a place where we should have vigorous debates, but when comments go beyond the debate and get into the questioning of the motivations or the character of individual members, that is where things go too far. I am going to ask members to have some respect for the offices that we hold on behalf of the Canadians who sent us here from coast to coast.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think Quebeckers who are watching what is happening here must be finding it a bit surreal. Everyone is missing the point.

Let us take a good look at the Bloc Québécois's proposal concerning the religious exemption. The Criminal Code says that it is against the law to promote hatred, to incite hatred. Unfortunately, there is a small paragraph that provides an exemption when a religious text is involved. The bill simply removes this religious exemption. Nobody is attacking any religion.

My colleague says that this proposal is steeped in imperialism and colonialism. I would say that 75% of Quebeckers are in favour of this proposal. Moreover, all 125 members of the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion in favour of this proposal.

Is my colleague saying that 75% of Quebeckers and 100% of the members of the Quebec National Assembly are imperialists and colonialists?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I talked about Liberal colonizers and Liberal imperialists, just to clarify the record.

To my colleague from Quebec, what I would say is that the Bloc Québécois has represented their efforts here in this chamber as pushing back on the encroachment of the federal government. In this situation, with Bill C-9 and the amendment, the Bloc Québécois is actually asking the federal government to have more power over the lives of Quebeckers and all Canadian citizens.

I would think that would be an area where the Bloc Québécois and Conservatives would agree: no abuse of federal state power.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the Bill of Rights, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker said, “I am...free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I [believe is] right, free to oppose what I believe wrong”. Those are the foundations our country was built on, which are the same values the Liberal government is attacking. It is attacking faith all across the spectrum: Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims, Jews and Christians. Why is the government prioritizing putting away pastors for preaching the Bible as opposed to putting away repeat violent offenders?

The member travels quite a bit across the country, meeting with folks from all walks of life. What is he hearing from different faith leaders across our country?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what is uniting faith leaders and faith communities across Canada is concern that we have a Liberal federal government right now that does not understand the boundaries over its own power.

Instead of being humble enough to recognize that people who are sick or struggling in communities across our nation rely on churches, mosques and synagogues as a source of support and strength, the Liberal government instead looks at these institutions and wonders how it can exercise more state power over every function of our lives and communities. It is wrong, and it must be opposed.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what are the Liberals doing? To those at home who still do not understand what is happening vis-à-vis this bill, let me provide them with a quick summary. It is going to be a professional summary.

The first thing the Liberals are doing is lowering the threshold for the definition of hatred. The Supreme Court has articulated the test for hatred in a case called Keegstra, 35 years ago. It was a good working definition. Now they are lowering the threshold to make it easier to convict for hate speech.

Second, the Liberals are eliminating the requirement prescribed in the Criminal Code for the Attorney General's consent in order to commence hate-related prosecutions. Of course, we have articulated a number of concerns with that. We could have private prosecutions that would be instituted by vexatious litigants potentially putting free speech at risk, especially with a lower threshold.

Further, the Liberals are creating a stand-alone, hate-motivated offence. What is interesting about that offence is that it does not just pertain solely to criminal conduct. Specifically, the language in the section provides that the stand-alone hatred offence can be predicated on any offence contrary to any federal statute. Therefore, one may have an offence under the Canada Labour Code or the Canada Elections Act, and if a prosecutor, perhaps a politically motivated prosecutor, believes it may have been motivated by hatred, then one could be subject to criminal prosecution for what is otherwise civil behaviour.

The Liberals take credit for and suggest that the new intimidation and access to facilities offence changes things. At the justice committee, we had an unbiased professional witness, Mark Sandler, one of the most celebrated criminal defence attorneys in this country, who was invited both by me and the Liberals. He said that the new access and intimidation offence does not do anything that is not already criminal under the Criminal Code. It is criminal to intimidate folks trying to enter their place of worship or school. It is criminal, certainly, to behave in a threatening fashion.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind their heckles. I welcome their heckles.

The Liberals did not have the courage to show up at the justice committee today. They cancelled the committee that was to consider the bill clause by clause. They are afraid because they know the bill is going nowhere and that it is a terrible bill. Therefore, we should be travelling across the country, from coast to coast to coast, so that Canadians can learn what a terrible piece of legislation this is.

Almost every witness we heard from at the justice committee said that the Liberals missed the point and that what they should have done is criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism. That is what we are seeing on Canada's streets. During the previous Conservative government, we had a law that criminalized the glorification of terrorism, but Justin Trudeau and his minions, in 2017, repealed Bill C-51. Instead, what we have going on right now is folks in my riding dressing like Yahya Sinwar, the worst murderer of Jews since the Holocaust, who is being glorified and celebrated.

This is why I am proud that just a few weeks ago, I brought my first private member's bill to criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, terrorist activity, terrorist groups or any activity of a terrorist group, and I challenge the Liberals. If they actually want to do something about this, if they want to do something about what is happening on Canada's streets, what is happening in my riding, which is one of the most Jewish ridings in the country, they should pass my PMB, Bill C-257, and criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism, terrorist activity or terrorist groups.

I would like to take a pause for a minute and speak a bit from the heart. I am joined here by my friend from Saskatchewan. I had a couple of friends over for refreshments at my home last week. My friend asked me if I could talk to him about what it was like in the U.S.S.R. I was born and lived in the Soviet Union until I was almost nine. If I could capture it in one word, it would be fear. As an eight-year-old, one has enough intellectual presence to understand when one's family is afraid.

I first realized that I was of the Jewish faith when I was four or five. It was on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. I walked into my grandparents' bedroom, as I was raised by my grandparents, and I saw my grandpa reading a Siddur, a Jewish prayer book. This would have been in 1984 or 1985. Even then, despite Gorbachev's glasnost and, arguably, perestroika, if a Soviet resident was found with a Jewish prayer book, they could potentially be looking at a labour camp for three to five years. That was one of my first memories. I have asked my dad about it subsequently. He said it was unbelievable that my grandpa had that book.

I cannot believe that I am sitting in the House right now after hearing the member, who is the Canadian identity and culture minister, essentially suggest that reciting parts of the Bible could somehow be criminalized, almost like a strict liability offence. I cannot fathom that. It is as if we were back in the U.S.S.R., just like the Beatles song.

One of the worst things this bill would do, in addition to now supposedly looking to eliminate the religious defence, is that it would lower the threshold for what is hate speech.

I had a considerable discussion with my friend about it the other week, about how we were taught that we should avoid certain topics. Certain topics were taboo. We were not allowed to discuss the west. We were not allowed to use the word “America”. We were not allowed to use the word “Israel”. We were not allowed to point out that there is no bread, jeans or eggs in the store. That was because the only religion allowed was Communism.

When my friend from Bowmanville—Oshawa North talks about Liberal colonialism, that is exactly what it is. It is Liberal dictatorship of our freedom of thought. There are no other thoughts allowed, other than Liberal thought. Someone should be ashamed. I am proud of my Conservative colleagues. There should be shame no more.

We know that we are on the right side of this one and so do the Liberals. That is why, this morning, contrary to the suggestion that they wanted to move this bill forward, they cancelled today's justice committee meeting. I was prepared to show up tonight. We were all prepared to show up at 3:30 to discuss, clause by clause, this bill, but they locked us out.

Why are the Liberals saying they are bringing this religious exemption? This is very important. Supposedly, according to the Bloc, it was because of a guy named Adil Charkaoui, who, on October 28, 2024, in an Arabic speech to protesters in Montreal, denounced Zionist aggressors and called on Allah to kill the enemies of the people of Gaza, to spare none of them. The Bloc is suggesting that it is because of a religious exemption that Adil Charkaoui was not charged. That is not true at all.

First of all, we are talking about incitement to violence. If members read paragraph 319(3)(b), it only applies to the government. As to the second section, which is the wilful promotion of hatred in 319, it does not apply to 319(1), so I reject that argument just on legal grounds, to begin with.

Second of all, the section is very clear. In order for a person to avail themself of the defence, the religious speech has to be in good faith. That means that a person cannot wish for the extermination of peoples. If they are wishing for the extermination of peoples, it is no longer in good faith and the defence does not apply.

Finally, as if we do not read the news, the Quebec prosecutorial service came out on this in May of 2025 and explained what transpired. The reason they did not proceed against Charkaoui is not because of a religious defence, but because they said that he did not call for violence against an identifiable group of people. The enemies of Allah, according to the Quebec prosecutors, was not a defined group they could latch onto the incitement to violence provision and charge.

This is a farce. I do not know why we are here. We could be debating bail right now. We have Bill C-14, a very weak attempt to reform bail and sentencing that is presently before the justice committee. Last Tuesday, the Liberals locked us out, and they accuse us of a filibuster. Tonight, the Liberals locked us out, and they accuse us of somehow sabotaging this.

Let us get together tonight. Let us reopen the committee and hear about bail. Let us get some work done. Toronto is turning into Gotham City, yet these Liberals have no shame. Now reality has caught up to them.

Canadians across the country understand that this is a terrible bill. I implore the government to withdraw it. Let us go back to the drawing board. Do not do me any favours. I represent one of the largest Jewish constituencies in the country. This bill does nothing to protect them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the amount of misinformation and misleading information pumped out through social media and emails by the Conservative Party really does a disservice to all Canadians.

The member spoke about the committee. Now, the Conservative Party wants to use tax dollars to tour the country to spread even more misinformation. It is truly amazing. As opposed to dealing with hate messaging and the hate being experienced by many Canadians, the Conservatives are obstructing the legislation and want taxpayers to pay for a tour of more misinformation.

Instead of exploiting Canadians, why do the Conservatives not allow the legislation to pass?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has no regard for taxpayer money. The budget that was just passed proposed a $78-billion deficit, so they should not lecture me about taxpayer dollars.

What these Liberals are now trying to do is shield this bill from clear sight by all Canadians who now understand that this is beyond Liberal platitudes. This is not about hate. This is not about defending the Jewish community. There are ample examples of how we can defend the Jewish community. They should set the right tone and have the Attorney General write to the provincial attorney generals and the police forces to say we have laws on the books called incitement to violence and to enforce them. The misinformation is coming from that side of the aisle, and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. At least he is clear, straightforward and honest, unlike the Liberals. He says what he thinks. He debates. The Bloc Québécois is the same. I think that the objective behind our proposal to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code is straightforward, honest and clear.

As we have seen, the Liberals do not want to work. They are making sure that there will be no committee meeting, and I think that their caucus is bickering a little. Once again, the Liberals are not being very clear. That being said, let us come back to what my colleague said.

Quebeckers who are watching this debate in the House are having a hard time understanding why Conservative members are missing the point. We are not attacking any religion. I have met with people from the Jewish community. Some people from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs support the Bloc Québécois's proposal. Irwin Cotler does.

All we want is to remove a religious exemption from the Criminal Code, nothing more. No religion is under attack. Does my colleague get that?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for my friend from the Bloc, the defence is this:

if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

The section itself arises out of section 2 of the charter. It is not only an extension of it; it is effectively part and parcel of it. I have not seen a situation where this has been used to defend against the type of speech our Bloc friends are concerned about. This simply has not happened. Adil called for the killing of people is incitement to violence. No one has ever suggested that he hid behind paragraph 319(3)(b). It just has not happened, so—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Thornhill.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for the better part of two years, in that member's riding, there has been a lawless mob that has functioned with complete impunity through the streets calling for the genocide of its own citizens. There have been gunshots into a school and firebombings into businesses. We do not have a law problem in this country. We have an enforcement problem and a government that stands at its pedestal to pour fuel on the fire of that enforcement problem.

Rather than it focusing on enforcement, why does the member think the government is bringing in a bill that is going to be weaponized against the very community it purports to protect?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is conformity of thought. It is like my friend from Bowmanville—Oshawa North. There is either Liberal think or no think.

Like I said, in the Soviet Union, the only religion allowed was communism, which is why the holding of a religious text would have been punishable by labour camp.

The Bais Chaya Mushka school for girls in my riding has been shot at three times. When we first came to Canada 30 years ago, we came to the intersection of Sheppard and Bathurst, and now, at that very intersection, every Sunday, a group of mass thugs come to incite violence against the Jews.

We do not need this legislation. We need to enforce existing legislation on incitement to violence and assault.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate, which the Conservatives tossed onto the floor at the last minute. It is an attempt to do what I have become witness to the Conservatives doing for the better part of 10 years now, which is to obstruct and prevent government business from occurring. They look for opportunities to participate in preventing the government from doing anything. The member before me said he was going to speak professionally about everything and talk about the politics of this. I am just going to lay out what has occurred to this point, so the public can be the judge of whether what is going on is suspicious or not.

Bill C-9 was formally passed by the House at second reading and went to committee. There were three meetings at committee. There was over eight hours of meetings with witnesses where all political parties, the government, the opposition and the Bloc, were able to ask questions. What happens after that, typically, is that we would go into clause by clause. This would have been an opportunity for members to start looking at the actual bill with the perspective of what they had learned through their deliberations with the witnesses over eight hours and three meetings.

The chair of the committee said that he would like everybody to submit their amendments to the bill, and everybody had until November 24 to submit their amendments. The amendments, by nature of the way that our committees work, are submitted in confidence and kept in camera until the committee reports out. If I were to move an amendment at committee, nobody would know about it. If it were an amendment that did not make it through to the bill, in theory, nobody would ever find out about it because it all happens behind closed doors in camera. November 24 was the deadline.

By November 24, when the amendments were distributed to all members on the committee, the Conservatives would have become aware of the amendment that was put forward by the Bloc. Three days later, on November 27, the committee met again. Suddenly, from out of nowhere, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South decided he needed to filibuster the whole committee. The only new information that member would have had between the preceding meeting and the meeting on November 27 would have been all of the amendments that had been put forward by the members of the committee.

That is how we get to where we are now. The committee had this filibuster instead of clause by clause. The committee had listened to 23 witnesses, which would have been 33 witnesses if there had they had not filibustered. The minister even attended and answered questions directly. Then we get to this point. Now I hope the public understands.

The bill went through second reading here. The bill went to committee. The bill was studied for over three meetings and had over eight hours' worth of witnesses. The minister appeared. The request went out for amendments. Everybody submitted their amendments to the committee.

After all that happened, suddenly and out of nowhere, the Conservatives showed up today, during Routine Proceedings, to say they would like to ask the House for permission to tour the country to get feedback on this bill. The ship has long sailed on feedback. The committee, the pre-committee and the subcommittee would have met to determine what the goals were in studying this bill. The committee members would then have had opportunities, before the witnesses even showed up, to say that they thought the committee needed to take this on the road to go to visit various communities throughout the country.

The committee members could have asked any of the witnesses, or the minister for that matter, if it would be helpful for the committee to tour the country to ask about this. Do members think any of that happened? It did not happen once. The only time the Conservatives suddenly demanded to now delay the committee and clause by clause to go tour the country came after they became aware of the amendment put forward by the Bloc.

The question is why.

What I said was all completely objective. It is all information that happened. It just occurred. Now I will share my opinion as to why the Conservatives are suddenly trying to put the brakes on this. The parliamentary secretary who spoke before me brought this up too. She made a very good point. She said they are divided.

[Some hon. members]

No, we are not.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, now they are yelling that they are not. Maybe they will allow me to table some social media posts from their members that have contradicting views on that. I bet they will not do that. Just like earlier, when this started, and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader asked if they wanted to work until midnight. They jumped up and they said that they did want to work until midnight. One of the members said, “Right on.” Then, within 20 seconds, the exact same parliamentary secretary stood up and asked for unanimous consent to move a motion that we stay until midnight for the rest of the session. All it takes to defeat unanimous consent is for one person to yell out no, and they all did.

That is what happened in the House. It is theatre to them. They do not understand what their role is in the House. They think their role is to obstruct and to stop, at every possible opportunity, anything that the government does. That is not their role. Their role is to encourage people to make better legislation.

I gave a speech on this once not that long ago. At the end of my speech, in the last three or four minutes, I talked about how these Conservatives are nothing like Flora MacDonald, who came from my riding, and they are nothing like Brian Mulroney. I laid it out there and told them what I thought of them. What showed up in my constituency office two days later? It was a portrait of Brian Mulroney. It was signed, “Mark, keep giving those speeches—Brian.”

This is not the Conservative Party that existed when our parents were heavily involved in politics. This is an extension that is much further right than the Reform Party, and Canadians do not need to look at much more than what we have heard in the House today to support that. This is the reality of what we are dealing with.

We do not have a Progressive Conservative or even just a Conservative Party anymore that genuinely believes in Canadians and wants to make this place better. We have a bunch of MPs that have come here under the blue colour and the Conservative name and logo, and all they want to do is obstruct all day long. They want the government to accomplish absolutely nothing on behalf of Canadians. In reality, their job is to try to make the lives of Canadians better by challenging the government and by suggesting things that could be done differently to make the circumstances for Canadians better. They are not doing that.

Moments ago, I talked about the divide between the Conservatives. I would like to point that out, and I will not even bother to try to table these because I know I will never get unanimous consent. However, the reality is that the member for York Centre, who spoke before me—

[An hon. member]

It was a great speech.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that member should ask the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South if he thinks the same thing. The member for York Centre was basically saying that this bill does not go far enough. If we look at his private member's bill, we can see why. He is calling for even tougher penalties and restrictions in there. Then we have the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South calling this bill a censorship bill. That is the problem.

The parliamentary secretary said it earlier. She said there is a divide, and there really is a divide. It is maybe not among the members who happen to be sitting in this room right now, but there is a divide within that party on this issue. It is the only thing that explains why Conservatives refuse to let this go to clause by clause and to play out like every other bill does. It is the only thing that explains it.

To conclude, the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North made a comment earlier about my faith. He made a comment about Liberals writ large. He made a comment about the Liberals' approach to religious freedom and those who practice that freedom. That member knows nothing about me. That member does not know where I was baptized, and he does not know what school I attended. He knows nothing about where I was married or the advice that I seek from time to time from my pastor. He knows nothing about that. He knows nothing about the school that my children go to and the religious teachings they receive there.

Do members know why he knows nothing about that? It is because it is my choice. It is my faith. I keep my faith to myself, because it guides me personally. I do not bring it in here and weaponize it like Conservatives do and like that member does when he does his “Restore the North” tour, going around the country, trying to stoke fear and division amongst community members because he knows he will be successful at it and he can continue to grow that alt-right base that we see on the other side of the aisle. That is the reality.

I have no interest in coming into this place and divulging to everybody here what my religious beliefs are or how I practice faith, because our system is designed to specifically not allow that to be part of the debate in here, regardless of the fact that the Conservatives routinely try to bring it up.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I found most of that member's speech totally unnecessary. I will explain it very succinctly. Conservatives are here to oppose bad laws. Bill C-9 has become a bad law because of this bad amendment that the Liberals have agreed to, clandestinely with the Bloc, as reported by the National Post.

When the former chair of the justice committee said that he thinks some religious texts are hateful and should be banned, we found that appalling. We thought he was on his way out. He has since been elevated to cabinet, and apparently it is now the position of the government and the Prime Minister that some religious texts are hateful and need to be banned in Canada.

I have a very simple question for this member: Who was the Prime Minister when the religious exemption was put into section 319?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I regret that the member found nothing in my speech to be of use to him, but I would be lying if I suggested that I thought anything otherwise when I was giving it. I was trying to inform the public to perhaps give people a better understanding and view of what is going on, what has happened and how we ended up here today.

For that member to say that his job and the Conservatives' job is to oppose legislation, he does not have the benefit of those of us who have been here for many years and who have seen this over and over again, such as their getting up and calling people a “trust fund baby”, as the Conservatives did to refer to the previous prime minister, and giving out personal attacks over and over. The Conservatives have never actually offered anything of substance. They do not offer anything of substance, and as the parliamentary secretary to the House leader said earlier, one would think they would have learned something after the last election. Canadians actually want substance; they do not want what this party has been offering for 10 years.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward to the government stepping up, telling us what it really thinks and taking action. I do not think that is too much to ask.

The government is delaying meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights so that it can take action. It is procrastinating and bowing to pressure from religious lobbies. It does not know what to do; there is infighting within the caucus.

What kind of mess is Canada in? Religions are controlling democracy. What kind of world are we living in? The matter has been settled in Quebec. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously agreed that hate speech must be regulated and cannot benefit from the exemption that currently exists in the Criminal Code. That is quite clear. In fact, 75% of Quebeckers agree on this point.

What we want to know from the member for Kingston and the Islands and his government is whether they support the motion that they said they would support, or whether they are going to chicken out and back down.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are two things that I take issue with there.

If the member had listened to what I said, he would have heard me talk about the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South filibustering the committee to prevent it from going. We were in clause-by-clause. The Conservatives come in here and start this charade at the very last minute to try to delay the fact that they inevitably have to come to a conclusion on this, and they are going to have to vote on it. Some of them will be voting different ways, and they do not know how that is going to play out in their party. That is what they are afraid of.

Also, for the member to say that religion is influencing our politics, I can tell him that my religion does not influence my politics. My religion is a faith that I practice with the guidance of my pastor and in the confidence of myself, my wife and my family. It has nothing to do with this place.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted my colleague to expand upon an idea. If we have a flashback to the election just a number of months ago, the Prime Minister and Liberal candidates across the country made a commitment to bail reform, which was supported by provinces, law enforcement officers and Canadians as a whole. Today we have bail reform legislation. The only thing preventing it from becoming law is the Conservative Party of Canada, just like the hate legislation, which is supported by many.

Can my colleague provide his thoughts on how Canadians are the victims of Conservative self-serving interests?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is what I was talking about earlier. The Conservatives just obstruct. They are so afraid because a law being called for by so many throughout this country might actually get passed, and it might be a win for the government. That is all they are afraid of.

We do not take the same approach. A perfect example is yesterday when the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola had a private member's bill. We thought it was a good bill. We stood up and voted for it. Our objective here is not to oppose everything that Conservatives bring forward. That is why that bill passed unanimously in the House yesterday, because we all stood up one by one for a Conservative bill. The member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola can take the win. I do not care. It makes better policy and better laws for this country, and we are a better Canada as a result of it.

This all goes back to what I said earlier, which is that Conservatives are only here to obstruct. They do not care if the bill is called for by the police. They are mocking me now as I say this. All they care about is that we do not get anything done so they can say that the government could not do anything.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today because we put forward a motion to travel and discuss Bill C-9. At the heart of the request to travel is the agreement between the Liberal Party and the Bloc Québécois on paragraph 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which provides an exemption, “if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text”.

My question to the member is very simple: Does he believe that Bill C-9 will be strengthened by the elimination of this clause from the Criminal Code, or will it be weakened, yes or no?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member was going on a few minutes ago about how he wanted to stay here until midnight. When the parliamentary secretary said that he had an idea and asked if we should stay here every day until midnight to get work done for Canadians, the member jumped out of his seat and said, “yeah”—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. It was a very clear question. He is asking for a yes or no answer. Will the member simply answer the question?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. We have lots of time for questions and comments. Let us stay on track.

The hon. chief government whip.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I got caught up in demonstrating the hypocrisy of the Conservatives, but I could not believe that the member stood up to ask me a question after what I witnessed earlier when he was so much in favour, while heckling, of staying until midnight to get this done, and then he—

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member is indicating something I did, in fact, not do in the chamber. Let the record stand that I did not speak up when—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

A point of order has to be related to the Standing Orders or the usual practices of the House. We are into a matter—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. We are into a matter of debate here.

The chief government whip has about 10 seconds if he wishes to finish his answer. He is finished.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Liberal caucus came here today in anticipation of debating the budget implementation bill. We are concerned about the issues that Canadians are concerned about. It deals with issues like, for example, the tax break for 22 million Canadians and the many ways in which the government is supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada.

I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts as to why it is that we are not debating the budget today, but rather the Conservative agenda.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. I invite members who do not have the floor to please not talk.

The hon. chief government whip.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I wish I had an answer to the question, Mr. Speaker, but, unfortunately I have spent 10 years here listening to Conservatives, day after day, just going on and on, trying to obstruct, and moving concurrence motions. We have not even gotten to the point in Routine Proceedings where a concurrence motion can be put forward. I am sure they will do that, too.

I will go back to the question from the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. I had only 10 seconds left. The reality is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, do they want to hear my answer or not? Of course they do not. They are yelling “time”. Which is it?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it would be hard to overstate how disappointed people would feel if they heard what is being said here.

Quebec has already had this debate. The National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code. Seventy-five per cent of Quebeckers support the Bloc Québécois's proposal to remove the religious exemption from the Criminal Code. People would be disheartened to see what is going on.

Does my colleague agree that it is outrageous for the committee not to be sitting today, or for us not to be able to work on this issue to get this bill passed?

Once and for all, we have to realize the importance and reasonableness of removing this exemption.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree about the obstruction that is going on. I have seen it from Conservatives for 10 years.

The reality is that the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford asked why the issue cannot just come back and why we cannot travel on it. The reality is that it should have been brought up when they started discussing the bill, not when they were in the clause-by-clause phase. It leaves people to wonder why the Conservatives are doing this, and I will leave it to the Canadian public to figure that out.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the chamber today to address Bill C-9, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places.

The bill matters; it is an important bill. Canadians deserve clarity, fairness and honesty from their government. Conservatives believe deeply in protecting every Canadian from hate, intimidation and violence. We stand against hate crimes in every form. We stand with the communities that feel threatened. We also stand for the fundamental freedoms that define this country.

Canada is a plural society. People of every faith, every culture and every tradition live side by side. Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and indigenous spiritual communities all contribute. Everyone belongs, and everyone deserves safety. We believe that every Canadian should feel safe walking into a temple, a gurdwara, a church, a mosque or any other cultural or religious centre. Canadians deserve the freedom to pray, celebrate and gather without fear.

Religious freedom is essential; it is not secondary. It is a core Canadian value. It is protected by the charter, and it must never be undermined by vague or politically motivated legislation.

However, protecting freedom requires responsible drafting, and responsible drafting requires clarity. Bill C-9 unfortunately does not provide that clarity. The bill would expand definitions of hate propaganda, without precise thresholds or constitutional safeguards. Experts raised concerns. Legal scholars raised concerns. Law enforcement raised concerns. The National Post reported extensively on these flaws, highlighting how language risks selective enforcement, how investigators lack operational guidance and how Canadians risk being silenced rather than protected.

When the country's major newspapers and legal experts sound alarms, any responsible government would pause and fix the issues, but the government did not. Instead it pushed ahead, prioritizing political messaging over legislative quality. It rejected Conservative amendments. It ignored community advice. It disregarded charter warnings.

When the government proposes amendments to the Criminal Code on something as sensitive as hate propaganda and hate crimes, the language must be exact. The law must be carefully crafted to target the people who promote violence and genuine hatred, while shielding Canadians from the risk of being criminalized for expressing opinions, beliefs, criticism, satire or religious teachings that are part of legitimate democratic discourse.

Then the Liberals tried to block scrutiny where Canadians expect accountability most: at the justice committee. Liberals filibustered. They obstructed meaningful debate. They prevented witnesses from fully presenting concerns. They treated legitimate questions as inconveniences. Incredibly, they disrupted the committee process to such an extent that the committee clerk informed members that today's meeting has been cancelled because the government simply refused to let the work continue.

Canadians deserve better than a government that filibusters its own bill and grinds committee work to a halt. What kind of confidence can Canadians have in the law when the government is afraid of its own committee hearings?

Canada's strength is its pluralism, not in slogans but in real, lived experience in neighbours of different faiths supporting each other, in families practising different traditions under the same roof, and in communities celebrating their culture without fear. Pluralism requires trust, and trust requires laws that are fair, clear and constitutional. Bill C-9 would threaten that trust, because vague laws do not protect our society; they weaken it.

