Melissa Lantsman
Thornhill, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the secretary of state confirmed what many Canadians already feared. A foreign government is funding and directing attacks on synagogues, businesses and the U.S. Consulate, and now the murder of a Toronto police officer. This government has known for years; they did nothing.”
“Mr. Speaker, one thing is clear, which is that the families of those police officers deserve better answers than that. The Liberals are in government. They have been there for 11 years. They are not bystanders in any of this. They let terrorists flood our country. They built a catch-and-release bail system.”
“I think this bill deserves to be debated and the House should give it that. Instead, the Liberals have rammed it through with what is called the programming motion to sweep this away right before they take their summer break. Let us go back to the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong .”
“That has never been done in this place except with Bill C-9 , the last bill the government passed through the House. My colleague mentioned that she had never seen that happen in her 15 years in this place, which is longer than I have been here.”
“In a previous life, she sat on this side of the House as the Conservative shadow minister for civil liberties. She participated in nearly every civil liberties debate in this chamber. Every single time, she told Canadians the truth, which was that the government could not be trusted with privacy.”
“Let me say this to anybody watching at home at this late hour: The Liberals' argument in this debate is completely disingenuous, and they know it. I appreciate the police chief of York Regional Police. We have an enormously good relationship, a great one. I have also met with the commissioner of the OPP and with the Toronto police chief.”
The complete record
Every one of 465 lines we hold for Melissa Lantsman, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 10.
“This House is owed answers that the government has not provided. Who runs the fund? How much in terms of management fees did they get? On what criteria are projects approved? What prevents them from being another vehicle for the same Liberal patronage networks that have embarrassed the government repeatedly? We will keep asking those questions. We will keep being the voice of every single Canadian who can see clearly what this is. When this was announced, I could not find a whole lot of people who were excited about it, except for the members on the other side of the House. They keep telling Canadians that Canadians do not understand the potential of this and this is based on hope, but everything this would do is the opposite of what the government says it is going to do.”
“We could fast-track approvals and start building things rather than funding another Ottawa office to study the feasibility of someday perhaps getting something built. We could scrap the bad laws, including Bill C-69 , the tanker ban and the industrial carbon tax. They are actively preventing pipelines, mines and LNG terminals from being constructed. That is not this side of the House saying that. That is the industry representatives themselves. None of this would require borrowing $25 billion of new money. All of it would create much more wealth than the government ever could. That is how to build a country, not on borrowed money funnelled through a Crown corporation whose governance, mandate and accountability mechanisms have yet to be designed but were announced first and with details to follow. Canadians get to pay the bill.”
“Capital did not flee Canada because there was no government bank to subsidize it. It fled because it was simply unprofitable to do business here. A $25-billion Band-Aid applied over a gaping wound does not close the wound. It just becomes a really expensive Band-Aid that Canadians will end up paying for. There are real alternatives to this. We could genuinely cut taxes so that families have more in their pockets every single month and business owners have a reason to stay here or to open up their business here in the first place. We can eliminate red tape and trade barriers that cost hundreds of billions of dollars in lost economic activity every year. I just do not understand how that is never the solution that they go to.”
“Even industry leaders are telling the Financial Times, not a Conservative blog but the Financial Times of London, saying that the government's red-tape cutting efforts are already floundering, costing more in lost trade than Trump's tariffs ever did. Forestry executives are frustrated. People in the oil and gas sector are frustrated. Auto executives are frustrated. What do we do? We create another bypass around the dysfunction, instead of fixing the dysfunction itself. The Liberals have created an $18-billion-a-year regulatory burden. They have interprovincial trade barriers in place that knock $200 billion off our GDP. They are married to Bill C-69 , the tanker ban, the policy uncertainty that has chased a trillion dollars out of this economy over the 10 years.”
“The reason that major projects are not getting built in Canada is not a lack of government capital, and that is the point here. There is not a lack of capital in Canada. They can ask anybody. If an infrastructure project is not moving forward, it is almost certainly because the private sector stakeholders have determined that it is not economically viable or because of the absurd regulatory environment. They have told us this. One does not solve an onerous regulatory environment by creating a new Crown corporation to fund projects the private sector stakeholders already said no to. One solves it by fixing the actual regulatory environment.”
