Mr. Paul Thompson
4043-03-22 12:20:00
With respect to the importance of moving to domestic production, there has been a significant shift over the course of the pandemic to more domestic supplies. Dr. Kochhar spoke about the NESS in particular, but if you look more broadly at procurement of PPE, our estimates are that about 50% of the contracts are with domestic companies and about 40% of the value is going to domestic companies..
Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt)
4043-03-22 12:20:00
Thank you. We will now move on to Mr. Dong for five minutes..
Mr. Han Dong (Don Valley North, Lib.)
4043-03-22 12:20:00
Thank you, Madam Chair. This study is great. It kind of takes me back to where we were in 2020. We were fighting a war against COVID-19 and a war we weren't prepared for. I remember, while the health care workers were fighting on the front line, the entire population was working together, whether donating PPE or looking after a neighbour or a friend in quarantine. Then we had our MPs and senators working together. I remember the days when we had those technical briefings on a daily basis. We put aside politics and would give ideas, observations and public service. And you were there every day taking the advice and acting on it. The entire nation was fighting against one single enemy. I really miss those days, by the way. With that, I just want to say a sincere thank you to Public Health and especially to the procurement folks. You guys worked magic in a hyper-competitive market. It's not buying product to satisfy wonks. It's actually buying product to save lives. So every country was being super-competitive going to market and purchasing PPE. Unfortunately, Canada did not have the capacity to produce our own PPE, and you folks had to work around the clock—literally, because some of the producers around the globe are in different time zones. So I just want to say a sincere thank you to the witnesses here today. To Mr. Thompson, can you tell us how your department, in a very short period of time, secured the amount of PPE Canada needed? In Parliament we talk about how the provinces are really having shortages, but we actually never see the bottom of the barrel. It was because our international procurement was doing the magic for a short period of time, and then domestic production capacity caught up. But tell us, what exactly did you do to secure those contracts?.
Mr. Paul Thompson
4043-03-22 12:20:00
As I alluded to in my remarks, a lot of it was just pure effort at the beginning, with the teams working around the clock. But it was also leveraging flexibilities we introduced to make it easier to secure products, such as the ability to delegate authority so we could move quickly, and to use sole-source contracts or advance payments where required. Those were just some of the flexibilities we needed, because we knew when there was a supply available, we needed to move super-fast to secure it..
Mr. Han Dong
4043-03-22 12:20:00
Exactly. On the report, 50% of the suppliers got this financial viability assessment. That means 50% didn't. Can you tell us what percentage of the contracts weren't honoured—i.e., for whatever various reasons they couldn't deliver the product at the end of the day?.
Mr. Paul Thompson
4043-03-22 12:20:00
With respect to situations where there was advance payment as part of the mix, the vast majority of those were delivered in accordance with the contract. And in the very small number of cases where there didn't happen, there's legal action to recover the payments. But it was a successful endeavour in the vast majority of cases, and the goods and/or the services were delivered in accordance with the contracts..
Mr. Han Dong
4043-03-22 12:20:00
To build on this success going forward, do you see perhaps a need to develop an emergency procurement protocol so that in case we have a global pandemic or something major happens, the government can have a different set of rules in terms of procurement that will protect the public interest and the integrity of the system? Meanwhile, we get products procured quickly..
Mr. Paul Thompson
4043-03-22 12:20:00
That is certainly one of the lessons learned, and the Auditor General's report is helpful in this regard as to how we can institutionalize some of these practices and make sure that we approach it more systematically. We have a checklist, as was alluded to earlier, so that we know when we're in a situation like this we can follow a set of predetermined procedures. We have procedures in place to rely on financial experts, for example, on this issue of financial viability of the suppliers. Compared to the beginning of the pandemic, it has been a lot more systematized for if and when we face similar situations going forward. We still are facing challenges, for example, with procuring rapid tests, which is one of the key areas where we continue to push..
Jean Yip (Scarborough—Agincourt)
4043-03-22 12:20:00
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. I would like to thank the witnesses for coming today. We need to suspend the meeting to go in camera. Members, you will have to log off and log in for the in camera part of the meeting. Thank you. [Proceedings continue in camera].
Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île)
2026-02-02 17:55:00
Mr. Speaker, my colleague was talking about, among other things, reducing the carbon tax. However, the more the government supports the oil industry and subsidizes oil companies, the more greenhouse gases that are emitted, which increases the effects of climate change like flooding, wildfires and so on. This is a cost that trickles down to the people. Climate change has a price. In addition, it is true that part of the increase in the cost of living comes from the government's policies. For example, the Parliamentary Budget Officer determined that poorly thought-out immigration policies and the immigration thresholds caused a 25% increase in the cost of housing. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?.
Carol Anstey (Long Range Mountains)
2026-02-02 17:55:00
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I just want to say that Conservatives believe that tackling the climate crisis can be done while also spurring on the economy. We believe in technology, not taxes. While we have heard, in many cases, that increasing taxes on consumers will somehow contribute to solving the climate crisis, we have a different approach. We take climate change seriously, but we believe in a different approach: supporting technology and not taxes in this regard..
Tako Van Popta (Langley Township—Fraser Heights)
2026-02-02 17:55:00
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was very inspiring. One thing I have noticed consistently during my years in the House is that when it comes to managing the economy, the Liberals always attack the symptoms and not the underlying problems. It is like taking an aspirin when surgery is required. The Bank of Canada has said repeatedly that our lagging productivity metrics, when compared to those of our trading nations, are the problem. It is a crisis, and it is undermining Canadians' purchasing power. Could my colleague comment on the importance of the government's doing the hard work of attacking the underlying root problems so Canadians can get their purchasing power back again and not have to rely on handouts from the government?.
Carol Anstey (Long Range Mountains)
2026-02-02 17:55:00
Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, we always want to recognize that people are struggling right now. We understand that sometimes these measures are important, but we do not believe in a system where people are chasing higher payments and adding to inflation, not providing real, long-term solutions. We believe that the government has a responsibility to really dig into the increased costs along the supply chain and also to spur on investment in the economy, which is why removing the increased costs would give relief to consumers and would also make us more competitive and spur on investment, which grows the economy, grows people's paycheques and also provides real, long-term solutions..
Greg McLean (Calgary Centre)
2026-02-02 17:55:00
Mr. Speaker, it is great to see my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I am happy to address the bill that is before the House, Bill C-19, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit act. It used to be called the goods and services tax credit, but in a nice marketing move, we are going to change the name, because before this bill, Canadians have been having trouble paying for their essentials. It is one of the things that we have to get to the heart of. What the government is proposing is a one-time payment. It would be an added bonus of 50% this year for what used to be the GST rebate and would now be the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. It would go up for a family of four from $1,100 to $1,890, which would be a significant increase this year, but then it would be carved back to $1,400 next year and the years following, so that would be a reduction. That is a little strange. I will address that later in my speech. This is in response to grocery inflation rising by 6.2% year over year, and notably the highest in the G7 group of countries. It is more than double what it is in the United States, which is our nearest neighbour and a country that has the same sort of transportation network that we do as far as getting our food. I am going to deviate here a bit to talk about something that is the root cause of this, which is government debt. Right now, the government is about $1.3 trillion in debt. In February 2025, one year ago, StatsCan estimated that $527 billion of that $1.3 trillion was international finance. We have to borrow from offshore to fund the debt. The problem is that the money has to come from foreigners and future taxpayers that are going to pay for today's consumption. Projected interest costs for this year in the budget were an astounding $55.6 billion, which is about $2,500 per Canadian family. I ask members to remember that 40% of that is held by foreigners, so 40% of $56 billion is about $22 billion in interest payments alone that leaves Canada and pays international money managers, but it will get worse because there is no slowdown for these interest payments. The projected interest payments over the next five years are $330 billion, so it is growing. If we maintain the 40% held by foreigners, 40% will go to offshore money managers, so Canadian taxpayers will be giving them a projected $132 billion over five years, if the government sticks to its spending limits, which it has not been able to do thus far. Members can think about how much money is going out of Canadian taxpayers' pockets into those of foreign money