Debates of Feb. 2nd, 2026

Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit Act

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

Mr. Speaker, that is basically how a responsible government is supposed to look at the economy. Basically, capital is going to leave and jobs are going to leave. The brain drain is going to happen. In the case of agriculture, we are going to have to import more food, and the government is actually considering supporting the International Maritime Organization's shipping carbon tax. It is another hidden carbon tax that would not even go to Ottawa. It would go to some agency in New York or Geneva.

By the way, one of the things that I find ridiculous is the Liberals' questioning the hidden taxes when there are farmers on this side of the House who are saying that they can see the cost and it is going to have to be passed on to consumers. As such, these are not imaginary taxes.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley for what he shared. It was very provocative, and it brought back some memories. Normally when we get up to speak, we try to give the interpreters a bit of a heads-up of what we are going to say, but his intervention hit home for me.

It reminded me of my childhood growing up below the poverty line under Trudeau senior. It was a time when my mother and I had to go to the Salvation Army to get a $10 food voucher, which back then was a lot of money. We did not have a car. We did not have a TV. We struggled to put food on the table. There were times when we did not have much in the cupboard. By the miracle and grace of God, someone would show up in our driveway with a bunch of groceries. I may have moved on, but I know that these are the types of people I represent in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, and the generosity of those people is second to none.

When I say this hits close to home, it is because the Moose Jaw & District Food Bank is just a few blocks away from my riding office. Last week, the executive director, Jason Moore, made it clear what families in my riding are facing. He said about this government's grocery benefit, “It'll help, but it's not going to be a fix everything solution for food banks.” Mr. Moore understands what many working families in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan know all too well, which is that even those earning modest incomes often fall through the cracks. Their household incomes put them above the benefits threshold, but they are still struggling with bills that have become unaffordable. This reference is to those who have access to food banks. What about those who do not have the access to food banks in their communities, like my mother?

Conservatives will support Bill C-19, because families need help right now. We will let the bill before us pass, because every dollar matters when families are choosing between groceries and other essentials. However, let us be honest about what this is. It is a band-aid solution that barely covers a few trips to the grocery store. This is a recycled Trudeau-era policy that would provide temporary relief without addressing the fundamental problem of driving grocery costs through the roof.

I have heard my colleague from Winnipeg North from across the way say that the Prime Minister is focused. He will keep saying that, and he will repeat it, but the Prime Minister is looking at life through a straw. He needs to take the straw away, open up his eyes and see the problems. The Liberals need to take the focus off trying to make themselves look good and focus on the root issues, the root problems that we are facing and that every household in Canada is facing.

We are supporting families in this crisis, but we refuse to pretend that the bill would fix anything. While the government offers handouts with one hand, its policies continue to drive up costs with the other. If it wants to be transparent, then disclose all the taxes that go into something. I remember doing that as the mayor of my city of Moose Jaw. In their tax roll, we showed everyone where their taxes were going, and we should be able to do that for the constituents of our ridings when they are going to the grocery store. They should understand where their taxes go so that they understand the costs that are being driven up by the Liberal government.

The government consistently dismisses Conservatives' concerns about taxes driving up food costs. When we point to the industrial carbon tax, clean fuel regulations and regulatory burdens throughout the supply chain, the government claims that food inflation is simply a global issue affecting everyone, but the facts tell a different story. Canada now leads the entire G7 in food inflation at 6.2%. This is worse than the United States at 3.1%, worse than the United Kingdom at 4.2% and worse than Germany, Japan, France and Italy. Food policy experts confirm that most of Canada's food inflation is now policy-induced, with carbon pricing embedded throughout the supply chain.

If food inflation is truly a global problem, as the government claims, why does Canada have the worst food inflation in the G7? What is the government doing differently that is making groceries more expensive for Canadians than they are for families in every other major developed economy? The answer is clear. It is a policy failure. While other G7 nations manage global pressures, Canada has added layers of domestic costs that make us uniquely uncompetitive.

Saskatchewan feeds Canada. We are one of the world's largest producers of wheat, canola and pulses. When policy costs drive up input costs for Saskatchewan farmers, those costs do not disappear. They show up in the grocery stores across the country.

