Debates of June 2nd, 2025

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I blame my inexperience. I will not make this mistake again. Please forgive me.

To solve the climate crisis, the government is proposing to fast-track what it calls “projects of national significance”, projects that are in the national interest. It is announcing these projects now, but without naming them. However, everyone knows full well that the government is talking about things like pipelines, oil and gas.

According to the Speech from the Throne, removing barriers will enable Canada to build an industrial strategy that will make it a “leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy”. Conventional energy, as we now know, refers to oil and gas. This approach is totally inconsistent with the fight against climate change.

As we saw during the election, the government wants to keep supporting the growth of oil extraction from the oil sands, oil in general, gas, and pipelines. We see right through the government's game. This very day, before the Prime Minister met with the provincial premiers, he sat down with oil and gas CEOs and Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta.

Canada is the fourth-largest producer of oil and gas worldwide. It already is an energy superpower. Let us be clear, right now, we are experiencing the devastating effects of wildfires. They should remind us that it is not in the national interest to exacerbate the climate crisis and build new oil and gas pipelines. What we need to do instead is get away from fossil fuel energy as fast as possible.

This government is doing the exact opposite. It wants to reduce approval times for major federal projects from five years to two by creating a major federal project office. Of course, we expect environmental assessments to suffer. What will this office's role be in relation to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada's role? It seems to us that, from now on, projects will be approved before they are assessed.

The government wants to create an energy corridor free from regulatory obstacles by watering down environmental assessment rules in order to make projects happen faster. The environment and the environmental and territorial sovereignty of Quebec and the provinces could end up paying the price. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is essential that all major infrastructure projects, especially oil and gas projects, undergo a complete and thorough environmental assessment and that they be approved by Quebec and the provinces. Obviously, we will not allow the government to build a pipeline through Quebec.

The government's current attitude to the fight against climate change is completely irresponsible. It claims that these projects are for the common good, but I would remind members that it has not even assessed them yet. The government needs to understand that there is no fast lane to social acceptability. The government needs to take the time to conduct free and informed consultations. To do that, it needs to carry out a proper environmental impact assessment to identify the projects' environmental, social and economic impacts, as well as any climate impacts. Before it can establish that a project is in the national interest, it needs to assess its climate impact. Obviously, all of this needs to be done in collaboration with indigenous people, the provinces and affected communities.

Now we keep hearing about the “one project, one review” approach. We in the Bloc Québécois called on the federal government to stop duplicating Quebec's environmental assessments, as it did for GNL Québec's Énergie Saguenay project, when Ottawa continued its assessment after Quebec had rejected the project.

Of course the federal government must fulfill its responsibilities, but only in the very specific areas under its purview, as defined by the Impact Assessment Act, and when projects fall under federal jurisdiction. It must not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

When the government says it wants to adopt a “one project, one review” approach, we have to wonder how it plans to achieve that goal, because Quebec has very clear laws. Any pipeline more than two kilometres long is subject to Quebec's environmental assessment process and must be assessed by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement, or BAPE. That is one review already. We are wondering how the federal government will manage to achieve “one review“ if Quebec is already responsible for doing it.

As for protecting the land, the government reiterated its commitment to protecting 30% of the land and seas by 2030. If Ottawa wants to be taken seriously, however, it must immediately stop encouraging the development of offshore drilling, which threatens marine biodiversity. The Prime Minister recently supported a call for bids for offshore oil exploration licences covering 85,000 square kilometres off the coast of Newfoundland. Ottawa seems to think this move to expand fossil fuel development somehow fits into the fight against the climate crisis, yet some of these licences actually encroach on a marine biodiversity protection zone.

If the federal government wants to help protect land that does not belong to it, it should try increasing the money it transfers under the Canada-Quebec nature agreement from $100 million to $300 million, as the Bloc Québécois suggested in its 2025 platform.

The government cannot claim that a project is in the national interest if the public has not been consulted and voiced an opinion. What does it take for a project to be in the national interest? Why should a major oil and gas project be prioritized over projects with far broader benefits, such as large-scale electricity, green energy and public transportation development projects?