“In the Globe's words, it is an “off-balance sheet vehicle for fiscal policy.” That is a government wealth fund in a costume. It is actually just another government program. We have seen this movie before and we know how it ends. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, which members might remember now as the green slush fund, sent $400 million out to Liberal-backed pet projects with 186 identified conflicts of interest, zero accountability and zero measurable results. The Canada Infrastructure Bank was also endowed with $45 billion in infrastructure. It spent a fraction of that on actual construction while handing out $8 million in bonuses since 2024. The Prime Minister himself made these comparisons earlier this week. With respect, I do not think it is the endorsement he thinks it is. (1235) Here is a deeper problem.”
“The Globe and Mail, not exactly a Conservative voice in Canada, observed this week that the pension funds that presumably partner with this vehicle, including the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, were not even consulted before this announcement was made. The CPP Investment Board, to its credit, said that the key to long-term success for any public investment institution is “a clear commercial mandate, strong governance, and operational independence.” That is a politely worded way of saying that it has concerns. We should have concerns, because the question cuts to the heart of this whole exercise. The fund's mandate is politically directed toward domestic infrastructure such as ports, mines and trade corridors, with diversification explicitly not a priority. It is then not truly an investment fund at all.”
“It is leveraged speculation with taxpayer collateral, and not the nation building that the Prime Minister is suggesting it is. I have heard Liberal government members say that this fund will be different, that it will be more transparent, more accountable and better governed. I would feel more confident about that claim if they could tell us who is going to govern it, how the projects would be selected, when it would be operational and what relationship any of this would have to the Canada Infrastructure Bank or the Canada Growth Fund. They cannot answer any of those questions today, and we will see that throughout the day. I am certainly not alone in asking them. This announcement landed with a giant thud. The sovereign wealth fund proposal was met with near-universal skepticism, disbelief and, frankly, pure ridicule.”
“Canada is not Norway. Norway has oil money and Canada has vibes and a $25-billion credit card statement. We are running an almost $70-billion deficit in the current fiscal year alone, double the last guy's, so we do not have surpluses to invest. We have deficits to finance, and $25-billion seed money in this fund is not savings. It is actually borrowed money any way we look at it. It is debt finance, like every other federal expenditure that exceeds our revenues. The Prime Minister is not building a wealth fund. He is building a debt fund, and he should be honest with Canadians about it. Let us be clear about what it means for every Canadian household. The government is borrowing at roughly 3.5% or 4% on 10-year bonds and betting that a bureaucratic Crown corporation run by political appointees will outperform the cost of that capital.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is an old joke about a man who racks up an enormous credit card debt, takes a second mortgage, opens a savings account and tells his wife it did not cost them anything. That joke is a pretty accurate description of the government's economic policy, and we are all the wife. The Prime Minister has announced a $25-billion so-called sovereign wealth fund, and Canadians deserve a serious accounting of what has actually been put in front of them. Let us begin with the most fundamental question: What precisely is a sovereign wealth fund? A real one would be built on genuine surpluses. We heard in the House today about Norway. Norway's government pension fund, the model the Prime Minister so eagerly name-drops, was capitalized by petroleum revenues. It has $1 trillion of assets because Norway saved when times were good.”
“Mr. Speaker, I doubt that Canadians will drink all that Kool-Aid, because they spent more and things actually got worse. After a decade of Liberal deficits, Canadians have the worst grocery inflation, the highest household debt, the worst housing costs and the second-highest unemployment in all of the G7. On top of all of that, Liberal ministers got rich and Canadians got the bill. These holdover ministers still have not learned that we cannot borrow our way to prosperity. I will ask again. How much more do Canadians have to pay before the government learns to live within its means?”
“Mr. Speaker, red ink is flowing here in Liberal Ottawa, as the government puts the final touches on today's fiscal update. The Prime Minister 's promise to spend less money quickly turned into a pledge to load up the taxpayer credit card and blow right past the limit. He could not even stay remotely close to the $31 billion left over by the last Liberal fiscal disaster. In fact, he actually doubled it. Will he end this costly credit card budgeting, cut spending or, at a minimum, cap the deficit at the already reckless $31 billion the last guy left behind?”
“Mr. Speaker, nobody thought it was possible to outspend Justin Trudeau, but here we are, with the same cast of characters sitting in the exact same seats saying the same thing. The Prime Minister doubled last year's deficit and sent the bill to Canadian kitchen tables: the worst grocery prices, the highest household debt, the worst housing costs in the G7. Those are the actual facts. When Liberals doubled the debt, they doubled the food bank lineups and they doubled the rent, passing on the balance from the credit card to every Canadian family. Will the Prime Minister stop the credit card budgeting, or does he think Canadians can also just apply for a higher limit?”
“Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister took office, he pledged to spend less than Justin Trudeau. Instead, he added $90 billion of net new spending, two-thirds of that on day-to-day operations. Bureaucracy is up 7% and operating costs are up 9%, all higher than his promised savings. He is putting the nation's finances on a credit card and pretending all of that is normal. Will the Prime Minister commit today that his deficit will not exceed the already excessive $31 billion Justin Trudeau left behind, or has he simply grabbed Trudeau's credit card and asked for a higher limit?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is the Alto high-speed train, consultants and the gun buyback program. There are a number of them, and we can discuss those at length in the House. However, the C.D. Howe Institute also said today that persistent Liberal deficits are undermining “growth and living standards” rather than supporting them, the very thing they claim to do. Every dollar the Prime Minister spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians. When will all of that stop and when is anybody over there going to be held accountable for any of it?”
“Mr. Speaker, next week, the Liberals are set to release their fiscal update. The Prime Minister is copying Justin Trudeau's playbook as he burns through more taxpayer dollars, goes deeper into debt and piles even more inflationary spending on every Canadian family. After more than a decade, none of the Liberals have realized that the more they spend, the worse affordability is for everyone. The Bank of Canada confirmed last week that rising interest rates are directly tied to excessive government spending. If the Prime Minister will not bother with this place, will he at least call his friends at the Bank of Canada and get his spending under control?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister warned at Davos, no more going along to get along. Then on April 10, Canada went along and got along. Iran, designated as a state sponsor of terror, whose Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a listed terrorist entity in this country, was handed a UN seat shaping programs of women's rights and counterterrorism. Only one country objected, and it was not Canada. The government's silence on Iran is a vote cast in its favour, no matter what it tells us. This is a regime brutalizing women for removing their hijab, running IRGC operatives in our streets, and fundraising, organizing and terrorizing our own people on our own soil. The Liberals have never had a single position on Iran, only whichever position costs the least. The record never lies. Delay and silence are a quiet ballot cast for the tyrants.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is arrogance on display. The minister thinks that everything is going fine, but for everyone drawing a paycheque, feeding a family or paying a mortgage, the reality is much different. Last month, the Prime Minister stood in this House and said, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” While we get the same speeches for four straight months and running, Canada has had the worst food inflation of all of our allies, and that, too, deserves a speech. On top of all of that, Canada has the highest household debt and the only shrinking economy in the G7. If affordability is the best it has been in a decade, then I have one question: For whom?”
“Mr. Speaker, all of those things were announced, but not a single one of those things has been built. I will give the member some new numbers from today. In March, Canada had the worst food inflation in the G7, not the second-worst, but the worst. Every G7 country faces the same global factors, yet Canadians are paying more than all of them. After years of deficit spending and higher taxes, Canadians now lead the G7 in household debt, housing costs and food inflation. When will the Prime Minister stop giving the fancy speeches and bring down the cost of government so Canadians can afford to live?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister spent the weekend repeating the same speech he has already given, and Canadians are still wondering when they will see results. He has the power to green-light major projects and build pipelines, but zero have been approved while keeping every anti-development law on the books. Over a trillion dollars in net investment is now gone from the country, and a year past his own deadline, we have no deal, just fear and division without results. We have more speeches and more agreements to make agreements. There are no pipelines, no deal, no investment and no relief at the grocery store. When does the Prime Minister stop auditioning for the job that he already has?”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister could have cut the taxes by 25¢ two days ago and he chose not to, yet he is patting himself on the back for something that the government could not do properly and would not have done at all if it had not been dragged there kicking and screaming. The Prime Minister 's so-called tax cut left 15¢ a litre on Canadians' gas bills at a time when they are struggling and the government will get a windfall in its pocket. It is only for a couple of months, meaning that the tax returns at 100% in September. Why will the government not just properly take off all of the taxes, all 25¢, for the rest of the year?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a tale of two Canadas under the Prime Minister , one where people's portfolios grow and the other where people's paycheques shrink. The government's own data confirms it. The wealth gap is widening, and nearly half of Canadians are $200 from insolvency. That is what inflationary Liberal taxes and spending does. It makes gas, groceries and everything else more expensive. Yesterday, Conservatives put forward a plan to remove all of the federal taxes on gas and diesel. The Liberals voted against that. Do they love the tax that much or do they just hate that the idea came from Conservatives?”
