Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 12, a motion that would dramatically curtail Parliament's ability to properly scrutinize Bill C-30, the Liberal budget implementation act.
The government says it wants to move quickly, but Canadians want us to move carefully. When Liberals ask Parliament to fast-track another budget bill and limit scrutiny, Canadians have every right to ask a simple question: What has the last decade of Liberal economic management delivered for ordinary families? When I return home to Prince George, Vanderhoof, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House and the communities throughout Cariboo—Prince George, I do not hear people saying that life is more affordable than it was 10 years ago. I hear quite the opposite. I hear from young families that have given up the hope of home ownership. I hear from seniors who never imagined that they would have to worry about affording groceries after a lifetime of work. I hear from small business owners struggling with rising costs and shrinking margins. I hear from forestry workers worried about whether their mill will still be operating next year. I hear from the hundreds, if not thousands, of forestry workers who are now out of work because of mill closures that happened under the Liberal government.
The simple fact is that after 11 years of Liberal management, Canadians are not better off. Our communities are being punished. Rural and remote communities, specifically, are being punished with the catch-and-release policies. It is getting harder and harder for Canadians to make ends meet. I stand in this House, day in and day out, and I champion those in my riding and across Canada who are facing hardship and who are facing mental health crises and addiction crises that have not been seen in generations. Since 2016, more Canadians have died from overdose than in World War II. It is hard to sit and listen, whether I was at home in recovery or here in the House, to the talking points from the other side.
We have a former Conservative colleague, now on the other side, who just gave a speech for 10 or 15 minutes with the Liberal talking points. It is a sad day for me, because I was elected with her. I have a lot of respect for her, but now we see her kind of changing her tune and spewing the very things that we fought against.
The truth of the matter is that over 2.5 million Canadians are using food banks every month. More and more Canadians are a paycheque away from insolvency or bankruptcy. It is getting harder and harder for Canadians to make ends meet or to live that Canadian dream. It is hard to sit and watch and listen to the talking points being spewed. I have said it before, and I will say it again. I am not quite sure of the world that some of my colleagues live in. It is hard. In British Columbia, we have had over 35 mills close in the last 10 years, many of those in my riding of Cariboo—Prince George. Those are high-paying, generational jobs. Many of those mills have been operating for a number of years, with generations of a single family working in the same mill because it is a great job. They were the number one employer in most of our communities. When those mills close, there is not another major industry coming behind them.
What the Liberal government has created over the last 10 years is not an environment where we are open for business. It is an environment where investors really, truly question whether they want to invest in our country and where we have major producers looking elsewhere to relocate their businesses. That is the reality we live in. We talk about the last election, and the Liberals say this is a new government with a man with a plan. The Prime Minister was elected as being the man with the plan. He comes with a pretty impressive résumé, I will say that. However, everywhere he has gone, he has left a wake of economic devastation.
We are the only G7 country and the only G20 country that is currently in a recession. Now, people will say, “What is the G7?” We always talk about these acronyms. It is a packed gallery here on a Friday, and I know that the viewership goes up when they hear that the member for Cariboo—Prince George is speaking, every time, so the bandwidth is just crazy right now. People are definitely going to be smarter at the end of this speech. There are no two questions about that.
We talk about the group of seven, the G7. Let me just tell those at home what this means, in case anyone is confused about it. The G7 is a coalition of countries that share core values: pluralism, liberal democracy and free market capitalism. They meet annually to coordinate global economic policy. Members include Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. We are the only G7 country in that list that is technically in a recession. We cannot figure out whether it is a technical recession or whether we are actually in a recession. As I have said before, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. If we are technically in a recession, we are in a recession.
We talk about Canada being the only G20 country that is in a recession. What is the G20? Well, it is the same as the G7 countries, plus Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and Turkey. Canada, once again, is the only country out of that mix that is in a recession.
The Liberals will stand up and say that their plan is working. Was their plan for us to fail? It is not working. They can be tone-deaf. They can be ignorant of the facts. However, the facts are these: More businesses are fleeing our country; more jobs are fleeing our country, regardless of whether they say the job numbers are up or not; and more Canadians are lining up at food banks. That is the truth. There is no misinformation or disinformation or whatever they want to say. It is reality. Food banks all across our country are saying that they are in dire need because more and more Canadians are accessing their services.