The money that the federal government is probably going to invest in the oil and gas industry could instead be used to develop, consolidate and strengthen public transportation assets and services, such as the Quebec City tramway, Montreal's blue line, trains to the Gaspé or intercity networks. These projects need considerable support, and they are truly in the national interest and would help meet the challenges of the 21st century. In its platform, the Bloc Québécois proposed making public transportation a priority.

When the government talks about a pipeline to the east to diversify markets, it is not unreasonable to ask what markets it is talking about, since no European countries have offered to purchase the oil, which would not be available for years in any case. The market for oil is shrinking anyway.

Obviously, we are in favour of developing green energy, energy efficiency, public transportation, transportation electrification, energy sobriety and green buildings. We are not in favour of using public funds to develop fossil fuel energy, pipelines, oil sands or natural gas.

What we are proposing is a vision. We hope that the government will strive to regain its credibility, because, unfortunately, when it comes to the fight against climate change, it is not at all credible. Right now, wildfires are raging across Canada and people are being evacuated from their homes. We are asking the government to be responsible. The Bloc Québécois will stand firm to make sure that the government finally takes the climate crisis seriously.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from all parties on being elected or re-elected. Second, since this is my first time rising in the House, I would like to thank my constituents in Trois-Rivières for placing their trust in me. This is the first time in 45 years that a federal Liberal MP has been elected in Trois-Rivières. It is a privilege to represent my constituents from Trois-Rivières here in the House. I hope we can all work together.

In the most recent election, Quebeckers and Canadians were very clear. They told us what they expected from this government, and that includes the government making life more affordable. That is why the first measure that we introduced was a $22-million tax cut for Canadians and Quebeckers.

Does my colleague think it is a good idea to put more money in the pockets of people in Repentigny?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I know for certain is that the people of Repentigny are having money taken directly out their pockets, partly due to the increase in extreme climate events, and they are not the only ones. The Insurance Bureau of Canada said that last year set a record in terms of the financial impact of weather conditions across Canada, including flooding. That affects the cost of groceries and the cost of health care. It affects everything.

The Bloc Québécois absolutely agrees that the government needs to get serious about fighting climate change and ensure that people stop paying for the consequences of oil- and gas-related climate events.

That said, we have been clear about how important it is for the government to present a budget before increasing its already exorbitant spending while keeping us all in the dark. If the government wants to present a budget, we will evaluate its proposals. For now, we feel that it is being fiscally irresponsible.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the axioms we have in the industry is that we always measure future behaviour by past performance. We have not been able to develop our energy infrastructure from coast to coast to coast, and there is a lack of corridors and pipelines. I wonder if the member could comment on how we will be able to develop our energy infrastructure from coast to coast to coast.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at what the largest international agencies, including the International Energy Agency, are proposing in terms of net-zero emissions, it is very clear that governments around the world are being irresponsible. They are continuing to increase their investments in oil and gas and approve more of these projects around the world, but we need to take the fight against climate change seriously if we want to uphold the agreements, including the Paris climate agreement.

For the Bloc Québécois, the issue is not about whether there are enough oil and gas or pipelines in Canada. We already have plenty of those. In fact, Canada currently produces twice as much oil as it consumes. Oil and gas pipeline projects that pass through Quebec have already been rejected because there was no social licence for them and because, according to governments, these projects threaten the global energy transition and biodiversity.

We would like the official opposition to tell us what they would do to fight climate change and what they are proposing in terms of projects and transition measures to support workers. Hiding our heads in the sand and extracting more oil and gas is not in the best interests of workers and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments.

The member for Laurentides—Labelle.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are speaking out against this inconsistent approach, because the Bloc Québécois is concerned with more than just preparing for the next election.

Lobbyists are exerting pressure and the economy needs to stay afloat. In the meantime, however, the planet is burning. My colleague just mentioned that climate change is being brushed aside.