“Mr. Speaker, the last petition I am presenting today is signed by over 46,000 people. It is one of the largest petitions I have seen in this place. The petitioners call on the government to take a clear stand, one with moral clarity, for the millions of people who are fighting in Iran for their freedoms, their future and their leadership. The petitioners note that the roar of the lion and the shining sun will prevail and that the government should not side with those who are trying to extinguish their freedoms. I would like to thank everybody who signed this petition and look forward to the government's response.”
“Mr. Speaker, the next petition concerns the issue of anti-Semitism. The petitioners and many people recognize that it is out of control in this country. The petitioners have made several requests, including defunding UNRWA and banning symbols of terror, which we have seen in our streets.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of petitions. First is a group of petitions that come from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the government's assault on the use of cash in private transactions. Hundreds of business owners and consumers have signed these petitions. They believe that Canadians who follow the law should not have their freedoms impinged by government, and I agree with them.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister will not stand up and give a clear answer. In fact, he will not even talk about gas prices, and it is very easy to see why. Oil prices are not hurting this government. They are actually funding the government, because with every $10 increase in oil prices, the Liberals get $2 billion more in tax revenue. That means the Liberals are collecting a generational windfall at the pumps, while Canadians pay more for everyday essentials. I will give the minister some more practice, and I will ask him my question very slowly. Will he suspend the out-of-control gas taxes and return the $5 billion to the people who paid for it?”
“Mr. Speaker, there are some things the government can control, and there are many things that it should control. For the Liberal government, the pain at the pump is not a coincidence, it is actually a policy choice. It is up to the Liberals now how much tax goes on every litre of gas. That sits at 25¢, but the Liberals could make it zero cents by adopting our Conservative plan. While they delay, Canadian families suffer from an extra $20 cost every time they fill up. The Prime Minister has been looking at it, while Canadians have been paying for it. When does he plan on doing something other than just monitoring the situation?”
“Mr. Speaker, anybody going to the gas station right now knows that the prices are simply out of control. Today, a litre of gas in Ontario is $1.70, and in B.C. it is over $2. We do not just pay for fuel at the pumps; we pay an excise tax of 10¢, a fuel standard tax of 7¢, going to 17¢, and we pay GST on all of that. All of those are just federal taxes, adding up to 25¢ on every litre. Liberal taxes have turned a bad situation into a tax grab for the government. Will the Liberals adopt the Conservative plan and suspend all of those gas taxes today?”
“Mr. Speaker, we get it. They got follow-up emails, but even her Liberal colleagues are telling the CBC that she is not fit for the job. However, none of that seems to matter to the Liberal Prime Minister , because this is how it works in Liberal Ottawa. Step one is someone fails at their job. Step two is they get a promotion. Step three is they start the cycle again. That is what happened to the last immigration minister, who is the culture minister , and the one before that, who is the Attorney General . Based on how it all works here, I have a different question for the Prime Minister: When is he giving the current immigration minister her next promotion?”
“Mr. Speaker, we can add the Auditor General's name to the long list of people who know the immigration minister is not very good at her job. She already has no idea how to address the millions of expired visa holders in Canada, and a new report found that, of over 150,000 fraudulent immigration cases, less than 3% were investigated. There is no accountability for the fraudsters and no accountability for anyone who broke the system. People like her and the last two immigration ministers still get to sit in cabinet, so I have a question again: When are they being fired?”
“Mr. Speaker, the only thing that is shameful is an answer like that from somebody who has been here for 10 years and whose government has created a homegrown problem with out-of-control taxes, out-of-control spending and mountains of red tape. Now we have the only shrinking economy in the G7, the second-highest unemployment rate, the highest household debt and the highest food inflation. Everyone else is dealing with the tariff war too. When will the government admit that its policies are killing jobs and reverse course before it kills even more next month?”
“Mr. Speaker, nobody, not even the Liberal government, can sugar-coat the findings in the most recent jobs report. It revealed the largest collapse in full-time jobs since COVID. Over 100,000 jobs were lost, with a youth unemployment rate of 14% now. TD called it “weak”, while CIBC called it “very bad”, and BMO called it “simply brutal”. However, it is more than just words. It is empty bank accounts, skipped meals and fleeting hope. We need action now. Will the government commit today to adopting our Conservative jobs plan to get the economy back on track and people back to work?”
