House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 130
CONTENTS
Friday, June 5, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 130
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, June 5, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayer
[Translation]
Message from the Senate
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill with an amendment to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C‑9, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places. Copies of the amendment are available on the table.
The Senate has also passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S‑246, an act respecting the recognition of wartime service.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Build Canada Homes Act
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C‑20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
[English]
Hon. Heath MacDonald (for the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure)
moved that the bill be concurred in at report stage.[Translation]
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I request that the motion be carried on division.
(Motion agreed to)
[English]
Hon. Heath MacDonald (for the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure)
moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.
Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to support the bill respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. This decisive law will make Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation tasked with building and expanding affordable housing for Canadians.
As we all know, Canada is going through a housing crisis. To date, federal efforts have been spread out across several departments, agencies and programs, limiting the government's ability to have maximum impact. Traditional approaches to building and financing do not provide the scale or speed that Canadians need. That is why we are taking a new approach.
Every Canadian deserves an affordable place to call home. Housing is a basic need, and the growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action. Build Canada Homes was created to act quickly and effectively. This legislation will give Build Canada Homes the flexibility and operational autonomy it needs to carry out its mandate.
As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will maintain a clear accountability framework with respect to the government. That will strengthen its ability to develop partnerships across the housing ecosystem and provide affordable housing at the scale and speed that Canadians need.
Build Canada Homes will streamline federal housing efforts by acting as a developer, a funder, a unifying force and a catalyst for innovation in the housing sector. It will play a central role in building strong partnerships with all levels of government and indigenous communities. It will also work with non-profit organizations and other key stakeholders in the housing sector to stimulate the construction of affordable housing across Canada. This includes private developers and community organizations.
However, Build Canada Homes cannot act alone. The success of its initiatives depends on partnerships. Greater collaboration between all levels of government and with key partners is needed to address the housing challenges we face across the country. Build Canada Homes will streamline and accelerate the delivery of large-scale affordable housing projects. The agency will attract public, private and philanthropic investment, thereby maximizing its impact.
The Build Canada Homes Act will foster partnerships across the housing ecosystem to bring together the right funding and the right projects. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will provide access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools through a single entity. It will speed up the delivery of affordable housing by working with non-profit organizations, indigenous organizations and all levels of government. This approach will limit risk, eliminate barriers and guide projects throughout the development process.
Build Canada Homes will also work in close collaboration with developers, investors and manufacturers on securing funding and building homes. It will work directly with builders and suppliers focused on long-term affordability. That includes non-profit organizations, co-operatives, community housing providers and organizations that promote different housing options for Canadians. These strategic partnerships will make it possible to create affordable housing for a wide range of households, regardless of their income.
Build Canada Homes will have the authority to work under agreements with all levels of government and community partners on financial support, joint ventures and joint development initiatives. The agency will strive to create close collaboration and coordination with the provinces and territories, which will foster progress on priority projects. Among other things, that could include making land available, speeding up approval procedures or waiving any applicable fees.
In April 2026, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec announced a partnership to support the construction of nearly 865 affordable housing units across the province. The total investment in affordable housing, supported housing and transitional housing in the province amounts to $200 million. Build Canada Homes is providing approximately $100 million, and Quebec is also contributing up to $100 million.
This is a direct result of the memorandum of understanding establishing the principles of collaboration for rolling out Build Canada Homes in Quebec. Signed in January 2026, this memorandum of understanding will guide future collaboration and ensure the coordinated roll-out of Build Canada Homes projects across Quebec. Through their collaboration, the federal and Quebec governments will speed up the approval process and identify additional housing projects. The combined investments will help build more affordable housing in the communities that need it most.
To illustrate the importance of this legislation, I will give two clear examples of housing projects in my riding, Les Pays-d'en-Haut. The first was built under the old programs, and the second was built using the new tools provided by Build Canada Homes.
The first project is called Habitat Morin-Heights. It is a 30-unit housing project that enables our seniors 75 and older to remain in the community when they are no longer able to manage their homes. They used to have to move elsewhere. The project had the support of the community, the municipality, the Government of Quebec, and the Government of Canada, but even with all that support, five years passed between the housing units being acquired from the Société d'habitation du Québec upon completion of construction and the residents moving in. That is unacceptable. Some residents on the waiting list simply moved away, and some even passed away before they could move into their homes. Ultimately, the project has been a great success. Habitat Morin-Heights is full, and there is a new waiting list. However, five years to complete a housing project is far too long.
Now, I would like to tell members about a similar project in my riding that will be carried out using tools from Build Canada Homes. I am talking about the Coop de solidarité Au coeur des collines in Saint‑Calixte. It is a project involving 28 affordable social housing units.
After I was elected last year, I met with the 19 mayors in my riding, as well as several municipal councillors. During that tour, Michel Jasmin, the mayor of Saint‑Calixte, Lucie Chagnon, a municipal councillor, and Maria Dias-Ribeiro, the president of the board of directors for the Coop de solidarité Au coeur des collines quickly made it clear to me that the project was vital to the community and that they needed help seeing it through.
The project was ready to go. It had the support of the community, the municipality and the province. The bidding process was under way. The only thing missing was the federal funding needed to start construction. After several unsuccessful attempts to get the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on board, they submitted the project to Build Canada Homes, and in just six months everything was finalized. That is what Build Canada Homes does. It analyzes and identifies projects that will give fast results, supports them and makes it possible to start construction because the longer we wait on a project, the more expensive it becomes. I am pleased to announce that construction on the Au cœur des collines project in Saint‑Calixte will begin this summer. That is a significant achievement.
To announce this wonderful project, I had the opportunity to welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to my riding in Morin-Heights. I specifically chose to make the announcement at the site of the first project I mentioned, Habitat Morin-Heights. I must admit that it was a strategic choice on my part, because I wanted to show my colleagues the impact that a housing project can have on a small community. They were able to talk to the residents who had recently moved in and explore this new community a bit.
They also saw that a 30-unit project in a small community is as important as a 500-unit project in a big city. They were also able to see the emotion in the eyes of Ms. Chagnon and Ms. Dias-Ribeiro, who will finally see the project they fought so hard for get built. That is the real-world impact of Build Canada Homes, and that is why we need to pass the bill to create the Crown corporation.
In conclusion, the Build Canada Homes act will create a Crown corporation with a clear mandate, governance structure and powers. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will have the operational independence, governance and flexibility that is necessary to deliver affordable housing at scale.
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.
Obviously, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, because we want housing to be built. However, a similar body already exists, namely the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Its mandate is very similar, if not identical, to that of Build Canada Homes.
Why create a new body? What is the logic there? What will happen to the CMHC?
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his question. I think I illustrated this very clearly in my example: the dynamic and flexible nature of Build Canada Homes will make it possible to build more quickly. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation had programs, but it had limited capabilities. Build Canada Homes is much more dynamic and much more flexible, which will facilitate partnerships and quicker housing construction.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.
Our Minister of Industry recently announced support to train and attract new talent in the field of skilled trades. I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on how see sees that program, to attract and train new skilled trade workers, dovetailing with the Build Canada Homes initiative.
Madam Speaker, to build all these homes that Build Canada Homes is going to build, we need skilled workers. This initiative is 100% complementary, I would say, to Build Canada Homes. It is going to permit the construction of a lot of apartments, homes and everything we need to get these things built.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I have no objection to Bill C-16, but this is only the first step. Now there is a Crown corporation.
[English]
A Crown corporation is better than having a special operating agency, which is where Build Canada Homes started out.
[Translation]
However, I do have some concerns regarding the minister's accountability and responsibility. The more independent the organization is, the less responsibility he bears. When it comes to the important issue of housing, accountability is crucial.
[English]
The accountability question is the one that bothers me. We are seeing a lot of new Crown corporations created.
Will the ministerial lines of accountability be as strong?
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question, and I love having wonderful conversations with her in the House every day.
I think Build Canada Homes is the necessary tool at this time to get things done. Accountability to the minister is going to be super important, but I am not worried that there are going to be any problems on that front.
Again, the flexibility that Build Canada Homes has, and the quickness with which we can get stuff built, is the most important factor right now.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's words on the importance of Build Canada Homes.
He highlighted how important it is to recognize that Build Canada Homes is not going to operate in itself, that it is very much going to work collaboratively with different stakeholders and provincial jurisdictions. It is all about doing what the Prime Minister and the government as a whole have been talking about, and that is increasing Canada's housing supply, with some particular focus on affordable housing.
I wonder if he could just provide his thoughts on how important it is that we work collaboratively with the different stakeholders out there.
Madam Speaker, I think the best example of that is the deal we signed with Quebec for 865 new homes that are going to be happening rapidly. We were able to coordinate with the provincial government to make sure that its priorities became our priorities. That is what we need in these times to get stuff built as quickly as possible because we have to get out of this housing crisis. The best way to do it is through Build Canada Homes.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the Government of Canada's Build Canada Homes act, especially the important role of Build Canada Homes in supporting Canada's economy and the federal government's buy Canadian policy.
Since September 2025, Build Canada Homes has functioned as a special operating agency of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. Its fast and effective work has allowed this new federal agency to make considerable strides already in increasing the amount of affordable housing available to Canadians. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada homes will have the flexibility and operational autonomy needed to fulfill its mandate. It will follow a clear framework of accountability to the government. That is what makes the Build Canada Homes act a decisive legislative measure.
The Government of Canada must strengthen its ability to address the housing crisis and speed up innovation in residential construction. Too many Canadians are having a hard time finding housing that they can afford. Housing costs are rising, supply is not keeping up with demand and productivity in the construction sector is weak. Traditional construction and financing approaches alone are not enough to deliver at the scale or speed that Canadians require.
Build Canada Homes consolidates functions that were previously spread out across multiple departments, agencies and programs, which limited the federal government's ability to maximize its impact. It will act as a developer, a funder, a unifying force and a catalyst for innovation to help create a more productive housing construction sector. Canadians need more housing, and the Build Canada Homes act will enable us to build faster, more efficiently and on the scale required.
The global trade environment is changing rapidly. In response, we are building a stronger, more resilient and more independent Canadian economy. At the heart of this strategy lies an ambitious plan to deliver nation-building projects, more affordable housing and stronger local infrastructure. We are strengthening relationships among all levels of government—municipal, territorial and provincial—and with our indigenous partners. We are making strategic investments to build a stronger, more sustainable and more resilient economy. We are working to cut red tape, remove international trade barriers and secure new agreements that will stimulate the local economy.
This will require a skilled workforce in the trades. That is why, on April 29, as part of the spring economic update, the Prime Minister announced the team Canada strong initiative. This new $6-billion pan-Canadian initiative aims to recruit, train, and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new workers in Red Seal trades over the next five years.
The team Canada strong initiative will transform the skilled trades sector and attract more apprentices to the workforce. It will ensure that young Canadians are ready to build the housing and infrastructure we need. It will create new jobs, provide access to good jobs, and strengthen Canada's workforce of tomorrow.
The Government of Canada is taking decisive action now to transform our country and make it more resilient, so that it can move from dependence to resilience. The goal is to make Canada one of the fastest-growing and most competitive economies in the world and to usher in a new era of economic security and prosperity for Canadians.
The Government of Canada is achieving this by building on the solid foundation of Canada's strong industries. We are investing in our future and fostering economic growth through Build Canada Homes and the implementation of the buy Canadian policy.
As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes will be funded by the initial $13-billion allocation announced in budget 2025. Build Canada Homes was created to consolidate federal support for affordable housing in one place by working in collaboration with other government departments and agencies.
It is going to move swiftly, use federal lands, support innovative building approaches and establish partnerships in all sectors to build affordable homes.
Build Canada Homes is a key part of Canada's new industrial strategy, and it will contribute to a more productive residential construction sector. Build Canada Homes will prioritize projects that use Canadian-made materials, such as mass timber, softwood lumber, steel and aluminum. It will promote modern construction methods such as modular and prefabricated housing to reduce construction times, material waste and environmental impact.