I would like to ask him a question: Is it not time we asked ourselves how much climate change is costing us, rather than continuing to subsidize certain industries in the name of the economy?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the only vision being put forward in Canada is to eliminate carbon pricing. However, if the government eliminates carbon pricing, the entire population will have to bear the costs associated with the impacts of climate change, oil and gas.

The Bloc Québécois believes that industries should bear the costs of climate change, because if large emitters and polluters do not pay, the bill will be passed on to citizens. We are talking about major economic, social, environmental and health costs. The government must take responsibility.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I officially begin my speech, I want to thank the voters of Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for putting their trust in me for a fourth time in this election. It is a great privilege that I do not take lightly. I will do my best to do right by the people of Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

Since today's debate is on the Speech from the Throne and since my leader gave me the monarchy file, that is what I will be focusing on today.

In the most recent election, many Quebeckers chose to hold their noses and vote Liberal. What was the first thing that this government did the day after the election to thank Quebeckers? The government had a great surprise for us. It invited the King to come. When I saw that, I thought it was ridiculous, that the government was laughing at us, thumbing its nose at us, that something was happening that was not right. However, no, this was serious and not just a joke.

We know that the Acadians were deported because they refused to swear allegiance to the King. We know that after the conquest, an oath of allegiance was forced on the newly conquered people, requiring them to renounce their Catholic faith in exchange for the right to hold public office. We know that in 1837-38, the Patriotes were hanged in the name of the monarchy. However, after all that, Quebeckers have been told to be Canadians and to vote for Canada. Now that the election is over, do they feel like throwing a big party paid for with their taxes, attending a royal parade and inviting Charles III? Had that been the Liberal message during the recent election, I have a feeling that there would have been fewer Liberal members.

There is no hiding the fact that the King is the living embodiment of old colonial oppression. The Prime Minister decided to invite the King because, for him, royal power is not just an insignificant old relic. It means something to him and he sees it as important. One does not extend a royal invitation on a whim.

Nations are built on symbols, which are a way of expressing who they are. The decision to invite the King was a way of embracing this dreaded symbol that Quebeckers reject, of reminding them of it, and of rubbing it in their faces. However, it was starting to fade from memory, since it had been half a century since a monarch was in Parliament. Back when I was in university, I took a constitutional law course where I was taught that if a power goes for too long without being used, it gathers dust, and eventually that power starts to smell musty and it becomes obsolete. It is like an old car parked at the back of the driveway that is starting to rust. At some point, it cannot be driven anymore and has to be scrapped. This is pretty much the same thing.

In fact, a kind of break happened recently. I say “recently”, but it was before I was born, which, in terms of all of Canada's history, could mean recently. As everyone knows, the Constitution was repatriated in 1982. Incidentally, Quebec never agreed to it, but that is another story. What exactly happened at the time? The Queen brought the Constitution over from London, saying that it was no longer her responsibility, but ours. She surrendered it to us, in a sense, because it has not been revisited ever since.

Now, thanks to the Liberals, we have gone back 100 years. Journalists asked the Prime Minister why he invited the King. He was a bit surprised by the question and did not understand why he was being asked that, because it seemed quite obvious to him. He replied that he saw it as a symbol of our sovereignty from the United States. The question then becomes exactly whose sovereignty are we talking about, because it is not our sovereignty. It is the sovereign's.

I do not think that having a foreign monarch come here is a sign of sovereignty. It is more like a sign of subservience and submission. The proof is in the order in which they walked when the King arrived. That said it all. First came the King. Next came the Governor General, and then the Prime Minister. The more legitimate people are, the further back they go.

It was the same for members of Parliament. When the King arrived in the Senate and sat on his throne, the unelected senators sat comfortably at their desks, while members of Parliament, who are elected by the people, stood at the entrance.

It is shameful. We are not in the middle ages. Given that, the government said that we needed to send a message to President Trump. The message sent by the government to President Trump is more or less that Canada cannot be his subject because it is already someone else's subject. Canada already belongs to someone else: the King of England. What is next? Are we going to replace the flag with the Union Jack or replace the national anthem with God Save the King, while we are at it?