managers. In 2015, before the Liberals were elected, the amount of Canadian government debt held by foreigners was 27%. About one and a half times that amount is held in foreign accounts now. Let us acknowledge that there is not enough capital in Canada to fund the government's overspending, so it has to go offshore. The government has to pay international finance managers to fund Canadians' consumption. Our economy is getting worse, and our government is spending like it has the money, which I assure members, it does not. It is borrowing from foreign bankers and paying a high price, which will get higher the more the government increases debt and misses more fiscal targets. This brings us around to another input factor. Barely two months after delivering a much-delayed budget with a prospective deficit of over $78 billion, we are now suddenly adding over $3 billion more to this year's deficit, and over $10 billion more over the five-year horizon so that people can afford to eat. That is according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Something the government overlooked when it planned its deficits and borrowing plan was the ability of people to eat. This legislation was not in the budget two months ago, and the Conservatives have been pointing out the food inflation hurting Canadians across the country. It is mystifying that the economists in charge on the other side did not foresee this because inflation is not a symptom of government deficits; in fact, it is a feature. The most common way to pay back, in the future, for overspending today is currency debasement. That means Canadians' dollars buy less in the future. More food does not appear out of nowhere; it just gets more expensive. Mysteriously, the government is planning to give Canadians more this year in the rebate than next year or in the following years. Here is the problem with that. I guarantee more inflation next year and yet fewer government rebates. It almost seems like a Liberal formula: to throw out a whole bunch of cheques and see how Canadians respond and if Liberals should call an election in the process. If the Liberals had a majority here, would they be proceeding with this, or would they be continuing to debase Canadians' currency in this way? Forget about those pesky Conservatives, who keep telling Canadians how their cost of living is out of control. In 2026, families are expected to spend about $1,000 more on groceries than last year. This rebate will make up about $790 of that increase and about $300 more going forward, when groceries are going to be even more expensive. Canadians are still falling far behind in feeding their families. Food, life's essential, is the very bottom layer of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If someone is not feeding their family, they are resorting to anything to get them fed. No wonder Canadians are increasingly turning toward food banks, with 2.2 million Canadians accessing food banks every month. That is astonishing. That number has doubled since 2019, yet the Liberal government refuses to address the direct cause, which is its own fiscal policies. On the one hand, the Canadian dollar buys less; on the other hand, the government's policies ramp up the cost of Canadian food production and delivery increases with the industrial carbon tax, a hidden tax that makes Canada less competitive and adds a cost burden on consumers. In addition, the clean fuel tax and taxes on food packaging add more to Canadians' food bills. It is hard to believe this food inflation is unique to Canada, but it is. It is hard to believe it is not a design of the government's actual policy direction. The government is debasing our currency. That means our dollars buy less. The agenda of managing decline is not the answer. We need to turn this around and make Canada a more prosperous nation again. Canada is borrowing money excessively. We are borrowing money from foreign money managers, Canadian taxpayers are leaking billions per year to these international moneylenders, and now it is obvious we are borrowing more from foreigners so Canadians can afford to eat. If the path we are on is not clear yet, it should be. I will tell the government to get its fiscal house in order. The path it has put this country on is not sustainable. .
Michael Kram (Regina—Wascana)
2026-02-02 18:05:00
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have said many times now that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit would help 12 million Canadians, but what about the other 28 million Canadians who are struggling with rising grocery prices? Why not adopt policies that will bring down the cost of groceries for all Canadians, such as cancelling the industrial carbon tax, the federal fuel standard or unnecessary food packaging regulations, all of which drive up the price of groceries for all 40 million Canadians? .
Greg McLean (Calgary Centre)
2026-02-02 18:05:00
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. The government is targeting 12 million Canadians here with more rebates going out the door. The issue, of course, is that the government's role is to take taxes in through a whole bunch of forms, including hidden taxes, and then redistribute them to people they think deserve that money. The question is, can we not just have a better economy if we do not pull those taxes out in the first place? That would benefit all Canadians, and they could afford food much better. The Liberals need to stop taking with one hand and giving out a little more with the other hand. That would be a huge solution for all Canadians. .
