Kyle Seeback
Dufferin—Caledon, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the family of Constable Tarun Bali, who passed away tragically in the line of duty in northern Ontario. Constable Bali was a member of the Dufferin OPP in my home riding of Dufferin—Caledon. I know the men and women who serve in the Dufferin OPP.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the 11th time the Liberals have announced they are going to make food cheaper for Canadians. Forgive me if I do not believe a single word that these guys say.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is with respect to a young man from Bolton, Ontario, Gabriel Arshad, who was critically injured on July 5, 2025 in a devastating four-vehicle collision.”
“Mr. Speaker, luxury Normandy butter cups, beef tenderloin, braised beef with wine reduction and crème brûlée were included in 95,000 dollars' worth of luxury meals on one flight, $1 million in the last 12 months. Meanwhile, a quarter of Canadians are food-insecure.”
“It is really unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. Every week, they stand in the House of Commons and brag about the fact that for the first time in Canadian history, a government has to send money to Canadians so they can buy groceries. Let us think about that for a minute. That is the country they have created in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, every month, there is a new report that shows how difficult life has become under the Liberal government. Last night, it was a damning report from Food Banks Canada, and this month we have a report from United Way that says 60% of Canadians now have anxiety just thinking about their finances.”
The complete record
Every one of 306 lines we hold for Kyle Seeback, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 7.
“Mr. Chair, it is becoming quite embarrassing now. I have asked three questions, and the minister has not even attempted to answer any of them. I will answer that question as well. It is 20,000 vehicles. Out of 1.2 million vehicles manufactured in Canada, 20,000 of those are fully electric vehicles that will meet the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Does the minister know what percentage that is of the vehicles manufactured in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, once again, the minister is either unwilling or unable to answer a question that I am asking. The answer to that question is this: 1.2 million vehicles. Does the minister know, of those 1.2 million vehicles, how many were electric vehicles that were manufactured in Canada?”
“Mr. Chair, it is very frustrating when ministers will not answer questions. That is two questions I have asked, and two questions he did not answer. Does the minister know how many vehicles were manufactured in Canada in 2025?”
“Yes, Mr. Chair, I am splitting my time. I asked the minister about a zero-emission vehicle mandate, and he did not answer. I am assuming it is because the minister did not know the answer. In fact, the regulations that the government has put forward actually mean that only a fully electric vehicle will meet the tailpipe emissions target by 2035. Will he agree with me that this is a zero-emission vehicle mandate?”
“Mr. Chair, I am having a very hard time understanding what the Liberal EV and auto strategy is. I have a series of questions for the minister, and I hope he will actually try to answer the questions I am asking. Minister, your government announced the end of the zero-emission vehicle mandate. Is it your position that there is still no zero-emission vehicle mandate in Canada for automobiles?”
“Mr. Speaker, after 11 years, it is the same Liberal waste and Liberal corruption going on every single day. The Liberals spent nearly $300 million on the PrescribeIT program, yet they could not explain where the money went and why almost nobody used it. Liberal-connected consultants are now getting a gobsmacking $26 billion a year, up 37% from the previous year. This is costing the average family $1,400. They are spending $200 million on a so-called spaceport that is nothing more than a gravel parking lot in Nova Scotia. Meanwhile, after all this spending, 2.2 million Canadians go to food banks every single month. It is really not hard to figure out how these Liberals doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. What is really hard to figure out is why things are still so hard for average Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I almost do not even know where to start with that statement. The member said the Liberals reduced the deficit by $11 billion. That is not true. Under Justin Trudeau, the deficit was $30 billion. It is now $65 billion. That is not less, it is more. If they do not know that is more and not less, maybe that is why we have such a problem. When they say they are going to do things, they do not seem to understand that if they write something down, it does not mean it actually happens. That is why we have the highest unemployment rate in the G7. Will the Liberals at least apologize to the 112,000 Canadian families that lost their jobs and are now going to food banks?”
“Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate in Japan is 2.4%. In Germany, it is 3.7%. In the United States, it is 4.2%. In the United Kingdom, it is 4.7%. After the Liberals have been running our economy, Canada is at 6.9%. We shed 47,000 jobs in April alone. That is 47,000 families that now have to figure out how they are going to pay their rent or their mortgage and put food on the table. After doubling the national debt and spending so much money, how have the results for Canadians been so terrible?”