When religious groups, cultural organizations or ordinary Canadians wonder if their speech or practices could be misinterpreted, fear begins to replace confidence, and when confidence erodes, the foundation of a pluralistic society cracks.

Conservatives support protecting places of worship: temples, gurdwaras, churches, mosques, synagogues, and cultural centres, every sacred space. We support the right to worship freely and without intimidation. We support strong penalties for hate-motivated attacks, but we also support laws that work. Communities want real protection. They want scrutiny and resources, not flowery commitments. They want policing tools, not political theatre. They want faster responses, not confusing legislation.

Instead of developing a precise, enforceable, community-informed framework that strengthens prevention, enhances police capabilities and sharply targets people who spread real hatred and violence, the government drafted a bill so broad, so unclear and so poorly defended that experts, communities and law enforcement alike cannot confidently explain how it would be applied. This is not good governance. This is not how we protect religious freedom. This is not how we protect or support a pluralistic society.

Conservatives will always stand against hate, but we will also always stand up for the charter. We will defend due process, we will defend clear constitutional law and we will defend the right of every Canadian to worship freely, speak freely and live without fear.

Bill C-9 would not meet these standards. It would fail to give police clear tools. It would fail to deliver confidence to religious communities. It would fail to reflect the society we are proud to be. It fails the test of transparency, especially when the government cancels committee meetings rather than face scrutiny. Canada deserves laws that work. Our society deserves what is real. Every Canadian who values both safety and freedom deserves better. Parliament deserves legislation that respects rights, freedom and common sense.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his passion about Bill C-9.

When we serve on committee, we are doing really important work for Canadians. That is currently where the legislation is: in committee, where we work on and review legislation. Conservatives are working in committee right now to protect the religious freedoms of Canadians. On this side of the House, that is what we are trying to do.

Can my colleague please explain how the Liberals are blocking the work we are trying to complete in committee?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am a member of the justice committee, and I can tell the House that for days and weeks the Liberals have filibustered the committee. They are not letting us conclude what Canadian expects us to. Even in the last 24 hours, one of the Liberal members of Parliament stood in the House and claimed we are not moving justice forward but are blocking it, but today we received a message that the justice committee meeting had been cancelled.

The Liberals are not working effectively. They are not working in collaboration. We have to put forward the policies that will help Canadians in the coming future.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me. We are always forgotten, but we are part of the House, unfortunately for the other two recognized parties.

I just want to understand. I have been here since this morning, and there is something I really do not understand. Quebeckers are watching everything that is going on right now and finding it completely surreal. The Bloc Québécois's proposal is not complicated: take the Criminal Code and remove the exemption that allows hate to be promoted under the guise of religion, even if it is done in good faith.

Since the beginning of the day, there have been big speeches about religious freedom. That is not what the Bloc Québécois is attacking. I would just like to understand. Is my colleague fighting to allow people to promote hatred under the guise of religion? Is that what the Conservatives have been fighting for in the House all day?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fundamental, basic difference among the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc is that we want to work together but the Liberals are not willing to collaborate with us in making things happen in the country. They always politicize things when there are commitments on security, crime or any other issues that are important for Canadians.

I would say that we have to enforce the law as it exists.

Mothers

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we move into the holiday season, I rise today to honour one of the greatest women I know: my mother, Leslie Jean Anderson.

Jean gave birth to and raised seven children. She made every meal from scratch and built our home on a foundation of devotion and generosity.

Like so many women across the country, she is one of our country's unsung heroes. Women take care of their families without pay, often without rest. They invest almost everything—their time, their energy and their hearts—in their families and their communities.

This holiday season, let us recognize these extraordinary women, our mothers, for what they truly are: nation builders.

I wish everyone, especially mothers, in Prescott—Russell—Cumberland and across Canada a very happy holiday season.

Happy holidays, everyone.

Prime Minister of Canada

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker,

Hark, the Brookfield PM's sleigh is near,
Bringing gifts for all his friends this year!
Consultants cheer, lobbyists sing,
Corporate stockings overflow with bling.
Now the PM poses by a door,
A photo op that is only decor.
Fake homes for the camera's flash,
But taxpayers send real cash.
Brookfield's modular dreams take flight,
On subsidies through Christmas night.
Insiders feast, while young workers fall,
This is not charity; it is a corporate haul.
While steelworkers lose their pay,
Brookfield cashes in today.
Tax credits wrapped with care and with bows,
Handouts for customers, everyone he knows.
Arc furnaces hum, the contracts flow,
Electric riches make profits grow.
But for families left in the cold,
This tale of cronyism must be told.
Canadians deserve a fair refrain,
Not the PM's plan for insider gain.
Let us put the workers first, not billionaires,
And bring real hope to he who really cares!

Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I count it as a great honour to speak today.

On December 1, we marked the 20th anniversary of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement. This historic treaty among the Nunatsiavut Government, the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador stands as a powerful example of reconciliation. It formally recognizes that the Inuit have lived on and stewarded the lands of northern Labrador since time immemorial.

This agreement did not come easily. I reflect today on the many Labrador Inuit who, over decades, fought tirelessly to have their rights recognized by the federal and provincial governments. I wish to acknowledge the trail-blazing leaders whose vision, resilience and determination made this treaty possible.

We honour the enduring relationship between Canada and the Inuit of Labrador. Today and every day, we recognize our shared history and reaffirm our commitment to building a future together, one that respects Inuit rights.

Constituency Team in Côte‑du‑Sud—Rivière‑du‑Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank some people who mean a great deal to me. We know that our role as members of Parliament would not be the same without our teams, and mine is no exception. Annie Francoeur, who has worked with me for more than 12 years, is not just my right hand; she is both my hands. She is continuing to rest after our accident in October. We miss her very much and we wish her a speedy recovery.

There is also Denise, who gives a warm welcome to residents in my riding when they visit my constituency office in Rivière-du-Loup. Annie Boutin in Montmagny is equally appreciated for the outstanding job she does. An skilfully manages our communications. We are also lucky to have Shane, our amazing intern, who always gives 110%, and last but not least, Lauriane, whose cheerfulness and efficiency help me to do an even more professional job here in Ottawa.

I am spoiled to have such wonderful support. I wish to thank the members of my team for their passion and their dedication to the people of Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata. I would also like to take this opportunity to wish my whole team and everyone across my riding a very happy holiday season.

Holiday Food Drive

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very fortunate to live in a community that comes together to support those most in need. For the 17th year in a row, I am proud to partner with 'Twas the Bite Before Christmas and my annual holiday turkey drive. Over these years, working together, we have raised more than $1.2 million to support food banks in Mississauga.

We are once again raising money to provide turkey dinners for families throughout this holiday season. I am grateful for the generous support of my neighbours and volunteers, and I appreciate the continued spirit of giving. The 'Twas the Bite Before Christmas campaign and the holiday turkey drive go a long way toward fighting despair and feeding hope.

I wish everyone peace, joy and good health.

Arms Diversion

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the civil war in Sudan has been devastating, and Canadians have been shocked to learn that weapons made in this country have been used in the conflict by the RSF, the same organization responsible for genocide. This is not the first time a diversion has put weapons in the hands of genocidal actors. Canadian-made weapons have also been used by Russia against Ukraine.

At a time when our allies are rearming, there is no excuse for allowing Canadian weapons to go to hostile regimes and militias responsible for genocide. The world must work to end the devastating war in Sudan, in particular by stopping the flow of arms to the combatants. The Prime Minister's trip to the U.A.E. could have focused more on that and less on advancing Brookfield's corporate interests.

The Liberals are doubling down on a foreign policy of personal selfishness, autocrat idealization and administrative incompetence, instead of on one that upholds our values and our security interests. The people of Sudan deserve freedom, democracy and civilian administration. They have shown a will to fight for these things themselves. It should not be much to ask for Canada to stop arming their oppressors.

Duty to Consult

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 20 years, I have helped develop processes to deal with aboriginal rights and title honourably on the part of the Crown and first nations, respectively. It took years of trial and error, but it is what enabled projects like LNG Canada to be approved and bring peace to the forests in B.C.

Today, the Liberal government is disregarding and frustrating what was already a good process that met the needs of first nations and non-first nations alike. Offering to do consultations by Zoom is demeaning to first nations. The idea that the Liberal government will start consultations once an application is made is an insult. It ignores all the best practices already laid out in other projects. Consultations should have started eight months ago.

The flip-flopping of statements to first nations is not honourable. The messaging to first nations from the Liberal government changes every day and is confusing to Canadians, who deserve leadership in the face of U.S. tariffs.

HIV/AIDS

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to flag some disconcerting data regarding HIV/AIDS with my colleagues. The goal of ending AIDS as an epidemic globally by 2030 has gone off track. In poor nations, it is now increasing, partly due to U.S. funding cuts.

What is alarming is the 35% rise in new cases in Canada this year, especially in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and among first nations. This is the result of poor tracking, cuts in funding for prevention and treatment, and the myth that HIV is no longer a problem.

Antiretroviral therapy combined with pre-exposure prophylaxis is a successful, made-in-Canada solution, but we need to move it forward. It was tried in B.C. with no new cases for decades. We need to introduce it now in provincial formularies and in the national pharmacare program. We will see an end to the AIDS epidemic by 2030 if we do that.

Media Food Drive

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the cold weather is returning, and lights are starting to sprout again in the trees. It can mean only one thing: The holiday season is back. Also back for its 25th year is the media food drive's traditional street corner collection day. This marks 25 years of generous support for families who need a little help to have a merry Christmas.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I encourage everyone who is able to help to give generously, by donating either food items or some money. Media personalities are out accepting donations all across Quebec today, but for anyone who is not able to go and meet them in person, donations can be made online until December 31.

Thank you to the media for a quarter century of support. Thank you to all Quebeckers who participate. Thank you to our Bloc Québécois riding teams who have taken part in this initiative in many regions of the province.

I closing, I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy holiday season.

Terrebonne en portrait

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my gratitude to Corine Beltrami, president of Événements citoyens, who put her heart into organizing the seventh edition of the event Terrebonne en portrait.

This magical and deeply compassionate event focuses on families that are struggling with various challenges. Through the hard work of more than 71 volunteers, countless photographers and costumed characters, a makeup artist and designer, and, of course, the Star Fairy, Santa Claus and his elf, 61 families had an amazing experience and left with portraits imbued with magic and community.

I want to congratulate Ms. Beltrami and her dedicated team on the tremendous success of this seventh edition of the event Terrebonne en portrait. Their generosity and creativity shine a light on the community and remind us of the power of sharing.

Cost of Food

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, eight months ago the Prime Minister told Canadians to judge him by their experience at the grocery store. Today's food price report confirms that groceries keep getting more expensive. When the Liberals took office in 2015, the weekly grocery bill was $159. Today it has more than doubled to $338, over $17,000 a year, and next year families will pay an additional $1,000, which will be the largest increase ever recorded.

For rural Canadians, these costs hit especially hard. Many travel farther to shop and have fewer options. Farmers are struggling with soaring input costs, higher debt, and policies that make it more expensive to grow and transport food. Instead of cutting spending and axing hidden taxes that drive up prices, the government keeps raising them.

Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, especially around Christmas. It is time to lower costs and make food more affordable again, especially for people in our rural communities.

Public Safety

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our new government has taken immediate action to improve public safety, to stop crime and to hold criminals responsible. We have added much stricter penalties for gun crime, gang crime and violent crime. We are strengthening bail to ensure that criminals are not released from jail. We are strengthening anti-hate laws to protect vulnerable populations from targeted harassment. We are protecting women from violence and exploitation. We are giving police the modern tools they need to infiltrate criminal networks, to investigate, and to stop crimes before they happen.

This was done in close collaboration with police chiefs, frontline officers, legal experts, community partners and victims' organizations to prevent crime, to hold criminals responsible and to keep our communities safe. However, progress on these important public safety measures is being delayed by partisan Conservative obstruction. Public safety is not a partisan issue. Canadians deserve action, not political stunts, so let us work together to keep Canadians safe.

Prime Minister of Canada

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a good day to be Brookfield under the Liberal government. Why is that? Canadians for Tax Fairness called Brookfield Canada's “runaway leader” in tax avoidance, and estimated it has skipped out on paying $6.5 billion in Canadian taxes. It is clear that when the Prime Minister was running Brookfield, he would rather dodge its tax bill than contribute to Canada.

Canadians deserve one set of rules for everyone; instead we get special carve-outs for Brookfield and for the Prime Minister. The Conflict of Interest Act is clear that a public office holder must not involve themselves in any matter where they could benefit, yet a Brookfield executive told the committee the Prime Minister's ethics screen is basically an open window.

This is all while Canadians are facing record-high food prices just in time for Christmas dinner. Young Canadians are told to make more sacrifices, yet the Prime Minister is doubling our deficit.

When will the Prime Minister stop acting like a greasy banker who puts his own personal interest in Brookfield ahead of everyday Canadians?

16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be in the House today, during my maternity leave, to mark the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.

I stand here holding my daughter, Matina, in my arms. As I look at her, I think about the future I want for her.

I am talking about a future where every woman and every girl can love, can dream and can walk alone freely without fear, a future where existence itself is never a risk.

On the status of women committee, we heard about the changes needed to the justice system. We heard from countless witnesses about the urgent need for prevention, awareness and better support for women. We must strengthen protection for victims and survivors and ensure that there are real consequences for abusers and for perpetrators of violence.

I will continue to prioritize these issues, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in government to make our country safer for women and girls.

Cost of Food

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberal government, Canadians' grocery bills look less like a Christmas list and more like Clark Griswold's electricity bill.

The Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the costs at the grocery store. Well, eight months later we are feeling even more uncertainty and facing even higher grocery bills. Today's food price report shows that grocery prices are still climbing, and it is only getting worse. When the Liberals took office in 2015, the average weekly grocery bill for a family was $159. Today it has doubled, totalling over $17,500 each year. Now Canadians are being warned to brace for another $1,000 next year just to feed their family.

Instead of gifting Canadians a Griswold-style Christmas bonus full of empty promises and hollow announcements, the Prime Minister should give Canadians real relief this holiday season by removing unjustified hidden taxes on food and ensuring that moms and dads can feed their families this—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Winnipeg West.

Dental Care

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the progress our government is making in expanding dental care across our country, especially in Manitoba. The Canadian dental care plan now covers nearly six million Canadians. In Manitoba, over 150,000 residents are enrolled, and more than 85,000 have already received care.

To build on this progress, our federal government is investing over $35 million, through the oral health access fund, in 30 projects nationwide to strengthen training, support outreach and reduce barriers to care. Nearly $6 million will go toward four initiatives at the University of Manitoba, including clinical internships, training modules, support for low-income patients, and stronger ties with local community organizations.

These initiatives show the power of community collaboration and are helping more Manitobans access the dental care they need, close to home.

Taxation

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to have nutritious, affordable, excellent food. Unfortunately, that is not what they are getting after 10 years of Liberal government. Let us look at the current facts. The annual food price report predicts that a family of four will spend up to $17,600 in 2026, an increase of $995. That is double what it was the year the Liberals took power.

Will the Prime Minister finally abolish the taxes and inflationary deficits that are driving up the cost of food?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, first, industrial carbon pricing does not apply to farmers. The member is talking about imaginary taxes that have no impact on the price of food. However, if the member wants to talk about the report that came out today, I can tell him that it says that climate change will have a major impact on the cost of food.

I would like to know if the opposition leader is prepared to fight against climate change, because he has no plan. He is fighting against Canada instead of fighting against climate change.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at weekly grocery bills. According to data from the report released today, in 2015, the year the Liberals took office, the average Canadian family was spending $163 a week on groceries. Next year, it will be double that: $340.

The cost of government has driven up the cost of groceries. When will the government axe these taxes?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition goes on and on about imaginary taxes, yet he consistently votes against the school food program, the Canada child benefit, dental care and pharmacare. These are measures that help people in need in Canada. We are the ones proposing them, and he is the one opposing them.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians deserve affordable, nutritious and delicious food: meat and potatoes on the dinner table every single night.

However, after a decade of the Liberal government, the cost of groceries has literally doubled. Today the food price report shows that Canadians will spend $17,600 to feed a family of four next year, double what it was when the Liberals took office, and $995 more than the preceding year, after the Prime Minister promised to be judged by the prices at the grocery store.

Will the Prime Minister reverse his inflationary taxes on food?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, that is another example of the opposition's using a report without actually taking the time to read it.

In fact, the price of beef, one of the prices that is going up most dramatically, is directly linked to climate change. In fact, the report says challenges persisted for producers throughout the year in western Canada as they experienced a drought and as input costs like feed rose.

We are focused on how to help Canadians. That is why today I was with the Ontario government, signing the child care agreement that will save families $10,400 a year.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this is the point in any Liberal term when the Liberals go from making promises to making excuses.

The Prime Minister promised that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Let us look at those prices on a weekly basis. Today's report gives out data that shows that when the Liberals took office in 2015, it was $163 a week to afford groceries for a family of four. Now it is $340, literally double.

Liberal taxes for farmers, fertilizers, food processors and packaging have all driven up the cost of food. Will the Liberals reverse their taxes on groceries?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, instead of focusing on imaginary taxes, we are working to control the things we can, which is putting more money in the pockets of Canadians.

That is how we help Canadians with affordability challenges. We make sure they have the money so they can adjust to whatever happens in the market. One would think Conservatives would understand market pressures. It is clear they do not.

Today we signed with Ontario an extension of the early learning and child care program. It is $10,400 per family, on average. Does the member know how many weeks of food that is? It is at least 63—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, children cannot eat agreements or photo ops or promises. If any of these costly promises the Liberals were making were actually real, then we would not have seen the number of kids relying on food banks double to 700,000 kids in the last five years. Today, a report from Dalhousie proves that the weekly grocery bill of a family of four has doubled to $340 a week. That is the result.

Will they finally reverse the Liberal taxes that are driving up food?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, time and time again, the members opposite say no to supporting Canadians. We have a Canada child benefit that supports young families. It is indexed to inflation. It is not taxed. It is something that they voted against.

Time and time again, we will be there to fight for Canadians. If he wants to talk about imaginary taxes, that is only an imaginary argument. We are doing the real work to support families.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the industrial carbon tax is not only real; it was in the Prime Minister's own budget that he wants to increase it. It is a tax on the steel that goes into farm equipment, the fertilizer that goes into farm fields, the equipment that goes into food processors. Then there is the tax on food packaging. By banning plastics, they are making food go bad earlier and costing an extra $1 billion, all of which is passed on. Finally, a $78-billion deficit is inflating the cost of everything.

Instead of doubling the cost of food, why will they not scrap the taxes on groceries?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear the Leader of the Opposition has not read the report because, in fact, the report predicts that inflation is actually going to stabilize and go down.

Here is what we are doing on this side. We are putting money in the pockets of Canadians, whether it is through the Canada child benefit, which, by the way, is indexed to inflation and that they voted against, whether it is affordable child care for families with growing children, which is helping them save money for a down payment on a house, which they say is a goal they have but they voted against, or whether it is for school food programs for those families that need an extra hand.

We are here for Canadians in good times and bad. It is pretty clear where they stand. It is for themselves.

Justice

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we thought that the Liberals had finally agreed to repeal the exemption in the Criminal Code that allows people to incite hatred under the guise of religion, but today we are learning that nothing could be further from the truth.

Just as we began debating the Bloc Québécois's amendment to repeal the religious exemption, the Liberals said that they wanted to cancel all meetings of the Standing Committee on Justice until 2026. They are obviously afraid to adopt the Bloc Québécois's amendment. They are obviously capitulating to religious lobbies.

Will they come to their senses and do away with the religious exemption, yes or no?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are ready to do the work. In fact, we started clause-by-clause consideration last Tuesday, and we will continue to work hard on this file.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, religion should never serve as an excuse to commit crimes, including incitement of hatred. The National Assembly is demanding an end to the religious exemption that allows this abuse. However, the Liberals are still ignoring the will of Quebeckers and bowing to the will of a handful of dogmatic religious leaders. Tolerating this kind of discourse is not respecting freedom of religion or freedom of expression. It is not keeping an open mind toward diversity; it is being cowardly in the face of violence.

Will the Liberals come to their senses?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of freedom, I have a question to ask that is very relevant given today's news inside the Bloc Québécois. Their leader in Quebec raised this issue.

Does he think that Quebec artists lack loyalty to the Quebec nation?

I want him to answer the question with a yes or no.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we knew that the Conservatives would side with extremist preachers, since they are the official party of the religious right, but it is appalling to see the Liberals abandon Quebeckers, Canadians, and their fundamental principles. I am talking about principles such as equality before the law when it comes to crime, equality between men and women, the rights of sexual minorities, upholding social peace, and so on. On all of these issues, they are bowing down to the various religious right-wing groups.

Will they stand up, come to their senses and immediately convene the Standing Committee on Justice so that we can finally abolish the religious exemption defence?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bloc Québécois members want to create a diversion. I would nevertheless like to remind them that we have invested historic sums in culture, not for the sake of artists' loyalty, but rather so that artists can be loyal to themselves and their artistic expression. For the leader of the Bloc Québécois to claim that Canada's investments in culture could neutralize our artists shows what little regard, even contempt, he has for our artists in Quebec.

My message to them is that neither the leader of the Bloc Québécois nor the leader at their headquarters in Quebec City has the right to judge other Quebeckers on their loyalty to Quebec.

Taxation

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the price of food at the grocery store. Well, the verdict is in and the Liberals have failed. Canada's food price guide said Canadians will spend $1,000 more on groceries next year, the highest increase in years. When the Liberals took office, the average weekly food bill was about $160. In a decade, it has more than doubled to $340 a week.

Why is the Prime Minister breaking his promises to Canadians and increasing taxes on farmers, on food and on fuel?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, we have done more for affordability in six months than that leader and that party have done in 20 years. We have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. We have cut the tax for first-time homebuyers. We have cut the consumer carbon tax. We have automatic federal benefits and the school food program. The list goes on and on, and the Conservatives opposed it all.

With that leader, it is the same old tired rhetoric again and again. On this side, we are getting things done for Canadians.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians will have a very different point of view. They know that these food price increases, as is in this report, are a direct result of the Liberals' industrial carbon tax, fuel tax and inflationary spending. The Prime Minister himself said that he should be judged by the price of food. By his own metrics, he has failed. When the Liberals came to office, the annual food budget was about $8,300 a year. In a decade, it has doubled to $17,500 a year.

Will the Prime Minister get rid of his taxes on food, so Canadians can afford a Christmas dinner?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, that member, that leader and his party need to look in the mirror. The Conservatives have voted against every affordability measure we have brought forth. Let us talk about automatic federal benefits for 5.5 million Canadians, getting benefits to those who need it the most. Did they support it? No, of course they did not support it. They have not supported one affordability measure we have put forth since we have come into government. It is time for them to look in the mirror, get real and support our programs.

The Economy

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, where is the beef? That is what Canadians are asking as food prices keep rising. The Prime Minister told Canadians that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store, yet 86% of Canadians say they are cutting back on meat because they simply cannot afford it. The Liberals' industrial carbon tax and inflationary deficits are driving up the prices Canadians pay at the checkout line.

Why is the Liberal government making it even harder for people to afford food?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, there are no taxes on food.

Look, food is too expensive. That is a fact, but I have some other facts for the member. One, the number one driver of food cost inflation is climate change, something those Conservatives will never say. Two, industrial carbon pricing applies to goods sold on international markets, and it is not passed on to consumers. Three, industrial carbon systems impact household expenses by 0%.

Here are some ideas for ways that Conservatives can actually help Canadians: Vote in favour of dental care, vote in favour of national school food programs, vote in favour of affordable housing or vote in favour of $10-a-day child care that we just signed with Ontario. Try to help a Canadian for once.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that answer was all bun, no patty. The member said nothing of substance to Canadians who cannot afford groceries. Because of Liberal policies, next year a family of four can expect to pay nearly $1,000 more for food. Food prices could rise 6% next year, with meat expected to see the biggest price hike.

The Liberals are refusing to act to lower food costs. The beef is already gone, so what does that minister think Canadians should cut back on next?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for that member. I have been to his riding and I know the farmers in his riding very well. They know that industrial carbon pricing does not affect the cost of food in Canada. He should spend more time talking to those farmers.

However, if he wants something to put on his hot dog, here are four things: dental care for Canadians, $10-a-day child care for young kids or a national school food program to feed the kids in his riding. Affordable housing goes great on a hot dog. Put that on your hamburger.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Again, comments should go through the Chair.

The hon. member for Long Range Mountains.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians that he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Canadians are now paying 112% more for food than when the Liberals took office and groceries are consuming a bigger share of every family's budget. Even basic centre-aisle staples, such as coffee and baby formula, are skyrocketing. Canada's food price report confirms that next year, Canadians will pay an extra $1,000 on groceries.

When will these Liberals finally stop their inflationary spending, scrap the industrial carbon tax and let Canadians afford groceries again?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, instead of repeating the same canned lines, I would ask the member from Newfoundland and Labrador, a Conservative member, to think about what she voted against: $10-a-day child care; food for kids in schools, something that her colleague called garbage; dental care; and the family benefit, which 46,000 families in my riding take advantage of.

I ask her to start to work for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a local single mom of three reached out to me today in complete desperation. She is working hard, doing everything right, yet a series of setbacks has pushed her to the brink. She is falling behind on the basics. Now she is trying to figure out how to give her kids Christmas, while food inflation makes the essentials feel out of reach. Families should not have to choose between groceries and giving their children a holiday.

When will the Prime Minister finally take this seriously and make life affordable for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the mom in the member's riding to please ask her member to vote for child care, dental care and the school nutrition program, where a family of two can save $800 a year, and to support the inflation-indexed Canada child benefit, as 46,000 families need that support, along with housing supports. I could go on and on. These are tangible affordability measures. I will never politicize the struggles of moms in my province.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. Under his watch, the weekly grocery bill has doubled and the food price report of 2026 says it will get even worse. Families in my community cannot even afford a healthy meal, not even a modest Italian dish like pasta e fagioli, yet the government keeps stirring the pot with higher spending, the industrial carbon tax and the new fuel tax.

What is the matter for you?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Everything is quite all right.

Questions and comments should go through the Chair. I know it does not pack the same punch, but members should speak through the Chair.

The hon. Secretary of State for Seniors.

[Stephanie McLean, Liberal, Secretary of State (Seniors)]

Mr. Speaker, those Conservatives clearly can talk until the cows come home, but they are all hat and no cattle. When their own platform had nothing in it for food affordability, did they vote to put money in the jeans of Canadians? No. Did they vote for the national school food program? No. Did they vote for old age security? No. Did they vote for the Canada child care benefit? No. Did they vote for the disability benefit? No.

There we have it.

Intergovernmental Affairs

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Radio-Canada is reporting that the “no” side is getting organized. Indeed, the Liberals are wondering how to handle a potential third referendum.

I have some ideas for them. They can start by not doing the following: betraying Quebeckers by abandoning climate action, threatening a province with pipelines, dismissing all of Quebec's demands in the budget and turning the Quebec Liberal Party into a federal farm team.

Before they even start coming up with arguments for the “no” side, did the Liberals, these world champions, think that maybe they should stop giving us reasons to vote “yes”?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, do you know what people are not talking about in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean this morning? They are not talking about this obsession with referendums. They are not talking about breaking up, separation, division or bickering in society. What do they care about? They care about their jobs, they care about building a country, they care about taking care of their kids, they care about putting food on the table and they care about paying the mortgage. That is what we are working on.

On that side, they are all about breaking up, division and separation. On this side, we are all about jobs and the economy.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons should visit Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. He would find out that people certainly are talking about building a country, the country of Quebec.

I have even more suggestions for the “no” side. The federal government could respect Quebec laws, such as state secularism and the Charter of the French Language. It could fight the decline of French in Quebec instead of funding anglicization. It could transfer immigration powers to Quebec. It could stop meddling in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. The list goes on and on. We have been having the same problem since the 1980s. Nothing has changed.

