Andrew Scheer

“I want the House to pass this bill. It ends the ban on oil tankers on the northern west coast. That ban stops Canadian companies from selling oil to Asia, even while American ships are allowed to use the same waters. Lifting the ban will help Canadian businesses get our energy to market.”

“Madam Speaker, I cannot help but violently agree with my colleague’s summation of the best way to turn the page on Justin Trudeau. It is amazing how the Liberals have forgotten that he ever existed, as if they were not here, all along the way, voting in favour of all the terrible policies that caused so much hardship, not just for western Canada and the energy sector, but also for Canadians from coast to coast. We have had the massive inflation crisis, the crime crisis, the drug crisis and, of course, the energy crisis, where Canada has been forced to discount its natural resources because, thanks to Liberal policies, Canada no longer has an ability to get oil to growing markets in Asia where it would pay a premium for what Canada is selling. This would be a wonderful opportunity to show sincere commitment to change by undoing Liberal policies. My colleague used the analogy of crime TV shows and movies, and of making something look like an accident. There is another theme in those types of movies where there are elements of a criminal underworld and the mobsters who run protection rackets. They come by someone’s shop and throw a brick through the window. They then come back the next day and say, “Hey, we can make sure that nobody throws bricks through your windows.” That is what the Liberals have done with energy policy. They have thrown bricks through the ability of private sector proponents of projects to get things built. They then come along, after billions of dollars have left Canada for other jurisdictions and, after Canadian energy companies choose to invest in South America, Asia, Africa and even in the Middle East, they say, “Hey, if you work with us, if you jump through new hoops and new hurdles, and allow the government to take ownership positions in energy projects, then you can get something built.” That is what we have seen with the MOU that was imposed on Alberta, forcing the Government of Alberta to agree to an industrial carbon tax and to paying billions of dollars of costs into the pathways project. That is completely unnecessary. We now see a major development in the energy sector that Canada could take advantage of. Strathcona Resources pitches 250,000 barrels of oil per day on an export route to Asia. That is wonderful news. A private sector company is using its own money, not taxpayers’ money, to push a project that would allow new exports to Asian markets, getting around the U.S. discount that Canadian producers have to face. There is only one thing standing in the way, and that is Bill C-48, the Liberal shipping ban. For people who have not heard about this before, the ban is a Liberal law that was brought in under the Trudeau government. It was voted for by all the members I see across the way who were there at the time, and it imposed a ban on Canadian energy being shipped off the west coast. This ban does not apply to U.S. tankers. U.S. tankers can come down from Alaska and take inland routes into U.S. refineries in the northwestern United States. This ban only applies to the loading of Canadian energy on Canadian ships leaving Canadian ports. It is a completely self-imposed double standard that means that no oil can flow through that northern route. Why is that important? That northern route is closer to Asia. It is cheaper to ship through that northern route because it is a shorter distance. It is also a deeper water port. Right now, in order to handle the potential expansion of TMX and a southern route in the Vancouver port, they are going to have to dredge along the Second Narrows Bridge because they cannot load the tankers to full capacity. They would be too low and those tankers would not be able to go through that particular waterway. That is not a problem in the northern route. That northern route is already a deep water port. This is a perfect example of the government causing a problem. This is hallmark Liberal politics. The Liberal policy causes a problem. The Liberal policies cause Canadian energy companies to abandon Canadian projects and to move Canadian dollars offshore to invest in other places. What is the solution to bad Liberal policy? It is more Liberal policy, more hoops and hurdles, bigger bureaucracies, and more red tape. The Conservatives have a different approach. We believe we should treat the root cause of the problem. The root cause of the problem right now in the energy sector is not a lack of demand, a lack of expertise or even a lack of capital, since there are Canadian companies with lots of money to invest. It is a lack of confidence in being able to get anything built after 10 years of Liberal policies killing things and blocking things. We now live in a world where private sector investors would rather build pipelines in war zones than in Canada. They would rather deal with bombs and bullets than with bureaucracy. The Liberal solution is to come along and say that we have a new complicated scheme, a new Major Projects Office and new lists and new hurdles. The government is going to take an ownership share, with all the distorting effects that would have, and that is the only way forward. Conservatives believe that, if we were to treat the root cause of the problem, which is to repeal bad Liberal policies, the bill we are debating today would be a huge step along that road. Let us lift the moratorium on Canadian shipping, put Canadian producers and exporters on a level playing field and get our resources to market.”