“Madam Speaker, they really did learn how to manipulate numbers from Bernie Madoff. They say that the deficit is down. They projected a terrible deficit. They just made up a number. It is actually double what it was under Justin Trudeau. That is up, not down. I hate to break it to these guys. Canadians now have the highest household debt in the G7. Why? They are borrowing money to pay for their daily and weekly costs, including groceries. Everything has gotten worse under the Liberals, including debt. Why do they keep racking up the debt on Canada's credit card so that we spend more on just the interest portion of servicing the debt than we do on health care?”
“Madam Speaker, all week, the Liberals have said they are going to spend less and invest more, except they define what spending is and what investing is. It is almost like they got their accounting advice from Bernie Madoff. What we know is that the Liberals are now spending another $65 billion on Canada's credit card. They doubled the national debt, so we now spend more on interest servicing the debt than we do on health care. Are the Liberals proud of this record?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member said, “We are spending less to invest more”. That is the kind of thing someone's crooked accountant tells someone when all their money has gone missing. This is exactly what the Liberals kind of do. They make up words and phrases to cover up for the fact that they have doubled the national debt. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Kyle Seeback: Mr. Speaker, they are shouting because they do not like it. It took 148 years to accumulate a certain amount of debt. Eleven years of these guys running things and they more than doubled it. The result is our children and grandchildren are mired in debt. With all of their investments, why is it the least affordable country we have had in the history of Canada? These investments clearly are not working.”
“Mr. Speaker, from 1867 to 2015, over 148 years, Canadian governments accumulated a certain amount of debt. Over the last 11 years, the Liberal Prime Minister and Justin Trudeau doubled it. They doubled the entire national debt in 11 years. This now means we pay more interest on the debt than we do in health care transfers. There will be an economic update today. Are these Liberals really going to celebrate another massive increase of the debt that our children and grandchildren will have to pay off?”
“I think that this is going to be an incredible stifling of democracy. It is deeply troubling how they are doing this at the accountability committees. If they actually cared about accountability, they would do this at the justice committee or they would do things at the finance committee to get their legislation through. However, they are doing it at the accountability committees, the ones that hold them accountable, without a democratic mandate. These are dark days for democracy in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely true. The Liberals are filibustering at the HUMA committee, like I described, to block the production of documents. They are filibustering at the ethics committee to avoid accountability for the finance minister , who is in a conflict of interest. I think we are going to see that increasingly. One thing that I suspect will also start happening now is that the Liberals will bring motions to go in camera at committee. They are going to say, “Mr. Chair, we would like to move the meeting in camera.” For Canadians, this means that for whatever happens in that meeting, we cannot speak about it publicly. The Liberals will do that to avoid further accountability by holding the clause-by-clause review of legislation in camera, so they are not seen voting down opposition amendments.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to see the Liberal tendency to use massive, omnibus pieces of legislation, stifle debate and close down investigations at committees or prevent them from starting. This is something we have seen repeatedly over the last number of months. It is something we are going to see increasingly; it is going to accelerate. The Liberals will not accept amendments from the opposition. They will use things like time allocation motions to shut down debate in the House of Commons. They will use closure motions like they are using on this motion. They will use programming motions that not only shut down debate but also program the amount of time spent in committee so that the legislation avoids scrutiny. This is going to be a catastrophe.”
“We know that where there is a Liberal government, there are ethical violations. We all remember the ad scam, the green slush fund, arrive scam, name it. When there is money involved, the Liberals get their hands involved and all of that will be silenced by the Liberals. I think it is an outrage that they would use a closure motion on a motion to take control of committees. It tells us exactly what they are going to do and exactly the kind of government they will be, and it is not what Canadians wanted.”
“They are also doing this for the accountability committees: public accounts, access to information, ethics and government operations. We wonder why they are doing it? We do not have to wonder. They are doing it to avoid scrutiny. They are doing it to avoid accountability. They are not Liberals who believe in any of those things. I am saying this very clearly right now and I am talking directly to Canadians: Watch what happens over the next year with the Liberals and watch what happens at committee. There will be constant motions to shut down investigations at committee. There will be constant motions in the chamber to shut down debate. There will be programming motions so that things barely go to committee at all. They will not be held to account for ethical violations.”