We talk with those on the ground. In Prince George, the food banks and community organizations are facing demand levels that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. The Salvation Army in Prince George reported unprecedented demand and significant increase in food bank usage, with many clients citing the rising cost of food, rent, utilities and fuel as the reason they needed help. Think about that. People who have worked their entire lives, people who never thought they would need assistance, people who did everything society asked of them, today are lining up for food hampers because the cost of living has risen faster than their paycheques.
Nationally, food bank visits have reached nearly 2.5 million in a single month, the highest number ever recorded in Canadian history. Food bank usage has doubled since 2019. Many of those seeking assistance are actually employed Canadians who simply cannot keep up with the rising costs. What does that say about the state of the country, when people working full-time jobs cannot afford groceries? What does it say when families are skipping meals so that their children can eat? I know it is happening all across our country. We see the number of encampments of RVs that people are being forced to move into. They cannot afford a home and they cannot afford rent, so they are moving into these rest areas in RVs, or tents in some cases.
That is the reality. It is not misinformation; it is not disinformation. I ask any of those who are paying attention today to take a look around their neighbourhood and take a look around their community. Does it look the same as it did 10 years ago, or is their community, like mine and many others, riddled with crime and addiction? It is absolutely heartbreaking. There are people on the streets in a state of overdose or in some form of addiction or mental health crisis, and it has almost become the norm. People just walk by it, when normally they would want to stop and help. Many times I do not know whether a person is alive. It is unbelievable.
What does it say when a food bank has become a permanent part of household budgeting? This is not the Canada that previous generations built. Housing tells a similar story. For generations, home ownership represented the Canadian dream. People worked hard, saved their money and eventually bought a home. Today, many young Canadians have stopped believing that this dream is achievable. Many young Canadians have had to move back home into their parents' basement. People worked hard, saved their money and eventually bought a home. Now they cannot. Now they do not see that dream as possible.
I recently spoke with a young couple in Prince George. Both have great jobs. Both are responsible. Both have done everything right, yet they feel like they are running on a treadmill. Every month they save money, but every month housing costs seem to rise even faster. The down payment they need keeps moving further and further away. They are not asking for a handout. They are just asking for a chance. They are asking for the same opportunity their parents and grandparents had. Unfortunately, after 10 years of costly Liberal policies, that opportunity is becoming increasingly difficult to find.
I touched a little on the forestry sector earlier. Few regions understand the consequences of economic mismanagement better than northern British Columbia. Where I come from, forestry is so much more than just an industry. It is families. It is communities. It is minor league hockey team sponsorships. It is swim team sponsorships. It is high school sponsorships. When forestry dollars are earned, forestry dollars are spent in the communities they are earned in, and when those businesses go out and those jobs are lost, those dollars are no longer in those communities.
Our region has absolutely been decimated. I rose in the House last fall to talk about 100 Mile House, a community in my riding that lost its last mill, which represented half of its municipal tax base. When a forestry job is lost, it is not just that job. If their spouse is a teacher or a nurse, those jobs are lost when they leave our communities. When they leave our region, they are not coming back, because there is nothing there for them.
Entire towns are built around the jobs that forestry provides. Over the past 10 years, forestry communities have faced uncertainty, curtailments, shutdowns and job losses. In late 2025 alone, temporary closures and curtailments affected hundreds of workers in Prince George, Vanderhoof, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House and all areas in between. Those are all communities in my riding.
In the last 10 years, we have seen thousands of job losses. Our forestry industry, once a cornerstone industry in our country, has been all but decimated by this government. It has honestly been 10 years of mismanagement. I do not think there is anybody on that side who can say that they have handled the forestry file correctly. When the Liberals took office in 2015, there was a one-year grace period on the softwood lumber agreement that our former Conservative government had negotiated. The Conservatives put to bed one of the longest-standing trade disagreements with our U.S. counterparts and negotiated a one-year grace period, knowing that 2015 represented an election year.
The former Conservative government got that agreement, literally, if anyone is a sports fanatic like I am, to the one‑yard mark. The next government, whichever that was, just needed to get it into the end zone. It was there for the taking. I stood in the House for my maiden speech. I reminded the new government at that time of the importance of this. I said, “If this is not secured in the one year, in the grace period that you have, we are going to face the downfall of an industry. Now is the time.” We were told at the time that there was a new‑found bromance between the incoming, new Prime Minister and the U.S. administration at that time, and that they had it handled. “Don't worry about it. We've got it handled.”