The federal government is leveraging the key relationships it has with private developers, businesses, community organizations and non-profits, and with other government and indigenous partners. By working together, we are creating job opportunities here at home and supporting the Canadian workforce. Together, we are building stronger communities and a stronger Canada.
The Government of Canada launched a new strategic framework for the buy Canadian policy, which took effect on December 16, 2025. This policy leverages federal investments by prioritizing Canadian suppliers, content and materials to make the Canadian economy stronger, more resilient to global shocks and better placed to support Canadian businesses and workers.
The policy is comprehensive and covers not only direct procurement but also all federal investment. It is enforced by federal departments, agencies and Crown corporations.
Build Canada Homes embraces the buy Canadian policy of the Government of Canada. It will do this by prioritizing projects that use Canadian materials, strengthen domestic supply chains and create good jobs. Every new home will lead to increased demand for Canadian steel, wood and aluminum, helping workers and businesses thrive.
The buy Canadian policy also provides some flexibility and a road map for provinces and municipalities to implement similar standards in their own procurement processes based on regional realities and priorities. These changes to the procurement rules will create a strong Canadian supply chain and help Canadian industries be more self-reliant and resilient in the face of fluctuations in the global economy.
The buy Canadian policy supports strategic sectors like Canada's construction and defence industries. It applies to projects such as buildings, bridges, aircraft parts and much more. It requires major federal construction and defence procurement projects to use steel, aluminum and wood products made in Canada.
In closing, Build Canada Homes is one of a number of strategic efforts by the federal government to invest in our country, protect Canadian interests and make our economy one of the strongest in the G7. Making Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation puts the Government of Canada in a better position to make Canada stronger and more resilient.
[English]
Madam Speaker, earlier I had the opportunity to ask one of our colleagues a question about how important it is that we recognize our stakeholders, working collaboratively with provincial and territorial jurisdictions, indigenous communities and so forth. Already this morning, one of the things that have been highlighted is the importance of making sure we have the skilled workers necessary. My colleague made reference to the Red Seal program and its 80,000 to 100,000 people over the next number of years, which is a serious investment by this government.
I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on working collaboratively, as we have witnessed with the federal government and the Province of Quebec, or if he could comment on just how important the Red Seal program is to our nation in terms of building homes and other projects.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the Red Seal program is a very important program. Canada is facing an extremely serious labour crisis and a housing crisis. If we want more housing, we need more people to build it. By investing in these programs, our government is taking proactive steps to quickly address an existing crisis.
[English]
Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Liberal government's response to the housing crisis in our country, I believe that Canadians are looking to see steps that the government can take to immediately address this acute housing challenge without creating additional bureaucracies.
Within the current remit of existing agencies, what additional powers do they hope to glean, at great additional expense to the taxpayer, that will more quickly resolve the very acute housing challenge that Canadians are facing?
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the only power we have is the power that comes to us from the people of Canada, who elected us to carry out these important mandates in light of the current housing crisis. We are therefore taking action on behalf of Canadians. We are taking action because the housing market is in a deep crisis. That is why we are creating Build Canada Homes: to immediately respond to the current crisis.
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know he recently celebrated his first year as an MP, and I imagine he has not yet had the opportunity to work closely on specific projects with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC.
I have been an MP for several years now, and I can say that CMHC was a fairly important body for vetting business plans, as well as for ensuring that social housing meets various standards, particularly energy efficiency standards, and that our new housing meets the highest construction standards in terms of both sustainability and development.
I would like my colleague to clarify this for me, because I do not really understand. Essentially, Build Canada Homes is taking the place of CMHC. Will the CMHC's expertise be transferred to Build Canada Homes?
Madam Speaker, the advantage I have is that I served at the local government level before being elected to the federal Parliament. I saw how local authorities went to great lengths to push funding projects through, because dealing with CMHC involved a lot of red tape. Build Canada Homes brings everything together in one place. People submit an application and all the answers are in one place. It is flexible, efficient and it meets our needs.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.
Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C‑20 with deep concern for the families in my community who are watching this housing crisis unfold before their eyes.
In Cambridge, I have witnessed what the government struggles to acknowledge. What we are navigating is no longer a housing crisis; it is a housing catastrophe. Rebranding existing projects does not build homes.
Let me tell the House about an 84-year-old constituent of mine. She worked her entire life, paid her taxes faithfully and raised her family with dignity, yet a staggering cost of living, property taxes and maintenance costs consumed her pension and home ownership, pushing her to seek refuge in a Cambridge shelter overwhelmed by those without a roof. There are so many people that shelters have long wait-lists, and they can no longer accommodate seniors in need.
Members can picture their own grandmother or grandfather struggling up shelter stairs that were never designed for their needs, squeezed into overcrowded dormitories with makeshift bunks, unable to find comfort or rest in spaces designed for temporary crisis, not for the housing needs of seniors who built this country. The dignity of a lifetime of contribution to our community was stripped away by a housing market that no longer recognizes their value or their need.
In today's Canada, people who did everything right are ending up with nowhere to live. This is not the Canada I know. This is not the Canada any of us promised to protect, yet we are witnessing families across this nation face impossible choices because the government has failed to deliver the most basic foundation of security: a home. When housing costs consume 60%, 70%, even 80% of a household's income, families are forced to choose between rent and groceries, between keeping the lights on and keeping a roof overhead. In Cambridge, I have seen families with two working parents, both with steady jobs, unable to afford a modest two-bedroom rental. Teachers, nurses and trades workers are being priced out of the very neighbourhoods they serve. These are not choices any Canadian should face in a country as wealthy and resource-rich as ours.
The mathematics of survival have become impossible for working families. A nurse earning $70,000 annually faces rent costs of $2,500 per month for a basic apartment before utilities, groceries and child care, let alone having any capacity to save for a down payment or dream of owning a home of their own. This represents more than half their gross income for housing alone. When the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recommends spending no more than 30% of income on shelter, we see how this market has completely failed Canadian families. After 10 years of empty Liberal promises, national strategies and new bureaucracies, what do we have to show for it? We have another Crown corporation, another layer of administration, another committee that multiplies meetings while families feel the grip of inflating rent.
Bill C-20 asks us to celebrate yet another bureaucracy, the fourth housing agency under the Liberal government, while seniors face impossible housing costs and families are priced out of entire communities. The Liberals created the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's national housing strategy with great fanfare. They established the federal lands initiative. They launched the rapid housing initiative. Each came with press conferences, ribbon-cuttings and promises that this time would be different. It is not.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has made it clear that this new Crown corporation will contribute just 5,000 homes per year, which is 1% of what the Liberals promised. The Liberal housing minister himself admitted there are no targets set for the number of homes to build. How can we take seriously a housing plan with no housing targets? What kind of strategy refuses to define its own objectives while families wait in desperation? These numbers represent a scathing indictment of Liberal priorities. Across a nation of nearly 40 million people, 5,000 homes annually means one new home for every 8,000 Canadians. In Cambridge alone, with a population of just over 160,000, this would translate to fewer than 18 new homes per year for this grand federal initiative.
This is not merely policy failure. This is a matter of life, death and dignity for Canadians. Behind these statistics are real people facing real crises that demand our immediate attention. The housing market has become a barrier to the very foundation of Canadian life. Economic mobility, once the hallmark of our nation, is grinding to a halt as housing costs consume an ever larger share of family budgets.
Let me address a particularly troubling consequence of this crisis. Women trapped in abusive relationships face an impossible choice when financial abuse underlies domestic violence. Those who want to leave dangerous situations must choose between staying with abusers who control their finances or face homelessness because safe, affordable housing simply does not exist. The cruel irony is that when women finally find the courage to leave dangerous relationships, they discover that housing costs make independence impossible.
Meanwhile, children aging out of foster care find themselves with nowhere to turn. At 18, they are expected to navigate an adult world without the family support most young people rely on, yet they face housing costs that challenge families with dual incomes. These young people, who should be focusing on education, building careers and contributing to our communities, instead spend their energy simply trying to survive in a market that treats housing as a commodity rather than a necessity. Builders in my community consistently raise concerns about rising costs, lengthy approval processes and regulatory requirements that change throughout projects.
Those challenges make it difficult to plan, invest and expand. Some builders also struggle to retain skilled workers. Construction depends on a stable workforce. Industry uncertainty makes it harder to provide the long-term opportunities that workers and families rely on. When housing opportunities arise, we lack the workforce to build at scale because skilled trades have moved to more stable sectors. The skilled trade shortage has reached crisis proportions. Electricians, plumbers and carpenters are aging out faster than young people are entering these fields. Why would a young person commit to an apprenticeship when project delays make steady employment impossible?
Development charges have increased by 180% over the past decade in some Ontario municipalities, while approval timelines have stretched from months to years. These costs are passed directly to homebuyers.
Across the country, many young adults are delaying major life decisions like marriage and starting families because of housing costs. They cannot afford to care for themselves, let alone children. We are witnessing the fundamental promise of Canadian life, that hard work leads to prosperity and security, crumble under the weight of housing costs that have far outpaced wage growth. Even Statistics Canada reports that birth rates have declined to historic lows, with housing costs cited as a primary factor in family planning decisions.
At some point, we all have to ask whether the answer is another layer of federal administration or whether the focus should be on removing the barriers that prevent homes from being built in the first place. Canadians are not asking for more organizational charts. They are asking for more homes. That is why Conservatives believe the focus should be on removing barriers to construction rather than creating new bureaucracies.
We would cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, immediately saving families up to $65,000, making home ownership achievable for thousands more Canadians. We would tie federal infrastructure dollars directly to homebuilding results, requiring municipalities to permit at least 15% more housing each year or forfeit federal funding. We would seek to end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing construction, unlocking billions of private investment that is currently sitting on the sidelines. These measures would reduce construction costs by tens of thousands of dollars.
While the government creates new departments and new delays, we would create new opportunities and new homes. Our approach recognizes that housing is built by workers with tools, not by bureaucrats with organizational charts. Canadians have waited long enough for leadership that understands the urgency of this crisis and the necessity of bold action to solve it. These are practical measures focused on increasing supply and improving affordability. They recognize that every family needs a home.
How can we ask Canadians to call Canada home when we cannot trust the government to provide the foundation they need to build their lives?
Bill C-20 offers bureaucracy where Canadians need action, it offers committees where families need shelter and it offers promises where communities need results. For that reason, I cannot support Bill C-20, because rebranding existing projects does not build homes.
Madam Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservatives maintain the principle of just getting out of the way, when, in fact, this is something that is necessary. It is one of the ways we can actually work in a collaborative fashion with provincial, territorial and indigenous communities and the different stakeholders to improve and build Canada's housing stock, particularly in the area of affordable housing.
The leader of the Conservative Party, when he was the minister of housing, built a grand total of, and if I had a drum, I would roll it, six homes. There is absolutely no surprise here that the Conservatives have decided not to support the legislation, but there is a disappointment.
Does the member opposite believe that the federal government has a role to play in building Canada homes?
Madam Speaker, Canadians are not living in the past. They are living through a housing crisis that has worsened dramatically over the past 10 years. Under the government, Canada has experienced rising costs, declining affordability and the most severe housing pressures we have seen in a generation.
What once was a challenge has now become a full-blown housing catastrophe. The consequences are very real. Women are staying in dangerous situations because they have nowhere to go. Shelters are full. Providers in communities like mine are turning people away because there are simply no beds available. Those frontline organizations are not asking for more announcements or more studies or more excuses. They are asking for action. The reality is this. The government promised homes but delivered bureaucracy. Rebranding programs and making announcements does not build homes, and Canadians are paying the price.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill, but I agree with my colleague that it adds another layer of complexity.