“It goes back to what I said when I first opened this speech. When someone says who they are, believe them. They do not believe in an opposition that can hold them to account. They do not, or they would not be resetting the numbers on the accountability committees. If they wanted to, they could say that they are taking control of committees to get their legislative agenda passed. I could maybe understand that, especially if it were six members instead of seven. The committees would then be where they should be and the chair would have to break the tie. It is a Liberal chair. The Liberal chair would break the tie in their favour. They are going to seven, which reduces the opportunity for opposition members to speak at committee.”
“As if that is not bad enough, I will go back to what we did earlier today. It was one hour into the debate, a debate about these Liberals taking control of all of the committees so they can ram through their legislative agenda any way they want, with little or no scrutiny. I say that because they can do very simple things. They can bring a programming motion when they put a piece of legislation in the House of Commons, and they can program the amount of time it will spend at committee and have it brought back. They can vote down every single amendment the opposition might want to do. This is a very important debate. This should be debated. They should have extended hours in the House to have this debate. Instead, what did they do? They moved closure. After one hour, they said they have had enough of the debate.”
“They will have the votes to deny accountability, to deny transparency and to do whatever they want. That is the real reason why we are having changes to committees. They do not like the scrutiny that committees provide. We have had all kinds of Liberal members wax poetic about the wonders of committee and the work that committees do. Guess what. They do amazing work when there is a minority government and the government can be held to account. We can get the documents that we need. We can have the ministers who have engaged in unethical conduct come before committee and answer for that unethical conduct. We can look at pieces of legislation that have terrible government overreach and we can say that they will not pass without amendment. All of that will now be gone.”
“They just say the minister clearly violated the conflict of interest laws and too bad, he is not going to committee to testify because they have the votes. (1825) Right now, on my committee, the HUMA committee, they have been filibustering, for two days, a document production order. Why do we want documents? We want documents to look into the cost overruns of another Liberal technology project. Everybody remembers ArriveCAN, the tiny project that went massively over budget. This is another IT project that has gone wildly bad under the Liberal government. All we have asked for is for the Liberals to produce some documents. They have spent the last two meetings filibustering that document request. Guess what. If the motion passes, they do not have to filibuster any more.”
“What they are filibustering and preventing from happening is the finance minister 's going to committee to testify on his clear conflict of interest with respect to the Alto project. It is a clear conflict of interest. He has voted on issues that deal with Alto. Alto was in the budget, and the finance minister's partner is an executive at Alto. This is a clear ethical violation. The minister should be held to account and go to committee, but the Liberals have been filibustering for days to prevent that from happening. Now what are they doing? They are giving themselves a majority on that committee so they do not have to filibuster away accountability anymore. No, they do not have to bother with that because now they have the votes.”
“This is a motion to radically change the composition of committees. It would not just be adding one extra Liberal member, as would be appropriate; they would be adding two. They would not just be adding two extra members to the committees that they say are the ones to get things done, such as finance or others; they would be taking control of the oversight committees. Why is that important? Why would I say this is something that Canadians should be very concerned about? I will give a couple of examples. Right now, at the ethics committee, which is one of the oversight committees, the Liberals have been filibustering for I do not know how many days. What are they filibustering over? Is it something important, a critical piece of legislation, a bill they think the opposition parties are going to use to destroy Canada? No.”
“If a Conservative member or an opposition member from the Bloc or the NDP gets up to speak, that is obstruction and filibustering. However, if a Liberal member gets up, it is somehow a wonderful thing that is happening in this place. This is how Liberals engage. This is the respect they have for the democratically elected opposition parties. While they were in a minority status, we were able to keep that in check, and we did that in many ways. For example, Bill C-22 came from a piece of legislation, Bill C-2 , which contained all kinds of Liberal authoritarian overreach. Through opposition to that, the bill was split. Now that they are going to reorganize committees, the opportunity to do that would get significantly smaller. It would almost not exist because they could do such things as what they have just done.”