The industrial carbon tax affects every stage of food production: the fuel for tractors and combines, the transportation to move grain, the fertilizers to grow crops and the processing facilities that turn commodities into food. Clean fuel regulations add another seven cents per litre on the diesel and gasoline that farmers depend on. These are not abstract policy debates; they are direct cost increases that get passed through the supply chain.

When it costs more to grow food in Saskatchewan, it costs more to buy food in grocery stores from Victoria to St. John's. The cruel irony is that working families in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan pay the higher grocery costs caused by policies hitting their neighbours' farms, but many earn just enough to be cut off from the grocery benefit. They face policy-driven food inflation without getting the government's band-aid solution.

We cannot tax the people who grow the food, process the food and transport the food, and then act surprised when food becomes unaffordable for families. Instead of addressing Canada's position as the G7 leader in food inflation, the government offers temporary handouts while doubling down on policies that are driving costs higher.

Real food affordability requires addressing root causes by removing the industrial carbon tax burden on farmers, processors and transporters; eliminating the clean fuel regulations that add seven cents per litre to agricultural food costs; and cutting the regulatory red tape that makes Canadian food production less competitive than our G7 counterparts. However, the government will not do that. It would rather give families a few hundred dollars to pay for the inflated grocery bills its policies created. It is like breaking someone's leg, offering them crutches and expecting them to say thank you. It is more than breaking a leg; it is breaking people's spirits.

Conservatives will support Bill C-19 because, when families are struggling, we will not play politics with their grocery bills, but supporting temporary relief does not mean accepting permanent policy failure, and we will continue to point that out. The government must acknowledge that Canada does not lead the G7 in food inflation by accident. We lead because of policy choices and bad governance.

Families in Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan and across Canada deserve better than recycled band-aid policies. They deserve a government that makes food affordable by making food production competitive. It is time to stop taxing food and start feeding families.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know it is convenient for the Conservatives to say that a GST rebate is from Justin Trudeau's playbook, but as a kid who grew up in the eighties and nineties, when there was a GST rebate that helped lower-income families and my family, I would like to call that into question. It is an age-old Canadian policy that has worked for decades, a means-tested way to get money to the families that need it the most.

Throughout the member's speech, he referred to industrial carbon pricing in an erroneous way. Perhaps he can cite a source or some data to back up what he said, because what I have here is that industrial carbon pricing, such as Canada's output-based pricing system, has a negligible or net-zero impact on consumer food costs and actually makes some sectors more competitive, lowering costs.

Does the member have an example of industrial carbon pricing having an impact on food? The science does not back it up, so I would love to hear it.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, all I have to do is go into my riding and speak to a farmer.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague for his resilience considering the challenges he has overcome, which have no doubt made him stronger.

While we are talking about the rising cost of living, he is focusing a lot on the carbon tax. I have a question for him.

Does he not recognize that global warming, the accelerating deterioration of the climate, the increased flooding, the increased droughts and the extremes we are seeing more and more frequently are affecting food costs? Our farmers are facing increasingly difficult conditions and cannot produce as much as they did before global warming caused such rapid climate deterioration.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when I speak to farmers, one of the biggest challenges they have dealt with is drought, but that has happened throughout their farming history. In fact, if we go to the University of Regina and look at the history of drought, it has happened since 1902. There are large periods within our history that show that there have been droughts.

One of the things that the Liberal government could do is step up to the plate, partner with the provincial government and help with the Upper Qu'Appelle water program to actually help farmers and contribute. What would actually happen is that there would be sustainable crops, and there would be a better return on investment. With the carbon tax, we do not know where the money goes. It is like a slush fund for the Liberals.

I appreciate the question that has been brought forward, but I have never met a farmer who did not know how to recycle and did not know how to look after their land better than the Liberal government.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim they care, yet they create a problem and end up coming up with a solution for it that is short term. A member across the floor, when talking about the school food program, said that parents should be grateful because they do not have to spend the $800 on food that the government is spending on a food program in schools.

I am just wondering what the member might have heard in his riding about having the government feed people's children when they have the ability to do that on their own, which is their preference.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, earlier on, I talked about pride. One of the things that someone wants to be able to do, as a father or mother, is provide for their family. When people cannot provide for their children because the Liberal boot is on their throats and the Liberals then turn around and say they have started up a food program, I think parents would prefer to be able to send their kids to school with food that they have provided for them as opposed to a program initiated by the Liberals.