“I want the government to share its schedule for the rest of this week and next week. I also want to know if it will introduce laws to lower grocery costs, stop borrowing money to fight inflation, and end the ban on shipping oil off the west coast.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is time for everyone’s favourite moment of the week in the House of Commons, the Thursday question. I would like to ask the government if it could update the House as to the business for the rest of this week and for the week following. Perhaps the government could tell us why it has chosen to table a budget on a Thursday afternoon right before a break week. Is it because the Liberals are afraid of getting questions on the budget, especially after the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s update, which paints such a bleak picture of the Liberal government’s fiscal and economic management? Will the government be bringing in any legislation to provide relief at the grocery store? It tried the exact same tactic that the Trudeau government tried of giving out rebates, and food inflation continues to rise, wiping out any benefit that Canadians might have received from that. Will it bring in any legislation that will actually deal with the root cause of inflation, which we know, of course, is massive amounts of borrowing, pushing up the cost of debt as well? Will it bring in any legislation to unblock our resources, for example, potentially repealing the shipping ban on Canadian energy off Canada’s west coast? That would open up Asian markets and would improve the economic performance of the country. Will the government be taking any of the measures to undo the terrible policies that it has inflicted on this country for the past 11 years?”

“Government members yell 'sit down' almost every time the opposition asks a question. If they want to lecture us about good behavior, they should follow the rules themselves.”

“Mr. Speaker, if you go back and review the audio from basically every single question period, you will hear that exact phrase, “sit down”, coming from the government benches almost every time members of the opposition ask questions. If the parliamentary secretary wants to teach lessons, he should maybe take a lesson on decorum as well.”