“Mr. Speaker, let me explain something back. Just because one does not have to do something, it does not mean they should not, especially when they lead their allies to believe that they will. We have a name for that. The Liberals cannot paper over a 10-year record of shutting down the oil and gas sector, leaving our country weaker, more dependent and unable to step up when it matters. They can say the words and they can sign the MOUs, but we all know that the minister's new project office has not approved a single new project. Will the government finally scrap the anti-pipeline law, repeal the emissions cap, lift the tanker ban and approve real projects so we can get Canadians to work and be there for our allies?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources made the absurd promise that Canada would “do its part” to help stabilize global oil markets, but Canada cannot do its part because after a decade of Liberal energy policies, we do not have a strategic oil reserve. When allies need energy and markets need stability, Canada has nothing to offer but the minister's promises. Conservatives have proposed a strategic reserve to fuel our allies abroad and give Canada real leverage, especially at times like these, so will the Liberals adopt our plan so Canada can be stronger at home and more reliable abroad?”
“Mr. Speaker, once in a while the member for Winnipeg North tells the truth in this House. I will leave it to them. I laid out very clearly that free trade needs to be fair trade. Access of products to our market and fairness for U.K. pensioners should be at the centre of this conversation, and they certainly have not been.”
“Mr. Speaker, last week, the Leader of the Opposition went to the U.K. and Germany, and that visit was received very well. The Leader of the Opposition spoke to the Prime Minister about his visit to the U.S. and stands ready to help. He is going to go to Michigan to speak about auto and to Texas to speak about our resources, to ensure that jobs are kept in Canada. We look forward to that visit. I know the Prime Minister spoke to the Leader of the Opposition , and we stand ready to help in this relationship whenever possible.”
“Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot written and said about the government's new focus on China. I think our U.S. counterparts would also be rather concerned. The matter at hand is the difference between securing a trade relationship, opening markets to farmers, and creating a strategic partnership with a country that does not share our values or our national security interests and, frankly, has kidnapped Canadians and reached out its arm of transnational repression to our people here.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know this is supposed to be a gotcha question, but this is the party of free trade. This is a party that signed more free trade agreements and had the richest middle class before the Liberals took over more than 10 years ago. We support expanding trade, but the matter here is that free trade has to be fair for all of the participants. We also cherish our values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, and we are going to lead with those values in every conversation we have around the world.”
“We do not quite understand why we are signing on to something that makes us worse off. Why did the Liberals let something languish to the point where our pork producers, our beef producers and 100,000 U.K. pensioners are all worse off, and this still goes ahead? Canadians deserve an agreement that works for Canada. That means for this agreement and every single other one. We are not going to celebrate with a participation medal something that should have been done a long time ago. That is why I wanted a say in this debate.”
“These are not abstract statistics that we talk about when we talk about trade, because trade is all about attracting partners here and getting our products elsewhere. They also translate directly into fewer jobs, slower wage growth and fewer opportunities for Canadians. When businesses decide where to invest and whether to expand at home or move elsewhere, those factors really matter. Building a competitive economy actually matters in all of this: one that rewards work, encourages investment and removes the unnecessary barriers to growth, which is how we get ahead in trade. We intend to support expanding markets for Canadian products. We always have and we always will, but we will also scrutinize the government's failure to secure real wins and real results for Canadians, which is what this debate is about.”
“What does the Prime Minister think when it comes to American auto, or resources, or really everything? We may never know. We have news of the minister heading down to Washington and then radio silence about the whole thing. Canadians need an update, otherwise they get more of these debates in the House about technical amendments about accession to an agreement that was negotiated a long time ago. I will add one more point. Trade agreements are important, but trade agreements alone cannot solve Canada's deeper economic problems. They cannot compensate for an economy that has been made less competitive with higher taxes and more regulation. Over the past decade, we have seen falling investment per worker and weak productivity growth compared to our peers.”
“The Liberals often speak about the importance of trade diversification, yet Canadians were among the last CPTPP members to ratify the U.K. accession, and that delay matters. It matters for Canadian businesses, who waited longer for access to the U.K. market that this membership could have provided them with. While the government celebrates the technical amendments of a trade agreement, the reality is that Canada's most important trade relationship remains deeply unstable. More than 70% of Canada's exports go to the U.S. We all know that, yet today that relationship is clouded, obviously, by uncertainty, tariffs, unresolved disputes and the lack of a serious trade strategy that does not ignore reality. For Canadians, a lot of questions remain: Where are we in all of this? What is the plan?”