In fact, it is rather incredible that 150 years after it was founded, Canada is still a country that is incapable of existing on its own. It absolutely needs to revive its old colonial connection to justify its existence. Do we really want to be butlers, a sub-country? I believe that Canada also has the right to evolve at some point.

We are told that we had to invite the King because we wanted to prove that we are different from the United States. If having a King is the only difference between Canada and the United States, then we have a problem. They must really be desperate. In fact, this really says a lot about English Canada's identity crisis. They are incapable of standing up on their own. If we need the King to prop us up, then we are on shaky ground. In Quebec, we are not going to ask Emmanuel Macron to come and help define who we are. We know that we are Quebeckers. We know who we are.

We then heard the member for Saint‑Maurice—Champlain say that it was a great day for Canada, that the entire world was watching with great excitement. The Bedouins in the Sahara were watching with bated breath. In the trenches of Ukraine, the fighting stopped because they had to watch the King's speech. Prayers were interrupted at the Vatican, in Jerusalem, in Mecca. I mean, come on. Aside from the U.K., who is interested in some old man reading a speech written by someone else? I would say pretty much no one. It is completely ridiculous. When they say "the world", they mean the U.K. That is pretty much the only place where people would have taken an interest in the throne speech. This is clear proof of an anglocentric view of the world. To them, the world is the Anglosphere. They think that the world revolves around them.

The invitation to the King was, above all, a concrete example of the old English Canadian loyalist tradition. English Canada was founded by loyalists who left the United States after it gained independence 250 years ago. They did not want to be part of a republic, a sovereign country. They decided to flee to Canada, where there was still a king. Afterwards, they tried to make us disappear by any means possible. It became a country of Orangemen. The Durham Report was implemented, the Métis were brutally repressed, Louis Riel was hanged and French was banned in every Canadian province. The reality is that Canada is a country built on our exclusion and marginalization. That is the reality. Now Canada is telling us that it has not changed, that the same royalists are still around.

The royal romanticism we see today is celebrated like a sort of nostalgia for the loyalist Canada of the good old days. Surely members can understand why I am not really interested in partying with them. I do not understand why they cannot grasp why Quebec is not joining them and why we are not celebrating everything I just described alongside everyone else. These are actually horrors.

I have a suggestion for them. They can have their monarchy party. They can have their fun. They can spend as much of their tax money as they want on crowns and trinkets, but they need to do it on their turf. What we are going to do is build our country on our turf. That is my suggestion, which I hope will meet with strong support in the House. I think that is the solution to the current conflict.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing today is a lack of respect for Quebeckers.

The member opposite just called Quebeckers "fearful" and "cowardly". He said that Quebeckers held their noses before voting Liberal. That is deeply disrespectful of Liberals. I do not know if I can demand an apology from my colleague on behalf of the Liberals. Quebeckers are not cowards. Quebeckers have been voting for years. Quebeckers chose a Liberal government that they can count on.

I would ask my colleague opposite to respect the choice made by Quebeckers. The Bloc Québécois must stop calling Quebeckers "fearful" and "cowardly".

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that members of the House listen again to what I said and reread what I wrote to see whether I used the words “fearful or “cowardly”. I do not believe that they will find them anywhere in my speech.

However, what I did say is that a large number of Quebeckers held their noses and voted Liberal, and many of them made no secret about it. When I was knocking on doors, I heard people say that they were, just this once, going to get behind what the Liberals were proposing in order to take on Trump because there was a fear campaign.

However, after that, the first thing that the government did was not to defend Canada. It invited a foreign monarch to read the Speech from the Throne in order to show that we are not really sovereign, that it is not the people who decide, and that we are still in a monarchy. That is a tremendous insult to Quebeckers since 87% of them reject the monarchy.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague on his re-election.