“Someone leaked the defence bill to the media before Parliament saw it. The government claims they looked into it and found nothing, but they have shown no proof of a real investigation. The media reports used exact words from the bill that only insiders knew. I want you to rule that this leak breached our privilege, so a committee can investigate it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I just want to add some further commentary to the question of privilege that is currently before the Chair and to rebut some of the arguments offered yesterday by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning my question of privilege about the apparent leak of details in Bill C-40. The key thrust of the parliamentary secretary’s argument was, basically, “trust me”. I agree with him that, consistent with the traditions of the House, we take members at their word. To that end, I accept that the parliamentary secretary himself did not leak the content of Bill C-40. The “comprehensive investigation” which he spoke about frequently, but not extensively, is another matter. The parliamentary secretary gave no insight into the scope or thoroughness of the so-called investigation, just that it happened and nothing was found, but how hard did they look? In 2001, after details about the Anti-terrorism Act 2001 had been leaked to Bob Fife ahead of its introduction in Parliament, in addition to Mr. Speaker Milliken finding a prima facie case of privilege, as referenced in my original intervention, the Privy Council Office initiated its own investigation. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in its 40th report, outlined what was involved with that investigation: Mr. Fadden explained that the Privy Council Office had initiated an administrative review of the unauthorized disclosure of information regarding the anti-terrorist legislation, and contracted with the firm of Deloitte & Touche. The final report, dated November 20, 2001, was provided to the Committee. It indicated that, during the period October 25, 2001 to November 20, 2001, Deloitte & Touche itself had conducted 53 interviews, including 11 Ministers, and Departmental Security Officers had conducted 419 interviews, for a total of 472. These were people who had been identified as being involved in the drafting process, the review process and the roll-out and communications process of the bill. The Deloitte & Touche report indicates that nine persons interviewed admitted to having spoken with the media with respect to what became Bill C-36, but only four spoke with either Mr. Fife or [Luiza] Chwialkowska. Of these four, three persons admitted having spoken to the two journalists in the few days prior to the appearance of the article in the National Post on October 13, 2001. All nine persons adamantly denied having provided any unauthorized information to the media in general, or to Mr. Fife or Ms. Chwialkowska in particular. Four hundred and seventy-two professional interviews compared to who knows what, but take him on his word. He insists. Next, I want to turn to the argument he offered that the government had never really decided to pick a lane on structuring the Defence Investment Agency. Let us look at the actual sequence of events that he scattered throughout his intervention. On April 27, Doug Guzman, the Defence Investment Agency’s Chief Executive Officer, told the Standing Committee on National Defence that there were “a number of ways” in which the Defence Investment Agency could be set up, including a Crown corporation. According to the parliamentary secretary, this was a sign that there was “still a live debate within the government.” Fair enough, but the very next day, April 28, the government answered the question and settled the debate when the Minister of Finance and National Revenue laid upon the table the 2026 Spring Economic Update. On pages 82 and 145, the minister signalled the government’s intention to establish the Defence Investment Agency as a “stand-alone entity”. That policy announcement assumed legislative expression through the introduction of Bill C-31 on May 6, which the following day, the minister referred to in a press release as making good on the government’s pressures, among others, “establishing the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity”. The government had never made any statements here in Parliament or, indeed, anywhere else, repudiating its policy or its proposals in Bill C-31, currently before the Standing Committee on Finance, that is, until Bill C-40 was tabled. Let us be honest about what actually happened. Mr. Guzman threatened to rage-quit from the government because of his impatience with public servants, something we also know because of sourced reporting on the pages of The Globe and Mail, and Bill C-40 suddenly became an urgent Liberal measure to keep the Prime Minister’s Bay Street pal kicking around Ottawa. I worry that the parliamentary secretary might find himself in trouble if the Prime Minister actually catches wind of his argument yesterday. The most frequent Liberal spokesperson in the House has basically stood up and told the world that we cannot rely on government decisions announced in Parliament, that we cannot rely on the word of the finance minister, given a mere seven sitting weeks earlier, and that we cannot assume that legislation introduced by the finance minister six sitting weeks earlier represents the actual policy of the government. For a government that is making a big show about negotiating foreign deals and seeking foreign investment while talking about other governments signing agreements in pencil, the parliamentary secretary’s argument that we should not rely on federal government announcements, economic updates and budget implementing legislation as authoritative representations of government policy is actually quite chilling. In the current era of heightened global uncertainty, it is what is called “political risk”, which has fundamentally driven many business and economic considerations of late. For his part, the parliamentary secretary has single-handedly signalled to investment markets that they need to recalculate Canada’s political risk, because the finance minister’s word and the government’s word apparently cannot be relied upon even in the short term. Alternatively, the parliamentary secretary is saying that in the government’s pecking order, Mr. Guzman actually outranks the finance minister and that we should value their respective pronouncements accordingly. Either way, it is not good. Finally, another argument the parliamentary secretary offered is that the media got it all wrong and therefore there could not have been any leak because it was reported that the legislation would provide for an associate minister of national defence, when in fact Bill C-40 would create the position of associate minister of national defence for procurement. This sounds like a distinction without a difference. If anything, the phrase “associate minister” is the dead giveaway, the smoking gun, that there was a leak of details found within the bill. The phrase is a very precise and specific expression. It is very much an inside baseball term in the Ottawa field known as the “machinery of government”. The phrase was nowhere in the defence procurement lexicon until the night before Bill C-40 was introduced. It certainly was not in any of the quotations offered by the parliamentary secretary yesterday. All told, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to give the parliamentary secretary’s intervention the appropriate weight, namely an acknowledgement that he himself did not leak Bill C-40 to The Globe and Mail or the CBC. When we strip away the verbiage of his intervention, we are left with a threadbare argument by a government seemingly desperate to avoid any committee investigation related to the leak of this bill.”