“In fact, earlier in the week, we were conducting a debate on Bill C-22 about lawful access, a very serious piece of legislation that sets the parameters for which police and other authorities can access Canadians' digital footprint. Every time a Conservative member got up in this chamber to debate the issue and make points about the problems with the legislation, the Liberal deputy House leader got up and accused them of filibustering and obstruction. If that is not bad enough, right after he would accuse Conservatives of engaging in filibuster and obstruction, a Liberal member would get up and speak. We can see the authoritarian streak in the Liberal Party every single day when we engage in debate in the House of Commons.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying that is very appropriate for what we are about to go through in the House of Commons and something I want all Canadians to think about. It is that when they show us who they are, we should believe them. One hour into the debate to give the Liberals a majority on all committees, a majority which was not obtained through the results of the last election, they brought forward a closure motion. A closure motion is used to close down debate. Why am I talking about closing down debate? It is because the Liberal government has a strong authoritarian streak. It has been found guilty of invoking the Emergencies Act. It has used parliamentary overreach at every single opportunity it has.”
“Mr. Speaker, the answer from the Liberal government is $5 billion collected on Canadian automakers, which is putting Canadian auto workers out of work, and $4 billion of those tariffs are to be paid by Honda and Toyota. They will not continue to pay those tariffs. The government's answer is, “Don't worry. There's nothing to see here because we're going to sign a free trade deal with Ecuador”. The Brampton auto plant that closed is in the Minister of International Trade 's riding. The Liberals' strategy of delay led to that plant closing. When will they give up on this strategy of delay and get the tariffs off for Canadian workers?”
“Mr. Speaker, it has now been widely reported in the media that part of the Liberal strategy to get Trump's tariffs removed is to delay. Yesterday at the foreign affairs committee, the Canadian ambassador to the United States said that they have detailed analysis on exactly how much this hurts Canadian businesses. They know the cost, so if the Brampton auto plant closes, that is no problem. It is part of the delay strategy. If steel mills close, that is no problem. It is part of the delay strategy. If tens of thousands of Canadians lose their jobs, that is no problem. It is part of the delay strategy. At what point do they say enough is enough, that there have been enough job losses and enough pain, and stop this strategy of delay?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal answer to the tens of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs about their strategy of delay is tell them to not worry about their EI, not worry about their families and not worry about how they are going to pay their mortgages because they signed a free trade deal with Ecuador, which is a rounding error in Canada's GDP. If these Liberals are serious, they will explain why they decided their strategy is to not negotiate to try to get a deal on the tariffs that affect the 2.6 million Canadians whose jobs are tied to trade. When will they go back to the negotiating table to protect those jobs?”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been seven months since there has been a formal meeting or negotiation to exchange offers to remove these American tariffs. What is worse is that it is now being reported that this is a Liberal strategy, which has led to the loss of tens of thousands of Canadian jobs, the closure of the Brampton auto plant, the closure of steel mills and the closure of pulp and paper mills. This has had a devastating effect on Canadians, and now there are expanded tariffs on all manufactured goods, which will make it worse. What do these Liberals have to say to the Canadians who have lost their jobs as a result of their strategy of delay?”
“These workers deserve better. Our country deserves better. Why have these Liberals given up on a trade deal with our most important trading partner?”
“Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Liberal Prime Minister said he would have tariffs with the United States removed by July. He failed. The cost of that failure was tens of thousands of jobs in the Canadian auto sector, the Canadian steel and aluminum sector, and the softwood lumber sector, and now expanded tariffs on Canadian manufactured goods, which will have a devastating impact. Meanwhile, Mexico, it is reported, is close to signing a deal to remove tariffs and have a trade deal. Our Prime Minister 's response is that the trade with the United States is a weakness. There are 2.6 million Canadians whose jobs directly rely on trade with the United States. That is not a weakness. They need action. I have been told these Liberals have not had a meeting of substance with the Americans to exchange proposals in over six months.”
“Mr. Speaker, has anyone ever had the experience of listening to people talk who actually say nothing? It is the Liberal response to every single question that we get in question period. There is the illusion of progress, the illusion that things are getting better with the trade relationship with the United States, and yet everything continuously gets worse. The Liberals always say something is just over the horizon. My question was this. If they think trade with the United States is such a weakness for Canada, what do they have to say to the 2.6 million Canadian families whose jobs rely on that trading relationship? I just ask for an answer to that.”
“Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the Liberal Prime Minister said he was the one to get a deal from Donald Trump. Fast-forward to this year, and we have seen tens of thousands of job losses in the auto sector, the softwood lumber sector, and the steel and aluminum sector. Now we have new tariffs on our manufacturers that are punishing our tool and die makers. What is the Liberal Prime Minister's response? It is that trade with America is a weakness. Let me explain something to these Liberals. There are 2.6 million Canadian jobs tied to trade with America. Other than “I give up” and “Trade with America is a weakness”, what does the Liberal Prime Minister have to say to the Canadian families whose jobs rely on trade with America?”
“What is interesting is that the Liberals are actually filibustering at the ethics committee to stop an investigation into the finance minister , whose partner is on the board of directors for Alto. If members want to talk about filibusters and obstruction, they are the professionals.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. Let us think about this bill. If it had been brought forward as Bill C-2 in its original form today, on the cusp of a Liberal majority government, there would have been no consultation. There would have been no splitting of the bill. The Liberals would have proceeded forward with this at committee to get it passed through the committee as quickly as possible. We have seen the attitude of the Liberals with respect to this bill. No one is filibustering this piece of legislation. No one is obstructing this piece of legislation. For goodness' sake, there was just a Liberal minister up, speaking to the bill. If what we are doing is obstruction and a filibuster, then they are filibustering their own piece of legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, the cognitive dissonance of that question is really stunning. Once again, the member is suggesting that the audacity of Conservatives and other members of the opposition to get up and speak to this particular piece of legislation is somehow an affront to democracy. Meanwhile, we had a Liberal minister speaking to this particular piece of legislation literally 15 minutes ago. If the Liberals really think this bill is so important and that we do not need more debate, why do they continue to put up speakers? That takes us to exactly where we are in this country now. Everything the Liberals do, they think is perfect. Anything that anyone else does is filibustering and not worthy of the House's time. It is a deeply troubling belief that the Liberal government seems to have.”
“This is deeply troubling for the future of Canadians and the future of Canadians' data. Whenever Bill C-22 goes to committee, if the government has reconstituted the committees to give itself a majority, which Canadians did not vote for, it will be able to pass this piece of legislation without amendment. In fact, it could pass it after hearing from one or two witnesses. The government could pass it without hearing from any witnesses, because it is going to have complete control of committees. The attitude displayed by the parliamentary secretary to the House leader and the contempt he seems to show for debate give me great concern for what would happen at committee.”
“When we look at the kinds of extraordinary powers the government is seeking to give not just police, but security agencies, we have to make sure that our data is protected and that the privacy of Canadians will be protected. This takes us to a deeply troubling thing that my NDP colleague raised several times today, which is the fact that the government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner on the drafting of this legislation. It is is deeply problematic, because the Privacy Commissioner is going to have a lot of concerns about this particular piece of legislation. Going back to how this is a majority government, and we are back at Bill C-2 , which was an omnibus piece of legislation. The government did not consult the Privacy Commissioner. It has a majority. It can do whatever it wants in the House of Commons and at committee.”
“In fact, the amount of metadata the average Canadian has is enormous, and the potential abuse of that is deeply problematic. We could almost go back to when we were going through the COVID-19 pandemic, when the Liberals wanted to track our movement data, which is a form of metadata. They would have gotten a lot more data than just where people were moving around. They talked about how they would take that data and randomize it so that even if there was a data breach, no one would be granted access to it, but experts came to committees and said that was absolutely not true. No matter how the data is randomized, someone can put that data back together.”
“A huge part of that is debating right here in this chamber, much to the chagrin of the parliamentary secretary to the House leader , who would like us all to just sit down and let the Liberals continue to have their own speakers get up and speak to this. I want to make it abundantly clear that Conservatives, when they speak to particular pieces of legislation, are not filibustering. They have been duly elected by millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast to fight for their rights. That includes their right to privacy. As we look at this lawful access bill, there are all kinds of things that Canadians should be concerned about, including access to metadata. I remember being a litigation lawyer 20 years ago, talking about preserving and using metadata during discovery. It was quite new 20 years ago. It is not new now.”
“That is deeply troubling with a bill about lawful access, because lawful access is going to determine the extent to which the police and other security agencies can access Canadians' data. Let us be very clear about this. Most Canadians now have extraordinary digital footprints. With that comes the extraordinary need to maintain Canadians' privacy. This is not a government that has shown itself to be shy about overusing or abusing its powers. We have had members of the Conservative caucus get up and very clearly state how much scrutiny this legislation is going to need in order to safeguard the rights of Canadians.”