As I said, I faced challenges growing up and lived below the poverty line. It was not until the mid-eighties when the Conservative Party got into power that we really started to flourish and jobs and growth in this country really started happening. It was a great day to see former prime minister Trudeau walk in the snow and the Conservatives have a seat at the table.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 6:42 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, Bill C-19, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, is deemed read a second time on division and referred to a committee. Accordingly, this bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

International Trade

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am increasingly concerned that the government views the current logjam and the acrimony that seems to exist between Canada and the United States as beneficial to its political fortunes. Every time the U.S. enters the news cycle, it distracts from the Liberals' record of failures here at home: the highest food inflation in the G7 and a shrinking economy in the last quarter.

Despite its “Canada strong” rhetoric, the government continues taking actions that, in my opinion, appear to sabotage our relationship with the United States. For example, there is the decision to reconsider Canada's purchase of the F-35, a jet that the military has said is the right jet, and a decision by the Prime Minister to go to Davos and give a speech that draws a dishonest equivalency between the United States and China and then goes on to squarely and firmly poke the President in the eye. If they are entering a negotiation, why would they do that?

I therefore have a simple question for the government: What is the plan here?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are right to expect that when the government engages abroad, it is to bring home opportunities, more secure jobs, more resilient supply chains and more diversified markets. That is exactly what the government has been doing, helping Canadians navigate economic headwinds, opening new opportunities in fast-growing regions and defending Canadians against unfair trade measures.

The pressures faced by Canadian workers and producers across the country are real and deserve acknowledgement from the House. From farmers navigating sudden tariff announcements to auto workers facing disrupted North American supply chains to steelworkers dealing with unfair trade measures, Canadians in sectors across the country feel the impact of global economic turbulence. In a world of rising protectionism, Canada cannot retreat behind its borders. We must face these challenges head-on.

Canada has traditionally depended on a narrow set of markets, particularly the United States, for the bulk of our exports. That closeness remains a strength, but overreliance has left Canada vulnerable to sudden shifts in the trade policy of our southern neighbour. That is why trade diversification is at the forefront of our economic strategy. Modern agreements expanded economic diplomacy and targeted trade missions that create new opportunities for Canadian goods and services. These efforts include ambitious targets like doubling non-U.S. exports over the next decade.

At the leadership level, that engagement includes the Prime Minister's recent visit to China, which focused on stabilizing the bilateral relationship, addressing trade irritants affecting Canadian exporters and reopening channels for Canadian agri-food businesses. When countries impose tariffs on Canadian products such as lumber, steel and aluminum, canola or autos, this government does not back down. Instead, it addresses unfair measures with calibrated responses to protect Canadian industries while working intensively to remove barriers through negotiation. That is what responsible governance looks like: standing up for our industries, being honest with Canadians, working toward negotiated solutions and supporting impacted sectors and workers.

To answer the member's question directly, the Prime Minister will continue to showcase the best of Canada in order to open new markets, secure new jobs and reduce the leverage any single market can ever yield over Canadian livelihoods.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a follow-up, the Minister of Public Safety reported that importers owe the Government of Canada in excess of $2.3 billion in customs duty. The purpose of the CARM system, the CBSA assessment and revenue management system, was to simplify reporting at the border to make it easier for the CBSA, the Canada Border Services Agency, to collect and account for goods. Instead, outstanding amounts have in fact grown over the last several years, from about $1.8 billion in 2022 to $2.3 billion as of October last year. To put that into context, about one-third of the entire revenue that the CBSA collects in a year is outstanding.

Why is performance getting worse, and what is the government doing to collect that outstanding duty?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that tariffs on steel and aluminum, canola, lumber, autos and other sectors are not the result of Canadian engagement; they are part of a global surge in protectionism driven by decisions in other capitals. The government will continue to defend the rules-based trading system, protect our workers and create new trade opportunities for our businesses.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise on behalf of the wonderful hard-working farmers and producers in the constituency of Yorkton—Melville and across Canada.