My riding is home to some social housing projects that were supposed to be funded by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Now we are waiting for the funding, because the program has been deprioritized or sidelined by Build Canada Homes. As of today, we are still waiting for a response from Build Canada Homes regarding funding that was due years ago. There has already been a delay, and now a new structure is being added. The government appears to have rushed this process. I am wondering whether my colleague has any similar examples in her riding.
[English]
Madam Speaker, to restore housing affordability in Canada, we will have to double housing construction across the country, adding more than 200,000 units each year for the next decade. Build Canada Homes will hardly scratch the surface, building only a few thousand units a year at best. Since the inception of Build Canada Homes last September, demand for shelter space has risen dramatically, and the perceived accomplishments from Build Canada Homes have not offset any of the high rates of families seeking—
Madam Speaker, there was so much I agreed with in the speech the member gave. She referred to the fact that we should look at homes as homes and not as investments. If I am not quoting her accurately, I am sure she can correct me.
The concept that Greens also bring to this is that we are building homes and communities. We are not just building homes for market purposes. We need to meet the needs of communities and help people actually have a life with dignity.
I wonder if the member has any comments on the approach between a Crown corporation, bricks and mortar, and what we can do to make people's lives better.
Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the member. Seniors should be able to live out the rest of their life with dignity. After 10 years of the Liberal government, housing has become less, not more, affordable. What once was a crisis is now a catastrophe.
We see the consequences every day. Shelters are at capacity. There are long wait-lists. Shelters are no place for anyone, families, children or seniors, to live. They cannot accommodate the overwhelming number of people seeking shelter. If we are looking for dignity, we have to build the homes for people to build their family and their life.
Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on what it tells us that, for the last 11 years, we have had the same Liberal government but the housing situation has not improved. In fact it has worsened, and the evidence of that is clear in my community and the communities of all members of this place.
Why is another housing bureaucracy not the answer to getting homes built and getting dignity for Canadians?
Madam Speaker, it is true that we need to have greater dignity expectations. The examples I raised of seniors and women who tried to leave dangerous situations are not isolated cases. They are clear indicators of a system that is under serious strain. When housing supply is this tight, the people who feel it first are often the most vulnerable, and—
Madam Speaker, I was an MLA in British Columbia in the years coinciding with when the Conservatives were in power under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Those were the years when Canada, and more specifically B.C., was moving forward. Projects were getting built under a free enterprise provincial and federal government.
In my riding, there is the Golden Ears Bridge, the Pitt River Bridge, the Port Mann Bridge and the expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway. The highway that used to go between Vancouver and Squamish was called the highway of death because of all the fatalities there. That was expanded. There is Kicking Horse Pass. The Olympics happened. There is the Canada Line, the convention centre and a new stadium, new hospitals and new schools. All throughout British Columbia there was tremendous progress, and I know that this was the same throughout the country.
The New York Times, during that period, said that Canada had the richest middle class in the world. We had a dollar at par with the American dollar. I would talk to Americans and others visiting Canada and visiting Victoria, where I often was for my government work. They were amazed by the prosperity they saw in British Columbia and in Canada.
Let us keep in mind that between 2007 and mid-2009, the world underwent the great global recession. It was the most severe economic and financial meltdown since the Great Depression in the late twenties and the thirties, impacting housing significantly. Canada weathered this storm very well, and we were number one in growth. Between 2006 and 2015, under Stephen Harper, there were two million housing starts in Canada, while the population growth was about 3.2 million. Using household sizes, those starts were enough to accommodate more people than the population during that period. Canada fared the best in the G7. We were a prosperous nation going from strength to strength.
Fast-forward to 2026. After 11 long years under the Liberal government and under two Liberal prime ministers, we have gone from boom to gloom and from first to worst. There has been economic stagnation and decline under the Liberals. In three of the last four quarters, we have shrunk. We are in a recession. We are the only country in the G20 with an economy that is shrinking.
The G20 includes nations such as Argentina, which was an economic basket case not so long ago; Australia; Brazil; China; France; Germany; India; Indonesia; Italy; Japan; Mexico, whose number one trading partner is the U.S., as it is for Canada; Russia; Saudi Arabia; South Africa; South Korea; Turkey; the United Kingdom and the United States. I know that the Liberals would like to blame the U.S. for all the problems Canada faces, but all these countries are impacted by U.S. tariffs, and some are in war zones.
However, credit must be given where credit is deserved. The Liberals excel, get an A, for building bureaucracy, increasing red tape and doling out money to friends, family and themselves. Since I was elected to the House of Commons in 2019, it has been one scandal after another. We get numb after a while.
The Conservatives had their scandals also. One lady, a cabinet minister, resigned for having a $16 glass of orange juice.
The Prime Minister promised to double housing construction to half a million homes a year and to move at speeds we have not seen in generations. How has that turned out? More than one year in, the result is the exact opposite: fewer permits, fewer starts, and a housing crisis that keeps getting worse. For example, Toronto has experienced a major housing construction downturn, a crash. Starts are down more than 50% in the last three years. New condo sales in the GTA collapsed to 1,599 units in 2025, the lowest annual total in 35 years and 91% less than the 10-year average.
However, this must be kept in context. Canada's population has increased by 2.5 million people in the last three years alone, under the Liberals' chaotic handling of immigration. Construction should be skyrocketing, not plummeting. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says that we need to build 480,000 homes a year for the next decade. We are expected to build only half of that this year and only 212,000 units by 2028. Meanwhile, 131,000 Canadians who used to work in construction are unemployed as of April, and half of home builders and contractors are reporting layoffs in the first quarter of this year.
Maybe there is a strategy under this political madness. Maybe the intention is to make things so bad that when there is a change, and I think there was some positive news with the numbers today, the Liberals will blow the trumpets, bang on the drums and say how they have turned things around, how marvellous things have become. However, this is a fail. It is not a new day. It is not a new government. It is the same old, same old.
Instead of a plan to build homes, the Liberals would deliver a fourth housing bureaucracy. Far from building at generational speeds, they have taken a year to introduce legislation that still builds no homes. Even when homes start getting built, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found, Build Canada Homes would add just 5,000 homes per year, 1% of what the Liberals promised. We can do the math on how much is being invested right there and what that equates to as far as cost per unit. It is more bureaucracy, more red tape and more cost.
I recently held a round table with builders and developers. They are asking for less government in the homebuilding process, not more. Ever-increasing regulations are killing the market and driving up construction costs. Federal, provincial and municipal regulations and taxes are all adding costs, not just for the builder but also for the home purchaser. If we are to make housing affordable for Canadians, we need to cut the cost of building and to build more, faster.
Bill C‑20 would not build, and it would not cut costs for builders. What would it do? It would build a fourth government bureaucracy. That is an F, for “fail”. I was a teacher. We can see the stats here very clearly.
Canadians used to be able to buy their first home in their twenties or early thirties. Realtors in Vancouver tell me that it is now an anomaly for new homebuyers to purchase a place without getting significant financial help from their family. This is building a sharp divide in Canadian society between the haves and the have-nots. This is not good. It is becoming dependent upon generational wealth rather than on someone's being able to make it on their own, even with a supposedly great salary.
Conservatives have a plan: Cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000 and unleashing new building; tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, with municipalities having to permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year to get things done; cut development charges by 50%, because the number one cost of construction is all the regulations and permitting; and end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada and unlock billions of dollars of investment in the country's homebuilding sector.
Canadians should be able to earn a strong paycheque in a thriving economy to buy an affordable home. It used to be this way, and it can be this way again.
Madam Speaker, it is truly amazing how the Conservatives love to give misinformation, not only inside the chamber but outside the chamber also. I look at what the member just finished saying of the government in the last year. He was being critical of how we are doing the opposite, and then he used the example of immigration. He said the immigration numbers have gone up by 2.5 million in the last three years, and then he went on to blame the Prime Minister. In the last year, we have actually seen a decrease in immigration, yet the member tries to give the impression that the Prime Minister and this government have not stabilized the immigration issue. That is a sample of the misinformation that Conservatives pump out, day in and day out, inside and outside the chamber.
Will the member apologize for providing misinformation once again?
Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for the fact that I will probably be too nice in my remarks to the Liberal member. This is madness, and it actually proves the point that the Liberals might see a slight change and then blow the horn about how wonderful they are. It has been a disaster, and now they are saying that immigration is down, but it is down from historic highs. The Liberals tweak it down just a little and say how great they are doing.
They have made a total mess of things. Under the Conservatives, we built two and a half million homes during a time of population increase that was less than the increase over the past few years. I hold onto that F for failure for the Liberals.
Madam Speaker, I find it discouraging, as I am sure many members do, when the debates get overly partisan. I did not find the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge to be particularly partisan in his comments.
Also, in a weird show of solidarity with a former member, I would like to point out that poor Bev Oda has been vilified for years for something that was not her fault. It is her fault that she is addicted to smoking, and her staff put her in a non-smoking hotel. She asked to be moved, and she never bothered to check that, where she was moving to, it was impossible to order breakfast without getting a $16 glass of orange juice. There are many things about which Bev Oda and I disagreed, but I served at the same time as her, and we did share a love of dogs, so I will just put that out there.
My concern with this bill, and I will agree with my hon. friend from Pitt Meadows, is the proposed creation of new bureaucracies on bureaucracies. I will address this when I get a chance in my speech, but it does not mean that the Build Canada Homes idea is a bad idea.
How do we get more efficient delivery, from a speech and money and a commitment to actually getting Canadians homes?
Madam Speaker, how we do it is we move building more into the private sector, as opposed to keeping it in government hands and government bureaucracies, where it gives jobs to friendly insiders and goes nowhere. That is the problem. The government has just been building bureaucracy. It has become a disaster for Canada.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on something.
We know that Build Canada Homes will be entitled to acquire shares in companies involved in public housing. It seems to me that the roles are getting mixed up. We have some reservations about this.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.
Madam Speaker, I did not hear my colleague's question. If he is wondering if there is a role for private companies, the answer is yes. It is important.
Canada needs to be unleashed. This is what is happening. Companies, individuals, Canadians are being held back, and they need to be unleashed from all these regulations.
[English]
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Italian Heritage Month
Madam Speaker, as we celebrate Italian Heritage Month, I rise to recognize the remarkable contributions of the Galati family in my riding of Don Valley North.
The Galati Market Fresh grocer has served our community for more than 25 years. Founded by brothers Tony and Francesco Galati in 1958, this family-run grocer, built by Italian immigrants from Calabria, has grown into a beloved local institution.
Whether supporting local growers or giving back to families and schools, the Galati family reminds us that the best ingredients for success are hard work and a deep commitment to community.
Addiction Services
Madam Speaker, in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the addictions crisis is not an abstract policy debate. It is on our streets, in our parks, in our shelters and in the lives of families who are praying their loved one gets one more chance.
Too many people are trying to get clean while living next door to the very thing they are fighting to escape. That is not compassion. That is setting people up to fail. Nanaimo needs every kind of housing, including sober housing. We need safe, stable places for people who have chosen recovery, people who want to rebuild their lives without being surrounded by drugs.
This Monday, June 8, Nanaimo city council is convening a special governance and priorities committee meeting to discuss the urgent need for sober housing in our community. I am pleading with the government to pay attention and to allocate a share of federal housing funds for sober housing in Nanaimo because recovery needs more than hope. It needs a home.
Filipino Heritage Month
Madam Speaker, June is Filipino Heritage Month. It is a chance to celebrate the amazing Filipino Canadian community that has enriched our country in so many ways. It is a chance to celebrate the culture and traditions of the Philippines. It is a chance to celebrate Dr. José Rizal, the founder of the modern Philippines, who championed patriotism, education, justice and civic duty, which are values shared by the Filipino community today.