“I want to know the government's plans for upcoming House business. I also want to know if the government will get rid of its carbon taxes and energy laws. These policies make groceries and gas more expensive, and they push energy investments out of Canada. Finally, I want to know if the government will admit that Canada is in an affordability crisis.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, it is Thursday, the highlight of CPAC’s audience’s viewing week. I would like to take this opportunity, before I ask the government House leader the business of the House for the rest of this week and for after we get back, to wish all Canadians a very happy Thanksgiving. We know there are many challenges in the world and in this country, but we are very blessed to live in a wonderful country where, despite some of those challenges, we still have a lot to be thankful for. I would like to wish all the parliamentary staff, the parliamentary community from the pages to translation, and even the member for York—Durham, a happy Thanksgiving. I will ask the government House leader this: Does he have any good news for those Canadians who are going grocery shopping this weekend? Is there any relief to undo Liberal taxes, such as the industrial carbon tax that drives up all kinds of production costs and transportation costs? Are there any plans to repeal the fuel standards tax that adds up to 17¢ cents a litre to the cost of fuel? All those groceries that have to be trucked in to grocery stores that Canadians will be buying for Thanksgiving meals are made more expensive by that tax. Are there any plans to repeal that tax? As Canadians think about economic activity and job growth, we know that Canadian energy companies invest billions of dollars outside this country, yet because of the government’s policies, now the government has to subsidize energy infrastructure in this country. Are there any plans to repeal those bad Liberal laws, such as Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that chase investment dollars out of the country and incentivize Canadian companies to build pipelines and energy projects in other countries? Can we see any hope on the horizon that those bad pieces of Liberal legislation will be repealed? When we come back from the Thanksgiving break, there will be a vote on our opposition motion today. Can the government House leader tell us whether or not Liberals will acknowledge that, after 11 years of Liberals being in power, Canada is in an affordability crisis?”

“The government leaked the details of a new defence bill to the media before sharing it with Parliament. Members of Parliament have the right to see bills first. I want the Speaker to rule that this leak broke the rules of the House so a committee can investigate it.”