While I speak tonight in the dead of winter, it is important for all Canadians to know that a farmer's work does not end with the harvest; it is a relentless, continuous job of meticulous planning, precision and execution, where success from year to year is not guaranteed. Farming families are subject to market forces, unpredictable weather patterns and other phenomena they cannot control. However, they all hope they can reasonably rely on their own federal government's attitude toward food production and the tools they need to get the job done.

Before the House recessed, I asked the minister direct questions specifically about fertilizer production in Canada. Fertilizer production is essential to Canadian agriculture and to our food security. Across the country, over 118,000 Canadians are directly or indirectly employed by the industry, many of them in rural regions like Yorkton—Melville, where these jobs are the backbone of the local economy, and yet, instead of supporting this vital sector, the Liberal government is punishing it.

I asked the minister why the Liberals insist on maintaining a $1.3-billion industrial carbon tax on Canadian-made fertilizer. I asked why they have chosen to impose bulk fertilizer label changes that will cost the industry over $120 million. I asked why they have no problem with the industry's losing $48 billion through their 30% by 2030 emissions target. Every one of these costs must be either absorbed by the industry or passed down to the consumers. Both cases result in higher costs for food for Canadians.

Consider for a moment that the Prime Minister was elected in part on the promise that he would lower grocery prices. He even told Canadians to judge him by the prices they pay at the grocery store. Less than a year into his mandate, the bill is already in. Since he became Prime Minister, food inflation has doubled, to the highest level in the G7. It is double that of the U.S. The government can no longer hide behind global excuses when every comparable country is doing better than Canada.

Food inflation is a homegrown problem driven by high Liberal taxes on farmers, fertilizer producers and food processors, combined with inflationary deficits that make everything more expensive. The trickle-down consequences are devastating. In Canada, a G7 nation, food banks had nearly 2.2 million visits in a single month last year. The 2026 food price report estimates that it will cost $17,600 to feed a family of four, $1,000 more than last year. Those are debilitating costs for any middle-class family, let alone families that are already struggling to get by.

Both consumers and farmers are being squeezed from every direction. Operating costs have risen 2.5% in a single year. Higher energy prices drove up fertilizer costs, the cost of fuel for farm equipment and the cost of transporting food from the farm gate to the store. Producers were forced to take on 14.1% more debt in 2024, the largest annual increase since 1981, when, we remember, Mr. Pierre Trudeau was here.

These are family farms, multi-generational operations. The government is pushing them closer to the brink. Conservatives have offered a clear and common-sense way forward. We have called on the government to scrap the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and on farm equipment, eliminate the 17¢-a-litre fuel standard on gas and diesel and axe the billion-dollar food packaging tax, all hidden taxes that drive up the cost of food for everyone.

Sadly, the Liberals have already rejected this proposal. As we get closer and closer to another growing season, farmers and producers are faced with a government that is entrenched in its ideology and unwilling to act on affordability. It is unwilling to, at the very least, get out of the way of our fertilizer producers and farmers so they can do what they do best: feed this nation and feed the world.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I know some people think one should not do this after February 1, but I would like to wish you a happy new year, because it is the first time I have been able to engage with you.

The purpose of Canada's industrial carbon pricing system is straightforward and fair. Large producers should take responsibility for the pollution they produce. That is the principle at the heart of the policy and one that Canadians understand instinctively. When pollution has real costs for our health, our environment, our economy and our future, those costs should not be absorbed by families, taxpayers or future generations. Instead, it seems that the opposition has not taken the time to understand the substance of our environmental policies.

What I do know is, within billions, the $57 billion in decarbonization relating to industrial carbon pricing infrastructure.

The industrial carbon pricing system is not a tax designated to punish industry. It is a performance-based system that applies only to Canada's largest emitters and is carefully calibrated to maintain competitiveness while driving cleaner growth. Facilities are charged only on emissions above a set standard, which rewards companies that operate more efficiently and invest in cleaner technologies. Those that innovate pay less; those that pollute more are expected to pay more.

This approach is essential for Canada's economic future. Global markets are moving quickly toward low-carbon production. Major trading partners are introducing carbon border measures and clean procurement standards. Countries that fail to reduce industrial emissions will face growing trade barriers and investment risks. Industrial carbon pricing helps ensure Canadian products remain competitive in a world that increasingly values low-emissions production.