Bardish Chagger (Waterloo)
2026-02-02 18:05:00
Mr. Speaker, since the member entered this place, I have found him oftentimes to be reasonable. The words he shared today really demonstrate that, at least to constituents in the riding of Waterloo, who often ask if this House can be functional. Today, seeing the deputy leader of the Conservatives move a motion for this legislation to advance so Canadians can receive the supports they need is a demonstration that the House can function. We would like to see the House function on legislation such as the crime bills, and constituents in Waterloo would like to see that as well. I would like to hear from the member whether he agrees that we can have constructive feedback and conversation. We can always do better and do more, but it is important that we take the wins for our constituents to ensure that the government and all members of Parliament are able to deliver for constituents. I know that is what constituents in the riding of Waterloo want. What are the constituents in the riding of Calgary Centre expecting from members in the House? .
Greg McLean (Calgary Centre)
2026-02-02 18:05:00
Mr. Speaker, that is an important question. Working in the House, getting things done for Canadians, is important. The bill would ease food costs for a portion of Canadians. Of course we are going to get behind that, because we see the policies that have driven up those costs. We need to make sure we address that. People's ability to eat is a very important part of what we have to address. We agreed to one day of debate. We will be moving this forward, as my House leader indicated earlier. This is about a constructive Parliament and getting good things done for Canadians. However, what I noted in my speech is that we need to address the underlying cause of why this is happening, and to get ahead of it, because otherwise we are going to be in a constant cycle of just putting more cheques out, putting more fuel on the inflationary fire and causing more problems down the road..
Alexis Deschênes (Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj)
2026-02-02 18:10:00
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interesting remarks on the country's debts. It is well known and accepted by everyone: more debts equals less freedom. Now, my question is as follows. When the government has to address certain issues, is it better for the state to go into debt or for households to do so? What we are seeing is that household debt has increased fairly significantly in the last quarter. Does my colleague not think that, for measures like the one we are discussing today, it is better for the state to go into debt than for households to go even further into debt?.
Greg McLean (Calgary Centre)
2026-02-02 18:10:00
Mr. Speaker, I must apologize, as I did not fully understand the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague. I think he asked what we intend to do about the increase in household debt, which is significant. For the moment, I think it is important to give more money to people who need it to feed themselves. However, we also need to fix the federal government's funding system, which is causing inflation, and food inflation in particular. That is impacting Canadians. These two issues go hand in hand, and it is important to address them together..
Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
2026-02-02 18:10:00
Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. We are debating Bill C-19, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit act. Listening to the speeches all day today, the debates, I cannot help but ask, why this bill? It is mainly for two reasons: first, Canadians cannot afford to pay their bills and they cannot afford to buy groceries; and second, this was a promise made by the Liberal government to reduce grocery prices. The name of this bill is a bit misleading because it does not affect grocery prices; this is actually a tax rebate. In fact, if we look at what is happening in Canada, the opposite is happening in terms of what the Liberal government promised around getting control of grocery inflation. In fact, the opposite is happening. Grocery costs have gone up and are still going up. Inflation did rise to 2.4% from 2.2%, but groceries rose to 5%. In that respect, Canada, in terms of inflation, especially groceries, is the best performing country because Canadians cannot afford groceries. This is crazy. I understand what it means not to be able to afford groceries. I was a councillor and a chief councillor for a small first nations band on the west coast of B.C, and it was one of my goals to make sure that people could afford groceries and pay their bills and build their own lives without government help. For members who do not know anything about the Indian Act, the Indian Act is basically built on government funding, and a lot of first nations leaders try to get away from that dependence. However, in this case here, Conservatives will be supporting Bill C-19 mainly to try to stop some of the pain Canadians are going through. An example of some of the pain Canadians are going through is that one in five Canadians have skipped paying bills to buy food in Canada. Some Canadians are skipping meals