Does anyone really think that any of this is going to change today?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the last election campaign, Bloc Québécois members proposed nothing. All they ever said was, if it is good for Quebec, we vote for it, and if it is not good for Quebec, we vote against it.

When they had the opportunity to vote for a budget that is good for Quebec, a budget that includes $4 billion for Hydro-Québec, a project in Contrecœur, a project with Nouveau Monde Graphite, investments in infrastructure and historic investments in culture, they voted against it. They did not show up.

Worse still, when Bloc Québécois members had the opportunity to say what they wanted, they said absolutely nothing about culture. That is shameful.

The Economy

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister, who has accomplished nothing since he took office, said something very important to Canadians when his cabinet was being sworn in. He said that Canadians could judge him by the price of groceries.

Well, judgment day is here. Next year's food costs are going to rise to unprecedented levels, to use his own words. Families were spending an average of $159 a week when the Liberals took office in 2015. Ten years later, that cost has more than doubled to $340 a week.

When will the Prime Minister end his inflationary spending so that Canadians can put food on the table?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I challenge my colleague, or any group among his colleagues that he cares to bring, to define what he means by inflationary spending. Does he mean school nutrition? Does he mean dental care? Does he mean investments in jobs or in renewable energy?

What exactly does he mean by inflationary spending? We have been asking him that forever. My colleague seems not to know, but I invite him to explain it to the House and to all of Canada.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to touch a nerve when we quote the words of their own Prime Minister. Those are not my words. It was the Prime Minister who told Canadians to judge him on the cost of groceries.

The verdict is in: Groceries will cost an additional $1,000 per family next year. They will cost $17,600 a year, or $338 a week. That is double what it was 10 years ago. The Prime Minister has been judged and found lacking.

Will he accept the verdict and finally put an end to his inflationary spending so that Canadians finally have enough to eat?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the verdict will be overturned. I will explain what we consider to be important expenditures. For us, an important expenditure leads to job creation. It is an expenditure that enables a single mother to send her child to day care where the child will be fed through a school food program. For us, an important expenditure is something that gives young Canadians the dignity of a job, an opportunity, a future. That is what an important expenditure is for us. They call it inflationary spending because they would cut all spending.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals think it is funny when we remind them that the Prime Minister told Canadians to judge him by the price of groceries. Prices have doubled in 10 years. The plan is a failure and Canadians are not seeing any results. That makes sense because the Liberals are using the same recipe and hoping for different results.

I am not sure if the Prime Minister has had to choose between two items at the grocery store, but that is the reality for Canadians right now. I do not expect a response and I do not expect results because the Prime Minister's answer is, “Who cares?”

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives keep talking about inflationary spending. We ask them what inflationary spending they would cut. During the election campaign, the Leader of the Opposition was asked if he would cut the Canadian dental care plan, which is helping more than one million Quebeckers and six million Canadians. He said that the program did not even exist, but I can assure the House that in his own riding, there are tens of thousands of his constituents who were able to go to the dentist for the first time in years because of this program.

Is that what the member means by inflationary spending?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wanted to be judged by prices at the grocery store, and eight months later, Canadians are judging and they are hungry.

The food price report released today shows that the reality of Canadians is only getting worse. In 2015, a Canadian grocery bill was $163 a week. Under the Liberals, it has more than doubled, to $340. That is a grocery bill of $17,600 a year.

Liberal taxes increase the cost of growing, transporting and selling food. When will the Liberals cut their inflationary spending and senseless taxes so Canadians can afford to eat?

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Secretary of State (Labour)]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives say they care about affordability, but their voting record says something very different. The Conservatives vote against every measure designed to help Canadian families. Let us take one example. Parents receive a payment every month called the Canada child benefit, which is a real help with groceries, a real help with clothing and a real help with the everyday costs of raising children in this country. They voted against it every time. It is crazy. Saying one thing and doing another is the Conservative Party.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians tell the government they cannot afford food, its response is that they are taxed to death and cannot afford groceries but should cheer up: It has a program for them; they should be grateful and have never had it so good.

Eighty-six per cent of Canadians list food as their largest financial worry. The food price report confirms grocery prices are set to increase by up to 6% next year. That is $1,000 more just to feed a family.

The Prime Minister asked to be judged by prices at the grocery store. Well, prices are set to reach historic highs. Will the Prime Minister admit his record is a failure?

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Secretary of State (Labour)]

Mr. Speaker, we will stand by our record every day in the House of Commons. They are the ones who have to be embarrassed about their track record of voting against dental care, which is putting money in the pockets of real Canadians; the Canada child benefit; and a tax cut. They voted against all of it: Build Canada Homes, reducing the cost of homes and automatic tax filing so people get real benefits.

That is their record. That is what they have to stand behind.

Indigenous Affairs

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Assembly of First Nations met here in Ottawa to advance economic sovereignty, and ministers from our government were at the table because reconciliation requires real partnership and real results.

Can the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs outline how our government is turning commitments like section 35 and the duty to consult into action, ensuring first nations are not just consulted but leading major projects and driving prosperity across the north?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Assembly of First Nations met in Ottawa, and many of us here were at the table with it. That shows we are moving along together with first nations.

We are backing indigenous-led growth and solutions. That is why more than half of CanNor's economic activity is indigenous-led. We are creating hundreds of jobs right now, like those at First Kaska Construction in Yukon. Our government is also ensuring that section 35 of the Constitution is fully respected.

We are ensuring that first nations are not just consulted, but are co-owners of major projects—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

The Economy

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked to be judged by the price of groceries. Once again, not only is he not keeping his promises, he is failing miserably at it. His policies are making Canadians poorer, while making him and his friends richer. When the Liberals came to power 10 years ago, groceries cost $159 per family per week; 10 years later, it is $338 per week, or $17,600 per year.

When will the Liberals stop their inflationary spending so that Canadians can feed themselves and live comfortably?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers elected 44 representatives in Quebec so that we could take care of the economy in the face of U.S. tariffs.

Our plan is working. GDP growth is at 3.2%. Inflation is under control at 2.2%. In September, 60,000 jobs were created. In October, 67,000 jobs were created. We have the strongest growth in the G7.

We still have a lot to do, we know that, but we are growing the economy while protecting our social safety net.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the latest report on food prices for 2026 reveals that, while 2025 was tough, 2026 is going to be even worse. According to the report, families will spend 112% more on food than they did 10 years ago, 86% of people are eating less meat because it has become too expensive and, next year, families will have to pay $1,000 more for groceries, the largest increase ever recorded in Canada. Meanwhile, food inflation is rising 48% faster in Canada than in the United States.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to get rid of his taxes on food so Canadians can eat healthy food at an affordable price?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is engaging in wilful blindness because he is selectively choosing the figures he wants to report. The reality is that inflation is down to 2.2%. The reality is that wages are up by 3.3%. This means that people have more money to deal with the cost of living.

For our part, as a government, we are ensuring a strong social safety net and cutting taxes. We are there with our various programs, including school nutrition. We will be there for Quebeckers across the province.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, prices at the grocery store were how the Prime Minister was to be judged. From Trudeau's crisis to the rebranded, not-so-new Liberal cabinet, Canadians are seeing costs go from bad to worse.

Today's food price report shows that Canadians are bracing for the largest grocery increase in years, nearly $1,000 more. Under a decade of the Liberals, families have gone from spending $159 a week on groceries to $338. That is more than $17,500 a year.

Families are stretched to the limit and so are food banks. When will the government rein in its inflationary spending and cut the costs it piles onto farmers, truckers and processors so that Canadians can afford to eat?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, we have a national school food program that is going to save parents up to $800 a year, a dental care program, a tax cut for 22 million Canadians, early learning and child care and a Canada child benefit. The Leader of the Opposition stood up in the House today and called them “costly promises”. Members opposite called them “photo ops”. They called them “garbage”. They called them “socialist programs”.

This is a case of saying the quiet part out loud. When someone tells us who they are, believe them. Canadians know who is fighting for them.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, their programs do not feed seniors. When the Liberals claim their taxes are imaginary, I think of a senior woman in my community, one who told me she can barely afford to eat and that some days she wishes she simply would not wake up, because living with this indignity is harder than dying.

That is what 10 years of soaring food prices and punishing taxes have done to Canadians: not imaginary but real, not theoretical but human. Families are being crushed by fuel costs, fertilizer costs and the industrial carbon tax, yet the Prime Minister looks at Canadians suffering the same way he looks at Brookfield balance sheets: as numbers, not people.

When will the Prime Minister prioritize making food affordable—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, when I talk to seniors in my riding, they talk to me about the Canadian dental care program. They say that it is life-changing, that it is getting them dental care they have not had for years or for the first time. They talk to me about the New Horizons program and how we are supporting projects that improve their quality of life. They talk to me about the $5 billion that budget 2025 is putting into new hospital infrastructure for urgent care.

The member opposite is spewing nonsense. If she wants to stand up for seniors, she should have voted for the budget when she had the chance.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals came to office in 2015, the average Canadian grocery bill was $160 a week. A decade later, it has more than doubled to $338 a week. That is $17,500 a year, and the food price report for next year confirms that Canadians will pay $1,000 more, which is the largest annual increase ever. Instead of axing taxes and spending, which increase the cost of growing, transporting and selling food, these Liberals actually raised them in budget 2025.

When are the Liberals going to read the room and get prices down, so Canadians can afford to eat?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, that member opposite is from my home community. If he was talking to Manitobans, he would know that they want $10-a-day day care. They want the school food program. They want investments in housing and infrastructure. If he was talking to Manitobans, he would know that Manitobans support our budget, so he should be supporting our budget as well. These are generational investments like never before. He needs to get onside.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the minister to get outside the Perimeter Highway in Winnipeg every once in a while to come into our communities in Manitoba. Here are a few facts for her: Families in Manitoba are being squeezed harder than ever thanks to her Liberal government, with Harvest Manitoba reporting today that 60,000 Manitobans a month are accessing food banks, and almost 50% of them are families with young children. That is a record for that minister to be proud of.

Canadians do not need handouts fuelling dependence on bloated government programs. They need affordable groceries on their kitchen tables. When is she going to get out of the way and deliver that for Manitoba?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there we have it. The members says “handouts” and “dependence” when talking about school food programs and about child care. He is trying to lecture my colleague from Churchill—Keewatinook Aski about not getting out enough.

That member needs to talk to more single mothers. That member needs to talk to more young people, more steelworkers, more aluminum workers and more auto workers about the government's standing up, supporting and building this country. That member needs to get out more.

Automotive Industry

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Stellantis is investing $13 billion of its own dollars into the United States to create 5,000 auto jobs. Meanwhile, the Liberal government gave Stellantis $15 billion taxpayer dollars, and they fired 3,000 auto workers. Let that sink in for a minute.

This is what happens when incompetent Liberal ministers do not read contracts. This is not an investment; it is a corporate rip-off. It took $15 billion and fired the workers. How does this incompetent minister sleep at night?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, we take things very seriously when it comes to investing taxpayers' money, and when it comes to Stellantis, we had a deal. They broke it, and we will make sure that we get our money back, period.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, unlike that minister, I have actually read the contracts, and if she actually had a legal case to do anything about the 3,000 workers who were fired in exchange for $15 billion, the government would have sued, but it has not.

All Canadians should know the extent of the incompetence of the Liberal government. The jobs guarantees in those contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. If I had drafted that as a first-year law student, I would have gotten an F. How does this minister stand here to defend this terrible contract?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, we have no lessons to take from the Conservatives.

In 2009, when the Harper government decided to bail out and shake hands with GM and Chrysler. At the time, it gave them $28 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money with no job guarantee. Two GM plants closed, one in Oshawa and another in Windsor, and one Ford assembly plant closed as well. An Orion Bus plant also closed in Mississauga. This is their record.

We are creating jobs, and we are fighting for Canadians.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals committed $15 billion to Stellantis only to have it ship 3,000 jobs south of the border. In fact, just in the White House yesterday, Stellantis says it is investing $13 billion in the U.S. to create 5,000 jobs.

Every time the government makes a deal, it seems like executives get taken care of while employees get overlooked.

When will this Liberal government prioritize jobs for Canadians instead of corporate welfare for executives?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of jobs, we are focused on creating jobs for the good workers in Brampton and across Ontario.

The Prime Minister committed $2 billion to build small modular reactors in Ontario, a project that will create 18,000 jobs in Ontario and help build Canada as an energy superpower. We can look at the opportunities we are creating through nuclear exports, a sector valued to create 90,000 jobs in 250 businesses in Ontario.

We remain relentlessly focused on creating jobs in nuclear and energy across Ontario communities, including Brampton.

Foreign Affairs

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for over three years, Ukrainians have fought valiantly against Russia's illegal and brutal invasion, defending not just their homeland, but also the principles that borders must not be changed by force and that every nation has a right to determine its own future.

Canada has stood with Ukraine from day one, and now more than ever, Ukrainians need our support on the battlefield, where it matters most.

Can the Minister of National Defence update the House on the latest steps Canada is taking to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to win?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this week, we announced our purchase of a package of critical military capability under NATO's prioritized Ukraine requirements list, or PURL, in partnership with other NATO allies. Our $200-million contribution to this PURL package will include capabilities that have been specifically identified by Ukraine as its urgent requirements to support its defence against Russia's aggression and war.

Make no mistake, Canada will stand with Ukraine until victory.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last year, over half the people who became Canadian citizens did so by clicking a box online. That is crazy. There is no justification for this. In-person citizenship ceremonies are an essential unifying bedrock of Canada's civic life. Swearing the oath of citizenship in front of an official should be upheld as an integral part of committing to the responsibilities that come with being Canadian.

Will the minister immediately end one-click, virtual citizenship ceremonies?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I respect that member, and I know he knows that is not correct. I know he recognizes that we have a robust system in this country and that there is no such thing as one system. We have multiple layers.

When it comes to citizenship ceremonies, there is no such thing as that. There are multiple layers of defence when somebody is coming out of a port of entry, 100% of those people spend considerable time with—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister completely did not answer the question. She did not listen to it.

My colleague asked why she was allowing one-click citizenship, which, to repeat a famous line in the House, we found on the government's website.

People get their citizenship by doing a virtual ceremony and clicking a box. That is what we are talking about here. I cannot believe she is still the minister.

Will she end one-click, virtual citizenship ceremonies?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, here are the fact: Virtual citizenship ceremonies started during the time of the pandemic. We all know that during COVID, life shifted. Even in Parliament, we now have the voting app, for example.

We are always looking for opportunities to celebrate our citizenship, to bring people together, to celebrate and build the Canadian economy and make it strong. We will continue to do that.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last year, well after the pandemic, where were more than half of Canadian citizenships conducted? It was online, by clicking a box. How does that unify Canadians? How does that imply and impart the responsibilities of being Canadian?

She is standing up here and defending a postnational strategy.

Will she end one-click, virtual citizenships?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, again, I am correcting the record for that member and those who are listening.

Virtual citizenship ceremonies started during the pandemic. That is correct. There are still some that are happening. However, for all new Canadians, it is still being done under a secure, fully fledged citizenship ceremony, with officials present.

Disaster Assistance

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, cyclone Ditwah has devastated communities across Sri Lanka, causing severe flooding and landslides that have claimed over 465 lives and left hundreds more missing.

Homes, infrastructure and local economies have suffered serious damage, and communities across the country are struggling to deal with the aftermath, especially in the northeast hill regions, which are already struggling due to poverty and war.

Canada has always been known as a partner that we can count on in moments of hardship. Could the Secretary of State for International Development inform the House of Canada's—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Secretary of State for International Development.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, our hearts are with those affected by the devastating floods in Sri Lanka, which has declared a state of emergency.

In times of crisis, Canadians step up. To support an urgent and immediate response, Canada is providing an initial $1 million in humanitarian aid to help the Red Cross, the Humanitarian Coalition and other partners deliver life-saving relief. This means emergency shelter, water, health services and other essentials to the most affected. This builds on support Canada has already provided to the World Food Programme's emergency response.

We are closely following developments across the region and will continue to stand with communities facing these impacts.

Justice

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Yesterday the Liberals got up in question period and accused Conservatives of obstructing work on Liberal Bill C-9, which takes aim at religious freedom and freedom of expression. The Liberals said they wanted to conduct clause-by-clause review today, but this morning, the Liberal chair cancelled the meeting, obstructing the Liberal government's own agenda and denying our right as legislators to do our work.

Why did the chair cancel the meeting, and will he commit to calling our scheduled meeting on Tuesday, so we can get to work?

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I became chair of the justice committee just two short days ago. I am honoured to take on that responsibility, and I take it very seriously.

It quickly became very apparent to me that the committee was having a great deal of trouble, emotions were running high and the members did not have a path forward to deal with some very important legislation that was before the committee.

Acting in the best interest of the committee members, the members of the House and the members of the public who want this bill to pass, I decided to cancel the meeting so the members could regroup to find a path forward.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That is enough.

The hon. member for Nunavut has the floor.

Housing

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, options for housing in Nunavut are limited.

Mould leads to chronic illness, and overcrowding leads to abuse of women already in unsafe conditions. There are 3,700 families on the waiting list, according to Nunavut Housing Corporation.

Once these houses are built, it will cost over $3 billion to maintain them. This government has only promised 700 new homes. Why are the Liberals not fully funding Nunavut to meet the urgent housing need?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, our new government is delivering on its commitments.

We are dedicating $2.3 billion to urban, rural and northern homes. We are also partnering to deliver over 700 new homes and fast-tracking them. We are also building on 450 additional homes that will start in the next few years.

In the Northwest Territories, we are funding 150 social homes, and in Whitehorse, we are funding 100 new affordable homes. This is just the beginning, because we are delivering on the 3,000 homes by 2030.

Finance

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, some might call it a flip-flop, but a flip-flop is a sandal, and this is a betrayal. On page 348 of the budget, it says clearly that investment tax credits will not be available for enhanced oil recovery, yet a memorandum of understanding with the Province of Alberta says it will extend federal investment tax credits to various parts of carbon capture and storage, including enhanced oil recovery.

My question for the Minister of Finance is this: With this additional handout to big oil, has the government recalculated how deep the deficit will be? How much above $78 billion is it now?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the memorandum of understanding with Alberta, which provides many opportunities for us to move forward on industrial carbon pricing, on clean electricity and on building interties with neighbouring provinces. These are all steps that are incredibly important for us as we try to build a clean economy and build our country strong for the future. We will keep on working to build a strong Canada going forward.

Oral Questions

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, you clearly established your right to cut short questions before they were even finished if, in your opinion, they were not related to government business. In two days, not once, not twice, but three times, the government's response not only had nothing to do with the question but had even less to do with the business of Parliament. This goes beyond the issue of adjournment debates. It is truly a deliberate weaponization of the work of the House. It is an insult to the democratic institution that is the House, and an insult to people's intelligence.

I would like to ask you to clarify the extent to which it is allowed, during question period, to say any old thing, both when asking a question and when answering it. I would like to quote from the procedure handbook we were just given.

Chapter 11.11 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states the following:There are no explicit rules which govern the form or content of replies to oral questions. According to practice, replies must be as brief as possible, deal with the subject matter raised and be phrased in language that does not provoke disorder in the House. As Speaker Jerome summarized in a 1975 statement on question period, several types of responses may be appropriate. Ministers may: answer the question; defer their answer; take the question as notice; make a short explanation as to why they cannot furnish an answer at that time; or say nothing.

Nowhere does it say that the response can be about something that is not related to the business of the House. I would simply like you to clarify the following: If a question cannot pertain to anything other than the business of the House, should the same not apply to an answer?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to that point of order. The leader of the Bloc Québécois himself is saying that federal funding for culture in Quebec is being used to silence separatists. If he wants to bring those topics to the House, he has to take responsibility. The Bloc Québécois has to take responsibility so that the matter can be debated.

Members of the Bloc Québécois are suffering from the same disease as the Conservatives, that is, repeating questions without even thinking them through. We will always be here to provide answers to relevant questions.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will obviously reflect on this point of order.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke on this same point of order last week to ask you to allow one of our members to continue asking his question, because he had 15 seconds left in his time and he was about to get to his question on government business. I think that my Bloc Québécois colleague's argument is entirely justified.

However, I find the gratuitous attack just launched by the government House leader, which is not relevant to the point of order, to be completely unwarranted. Mr. Speaker, you allowed him to issue this unwarranted attack that was completely out of context. We have the right to ask our questions. That is our right. We represent our constituents, so it is not up to the government House leader to decide what questions members of the official opposition or any other member of the House, for that matter, can ask.

I will wait to give my other comments on my colleague's point of order later.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will consider everything that has been said and come back to the House with a ruling on this point of order.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know today that Canadians are concerned about rising food prices after 10 years of Liberal governance, but they do not see the chaos that is happening right here in the House of Commons, and in parliamentary committees in particular. Ministers are not showing up. Committees are cancelled at the last minute. We saw it again today—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is the member talking about the Thursday question?

We are not quite there yet. I have a decision to read first.

Quoting from Documents—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Chair would like to take a moment to come back to the House on a point of order raised yesterday by the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna concerning whether quoting from a document or book during an intervention in the House violates our rule against using props during debate.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, section 13.26, notes:

Props of any kind have always been found to be unacceptable in the chamber, especially when they cause disorder.

The same section also states the following: Moreover, Speakers have consistently ruled that visual displays used by members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions are out of order.... For example, members may hold notes in their hands, but they will be interrupted and reprimanded by the Speaker if they use papers, documents or other printed material to illustrate their remarks. Printed material that has been ruled out of order includes advertisements, newspapers, books, business cards and money.

However, regarding the use of books, members are generally allowed to quote from them in support of their arguments, including when they rise on a point of order to inform the Speaker of a potential breach of the rules or practices of the House. Conversely, waving a book around, pointing to it or using it as a rhetorical device to bolster a statement is not acceptable.

The member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna also indicated in his point of order that members should be allowed to quote from a book when needed in the course of debate. The Chair would fully concur with this assertion, and the Chair confirms that members are allowed to quote from books so long as the same are not used to emphasize their position.

We can now proceed with the Thursday question.

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that thorough response to the point of order raised yesterday.

Just before that point of order was raised yesterday, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader also stood on a point of order, and you indicated that you would come back with a ruling on it if it was deemed necessary.

Does your lack of coming back to the House mean that you do not deem it to be necessary, or do you plan to do that at—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I deem it not to be necessary.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North raised the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was offside when he made a comment that alluded to the absence of the Prime Minister. I took a measure in response to that: The hon. Leader of the Opposition lost the question, so I consider the matter closed.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that response. There was a lot of heckling going on at the time, when the member was trying to raise his point of order, so perhaps it did not get in there.

The member for Winnipeg North was trying to ask what the next step is. Will you just continue to take away questions? When somebody is weighing a cost-benefit analysis, they can decide it is okay to give away a question because the gain they get by posting it on social media is going to outweigh that cost, and he did post it.

Our question to you is, what is the next step you will take in this regard, so all members are aware ahead of time before you have to go down that road?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will have to wait and see. It is a hypothetical situation, but I do consider it a major offside and I will not be tolerating it going forward.

Business of the House

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, Canadians are very concerned about the cost of food. After 10 years under this Liberal government, people have seen the cost of food double. It now costs $340 per week compared to less than half that 10 years ago.

Meanwhile, people are not paying attention to what is happening on the Hill, but they should be. Why? Because the Liberal government is causing chaos in parliamentary committees. We have to discuss bills and advance democracy, but ministers are failing to show up and committee meetings are being cancelled at the last minute. This is the government playing political games. Another such incident happened just this morning. The meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was cancelled at the last minute. On the agenda was a clause-by-clause study of a regulation.

This week, my question for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is this: Can he assure us that the government will stop playing anti-democratic political games and that committee meetings will be held as scheduled next week without last-minute cancellations? Can he also tell us what the plan is for tomorrow and next week in the House?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I totally disagree with my esteemed colleague's version of the facts. It is precisely the outbursts of Conservative members, true to their leader's example, with their three-word slogans and determination to upend the work of the House and committees, that prompted the decision by the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore to cancel this morning's committee work.

I encourage all members to focus on the issues. We introduce bills of great importance to all Canadians. We ensure that these bills move forward and are debated in parliamentary committees and in the House. The least we should be able to expect is to be treated with decorum, not in a heated, even frenzied way by the official opposition. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to tell his members that their behaviour, shouting and agitation are a disservice to our democracy.

This afternoon, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. We hope the debate will end this afternoon.

Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

Next week, priority will be given to the third reading of Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure. Canadians know well that we have cut income taxes for every taxpayer. We made sure we got rid of the consumer carbon tax and the GST for first-time homebuyers. This is something the Conservatives said they wanted to do, but apparently not.

Also, there will be the second reading debate of Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a very solid piece of economic policy. We would think the Conservatives would be interested in that, but apparently not.

We have the report stage and third reading of Bill C-12, which would strengthen Canada's immigration system and border, something the Conservatives talk about a lot. However, apparently they have nothing to say about this substantial and very important piece of legislation.

There is the second reading of Bill C-2, the strong borders act. It contains a concept known as lawful access, which police forces across this country have been asking for. They have been calling the offices of Conservative members to say that they know the Conservatives are divided on that. They know they have had some very difficult conversations in their caucus. The police want the ability to deal with extortion and child pornography. The Conservatives said they wanted action on this. This is action, but the Conservatives want to hold it up.

Finally, should Bill C-15, the very good budget bill before the House, not collapse today, it will also be considered next week.

The House resumed from December 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C‑15, the budget implementation bill. We were very clear during the vote. The Bloc Québécois is the only party that stood firm. We had a number of reasons for rejecting this budget. Obviously, it is a big bill. It is 650 pages long, contains 80 legislative measures, and amends 49 laws. What we have is a mixed bag. The government can say that there are good projects in this bill, projects that the Bloc Québécois has been calling for. I am thinking of projects for the Magdalen Islands, Charlevoix and the Gaspé region, among others.

However, when we look at the bill as a whole, we see that the six priority demands of the Bloc Québécois were completely dismissed by the government. There were no negotiations, not with anyone. Still, we made it clear that the purpose of these demands was to represent and defend the interests of Quebec. These demands included support for seniors, support for young families in accessing home ownership, support on climate action and increases to health transfers. None of these measures are in this budget, which projects a deficit of almost $80 billion. In fact, our demands would have made it possible to generate significant benefits across Canada, beyond Quebec, which was of course our priority.

It gets worse. When we look at this budget, we see that fossil fuel companies, oil and gas companies, will be swimming in billions of dollars' worth of additional subsidies. The government decided to give even more money to oil and gas companies, which are already raking in record profits. The government will increase and extend tax credits for businesses, meaning that it will be paying to capture and sequester their carbon. Businesses should be the ones paying for their own pollution. They should be paying to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Quebeckers and taxpayers in general should not be subsidizing the companies that are largely responsible for climate change.

In this budget, the government is providing subsidies. Interestingly, the former heritage minister, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, met with the Green Party representative to promise action on the environment. He promised her that the tax credits would not enable oil companies to produce more oil just because they intend to capture carbon. The former heritage minister made that promise, and the budget said that tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration will not be used to allow oil companies to produce more oil.

However, last week, in an agreement between the Prime Minister and Alberta, the Liberals completely contradicted their budget. They betrayed the Green Party member, who voted with them, just to keep the oil and gas companies happy. Not only is the government giving money to oil companies, but we can see that the Prime Minister is unreliable when it comes to the environment. We cannot trust what he says because he goes back on his word.