In my riding of Mount Royal, which is the heart of the Filipino community in Montreal, we will have a large number of events. I want to thank the Filipino Heritage Society of Montreal and its president, Al Abdon; the Council of Canadian Filipino Associations of Quebec and its leaders, Dario Boco and James de la Paz; the Filipino Association of Montreal and Suburbs and its president, Jojo Laud; and the Knights of Rizal and its regional commander Gerry Danzil for hosting these events.
Let us all join together and say Mabuhay ang Pilipinas. Long live the Philippines.
Scholarship Winner
Madam Speaker, today I am proud to recognize a rising young leader from northeastern Ontario, Alexandra Gauthier from Shillington, near Matheson, who is one of only 20 recipients across Canada of the TD scholarship for community leadership. It is one of the most desirable awards in the country, awarding recipients a full post-secondary scholarship and summer employment.
Alexandra represented Ontario's two million students through the Ontario Student Trustees' Association. She went to school in Iroquois Falls and is one of only two recipients from Ontario.
[Translation]
Alexandra is an inspiring model of an exemplary leader driven by a desire to uplift her community. It fills me with pride and optimism to see young leaders like Alexandra Gauthier shaping their own futures.
Graduating Classes
Madam Speaker, from June 17 to 25, exactly 1,871 students from eight high schools in Orléans will be celebrating their graduation, one of the most important milestones in their academic journey. This journey is marked by perseverance, growth and success. They have acquired the tools they need for the next stage of their lives.
[English]
It is always quite inspiring to personally sign each of their certificates. I want to congratulate each of them. They did it.
[Translation]
I want to congratulate all of them on their success.
[English]
Additionally, I would like to recognize Orléans resident Sara Siddiqi, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Ottawa and recipient of the 2026 Learner Changemaker Award from the Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. Through her leadership, she has advanced student support, equity and inclusion and strong clinical care across Canada.
I congratulate Sara and thank her for inspiring us all.
Retirement Congratulations
Madam Speaker, I am rising today to recognize Caroline Mulroney, member of provincial Parliament for York—Simcoe, who retires from politics today.
Locally, Caroline's legacy is historic. She pushed through the Bradford bypass connecting Highways 400 and 404, she championed the new Southlake hospital in Queensville, she was responsible for the creation of the North Gwillimbury Forest, preserving nearly 1,000 acres for future generations, and she made sure that the Ford government approved a state-of-the-art phosphorus reduction facility for the health of Lake Simcoe.
She was and remains a principled, reasonable Conservative, never overly partisan. She always supported Conservatives, no matter the stripe. She always said yes, always took my calls and always gave honest, prudent advice. I know she is a proud mom and a loving wife, too.
Caroline will be deeply missed by our community and by me personally. For everything she has done, I thank her.
Great Glebe Garage Sale
Madam Speaker, it is a great joy to celebrate the Great Glebe Garage Sale in my community of Ottawa Centre. If anyone happens to be in Ottawa, in my community, on the third Saturday of every May, the Great Glebe Garage Sale is the place to go.
For 40 years, neighbours have participated in this sale. People can get such incredible, great deals on hidden treasures that people have stored in their basements. It also acts as a fundraiser for the Ottawa Food Bank. There were 25,000 people who came out this year. It was incredible. My team was there as well.
I want to thank the Glebe Community Association for organizing this incredible event every year. I congratulate all the volunteers; John Crump, president; June Creelman, vice-president; and Sam Woods, who coordinated the 40th version of the Great Glebe Garage Sale.
Airport Workers Day
Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Airport Workers Day and to pay tribute to the thousands of dedicated workers who keep Canada's airports operating safely, efficiently and reliably every day.
As the member of Parliament for Richmond Centre—Marpole, home to the Vancouver International Airport, I see first-hand the vital roles played by these workers in connecting our communities, supporting our economy and strengthening Canada's links to the world. They are the engineers, ground crews, security personnel, cargo handlers, maintenance staff, emergency responders and logistics professionals whose hard work often takes place behind the scenes.
Last year, YVR welcomed a record 26.9 million passengers and handled over 365,000 tonnes of goods. These achievements are a testimony to the professionalism, dedication and excellence of airport workers. On June 25, national Airport Workers Day, let us thank them and recognize their outstanding service and contributions across Canada.
[Translation]
100th Anniversary of Arvida
Madam Speaker, this year, we are celebrating the 100th anniversary of Arvida, an iconic industrial town in the Saguenay region.
Founded in 1926, Arvida is considered an outstanding example of urban planning. It is known for its innovative architecture and the remarkable diversity of its working-class neighbourhoods, which are unique in the history of industrial towns.
Arvida has played a pivotal role in Quebec's development by making a major contribution to aluminum production. Its legacy is recognized in several ways: It has been designated a Canadian national historic site and a Quebec heritage site, and more recently, it was recognized by the Quebec National Assembly for its exceptional contribution to Quebec's cultural history and for its potential to be added to the tentative list of UNESCO world heritage sites.
I want to commend Carl Dufour and the Arvida Heritage Committee. Thanks to their commitment, Arvida is getting the recognition it deserves.
On this 100th anniversary, we are celebrating a legacy that reflects the important role that the aluminum industry and our local expertise play in the economy.
Happy anniversary, everyone.
[English]
Graduation Congratulations
Madam Speaker, June has arrived, and in a few weeks' time, it will bring the cheers of proud parents and the tossing of graduation caps as high school students across Don Valley West accept their diplomas and start the next chapter of their lives. It is a time of immense excitement, marking the culmination of years of hard work that now opens the door to a future filled with endless possibilities.
I thank the many teachers and administrators in Don Valley West for their tireless dedication to nurturing the bright young minds of our community. To parents and guardians, I extend my warmest thoughts as they balance the many emotions that come with such a momentous occasion.
Finally, to the graduates of Don Mills Collegiate Institute, Leaside High School, Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute and Northern Secondary School, as well as the many middle school students about to enter high school, I offer my best wishes and congratulations as they start their next adventure.
Williams Lake Stampede
Madam Speaker, it is my favourite season of the year, rodeo season, in Prince George, Quesnel, Vanderhoof, and in my hometown, the greatest show on dirt, the Williams Lake Stampede.
The dust is rising, the countdown's on,
And before you know it, rodeo season will be gone.
From near and far for 98 years,
They’ve packed the stands for the sweat and the tears.
The Williams Lake Stampede is second to none,
The roping, the riding, the legendary fun.
Where the cowboys ride, and cowgirls fly,
And city folks learn about dust in the eye.
The Williams Lake Stampede is more than a show—
It's community, tradition, and full-blown rodeo!
To the volunteers, competitors, handlers, and sponsors too,
We tip our hats for all you do.
If I’ve said it once I’ll say it again,
You son of a gun,
We’re the best there’s ever been!
It's the bulls and the blood, it's the dust and the mud
It's the roar of a Sunday crowd
It's the boots, the chaps, and the cowboy hats
And they call the thing rodeo.
Yee-haw!
2026 Canadian Screen Awards
Madam Speaker, last weekend, I had the pleasure of attending the 14th Canadian Screen Awards right in my riding of Spadina—Harbourfront. This annual celebration recognizes the very best in Canadian film, television and digital media.
The industry gathered together to cheer on Canadian legend Mike Myers, who received the show's Icon Award. The Toronto-born comedian has made us laugh for decades here at home and around the world.
From North of North and Law & Order Toronto: Criminal Intent to Les Furies and Honey Bunch, so many of the stories that kept us glued to our screens this past year were honoured.
As we kick off Pride Month, I was happy to see Heated Rivalry recognized. This powerful series has touched the hearts of so many and reminds us of something simple but important: to be ourselves, fully and proudly.
This is the impact of Canada's film and TV industry. I am especially glad that our government is supporting this sector, investing $450 million over the next three years, championing the important work of this vibrant and essential part of our economy.
At a time when the world wants what Canada has, we are yearning to hear our own stories. Let us celebrate our incredible talent.
The Economy
Madam Speaker, last year Canadians thought they were electing someone with exceptional economic skills who could strengthen our economy and quickly negotiate a deal with the United States. Well, it is becoming increasingly evident that we have been duped.
Under the Liberals, Canada has the only recession in the G20. We have now suffered economic decline in three of the last four quarters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer paints a grim picture, saying there is only a 1% chance the Liberals will meet their own fiscal targets. As for businesses, they are retreating from investment amid soaring uncertainty. The Liberals claim to be cutting costs, but they plan to hike personnel expenses from $69 billion to $86 billion by 2031. Then there is the $72 billion in deficit borrowing this year alone. This is not just numbers; it is diminished paycheques, fewer jobs and strained households.
Canadians deserve better than a Liberal government that has lost its way.
[Translation]
Éliane Blais
Madam Speaker, on a more positive note, I am honoured to rise today to commend the perseverance of Éliane Blais, a young athlete from my riding, Les Pays-d'en-Haut. At just 16 years old, she is already a four-time Canadian U17 mountain bike champion, all while continuing her studies.
After a serious accident, surgery and rehabilitation, she joined the U19 junior category last fall and won two medals at the Canada Games. On May 2, she finished ninth in the Olympic Junior series in the Czech Republic, and on May 31, in Sherbrooke, she won a bronze medal at the Canada Cup.
Éliane Blais is a true source of inspiration for all young people in Canada. She has big ambitions. Although she is the youngest rider on the circuit, she is aiming for a spot in the top eight in the junior downhill category at the Mountain Bike World Championships in Italy this summer. That kind of passion is exactly why we are investing $755 million in our young athletes.
I would like to congratulate Éliane and thank her for representing Les Pays-d'en-Haut and Canada so well on the international stage.
[English]
Finance
Madam Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. This was reported last Friday, based on Statistics Canada's negative growth data.
Then, yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that there is only a 1% chance that the Liberal government's fiscal anchor will hold. The PBO also said that the Liberals are borrowing $72 billion this year, not $65 billion as they budgeted. Yesterday, the Montreal Economic Institute said that the deficit is on track to “hit $117 billion by 2035”, even if they do not add any new spending programs. Scotiabank and the Bank of Montreal both released dismal economic growth projections. Stats Canada also reported labour productivity is falling.
The Prime Minister promised fiscal restraint. He promised competent management. He promised Canadians that he was the man for this moment of crisis, but under his leadership, Canada is in a Liberal recession. His budgets have no credibility, and it is Canadians who have to pay for it.
Retirement Congratulations
Madam Speaker, after more than five decades in business, Laura Landers of Laura's Art Shoppe in Cobalt has retired, closing the doors on a remarkable career that helped shape the artistic and cultural life of the Timiskaming region. For 45 years, her shop has been a destination for artists, collectors, tourists and residents alike.
Laura promoted the work of countless northern Ontario creators, helped to showcase the beauty of Lake Timiskaming through her support of the Tour du lac Témiscamingue programming and celebrated Cobalt's rich mining heritage through her own artwork. Laura's Art Shoppe became one of Cobalt's top-rated attractions, with visitors praising her knowledge and dedication to sharing local history and culture.
I would like to wish Laura Landers congratulations on an exceptional career. Her legacy as an entrepreneur, an artist and an ambassador for Cobalt will continue to inspire many for many years.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
The Economy
Madam Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. We are glad to see that more Canadians are working this month than last month, but we are down over 20,000 jobs since the beginning of this year. We are still expecting negative growth, and we have the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Simply put, we are comparing to a worse baseline. This should not be the new normal for this great country.
Why is Canada the only G20 country in a recession?
Madam Speaker, members will appreciate that this morning we woke up to some incredibly good news for Canadian workers: The Canadian economy added 88,000 jobs in May alone, mainly in the private sector and mainly in full-time work. Job growth in May was broad-based across all industries, but get this: Since December 2024, Canada has added more jobs per capita than the United States. We have incredibly good news from one coast of this country to another to another, and we are celebrating today for—
Madam Speaker, I want to be clear that it is good news that more Canadians are working this month than last month, but we have to be honest about these numbers, because the government House leader is eager to cherry-pick. We have 24,500 fewer Canadians working today than were at the beginning of the year. Compared to pre-pandemic averages, unemployment is up by 0.6% overall and over 2.5 points for youth. Under this Liberal Prime Minister, we have the second-highest unemployment in the G7.