“Mr. Speaker. I am rising this evening on a question of privilege concerning the leak of key details of Bill C-40, an act respecting production, procurement and investment in relation to national defence and national security, which was tabled in the House earlier today. Yesterday afternoon, the Globe and Mail published a report entitled “Ottawa to turn defence procurement agency into Crown corporation, sources say”, which cited three sources for its revelations. According to this report, “The three sources said legislation being tabled this week by Procurement Minister...includes measures to make the DIA a Crown corporation.” A few hours later, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation published its own reporting on the matter, advising that the public works minister “plans on introducing new, separate legislation taking the DIA one step further into independent Crown corporation status. The title of the proposed bill has appeared in House of Commons documents.” The entire thrust of part 1 of Bill C-40, something which could not be gleaned from the long title of the bill, is to establish something called the Canadian corporation for defence investment. Given the proposals to stand up the Defence Investment Agency found in Bill C-31, which is currently before the Standing Committee on Finance, Steven Chase’s and Marieke Walsh’s sources could not be said to have simply triangulated publicly available information to deduce the government’s plans. However, the revelations did not stop there. The Toronto newspaper also indicated that the government “announced in April that it planned to create a cabinet position, the minister of defence procurement, to steer purchasing”, and, “Three sources said the legislation being tabled Tuesday also will lay out the duties of this new minister.” As for these ministerial arrangements, the CBC’s Murray Brewster reported, “the Crown corporation would report to an associate minister of defence for public accountability purposes.” That associate minister role is exactly what clauses 13 and 14 of Bill C-40 would establish. Again, this is not something discernible from the long title, nor were these specifics telegraphed as such in any previous public statements by the government. What we are looking at here is a leak of the provisions of Bill C-40 while it was on notice for introduction. Paragraph 3.14 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, explains that: The premature disclosure of bills which have not yet been read in the House may be a breach of privilege. There is a well-established convention of parliamentary practice whereby members must be the first to be informed of the substance of legislative measures. This is because the House plays an essential role in the legislative process. The rule governing the confidentiality of bills ensures that members, as lawmakers, are aware of the details of a bill before they are made public. It is therefore forbidden to disclose specific provisions of a bill from the time notice is given to first reading. Only the title is made public when the Notice Paper is published. Mr. Speaker Milliken put it more succinctly on March 19, 2001, at page 1840 of the Debates. He said, “it is clear that information concerning legislation, although denied to members, was given to members of the media without any effective measures to secure the rights of the House”, and, “I have concluded that this constitutes a prima facie contempt of the House”. The report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that followed that 2001 leak, concluded, “This case should serve as a warning that our House will insist on the full recognition of its constitutional function and historic privileges across the full spectrum of government.” Sadly, the warning has had to be sounded multiple times since, following rulings by your predecessors finding similar prima facie contempt on October 15, 2001, April 19, 2016 and March 10, 2020. That is not to mention several other close call rulings that fell short of the necessary threshold yet saw the Chair sound cautionary notes for future reference. Most of those close calls occurred under the present Liberal government, which would often answer questions of privilege with claims that no one could be certain who had leaked the bill or even when it had been leaked, citing advance policy consultations with stakeholders. In fact, both news reports yesterday specifically tied the information shared by sources to the bill placed on the Notice Paper. What is more is that no such defence can be offered about stakeholders being naive to parliamentary conventions talking about the consultations they participated in. In both reports, the news outlets granted their “federal sources”, according to the CBC, anonymity because they were “not authorized to discuss the matter publicly” and “not authorized to speak publicly”. The fact that we cannot say for sure exactly which Liberals leaked the content of the bill is, however, no impediment to the Speaker finding a prima facie case of privilege. When confronted with a similar case, Mr. Speaker Milliken said on October 15, 2001, at page 6085 of the Debates: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his remarks tried to assist the Chair by suggesting that it was for the Chair to investigate the matter and come up with the name of the culprit and so on. I respect his opinion of course in all matters, but in this matter I think his view is perhaps wrong. There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which has a fearsome chairman, quite able to extract information from witnesses who appear before the committee, with the aid of the capable members who form that committee of the House. Moreover, after anonymity had been sought by the sources cited in The Canadian Press on the former Bill C-7 respecting medical assistance in dying, Mr. Speaker Rota said, in finding a prima facie contempt on March 10, 2020, at page 1892 of the Debates, “Everything indicates that the act was deliberate. It is difficult to posit a misunderstanding or ignorance of the rules in this case.” Just as in 2020, the leakers knew what they were doing, they knew it was wrong and they knew why it was wrong. What is more troubling is that this is just one action of many taken by a Liberal government that increasingly disrespects and disregards Parliament. This is not the first such complaint the Chair has entertained about MPs getting information after the media. It is not even the first such complaint this week. We have a Prime Minister whose question period participation rate is setting records, but the bad kind, I should clarify. After the Liberal Prime Minister declared a trade war this summer, his first address to parliamentarians was in Strasbourg, to Europe’s Parliament, not here in Ottawa to Canada’s own Parliament. I could go on. The House must stand up for its rights, especially against a government that appears happy to see Parliament as nothing but a distraction or, worse, just a mere speed bump. If the Speaker agrees with me that there is a prima facie contempt, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.”

“The government is ending seed research at the Indian Head farm, which hurts local jobs. This site has over 100 years of data and unique soil that cannot be replaced. The government should not cut this valuable Canadian research while spending money on farming projects in other countries.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is all talk and no results. The Liberals announced that they are eliminating seed research at the Indian Head research farm, jeopardizing local jobs. Many groups, like the Grain Growers of Canada and the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, have all condemned this decision. Now, the minister will claim that this work will continue at another site, but here is the problem. The site at Indian Head has over 100 years of data, unique soil conditions and local staff with decades of expertise and knowledge. This research is worth hundreds of millions of dollars for the Canadian ag industry. In the meantime, the government found millions of dollars for foreign aid for projects, like gender-just rice farming, that deliver no benefits for Canadians. Why is the government sacrificing Canadian research and jobs for Liberal waste?”

“I want the government to tell us what work we will do in the House. I want them to extend the gas tax cut past January, get rid of the clean fuel rules, and actually build new energy projects.”