Obviously, we have other concerns about this budget. From now on, nuclear companies will be able to receive money for small modular nuclear reactors through clean electricity tax credits. Those are credits for clean electricity, but nuclear energy produces nuclear waste. Just two hours from here, in Chalk River, nuclear waste is being stored next to the Ottawa River. There are 100 municipalities in Quebec that are opposed to that project. First nations are opposed to that project. This week, 85 groups from across Canada made a public statement about how it is not right that highly radioactive waste is being stored next to the Ottawa River. We are talking about carcinogens that stay radioactive for thousands of years.

If that is clean electricity, then I think people need to start asking some serious questions about the government's greenwashing. There are additional tax credits for nuclear power. The same applies to gas-fired power plants, as if it were clean to generate electricity from gas.

There is something else we discovered in this budget. We did not catch it at first because it is buried on page 300. The government has decided to allow major project developers to circumvent the law. We were not happy this spring when the government joined forces with the Conservatives to pass Bill C-5 under a gag order. That was a completely undemocratic move. We were concerned about Bill C-5 because it allowed the government to completely set aside 12 laws and seven regulations, including several on the environment. Now, we see that the government hid a measure in the middle of this omnibus budget implementation bill, on page 300, that allows any minister to exempt any company from the application of any federal law for a period of three years. Any federal law can be set aside now that the government has decided to sneak this into its budget. Honestly, that is worrisome.

A further look at this budget shows that it goes even further, or rather further backwards. What we have seen since the new government came into office is not that new. It is environmental backsliding. Some might say there is a problem when the government offers billions of dollars in additional subsidies to oil and gas companies. The government presented its budget as a budget for a climate revolution, with a climate competitiveness strategy that would revolutionize everything and demonstrate the government's ambitions. However, the budget does not have a competitiveness strategy. It has a climate capitulation strategy. The overall budget only has an additional $4 million over five years for the climate competitiveness strategy.

If the government thinks Canada will get back on track or get on track to fight for the climate, it cleary has a ways to go. The budget does not have new investments to create a green economy. Environment and Climate Change Canada's budget has been slashed by 15%. The government has extended tax credits for oil and gas companies while simultaneously easing their emission reduction obligations and lifting their existing limits. The government is breaking its promise by continuing to subsidize oil and gas companies even though it had said it would remove subsidies.

Let us turn to greenwashing rules, which the budget has watered down. As we know, oil and gas companies engage in greenwashing all the time. They claim they are green, that they are working. They are sort of like the Prime Minister who has talked about green oil. The government had introduced rules against greenwashing, but the budget watered them down.

The government told us that it was going to review industrial carbon pricing. However, there is nothing specific in the budget about new, stronger pricing measures. The government is doing away with the program to plant two billion trees. The budget contains no new money for parks or protected areas. The government is scrapping the Canada public transit fund, which was intended to fund public transportation, and it is transferring that money to another fund. We do not know how much money, if any, remains in the fund. The same goes for the sustainable mobility fund.

There is no new money for climate change adaptation, even though we are experiencing forest fires, floods and droughts, and the government is doing away with the ZIP program, which targets areas of prime concern in Quebec. That program cost $1 million a year. The government has just made cuts to this program and taken another completely useless step backward just to save a few bucks.

This budget does not meet any of the Bloc's demands. Furthermore, it is clearly the worst budget in the history of this country in terms of environmental backsliding. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc's response to the budget implementation bill does not surprise me. It is somewhat unfortunate that, despite the amount of investment, whether in the port of Montreal through the major projects program, which would mean literally tens of thousands of jobs, or the expansion through the military expenditure, which is going to do well for Quebec's aerospace industry, not to mention the investments in arts programs and the supports for the French language, we find the Bloc working in coalition with the Conservative Party of Canada to vote for and ultimately cause an election.

That is the major objective of the Bloc party. I am wondering if he would recognize that he seems to be putting the Bloc's best interest ahead of the people of Quebec, as opposed to what the people of Quebec would want to see in the budget.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, unsurprisingly, I disagree with my colleague. This budget does not meet any of the Bloc's very specific demands. We asked for assistance for seniors and an increase in health transfers to Quebec. We also asked for a measure to help young families buy their first home, particularly those who are having difficulty saving for a down payment.

More than anything, we wanted the Liberals to stop giving an average of $10 billion a year to oil and gas companies. We wanted them to invest that money in the right place, but that is not what this budget does. This is climate irresponsibility of the highest order. The Bloc Québécois was prepared for the government to propose amendments and make suggestions in response to specific demands for Quebec, but it did not do so. It did not talk to any of the parties. Obviously, it is solely responsible for the current situation.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks of the Prime Minister's record.

During the election campaign, he said that he would be a great negotiator with the United States and that he would save Canada, including Quebec. However, what we are seeing is increased tariffs, plant closures and job losses.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected because he promised that he would resolve the tariff and trade crisis very quickly, but things just keep getting worse. It is extremely concerning to see that jobs are being lost in Quebec right now. We are losing jobs that might not have been lost if the government had invested in and listened to forestry companies, for example, which are asking for very simple support measures. These companies are asking for help in paying the countervailing duties by receiving the money up front.

What we are seeing is a government that has hardly implemented any measures so far but that is still giving money to oil and gas companies. There are no oil and gas companies in Quebec. Perhaps other sectors of our economy could benefit from this money.

As of now, negotiations with the U.S. administration have been a complete failure.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague about the change that took place between the budget being tabled and the deal being struck with Alberta. Page 348 of the budget clearly states that the tax credits do not apply to enhanced oil recovery. The memorandum of understanding with Alberta states the opposite, however. It says that enhanced oil recovery is included.

Why does he think the government decided to make such a drastic change without offering any explanation?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the answer is quite simple. This government, and the Prime Minister especially, is unreliable when it comes to the environment. It cannot be trusted. The backsliding that followed the last budget was straight off the oil and gas companies' wish list. The government is ticking off every item on that list like clockwork. Since this government came to power, its environmental rollbacks have been tailored to the oil and gas companies' agenda. The last—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry, but the hon. member is over his time.

The hon. member for Fundy Royal.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, as we approach Christmastime, it is an honour to be able to stand here in this place and speak to the budget. When I think about the needs of Canadians and what we are all hearing from constituents, I look to the budget to see what is in there for the families struggling to make ends meet, the families we talk to at the grocery store or at the hockey rink who are talking about the struggle to heat their home, put food on the table for their family, maybe get a new hockey stick for their kids for the Christmas season and put gas in their van to get to and from work and sporting events.

I hear from my constituents about that struggle. The government would sometimes have us believe this is all in our heads and that the struggle is not real. However, when we look at this new budget, we are looking to see what is in there for families who are working hard, playing by the rules and paying their taxes.

Some of the numbers in the budget are stark. The federal debt is now $1.35 trillion. The federal debt is a burden, not only on the taxpayers of today but also on the taxpayers of tomorrow: those who are young, those who are just starting off in university and those who are just starting off in elementary school. This is a burden on them.

As well, $55.6 billion is the interest on the federal debt for the 2025-26 fiscal year. What is $55.6 billion, though? How does the average person wrap their mind around a figure as vast as the interest on the debt? A quick way to understand how much money Canadians need to spend, of their tax dollars, on the federal debt is this: This is more money than the Government of Canada spends on health care for the entire country. It is a staggering figure at a time when waiting lists in many provinces are long and people's important treatments are being delayed. The government is spending as much on interest on the debt as they are on health care. In addition, $321.7 billion is the amount that will be added to the federal debt over the next five years. Those are big numbers.

A small number is 1.1%. That is how much Canada's GDP has grown this year. What does that mean? This is the second-lowest growth in the entire G7. For all the spending, Canadians are not better off, and many are falling further behind. That is why we Conservatives called for an affordability budget for an affordable life. We cannot have an affordable life unless the government has an affordable budget.

The reality is that over the last decade, over the last 10 years that the Liberals have been in government, Canadians, Canadian families and communities continue to fall further and further behind. Canadians know all too well the burden of taxes. That burden has increased 32% in the last decade. Canadians are paying 32% more of their hard-earned money for taxes than they were 10 years ago when the Liberals took government. That is more than Canadians are spending on food and housing combined. It is a staggering amount.

There is more bad news in that regard. There is an affordability crisis in housing. There is a crime crisis. We have seen the crime severity index go off the charts now that the Liberals, with their failed policies on bail and other justice measures, have created chaos in our streets.

Another area of failure is on food affordability. The numbers just came out. If Canadians were hoping for some relief, the numbers are not providing it and the budget is not providing it. “Canada's Food Price Report” was just released. This is a direct quote from the report: “If 2025 was difficult for Canadian households, 2026 is unlikely to be any easier.”

In fact, although families are already stretched to the limit and are already making compromises around gassing up their vehicle, heating their home and putting food on the table, the cost of food is going to go up $1,000 this year. Food prices are expected to increase to the point at which, for the average family of four in Canada, the cost of food is $17,571 per year. This is a 112% increase over the last decade.

That is right. The cost of food for Canadian families has doubled in just the 10 years the Liberals have been in government. Have people had their paycheques doubled? Have the paycheques of my constituents and the constituents of members in this chamber doubled? They have absolutely not, but the price they pay to put food on the table for their family has more than doubled. What this means is that, in 2015, the cost for the year was $8,286, or approximately $160 per week for food. Incredibly, since then, in just 10 years, that number has more than doubled to $340 per week for the average Canadian family of four.

When we bore down further into the numbers in this report, it is very staggering. What the report found is that Canadians are compromising healthy choices in favour of more cost-effective options. Nearly a quarter said they would eat healthier and 20% would buy a higher quality of food if they could afford it. We see that the price of strawberries is up 51% since the Prime Minister took office. Beef is up 30%; chicken, 23%; coffee, 22%; ground beef, 14%; and salad dressing, 13%. Canadians literally cannot afford the Liberals at all anymore.

Let us look to my home province of New Brunswick. Feed NB is an organization that supports food banks, community kitchens and similar programs. When I have talked to representatives of food banks in my riding, they have said demand is off the charts. On days when food is being delivered, we see lineups at the food banks. Feed NB is reporting that the demand for their services has seen an astronomical increase of 140% in only the last three years.

New Brunswickers and Canadians are struggling just to put food on the table. The latest MNP Consumer Debt Index found that 24% of Atlantic Canadians are struggling to afford food for their families. What is the government doing with the tax money? It is not their money; it is Canadians' money. It is their hard-earned tax money. Well, it gave carmaker Stellantis $15 billion for a battery plant and $529 million for factory upgrades, but there was no protection for workers. This led to 3,000 layoffs in Brampton.

This week, Canadians learned the Prime Minister handed Algoma Steel $400 million, knowing full well about its plans for layoffs, and now 1,000 steel workers have lost their jobs. This is the same Liberal logic that led to the government committing to spend up to $1.34 billion to prop up Quebec's Northvolt battery plant, only for the company to file for bankruptcy last year.

This week, a paper mill in British Columbia informed workers it would permanently shut down, leading to 375 workers losing their jobs. In New Brunswick, the lumber industry is a key driver of our economy, and we just learned last week of a paper mill in Maine no longer accepting softwood lumber from New Brunswick because of tariffs, which have gone from 14%, when the Prime Minister took office, to 45% now.

We were hoping for some relief for taxpayers in this budget. That relief, unfortunately, is only going to come for Canadians, for New Brunswickers and for families when we elect a Conservative government, one that takes the issue of overtaxation seriously and will enable Canadians to provide for their families by lowering costs, making Canada affordable again and renewing the promise of Canada so that families can be successful and Canadians can enjoy a great future in our great country.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, I note that the member opposite quoted Feed NB. I wonder if he could comment on the recommendation by Feed NB to ensure healthy school food programs, including breakfast programs, and why he would vote against the very thing that Feed NB recommends as part of its strategy to feed hungry folks.

I also wonder why the member voted against the packages for trade-affected workers, like stronger EI and retraining supports, indeed for the Province of New Brunswick, which will be delivering that training to anybody who is impacted by tariffs.

Finally, the member talked about lowering taxes. Budget 2025 speaks about lower taxes for 22 million Canadians, yet the member voted against that as well.

I am just curious to know what exactly he does for the members of his riding when they are asking for the kinds of supports this government is providing.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that the Liberals, after a decade during which crime has skyrocketed, the cost of housing for families has skyrocketed and the cost of food has skyrocketed, can get up and ask us questions about affordability. The cost to families for groceries has doubled since the member's party took government.

We are not going to take any lessons from them on affordability. Canadians are struggling and need help because of the government's policies, because of policies that have hurt our energy sector, because of overtaxation and because of the money printing that has caused inflation to skyrocket. That is why Canadians are struggling. That is why they need help.

The government continues to go down the wrong path. Conservatives will stand up for hard-working Canadian families, always.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague, I am very concerned about the fact that more and more seniors are asking for food assistance and going to food banks for help. We have seen the 2025 Hunger Count for Quebec, produced by the members of Food Banks of Quebec. In my riding, I have seen an increase in food aid in general, but particularly for seniors, and I am sure my colleague has seen something similar in his area.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. Does he think it is acceptable for the government to continue, year after year, to discriminate against seniors aged 65 to 74, who were not eligible for an increase in old age security, unlike those aged 75 and over, even though they have the same obligations related to the increase in the cost of groceries and rent?

What does he think of the government's refusal to help seniors?

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, in the last 10 years under the Liberal government, the cost of food for families and seniors has doubled. In the last four years, the cost has gone up by 25%. A senior's income and a family's income have not kept pace with that.

It is going to require a complete change in direction from the government to end its inflationary policies and make life more affordable. Whether it is housing, food or fuel, in every measure, the government has pushed us in the wrong direction. It has pushed seniors and families to the very brink, where they are having to make terrible decisions about whether to heat their home, feed themselves or put fuel in their vehicle. Canadian seniors should not have to make that decision.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Madam Speaker, I also serve a riding in Atlantic Canada. One thing I commonly hear in my riding is that rural and remote communities have been left behind by the Liberal government and have also been punished by the high cost of everything and the policies the Liberals have implemented.

I am just wondering if my colleague hears the same thing. Maybe he would like to speak to that.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, indeed, I hear from my rural communities that in rural parts of the country, in rural New Brunswick, people have to travel farther. That is a cost.

The government has increased the cost of fuel. The government has increased the cost of food. The government has increased crime, and we hear about that a lot in rural communities.

I am hearing about the affordability issue for families and seniors in rural areas, and only the Conservatives are committed to addressing it.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Fundy Royal for his great remarks. He brought up so many relevant subjects that need to be considered when we consider the implementation of this budget.

In preparation for my remarks today, an old saying came back to me, and I think it bears relevance today. I do not know if fellow members have heard the expression “Don't put the cart before the horse”. When it comes to the government's budget, I have to say that it is a superior example of putting the cart before the horse. What do I mean by that? We are investing tremendous amounts of taxpayer dollars into building an elaborate cart, expanding the cart, growing the cart, making the cart larger and have many compartments and increasing the storage and capacity of the cart while at the same time totally and entirely neglecting the horse.

Let us bring that to terms we can relate to. When we grow the size and scope of government, the cart, the deliverer of services, without ever prioritizing the needs of the horse, Canada's economy, which funds, fuels and hauls the cart of government from one objective to another, we have something that has misplaced the priorities that should be at the top of any government's priority list.

When the priority is growing the size and scope of government while neglecting the very thing that funds and fuels the government, we are going to have a problem. For 10 years, we have called out and criticized oil, gas, energy, agriculture and the many sectors that have helped to make Canada a truly amazing country. It is no wonder that people are frustrated and think we have our priorities wrong, or that the government has its priorities wrong.

We cannot be ever-expanding the load and burden upon fewer and fewer taxpayers. We cannot neglect the sectors that produce the wealth to generate the programs we rely upon, and then continually grow that level of dependence without expanding, rapidly growing and prioritizing the things that fund and fuel the economy.

I challenge the government to reprioritize, to look at the budget and say that maybe there are some things out of order. We are growing the burden on the taxpayer without growing the taxpayer base. We are growing the expectations of future generations of Canadians without growing the economy that will be able to fuel the very mechanisms of government that we are expanding.

To crystallize this, I want to talk quickly about a few categories. I always love alliterations, so I am going to give a few Fs for the pathway forward in Canada.

F number one is making sure that we make food affordable again. It is hard to work, carry out obligations or provide for a family if someone is struggling to put groceries on the table every week. We have seen under the Liberal government that the cost of groceries has doubled in the last 10 years. We are even seeing an expected increase of $1,000 more per year in the next fiscal year, on average, for Canadian households to put groceries on their tables. We are expecting feeding a family of four to cost $17,000 this year, and it will go to over $18,000 next year. For many families, that looks like an insurmountable mountain they must climb when they try to balance that cost with other needs in their households.

I must go further, to the source of food, and look at the increased burdens the government has brought upon our farmers. I have the privilege of serving on the agriculture committee, and trust me, we hear directly from our farmers and producers about soaring input costs. We put our farmers at a competitive disadvantage when they have to pay for things like the industrial carbon tax, the fuel standards tax and packaging taxes. All of this over-regulation and increased taxation is causing an undue burden on those who grow our food and generate food security for not only our country but countries around the world.

If we were to hear the voices of farmers, they would say, if we want to find a pathway forward, to take care of those who grow our food. They would say to take care of our farmers and would tell us to make sure we get out of their way so they can do what they do best, which is to plant, grow and produce good nourishment for Canadians and literally people around the world.

[An hon. member]

Don't muzzle the ox.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, do not muzzle the ox is exactly right. We should feed the horse that is hauling the cart, not starve the donkey bearing the burden. We need to make sure we are taking care of our farmers, and they will take care of Canadians. It is time we prioritize these things.

The next F I want to talk about in moving Canada on the pathway forward economically and to a future of prosperity is about making sure we deal with those in our fuel sectors, our oil and gas sectors. The government cannot talk those sectors down for 10 years, telling everybody we have dirty oil and dirty gas, and then expect those sectors to continue to produce at a high level when it has maintained policies that have been detrimental to their progress and prosperity, policies such as tanker bans, pipeline bans, overtaxation and industrial carbon taxes.

When these sectors are put at a regulatory and taxation disadvantage, the investment dollars for them are going to flee our country, and it is very hard for a country to move forward on the pathway to prosperity when those who generate our fuel are overcome. Emission caps and production caps are absolutely detrimental to the future prosperity of this country.

The next F I want to talk about is the forestry sector. The last Conservative prime minister we had was able to reach a deal in 80 days that lasted for 10 years. It has been over a decade that the Liberal government has been in power and there is still no relief for our forestry sector. We are seeing mills close all the time in our country, and people are losing good jobs across this nation. It is time we reprioritize. Canadians are looking for a government to put the priority on our forestry sector again.

That brings me to the consideration of rural Canadians, who are oftentimes the most overlooked and most forgotten segment of our nation. Those who live in rural and remote communities are oftentimes forgotten by the government in place now. Their way of life is oftentimes not considered when it comes to policies such as EV mandates, which take away the choice of the kind of vehicle they need and want to drive in in the areas in which they live.

The government attacks their way of life and traditions in hunting and fishing, with over-regulation and especially with firearms legislation that punishes the law-abiding firearms owner, hunter and sport shooter. The government misplaces the priorities of rural Canadians and says it is going to tackle crime by doing this. No, rural crime is soaring under the Liberals' watch, because they have neglected the issues that matter most.

If we want more security in rural areas, we need to make sure law-abiding firearms owners have the ability to protect and stand on guard for their homes and properties properly and lawfully. As many of them will tell us, firearms ownership is a deterrent to rural crime. We need to stand up for their rights.

The next F I want to talk about in the pathway forward to prosperity and overcoming the challenges that this budget has presented for Canadians is to make sure that we address the challenges we are finding in the area of rural connectivity, broadband access and mobility access. When budgets are put together, oftentimes an urban-centric slant is put on them, with very little consideration for those who grow our food, manufacture our goods, truck and haul our goods and develop our natural resources.

Much of our nation's GDP is harnessed by those in rural Canada, but they are an afterthought when it comes to the policy decisions the current government is making. It promised for years to increase broadband access and Internet access in rural and remote areas, with very little headway being made. I still hear and receive phone calls all the time at our office from those who are frustrated with the lack of coverage, because, again, the government has not been proactive in addressing this.

We have to prioritize the needs of rural Canadians, because it was rural Canada that built this country, and it will be rural Canada that is key to our comeback. It is time their voices are heard and considered when it comes to aspects of our budget and economic security and viability.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Exactly. They are not second-class citizens, and they should not be treated that way.

Madam Speaker, they are first-class, hard-working, wonderful people who feel forgotten by their government. However, I am glad to say that there is an awakening across rural Canada. People are recognizing we need change and are looking for this side of the House to stand up for them, and we will continue to do that.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is no Doug Ford with his folksy witticisms.

I am continually amazed that members are conveniently confusing capital investment and operational expenses. Businesses, municipalities, families and farmers understand the difference, but there is no acknowledgement of the reality of the trade war that we are currently facing with the United States. The whole point of this budget is investing in Canada to build our economy, and to invest in our country.

Can the member opposite explain the difference between a capital investment and an operating expense?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I find my hon. colleague's question somewhat perplexing. I think many Canadians share in being confounded by that, in that it is a lot like voodoo economics. Spending is spending is spending. We can call it investment, or we can call it this or that, but spending is spending, debt is debt and deficits are deficits.

What we need is a government that is going to prioritize the needs of Canadians, unleash our private sector, stop standing on the backs of our industry, stop standing on the backs of our farmers, stop standing on the backs of our oil and gas sector, unleash that potential and build the infrastructure necessary to get Canadian goods to market. Then we will turn the economy around and be much more self-reliant in doing so.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about the cost of living. That is something that is important to us too.

When we talk about the cost of living, one of the most important things is housing. During the last election campaign, the government boasted about its Build Canada Homes project, claiming it would solve the housing problems. However, as we are seeing once again, it has failed. The Auditor General of Canada has criticized the Liberals' budget 2025. They have been slow to reduce office space. It is clear that the housing initiative will not achieve its objective.

Is this another broken Liberal promise?

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Quebec. It is a pleasure for me to speak about the budget again here in the House of Commons.

The member raises a very valid point. The priority of Canadians is cost of living, and the last thing they need is another grandiose announcement, a big promise that sets expectations high, with results never to be seen for years, oftentimes even decades. The Liberals say that someday or tomorrow they are going to do this and they are going to do that, sometime in the future, but after a while, a promise without delivery leaves people feeling hopeless and desperate.

Canadians need results and action, not just more spending and announcements. They need real results, not rhetoric. What we intend to do on this side of the House is deliver results for Canadians.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleague to explain why the budget does not help farmers, builders and truckers, the people who keep Canada running.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. Liberals have totally missed the mark when it comes to delivering results for Canadians. They make promises without being grounded in reality and in tangible, measurable results for Canadians.

The Liberals cannot talk down the very sectors that have helped make Canada the greatest country in the world historically. They cannot keep talking down those sectors and then expect, all of a sudden, to turn on a dime, say they are champions for Canada now and invite everyone to do business here. Canada is the highest tax jurisdiction in the advanced economy. They have put more regulations and taxes on our energy sector than in most other economies, then they wonder why they are not effective or delivering results. It is because they have misplaced priorities for years and talked down the best of the Canadian economy.

Let us get out of the way and let Canada do what it does best: produce and work.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of seniors in this country, both those from my community of King—Vaughan and the many seniors from coast to coast who have shared with me that they feel completely abandoned by the Liberal government's latest budget.

These Canadians expected a plan that addressed affordability, housing, health care and dignity for older adults. Instead they received a document full of slogans, empty promises and more spending, creating a deficit for which our grandchildren and their grandchildren will be stuck with the bill. It contained no meaningful action for the people who dedicated their lives to supporting us and to building this country.

The only time seniors are mentioned in the budget is through the new horizons for seniors program. I want to be clear: I support the new horizons program. It is a valuable program for community initiatives. In a time when seniors face increased isolation, stress and poor health outcomes, so many of the programs that new horizons funds help address some of these challenges. However, new horizons does not tackle the core issues that seniors struggle with today. It is not individualized support. It does not put food on the table. It does not reduce the cost of heat or rent. It does not help the widow living alone, the retired nurse rationing her medication or the senior forced to choose between heating and eating.

I recently spoke to Carole Fawcett from the group Seniors Tin Cup, an organization that supports vulnerable older adults. Carole manages her food budget, but it excludes meat and other nutritious foods. The poverty line in Canada is $25,252, yet 28% of senior women live in poverty through no fault of their own. These are hard-working Canadians, older adults who paid taxes their entire life and contributed to their communities, yet now they struggle to survive, and still the Liberal government has done nothing for them.

I also heard from Single Seniors for Tax Fairness, an advocacy group representing seniors who are widowed or divorced, or who never married. They submitted thoughtful recommendations to improve the tax system for single seniors, highlighting unfair penalties and disproportionate burdens on people living on their own, compared to coupled seniors. They called for reforms that would allow single seniors to maintain dignity and independence. These are reforms that were ignored by the Liberal government.

Seniors across the country are facing financial penalties simply for trying to support themselves. Under the current system, older adults who want to work a few hours a week are punished by clawbacks to their guaranteed income supplement or their old age security. This is not just policy mismanagement; it is a moral failure. Seniors want to continue to contribute to their community, remain active, supplement their income and maintain independence. A Conservative government would allow low-income seniors to work without punitive clawbacks. It is the right thing to do, and it is long overdue.

The financial strain is compounded by the Liberal government's failure to address the two-tier retirement system it created. I spoke with Mark Rant from Red Deer, Alberta, who has written many emails to the Secretary of State for Seniors but has yet to receive a response. We spoke about how seniors over age 75 may receive top-ups and enhanced benefits, while those between 65 and 74 years old, the group most vulnerable to rising costs, are left with nothing. Many seniors are unable to retire because of the high cost of living, yet they are financially penalized for continuing to work through clawbacks. Mark spoke about the increase for seniors aged 75 and older. This top-up has created a division among seniors in this country, and a two-tier pension system that is neither fair nor sustainable.

The wait-list for affordable senior housing in King—Vaughan is now 10 to 12 years. A senior who applies may not receive housing they can afford until they are well into their eighties. The government's budget contains nothing to shorten that wait. There is no plan to increase senior-specific housing, no emergency support for those facing eviction and no acknowledgement of the daily struggles of seniors living alone on a fixed income.

The Prime Minister once said he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store. In King—Vaughan, the consequences of government inaction are stark. Food bank volunteers reported that seniors are now the fastest-growing group relying on donated food. Sai Dham Food Bank services 3,600 seniors per month, a total of 44,000 per year. Vaughan Food Bank services 1,000 seniors per month, totalling 12,000 per year. This trend is echoed throughout the country, with Food Banks Canada reporting in its latest report that 8.3% of food bank users are seniors, which is up 22% from 2019.

This summer I was on the ground talking to seniors across this country, including in Nova Scotia. I visited Yarmouth with the member for Acadie—Annapolis. I know he used to be on this side. I do not know what happened to him. It was before he sold out his constituents. The calls I have been getting from his constituents are unbelievable.

I spoke with seniors groups throughout the member's riding, and I spoke with seniors groups in Bridgewater and in the riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. Can members guess what their biggest concern was? It was affordability. Seniors told me they could not afford to feed themselves, that they are forced to choose between heating and eating, and that energy prices are skyrocketing and food prices are soaring.

The Prime Minister continually fails seniors. At every step of a senior's daily routine, they are consistently burdened with the high cost of living due to the reckless spending of the out-of-touch Liberal government. Only a Conservative government will cut taxes, rein in wasteful spending, tackle deficits that fuel inflation and bring down the cost of living, including for seniors.

After 10 years, the government has made living as a senior in Canada harder, not easier. Seniors deserve better. They deserve dignity, security and independence. They deserve to be able to work without punishment, eat without fear and live in a home they can afford. They deserve a government that respects their contribution.

Seniors built this country. They deserve more than a passing mention of a re-announcement in the budget. They deserve more than lines at the food bank or a decade-long wait for affordable housing. They deserve a government that puts them first. The budget failed them.