Having the best job numbers in Canada should not be like having the best bobsledding team in Jamaica. Canada is the only G20 economy in a recession.
Madam Speaker, I will pass by the obvious material in that question to focus on what is important, which is jobs, and jobs for youth. That member has spoken many times about the importance of creating good jobs for youth, and in fact 99,000 new jobs for youth is something to celebrate. In fact, Benjamin Reitzes from the BMO said that the solid May jobs report should silence the people who are talking down the Canadian economy. He said this “should silence the recession crowd.” I guess he is speaking about the member opposite.
While those guys are running down Canadian opportunities, we are focused on creating jobs for everyone.
Madam Speaker, the so-called “recession crowd” is literally the analysts at Statistics Canada. Here is the fact: Canada is in a recession under this Liberal Prime Minister.
Let us talk about youth unemployment. The pre-pandemic average for youth unemployment was 10.8%. We are 2.5 points above the pre-pandemic average. The question for the government is this: Is this the new normal? It should not be the new normal; we should be back to where we were.
A recession is not success. Canada is the only G20 economy in a recession, objectively. Why?
Madam Speaker, I have a lot of time and respect for my colleague, but the reality is that he did not read the news this morning. I think he took his notes from yesterday, and he is trying to keep the same narrative today.
The reality is, indeed, we are in job-creation mode. Indeed, notwithstanding the trade war, which the Conservatives never acknowledge, that we are dealing with unjustified tariffs from the U.S., we were able to create 147,000 jobs in this country. Last month alone, it was 88,000. We are building the economy and building the country strong.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, here is yesterday's reality, today's reality and, unfortunately, likely tomorrow's reality: Canada is the only G7 country, and in fact the only G20 country, that is in a recession.
Take the issue of housing. We have hyperinflation that continues to have a devastating impact on our young people. The dream of home ownership is drifting out of reach for young people, and one in three families will not be able to make all their mortgage payments this year. That is the reality.
Can the minister acknowledge that?
Madam Speaker, we are very proud of the results we delivered for Canadian workers this morning: 88,000 jobs were created in the month of May alone. The unemployment rate has dropped.
For my colleague's information, the unemployment rate in Quebec, which interests me and my colleague, who is from Quebec, is the second lowest of all the Canadian provinces. That result is driven by the construction and manufacturing sectors and led by young Quebeckers.
Madam Speaker, of course, on this side of the House, we are always pleased when Canadians find jobs. However, as of right now, there has been a net loss of 24,500 jobs since the beginning of the year.
I also want to talk about young people. The reality is that youth unemployment has gone up.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer was scathing yesterday when he said that the odds of this government hitting its fiscal anchor of reducing the deficit is less than 1%. That is the reality we get with this government.
Is the government capable of admitting that, yes, Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession?
Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is passionate about the economy. We have had several conversations about it. I also know that he is a numbers guy and that he respects facts.
The truth is that the figures are clear this morning. We helped create 88,000 new jobs. My colleague said that youth unemployment is up, but it is actually down. It dropped by nearly 1% in the past month.
I can, of course, provide him with the most recent figures from Statistics Canada. I am sure he will read them.
There is also good news when it comes to affordability. This morning, the Prime Minister made an important announcement—
Madam Speaker, of course I respect Statistics Canada. In fact, I asked that Statistics Canada's report confirming that Canada is in a recession be tabled, but the members opposite said no. That is a real shame.
The reality is also that the banks have bad news. The Bank of Montreal predicted yesterday that over the next year, Canada will experience the worst economic growth in the G7, yet the government still refuses to talk about a recession.
Is there a minister who has the courage, honour and dignity to acknowledge that Canada is, in fact, the only country in the G7 and G20 that is in a recession?
Madam Speaker, I will reiterate what my colleagues said because it is important.
Over the past few months, the Canadian economy has created 80,000 jobs. We are seeing a drop in the unemployment rate, especially in youth employment. That is good news for Canadians.
I want to take this opportunity to say that we learned something else this week. We found out that the Government of Canada is going to invest billions of dollars in infrastructure, including in the Quebec City tramway. This is going to create more than 80,000 jobs. Those are 80,000 good jobs for our constituents.
It is well known that the opposition MP for the Quebec City area has always opposed this project. He campaigned on a promise to cut nearly $3 billion in federal funding from the Quebec City tramway. That is shameful.
Canadian Identity and Culture
Madam Speaker, Ottawa is once again bowing to pressure from Washington. The government wants to cancel a levy increase and allow Netflix, Amazon and other streaming platforms to get out of paying their fair share towards funding culture.
The Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions is concerned about this situation. It stated: “Ottawa's decision...represents a major and deeply troubling setback in the face of U.S. pressure on Canada's cultural sovereignty.”
Who is in charge of cultural policy in this country: the Prime Minister or Donald Trump?
Madam Speaker, I understand why the Bloc is trying to redeem itself, given that it did not even mention culture in its election platform or budget requests.
I also understand why it wants to ignore today's good news about employment and the job market in Quebec. For our part, we are focusing on the economy, on creating opportunities for young people and on delivering major projects.
The economy has created some 88,000 jobs. Quebec stands out as having the second-lowest unemployment rate among all the provinces, thanks in particular to the manufacturing and construction sectors.
Well done, young Quebeckers. That is good news.
Madam Speaker, he should take a look at our platform. It is full of proposals about culture.
Here is what the Société des auteurs et autrices de radio, télévision et cinéma said concerning the Prime Minister's cultural capitulation: “this announcement cuts us to the core, because it suggests that our industry is nothing but a bargaining chip”. Those are their words, not ours.
The Prime Minister had already capitulated on the digital services tax to the tune of $1.4 billion a year. Today, he is capitulating on the $2 billion a year in levies payable by streaming platforms.
Whey are the Liberals always so eager to capitulate when it comes to protecting francophone culture in North America?
Madam Speaker, unlike the Bloc Québécois, members on this side of the House have zero doubts that culture is important, and we are ready to invest in it. We did so in the budget, yet they were against it.
With the $600 million that we are investing in the industry and the $95 million that we are investing in exporting our industry, giving access to 120 international markets, we are fostering its development, because our culture is extremely important.
We, the 44 Liberal MPs from Quebec in this place, are constantly fighting to defend, protect and promote culture.
Madam Speaker, let us be clear. The Prime Minister of Canada regards Quebec culture as nothing more than an annoying trade barrier.
The Quebec government says that, in the context of the CUSMA negotiations, this sends a signal that Ottawa is prepared to compromise on our culture. Quebec is also considering its own options for making streaming platforms like Netflix and Amazon Prime contribute financially, since the federal government is capitulating to the Americans.
Do the Liberals realize that they are sending a message to Quebeckers that they can rely on no one but themselves to safeguard the future of our culture?
[English]
The Economy
Madam Speaker, let us imagine I was pulled over by police on the way here this morning, and I said to the officer, “Officer, I know I was technically speeding but it was just a couple kilometres over the speed limit.” I do not think that would work, because a recession is a recession is a recession, and Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Under the hood of that recession is even more bad news. The parliamentary budget watchdog said that Canada's growth has been downgraded for both 2026 and 2027. The best case is now effective stagnation.
Why is Canada the only country in a recession?
Madam Speaker, I have never seen this in my 22 years in the House. I have never heard such good news be disparaged and cast aside, and they continue to run down the Canadian economy. We added 88,000 jobs. Unemployment is down. Foreign direct investment is up. We have dropped the fuel excise tax. We have increased our capital gains exemption. We are making massive investments in housing, in infrastructure and in defence. In short, we have a plan and that plan is working.
Madam Speaker, I have only been here a year, but I have never heard so much bad news be cheered by the government. Fewer Canadians are working today than at the beginning of the year. Fewer youth are working today than at the beginning of the year. Business investment continues to lag. In fact, it is below the replacement rate. That means we have lower labour productivity. As Krugman said, “Productivity isn't everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything.” It seems like the government does not care about that. In fact, it will cheer this bad news.
Why is that?
Madam Speaker, in the face of global uncertainty and U.S. tariffs, our country remains strong. I do want to cite that in the face of this, Canada has created over 147,000 jobs. We have already heard today youth unemployment is going down, wage growth is outpacing inflation by 4.7% and Canadians are working.
In fact, who is leading the way? Women are leading. They are working in this country. They are delivering. That is something to be celebrated. This also exceeds the United States.
Madam Speaker, the only leader in the entire G20 to plunge their economy into a recession was exposed by the PBO for leaving $7 billion out of the deficit projections. That is an extra $150 out of each Canadian's pocket. However, it does not matter to the guy who has sent a record number of Canadians into food banks, while he stuffs his face with $200,000 of crème brûlée and fine wines on just three taxpayer-funded flights.
Was the Prime Minister technically misleading Canadians or are we in a full-blown Liberal recession?
Madam Speaker, I think people are really puzzled at these scripted questions from the Leader of the Opposition. Over 35 times a day, the Conservatives stand up and read the same wrong, fake question, yet they fail to defend their votes to the very people they pretend to uphold.
Today, in Canadians' bank accounts, we will see the groceries and essentials benefit, which will provide a single person with a base GST credit of $543. The Conservatives are against it. We are supporting Canadians.
Madam Speaker, his answer on plunging the economy into a recession is to give Canadians $18 a week. The PBO also exposed the government for having a less than 1% chance of meeting its own deficit-to-GDP ratio fiscal target. That is a better chance than a Liberal actually answering a question in this place.
Will the Prime Minister stop stuffing his face with taxpayer-funded crème brûlée and tell us if we are in a technical recession or a full-blown Liberal one?
Madam Speaker, I have known the member for a number of years and, in fact, I have a great deal of respect for him. He overcame enormous personal challenges to be in the House, which he has been open about. That is why I respect him, but he conducts himself in this way. The opposition leader's office, I guess, has given orders for him to throw insults like this, and the rest of it.
We are not going to focus on that. We are going to engage in a positive approach to politics.
What do we find? Almost 90,000 jobs were created, many of which are in the construction sector. He is from Alberta. He talks about the trades. We need to build the country up. That is exactly what we are going to do. We have a plan—
Madam Speaker, last Friday, we learned that under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Yesterday, we learned that there is only a 1% chance that their latest fiscal anchor will hold. The Liberals have, so far, refused to acknowledge their own government's reports.
Will they admit today that they caused the only recession in the G20 and that they are already breaking their latest fiscal anchor, or are they going to say that it is all just a technicality?
Madam Speaker, when Conservatives vote against affordability measures and then complain about affordability, Canadians see that as disingenuous. What is also disingenuous is when they talk down the Canadian economy while we are trying to find solutions.
The U.S. is Canada's largest trading partner. It only stands to reason that we would have the largest impact. We are building Canadian infrastructure using Canadian labour and Canadian materials. We are building trade corridors with other countries. I ask the other party to join us in believing in Canada, in believing in Canadians and in believing in building Canada—
Madam Speaker, of course we believe in Canada. We believe in Canadians. We do not believe in the Liberal government, because it is the only government in the G20 to lead its economy into a recession.
This week, we also learned that the government is borrowing $72 billion this year, not $65 billion as stated in the budget. The Montreal Economic Institute said that the deficit is on track to exceed $117 billion by 2035, and that is even without new spending.
Will the finance minister admit that this week's reports have destroyed whatever fiscal credibility he thinks that he might still have?
Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the opposition has a job to do, which is to critique the government, but, as a government, our focus is to build our economy.