The system also provides flexibility. Facilities can reduce emissions directly, improve efficiency, switch fuels, generate credits or purchase credits from others that outperform their targets. This market-based design keeps costs down and allows businesses to choose the most cost-effective path forward, rather than imposing rigid rules or blanket changes.

It is also important to be clear about what this policy does and does not do. It does not apply to families at the checkout counter, it does not apply to farms, and it is not the driver of rising grocery prices. Food inflation has been shaped by global energy shocks, supply chain disruptions, climate-related crop losses and international market volatility, pressures that are being felt well beyond our country's borders.

Abandoning the polluter pays principle would not make Canada more competitive; it would make us less prepared. It would leave Canadian industries exposed to future trade penalties and undermine the investments already under way to modernize our economy. Our approach ensures that heavy industry does its fair share, innovation is rewarded, and Canada remains a strong, credible trading partner in a rapidly changing global economy.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, our farmers are the cleanest in the world and have the most innovative farming in the world. They should not be penalized. Judging from the empty rhetoric we have heard from the government in recent days, farmers and producers are in for another season of uncertainty when it comes to keeping their businesses competitive.

It is also clear that Canadian families must brace for another year of pain at the checkout. Last week, the Prime Minister admitted something Canadians already knew: that he has no plan to stop food inflation, which is now the highest in the G7. Instead of real solutions, Canadians are getting recycled, half-baked, Trudeau-era, Carney-condoned policies. The grocery benefit is a temporary stopgap that ignores the root cause of rising prices. The Liberals have created massive inflationary deficits and piled on taxes that increase the cost to grow, ship and sell food. They prefer to have Canadians destitute and forced to accept their dependence on Liberal handouts. People can see right through it. They know that every dollar spent by the government comes out of the pockets of Canadians. They know that yet another government program is failing to get to the root of the problem the Liberals have caused.

Conservatives have put forward real solutions that the Liberals voted down. We remain ready to work with the government to cut hidden Liberal taxes on food and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, industrial carbon pricing is about fairness and economic responsibility. When pollution imposes real costs, those costs should be borne by the largest emitters, not by families and not by farmers. The system is designed to protect industrial competitiveness, reward efficiency and align Canada with global clean market rules. Scrapping it would not lower grocery prices or strengthen industry; it would weaken Canada's position at a time when clean production is becoming a condition for access to global markets.

Our focus is clear. It remains on a strong economy, fair rules and long-term competitiveness.

Justice

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour, as always, to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, all of whom have seen first-hand the rise in crime that has taken place over the last 10 years, aggravated largely by Liberal reforms to bail and Liberal reforms to criminal justice that have made it easier for repeat, often violent, offenders to be out on the streets.

This is why I spent much of the summer engaging with members of the community, members of municipal governments and members of law enforcement, to hear their concerns and bring them to Ottawa, not just as a member of Parliament but also as a member of the House of Commons justice committee, a committee I was tremendously honoured to be appointed to because I wanted to have a hand directly in addressing some of these issues.

I was quite frustrated when the very first bill that came before this committee from the government was not a bill fixing the bail system. It was not a bill reforming sentencing. It was not a bill that was beefing up mandatory minimum sentences. It was, in fact, a bill that took aim at freedom of expression and religious liberty. I am talking, of course, about Bill C-9, the very first justice priority identified by the Liberal government.

This is a bill that I have spent a lot of time on, engaging with representatives of faith communities and, basically, all communities that feel it will infringe on their rights. I have had round tables in my own riding with faith leaders, and I have had round tables and town halls across the country. Thousands of Canadians have come out personally to these to share their concerns. Countless more have phoned our offices, emailed or dropped by. I believe one group said 40,000 phone calls were made by their volunteers to Liberal members of Parliament, urging them to withdraw Bill C-9.

I cite that now to show the priority issue that we have seen from the government when it comes to justice. In my question to the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, I said that Canadians wanted action on real crime, not thought crime. I am pleased that between then and now, finally, my Liberal colleagues on the justice committee have agreed to do what we tried, I believe, close to 20 times to get them to do in December, which was to set aside this divisive and toxic Bill C-9 and focus on bail.