The Conservatives appreciate the work seniors have done for our country, and we will always fight to ensure that they can retire in dignity and with respect.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I can recall, in the 2010 by-election, knocking on doors during the German Canadian Congress. There were a number of homes in that particular block, where seniors were saying to me they cannot even afford to get the medications they require, so much so that some of them were actually eating dog food, pet food.

I want to fast-forward to our health care investments, housing investments, pharmacare investments and dental care program investments. There is the age 75-plus enhancement. We have increased the guaranteed income supplement, which lifted literally thousands of seniors out of poverty.

Contrast this with a Conservative government and the member's leader. They wanted to increase the age of eligibility for the OAS from 65 to 67. Just now the member said that they were not going to claw back the GIS. The member is saying that if someone who is collecting GIS gets a job for $25,000 a year, the Conservatives would not claw back the GIS. Does that mean they would enhance the OAS to match what they would be giving as a replacement for the so-called clawback?

In other words, their policy stinks.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way obviously did not listen to what seniors have expressed to me. Had he been listening, he would have understood that seniors are working beyond the age of 67 because they do not have a choice. I visited a factory in my riding and half of its employees are between the ages of 65 and 74. Tell me why they are still working. It is because of your failed government policies that have—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I will ask the member to please speak through the Chair.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand why the debate is getting heated, because what we are talking about is important. I am happy that my colleague is speaking out on behalf of seniors in her riding because I, too, have seniors in my riding who are contacting me and calling our offices. They tell us how hard life is for them because they do not have the ability to work to increase their income, in many cases, and they have to deal with the rising cost of living.

What does my colleague think of the request we made to the government, though we did not receive a response, about increasing old age security by 10% for people aged 65 to 74 to give them a bit of a helping hand?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand and I agree with what my hon. colleague is saying, but we have to do more than that. We have to cut taxes. We have to stop spending.

I come from a financial background and we were taught that we cannot spend more than we make. The Liberals do not understand that policy. Maybe they need to go back to school. They need to understand that if they expect balanced budgets every single day from Canadians and seniors, they have to lead by example. They are not doing that.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the pressure seniors are under, but one thing we are both hearing about is the fear.

Could she share what seniors in her riding are telling her about the choices they have to make now and how even basic dignity is becoming unaffordable?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I recently visited my colleague from Cambridge's riding and we were shocked to find out that from 2015 to 2024, there was 50 million dollars' worth of scams toward our seniors. The government has done nothing to protect them.

I received a note from an individual named Kathy. She said, “Thank you for being a voice for seniors as it is heartbreaking what seniors have to endure to survive! I am a PSW and I have watched seniors insisting I don't waste [spoiled] fruit or vegetables, they will find a way to eat it! I have seen them eating one egg, splitting a piece of toast”.

I see my colleagues find this very funny, but they will not be laughing if they listen to the seniors who cannot afford to eat.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Can members have some respect while answers are being given and not laugh about something that is serious?

The hon. member for King—Vaughan.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, seniors call me because they are worried. They are worried about where they are going to get their next meal, how they are going to pay for their heat and how they are going to find the money to pay for their medications. The choices they have to make should not have to be that way. After all, they came to Canada for the promise and the opportunity to live a comfortable life.

The Liberal government needs to open its eyes and ensure that seniors can continue in this life with dignity and respect.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Pensions; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River, Ethics.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments my colleagues have been sharing today. It seems we are the only ones who are standing up for Canadians and the travesty of this budget.

We are facing the greatest peacetime fiscal crisis in a generation and it did not have to be this way. The Prime Minister broke every promise he made just six months ago. This is a Prime Minister Canadians simply cannot trust. He promised a $62-billion deficit and delivered an over $78-billion deficit. That is $16 billion in broken promises. He promised to spend less. He is spending $90 billion more, which is $5,400 more in inflationary spending per household. He promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. He is raising both debt and inflation. This budget adds $10 million to our debt every hour. That is $240 million every single day. The federal debt is now over $1.3 trillion, a number so large most Canadians cannot even comprehend it.

Let me be clear about the Liberal pattern. Stephen Harper left the government a balanced budget, achieved through disciplined spending and sound fiscal management. In 2015, Justin Trudeau promised modest deficits and told Canadians that budgets balanced themselves, which is perhaps the most economically illiterate statement in our political history. In 2025, the current Prime Minister presented himself as a fiscal hawk, the supposed adult in the room who would restore fiscal responsibility. The reality is that he will add over $320 billion to the federal debt over five years, more than twice what Trudeau would have added. The fiscal hawk was a fantasy.

I know something about fiscal responsibility under pressure. As the mayor of Moose Jaw during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, I refused to raise property taxes, despite unprecedented challenges. While other governments used COVID as an excuse for unlimited spending, we found efficiencies and maintained financial discipline. I have balanced budgets at the municipal level and fought for fiscal responsibility in the House for four years as an MP. I have managed 120 million dollars' worth of infrastructure projects and brought over $1.3 billion in economic investment to my community while keeping taxes low. I know what real fiscal leadership looks like. This is not it. The fundamental truth the government refuses to acknowledge is simple: It cannot spend its way out of debt; it cannot borrow its way out of debt.

Let me put this fiscal disaster in terms that every Canadian can understand. The debt interest will be $55.6 billion this year. That is over $3,000 per Canadian household. The Liberals talk about making tax cuts, but just add it on. It is nothing but a shell game. They are taking from one hand and giving to another.

When the Prime Minister told Canadians to judge his government by their experience at the grocery store, he set the standard. Seven months later, families are paying almost $1,000 more per year on food, with costs more than doubling since 2015. Record food bank visits and 85% of Canadians citing food affordability as their biggest concern shows he has failed that test. Eighty-six per cent of Canadians are eating less meat, not because they are vegetarians but because they cannot afford it. Families are compromising nutrition for cheaper options. From strawberries up 51% to ground beef climbing 14% since March, no family is immune.

We are spending more on debt interest than health care transfers. We are spending more on debt interest than we collect in GST. Every dollar the Liberals collect in GST goes to the bankers and bondholders, not doctors, not nurses and definitely not veterans. These are the Liberal priorities: bankers first; health care second. Veterans get $185 million over four years, while bankers get $55.6 billion every single year. The government has turned Canada's federal budget into a wealth transfer system, from Canadian families to banks.

When I was mayor, every dollar we saved on interest payments was a dollar we could invest in water infrastructure, in community development and in services residents actually needed. These Liberals have reversed that priority. They have made debt payments the largest line item in the federal budget while telling Canadians that there is no money for the services they need.

I will talk about two different approaches to crisis leadership. In 2020, as the mayor of Moose Jaw during the worst pandemic in a century, I faced the same pressures every leader did. The easy path would have been to raise property taxes and blame COVID for the burden on taxpayers. Instead, I chose fiscal discipline. We found efficiencies. We prioritized spending, and we refused to raise taxes despite unprecedented challenges. That is what real leadership looks like under pressure. The Liberal government chose the opposite path. The Liberals used COVID as an excuse for unlimited deficit spending, and that reckless approach continues today, five years later. The difference is clear: Real leaders find efficiencies during crises. Liberal leaders find excuses to spend.

When in leadership, one has to make tough decisions. Nowhere are the government's misplaced priorities more obvious than in its treatment of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan taxpayers are funding the Prime Minister's $321.7-billion debt explosion while receiving one copper mine project in return. Our farmers face 100% Chinese tariffs on canola, while the Liberals add $10 million to our debt every hour.

For years, I have advocated in the House for the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project, a ready-to-proceed initiative that would generate massive economic returns. This project would create jobs and an economic return in one of our most important industries. As I have said repeatedly in Parliament, if the government were serious about helping the agriculture sector, it would continue with projects like the Lake Diefenbaker irrigation project. However, the Liberal response was to ignore it for a decade while spending billions on boat-buying schemes.

While canola exports dropped 17% and Chinese markets closed completely, the Prime Minister prioritized $5,400 per household in new spending over agricultural support. The industrial carbon tax remains in place, adding costs to Saskatchewan farmers already devastated by trade wars. The contrast is staggering. The Lake Diefenbaker project represents a $4-billion investment that would transform Saskatchewan agriculture, create thousands of jobs and create revenue for generations.

Let us stop using announcements as a substitute for achievement. I have spent four years in the House fighting against the government's spending addiction. The math is simple, the choice is clear and the time for excuses is over. The Liberals cannot spend their way out of debt. They cannot announce their way to prosperity. They cannot break every promise and expect Canadians to trust them with their future.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member from Saskatchewan failed to reference the historic agreement to extend $10-a-day child care to Saskatchewan. My colleague, the Secretary of State for Rural Development, made that announcement with his counterpart from Saskatchewan. This is $10-a-day child care for families in Saskatchewan. In fact, the premier and province are working collaboratively with the federal government to make sure that families get this great relief in terms of the cost of child care and to ensure that families can fully participate in the workforce. While the member talks about leadership, we are actually practising leadership on this side, because leadership is about supporting provinces and territories.

The member also referenced the pandemic. I will reference the support that we provided to Saskatchewan to make sure that the Saskatchewan Minister of Health could save lives in Saskatchewan. That is what we have been doing over the last 10 years: being a good partner to provinces and territories.

Maybe the member could speak about his opposition to affordable child care and to the supports for the Minister of Health, not just during the pandemic but ongoing, and why he continues to vote against the interests of his community of Moose Jaw.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is an interesting perspective. What I am fighting for is the financial independence of taxpayers, choice for taxpayers. The choice that the taxpayers of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan want is financial freedom. They do not want a heavy boot on their neck. They do not want to be paying taxes that are going out the window like the Liberal spending, which is just throwing money on fire. They want their independence.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say about the oil and gas subsidies set out in the latest budget. It is taxpayer money.

We are talking about a multi-billion dollar increase in the amounts that will be paid to oil and gas companies for a carbon capture and storage technology that is unproven, that has not been used on a large scale and that is extremely expensive. In addition, the government is funding this technology with billions of dollars of taxpayer money that could have been invested elsewhere, including in solutions to lower greenhouse gas emissions, improve quality of life and reduce the cost of groceries.

Does my colleague agree with these subsidies?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I always look at it from the perspective of what the taxpayers in my riding care about. I think about the farmers in my riding, and I have never met a farmer who did not know how to recycle or did not know how to take care of the land better than anybody else. They are getting a heavy boot put on their neck by the Liberal government with all these policies and all these taxes that are being downloaded onto them and now passed on to the consumer.

Saskatchewan is known for its food, fuel and fertilizer, and we need to export that. It is important to recognize the gifts that we have been given in our ridings and to be able to export them, because they are what the world needs.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague a question after that great speech he just gave.

We hear quite often about the industrial carbon tax, and we have had the Liberals say to us many times that it is an imaginary tax, yet on my SaskEnergy bill for my farm, there is a line item that says “industrial carbon tax”. Could you maybe explain a bit about how this affects farmers, how it affects the price of food and how it affects the price of transportation in Canada?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Just as a mild reminder, I cannot answer any questions, but I am sure the hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan can do it.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting question. People do not seem to understand the negative consequences of the carbon tax. It has a trickle-down effect, and it is trickled down onto provincial levels of government. I have seen it affect the local school boards, where there was a $2-million deficit. The school boards were promised they were going to get that money back from the federal government, but they never got it back, even though we are going through an education crisis. There is the downloading of carbon tax onto the hospitals; we are going through a health care crisis, but we never get that back. It is happening to everybody. It is happening to our farmers, and it is being passed on to the consumer. It is a bad tax.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak honestly about the budget tabled by the Liberal government. It is a budget that lets down families, workers, businesses and, above all, strategic economic sectors such as softwood lumber. The Prime Minister's recent budget talks about a generational investment plan. It is more like generational debt. It is 404 pages of promises. In our communities, it rings hollow. Business owners back home have been clear: It is one step forward and two steps back. People are fed up and disgusted. That is what I am hearing in my riding.

Back home, people are saying that this budget is completely disconnected from their reality. I come from a part of the country where people work very hard. The riding of Côte‑du‑Sud—Rivière‑du‑Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata has more than 116,000 people living in 75 rural, urban, industrial and agricultural municipalities. They are entrepreneurs, forestry producers, sawmill employees, labourers, public service employees. They are families who want to live with dignity. These days, people often tell me that they can no longer make ends meet. That is the message we are receiving regularly at our offices right now. People are sending me texts and emails, not because they refuse to work or they are not working, nor because they want a handout. That is not what they are asking for. They want to be able to breathe a bit. This budget does not give anyone any breathing room.

Municipal officials in my region have been clear: We must respond to needs now. Drinking water, waste water, recreation and housing are all urgent matters. However, as the reeve of the Rivière-du-Loup RCM said, it takes time for these initiatives to reach our communities. The intentions are good, but when is it going to happen? The problem with this government, after all its investments and deficits over the past 10 years, is that we are still waiting to see any results. The promise of two billion trees has simply disappeared. The housing investments that were promised five or six years ago are completely gone as well.

People back home are not asking for the moon. They want a government that respects the regions, that understands that Montreal and rural regions do not share the same reality, and that action must be taken accordingly. When a government does not understand the reality of Canadians, that immediately affects the daily lives of families, and it starts with something as essential as groceries. We see it in all the grocery stores in Montmagny, Saint-Pamphile, Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, La Pocatière and Rivière-du-Loup. Groceries are becoming unaffordable. It is not because families are wasting money or buying luxury items. It is simply because the cost of living and the cost of food have literally exploded under this government.

Let us also remember that the Prime Minister himself asked to be judged based on people's experience at the grocery store. Seven months later, families are judging him, and it can be said that things are not going well for him at all. In any case, just remember how he presented that to us by saying “elbows up”. He was all proud to say that he was going to bring down grocery prices. His Minister of Finance, who used to be the industry minister, said that he was going to reach an agreement with the grocers. We can forget about that; it did not happen. That is just another broken promise.

Everything has gone up since the Prime Minister took office. The price of strawberries is up 51%. Beef and chicken have increased by 30% and 23%. Even ground beef is up 14% just since April of this year, which was the month the Prime Minister was elected.

Canada's Food Price Report 2026 tells us that 2026 will be even worse. I just saw an article in La Presse about that. The average Canadian family of four will be paying $1,000 more for groceries in 2026. If we divide that by 12, it starts adding up every month. That means an extra $1,000 for the same food. This amounts to a 112% increase in family food budgets since 2015. Today, 85% of Canadians say that the price of food is their top concern, and rightly so. A record 2.2 million people visited food banks in just one month. That is unprecedented. For a lot of people, it has become a question of survival.

Meanwhile, the Liberal budget contains no serious measure to reduce the cost of groceries and no strategy to curb food inflation. Worse still are the taxes, like the gas tax, the clean fuel tax and the carbon tax, which inevitably impact the price of fertilizer and equipment. Farmers inevitably pass on all of these costs to consumers in the price of the products they supply to distributors. It is inevitable. People are tired of feeling like the government has no idea what they are going through.

I also have to talk about the really big elephant in the room, which is the deficit. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years now, and that means 11 budgets. Year after year, we see the same thing. Spending goes up, the deficit never goes away and there is no credible path back to a balanced budget. Every time we ask the government questions, it repeats the same things, like a broken record. It says that there is no reason to panic, that Canada has the lowest debt in the G7, that it has fiscal room and that there is no problem. Honestly, do we really need to go back to being among the worst? Why do we have to be at the back of the pack in the G7? Why are we heading in that direction instead of trying to be the best?

Canada is not mediocre. We are capable of making sure we do things right so we do not saddle our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren with debt. They are the ones who will end up with the bill. The truth is that the government lacks discipline, and that lack of discipline comes at a cost, a cost the government will not have to pay. The ones on the hook for it are our grandchildren and the grandchildren of all Canadians.

By running deficit after deficit without ever coming up with a serious plan to stabilize and balance the budget, the government is just passing the bill on to future generations. I refuse to accept that. I have grandchildren, and I hope to have great-grandchildren someday. Honestly, when I think about the country they are going to inherit, my heart sinks. I refuse to accept that a country as rich as Canada can just go ahead and rack up debt with no respect for future generations. Our constituents work too hard to give their children and grandchildren a future mired in debt because the government is incapable of managing its priorities. Speaking of lacking vision, there is no better example than the way key sectors are being treated. I am going to talk specifically about one sector that is of crucial importance to my riding: softwood lumber.

The Lower St. Lawrence, the south shore and Chaudière-Appalaches are home to sawmills, processors, transporters and thousands of families that directly or indirectly depend on this sector. Companies like Groupe Lebel, Maibec, Bardobec and Matériaux Blanchet are all feeling the pressure of U.S. tariffs, which are stifling our industry.

What did the Prime Minister say? He said that a deal would be made shortly and that workers could hold on to hope. Now, when he is asked about the need to resolve this issue with President Trump, he publicly responds, “Who cares?”

Who cares? We care. Not only do we care, but we want an assurance that the negotiations with the U.S. will restart. The Prime Minister said there is no “burning issue”.

There is no learning issue. I am sorry, I meant to say burning issue. There certainly are still burning issues, more than a few of them. It would not be good to have learning issues. We are laughing, but it is not funny.

I am going to talk about what happens when a mill closes in a riding like mine and in villages like the ones in my riding. The same thing is currently happening in British Columbia, where my colleagues are experiencing this. When this happens, it is not just a case of one mill closing and 30 or 40 employees losing their jobs. Sooner or later, the entire community collapses. In Rivière-du-Loup, for example, 175 very good, well-paid jobs were directly affected by the closure of the White Birch paper mill, but 1,800 indirect jobs were affected up and down the supply chain.

Is anyone going to say, “Who cares?” to workers in Saint-Pamphile, Sainte-Perpétue, Saint-Just-de-Bretennères, Lots-Renversés, Dégelis and Témiscouata-sur-le-Lac? Those are all municipalities that are directly connected to these mills.

They usually import wood from Europe, which is cheaper than buying wood from Canadian mills, to sell to the United States.

I still have five pages of my speech left to read. I should not just get cut off like this. How unfair. I should have read faster, because there are some very important things I would have liked to say, but I understand that I have run out of time. I can talk about them when I answer questions. I will listen very carefully to my colleagues' questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I think we should do a bit of a fact check with respect to deficits and debts. The member made reference to when Stephen Harper came into government. He inherited a multi-billion dollar surplus and converted that into a multi-billion dollar deficit, and that was before the recession.

When we take a look at the G7, which the member wants to compare us to, when it comes to the debt, we are the lowest of the G7. When it comes to the deficit, we are the second lowest in the G7. If we want to contrast the debt, we can take a look at when the Conservative leader was sitting in the Conservative caucus with Stephen Harper. The deficit was actually higher than it is in today's budget when we factor in inflation.

The Liberal government and the Prime Minister do not need to take advice from the Conservative party when it comes to either deficit or debt.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot swear in the House of Commons. I can assure everyone that it is not for lack of desire. If I could, he would be getting an earful.

The reality is that the Liberals have been in power for 10 years. They have been running deficits for 10 years. They are bringing up Harper again. Harper was prime minister in 2008, during the worst global crisis since the 1930s. The Liberals have been in government for 10 years. They have tons of money to spend. The government is literally throwing money out the window. Meanwhile, people in our ridings are struggling to put food on the table. That is the reality.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that this is a budget of dashed hopes, a budget of disillusionment. I know that my colleague's region is one with an aging population. We need to talk about the importance of providing more assistance to seniors. There is nothing in this budget to help seniors aged 65 to 74, who did not receive the same old age security increase as seniors 75 and over.

There was nothing for the softwood lumber industry either. Ultimately, help arrived late, but we had to hammer home the message to the government. We said that it simply could not leave the softwood lumber industry in such a state without intervening. The proof is that this government presented itself as a champion negotiator, but it did not achieve anything. We had to ask for help and call for an emergency debate. That help is too little, too late. We asked for a wage subsidy to help businesses get through this crisis. Ultimately, that does not solve the problem.

What does my colleague think of the fact that this is a budget of disillusionment? That is what I call it.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague is right about seniors. There is nothing in this budget for them. It is extremely disappointing. She is absolutely right.

As for the softwood lumber issue, people do not want government assistance or a handout. They want to make a decent living from their jobs. Business owners want to make a profit from their sales. The problem is that they can no longer sell to the United States, and they are losing their market in Europe. Why? It is because the government has failed to get a deal, and tariffs have actually tripled in six months. That is how our regions are becoming poorer because of this government.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his passionate speech. If there is one member who takes the time to be present for the constituents, families, students, young people, seniors and entrepreneurs in his riding, it is the member for La Pocatière. I will just call his riding La Pocatière for short.

My colleague raised a very important point for businesses: U.S. tariffs have risen to 50% on steel and aluminum and 35% on wood. What impact will that have on businesses in his riding?

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words.

My colleague said 35%, but it is actually up to 45%. That last 10% the U.S. President tacked on was really a death knell for every softwood lumber industry in my riding. It was the straw that broke the camel's back. Let us remember how the Prime Minister danced when he said “elbows up”. I honestly cannot wait to see if he will be dancing elbows-up at his Christmas party.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the holidays are just around the corner, so I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that it is always an honour for me to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, whom I am very proud of, especially after a passionate speech like the one from my colleague. It is clear that members who come from a rural area are close to the community.

We are close to our community, and we know just how hard times are these days. We know how tough it is for people to make ends meet at the end of the month. Unfortunately, the latest figures indicate that after 10 years under the Liberal government, more and more people simply cannot afford to pay their bills.

The big media fundraising drive is happening today. The Liberals do not seem to care about what is happening in the House right now. We are talking about the cost of living and about how people are struggling to pay their bills at the end of the month, but the Liberals are not interested in that. They are not listening to the debates. That is not surprising, because they do not want to hear the truth. They do not want to hear anything about what is really going on in the lives of the people we see every day in our ridings, at the grocery store, at the post office and so on.

Today, the big media fundraising drive will help those who are struggling the most. People are collecting donations everywhere across Quebec. Despite the cold weather setting in everywhere, people will reach out to help the most vulnerable. Some people will do so tonight, while for others, it has been going on all day. It will also be happening tomorrow. These food drives and events are more than just a kind gesture. They have become necessary. They have become essential. Without these events, some individuals would have nothing to get through Christmas.

In May, when his cabinet members were being sworn in, the Prime Minister decided to make one issue his own personal crusade. He declared that Canadians would judge him by their experience at the grocery store. That is one way of putting it. He could have also said that Canadians would judge him on the cost of groceries. In either case, the Prime Minister decided that his priority was to make food more affordable for all Canadians. His report card came out today.

The 2026 edition of Canada's Food Price Report states: “If 2025 was difficult for Canadian households, 2026 is unlikely to be any easier.” People are going to judge the Prime Minister by their experience at the grocery store. Unfortunately, more and more people can no longer even afford to go to the grocery store. The report concludes that food prices are expected to rise even more sharply. Groceries will cost $1,000 more in 2026.

Let us take a look back at the damage caused by the Liberals since 2015. In 2015, it cost $8,286 to buy a year's worth of groceries. That is for a whole year. If we divide that by 52, it comes to $159 per week. Today, the cost of that same grocery list has risen to $17,500. That is $340 per week, or double what it cost in 2015.

People will say that wages have increased. Wages have not doubled since 2015. At least, the wages of the people I see every day have not doubled. Minimum wage has increased a little bit—by a few percentage points, that is true—but it has not doubled. If groceries now cost $340 per week and wages have not kept pace, how can people afford the same groceries? People are not going to pay $340. They are going to have to choose. They are going to make choices. What are people going to buy? They are going to buy less meat, less meat of any kind, because all meat has gone up in price at the same time.

They are going to buy fewer nutritious products, because those are the products that cost the most. How they shop for groceries will depend on their budget and how much money they have left to spend. That is not to mention that the cost of housing has doubled in the past 10 years as well. That is the reality that the Liberals want to avoid. The Liberals claim that everything in Canada is just fine and dandy. However, when visit our riding, when we go to the grocery store, when we see the options, when we look at people's grocery baskets, we realize that something is wrong.

Today, the figures prove it: People are eating less. The recently published HungerCount clearly shows us that more and more people are using food banks. Workers, people who work, who have a salary, are relying more and more on food banks to stock their refrigerators. That is the reality. This is not coming from a Conservative. This is coming from two reports, HungerCount and Canada's food price report produced by Dalhousie University. It says that 85% of Canadians reported that the cost of food was their number one financial concern. Who would have thought that possible in Canada? Who would have thought that, one day, in Canada, almost everyone would be concerned about what they can afford to put in their grocery carts? Who would have thought that would be their main concern? That is unacceptable.

Food inflation is double the Bank of Canada's inflation target. They say the inflation rate is going down, but food prices have doubled. That changes Canadians' lives. It changes the lives of Canadians and everyone who lives in Canada. They say that it is a global phenomenon. Why has the price of food gone up 48% faster in Canada than in the United States? The reason is the government's attitude. It keeps acting like everything is fine and spending lavishly, as though it found a credit card with no limit and simultaneously realized that it and the members of its cabinet will never have to pay off the balance. They will not have to pay it off; those next in line will take care of it. They are going to max out that card and pass it on with a $78-billion deficit.

It is not for nothing that I want to talk about an article published in the Journal de Québec the day after the budget. Michel Girard is an economist who everyone knows and who is very credible in Quebec. The title of his article was “[The Prime Minister] does the impossible: spending more than Trudeau”. What? Well, yes, that is it. I want to emphasize the word “spending”. I would like to share a few figures on this budget. Michel Girard wrote the following:

For the five fiscal years from 2025‑26 to 2029‑30, the accumulated deficits will reach $322 [billion dollars]....That is $168 [billion dollars] more than the five deficits that the former Trudeau government had projected for the same five fiscal years....

We have a banker Prime Minister who promised to spend less. Not only is he spending, but he is spending more than the prime minister who spent more than all the other prime ministers before him. Personally, I remember Justin Trudeau's promise that he would run small deficits: $10 billion, $10 billion, $6 billion, almost nothing, and then zero. He said that the government would get back to a balanced budget. I think we can all forget about the Liberals balancing a budget. A balanced budget means absolutely nothing to them anymore.

For Canadians who are struggling and suffering, we are here. Conservatives are here. We know that what people need is more money in their pockets to pay for their own expenses. We can do this by eliminating the taxes that are driving up the cost of food. With a Conservative government, Canadians will have more in their pockets and more in their grocery carts.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about inflation. I just had a quick look. The leader of the Conservative Party was actually a parliamentary secretary under Stephen Harper. There was an election in 2011. In the year 2011, the inflation rate was actually 2.91%. In the last eight months or so, the inflation rate under the current Prime Minister has been around 2.2%.

Could the member share his thoughts on how we deal with issues like inflation as we support Canadians through programs that are provided, for example, in the budget? Should he not be supporting the budget, so that we can make life more affordable for Canadians?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Winnipeg North has a lot of experience, but he kind of lives in the past. He seems to have forgotten the past 10 years, when he was led by Justin Trudeau. In 2022, under that government, the inflation rate was 6.8%. If we add up all these inflation rates, we end up today with a Canada food price report that says that people will be paying $340 a week on groceries that cost $170 barely 10 years ago.

The Liberals keep saying that everything is just fine. They say that everything is fine and that it was so much worse before. Now when people pay their grocery bill, they get to the cash register and far too often they do not have enough money to cover it. All of that is because of the inaction of the Liberals over these past 10 years.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I have several questions for him, but here is the one I am dying to ask. Like me, he is a member from Quebec, so he knows that our health and social services are really struggling because of a lack of resources. They are forced to do more with less.

One of the Bloc Québécois's demands was an increase in health transfers to the provinces. Unfortunately, the government is completely unwilling to meet the provinces' needs when it comes to health and social services. I was a member of this place in 2006 during the Harper government era, and unlike the Liberals, it was less centralizing.