because they cannot afford them. They are making decisions on whether or not to keep the lights on or to feed their children or themselves. This is in Canada. When they are not celebrating food banks, the Liberals are actually celebrating this tax rebate. I am trying to get the logic of this down. They are celebrating the fact that they are imposing hidden taxes on Canadians, and they want Canadians to be grateful that they are going to give some of that money back. In my riding, $1,800 will not cover rent for one month. What these Liberals are celebrating today is $10 a month. They want Canadians to be grateful, yet they are not even fulfilling their election promise. The Prime Minister himself said he should be judged by prices at the grocery store. This is not going to affect prices at the grocery store. It is a stopgap measure for one year. Those middle-income families, if they qualify, will maybe get a cheque, maybe. However, like everything else, there are qualifications. I have heard some of my colleagues here saying that we do not mind when Liberals steal Conservative ideas. In fact, the Liberals got elected on a Conservative platform: axe the tax, build pipelines and negotiate with Trump down in the United States. However, on all accounts, four or five of those promises could not be fulfilled by the Liberal government. I do not know why it could not fulfill those promises. Maybe it could not fulfill them, or maybe, by choice, it would not fulfill them. Here is another broken promise: They were saying they were going to address affordability at the grocery store. The question arises in the same context: Do the Liberals want to address grocery prices? Will they or, by choice, will they not? I have heard it said many times that two million people a month visit food banks in Canada and 700,000 of the people served are children. That is heartbreaking, especially when we consider that a portion of that population is middle-class income earners, people with jobs and mortgages, who 10 years ago did not have to worry about a tax rebate or skipping a bill. In today's day and age, when people skip a bill, there are consequences for them: a mortgage going into default or a car being taken away. It is happening because people have to make a decision on whether or not they should eat. What the Liberal government has not said is that out of the 40 million people living in Canada, there are 10 million people living with food insecurity, meaning that they are not sure where their next meal is going to come from. I cannot help but be surprised by that as a first nations leader, coming from an area where we actually resolved unemployment and resolved the economy by supporting LNG, mining and forestry. I came to the House of Commons and found out that all of Canada is in the same boat that we, as first nations, were in 20 years ago: just trying to pay the bills, find a job or be independent so we could chart our own future. In fact, Canada is going in the opposite direction. Now people are starting to get a good understanding of what it feels like to be a first nations person living in Canada, where there are no economic opportunities, where people cannot afford their bills and are dependent on government money. Canada is losing auto manufacturing and lumber jobs to the United States. Now we do not even have a plan to defend Canada's borders. If there were a plan, there would be no money for it because there is no economy. The idea that the Liberals took as their own from the Conservatives was to build our national defences, build pipelines, axe the carbon tax and negotiate with the U.S.A. It is all going to hurt Canadians today and tomorrow, especially when we consider the massive deficit that the Liberal government has incurred is going to be paid for by our children and our children's children. I, like many other members, get asked what Conservatives would do. The Liberals got elected, but they could not implement the promises that they took from the Conservatives. What more could we do? We could get rid of the hidden taxes. The clean fuel regulations are going to add 7¢ a litre to fuel this year, which will rise to 17¢ per litre in 2030, and not just at the pumps but also for shipping goods and services. We should get rid of the industrial carbon tax, which adds cost to shipping, farming and groceries. The food packaging tax is adding costs at the grocer's level that are going to get passed on to consumers. By the way, Canada in its wisdom has said it is going to lift the plastics ban for plastic straws and other goods to be shipped to the United States, which will make life affordable for people in the United States but not do the same for Canadians. Everything is going to the United States. Our government gave Stellantis auto manufacturing $220 million, and what did Stellantis do? It went to the United States and invested in its auto manufacturing sector. This is all talk and stopgap measures, while real people are suffering and trying to make decisions that affect not only their daily life but also their future. We cannot afford to keep going like this. The government should take a page from first nations leaders who say we should look ahead seven generations when making decisions..
Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North)
2026-02-02 18:20:00
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 is a piece of legislation that will at least be a sincere and genuine attempt by the government to provide assistance to individuals through a program that will see significant amounts of money helping with the issue of affordability of groceries. The Conservatives like to give this impression that Canada is broken. Today we have heard a lot about Canada having the worst inflation in the G7. If we go back for the last five years and take a look at the cumulative inflation rate, there might be one or two countries in the G7 that actually have done better than Canada on that front. When the member talks about thinking about future generations, that is exactly what the government is doing. That is one of the reasons we have Bill C-19..
Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
2026-02-02 18:20:00
Mr. Speaker, that was not a question. That was a bit of a ramble, but the member is always getting up and asking about what we are doing here, talking about things. It is because we were elected to come here to debate these issues. I made a commitment long ago to make sure that, if I was in opposition, I would hold the government to account. The member just got through saying that the bill will address grocery prices, but no, it will not. It is a tax rebate. The people who actually take advantage of that tax rebate, if they qualify, are going to have to decide how they use it: to pay the rent, the phone bill, the mortgage or the grocery bill. That is a tough decision..
Martin Champoux (Drummond)
2026-02-02 18:20:00
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and I think we are more or less on the same page when it comes to supporting Bill C‑19. We consider it necessary because of the imperative need to support Quebeckers and Canadians through the extremely harsh financial circumstances facing families. Once again, however, I get a sense that we are good at extending support programs to help people in need, but not so good at creating measures that will help people gain wealth with dignity, improve their work skills or find new sources of employment. We know that artificial intelligence is going to replace many jobs in the coming years. Apart from tax breaks and cheque- or program-based support measures, like the ones this government often advances, would my colleague not agree that we should equip people to deal with the challenges awaiting them in the future, which will be numerous in the employment field, and which will certainly be all the more costly unless we start addressing them now?.
Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
2026-02-02 18:20:00
Mr. Speaker, I 100% agree. We should be looking at the capacity of vulnerable Canadians. In fact, that is what we have been doing in Skeena—Bulkley Valley for a number of years, and it does pay dividends in terms of independence. Those people are making good paycheques that actually contribute to the economy in Canada, which has been shrinking in the last 10 years in terms of oil, gas, forestry and mining. I do not think we have actually begun to see the real level of hurt that Canadians are going to see in the future..
Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan)
2026-02-02 18:25:00
Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for a few minutes about what is actually causing some of the food price inflation. The outlook for net farm cash receipts went down 15% in 2025. What do farmers do if they have less cash? They produce less food. The economy just shrunk by 0.5% in the last quarter, meaning that we have less production in our country. If farmers are producing less and the economy is shrinking, what does my colleague think is going to happen with a cash influx to people, when there is going to be more cash chasing fewer goods?.
Ellis Ross (Skeena—Bulkley Valley)
2026-02-02 18:25:00
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 (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC)
2026-02-02 18:25:00
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 (Burlington North—Milton West)
2026-02-02 18:35:00
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
2026-02-02 18:35:00
Mr. Speaker, all I have to do is go into my riding and speak to a farmer..
Alexis Deschênes (Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj)
2026-02-02 18:35:00
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
2026-02-02 18:35:00
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 (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)
2026-02-02 18:40:00
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
2026-02-02 18:40:00
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..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-02-02 18:40:00
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).
Patricia Lattanzio (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel)
2026-02-02 18:40:00
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. .
2026-02-02 18:40:00
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved..
Jacob Mantle (York—Durham)
2026-02-02 18:40:00
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? .
Jacob Mantle (York—Durham)
2026-02-02 18:45:00
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 (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel)
2026-02-02 18:45:00
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..
Cathay Wagantall (Yorkton—Melville, CPC)
2026-02-02 18:45:00
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 (Vancouver Quadra)
2026-02-02 18:50:00
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
2026-02-02 18:55:00
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—.
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-02-02 18:55:00
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change. .
Wade Grant (Vancouver Quadra)
2026-02-02 18:55:00
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..
Andrew Lawton (Elgin—St. Thomas—London South)
2026-02-02 18:55:00
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 (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel)
2026-02-02 19:00:00
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 (Elgin—St. Thomas—London South)
2026-02-02 19:00:00
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 (Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel)
2026-02-02 19:05:00
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..
Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard)
2026-02-02 19:05:00
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.).