We heard the Bloc talk about climate today, and it is great to hear members of Parliament talk about it because it was not talked about enough in the Speech from the Throne. Does my colleague believe that when it comes to Canada and Quebec, nation building is climate action?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks a very good question.

Upon reading the Speech from the Throne, we see that the issue of climate change is nowhere to be found. It is as if it no longer exists, as if there is no more pollution or tar sands, and as if climate change went away and everything is fine.

I find the Liberals' conversion into Conservatives on this mind-boggling and unbelievable. It is as though the Liberal Party decided to put on a Conservative mask, cater to the oil companies and forget that there are forest fires across the country. I find that completely irresponsible. Unfortunately, that seems to be the vision on the other side of the House, and I hope that this will change.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his re-election.

I listened very carefully to his speech, which I found to be divisive. However, what I heard during the election campaign was a desire to be more united than ever and to feel close to our fellow Canadians as Quebeckers in order to present a united front against the division sown by the United States. The deeply sovereignist talk from my colleague is not what I heard when knocking on doors.

I am a proud Quebecker, born and raised in the Eastern Townships. I went to school in Saguenay. I have lived in the Eastern Townships for almost my entire life. I come from Quebec's regions. I am a proud Quebecker. I ran for the Liberal Party because I believe in its values, in the rule of law, in fairness and in democracy. Like me, 44 of my Quebec colleagues were elected as members of the Liberal Party, twice as many as for the Bloc Québécois.

Does my colleague recognize that I am a proud Quebec Liberal and I, too, was elected to represent Quebeckers?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about unity.

That is very interesting, because those who want unity act accordingly and reach out. Instead, what this government decided to do was invite the British monarch, who is rejected by nine out of ten Quebeckers. I find that mind-boggling. Had the Liberals proposed that during the election campaign and 44 Liberal members were elected, then perhaps it would be acceptable, since it would be the decision of Quebeckers.

However, what we are seeing here is Quebeckers being divided. Unfortunately, that is what this government is doing. It seems as though we are being...

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for York Centre.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sincerely grateful to the people of York Centre, to my supporters and to my colleagues. This is an honour of a lifetime. I thank them so much.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I rise in the House for my inaugural address with humility to share my unique story in the hope that I do not go back to the future.

I clearly remember the Communist Soviet Union. I lived there until I was nine. Those of us who come from the eastern bloc are afraid. Please, do not dismiss us.

I will begin by asking a question: How many bedrooms are in members' home? Are there more bedrooms than people? Why? It is because we have a housing crisis. Why do people need so many bedrooms? “How many bedrooms?” is the precise question the Red Army asked my great-grandmother after the Bolsheviks barged into my family's home in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1918. It turned out my family had too much house, so the Bolsheviks settled in two more families. That was the hell that were communal apartments in eastern Europe.

We already have a vacant house tax in Toronto. Some folks in Vancouver are talking about a vacant bedroom tax, and we are already asked how many bedrooms we have on the national census. Let me draw a scenario. An article in The Globe and Mail claimed that there is no version of reality where housing supply can meet the rising demand. After the Prime Minister's “build Canada homes” fails, because we cannot trust the government with our dry cleaning, imagine what is going to happen when people have no place to live and the federal government declares housing a national emergency. We all have to do our part. People who own large homes should do their fair share. Why do they need all these extra bedrooms? Why not redistribute housing?

I am not saying this will happen, but who knows anymore? My fear is the new phenomenon we are seeing in Canada called collectivism. It is accelerating, and it is exactly the path that Venezuela and so many other countries took, slowly, step by step.

Everything is the biggest crisis ever now. We have a new crisis every week. The problem is that at a time of crisis, even when collectivism is well intentioned, it is just a step away from Communism. There are no limits to where collectivism will go, because the bigger the crisis, the bigger the government's solution, especially from the Liberals. They are determined to save us from everything. They will fit a square into a circle, even if they break the toy. Of course, mainstream media will applaud and tell us that it is working. Then, all of a sudden, we do not recognize our country.