That is why we have been working very hard to make sure that we diversify our trade and that we open more markets for Canadian businesses. The results are coming in. It has been reported that 88,000 new jobs have been created. We are also not leaving people behind. That is why, as of today, the groceries and essentials benefit is going to be coming to people. They will be getting, additionally, up to $533 for a family with two kids. This is how we are helping Canadians.
Madam Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Just by stopping the illegal dumping of cheap subsidized Chinese aluminum, the government could help aluminum extrusion companies be profitable, provide jobs for hard-working Canadians and put food on their tables.
Will the Liberal Prime Minister tell aluminum workers that Canada is in a recession or just a technical recession?
Madam Speaker, we know the challenges for certain sectors in the Canadian economy on aluminum, on steel, on auto and forestry. Our Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade and our ambassador in Washington, Janice Charette, who has been appointed, are engaging with the U.S. administration.
The member talked about jobs. I do think it is important to recognize that there were 88,000 jobs created in the Canadian economy. We know that there are challenges in particular sectors and that is why the Minister of Industry has been helping, with targeted programs to support workers and those industries being impacted. At the same time, we are focusing on building the Canadian economy across the country.
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Madam Speaker, a mix-up between two government departments is hurting our businesses and their temporary foreign workers. When our small and medium-sized businesses want to renew their employees' work permits through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, they must submit a labour market impact assessment, or LMIA, within 60 days. However, Service Canada is the one that issues LMIA approvals. Since the Service Canada process takes more than 60 days, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada closes the files. As a result, in Rimouski, two workers at Armoires Perreault have been left without pay. A day care centre was denied two workers after waiting more than 100 days.
Will the government stop punishing these people for its own mistakes?
Madam Speaker, our government recognizes that Quebec relies heavily on temporary foreign workers. I know that is the case in our region, the Quebec City region, and that is certainly the case in several regions throughout Quebec.
We have implemented a targeted measure that extends temporary foreign worker permits by one year. I am also very pleased to announce that, as of today, this public policy from the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship will also apply to the spouses and partners of work permit holders. This is good news for many temporary foreign workers in Quebec. We continue to work with Quebec on these labour issues.
Madam Speaker, it is simple: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada requires LMIAs in 60 days, but the service standard is 64 days. Obviously, this is not working, but Ottawa would rather blame the businesses than clean up its own mess. It is infuriating.
The government must extend its deadlines when provided with proof that an LMIA is being processed. When it closes cases by error, it should at least allow them to be reopened at no cost and without having to begin the process all over again.
Is it going to fix this disaster?
The Economy
Madam Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. Three of the last four quarters have seen negative growth. Workers are losing their jobs. Businesses are putting their investment plans on hold. Deficits are skyrocketing. At what point will Liberal ministers admit that we are in a recession? Will they do so after two quarters? Will they do so after three quarters, or after four quarters?
Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally tell Canadians whether we are in a Liberal recession or a technical recession?
Madam Speaker, this week is a good week for northern Ontario. Well-paid jobs are important.
In the north, there are more than 900 companies operating in the mining supply and services sector. Premier Mining Products, a company in my riding, just announced that it is using the regional tariff response fund to modernize and expand its operations. Electra Battery Materials in Cobalt recently made significant investments.
Furthermore, we welcomed the action plan to transform the forestry sector that was announced this week. We need to focus on what we can build together—
Madam Speaker, what we want is for all Canadian businesses to be able to prosper and grow, but under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. I have said it before and I will say it again. When the economy slows down, businesses invest less and the government needs to step in more.
Who is paying the most for this? It is costing all Canadians more, as their debt load rises and they have a harder and harder time making ends meet. That is exactly what is happening in Canada today. Everyone sees what is going on, except the Liberal Prime Minister.
Will he tell us whether—
Madam Speaker, there is a lot of good news today. It is important to mention that the first Canada groceries and essentials benefit payments were deposited today. In my riding, they went out to 28,000 residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming. A single person will receive $950 and a family of four will receive up to $1,890. As we know, this measure is one of the government's many initiatives to help Canadians with affordability.
Let us celebrate this important day.
Madam Speaker, how can anyone take such delight in people's poverty, as we have just seen? When a government is forced to hand out money so that people can eat, something is not right.
We just heard the entire Liberal Party applaud a measure to help people pay their grocery bills every month. This is unacceptable. Is this really where Canada has ended up? We applaud when the government hands out money because people cannot afford groceries?
If the Liberals recognized that we are in a recession, they would do something about it.
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, but today he seems to be all doom and gloom.
Today, thanks to the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, we are providing $543 to a single person as a GST credit and $1,086 to a family of four. These are concrete measures that people on this side of the House are working on to help families and the most vulnerable. When will the Conservatives understand this and stop criticizing us? We are building a strong Canada.
Madam Speaker, a full week has already been wasted. We learned last Friday that Canada is in a recession. The Liberals insist on burying their heads in the sand. They are playing word games. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday that the Liberal government has a 1% chance of meeting its fiscal anchors. That means it has a 99% chance of failing economically.
Will the Liberal government stop burying its head in the sand and admit that our country is in a recession?
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I have been visiting with people in my riding. I have been going door to door and attending community events. Although people still have concerns about affordability, they see our efforts and tell us we are on the right track.
Today, more than 29,600 people in my riding will be better off because of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. What is more, over 12,000 people in St. Boniface—St. Vital are enrolled in the dental care plan. The impacts are real.
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate to hear what we just heard. It is rather pathetic to be rejoicing about the fact that the government has to give Canadians money so that they can afford to eat. Canada is the only G20 country that is in a recession. The Liberals have a long list of excuses. Meanwhile, seniors are being forced to cut back on groceries. Families are being forced to make big sacrifices to make ends meet. The Liberals need to admit that what they are doing is not working. They need to quickly find solutions to stop this decline.
That said, they need to start by admitting that we are in recession.
Madam Speaker, I must admit that, given the challenges we are currently facing, there is a tremendous amount of work to do. We, on this side of the House, are doing that work. We are investing in Canadians and in businesses. I was very proud to visit the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce, where business owners told us that we are on the right track and asked us to continue making these investments, because they support them.
We also want to create up to 100,000 jobs in the skilled trades to support all sectors of our industry. That is important.
[English]
Madam Speaker, the world's economic and trade landscape is undergoing rapid transformations, thrusting countries, businesses and workers, including those in my riding of Bay of Quinte, into a period of uncertainty. Our government is responding accordingly, building a stronger and more resilient Canadian economy and protecting jobs and industries.
As that plan takes hold, we are also offering a bridge and a boost to help make life more affordable. Can the parliamentary secretary update this House on the Canada groceries and essentials benefit and what it will mean for Canadian families?
Madam Speaker, this member is doing outstanding work, first of all, on the committees for environment and for defence. He brings with him years of experience as a city councillor and as a journalist. He has been a pillar of his community.
Of course, just like every Liberal MP, the member has advocated for the groceries and essentials benefit, a benefit that that will allocate up to $1,900 for a family of four. Today, cheques going out are up to the amount of $533 for a family of four. This is serious support for families because we believe in this country, and that is the approach we take.
Madam Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. The impact is real, not theoretical. Over the past four years, in Lethbridge, one of our food banks has experienced an increase in child usage of 112%. That is children going to the food bank.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent nearly $200,000 on inflight catering for just three flights. To put that in perspective, that is enough to treat a family of four to monthly steak dinners at The Keg for 50 years. Will the Prime Minister finally tell us, are we in just a technical recession, or is this a real full-blown Liberal recession?
Madam Speaker, that member knows very well that the foundations of the Canadian economy remain strong. I will give a couple of good examples of that.
Foreign direct investment is at a 23–year high. Interest rates remain low. Inflation remains at the Bank of Canada window. Manufacturing numbers are up. Even productivity in Canada is trending in the right direction. Hot off the press: unemployment is down, job creation is up and 20,000 people in my riding will get the groceries and essentials benefit today. We could not be happier.
Madam Speaker, what the member just said is that those children in my riding who are suffering from poverty and food insecurity should be thankful for the government because they have never had it so good. Shame on that member for claiming that. These are individuals who are finding it very difficult to make ends meet.
Food insecurity is rising and Canadians are struggling. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister splurges on fine wines, braised beef, Normandy butter cups and all sorts of things, while jetting around the world. Is he enjoying his luxurious lifestyle at the expense of taxpayers during a true recession or is it just a technical recession?
Madam Speaker, I find it really amazing that the member gets up and is more concerned about debating the price of paper clips than actually trying to help Canadians. She has voted against every affordability measure that has been brought forward.
In my riding of Eglinton—Lawrence, 37,000 people are going to benefit from this groceries benefit, so are you telling them they do not deserve it? Shame on you.
Madam Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession, with an economic decline in three of the last four quarters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that the chance the Liberal government will achieve its fiscal anchor is at less than 1%.
We are on the brink of a major energy crisis, with rising inflation from higher energy and higher food prices that are guaranteed. Canada is in a recession today, and it is not looking good for the rest of the year. When will the Liberal government reverse course and stop this economic slide?
Madam Speaker, this is a government that is hard at work for all Canadians. We have a plan to build Canada strong, and on days like today we are seeing real progress with 88,000 net new jobs. The largest increase in those jobs is in construction. Youth unemployment fell by nearly a point. In the member's home province alone there are 14,000 new jobs.
Our plan is working. We are hard at work. We are going to keep working for Canadians.
Madam Speaker, this is great news. The Liberal government is finally taking responsibility for something. If it is taking responsibility for today's job numbers, it must also be responsible for the reason we are in a recession today. It cannot have its cake and eat it too.
Canada's economic growth is negative. Energy and food prices are rising dramatically. Canadians cannot take it anymore. The Liberals promised an economy that would move at speeds not seen in generations, but the only thing we see growing is our massive debt. When will they reverse course and stop failing Canadians?
Madam Speaker, what I find quite remarkable is that in the Conservatives' questions there is never a recognition that the U.S. administration has imposed tariffs on some of our key sectors in this country. We are continuing to make the case to try to remove them.
The member blows right by the fact that 88,000 jobs were created in May, primarily in the private sector and primarily in construction, with 150,000 net jobs this year. We have a AAA credit rating. We have a lower deficit. We have the strongest fiscal position in the G7.
We have strong fundamentals and are focused on building major national projects, including in that member's province, to build Canada strong, to build this country strong. We will continue to focus on those plans.
Madam Speaker, every Liberal campaign is on the Prime Minister being the man with the plan and an economic genius. However, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has now confirmed that there is less than a 1% chance the government will meet its own fiscal anchor.
After an economic decline in three of the last four quarters, he cannot even tell us whether we are in a recession or a technical recession, so I will ask again: Which one is it?
Madam Speaker, I miss that member. I am happy to see him again.
As he knows, the foundations of our economy remain strong. I will repeat them. Foreign direct investment is at a 23-year high. Interest rates remain low. Inflation remains in the Bank of Canada window. Manufacturing numbers are up. Productivity, which has been the boat anchor around our economy for years, is trending in the right direction. Hot off the press is that unemployment is going down. The economy just posted 88,000 jobs.
Today, in his riding, as in mine and everybody's in this room, Canadians are getting the groceries and essentials benefit.
Madam Speaker, as a British Columbian, the member knows that more British Columbians are out of work because of the Liberal government. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is sounding the alarm, saying businesses are postponing expansion plans and investing elsewhere. Under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession and Canadians are paying the price.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. I will give the Prime Minister one more chance. If he is the economic genius he says he is, will he stand and tell us whether we are in a technical recession or a recession?
Madam Speaker, I think we can conclude at this point in question period on Friday that the Conservatives did not skip into the House with their usual glee. Why is that? It is because they know. They know that the Canadian economy is proving to be very resilient. The hero of the day is the Canadian worker, the Canadian workers in manufacturing and construction.
Just for the naysayers, and it bears repeating, it is very important for Canadians to know that we have added almost twice, that is double, the jobs per capita of the United States of America since December 2024, which is 5.4 per thousand versus 2.5 per thousand. We are outperforming the United States. We are outperforming the G7.