I wonder if my colleague would agree to make it clear to the government that it needs to amend its Bill C-15 to recognize that it needs to transfer more money to the provinces for health and social services, with no strings attached.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not only are the Liberals setting conditions, they are also creating health care programs. They are putting in place health programs. Unfortunately, since they have a credit card with no limit, we are now paying $55 billion a year in interest on the debt.

Do my colleagues know what that $55 billion represents? It represents more than the health transfer to the provinces. The Liberals have literally ruined our ability to do more, and they keep doing it with a smile on their faces. That is unacceptable.

I would like the people watching us to know that every dollar they pay in GST does not pay for services or health care; it pays down the interest on the debt, which has grown to astronomical proportions after 10 years of Liberal government.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent insight. He mentioned fiscal mismanagement, the cost of living and the deficit in his speech.

Given that the Prime Minister mentioned that he would be judged by the price of groceries, why is it that Bill C-15 does nothing meaningful to reduce grocery prices, mortgage renewals or rent hikes, and instead layers on more spending that fuels inflation Canadians can no longer afford?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

That is because Bill C-15 is a smokescreen. There is nothing in it for real people, for people from rural communities or for people who are unable to pay their bills at the end of the month. That is why Bill C-15 is a bad bill and a big deficit bill. We will not and cannot support this bill.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of the Liberals, life in our country has become too hard. People tell me every day that the cost of food is hurting them the most. Moms and dads are cutting back. Seniors are skipping meals. Young people say they cannot get ahead, no matter how hard they work.

The Prime Minister once said that people should judge him by the cost at the grocery store. Let us do that today. A new food price report from Dalhousie University shows just how bad things are. It says that food prices will rise 4% to 6% next year, which is even worse than this year. A family of four will spend almost $18,000 on food in 2026, which is almost $1,000 more than this year. I will repeat that it will be $1,000 more just to feed a family.

Food prices have gone up 112% since 2015. In 2015, a family spent about $159 a week on food; now it is $338 a week. Families are paying more than double. It is because of these high prices that many Canadians cannot buy healthy food. They are forced to pick cheap food that fills the stomach but is not good for long-term health. This year, more than 2.2 million people went to food banks each month. These are numbers we have never seen before. Nearly 85% of Canadians say their food bills went up again in the past year. Everyone feels it; it does not matter where they live.

I want to share what I hear from people in my riding and across our province of Alberta. Every week, families tell me that they now shop in two or three different stores just to find the lowest price. Some parents say they no longer buy fresh fruits, because it has become too expensive. Others say they now buy less meat and try to stretch a meal as far as they can. These are honest, hard-working people. They are not looking for special treatment. They are simply looking for a fair chance to feed their families without going broke.

Small shops and local stores in Alberta are also struggling. They pay more for rent, fuel, power, deliveries and packaging. When they try to keep prices low, they lose money. When they raise prices, families blame them. These small shops are part of our community. They want to serve people, but this government makes it harder for them to survive.

We also hear from truck drivers who move food across western Canada. They say the rising fuel taxes make their work more expensive every month. When the cost of moving food goes up, the price at the store goes up; it is simple. However, instead of making life easier, the government turns around and adds even more taxes. This does not help farmers, this does not help truckers and it does not help families who are already stretched thin.

Canada should not be a place where people fear the grocery bill. We have the land, the farms, the workers and the resources to feed our whole country, yet families are paying more for food than ever before. This government has lost control of spending, lost control of taxes and lost control of the cost of living. Canadians deserve better.

In Calgary, food banks are seeing more people than ever before. Staff and volunteers tell me that many of the people coming in have jobs but still cannot afford food, because prices are so high. Seniors come in because their pensions no longer cover both food and rent. This is not a normal Calgary. Calgary is a strong, hard-working city, but the cost of living has pushed many families to the edge. When food banks are stretched this thin, it shows that government policies are not working. We need to bring food prices down so families can depend on stores, not on food banks.

Why is this happening? It is happening because the Prime Minister keeps spending more money than the country has. His $80-billion deficit pours fuel on the fire of inflation. Every dollar the government spends has to come from someone, and that someone is the Canadian people. People pay through higher prices on food, fuel and home heating.

The Prime Minister also keeps putting taxes on the things that make food. There are taxes on the farms, taxes on the trucks that bring food to the stores, taxes on the packaging, and taxes on the fuel that cooks, moves and stores food. When we tax the farmers, when we tax the truckers and when we tax the stores, who pays? The families standing at the checkouts pay.

Across Alberta, farmers tell me the same story. They work long days growing the food we all depend on, but rising costs are making their jobs harder every year. The taxes on fuel, taxes on barns and taxes on the tools they use all add up. When the cost for Alberta farmers goes up, the cost of food for every family in our province goes up too.

Alberta families are feeling the pressure as well. A simple trip to the store now costs far more than it did just a year ago. From meat to milk, bread and other fresh food, everything is higher. Some stores in our province have prices so steep that families leave with only half of what they planned to buy. When food prices rise this fast, people cut back on meals, skip healthy food or turn to food banks. This should not be happening in a province as strong and as resource-rich as Alberta.

We need a government that brings down food costs, supports our farmers and makes life affordable again. That is why Conservatives put forward a motion to cut the cost of food. We asked the House to scrap the Liberal carbon tax on farmers and on food, scrap the new food packaging tax, scrap the fuel standard that adds 17¢ a litre on gas, and stop the inflation that comes from massive deficits. This was a real plan to give people relief, but the Liberals voted against it. They voted against lower food prices. They voted against common sense.

Food is not a luxury. It is not a special good for the rich. It is the most basic thing a family needs, yet the government hikes taxes in the food supply chain, pushes up the cost of living, and then asks Canadians to be grateful for the small rebates that do not even cover a week of groceries. People do not want handouts. They want life to be affordable again.

Conservatives have a simple plan: scrap the hidden taxes on food and bring down prices for everyone. We will bring back common sense. We will bring back a balanced budget so inflation comes down. We will let farmers farm without punishing taxes. We will let truckers move food without extra costs. We will let farmers keep more of their own money.

When a country as rich as ours has millions of people using food banks, something is deeply wrong. When parents skip meals so their kids can eat, something is deeply wrong. When seniors cannot buy fresh food after a lifetime of work, something is deeply wrong. The Prime Minister said people should judge him by the prices at the grocery store. Canadians are doing that now, and they are—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, back in the last federal election, the Prime Minister made a commitment to Canadians, a commitment to build one Canada economy, to build Canada strong and to look for investments. After we passed Bill C-5, over $60 billion was invested in the first five projects alone. He is bringing provinces together, looking at expanding export markets and just doing a phenomenal job in terms of attracting investments into Canada.

In the budget, we have a budget that is investing, again, in Canadians and investing in Canada as a nation in terms of its infrastructure. It is a holistic approach to delivering for Canadians. What we have seen coming from the Conservative Party—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give a chance for the member for Calgary Skyview to respond.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said that investment is coming here. When we have taxes so high, as we have seen for the last decade, who would come here? We have seen half a trillion dollars going out of Canada to other places to invest. We can see the prices. Because of those taxes, affordability is an issue. It was not an issue in 2015. I would like to request that the member opposite tell the Prime Minister to cut down all the taxes so people can afford this country and they can afford groceries.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on what the government inserted on page 300 of its bill. We see it as the same thing as Bill C‑5, but on steroids. They government slipped in a hidden amendment that allows any minister to exempt any entity from the application of any federal law but the Criminal Code for a period of three years.

Does my colleague agree with that?

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing affordability issues. We are working on groceries. Basically, we are requesting and demanding from the government what Canadians need. They need a break on taxes. We do not want any tax on the farmers. We do not want any tax on the packaging. If the Liberals get rid of the industrial carbon tax, then that will lower food prices. This is going to help all Canadians.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Calgary Skyview had such a heartfelt speech. I know how much transportation and farmers matter to the member's community and his residents.

I would like to ask the hon. member, what transportation agencies, the people who handle our food and the farmers feel. What is the backlash? What are the pressures they feel? I would like to understand more about that.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is very concerning. I have been talking to the farmers and the truckers and they are all feeling the same pain. The tax on the fuel raises up the costs. It is not just on the fuel they use for delivery. It is on all the parts, the trucks themselves and where they manufacture them. This impacts everything. The tax is the main factor even for the stuff they need for farming, for the fertilizers. Everything hurts, and that is what is bringing costs up. Conservatives have a plan to cut all the taxes and to make food affordable again.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we talk about these hidden taxes on food and, constantly from the Liberal bench, we hear they are imaginary. I know that in my riding, I see the cost of food going up and I see the real impact.

Does the member think these taxes are imaginary?

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, these taxes are killing Canadian markets, the small shop owners and the small farmers. Because of these taxes, we see lots of young farmers, even a farmer I met the day before yesterday, saying the same thing: If we can get rid of the taxes, we can save the industry.

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to provide some perspective on the Liberal government's 2025 federal budget and its implementation. I have had the chance to speak with many of my constituents in Bowmanville—Oshawa North, and with Canadians across our country, to gather feedback on the vision for the future of Canada that is expressed by the Liberal government in the budget.

I want to start with one of the signature items in the budget that we have heard Liberal members mention here in the chamber on many occasions as a point of pride. They mention it as a statement of progress, but the reality is that it is a huge red flag for what kind of economy the Liberal Prime Minister is intending to build.

They mention the national school food program and the fact that they are introducing it as a permanent feature of the federal government, as a positive thing. They are even clapping now, showing how out of touch they really are. They say that they want to fund this for years to come, yet the concern that many Canadians have is that they do not want to be dependent on the federal government to feed their children. What they want to see from the federal government are efforts to bring down the cost of food.

It is a fact that parents are having a tougher time affording food. It is a fact that, over the last decade, the cost of food has skyrocketed year to year. It is a fact that keeping up with grocery bills and other bills is a huge source of stress for Canadian families, as food bank lines get longer every month. In this situation, Canadians expect to see the federal government do everything in its power to bring down the cost of groceries.

We saw in the lead-up to the budget that the Liberals were actually quite insincere in promising to work with other parties to solve our country's problems. In the lead-up to the budget, Conservatives provided multiple proposals for how the cost of food could be brought down, including proposals that would remove needless taxes on Canadian agriculture and food packaging, taxes that are passed on to the Canadian consumer at the grocery store. The Liberals did not want to work with us, and they did not want to adopt any of those proposals, which is their right. If they want to be obstructionist, that is a choice that they get to make here every day.

There were other institutions in this country that also offered policy ideas to bring down the cost of food, such as Canada's Competition Bureau, which has been recommending for years that the federal government increase competition in the grocery industry to lower the cost of food. Of course, the Liberal budget did not include any references to that either.

Instead, what did we get? We got a vision for the future of Canada by the Liberal Prime Minister that makes it clear that bringing down the cost of food is not their objective. In fact, what they want to do is normalize the idea that moms and dads cannot afford food for their own children and instead require government assistance in order to do that.

We should all be alarmed by that because, for years and years, decades and decades, throughout our history, the federal government knew that its purpose was to create the conditions for families and communities to thrive, so that parents could buy their own food and provide food to their own children. What we have seen from the federal government is a significant shift in another direction, a shift away from that primary responsibility and instead toward the idea that families and communities need the government's help because the economy is so unaffordable.

This is not what a healthy society is supposed to look like. In a healthy society, families and communities are independent enough from the government that if they do not like what the government is doing, they can very easily tell the government to kick rocks. That is not the vision for Canada that the Liberal Prime Minister articulates in his federal budget. In fact, the logic of the Liberal government was betrayed by the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre, when she criticized Conservatives by saying that we believe that “parents would prefer to feed their kids themselves rather than have the government feed them.”

That is true. We do believe that. We believe that the vast majority of moms and dads across the country feel the exact same way. The vision that the Liberals are articulating is not one of compassion. It is one of dependence. They have sold the national school food program and its permanency as a compassionate and noble idea.

Let us continue to explore this vision for the future of Canada expressed by the Liberal Prime Minister in his budget. He says he wants to be compassionate. I would ask why then in this document, which is hundreds of pages, does the word “addiction” appear once? Why in the midst of an addiction crisis that is harming families all across this country, harming people of all generations and destabilizing our communities would a compassionate government, as the Liberals say they are, pay such little attention to such a crisis?

I would argue it is because the Liberals are frankly not as compassionate as they would like us to believe. In fact, the one time they do mention addiction in their federal budget, they make a point to say that the federal transfers to provinces to deal with this issue will remain the same over the next several years, which means, even though we have a piling amount of evidence that the addiction crisis is getting worse, they actually offer no new money for this.

This has been a very serious issue in my community of Bowmanville—Oshawa North. As I visited young people across this country, it is one of the top issues I heard from students because they all know somebody who has been affected by the addiction crisis. We have seen, since January 2016, over 53,000 opioid toxicity deaths. In the first three months of this year, over 1,300 people died because of opioid overdoses, yet in a budget that shows the vision for this country, the federal government has decided to pay very little attention, offering no new resources and no vision for how we will help our friends and neighbours overcome their challenges. That is not what compassion looks like, so forgive me for calling their bluff when they say they care a lot and are leading with their hearts because, in a budget that increased the federal deficit annually to over $80 billion, they could not spare a single extra penny for this problem.

Let us further explore the Liberals' vision for the future of Canada, because the Liberal Prime Minister also presented his 2025 federal budget as if it is about sovereignty, strength and nation building. That is what the Liberals say, yet we see, snuck into the budget on page 100, a very interesting and, for many people across our country, alarming idea. It states, “The government will also consider options for the privatisation of airports.”

That is critical public infrastructure that a truly sovereign and strong country would take very seriously, yet the Liberal government sneaks in the idea of selling it off to private interests as one line in the budget, hoping that, in the hundreds of pages, people probably will not pay enough attention. They certainly did not mention that when they asked Canadians to vote for them in April.

The Liberal Minister of Transport received a letter from the national president of Unifor expressing concern over this idea, concern I have also heard from many of the unionized workers who I am proud to represent in Bowmanville—Oshawa North. In that letter, the president of Unifor wrote, “Canada's airports are vital economic hubs and public assets. They require public investment and democratic stewardship, not divestment to private interests.”

Once again, the claims by the Liberals that they are concerned with sovereignty and strength are betrayed in the 2025 federal budget. I look forward to seeing the Liberal Minister of Transport respond to that letter and explain to the Canadian people what exactly the government means by considering privatizing critical public infrastructure.

My point remains that, as we explore the vision articulated for the future of our country, it is not what the Liberals have honestly presented. In fact, it is an alarming one, one where affordability is not resolved. Their vision is one where more families are dependent on the government to feed their children. It is a vision where the addiction crisis does not get the attention it deserves. It is a vision where big issues like the privatization of public infrastructure are mentioned as throwaway ideas by a government misrepresenting itself as being concerned with our sovereignty and our strength.

This is why I oppose the federal budget and why we should all be very concerned about its implementation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let us pick up on the caring attitude.

I want to go back to the dental program and the pharmacare program, as well as to focus on the national school food program. When we take a look at the national school food program, this has been an issue for generations. When I was elected back in 1988, in the Manitoba legislature, people were talking about children going to school on an empty stomach. For generations, nothing was done to deal with that issue. There were kids going to school who were not able to learn. This is not just me saying this; professionals are also saying this.

The Prime Minister made that program permanent, and that is good for the overall nation, for all children in every region. Does the member not agree that it has been an issue for many years?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's continuing to affirm that we are correct when we say the Liberal government does not have a vision for the strength and independence of communities and families. Rather, it continues to present federal government dependency as a solution to the very economic problems that have been created under Liberal leadership over the last decade.

One would think that the member just showed up but, as he mentioned, he has been a politician since 1988. I was a one-year-old when he first got elected. With every problem that has been created in the last decade, the government positioned itself as a solution, not seeing the irony in this vicious, weird cycle and vortex of bad public policy.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I went to Ange‑Gardien to meet with volunteers who were organizing food drives. Today is the day of the media food drive. Saturday morning, food drives are being held in Saint‑Césaire, Waterloo and Rougemont. On Sunday, I will be raising money for the SOS Dépannage Moisson Granby food drive. In short, it is food drive season.

Everywhere I go, I talk to people. The HungerCount report was recently released. In an interview on Radio-Canada, an official responsible for the report explained that one of their recommendations was to increase old age security because it is clearly no longer enough. This budget has absolutely nothing in it for seniors. Yes, the other side of the House likes to brag about the New Horizons for Seniors program. That is good, but that is not what puts food on the table. Seniors can no longer make ends meet on their fixed incomes.

Does my colleague agree, as the Conservatives did in the previous Parliament, that the old age security pension should at least be the same amount for all seniors and that those aged 65 to 74 also deserve a 10% increase?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to plug the fantastic work done by food banks in my home community of Bowmanville—Oshawa North.

The Clarington East Food Bank, the Salvation Army food bank and the St. Joseph's food bank, are full of great volunteers committed to making sure that the problems created in our economy by bad stewardship and bad leadership here in Ottawa can be resolved by the wonderful charity and hard work of wonderful people in my community.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to ask a question of my neighbour, the hon. member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North. We each represent a portion of the city of Oshawa. His heart for youth and young people is probably what resonates the most in the House, along with his conversation around addiction.

I would like to give him an opportunity to address the cost of food. It has doubled, but income, the amount of money folks are making, has not doubled. In Oshawa, we have an unemployment rate of nearly 10% now.

Could my good friend, the hon. member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, comment on that, as well as our youth unemployment?

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Oshawa serves her constituency incredibly well. We have a very serious unemployment problem in our part of the country, and this is also affecting all parts of the country. We also have a very serious youth unemployment problem.

I want to stress to everyone listening in the House that I speak to young people all the time. They see what is happening. They work hard. They go to school. They hope to have a career and a future, to own a home, start a family, start a business or do whatever they want to do for whatever their dreams are, yet they are constantly seeing evidence that it is only going to get harder.

In the 2025 federal budget, we see an out-of-touch government thinking that young people want to see more state dependency as a solution to their problems. However, they want to thrive as independent people.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-2, an act to amend the Indian Act with regard to new registration entitlements.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am willing to accept that the government meant well in bringing the budget forward. The Prime Minister claims that he wants to reshape Canada's economy so that it is more self-reliant, more resilient and less vulnerable to outside shocks.

That starts with food security. The Prime Minister has said that Canadians should judge his leadership by their experience at the grocery store. If that is the test, then the government is failing it. After seven months, food prices continue to rise, families are making impossible choices about what they can afford and the weekly grocery bill has become the clearest sign of a government that is out of touch with the struggles faced by Canadians today.

While the Liberal government may believe the goals of budget 2025 are noble, the budget itself simply does not achieve them. It tries to be all things to all people, but it fails to deliver on the basics. Canadians want a plan that strengthens our foundation and rebuilds hope, but they also need to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads and provide for their families. The budget does not meet that moment.

“Canada's Food Price Report” for 2026 confirms what Canadians already know, which is that if 2025 was difficult, 2026 will be worse. The report warns that families can expect almost $1,000 more in food costs next year. Compared to 2015, Canadians will pay 112% more for groceries for their family. Food costs have more than doubled in a decade, and nearly 85% of Canadians say that food affordability is their top financial concern. Food banks saw a record 2.2 million visits in a single month this year. These are not abstract numbers. They are the lived reality of a country in which working families increasingly rely on charity to eat, yet budget 2025 does not present a coherent plan to address that crisis.

Budget 2025 does not reduce taxes in any meaningful way that families can feel today. It does not reduce the fees or the regulatory burdens that drive up the costs through the supply chain. It does not relieve the pressure on farmers, whose operating costs rose 2.5% in a single year. If members think that is not passed on to the consumer through food prices, then I do not know how to explain the math on that. Fertilizer, fuel and transportation costs have all increased, and producers were forced to take on 14.1% more debt in 2024, which is the largest increase since 1981.

A budget that claims to strengthen resilience should support the people who grow our food. Instead, it leaves them with higher costs and greater uncertainty.

Canadians understand the world is changing. They see global geopolitical instability, inflation and rising global competition, but what they want is a clear plan that responds to those challenges. They want their government to understand the day-to-day struggles that shape their lives right now. A resilient economy cannot be built when families cannot afford groceries.

Instead of delivering clarity, the budget presents pages upon hundreds of pages of contradictions. One of the clearest signs of that is the government's use of the new separation between what it calls “operating spending” and “capital investment”. In theory, this could provide discipline and transparency, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has indicated that a full $94 billion in expenses has been mis-characterized as capital spending.

While the budget pledges to balance operational costs someday, it never commits to balancing the budget overall. Canadians know that when we spend more than we earn, somebody pays the price down the road. That would be our children and our grandchildren. Deficits still count even when they are hidden in new categories of line items in the budget.

The contradictions in the budget extend to the economy. The government keeps saying that Canada has strong economic fundamentals, yet families are telling me that they want groceries for Christmas. On Vancouver Island this week, another mill, one in Crofton, announced that it is closing its doors. This means 375 more families without paycheques and more than 1,000 others who are indirectly hurt.

Thirty-one mill closures across British Columbia, and counting, means shrinking tax bases, weakened communities and more pressure on food banks. Budget 2025 offers slogans, not solutions. Meanwhile, the food price report makes clear how widespread the affordability crisis has become. Eighty-six per cent of Canadians say they are eating less meat because it has become too expensive. The report notes how rare it is for beef, chicken and pork prices all to rise sharply in the same year, yet that is what Canadians face in the grocery store. The pressures extend to every aisle.

Since the Prime Minister took office, strawberries are up 51%, beef is up 30%, chicken is up 23%, coffee is up 22% and even salad dressing is up 13%. Meatless burgers are up 17% year over year. Food inflation is now double the Bank of Canada's target rate and rising 48% faster in Canada than it is in the United States. These increases are not a force of nature. They are the consequences of policy choices, including the government's refusal to remove the hidden taxes, including the industrial carbon tax, that raise the cost of everything from farm inputs to food transportation.

Conservatives proposed real solutions to reduce costs and rein in the record-high deficit that fuels inflation. The Liberals voted against both. The gap between the government's rhetoric and reality is also evident in its behaviour toward a food bank in my community.

Loaves and Fishes operates in 44 communities across Vancouver Island, each with increasing need, and it was promised $5 million to expand operations in the December 2024 fall economic statement by a Liberal government. Nearly a year later, the money has still not arrived. The government initially denied its obligation to honour its written promise, saddling the organization with $35,000 in additional monthly interest costs and forcing cuts to its Christmas programming this year. If the money does arrive, it will do so only as a result of immense pressure from the organization, me and our community.

Ministers in the government stand up every day and claim to champion the hungry, but when it takes many months and a full-court press to shame the government into keeping written promises to a food bank during a national food affordability crisis, it tells us everything we need to know about where the members' hearts are.

Budget 2025 claims to reshape our economy for resilience, but one cannot strengthen a country by ignoring the immediate needs of its people. The government talks about productivity, but hungry people cannot work to their optimum level. It talks about building Canada strong but provides little to nothing for the seniors who built this country. It provides even less for the students who are its future and even less than that for working families. With food inflation running rampant, it offers no meaningful plan to make groceries affordable again. Brookfield must own stock in a grocery chain somewhere.

Canada needs its government to understand that affordability is the foundation of economic security. The government must see families, workers and vulnerable people not as footnotes to a capital plan but as the heart of a strong country. The government must recognize that it cannot build resilience on borrowed money alone.

Budget 2025 may have set out worthy goals, but a budget is only as strong as its execution. This one does not deliver the clarity, the discipline or the conviction that Canadians need. We see that in the fact that there is no clear message from the government around the budget. It does not address the soaring costs of food. It does not ease the pressure on producers and farmers. It does not bring inflation under control.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve a plan that works. Conservatives will continue to fight for pragmatic, practical measures to make our lives better.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, in some ways I appreciate what the member is saying, but in other ways I would challenge her thinking. The Conservatives talk about sympathy toward individuals experiencing difficult times, yet we see them call programs like the national food program “garbage”, even the previous speaker from the Conservative Party.

We have talked about the dental care program and pharmacare, in particular for dealing with diabetes, and the ways the government is providing fiscal responsibility, which shows that inflation is under control. There are many things the government is doing. The question is, why does the member not act based on the words she is saying?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad the hon. member asked me about the national school lunch program, because we absolutely believe that children should be fed, but we believe that parents should be able to do it.

What is incredible is that if the federal government really wanted to make a difference and wanted its dollars to make the maximum difference, it would recognize that a fabulous local school board, the Nanaimo-Ladysmith regional district school board, has these programs. If the Liberals really wanted to make a difference, they would not add another layer of national bureaucracy. They would transfer this money directly to the provinces, which would transfer it directly to the school boards, and the people who would get credit for it would be the teachers and the schools.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk to my colleague about a specific aspect of Bill C‑15.

Last week, there was an announcement about the agreement between the federal government and Alberta and the possible construction of a pipeline. Bill C‑15 contains a kind of fast track that allows a minister to exempt a company from the application of almost every law but the Criminal Code.

Given that announcement and the fact that my colleague is from British Columbia, can she share her perspective on this part of Bill C‑15?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad the hon. member asked me about Bill C-15 and particularly the MOU.

One of the really big challenges with it is that no one knows what it means. We have first nations chiefs and B.C. saying there is a veto and that they will not approve it. We have the government saying that it is going to go ahead. When it comes down to it, we do not actually know what is going to happen. There is no clear path, no clear symbol. I really wish the government would decide whether it is creating one economy out of 13 or 13 economies out of one.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been getting less and less buying power over the last 10 years. Food prices have doubled, but wages have not, which indicates an inflationary environment. We all understand this, but my colleagues across the aisle boast about the handouts that their poverty-inspiring policies have created in the first place.

Does my colleague believe this is an intentional strategy along philosophical lines, or is it just a massive screw-up?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, believe me, I would like to think the best of my colleagues across the aisle. The challenge is that the programs are so confusingly organized that, while they actually help some people, the litany of complaints and the number of people in my riding and my communities who are having trouble navigating them mean that the programs the Liberals have established are creating immense backlogs. The uptick in the number of calls to my office from people who are struggling to navigate the system makes me wonder what they are thinking when they design them.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, lost in all of the media stories last week was a CBC story that talked about a Campbell's soup executive getting caught in a meeting making fun of the “poor people” who ate their soup. This executive apparently said that Campbell's soup was for “poor people” and was a “highly processed food” that poor people had to eat.

When I saw that story, it seemed to be the perfect analogy for the Liberals with this budget. In the story, the executive, by his own admission, is selling highly processed food. If a person goes to Walmart, I think the price of a can of Campbell's soup ranges between $1.50 and $2.50. Frankly, it is what a lot of people in Canada are eating right now, yet this executive was making fun of the people, the poor plebes, who have to eat a can of Campbell's soup. The reality is a lot of people in Canada work really hard and used to be able to go out and afford a steak dinner once or twice a month or think about having a beef rib roast at Christmas. That was not much of a problem 10 years ago, but those are the people now eating Campbell's soup.

The arrogance in that executive's comments, I think, is exactly what the arrogance is of the Liberal government in tabling this budget. I looked at this budget through the lens of one of my constituents and wondered if they would think I was doing my fiduciary responsibility and standing up for good, wise stewardship of their tax dollars by supporting this. The first question I asked myself was, what is in it for my constituents? Is there anything in it for my constituents?

Although the Liberals have tried to sell this budget, it has, I think, a record deficit. We have never seen money like this in Canadian history. Economists and experts have talked about the fact that it is going to bankrupt future generations and that we are likely going to see a credit downgrade in the country. It has made our country less resilient. It is one of the most intensely deficit-laden budgets in history.