“Instead, those issues remain unresolved. Today, we are talking about Bill C-13 , and the conversation in the House would lead us to believe that this is a brand new trade agreement, or that this is some major breakthrough. It is not. Bill C-13 is not a new trade agreement. It is simply legislation to update Canadian law, years after a deal was already negotiated. In other words, Parliament is not debating a new strategy on Canadian trade. We are being asked to stamp changes required for negotiations that took place years ago. Even though the government managed to delay the process, and I can understand the urgency now, this is participation medal stuff. This is not where we need to go in order to expand our markets at a critical time.”
“Despite the member's raising it, they are actually getting into this without resolving it, and that is the more than 100,000 U.K. pensioners who live in Canada. Unlike pensioners who retire in countries like the United States, their pensions are not indexed to inflation, and we all know what has happened with inflation over the last couple of years under the Liberals' watch. (1345) The pensioners have been raising the issue for years and asking for the same treatment as pensioners in other countries, because that is only fair. Given the close relationship between the Prime Minister and his counterpart in the U.K., one might have expected the government to use these negotiations to advocate for Canadian farmers and for those 100,000 pensioners who are living here in Canada during a cost-of-living crisis.”
“It failed to resolve these issues, and that matters. It matters for our producers, and it matters for people who consume those products here in Canada. This is about far more than agriculture. It exposes, I think, a deeper failure of the government and one that should make anyone question this new, big talk on trade. This is where we sort of get into the nitty-gritty details. Now the government is asking Parliament to approve the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP without reversing these barriers and without making it fair. It appears the government is preparing to grant new access to the Canadian market while leaving our farmers locked out of the U.K.'s. That is not strong negotiating, and everybody understands that. There is another issue that the government has ignored.”
“When we are talking about trade, it has to be equal. The result of this is a glaring imbalance. I know that our agricultural critic has these numbers off the top of his head, but I had to look it up at the Library of Parliament. Britain exported 16 million dollars' worth of beef to Canada in 2023, $42 million in 2024 and $28 million in just the first half of 2025. Meanwhile, Canada exported only 85,000 dollars' worth of beef in 2023, $25,000 in 2024 and none at all in 2025. The story is the same with pork. Britain exported in the millions of dollars' worth, while Canada exported no pork to the U.K. in 2023 and topped out at just about $120,000 in the last year. This is not fair trade, and anybody who looks at the numbers can understand that. After nearly a decade in power, there is real, big talk now of trade from the Liberal government.”
“I know there are a lot of people in this place who believe that food comes from a grocery store, but there are a whole lot of people who get it there, like those who raise cattle, those who grow our food and those who get it onto our tables. For them, this is what brings us to the conversation of the U.K. and why we should pay attention to this. Under the trade continuity agreement, the U.K. imposed non-tariff barriers on Canadian pork and cattle that are not rooted in science, and that is a problem. The U.K. refuses to accept something called carcass wash, which is used safely in Canadian slaughter plants, and it has regulations against Canadian beef about the way that we do things in terms of our own regulations here. These measures have effectively kept these products out of the U.K. market.”
“They go to work every day. They support their families. They contribute to their communities. They are learning new skills and just trying to create a better life. If anyone is failing them, it is the government, which fails on the promises it makes. I will say this: Conservatives support free trade because we are a trading nation. That is very obvious. Our prosperity depends on selling goods and resources to the world, and for many of us in this place, we have no idea what life was like before free trade, especially with our biggest partners. We also support, though, fair trade. This is where I want to focus in on the discussion. Fair trade means ensuring that Canadian producers have real access to markets that are open here at home. It means standing up for Canadian ranchers and farmers and producers when they are treated unfairly.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to split my time with the hon. colleague from Edmonton Manning , a great parliamentarian to work with, a thoughtful guy and a friend. Today, we are debating trade, if members have been paying attention. There are few issues that are closer in the minds of Canadians at the moment. Across the country, Canadians are worried about their families and their savings and whether they will be able to make it to the end of the month. Some have already lost their jobs, and I think many are wondering if theirs are next. This is a reality that Canadians are facing. Some of it is entirely outside of their control, but many also understand that much of it is possibly within their control. I want to be super clear about something as we dig into this. Canadians are not the ones failing. I think they are being failed.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister knows there are 700 IRGC agents in this country, and those are just the ones we know about. The minister knows that dissidents are being threatened. He knows that activist businesses are being shot out, and he knows that intimidation is happening under his watch, yet, after three and a half years, the Liberals have deported exactly one of those terrorists. Will the minister commit to returning to the House within one week with a plan to expel more than just one regime activist?”