“Mr. Speaker, the long summertime drought of Thursday questions finally comes to an end. I know much relief is felt not just in the parliamentary precinct but across the land. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the government House leader back after what I am sure was a very busy summer for us all as we were out in our constituencies meeting with Canadians, hearing directly about their concerns and now bringing their issues back here to Parliament. I would like to ask the government House leader if during his travels this summer, he heard from Canadians who want to move past the rhetoric to results and who want the government to actually save them money. We know the government has conceded that gas taxes take a big bite out of the economy and hurt affordability. In order to save Canadians money, will he finally agree to the Conservative plan and not just have a temporary reprieve of the gas tax until January, as we saw with Bill C-38? Are there any plans for the government to make that last longer, all the way to Canada Day? Now that the government has conceded the principle that gas taxes hurt the economy, will it abandon the fuel standard tax and bring in legislation to repeal it? Finally, after all the photo ops, rhetoric and bluster, will there be a single new project that has gone through the Major Projects Office or benefited from the unprecedented powers of Bill C-5? Will we finally get to see things built, or was this summer of press conferences and MOUs just a bunch of political theatre?”

In response to a question from Lisa Hepfner

“I want to honour the member for Yorkton—Melville as she retires. She always stood up for her core beliefs and served her constituents well. I wish her and her family the very best.”

“Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincere thanks to my colleagues for that accommodation. I think that any time a member is retiring after great service to their constituents in this House, it is appropriate that we show that kind of grace. I want to quickly extend all the very best to my colleague from Yorkton—Melville. We have worked together since 2015. We share a border and have many constituents who travel back and forth between her communities and mine. One of the things I admire about my colleague is her conviction and dedication to her core principles. I was given advice when I first got to this place that we should always know what we are willing to resign over or lose our seat over, that we should always know the limits upon which we cannot compromise, because those are our core values and beliefs. I believe Canadians respect that. They want to see people elected to the House of Commons who do not just go with the flow or read the polls and make decisions afterwards, but have a clear sense of who they are and what they are all about. The fact that her constituents kept sending her back to fight for them and represent them is a great testament to her character, her integrity and everything she brought to representing her constituents and speaking on their behalf in the House of Commons. Very quickly, I would like to wish her, her husband and everyone in her family the very best in her retirement and thank her for all she has brought to the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition in Parliament.”

“I want to know what the government plans to do in the House next week. Canada is in a recession. I want the government to bring in bills that cancel the carbon tax, cancel the fuel standard tax, and end the ban on shipping oil off the west coast.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have all been waiting since last Thursday for today’s Thursday question, the time of the week when Canadian telecom providers have to scramble to add excess capacity as hundreds of thousands of Canadians tune in, anxiously anticipating what the government will bring forward in the chamber for the rest of this week and into next week. With the news that Canada is the only country in a recession under this Liberal Prime Minister’s economic plan, will the government finally see the error of its ways and finally start to repeal the bad Liberal legislation that caused the problem in the first place? Can we expect, next week, to see legislation repealing the industrial carbon tax, which only applies to Canadian manufacturers and Canadian businesses? Will we see the Liberals bring in legislation to repeal the fuel standard tax, which adds at least 17¢ a litre to the price of fuel here in Canada, while American shippers and transporters do not have to pay that? Indeed, will they bring in a repeal of the west coast shipping ban, which prevents Canadian energy exports to Asian markets but does not apply to international traffic off the coast of British Columbia? Will they bring in a single piece of legislation to repeal the bad Liberal laws that are plunging Canada, the only G20 country, into a recession? Can we expect any of that relief next week?”

“What is the government's schedule for the rest of this week and next week? Now that the environment minister has resigned, will the government cancel its laws against pipelines, oil shipping, and the industrial carbon tax?”

“Mr. Speaker, you join millions of Canadians who are anxious to hear the Thursday question. In fact, data centres all over the country are whirring into action as streaming devices carrying CPAC spring to life. It being Thursday, it is time for the government to update the House as to the business for the rest of this week and next week. In light of the fact that Justin Trudeau’s radical environment minister has announced his resignation, and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie is leaving, apparently, over a rift in policy, it would be helpful for the member to know if he is doing the right thing. Will the Liberals repeal all the radical antidevelopment legislation that the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie was so proud of? Will they repeal the “no more pipelines” bill, Bill C-69? Will they bring in legislation next week to repeal the shipping ban for Canadian exports off the west coast? Will they repeal the industrial carbon tax that drives away so many jobs and so much investment? In other words, will the government prove that it has actually changed its ways, or in fact, is it continuing with Justin Trudeau’s radical antidevelopment, “no new energy” agenda? That would be in line with the Prime Minister’s book he wrote about himself called Values, in which he called for Canada’s natural resources to be left in the ground. In short, will the government bring in legislation to repeal those very bills and those very laws that drove out investment and shut down our energy sector for the past 11 years of darkness with Liberal governments?”