Madam Speaker, despite today's headline numbers, Canada is in a recession. The Prime Minister promised the strongest economy in the G7. Instead, he has delivered the only shrinking economy not only in the G7, but also across the entire G20. That is three out of four quarters of negative growth.
Will the Liberals simply acknowledge that Canada's economy is weaker after one year of the Prime Minister?
Madam Speaker, I would refer the member to this morning's non-partisan C.D. Howe Institute's Business Cycle Council bulletin to note that his comments are premature. The Canadian economy is actually in a very good position today, with 88,000 new jobs having been created. We can see that the government's plan is working. There is lower youth unemployment, lower unemployment for women and more and more jobs in construction and manufacturing. The government is building Canadians' economy, and I do not understand why the Conservatives do not want to build it with us.
Madam Speaker, here are the facts: There were 25,000 net jobs lost this year, and productivity, business capital investment and GDP are down. Today's numbers show that wage growth is down, with Canadian workers taking home less.
If this is the Prime Minister's idea of a strong economy, what would a weak economy look like?
Madam Speaker, what has happened in the last year is that our largest trading partner has put in unfair tariffs against this country. The Conservatives try to pretend that did not happen. The largest impact would be on the largest trading partner, but we have planted the seeds of a stronger economy. We are building Canada strong and building more infrastructure in Canada using Canadian materials and Canadian labour, with more trading partners. Let us allow those seeds to bear fruit. Instead of talking down the Canadian economy, the Conservatives should join us in building Canada strong.
Madam Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country that is in a recession. We also have the second-highest unemployment in the G7, the worst household debt and the worst housing costs. The Liberals will say that this is just a technical recession, but there is nothing technical about Canadians who are struggling to feed their families, fill their gas tanks or make their bill payments.
Will the Prime Minister tell us finally whether this is a Liberal recession or just a technical recession? Which is it?
Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague that the Bank of Canada and leading economists, including today, the C.D. Howe Institute, have cautioned against spreading fear and uncertainty when Canadians are looking for solutions. I am proud to be part of a government that is focused on supporting good-paying jobs and growing our economy.
A moment ago, I mentioned Electra Battery Materials in Cobalt. It is investing $100 million to support Canada's critical mineral supply chain and create local jobs. Responsible government supports Canadians when they need it, while managing public finances prudently.
[Translation]
Artificial Intelligence
Madam Speaker, AI is fundamentally redefining how Canadians work, learn and build their businesses. Our students want the skills and tools to seize the jobs of tomorrow. Our SMEs want to adopt AI so they can innovate, grow and create good jobs here in Canada.
Can the government explain how Canada's “AI for All” strategy will enable Canadians to take full advantage of the economic benefits of this technological revolution?
Madam Speaker, our strategy creates a national AI literacy initiative that will reach one million post-secondary students and 3,000 teachers. It will offer up to 90,000 AI-related jobs and work placement opportunities for young Canadians. We are also helping SMEs adopt AI by investing $1 billion in programs like regional AI initiatives and the LIFT program.
[English]
The Economy
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister said he was going to build at speeds not seen in a generation. He knows that Bill C-69 and other terrible Liberal environmental policies are still on the books, yet the Liberals are taking their sweet time to fix the mess that they themselves created, so now they are bogged down in endless consultations and more of the same old gabfest. The Prime Minister has been in power for more than a year, and he still has not fixed any laws that prevent major projects from moving forward.
When will the Prime Minister do what is necessary to scrap the Liberals' antidevelopment laws so we can once again build big things in this country?
Madam Speaker, I have spoken to people in Portage—Lisgar and in Brandon, in my riding of Manitoba. I was at the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce luncheon a few weeks ago, and all of those in the business community there, from all of the sectors, said that major investments are important. They said, “Keep doing what you're doing.”
I was really, really proud to support PrairiesCan, the economic development agency in our region. It is giving financing to a number of projects with over $5 million through the tariff relief fund and the Prairies strategic innovation fund, which is supporting businesses doing great work on the ground. All of these people are going to get what they need to keep—
Madam Speaker, our businesses thrive despite Liberal taxes and over-regulation. The Liberals know exactly why we cannot build big things in this country. They critiqued themselves in their own discussion document, finally admitting the truth. It states, “federal laws have rules that can make regulatory processes slow”.
Simply put, it is the Liberals' own antidevelopment laws that are the problem. It is clearer than ever that this is all just a Liberal illusion. The Prime Minister wants to keep our oil and gas in the ground just as much as Justin Trudeau did.
Does the Prime Minister have the courage to fix the mess the Liberals have created, or does he just hope that empty promises will get things built again?
Madam Speaker, we have already announced several major projects. We have put shovels in the ground on several more, and there are several more to come. I can assure my hon. friend that, whether someone lives in his province of Manitoba, or in Alberta, British Columbia, Quebec or the Atlantic provinces, there are major projects. They are coming. There is a pipeline full of them. The investments keep coming in from around the world, and we are going to build Canada strong.
Transportation
Madam Speaker, just last week, a tragic collision just east of Brandon claimed the life of a 49-year-old woman after a semi-truck failed to stop at an intersection on Highway 110. Our thoughts remain with her loved ones during this devastating time.
Since then, reports have revealed that the trucking company involved had its Manitoba safety licence revoked in 2021, yet it was able to continue operating in Manitoba under a licence issued in another province.
The Liberals know that this licensing loophole has existed for some time, so why has the transport minister not taken any action to close it and ensure preventable deaths like this never happen again?
Madam Speaker, we are of course saddened at the tragic accident in Brandon, and I express my condolences to the victims, their families and indeed all the constituents of that member.
Highway safety is an incredibly important issue in this country. It is also an issue that provinces have a duty, in their jurisdiction, to uphold. I want to applaud the Minister of Transportation in Manitoba, who has called for a national collaboration and a database for the certification of trucking companies. The federal government stands ready to support this initiative at any moment.
The Economy
Madam Speaker, when the Canadian economy faces headwinds, Conservatives are quick to highlight the negatives, but when Canadian workers succeed and this side of the House brings good news, their silence is deafening.
The reality is that our plan to build a stronger, more resilient Canadian economy is creating more well-paying careers and opportunities for Canadians. Supporting workers and growing the economy should not be a partisan issue. It should be something we can all celebrate.
Can the Minister of Jobs and Families update the House on what today's job numbers mean for Canadian workers and families?
Madam Speaker, may I start with what a joy it has been to have that hard-working member of Parliament join our benches. Her experience in agriculture and farming is such an asset to the government.
Here is a number that, I suspect, is not going to make it into the clips that the Conservatives usually use to rage farm across this country. In fact, 88,000 net new jobs were announced in May and there are 100,000 jobs for summer students this year. It is really important that we stay focused on what Canadians expect us to stay focused on, which is their opportunities in the workforce.
Agriculture and Agri-Food
Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, under the Liberal Prime Minister.
Farmers warn that food security begins with protecting valuable farmland, yet the Liberals continue to advance the $90-billion Alto rail project, despite concerns about its impact on more than 5,500 farms. While $2.5 million in bonuses has already been paid before a single inch of track has been laid, Canadians across the country pay and local communities suffer.
Is the Liberals' plan for food security to slice up farmland? Is this what they call governing in a technical recession, or is it really just a technical war on agriculture?
Madam Speaker, we are so proud to be pursuing the development of high-speed rail throughout Canada. In fact, we look forward to the day when that member can hail a high-speed train in his sector of the woods in southwestern Ontario. We will, of course, achieve that by working with farmers and their representatives. We will, of course, do that by upholding principles whereby agriculture continues to flourish in our country.
We do note the Conservatives' opposition to this project. I can tell that member that most Canadians have noted their opposition to that project as well.
Health
Madam Speaker, five years ago, the Liberals promised to ban flavoured vaping products that appeal to youth. Health Canada drafted the regulations years ago, and evidence from Canada, Quebec and the Netherlands shows that flavour bans can reduce youth vaping without increasing smoking rates, yet shelves remain stocked with bubble gum-flavoured, cotton candy-flavoured, berry-flavoured, mango-flavoured and watermelon-flavoured products designed to attract young people and increase the risk of nicotine addiction.
The evidence is clear and the regulations are ready. Who is blocking these regulations, and when will the Liberal government finally ban these youth-targeted flavoured vaping products?
Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague across the aisle works extremely hard, and I really enjoy our conversations about health in the House. Vaping, especially among youth, is a very serious public health issue, and we need to make sure that the vaping industry is not exploiting grey areas that make it easier for Canadian youth to get hooked. We will continue to work to prevent youth vaping, which is why we are enhancing public education and strengthening compliance with, and enforcement of, existing rules. We will continue to work with members in the House on this important issue.
Madam Speaker, my constituent suffered a debilitating vaccine injury. He is in constant pain and permanently disabled. Oxaro approved his $26,000 medical and home support costs back in February. He has yet to be reimbursed. He is now broke and being evicted. The health minister says to contact the Public Health Agency of Canada. PHAC says it is in transition and will not even look at the file until July. This is unacceptable. My constituent will be homeless and may not survive if he does not get help now.
Will the minister immediately put in place a system to address urgent cases?
Madam Speaker, the vaccine injury support program was created to support vulnerable Canadians, and starting in April, the Public Health Agency of Canada started administrating the program to ensure that it delivers for Canadians who need it, while ensuring taxpayers' dollars are being spent appropriately. I look forward to working with that member on issues that impact her constituents.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Energy Efficiency Act
Hon. Heath MacDonald (for the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources)
moved that Bill S-4, An Act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act, be read the first time.(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by Canadians from every province, calling for the federal government to support the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway through northwestern Ontario. The petitioners note that this is a stretch of highway that unfortunately has frequent collisions and fatalities that subsequently lead to many road closures, which then stall the economy.
From the standpoint of safety, economic growth and security, as well as protecting national sovereignty, the petitioners are calling on the federal government to support the twinning of the Trans-Canada Highway through northwestern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in this place to present a petition on behalf of many constituents and other people. This petition has over 800 signatories. The petitioners are concerned, as are so many Canadians, about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I will summarize the petition.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to increase support for civilians, particularly the thousands of children suffering from acute malnutrition, and for the loss of civilian infrastructure that has been destroyed, and they call for an end to the obstacles to delivering humanitarian aid.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to pressure our government to apply diplomatic and economic pressure to urge an immediate lifting of the blockade and to ensure the swift and unimpeded delivery of assistance to the people of Gaza.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise with another handful of petitions, this time signed by the people of Cochrane.
Every day in Cochrane, citizens, including workers at Canada's largest gold mine and the local saw mill, and farmers, as well as the tourists who visit the polar bear habitat, the only wildlife centre in the world dedicated to the care of polar bears, are all concerned about the safety of the Trans-Canada Highway, Ontario Highway 11.
Cochrane is the home of the great Toronto Maple Leaf hockey player Tim Horton. While in Cochrane, take a break and have a coffee.
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of residents of my riding. They highlight that Israel's policies and actions violate the obligations set out under the Geneva Convention, which it is required to respect; that Canada is required to respect international humanitarian law; and that Israel, as an occupying power, must allow and facilitate humanitarian aid by impartial organizations.
The petitioners clearly ask that Canada publicly and unequivocally reject the militarized aid model currently used in Palestine; demand the full restoration of access for UN agencies and established humanitarian aid, including UNRWA and the World Food Programme; insist on safe and immediate entry for Canadian health care workers and other international humanitarian personnel to Palestine; withhold Canadian funding from any entity or model that does not comply with these principles of neutrality, impartiality, independence and humanity; and ensure that all Canadian aid to Gaza be delivered through internationally recognized humanitarian channels.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to table a petition on behalf of 556 people, mostly from Calgary, who have signed a petition calling on the government for the restoration of diplomatic relations with Venezuela.