Ten years later, we are seeing a cornerstone industry in our country absolutely decimated. There were job losses in the tens of thousands, not just in my province of British Columbia, where softwood was the number one export at one time. Over 65% of our softwood lumber exports went to the U.S., and the industry was decimated. Now we have a president in the United States who is saying that they do not need anything from Canada, as things have gone sideways.
When the Liberals say that their plan is working, it is so frustrating. I guess their plan was total economic destruction, Every time a shift is lost, a family feels it. Every time a mill closes, local businesses feel it. Every time a forestry job disappears, a community loses part of its economic foundation, yet the government comes to this House and says we should spend less time examining legislation that will affect the economy. That is exactly ass‑backwards. After 10 years of rising costs and economic uncertainty, Parliament should be asking more questions, not fewer. We should be demanding more accountability, not less. We should be examining every dollar of spending, every new program and every economic proposal with greater scrutiny than ever before.
The owners of small businesses in Williams Lake review every invoice before they sign it. The ranch near 100 Mile House reviews expenses before making a major purchase. A family in Quesnel studies its household budget before taking on new debt, yet somehow the federal government believes Parliament should spend less time reviewing legislation that affects billions and billions of taxpayer dollars. It makes no sense.
Now the Liberals say they want to work collaboratively. They say they are working for the people, and they invite collaboration from all sides. However, we have seen quite the opposite. Once they got their false majority, committees were shut down and filibustered. We see more and more time allocation motions, such as the one that we are debating today. There is no collaboration. They say they need to rush this through, and they talk about the obstructionist Conservatives and opposition. The government has a majority. It controls the legislative calendar. The government controls when bills are introduced. The government controls its priorities. After creating the timetable, it now wants Parliament to surrender its responsibility to scrutinize the details. That is not accountability, that is not transparency and that is not good government.
When I go home to Cariboo—Prince George, nobody tells me, “Todd, stop asking questions.” Nobody says that we should vote faster. What they tell me is that groceries cost too much, housing costs too much, fuel costs too much and life costs too much. They want someone in Ottawa to ask hard questions on their behalf. That is why this motion is so troubling. After 10 years of Liberal economic management, Canadians have earned the right to expect more scrutiny, not less.
If the government's economic plan is sound, it should survive debate and hard questions. If its spending priorities are justified, they should survive a committee review. If its legislation is well crafted, it should survive amendment and examination. Accountability should never be viewed as an inconvenience. It is the very reason Parliament exists.
At its core, this debate is about accountability. It is about whether Parliament will continue to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to examine legislation, challenge government spending and ensure that Canadians receive value for the billions and billions of dollars being taken from their pockets. Let me remind those in this House and those listening that the money being spent is not the government's money. It is taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, this motion moves us in the opposite direction. The Liberal government is once again asking Parliament to surrender its ability to carefully examine legislation. It is asking members to accept less debate and less committee scrutiny, to accept fewer opportunities for amendments and to identify mistakes before they become law. That should concern every member of this House, regardless of political affiliation.
Let me remind this House and those listening, and I say this often in my speeches, this House is not ours. This House belongs to Canadians, those who elected us to be here to speak on their behalf, represent them, scrutinize the government and provide support where necessary, but to challenge the government. This House is not the government's House. It belongs to those in the gallery and those watching from all across our country. Committees exist for a reason. Debate exists for a reason. Committees are where legislation receives detailed examination. They are where experts testify. They are where stakeholders identify unintended consequences of poor legislation. They are where parliamentarians from all parties can propose amendments and improvements to legislation.
The government now proposes to impose an artificial deadline on the finance committee study of Bill C‑30, and if the committee members have not completed their work by a predetermined hour, all remaining amendments would simply be deemed moved and voted upon without further debate. Let us think about that for a moment. Regardless of how many clauses or amendments remain, regardless of how many concerns experts or stakeholders have raised, regardless of how many concerns Canadians have raised, regardless of whether parliamentarians have had the opportunity to fully disclose and discuss those proposals, the Liberal government wants the process to stop and votes to begin, essentially silencing the Canadians and stakeholders who elected us to be here. This is not the thoughtful law‑making that Canadians expect from their Parliament.