“The government is rushing this budget bill through without enough debate. It adds tens of billions of dollars to the national debt, which causes higher inflation. I want the minister to explain why he thinks this spending will not cause inflation again.”

“Mr. Speaker, the very first thing these Liberals did when they got their backroom deal majority was to stack the deck on committees, and now they are ramming through legislation and cutting off debate. This bill needs proper scrutiny, because it is a budget implementation bill that would add billions of dollars to the national debt. The last projection for this current fiscal year by the Trudeau government was that the deficit would be in the low thirties of billions of dollars. Now the deficit is more than twice that, with $30 billion of extra debt racked up on the national credit card. All this adds to more inflation. This is the same playbook the Liberals were running for 11 years: more dollars chasing fewer goods. Can the minister explain to the House why he thinks things will happen differently this time? We see the very same scenario. The Bank of Canada is buying government bonds. The creation of money, the money supply, the amount of money in circulation has been increasing at a rate of about twice that of the GDP. When we have more dollars chasing fewer goods, we get inflation, which is the worst kind of tax because Canadians have no say over it. Can the minister explain why he thinks things will be different this time?”

“I want to know what work the House will do for the rest of the week and when we return after the break. The government is hurting resource development with too many costs and rules. I want to know if the government will bring in bills to cancel these rules.”

“Mr. Speaker, it being Thursday, it is time for the Thursday question. Maybe we should all pause and allow a bit of time for the millions of Canadians to run over to their televisions and turn on CPAC so they can catch the Thursday question here in the House of Commons. I would like to ask the hon. House leader for the government what the business for the rest of the week will be and, after our two constituency work weeks, when we will celebrate Victoria Day and hopefully spend some time with our constituents and families, if the leader of the government in the House can inform us what the business will be when we come back. I note that there is a lot of chatter in the public about energy regulations and impediments to natural resource development. We have the actual people who do the investments and do the developments and build the projects saying that the Liberal government is shackling them with unnecessary costs and regulation. The Prime Minister, who has had a year with his powers of Bill C-5, the Major Projects Office powers, has gotten absolutely nothing approved through that office. Will the government bring in bills to repeal the antidevelopment legislation that the Trudeau government implemented and that the current government, with the current Liberal Prime Minister, has kept on the books? Can we please start seeing legislation entitled “an act to repeal”?”

“The deficit is 66 billion dollars, which is more than twice what the government promised. People cannot afford food because of this extra spending, and food bank use has doubled since 2019.”

“Madam Speaker, the last Justin Trudeau budget projected the deficit this year to be $31 billion. The deficit is $66 billion. That is more than double what was projected, not lower. The Liberals are spending more and Canadians are getting less, and now hard-working Canadians cannot even afford groceries. Here are some facts for the government. Food bank use has exploded to 2.2 million visits every month, up 100% since 2019. A third of those relying on food banks are children. Everything the Liberals brag about doing, they have tried before over the last 11 years themselves. Instead of driving up prices—”

“The government is spending too much money and causing high prices. I want the government to stop spending so life is more affordable for workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, workers are tired of seeing their paycheques devalued by Liberal inflation. That is what workers are saying across this country. However, after nearly a decade of the costly Liberal government, Canadians are maxed out while the Prime Minister has maxed out the country’s credit card. If we want to play the quote game, do not take my word for it. Even The Globe and Mail wrote, “the Trudeau government did all sorts of things that steadily made matters worse, fiscally and economically speaking, the [new Prime Minister’s] government will do almost nothing to make them better.” Again, will these Liberals stop with the credit card budgeting so that Canadians can afford to live?”

“I want permission to table a list of wasteful government spending that causes inflation.”

“Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, as was agreed during question period, I would like to ask for consent to table the list of wasteful Liberal spending that drives up inflation. The $90 billion for— Some hon. members: No.”