Do members know what else? In the Soviet Union, people were not allowed to listen to foreign radio like the BBC or the Voice of America. They were not allowed to read western newspapers or books. They could not even pass around photos of supermarkets, so Soviets would not start asking why people have eggs in Europe but Soviets do not. That is why people called it the Iron Curtain.

The Prime Minister talks about there being too much disinformation out there on U.S. platforms. What is he going to do? Is the Prime Minister going to censor Twitter? Is he going to put me behind the Iron Curtain again? Freedom of speech is the greatest right of them all, because through freedom of speech, we defend all other rights and all other people. However, freedom of speech is not just the right to utter speech; it is also the freedom to hear speech. When the Prime Minister threatens my ability to read Twitter, I am worried. Am I going back to the future again, like the Beatles song Back in the U.S.S.R.?

It does not matter how people voted; they do not want censorship in Canada. It is not up to the heritage minister, who calls himself a proud socialist, to decide what is true and what is not true and what is safe and what is not safe. The Liberals, like all radicals, think they know what is good for us. That is the difference between Liberals and Conservatives: Liberals want to tell people what to do; Conservatives say, “You do you.” In fact, communists use the word “disinformation” to come down on free speech. I say to just have the decency to call it lies. They can accuse me of lying. I dare them to.

The best way to combat lies is not censorship, but more information and better information. Throughout history, those who impose censorship are always the bad guys. Unless speech violates the Criminal Code, let Canadians hear all opinions and make up their own minds. That is democracy. The Communists also lied very well. They lie about everything. My grade 1 gym teacher said, “You don't need herring on your bread. Bread and butter is good enough. Maybe they have herring in America, but that is because America didn't fight in World War II.” What a terrible lie. Germany even lost World War II, but they have herring in Germany.

Ironically, the Prime Minister also has difficulties getting his facts straight. He says one thing in English and another thing in French, one thing out west and another thing in Quebec. He had nothing to do with Brookfield's move to New York. He just signed the letter to the shareholders.

Now the Prime Minister refuses to table a budget, because he plans to rewrite the books: New books, everybody. He will override well-established public sector accounting principles. He will take out capital dollars because they are not real dollars: We do not pay interest on them and we do not add them to the debt. Abracadabra and boom, Canada's operational budget will balance itself.

I started out as a commercial and bankruptcy litigator. The first thing to be asked when entering a distressed company is “Show me the books”. When the books are hocus-pocus, we can bet there is malfeasance. When we hear about a company doing a big accounting revision, the stock is dumped. Separating capital and operational expenditures never worked. It has been tried, and it failed.

The Prime Minister should be honest about his government's failure and fess up to the gazillion-shmuzzillion dollar deficit. He should not cook Canada's books because, mark my words, it will undermine confidence in our country and it will bankrupt our nation. Please, do not cook Canada's books.

After the Soviet Union, I lived in Israel until age 15. I lived in the Holy Land during the first intifada. Now I apologize, colleagues, but this is important. When a Hamas terrorist assembles a suicide vest, they pack it with as many nails as possible, and this is true, so when the suicide vest goes off, it blinds as many people as possible and cuts as many limbs as possible. I watched Tel Aviv bus No. 5 blow up on TV every other week. That was the first intifada.

Now they chant “Viva viva intifada” in my riding in north Toronto. I am back to the future, again. I am here to alert my fellow Canadians and everyone in this room, beware of the intifada, beware of jihad coming to Canada. There is no Zionist occupation in Syria, but more than a million people were killed in a civil war. In Yemen, in the last decade, almost half a million people were murdered. In Rwanda and Sudan, millions of Muslims were murdered, with no Zionists in sight. An offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood is murdering Black Muslims in Sudan right now. It is a real genocide, and not a word from the Liberals. That is why many Muslims come to Canada, to escape jihad, to escape that hell.

It is shameful that the word “intifada” is now chanted in Canada, even though I am a free speech guy. Jihad is incitement to violence and it is dangerous. Beware of jihad picking up steam in Canada. That is the historical perspective I bring to this Parliament.