“(1315) Let me tell this House something. The government has done a lot of things wrong in this Parliament, and did a lot of things wrong in the previous Parliament. For example, it was found to have illegally invoked the Emergencies Act. It is a government that has a tendency to use heavy-handed approaches, overreach and trample over Canadians' charter rights and freedoms. Now the government is going to have a majority in this House, and potentially a majority on committees, and it is going to use that to stifle debate. We know that because of the questions the Liberals ask and how they answer questions in question period. A day does not go by when the Liberals do not get up to say, “The opposition is obstructing what we are trying to do,” so we know what they are going to try to do when we get to their majority government.”
“The attitude being displayed by the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader and many members of the Liberal caucus is that any time an opposition member has the audacity to stand in their seat, to which they were democratically elected, and raise issues about a piece of legislation. it is is obstruction or a filibuster, yet we have watched Liberal members get up today to speak to this particular bill immediately after the parliamentary secretary to the House leader accused a Conservative member of filibustering by daring to stand in his place to speak on this particular piece of legislation. Canadians should be listening very carefully to this, because it tells us what is about to happen. The government is going to ram through pieces of legislation because it thinks it can do nothing wrong.”
“They can use a programming motion that limits the amount of debate on legislation and the amount of time it spends at committee, deems it adopted at certain stages and passes it on to the Senate. They can do that. They can use time allocation to end debate. They can use closure motions to end debate. They can take committee meetings in camera whenever they want, because they have the votes. Imagine if the Liberals had had this power back in the fall, when they tried to bring Bill C-2 forward. The opposition would not have had the power to get that bill split so that we could take out the problematic sections for it to be debated and further studied.”
“It is almost as though he believes this chamber serves no purpose other than for him to get up and speak to every single piece of legislation, which he does, and then ask questions of every opposition member who has the audacity to stand up and try to exercise the same right. Why is this deeply concerning? It is deeply concerning because Canadians might be looking at the dystopian future of that kind of attitude being brought forward into the entire House of Commons as the Liberals move toward a majority government. It looks likely that the Liberals will reorganize committees to have a majority so that, once again, they can ram through pieces of legislation without any study. They can use all kinds of procedural tricks to do that.”
“He is suggesting that we are filibustering this piece of legislation, when I have listened to many opposition colleagues get up today and give well-reasoned arguments for why this piece of legislation is problematic and why it deserves additional study. We know debate is part of the way in which we bring issues forward. The Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader seems to find it inconvenient and unsettling that opposition members of Parliament can get up in this chamber and identify significant and serious issues with a piece of government legislation. His view seems to be that we should be just a rubber-stamp chamber, where everything the Liberals decide to put forward is perfectly crafted and we should just move it along. That seems to be his argument all the time.”
“There were so many that, under the pressure of the opposition parties, the government was forced to split the bill into parts that could be studied and supported, and the rest is coming now in Bill C-22 . This becomes especially important when we look at where we are today. We are now on the cusp of a Liberal majority government, with which the Liberals may choose to ram through pieces of legislation like this without any scrutiny. Why do I raise this concern right now, at this moment? It is because it has been interesting to listen today to the Liberal parliamentary secretary to the House leader denigrate the Conservatives who have the audacity to get up and speak about this particular piece of legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity today to talk a bit about Bill C-22 , which deals with lawful access. Lawful access is, of course, critically important in the modern era with respect to the investigation and prosecution of crime. It is encouraging that we are talking about lawful access here in the House of Commons today. However, I would be remiss if I did not talk about a few things before dealing with the substance of the bill. First of all, I will talk about how we got here, which many colleagues in the opposition have done. They have talked about how the Liberal government tried to force the bill through in an earlier version, Bill C-2 , which was a gigantic, omnibus piece of legislation. That piece of legislation had many flaws, and a huge number of problems and issues were raised.”
“Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about manipulation, manipulation is telling Canadians that they have never had it so good. It is the definition of gaslighting. That is what the Liberals do every single day in the House of Commons. They deny the facts. Members can think about it, as 43% of Canadians are saying they are within $200 of not being able to make ends meet. That is one minor car repair. That is one tiny repair to their house. They are then on the verge of going bankrupt. This is what 10 years of Liberal policies, which have doubled the deficit, have done. When will they realize that whatever they are trying to do is not working?”