I wanted to see what is in it for my constituents. I thought we would see something like maybe a GST cut for all the money that the Liberals are spending, or maybe a rocket ship to the moon or a highway paved in gold, but instead I think it condemns my constituents to more soup nights. Please, sir, can I have some more Liberal deficits and Campbell's soup?

At the end of the day, what people want to look at or see in a budget is prudence and something for them. What we have seen out of the Liberal government over the last 10 years are funding announcements that result in nothing for Canadians, waste, deficit, higher taxes, and the inability to have a steak dinner. Most people in Canada want a steak dinner. That would be nice. I am an Albertan. Alberta beef is the best, but people cannot afford it anymore. They cannot afford protein.

I am not talking about just some Canadians. I am talking about most Canadians, those who, in many jurisdictions, would be considered solidly middle class. They are double-income families, but they are sometimes working two or three jobs just to make ends meet. They have seen their rents increase. They cannot get access to timely health care. There are all sorts of issues making their life worse, but the government is spending more. How is it that the government is asking us to support a bill that keeps seeing Canadians' lives getting worse while the Liberals spend more? That is a “no” for me. It is a “no” for most of my constituents too.

I want to also highlight the level of waste that we see in the government. Some of my colleagues have been litigating and doing an excellent job. Our shadow minister for industry, for example, has been doing a great job litigating the fact that the Liberals spent $13 billion or $14 billion on Stellantis.

[An hon. member]

It was $15 billion.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they spent $15 billion, and Stellantis just left the country.

Yesterday, guess where Stellantis was. Its representatives were at the White House. Do members know what they were saying? They are investing $13 billion in the United States, a direct transfer from Canadian taxpayers to the United States of America, while rich Campbell's lobbyists, who I am sure are probably friends with some of these guys across the aisle, are talking about people who have to eat their soup. I do not think Canadians should be condemned to eating soup. They should have choice in food.

There was a startling report today showing that next year, an average Canadian family will have to pay, at minimum, an extra $1,000 for basic groceries. That is on top of the already huge increase in food prices.

In the province of Alberta, in my riding, food bank visits are at an all-time high. In Alberta, the 127 reporting food banks were visited 210,000 times, a jump of 21.8% compared to last year and 134% since 2019.

We have a budget where the government is dumping billions and billions of dollars, endless dollars, into corporate lobbyists and corporations that are not even trying to keep jobs here. The ministers did not even bother reading the contracts. Meanwhile, we should have some highly processed soup for dinner.

There is nothing in the budget for Canadians. There is a lot for the Liberals' rich friends and and a lot for corporations that have other benefits, like regulatory benefits that keep cellphone bills high. The layers of ways the Liberals screw the average Canadian, between regulatory capture and just forking out direct cash to their friends, are so magnificently bad.

In this budget, the level of debt is shocking. It is kind of tricky of the Prime Minister to say we are saving money, because he has tried to cook the books and restructure how expenses are categorized. We are not that dumb. He might think we are. That is how he treats some of his cabinet ministers or journalists when he tells them to “look inside” themselves instead of answering a question. That level of arrogance is not going to make my constituents able to go out for a nice dinner or just afford basic groceries.

I am the shadow minister for immigration, and I have never seen a more incompetent immigration minister in the Liberal government's history, and that is saying a lot. Through this budget, the Liberals are continuing immigration levels that are unsustainable. There are not enough houses, doctors or jobs for people in Canada right now, yet they are juicing these numbers. In one bill in front of the House of Commons right now, Bill C-12, the Liberals are trying to give themselves powers to mass extend temporary resident visas. We have an amendment that I hope the government will support on that front.

Everything is about increasing the size of government, increasing the largesse of the Liberals' corporate friends and increasing the population in unsustainable ways through immigration, and my constituents are left with having a can of soup that an executive of the company calls not nutritious and highly processed. At a bare minimum, in a G7 country, people should have more to look forward to than a bare cupboard at night.

I know there are people in my community, which was once very well off, who have lost their houses. There are now parts of my community where homelessness is a problem in a big way, and people cannot afford to make ends meet. I know there are seniors in my community who thought they were going to have a safe retirement but now cannot afford to buy groceries.

The Liberals are now asking us to support $78 billion when a company they gave $15 billion to just transferred $13 billion of it to the United States. Come on. Something has to give.

The Prime Minister told Canadians that he would be the person who could better manage Canada's finances. All he did was rack up debt on the credit card. He is not the only economist in this room. His economic policy is bad; it is failed socialist policy that does not benefit anybody.

No, I do not support this budget, nor should anyone else in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The deputy House leader, or whatever his title is, just told you to shut up. He should apologize.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did not hear anything. I assure members that even if a member told me to quiet down or used some other term, I would not, but I did recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety for questions and comments.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague will certainly have the opportunity to ask a question afterward.

The member for Calgary Nose Hill is asking what is in this budget for her constituents. I will keep the debate very simple. I will ask the member what she thinks of the productivity superdeduction, which will essentially enable Canadian businesses, businesses in her riding of Calgary Nose Hill, to quickly write off their capital investment costs for capital expenditures, process transformation, automation, renewable energy, research, experimental development and so on.

I think it is an incredible economic stimulus that is going to kick-start our economy—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it would be a productivity superdeduction if the government scrapped the temporary foreign worker program and stopped allowing businesses that have no reason to bring in temporary labour to continue to suppress our wages and suppress productivity in this country. I think about how badly the government has distorted productivity measures by allowing literally millions of temporary foreign workers into this country, which also takes opportunities away from Canadian youth. That is probably one of the key productivity drivers in this country.

However, my colleague across the way wants my constituents to pay more for basic common sense. No, of course we will not.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech. I know she is an expert on immigration. I would like to ask her about the budget allocated to border protection.

Does she think that hiring 1,000 border services officers over three years will be enough to keep our borders secure? Will Canada have all the resources it needs to properly manage immigration?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time that my colleague and I spent at the public safety committee last week trying to improve Bill C-12, which was so lacking with regard to border security. I will note that, every time the Liberals say they are going to hire more border security, they do not do it. It is about the announcement. Colour me skeptical if I do not believe anything they say they are going to do.

Just to reiterate some of the work that my colleague did last week, we tried to advance measures which would have made it more difficult for people who have a criminal past or criminal intent to enter the country by proposing common-sense, cost-free measures to Canada's immigration system, and the Liberals rejected that. Shame on them.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague from Calgary Nose Hill.

Should Canadians trust a government that, after 10 years, still cannot manage procurement, cannot control spending, cannot deliver infrastructure, such as the Gordie Howe International Bridge, and cannot provide basic answers in this chamber?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is so exciting to see a Conservative elected in Windsor. It is awesome.

My colleague is standing up for jobs in his community. While the Liberals are spending tens of billions of dollars on companies that are taking investments to other countries, with no job guarantees, he is standing up and saying he is going to protect the auto sector in his riding.

I say kudos to him, and no, of course we should not trust the Liberals. There is great work coming from Windsor with that guy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know why the member opposite continuously wants to vote against the investments that the federal government is making, not only in the province of Alberta as a whole, but also in the constituency she represents, through good, sound social programming?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the member rose in this place and said that, if somebody was being sexually assaulted in this country, a non-citizen, judges would not give them special treatment. He said that. Then he stood in the House and gave many examples of that, including a 13-year-old girl who had been raped. I thought he was going to apologize for saying that, but I guess hope springs eternal.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

When Canadians hear the phrase “budget implementation”, they expect something simple: a plan that respects taxpayers, strengthens our economy and delivers results without waste. Unfortunately, this bill misses that mark in ways that are not minor, but fundamental.

I want to approach this from a perspective that we do not hear that often in Ottawa, the view of rural and resource-producing communities, of agriculture and energy workers, of families who contribute so much to Canada's prosperity yet feel increasingly overlooked by federal policy. I want to speak as someone who has worked internationally for decades, particularly in post-Soviet countries, where government overreach, sluggish bureaucracy and disrespect for local decision-making are constant barriers to growth. When I look at Bill C-15, I see too many of these same mistakes creeping into our own system.

This is a budget that would spend more while delivering less. The government continues to treat spending as synonymous with progress. Bill C-15 would implement a budget that is the most expensive in Canadian history, yet Canadians feel poorer, less secure and less hopeful. Where I come from, on the Prairies, we earn trust, not by how much we spend, but by what we deliver. Families live within their means, and small businesses operate carefully because overspending can cost someone their livelihood.

Farmers know that inputs do not matter if the yields are not there, but Ottawa continues to spend without measuring outcomes. The budget implementation act commits billions more in new spending while offering little accountability and no realistic plan to restore affordability to Canadians. This is why Conservatives oppose the direction of the bill. The government is asking Canadians to pay more while receiving less.

The most urgent issues facing Canadians today are affordability, housing, groceries, fuel and basic necessities, yet Bill C-15 would entrench policies that have made life fundamentally more expensive. Whether someone lives in Toronto—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member for Souris—Moose Mountain. He will have the remainder of his time when the House next takes up this matter.

Criminal Code

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

moved that Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (consecutive sentences for sexual offences), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, there is a special delight that every consumer knows when they go into a store and walk away with a deal, that moment when we realize that we are paying a little bit less than what we were expecting to. Maybe it is 15% off of one's favourite boots or favourite shoes. Maybe it is buying one and getting the other one half off. Maybe it is hitting the jackpot and buying one to get the other one free.

Especially at Christmas time, these sorts of deals tend to attract people. They tend to get us into a storefront. We love a bargain. We love getting more value than what we pay for. Discounts are a part of everyday life, and they are especially a part of this season. They bring a thrill when we are able to spot them and take advantage of them.

As great as these discounts are, I would offer that they belong in stores alone. They do not belong in our justice system. The practice of treating serious crimes like they are items on sale is not just misguided but altogether dangerous, unjust and completely detached from the experience of victims who will never receive a discount on the trauma they experienced and live with.

Unfortunately, in our current justice system, discounts are handed out far too often in criminal sentencing. One of the biggest and most troubling discounts granted under Canadian law is concurrent sentencing. In other words, it offers an offender the opportunity to serve multiple sentences under one. Instead of facing real consequences for each act of harm, they serve all sentences at the same time. One sentence for multiple crimes equals drastically reduced jail time.

If this logic were applied anywhere else in life, I think we would be outraged. We would call it absurd, but in Canada's courts, it is somehow common practice. Even more troubling is that this discount is applied to some of the most egregious crimes, including mass murder or serial sexual assault. Today, I will focus on the latter with regard to my private member's bill.

Sexual assault crimes are not minor offences. They are not mistakes. These are acts that rob individuals of their dignity, their agency and their sense of safety and well-being. They can alter the course of a person's life, not just for a few weeks or a few months, but forever. The perpetrators of such deeply violating crimes often walk away with sentences that fail to reflect the severity of the harm they have caused. Concurrent sentencing should never be allowed for such crimes, which is why I am proud to address this issue and stand with victims by presenting my private member's bill, Bill C-246, the ending sentence reductions for sexual predators act.

The bill is simple, direct and necessary. It would mandate consecutive sentencing, not concurrent sentencing, for those convicted of sexual offences. In plain terms, that would mean no more bundling crimes into one low-price package and no more sentencing discounts. Sexual predators would no longer be able to compress their crimes and walk away with a reduced amount of time in jail. Instead, each crime would carry its own penalty and each victim would receive the full recognition that she or he deserves.

Under this law, every victim would count, and not just in a moral or symbolic sense. They would really count. Their voice counts. What happened to them counts. The crime committed against them matters and should be paid for.

Currently, Canada does not allow for consecutive sentences in these types of cases. It does, however, allow for them when it is to do with children. While that protection for children is absolutely right and necessary, the logic behind that allowance equally applies to adult victims.

I ask members to consider this just for a moment: In Canada, the maximum sentence for a break-in or a violent robbery is life in prison. Life is the maximum sentence. The maximum penalty for sexual violence against an adult is only 10 years. It is 14 years when that victim is under the age of 16. We have to sit with this comparison for a moment. A property crime, a robbery, carries a higher maximum sentence than the violent theft of a person's bodily autonomy.

A home can be repaired, and a stolen phone can be replaced, but what about restoring a person's dignity and restoring a person's sense of security, their trust in the world? Those wounds are far deeper and take far more to heal. Therefore the penalty should also be far more.

The fact that our justice system punishes property crimes more severely than it punishes sexual offences is not just inconsistent; I would say it is altogether an injustice to the people who face these types of crimes. For far too long the scales have been tipped in favour of the criminal, the offender, while victims are left struggling, having to pull the pieces together and find healing for the egregious crimes committed against them.

Years of soft-on-crime policies have left communities less safe and victims increasingly vulnerable. Since 2015, sexual assaults in Canada are up nearly 75%. Offences against children are up an alarming 120%. These are not just abstract percentages or mere data points for academic purposes; these are numbers representing real people with real stories, lives forever changed. Each statistic represents betrayal, fear and lifelong consequences that generally impact not only the victim but also their family, friends and community.

In Toronto, a family doctor was charged with nine counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual exploitation, involving three patients over a period of time. These patients walked into his clinic expecting care, compassion and professionalism from this individual; instead they were preyed upon by someone in whom they had placed trust. They left not with healing but with deep wounds, not having been cared for but having been exploited.

The sentence for this physician who committed more than a dozen intrusive and grave crimes was three and a half years. He committed thirteen heinous crimes but was given one sentence because all the crimes were enmeshed into one.

Let us think about the societal message that is delivered. What message is sent to other victims who are terrified to come forward? It tells them that their suffering will be compressed, that their voice does not matter. What message is sent to other potential offenders? Well, it tells them that even if they hurt multiple people, commit multiple crimes, the system will protect them. It will have their back.

What message does it send regarding the societal value we place on making sure people are kept safe in the most vulnerable spaces, such as the medical office they enter? It suggests that even profound violations committed under the guise of care are somehow eligible for a discount, and it reaffirms to victims that the justice system does not stand with them but rather on the side of the perpetrator.

Kashif Ramzan pretended to be a talent agent attracting young people into the modelling industry. Two young women were lured in, and they faced horror instead of opportunity. They were both sexually assaulted numerous times over. At the end of the day, Ramzan pleaded guilty and did not refute any of the accusations brought against him. The sentence he faced was 18 months for the one, and two years for the other. In this country, 18 months plus 24 months equals 24 months, because multiple sentences are combined into one being served.

Again we must ask, what message does this send to society? What message is sent to young women who are already navigating a world where exploitation all too often hides behind charm, flattery and supposed opportunity?

It tells them that if they are victimized, the system does not have their back. It tells them that their dreams can be weaponized against them, that they can be exploited and that it is not as big of a deal if there is more than one of them. It tells the public, especially these young women, that predators may face only a fraction of the punishment their crimes deserve. Meanwhile, they are expected to sort through the pieces of their own brokenness.

This is the opposite of justice, it is the opposite of deterrence and it is the opposite of what a healthy society should signal about the seriousness of sexual violence.

When the system merges multiple victims into a single punishment, it erases the individuality of their suffering and the weight of each of their experiences. It tells victims implicitly, if not explicitly, that their pain is worth less and that the law sees them not as unique human beings deserving of justice but as tally marks on a spreadsheet.

Whether a predator commits repeated offences against one person or single offences against multiple people, justice demands that each of those crimes be paid for. Sentences must be served consecutively, not concurrently. This reflects the extent of the harm done. Anything less is a betrayal of victims.

It is long past time to put victims first. Sexual offences should never be treated like a two-for-one deal at the shoe store checkout. There is no “buy one assault, get one free”, but that is what our current justice system does. There is no bulk discount on human suffering, but that is what our courts reward.

Each offence is in fact a distinct harm. Each victim is a whole person, and each act must carry with it its own consequences. Justice is not something to be discounted or bundled. Justice demands full recognition and full accountability for every crime and every victim.

My bill, Bill C-246, is about restoring that balance. It is about ensuring that the law stands firmly on the side of victims, not with predators. It is about making sure that when a sexual offender is sentenced, the punishment truly reflects the crime. It is about restoring faith in our justice system for the survivors who have so often been let down. It is about sending a clear message to society that sexual violence is serious, that it will not be tolerated, that every victim matters and that predators will face real, meaningful consequences.

My appeal to those in this place, to my colleagues from all parties, is that they support this bill, that they stand on the side of victims and that together we stand for a strong, robust justice system that refuses to minimize the most violating crimes a person can endure. We should be a group of people who instead stand for what is right.

I am asking members to support this bill. Let us send a united message from the House of Commons that we stand with the innocent, that we stand with the victims, that we stand with the survivors and that sexual predators will in fact face the full force of the law. There cannot be the continued practice of discounts for sexual predators. Let us please stand with victims.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on her bill. This is a very important issue that needs to be debated and that requires our full attention. All 343 of us here share the horror of these crimes committed by sexual predators. We all want these crimes to be severely punished in a way that acts as a deterrent.

However, the government has an obligation to act responsibly. It has an obligation to ensure that legislation is constitutional and that it will not be a waste of time. There is no point in wasting time. Considering—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would beg the hon. member to explain what is unconstitutional about standing with victims. What is unconstitutional about ensuring that sexual predators receive the full force of the law? When a member speaks in that way, it feels as though platitudes are being given on the one hand, in terms of a justice system that needs to be strengthened, but then excuses for that weakness in the justice system are being made on the other hand. That is problematic, because ultimately it is victims who are put at risk.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her presentation of the bill she is sponsoring.

I just want to draw something to everyone's attention because I get the impression it was not mentioned. I may have missed a word or two. It is already possible to give consecutive sentences in the case of a repeat sex offender or someone who commits multiple sex offences.

Under the current system, with the Criminal Code, arguments can be made to convince a judge to proceed in this manner. I must also say that, in our sentencing principles, the idea of seeking a fair punishment is already enshrined.

Does my colleague have a study or arguments she can share to prove to us that if this bill were adopted, it would either reduce crime or reduce the rate of recidivism for sex offences?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between what is permissible and what is normalized. If we truly want to deter crime, and in this case the heinous crime of sexual assault, then we have to normalize a sentence that is most suitable.

A discount sentence for people who commit sexual assault is not appropriate. It sends a message that the justice system is soft on crime and that those heinous acts matter or count only against the first individual but not against the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth or ninth individual. That is wrong. If we are going to find ourselves on the side of survivors, on the side of victims, we must strengthen our justice system.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the bill. Honestly, it could not have come at a better time, when sexual assault is up 76% in Canada. I am the chair of the status of women committee, and we heard disturbing testimony that half the people who are sexually assaulted do not even get a police report. Of the ones who do get a police report, 5% go to court, and only 1% actually get a conviction. The sentence is measured in an average of months, not years.

Are there measures the member would like to see the courts implement in terms of the maximum sentence, along with consecutive sentencing?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a sad statistic that 95% of victims do not actually take their case to court. Most of them report that their reasons for not going to court are that they feel unsupported by the system, do not want to have to repeat their story and do not want to have to face their perpetrator again. We have to find ways to protect victims and make sure they can come forward with their stories.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Criminal Code concerning consecutive sentences for sexual offences. It is a private member's bill brought forward by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The bill would replace the existing Criminal Code provision that requires sentencing courts to impose consecutive sentences in child sexual offences cases with one that would require consecutive sentences for all other sexual offences. In cases where an offender is already serving a sentence for a sexual offence, it would require a new sentence for a sexual offence to run consecutively to the sentence the offender is already serving.

I appreciate the sponsor's aim of signalling the seriousness of sexual offences by requiring mandatory consecutive sentences in cases involving multiple sexual offence convictions. I would note, however, that Bill C-246 is the wrong approach. It is unconstitutional and overly rigid, and it would not make Canadians safer.

The bill seeks to force judges to stack consecutive sentences for all sexual offences, including those that already carry mandatory minimum penalties. The Supreme Court, in cases such as Senneville, has emphasized that judges must consider reasonable hypotheticals when determining when a sentence is grossly disproportionate. The Court of Appeal of Quebec, in the Vera Camacho case, struck down part of the existing consecutive sentencing framework for sexual offenders against children because it would result in sentences that are grossly disproportionate and unconstitutional.

Nonetheless, the Conservatives propose to expand this fragile provision to include adult sexual offences. This approach is reckless. It would remove judicial discretion entirely, prevent judges from applying the totality principle, risk grossly disproportionate global sentences, discourage early guilty pleas, lengthen trials unnecessarily and put increased pressure on provincial courts and correctional facilities, all without any evidence that it would reduce re-offending.

This is why our government has adopted a different, evidence-based and constitutionally sound approach. Through Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, we would strengthen the justice system while keeping victims at the centre and core of our focus. How would the bill do that? One way is with tougher bail rules. Bill C-14 would make it harder for serious sexual offenders to be released before trial, and it would introduce a reverse onus for assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocation or strangulation behaviours linked to the escalation to homicide.

Second, it would end house arrest for serious sexual offences. Conditional sentences have been proven insufficient for serious sexual offences, particularly those involving children. Bill C-14 would ensure that offenders serve sentences reflecting the gravity of their crimes. Third, with respect to consecutive sentences for repeat offenders, as mentioned before by the hon. member from the Bloc, Bill C-14 would allow judges to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent sexual offenders while preserving discretion to ensure that outcomes remain proportionate, fair and constitutional.

These measures reflect our commitment to victim-centred, charter-compliant reforms. Unlike the Conservatives, who prioritize ideology over evidence, we are strengthening public safety without creating legal chaos. Let us also remember Bill C-2, which would equip police with the lawful tools they need in order to catch predators before they commit crimes.

Survivors, as well as families of victims, have been telling us that about the need for less-toxic rhetoric around intimate-partner violence, and they urge Parliament to act responsibly. As one example, yesterday the House unanimously adopted Conservative Bill C-225, about fighting intimate-partner violence, as we intend to amend the bill in the justice committee and strengthen it to protect women who act in self defence from being wrongfully charged with first-degree murder. This is the spirit in which we have shown we can work together to protect Canadians and their lives.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to delay critical legislation, wasting committee time debating irrelevant matters while women's organizations across the country have called for urgent action. As such, I ask the member opposite this: Will she support passing these bills before the House rises?

Furthermore, before the House rises, the minister will table legislation addressing gender-based violence, intimate partner violence, child protection and court delays. These measures are crafted with victims in mind, reflecting their lived experiences and the realities they face. We hope the Conservatives will refrain from obstruction and join us in supporting our legislation.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C-246, which was introduced by my colleague from Lethbridge, Alberta. I commend her. This bill seeks to amend the Criminal Code to require that sentences imposed on offenders convicted of multiple sexual offences be served consecutively, that is, one after the other, in cases where multiple offences are committed against one victim at the same time and also where the offender is already serving a prison sentence for another sexual offence.

The Bloc Québécois will be voting in favour of this bill so that it can be studied in committee. We will then be able to examine this Conservative proposal more closely, but, as members will see, I already have a number of questions and concerns.

I would like to begin by taking a moment to explain how our criminal law currently provides for consecutive sentences, because consecutive sentences are already possible and are imposed practically every day in courts across the country. I will then discuss the merits of the Conservative proposal to reduce judges' discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences.

First, I would like to say a few words about victims of sexual offences. I practised law for 12 years, 10 of them in legal aid, and I had the privilege of representing many victims of sexual assault, particularly when they were involved in litigation against Indemnisation des victimes d'actes criminels du Québec, or IVAC. I saw the scars that sexual assault leaves behind, which are all too often permanent. I remember sensing the vulnerability, the feeling of brokenness, the weight that my clients carried around with them. We had to prepare for hearings together, and my clients would tell me how the assault had changed them. Some felt unsafe walking down the street at night, while others experienced flashbacks or found their relationships tainted by distrust. In every case, they carried the burden of injustice, and we fought together against IVAC to get compensation for their lingering pain or inability to work. Although we fought and won together, I never felt that our victories were enough to erase or repair what they had experienced. Their burden may have been a bit less heavy, but their existence was still affected.

Behind today's debate on this bill are those people, those victims whom I am thinking of tonight, yet the bill deals with sentences for offenders. I would like to point out that the victims I represented over the years did not talk to me about the length of their attackers' sentences. They primarily talked to me about their desire to continue living and their need for support, assistance, counselling services and so on.

That said, let us now look at how criminal law deals with offenders who commit multiple sexual offences. In general, sentences are concurrent. Typically, if an offender commits multiple offences, and if there are multiple sentences, they will be served at the same time, unless the law or circumstances justify consecutive sentences, which are served one after the other. As my colleague said, the Criminal Code already provides for consecutive sentences in the case of sexual offences against children, for example. Generally speaking, the Criminal Code says judges must consider consecutive sentences. They are not obligated to go that way, but they must always consider it. It is an exceptional measure, but it is available, and it is one of the tools judges can use to reflect the seriousness of multiple crimes. With consecutive sentencing, an offender convicted of several serious offences cannot get an artificial reduction in the length of time they must serve. This is what the Supreme Court has taught us. This option illustrates the principle that each offence deserves a separate penalty. Judges have broad discretion to decide whether sentences should be concurrent or consecutive, but they must always respect the principle of proportionality and make sure the overall punishment is not excessive. The current rule of law strives to strike a balance by allowing for consecutive sentencing while requiring the justice system to consider all aspects of a sentence.

In its 1996 ruling in R. v. M. (C.A.), the Supreme Court confirmed that judges have considerable discretion, but that they must respect the principles of proportionality and parity in sentencing. With regard to consecutive sentences, the court reiterated that their use must reflect the multiplicity of offences without leading to an unreasonable overall sentence. Consecutive sentences are therefore already one of the tools available to judges when sentencing defendants who have committed multiple sexual offences. In court, repeat offences are already taken into account, as are aggravating circumstances, for obtaining harsher sentences. The justice system therefore already has the tools to impose consecutive sentences when deemed necessary.

Now let us discuss the merits of the proposal before the House. The Conservative proposal essentially aims to reduce judicial discretion so that consecutive sentences are automatically imposed on repeat offenders or perpetrators of multiple sexual offences. According to the preamble, the purpose of the bill is to ensure that sentences for multiple offences reflect the gravity of each offence and the distinct harm caused to each victim. We can also discuss this in committee and look into the matter further, but at first glance, based on what I have just said, I think that this goal can already be achieved under the current rules. Personally, I believe that we can trust the justice system to ensure that the sentence is appropriate in each case.

The goal could also be to reduce the recidivism rate by saying that harsher penalties are going to be handed down to repeat sexual offenders. Clearly, reducing the recidivism rate is a good thing. A study on this subject appeared in 2022 in Criminology & Public Policy, a scientific journal published by the American Society of Criminology. The study showed that the recidivism rate for sex offenders has fallen by 60% since 1970. This is a robust study that involved conducting a meta-analysis of 185 Canadian-based studies. The meta-analysis covered more than 50,000 criminals and combined 226 recidivism rates measured at different times and in different locations across Canada.

After controlling for various factors, the study concluded that the recidivism rate for sexual offences has decreased by more than 60% since the 1970s. Every repeat offence is one too many, of course, but the problem of repeat sexual assault is actually diminishing under the current rules. We can dig into this in committee and try to understand what the goal of the bill is, but when it comes to recidivism rates, things seem to be improving.

The goal could also be to reduce crime, and that is a good thing too. However, here again, it has not been proven that harsher sentences reduce crime. In committee, we can also discuss the collateral effects of this bill if it is passed. Longer sentences mean people staying in prison longer, which comes at a cost to the government. Longer sentences also have a negative effect on criminals' chances of rehabilitation. In short, there are serious questions about the usefulness of this bill and its effect on our criminal justice system, but we will nevertheless vote in favour of it at this stage to allow it to be studied in committee.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, I want to recognize someone who has worked in my office since I was elected, Stephanie Rennick. This is her 32nd anniversary of working on Parliament Hill. I am profoundly indebted to people like her. We all are. Most of us are nothing without our staff. I want to thank Stephanie for everything, all the sacrifices, all the help and all the late hours. People like me are nothing without people like Stephanie.