Wait, I have another historical perspective. It is Canada. I am exhibit A for the Canadian promise. We landed at Pearson when I was 15, on September 5, 1995. We came directly to Sheppard and Bathurst in the heart of York Centre. I remember it like it was yesterday. It was in the middle of the night. I looked out the window and I saw Earl Bales Park. Across the park, on the other side, I saw Yonge Street lights and towers. It was beautiful. I was in love from day one.

We did not have a cent to our name. I remember what true poverty was like. My father sold ice cream on those yellow bicycles. My mother was an unemployed teacher, but Canada has given me every opportunity to study, to work and to succeed, because all one ever needed to do to succeed in Canada was work hard and be nice to people. That is it. Now I am elected to the House of Commons by the same community that welcomed me as an immigrant.

Dreams come true, but not in this Canada. Before the Liberals, dreams came true all the time for many Canadians. Now a quarter of Canadians cannot afford food. It is shameful. That is why I am here, and that is why our Conservative team is here to help Pierre Poilievre—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member for Eglinton—Lawrence.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for York Centre and I have known each other for quite a while, and I want to congratulate him on his victory.

He talked a lot about the Jewish community. As we know, Eglinton—Lawrence has a large and vibrant community. Does the hon. member support this government's plan to bring in security zone and bubble zone legislation?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with my municipal counterpart for introducing that legislation. We will see if it survives charter scrutiny.

What I do not appreciate is that the Liberal government, in 2017, repealed a Stephen Harper law, Bill C-51, that made it illegal and contrary to the Criminal Code to promote terrorism. The Liberals repealed the provision that would help to address many of the things we are seeing right now on the streets of Toronto and across the nation. Promoting terrorism should not be lawful on Canada's streets.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was not always like this. The Liberals across the way want us to think that we just happened to get here, but it has been a decade of Liberal failures that have brought many of the things that this member has talked about.

I am just wondering if the hon. member has any more comments he would like to add to that effect.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying in my remarks, all one had to do to succeed in Canada was work hard and be nice to people, and if one did that, they would be assured a pretty good standard of living, but after 10 years of the Liberal government, a quarter of Canadians are worried about affording food. Over two million people are using the food bank. It is shameful.

That is why we were elected. That is why we are here, to help Pierre Poilievre restore the Canadian promise that no matter where people come from, they can afford food and live in a safe neighbourhood. It does not matter where we are from; dreams do come true, because Canada is the best country in the world.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the cost of living and economic issues. I would like to know where my hon. colleague stands on the $3.7 billion in election goodies that the Liberal government handed out in the middle of an election campaign at a cost of $800 million to Quebeckers, even though Quebeckers never received any cheques. The compensation was paid out after the carbon rebate was scrapped.

Does my hon. colleague agree that Quebeckers should get back the $800 million it cost them when the government sent cheques out across Canada?

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that all Canadians should get back as much of their own money as possible. Right now, the Liberal government is offering a $240 tax cut, roughly, per person. That is $20 a month. That is nothing. It is breadcrumbs. The finance minister stands in the House every day and says that 22 million Canadians are going to be getting a $20 tax cut. Of course, Conservatives support all tax cuts, but we urge the government to do more, because all across Canada, including in Quebec, Canadians cannot afford this government anymore. We need more tax relief for all Canadians.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, judging from that speech, I guess it explains the member's position and why Pierre Poilievre actually called community housing and co-op housing “Soviet-style” housing. I get that, because, according to the member's speech, he seems to be alleging that anything to do with supporting the community on the whole is communism.

The member says he supports tax cuts, so let me ask him a question. The craft brewery community and distilleries are hit with an unfair excise tax. In fact, it is one that should be changed. My question for the member is this: Would he support changing the excise tax, the tax rate, so that Canadian domestic craft brewers and distillers would not have to pay the same rate as the two largest foreign-owned businesses here in Canada operating in the industry?