I am very pleased that, right now, the justice committee is working on Bill C-14, a bill that, despite not going far enough, is at least a response to some of these concerns that we have heard. We similarly have a bill that just today was referred to the committee, Bill C-16. Again, I believe it has flaws, but at least it is tackling the real criminal justice priorities that Canadians have identified.

The question that I was asking the Secretary of State, a question that I reiterate tonight to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, with whom I have the great privilege of serving on the justice committee, is whether the Liberal government has truly heard the concerns of Canadians, whether its justice priorities are in dealing with the revolving-door bail system, acknowledging the role that Liberal laws have played in making that problem what it is today, and whether it will commit now to focusing on these real criminal justice priorities and not on this bill that countless Canadians have said will infringe on their rights.

Can we get that commitment from the parliamentary secretary right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South's question is deeply misleading. That member asserts that the Liberals rejected not about 20 but 17 attempts to advance critical bail reforms. That is simply not true. What we rejected were Conservative attempts to derail and kill the combatting hate act. That bill would make it illegal to publicly display hate symbols when the goal is to promote hatred against a group of people, treat crimes motivated by hate more seriously by creating specific hate crime offence when someone commits a crime because they hate a group of people, and make it a crime to intimidate or obstruct people's lawful access to places like churches, synagogues, mosques or other spaces used by identifiable communities.

These are not new ideas. They were direct recommendations from the House of Commons' fighting anti-Semitism report, a report that Conservative members supported. When the member talks about attacks on religious freedom, let us be honest: We are the party of the charter, the very same party that literally wrote freedom of expression and religion into the Constitution. What Conservatives are doing is simply running around telling church and mosque leaders that freedom of religion is under attack and then passing the hat to fundraise off a claim they know is false. They are not defending faith. They are using faith communities as ATMs.

On bail reform and Bill C-14, I must correct the record again. The reality is that, out of those so-called 17 attempts, I was the first to move a motion to fast-track Bill C-14 and send it back to the House, and the Conservatives voted against it. If anyone listens carefully to that broadcast, they can literally hear them voting no and saying they need more time to study. We have been studying bail reform since September at the justice committee. Police chiefs, police associations, municipalities and the premiers of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario have all called for the passage of Bill C-14, yet Conservatives once again said they needed more time.

There is no more time to study. It is time to act and pass Bill C-14. Let me remind the House that all last fall Conservatives refused to pass Bill C-14, our bail and sentencing reform act to keep violent offenders off our streets. Even after police chiefs across the country called on them to act, they said no. Now suddenly they support fast-tracking the bill. We do welcome that change, but let us be clear that this urgency was missing when it mattered the most. It is better late than never, I guess, but let us not rewrite history.

This government is serious about crime, about victims and about real solutions. We will protect communities from violent offenders, and we will protect Canadians from hate and intimidation at the same time. Let us stop the misinformation, stop the obstruction and get to work on keeping our communities safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not know there was a secretary of state for revisionism, but here we are. From the party of the charter that was just found a couple of weeks ago by the Federal Court of Appeal to have trampled on the civil liberties of Canadians, I find that a little rich.

When the parliamentary secretary dismisses the concerns about Bill C-9's attack on religious freedoms, she is actually saying that the Conference of Catholic Bishops, the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Rabbinical Council of Toronto, the Canadian Council of Imams and the National Council of Canadian Muslims all know less about religious freedom, their values and their ability to uphold and preach these values than the Liberal government does.

Will she say right now that she knows better than all of these people who have lined up to denounce Bill C-9 in whole or in part, particularly the removal of long-standing protections for religious speech?

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about bail reform, so I would hope that the member opposite would stay on topic.

After the Conservatives' refusal to pass Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, before Christmas, I welcome the members opposite's recent support of a Liberal motion to study Bill C-14 in three days and move it forward. Canadians will be watching the justice committee this Wednesday when Bill C-14 goes to its final clause-by-clause stage. Conservatives say they deeply care about bail reform. If that is true, then let us see them pass it on Wednesday and report it back to the House for a third reading.

I really hope the member opposite does not once again spend hours in committee talking about cats and dogs just to run out the clock. This bill is way too important, and I hope the Conservatives will support us in fast-tracking it.

[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 7:06 p.m.)