Normally I have a couple of notes, but I am going start without notes. I am going to speak directly to the Liberals here, because I cannot believe what we just heard from the parliamentary secretary. In fact, whoever wrote that speech should be ashamed of themselves, because they just got the law completely wrong. They talked about the unconstitutionality of this provision. Well, if this provision is unconstitutional, then the provision that is identical to it, the one around consecutive sentences for sex offences against kids, is unconstitutional itself. I cannot believe that.

Yes, I am raising my voice, and yes, I am speaking with passion, because victims serve a psychological life sentence. The Liberals are communicating to this House and to all Canadians that this does not need to be changed and that it is okay for sex offences to be cheaper by the dozen. It is wrong.

The Liberals can scoff and snarl under their breath, or they can do something. They can ask the person who wrote that speech or the person who delivered that speech what they were thinking about in regard to Bill C-14, a bill on bail? I consulted with the hon. member on this bill, and I reflected on my life prosecuting sex offences against kids, also teaching a sentencing class at our local law school, and about the totality principle that the member spoke about. The totality principle says that somebody's overall moral culpability should not exceed the length of the sentence, that it should be proportional, yet somehow this is said to offend the totality principle. What?

If this offends it, then what about the provision that this was designed on, to say that everybody who hurts a kid should serve a consecutive sentence? If anybody wants a real-life example, I will talk about the first case that I undertook that really taught me about this. It was a case on Internet luring. The offender was located in Canada, and the victims were in the Philippines. I will just give a warning here. This is graphic, so if anybody does not want to hear it, please beware.

That offender, a Canadian, was paying mothers to offend against their children. Yes, it is uncomfortable, but this is what is happening. He pled guilty to several charges, and because of that, there were consecutive sentences. Now, based on that speech, one would say that that was wrong, that he should have concurrent sentences. The totality principle still applied.

How is it possible that anybody in this House could disagree that if somebody sexually assaults one person and sexually assaults somebody else in 90 days and sexually assaults another person in 90 days, and so on, they should serve consecutive sentences? Those sentences can be fashioned in accordance with the totality principle to reflect the overall moral culpability of that person.

Are the Liberal members okay with this? Are they okay with signalling and getting behind the content of that speech? I challenge every single one of them to go back and reflect on that in their caucus.

I texted an advocate for sexual assault survivors, somebody who herself was sexually assaulted and speaks about it publicly. Sometimes I joke around in this House and have more fun, but I have always believed politics is about timing. There is a time to have fun, there is a time to be righteously angry, there is a time to be serious, there is a time to be loud and there is a time to be quiet. If ever there was a time to be loud in this House, this is it.

This is the time for the Liberals present in the House to ask if they are sure they want to say they do not want to tie judges' hands. Is that what I heard, that they do not want to tie the hands of judges when it comes to consecutive sentences for sexual assault? Did I hear that? Are the Liberals okay with it? I ask because victims are going to be watching.

That speech will be dissected. Let us not forget that our words in here mean something. If we cannot agree on that, what the heck can we agree on?

What I find even more reprehensible is that somebody said we should not throw the full force of the law against sexual offenders. Those victims are serving a life sentence, a psychological life sentence, and I just heard someone say why we should not apply the full force of the law to offenders. However, the Liberals want us to support Bill C-14 because, boy, is it tough on crime. What a joke.

We are debating whether people should serve an appropriate sentence for sexual assault. I am thinking to myself, “Well, duh.” Of course they should. I do not care if I am heard on Wellington Street saying this.

We have come to the point where people serve more time on a maximum sentence for property crimes. Robbery is taking property by force, and the maximum sentence is life imprisonment. Sexual assault is taking sexual dignity by force, sexual inviolability by force, sexual integrity by force, and the maximum sentence is 10 years.

What do we hear from the Liberals? They did not say whether they would vote for or against this bill. To those watching at home, I say to contact my office. Contact every Liberal and tell them there should be proportionality in sentencing, because for far too long, we have measured sexual assault sentences in months instead of years.

I was obedient to the rule of law and the rule of precedent as somebody who practised law. I may not have agreed with them, but I was obedient to precedents. Does anybody here know, speaking rhetorically, about the range of sentences for a sexual assault involving intercourse in British Columbia? It starts at two years. The Liberal position says that if it is done again to another victim, it should not necessarily be consecutive. It is two years for the violation of somebody's sexual integrity. Yes, there is a bit of awkwardness in the House right now, because there should be.

When we allow stuff like this to be said in this House and do not stand up for victims in this House, we should all hang our heads in shame. I hope every single Liberal goes back to caucus and asks why that speech said what it said. Why are we allowing this to happen? I say shame on every parliamentarian who does not fight for victims of sexual offences in this country.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking in response to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Criminal Code. It is private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

The bill would change the Criminal Code so that, when someone is convicted of two or more sexual offences at the same time, their sentences would have to be served one after the other. If that person was later convicted of another sexual offence, their new sentence would automatically be added on top of the sentence they are already serving for the earlier sexual offences.

Sexual offending is a profound violation that leaves lasting physical, emotional and psychological harm. These are not crimes that can be minimized or treated lightly. They require our justice system to respond with clarity, strength and accountability. The grave harm caused by sexual offending is one of the reasons the government is seeking to advance important criminal law reforms, including the recent bail and sentencing reform act, or Bill C-14, which has a view to reinforce community safety and strengthen Canada's justice system.

Bill C-14 represents a significant step forward in updating Canada's criminal justice framework to make bail law stricter and sentencing law tougher. The bill includes more than 80 targeted changes to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other relevant acts, and all are directed toward delivering firm and fairer outcomes for everyone in Canada.

Bill C-14 includes an amendment that would require judges to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders, including repeat sexual violent offenders. A consecutive sentence means multiple prison sentences are served one after the other, with the total length of the sentence being the sum of the individual sentences imposed for one offence. This is different from a concurrent sentence, where multiple prison terms for different offences in a single sentence can be served at the same time.

If passed by Parliament, Bill C-14 would send a strong signal to the courts that longer sentences may be warranted in cases of repeat violent offending, while still allowing for individualized circumstances to be considered by the sentencing judge. Bill C-14 would capture a broad range of offenders, including anyone with a record for violent offences in the last five years, as well as a broad range of offences, such as any offence involving violence or threats of violence. It would include, but not be limited to, offences involving sexual violence. As a result of this proposal, courts would be required by law to consider consecutive sentences for repeat violent offenders, and failure to do so would be an error in law that could be appealed.

Bill C-14 would also make it more difficult for those accused of serious, violent and sexual offending to be released on bail. The general rule for bail is that, when a Crown prosecutor seeks the detention of an accused person, they must demonstrate to the court that there is just cause to detain the accused. This means the Crown has the responsibility to show the accused should not be granted bail.

However, in certain cases, the accused must show why they should be granted bail. This is referred to as reverse onus. In a reverse onus situation, an accused must be detained while awaiting their trial, unless they can demonstrate to the court that they should not be denied bail by showing that there is no just cause for their detention, meaning they are not a risk to public safety. A reverse onus demonstrates Parliament's intention that bail should be more difficult to obtain in cases where the accused might present heightened risk if released on bail.

Right now, the Criminal Code sets out reverse onus for several criminal offences, including for offences where the allegations involve violence against an intimate partner if the accused had been previously convicted or discharged of an offence where violence was used against their intimate partner. This reverse onus recognizes the fact that violence against intimate partners unfortunately tends to happen more than once, so those who have been previously convicted of such offences may pose increased safety risks to their victims if released on bail.

Building on this foundation, Bill C-14 includes a proposal to create a new reverse onus bail provision for assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocating or strangulation. Evidence suggests this behaviour is indicative of potential escalation to homicide, particularly in the intimate partner context. The proposed reverse onus recognizes that those accused of such offending may present—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to remind the member that we are dealing with a particular topic, Bill C-246, which deals with consecutive sentencing. I wonder if you could call on the member to follow the rules and discuss the provisions of the bill that is currently before the House. It is a very important one.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the member for the reminder. As members know, wide latitude is given to members, and I am sure the member for Pickering—Brooklin was coming back to the matter at hand as she was giving examples.

I invite the member to continue.

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the proposed reverse onus recognizes that those accused of such offending may present heightened safety risks to their victims if released on bail.

The bill currently going through Parliament would also significantly strengthen sentencing, including for sexual offending. It is proposed that conditional sentence orders, also known as house arrest, be unavailable for serious sexual offences, including those against children.

Protecting children from sexual exploitation and abuse is a top priority for the federal government. The government has taken significant steps to strengthen laws, enhance its law enforcement tools and support victims. Canada's approach reflects the belief that every child has the right to grow up free from harm and that those who violate that trust will face the full force of the law. These amendments respond to concerns from provinces and territories, many of which have observed a troubling rise in conditional sentence orders being ordered in response to sexual offences, including child sexual offences, noting that these sentences were not sufficiently reflective of the gravity, nor sufficiently protected victims.

These concerns have prompted calls to restrict conditional sentence orders for those offences and to ensure that the use of conditional sentence orders remains consistent with the principles of denunciation and deterrence and promotes public confidence in the justice system. These targeted reforms reflect the government's commitment to addressing the serious harms caused by sexual offending and its profound impact on victims.

Bill C-14 also proposes adding a new aggravated factor at sentencing for repeat violent offending, which would include repeat violent sexual offending. An aggravating factor is a circumstance or detail about an offence that makes a crime more serious. Aggravating factors send a message to our courts that certain conduct justifies harsher sentences. These amendments would respond to ongoing calls to denounce and deter all repeat violent offending.

Federal, provincial and territorial governments have been actively collaborating on measures to strengthen the bail and sentencing regime for many months at the ministerial, deputy ministerial and officials' levels. The proposed amendments were developed in close co-operation with the provinces and territories, and reflect a collective agreement to support safer communities.

These changes are being advanced within the federal areas of responsibility and reflect commitments to bringing forward law reform in this area. However, a well-functioning criminal justice system requires action from the provinces and territories that are responsible for the administration of justice, which includes the conduct of the majority of prosecutions in Canada. Building on the bail and sentencing reform act, the Government of Canada has further committed to bringing forward additional legislative changes to address court delays, to strengthen victims' rights, to better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence and to keep children safe from crimes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Shefford will have approximately three and a half minutes and will then be interrupted for adjournment proceedings.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to do something in three and a half minutes on a subject that I am sure everyone understands is in my wheelhouse as the status of women critic for the Bloc Québécois.

I want to mention that this debate is taking place during the 12 days of action to end violence against women, which run from November 25 to December 6, the day when, unfortunately, people will commemorate the tragic femicide that occurred at École Polytechnique 36 years ago. Let us wear the white ribbon proudly.

I will start with some statistics. I will then quickly go over Quebec's demands and close with what the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying.

According to Statistics Canada, since 2015, the number of sexual offences has increased from 57 to 87 per 100,000 population. That is a 52% increase. During that same period in Quebec, the number of assaults rose from 45 to 98 per 100,000 population. That is a 119% increase. Those are big numbers.

Here are some more statistics: 50% of female victims lose their job or have to change jobs as a result of violence. Every year, more than 80,000 women and children use shelters. During these days of action to end violence against women, I would like to recognize everyone who works for a shelter or an organization to help women victims of violence. Their work in the community is essential.

In terms of police and court statistics, in 40% of cases, the violent partner has a prior criminal record involving violence. Less than 20% of domestic violence charges result in a major conviction. During the study that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently conducting, we have learned that conditions related to section 810 of the Criminal Code are used in nearly 25% of cases, but in 60% of femicides, at least one prior complaint or report had been made.

As my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj explained so well, we understand that this situation is urgent. We welcome the bill introduced by the member for Lethbridge. We will study it in committee. We need to understand what is behind these statistics. Is it because of the #MeToo movement? We have to see whether that will really help fight this kind of crime. We have some concerns. For example, the Criminal Code already provides for consecutive sentences. We will have to look at that.

In Quebec, we worked hard on the report entitled “Rebâtir la confiance”, or rebuilding trust. We have been trailblazers when it comes to combatting violence against women. We have specialized courts. We introduced electronic bracelets. I recently had a discussion with the member for Sherbrooke. I have also been in contact with the Quebec minister responsible for the status of women. Although Quebec has made progress on this issue, both of them are calling on Ottawa to do one thing urgently: to recognize coercive control in the Criminal Code. That is the priority request at the moment, because it would give police an additional tool.

Right now, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is looking into concerns related to the justice system. We studied the issue of section 810 conditions, and I agreed, in collaboration with the Conservatives, to also look at bail conditions. Right now, we are studying the causes. I see that as important.

I will conclude on this final point. We need to ask ourselves why the anti-feminist movement and masculinism are gaining so much momentum. This is leading to real violence against women. We need to look at this issue as holistically as possible.

I hope I will have a chance to talk more about that one day.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Pensions

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise virtually tonight at Adjournment Proceedings to pursue a question I asked on October 31. The response came from the hon. Minister of Transportation, who is also the government leader in the House. It was inadequate, and that is why I pursue this very urgent matter tonight.

We are supposed to have a government policy of putting Canada first. The question I put that day in question period pertained to the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board and its actions, and I asked why we did not put Canada first. The hon. minister answered by saying that the CPPIB, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board is “ethical” in tracking and “above-board” in making “investments all over the world, including in Canada.” He went on to say that the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board “take[s] investing in Canada very, very seriously.”

Well, the CPPIB does not invest much in Canada, and I think my colleagues in the House need to know this about the $92 billion of our pension money, and so do all Canadians who have investments in the Canada pension plan and who count on it for our retirement. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board currently has 12% of that $92 billion invested in Canada and 47% invested in the U.S. and elsewhere all around the world.

In the 25-year history of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, its fundamental legislation has never been revisited, in contrast to the Quebec pension plan investment board. In Quebec, pension dollars are also invested by an arms-length board, but by legislation in Quebec, pension dollars have to be invested with some concern for improving the well-being of Quebeckers, in the interest of Quebec.

The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act does not require the board to be concerned about Canada at all. The investment board, made up of people who reside mostly outside Canada, is making decisions about investments from New York. It is concerned about getting the best return on investment. That means that it is, for example, a major investor in fossil fuel companies all around the world, in fracking in Ohio and gas fields in Texas, for example, with $22 billion of our pension plan money invested in fossil fuel investments. That is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the time that I have, I cannot really shine the light on all the scandals associated with the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, but I do want to reference where I have found a lot of these specific examples: research by the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, and a second report by a group called Shift, which focuses on pension wealth and planet health.

Let us look at a recent example, a huge scandal in which mismanagement by the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, virtually unreported in Canada, lost Canadians $500 million of our investment while the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board had two seats on the board of Paris-based Orpea, Europe's largest long-term care facility. Look it up. It was engaged in criminal activity and embezzlement. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board had two seats on its board of directors; as well, it had 23% of the shares—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leader of the Green Party bringing the issue of the Canada pension plan up and how it distributes the funds it is ultimately responsible for.

As the government House leader indicated, there are substantial funds there, and we would like to believe we have significant investments in Canada. The member made reference to percentages. I think it might be a little higher than 12%. It is definitely higher than 12% when we factor in that some of the investments, I suspect, and I cannot provide great details on it, would be going into the United States. They might be investments that indirectly, or possibly even directly to a certain degree, end up being investments in Canada too.

The point is that the CPP is a critically important program, if I could use the word program, for all Canadians, because of the contributions that employees and employers contribute so we have the cash flow coming into the CPP, which is entrusted to an arm's-length board to invest those scarce resources in order to be able to pay out when the time comes.

It was interesting when the leader asked why we do not do more here in Canada. I know the CPP has partners from different places in the world where there are joint investments made. I do have confidence in the board.

The leader made reference to potential scandals that have taken place. I am not familiar with the ones she has referenced. Maybe she could provide a bit more information on that. What I would be interested in knowing is if the member ever thought of having it brought to a standing committee, which could look into the possibilities. I think it is important that, as much as possible, we allow the CPP to be at arm's length from government. I do not believe the government should be instructing it on business or investments. The board has the expertise within to make good decisions.

All in all, the CPP has done well with respect to the amount of return on its investments. Any investor will tell us that, at times some investments might not deliver what the expectation is, so there will be some losses. I think we have to look at the bigger and broader picture, which is that hopefully it has ensured that there is a good rate of return. If we were hearing that the rate of return was not in the best interests of the CPP, then I would suggest that we definitely revisit it.

The member said we should see more investment into Canada. I like to think that the CPP is looking at ways it might be able to contribute more with respect to investments here in Canada. However, I would like to look at the government, which has seen the value of the CPP. I think it was Justin Trudeau who, through negotiations with the provinces, finally got them on board so we could get more money going into the CPP. That is so more money would be going out to individuals so that, when they retire, they would receive more money. I think that is a very important aspect of the CPP.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act was passed in Parliament 25 years ago. It is specifically requires that the investment board pay no attention to anything other than rate of return. It omits any reference to investing in Canada for the benefit of Canadians.

It is time to bring the investment board act back to Parliament and amend it so, at the very minimum, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board considers what is good for the Canadian economy and for our future. I do not want my Canada Pension Plan Investment Board investing in ways to burn the planet for my granddaughter who has to grow up in a place that may be unlivable, but at a minimum, it should support Canadian businesses first.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I understand what it is the leader of the Green Party is saying.

We have major investments being made, from teachers associations and teachers unions to health care professionals unions and larger corporations. Wanting a rate of return has always been a priority. The member made reference to the province of Quebec. A lot of that investment goes outside of the province of Quebec in constantly looking for rates of return.

That is not to say, absolutely not, that the legislation cannot be looked at. I am encouraged she has raised the issue. Maybe we could have some more dialogue with respect to the CPP and the manner in which it does its investments. Personally, as an individual, I would be interested in having a discussion of that nature.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada faces a continuing youth jobs crisis. The government has, unfortunately, with this budget, actually moved in the opposite direction from where we need to go.

Before the budget, Conservatives helpfully laid out the Conservative youth jobs plan, which identifies the key things we need to do: unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. Key policies in these areas would help to create jobs and opportunity. They would help to address the issue of a poorly tailored immigration system leading to competition for entry-level jobs. They would help young people get skills that align with the needs of the labour market and enable them to move to where jobs are available in cases where there are geographical mismatches.

We need to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are, but rather than implement our plan, we saw a budget, particularly in the area of training, that goes in the opposite direction. The government has now decided to not give student grants to students on the basis of the institution they are going to, in particular to discriminate against students going to particular private institutions. I think students would not mind going to public institutions if all of the same programs and areas of vocational training were offered in public institutions as are available in private institutions.

However, the reality is that there are certain kinds of careers for which virtually all of the formation happens at private institutions. Targeting the students and not allowing those students to get grants means that students pursuing in-demand skills in certain vocational careers will no longer be able to access that funding. The budget also completely leaves behind polytechnics, where the vast majority of apprentices are trained.

We are seeing the government perpetuate this kind of discrimination, where it leans hard into saying the university sector is the only way and continues to leave further behind students who are interested in in-demand skills and vocations that involve career colleges, polytechnics and other areas.

We are already in a situation where there is a training mismatch, and the government's solution has been to say that if Canadian young people and the skills the labour market needs are not aligned, we are just going to have temporary foreign workers fill those gaps. What we need to do is support training for young people to acquire skills that align with the labour market, but this budget, by discriminating against students who go to certain kinds of institutions, is moving in the opposite direction.

We are going to be seeing new job numbers out very soon. The problem is that we have consistently had over 14% youth unemployment, recession levels of youth unemployment. At this point, we still have significantly higher youth unemployment than we had a year ago. Conservatives have put forward a constructive plan to address this. Liberals have refused to implement that plan and have actually gone in the opposite direction.

We are going to be seeing new job numbers tomorrow, and I want to ask the government very clearly, why is it moving in the opposite direction with training provisions in the budget? What is the rationale for discriminating against students who go to career colleges that are organized in this way? Why has the government failed to implement the constructive ideas that Conservatives have put forward to unleash the economy, to fix immigration, to fix training and to build homes where the jobs are?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the member. I believe that the government has invested, and we do not say that the only jobs out there and available for young people are if they get university degrees. With regard to technical institutes, I think of everywhere from Red River College Polytech, which does outstanding work, to the University of Manitoba, which also does outstanding work. Quite frankly, there are other forms of apprenticeship programs that are offered through trade unions and others, all of which the government supports, if not directly, then indirectly, through anything from transfer payments to direct cash in support of things like apprenticeship programs with a special focus on young people.

A good example, in terms of the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives, would be the Canada summer jobs program. Back in the day, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the Conservatives cut that program significantly, but if we take a look, we can see that the Canada summer jobs program is one of the ways in which young people can get the type of work that could see them ultimately develop a career.

At the end of the day, we can take a look at the overall numbers in terms of jobs. My friend was talking about looking forward to seeing the stats coming out tomorrow, and I, too, look forward to the stats. I think, overall, Canada is doing quite well, because we have seen an increase overall in the number of jobs created since the Prime Minister was elected. That is an important stat to recognize.

Yes, there are certain areas that cause a great deal of concern. Young people are always a concern. They were a concern when we had high youth unemployment under Stephen Harper. For individuals who are 55 plus or even 50 plus, it could be very difficult to try to find a job when they are having to retire because their company either has let them go or maybe even has closed or whatever it might be.

We recognize that there are issues that need to be looked at and given special consideration, and we see that in the budget. It is the very same budget that the member opposite, who says that he is concerned about youth unemployment, is voting against. I think he is selling the budget short by not recognizing the hundreds of millions of dollars incorporated within the budget to support things, as I say, like apprenticeship training and programs to support post-secondary institutions, not to mention equalization and transfer payments that go to provinces.

We have to recognize the role that provinces play. I had a tour of, I think it was Boeing or StandardAero, where they talked about working with Ottawa, the province and Red River College in ensuring that they are able to meet the needs of the future workforce. There is a great deal of co-operation that needs to take place, and it is taking place for anyone to see, unless, of course, they have their eyes closed.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot there, but I want to particularly zero in on one thing the member said, which is that he thinks things are generally going well.

Fourteen-plus per cent youth unemployment is not things going well. Those are recession levels. This summer, one in five returning students, roughly, was not able to find a job. These are students who rely on the income they earn in the summer to be able to pay for their continuing education. These critical milestones in their life that they are preparing for, which they are trying to get to through work, are being blocked in a large number of cases because of economic failures, a poorly tailored immigration system and a training system that is going to get worse under the government because of a plan to attack students pursuing particular professions.

Would the member be willing to acknowledge that that is a bad number for youth unemployment?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would acknowledge that it is a number of concern, just like when it was just under 14%, which I believe was back in 2013. That is when the member's party leader sat around the cabinet table and the Conservatives were cutting programs such as the Canada summer jobs program. Yes, I was concerned back then, because I want to be there to support the young people of Canada, and we do need to give special attention to that, whether it was back in 2013 when it was high or at the number it is today.

Fortunately, we have a government that is committed to supporting youth through different programs, as I have already mentioned, with direct and indirect supports, working with different jurisdictions, and, of course, through something I am a big fan of, supporting the Canada summer jobs program. I believe it creates hundreds of good, career-type jobs going forward. It gives them a bit of a taste and an experience—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.

Ethics

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to follow up on a question that I posed to the government: How much does the Prime Minister have in offshore tax havens?

After all, the Prime Minister has a notorious track record of using offshore tax havens to avoid paying taxes in Canada. Before he ran for the Liberal leadership earlier this year, the Prime Minister served as chair of Brookfield. Brookfield happens to be Canada's biggest corporate tax dodger. According to analysis from the Centre for International Corporate Tax Accountability and Research, Brookfield managed to avoid paying a staggering $6.5 billion in taxes in only five years. To put $6.5 billion in perspective, that is more money than the government spends on the RCMP.

That is right. The Prime Minister's company managed to avoid paying more in taxes than the Prime Minister's government spends on Canada's national police force. Brookfield has managed to dodge paying taxes through a complex and opaque web of shell companies set up in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, primarily. So brazen is Brookfield's tax avoidance that three Brookfield entities worth $50 billion are registered to a bike shop in Bermuda.

The Prime Minister was not only the chair of Canada's biggest corporate tax-dodger, but also an architect of Brookfield's offshore tax avoidance scheme. This is a prime minister who set up three multi-billion dollar investment funds in the notorious tax havens of Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. One of those funds is the Brookfield global transition fund. This is a fund the Prime Minister registered in Bermuda, a fund that the Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars from in carried interest payments, in other words, future bonus pay based upon the performance of that fund.

What we have is a Prime Minister who stands to profit, who stands to make tens of millions of dollars, from investments that are shielded from paying taxes in Canada because he set up the fund in Bermuda.

Canadians deserve to know exactly how much the Prime Minister has in offshore tax savings.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting process we are in. The Conservatives continue with what I have always said is character assassination. With the new Prime Minister, right away they want to attack his personal integrity.

I just did a very quick Google search, and I asked about Conservative MPs who have invested in Brookfield. Members would be surprised. The leader of the Conservative Party appears to have some indirect interest in companies associated with Brookfield. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party has stocks in Brookfield. There are a number of others. I do not necessarily know their ridings, so I cannot say them by name. If I had leave to do that, I would be more than happy to share the names.

The point is that at the end of the day, Canada has a fairly rigorous system. I am sure the member would agree, because it was Stephen Harper who brought it in to ensure that a sense of accountability, transparency and ethical behaviour was taking place.

We have a Prime Minister who met the requirements even before he became the Prime Minister. He has a blind trust. We have some of the most rigorous rules in the world, but that is not good enough for the Conservatives. The road to power for the Conservatives is to personally attack the leader of the Liberal Party.

Let us look at who the leader of the Liberal Party is and his background. He was appointed to be the governor of the Bank of Canada by Stephen Harper. He was appointed to be the governor of the Bank of England. He has incredible, impeccable experience in understanding an economy. Yes, he does have investments, much as many Conservatives do, and he has been highly successful.

Are the Conservatives saying he is not qualified to be the Prime Minister? He is following the rules, but they want to attack the Prime Minister personally, believing that by doing that, it is politically advantageous for the Conservatives. They want Canadians to think there is something wrong with the leader of the Liberal Party.

I would contrast the leader of the Liberal Party with the leader of the Conservative Party any day, anywhere, especially given the economic times and challenges we have. The Prime Minister has done an incredible job of working with premiers and indigenous leaders and bringing in Bill C-5 to build one Canadian economy and build Canada strong. That is not to mention the amount of travelling he is doing to build bridges and get more investment to come to Canada.

There is the potential for trade agreements with the Philippines and India. Look at what has happened in Indonesia. We have legislation before us today to deal with England and Northern Ireland. Why? It is because we have a very active Prime Minister who is out and about working hard day in and day out for Canadians in every region of the country, and all the Conservatives want to do is attack his character. I find that very unfortunate, and I believe Canadians will see through the Conservative tactic.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Liberals call an inconvenient truth a personal attack.

It is a fact that the Prime Minister was chair of Canada's biggest tax-dodger through its use of offshore tax havens. It is a fact that the Prime Minister set up an investment fund in the offshore tax haven of Bermuda. It is a fact that the Prime Minister stands to make tens of millions of dollars from that fund, from investments that are shielded from paying taxes in Canada because he set up the fund in Bermuda.

Again, how much does the Prime Minister have in offshore tax havens?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister and the leader of the Conservative Party and the Conservative team will do whatever they can to achieve power. They genuinely believe the best way to do that is to attack the Prime Minister and his character at all costs. That is a fact.

I believe that Canadians will see through the self-interests of the Conservative Party and the character assassination that it continuously does, whether it is justified or not. I can say that in this case, it is not justified.

The Conservatives need to dial it back. At the end of the day, we should be looking for incredible people to be members of Parliament, to be ministers, to be the Prime Minister and so forth.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:44 p.m.)