Bill C‑30 is not a minor piece of legislation. Like many budget implementation acts before it, it contains numerous measures affecting Canadians, businesses, taxpayers and communities across the country. When legislation is broad in scope, scrutiny becomes more important, not less. The larger the bill, the greater the need for committee review. The more spending involved, the more questions are needed. The more power that is granted to the government or the ministers to make decisions without scrutiny, the more oversight should occur. Instead, the government is proposing exactly the opposite.
Canadians are being told that Parliament should simply hurry up and approve legislation. That is not how a responsible government works. Parliament should not just act as a rubber stamp. Members of Parliament are not spectators. We are sent here to ask questions, challenge assumptions and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. When governments become impatient with accountability, Canadians should start paying attention, because accountability is not an inconvenience. It is the very foundation of parliamentary democracy.
Canadians are already struggling. Families are struggling with affordability, businesses are struggling with uncertainty and communities across northern and rural Canada are struggling with economic pressures, labour shortages and declining opportunities.
People want to know how their government intends to spend their money. They want to know whether programs are effective and they want to know whether commitments made in Ottawa will actually deliver results on the ground.
Committee study helps answer those questions. This motion would limit those opportunities.
The government argues that legislation must move quickly. However, whose fault is it when Parliament is presented with a massive omnibus piece of legislation requiring extensive examination? Whose fault is it when complex measures are bundled together? Whose fault is it when committees are given insufficient time to hear witnesses and review evidence? Whose fault is it when Canadians are not heard?
The answer is obvious. Governments control their legislative agenda and control the timing of legislation. Governments determine when bills are introduced. Time and again, Liberal governments create their own scheduling problems and then use those problems as justification for limiting parliamentary scrutiny.
That pattern has become all too familiar. Whenever questions become uncomfortable, debate is shortened. Whenever scrutiny becomes inconvenient, deadlines are imposed. Whenever opposition members attempt to improve legislation, procedural tools are used to limit discussion.
Canadians deserve better.
There is another important principle at stake. Good legislation benefits from criticism. Strong legislation survives scrutiny. Effective legislation is improved by debate. Governments should welcome examination if they are confident in their proposals. Instead, this motion suggests that the government sees scrutiny as an obstacle rather than a safeguard. That is troubling.
Every member of the House has seen examples of legislation that required amendment after flaws were discovered. Every member has seen examples where witness testimony highlighted concerns that government had overlooked. Every member has seen examples where committee work improved legislation. That work becomes more difficult when Parliament is placed under a procedural guillotine.
Representing northern British Columbia has taught me an important lesson. People do not expect perfection from the government and do not expect transparency. However, they do expect accountability and they do expect their elected representative to ask tough questions before billions of taxpayer dollars are committed.
Whether someone lives in Prince George, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Vanderhoof, Lone Butte, 100 Mile House, Horsefly, Likely or any other community I represent, they understand a simple principle: When someone asks for more money, people deserve to know how it will be spent. The same principle should apply here. The government should welcome scrutiny. It should welcome questions. It should welcome accountability. Instead, government Motion No. 12 seeks to reduce all three.
The House should be very cautious whenever a government asks Parliament to do less of its most important work. Debate matters, committee study matters, amendments matter and accountability matters. Parliament exists to examine legislation on behalf of Canadians, not merely to accelerate government timelines.
For those reasons, I cannot support this motion. I believe Canadians deserve a Parliament that scrutinizes legislation thoroughly, examines spending carefully and holds government accountable every step of the way. That is our responsibility, it is our duty and it is exactly what we should continue doing.
After 10 years of deficits, rising debt and an affordability crisis, the Liberal government's answer is less accountability, less scrutiny, weaker communities and weaker democracy. Canadians should be asking themselves a very simple question: If this budget is so good, why is the government so afraid of letting Parliament fully examine it?
Therefore, I move, seconded by the member for Langley Township—Fraser Heights:
That the motion be amended:
(a) in paragraph (a),
(i) by replacing the word “completing”, in subparagraph (i), with the word “continuing”, and
(ii) by deleting subparagraphs (ii) and (iv); and
(b) by deleting paragraphs (b) to (f).