The petitioners acknowledge that there are tremendous human rights abuses that are ongoing in Venezuela and that Venezuela does not yet have free and fair elections. The lack, the absence, of diplomatic relations makes it difficult for Canadian citizens to access services and to interact with Venezuela and Venezuelans. Therefore, they call for the restoration of diplomatic relations.
Mr. Speaker, first I am presenting 15 petitions, signed by a total of 3,357 Canadians, against the Alto high-speed rail project. I am being flooded with literally thousands of signatures on petitions on this subject. I have already tabled petitions on this topic from an additional 3,300 Canadians.
The petitioners are concerned that their land will be expropriated and their lives destroyed by this project that is going to pass through their communities. They are also painfully aware that once their land has been taken from them by the government, they and their children will then be sent the tax bill for their share of a project so expensive that it will cost $9,000 for every family of four nationwide.
Second, I am presenting the certificate for e-petition 7203, which I sponsored. It calls for the High-Speed Rail Network Act provisions of Bill C-15 to be stopped, the provisions that allow for an expedited expropriation process that will remove the right of appeal and guarantee that landowners get far less for their land than they ought to be getting; for the cessation of further advancement of the high-speed rail project; and for redirection by the federal government of investment toward improving higher-speed passenger rail service within existing rail corridors, which, as they note, can be done within the life of the current Parliament instead of in the year 2038.
E-petition 7203 gathered 17,531 signatures, and, in total, the petitions I am tabling today contain the signatures of over 20,000 Canadians who are opposed to the Alto rail project.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to table four petitions. I am, first off, very pleased to be tabling a petition in support of Canada's energy sector.
Petitioners highlight that Canada holds vast reserves of oil and gas that could stabilize global markets, support our democratic allies and power Canadian paycheques, but only if these resources can reach tidewater and diversified world markets. They highlight that global energy markets are now in acute disruption due to the war in the Middle East and threats to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, leaving our allies urgently searching for secure supplies from friendly democracies.
The Prime Minister, petitioners say, has promised to move with unimaginable speed to build now and to approve major projects quickly, yet his government has not approved a single new pipeline or major energy project, despite having been given exceptional powers by Parliament to do so. Petitioners observe that instead of delivering on those promises, the Prime Minister's government has doubled the deficit, presided over Canada's shrinking economy and turned a political ceremony and press release into a substitute for actual permits and construction.
Petitioners further highlight that Liberals introduced Bill C-69 and C-48, anti-development legislation that has blocked the shipment of oil to our coasts; and that Liberal red tape has made it take almost 18 years to open a mine, 23% longer than in Australia and 38% longer than in the United States, while investors, jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity have been driven to other countries.
Petitioners observe as well that Canada now exports 98% of its crude oil to the United States, leaving our producers and workers at the mercy of American policy and a single market, rather than getting world prices through pipelines and LNG terminals to the Pacific and Atlantic.
Therefore, petitioners call on the Government of Canada to repeal Bills C-69 and C-48 and replace them with a regulatory framework that protects the environment, respects indigenous rights and allows responsible energy projects to be built. They ask the government to commit to a clear, predictable and, at maximum, six-month decision timeline for approval of major energy and resource projects so investors, workers and communities can have certainty.
Finally, petitioners want the government to scrap the federal energy cap on Canadian oil and gas production so responsible, lower-emission Canadian energy can grow, compete globally and displace higher-emitting sources from hostile or unstable regimes.
I want to thank the petitioners for their hard work in bringing this important petition to Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, next I am tabling a petition drawing the attention of members to very concerning comments made by Mr. Louis Roy of the Quebec College of Physicians and Surgeons, calling for the expansion of euthanasia to “babies from birth to one year of age who come into the world with severe deformities and very serious syndromes”.
Petitioners highlight their belief that infanticide is always wrong and that this proposal for the killing of infants is deeply disturbing to many Canadians, especially coming from a person affiliated with such an important organization. Petitioners want the Government of Canada to block any attempt to legalize the killing of children.
Mr. Speaker, next I am tabling a petition drawing the attention of the House to the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners, persecution that includes forced organ harvesting.
Petitioners want more action by the government to combat the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in China. No doubt, petitioners are also concerned about the attacks on arts and culture by the CCP that are evident through efforts to suppress artistic expression affiliated with Falun Gong.
Mr. Speaker, the final petition I am tabling today draws the attention of the House to concerns about risks to young people online.
Petitioners highlight that smart phones give Canadian children direct access to harmful online content, with children getting their own devices at increasingly young ages, and that algorithm-driven social media platforms are designed to keep users hooked, harming youth mental health and well-being. They also highlight that rising social media use among young Canadians is contributing to a worsening mental health crisis, putting added strain on health care and social services. Parents find it difficult to limit social media access across devices and apps, especially when young people can be accessing these different things on devices that are not their own.
Petitioners point out that Australia has recognized these concerns and set of minimum social media age of 16, and similar laws are being debated in New Zealand, Sweden and Spain, reflecting growing global awareness. Further, they point out that social media and smart phone access exposes children to pornographic and other harmful online content at an early age with no meaningful age verification laws in place to offer protection.
Therefore, petitioners ask the Government of Canada to establish a minimum age of 18 for accessing social media platforms, supported by effective age verification, and also to support Bill S-209, an act to restrict young persons' access to online pornographic material.
Questions Passed as Orders for Return
[Translation]
[English]
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Business of the House
There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:
That, the speech of Her Excellency the Governor General, together with the address of welcome made by the Prime Minister in the Senate Chamber on Monday, June 8, 2026, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates for that day and form part of the records of this Parliament.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Build Canada Homes Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the member to reverse the Conservative policy of just getting out of the way, recognizing that the federal government does have a role to play in housing. Would he not agree?
Mr. Speaker, to capsulize Bill C-20, I would say it is more bureaucracy, it is more regulation and it is more cost to the taxpayer, but it is great for Liberal insiders and friends. We are probably going to find out more and more as time goes on.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to see you in the chair. Today, I am speaking to Bill C-20 on Build Canada Homes or, as it was originally mistranslated in French, “Bâtir Maisons Canada”.
It is not in the Bloc's nature to agree to the creation of federal Crown corporations that encroach on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. I would remind all members that housing is under Quebec's jurisdiction. However, there is always context, and the current situation is extremely serious.
The housing crisis that has been raging for some time is appalling. There is crippling inflation, which means people are struggling to find housing and often, or even regularly, have to cut back on other expenses. This is a serious crisis. That is the first factor. The second factor is that the federal government has finally, in the end, reached an agreement with the Quebec government. That is one of the factors that may lead the Bloc Québécois to accept such measures.
The agreement very clearly states that Quebec's jurisdiction, priorities and legislative framework will be respected, along with the Build Canada Homes investment policy framework.
An agreement has been reached, an urgent need exists and funds are available. We are talking about $1 billion, after all. We cannot, in good conscience, say that we are rejecting the money in accordance with a general policy. The context here allows us to approve this bill, as we did at second reading.
At second reading, my colleague from Joliette—Manawan gave an interesting quote. I really like quoting this man. He is brilliant, intelligent and humble at the same time. My colleague commended the government and the minister for trying to speed up efforts to address the affordable housing issue, and I share his sentiment.
We therefore applaud the effort and the investment, and we will support this bill because something needs to be done about housing, especially affordable housing. That said, we have some concerns. Affordable housing is not social housing. Build Canada Homes is focusing strongly on affordable housing. The government is creating a structure that will inevitably encroach on areas outside federal jurisdiction and giving it very broad powers. Among other things, Build Canada Homes will have the power to become a shareholder or partner of private companies operating in the area of affordable housing. We have concerns about that, and I must express them in the House. What does that mean in the long term? It is a bit like the current agreement with Quebec. It exists, but how long will it last? Will it be renewed and will it still respect Quebec's jurisdiction?
Unfortunately, Canadian history has taught us that the federal government generally has a hard time respecting Quebec's jurisdiction. That is why we are on alert. All of this background information is intended to highlight this fact.
Something has to be done about housing. There is no getting around that. The billion dollars that will be sent to Quebec will, I hope, provide some general relief, as long as this structure is effective.
Speaking of effectiveness and structures, I would now like to talk about the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which already exists. Its mandate includes funding, program creation, support, and planning and validating this type of housing project.
Why create a new structure? We have raised that question before and I am raising it again today because we never really got an answer. The Liberals talk about agility, or perhaps they just wanted to create something new. Governments love to say that they are responsible for creating one structure or another. Often, they create things and put the word “Canada” on it three or four times so that it sounds good when they say it.
In this case, we are talking about Build Canada Homes. My argument about adding “Canada” to the names of things does not apply here because the “C” in CMHC already stands for Canada. CMHC stands for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, so this is not about adding Canada to the name. Why then, do the Liberals want to create a new structure that operates in the same areas?
More importantly, the CMHC is at risk of losing a lot of its funding and programs. The government is telling us that it will maintain the current funding levels and any initiatives that have already been announced. I honestly have to commend the government for that, because at least it is not cutting programs mid-stream. However, that means that these programs will disappear when the funding runs out, and that raises concerns. I am thinking, in particular, about the rapid housing initiative, which is working well. People had better take full advantage of it while it is still around, because it is not every day that a member of the Bloc Québécois says that a program is working well. If I am saying it, then it must be true. In that case, why sunset that program? We are concerned about all of these things.
This new structure is causing concern not only among Bloc Québécois MPs, but also among community organizations like FRAPRU, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, a housing rights organization.
Build Canada Homes is allowed to become a shareholder or partner in housing projects, and that is causing concern among FRAPRU's members. They said, “The cat is out of the bag. After promising to build affordable housing with Build Canada Homes, the government's new strategy...is starting to become clear. Build Canada Homes is an investment bank, plain and simple.” These comments were reported by my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. That sums up the situation well.
It goes without saying that we will be on our guard and will carry out our role as a constructive opposition by monitoring the work of this entity and ensuring that it does not start to disregard Quebec's jurisdiction or cast its net too wide. This federal government has a tendency to overreach and it has far too much money relative to its responsibilities, yet it still manages to run up record deficits and accumulate stratospheric debts. We must keep a close eye on it because it will meddle in whatever areas it can.
Again, housing is the responsibility of the Quebec government. I would like to quote Quebec premier Daniel Johnson. This is not a recent quote. He said this in 1967, a short time before I was born.
Quebec considers the following areas to fall within its exclusive jurisdiction: culture, adult education, university research, trade training programs, industry-cooperative training programs, and training programs for the unemployed; urban development and housing; municipal structure; municipal powers; and land use planning.
That pretty much sums up what I just said, and as I mentioned, this is not a new issue. I was not even born yet, and I am not exactly young anymore. I am not old, but I am not that young either.
There would be a role for the federal government if everyone here made an effort to respect the Constitution, which is rather ironic. I hear a member telling me he agrees. He might disagree with the rest of my statement, but it will be fun. We are pretty much the only ones here who want to the Constitution to be upheld. It is funny because we are the only ones who did not sign it. We all remember that it was done behind our backs in the middle of the night. It is still a pretty scandalous affair. I think I have managed to get one of my colleagues thinking. I am quite proud of myself.
Originally, the federal government's role was to transfer money to these jurisdictions, because it had a monopoly on taxation powers. Over time, attempts were made to balance the situation, but they never offset the shortfall. This is the crux of the problem with Canada's federal structure, which is a federation, not a confederation. That was another historical rip-off. The government has too much power and more money than its responsibilities require, so it tends to take advantage of the situation to shine in the public eye. Its members love making announcements from a sun-drenched balcony, hair blowing in the wind. I use that sentence a lot, but the image speaks for itself. The government wants to tell Canadians that it is generous and that it is going to hand out billions of dollars. That way, it gets credit and hopes that votes will follow. I am guessing that is the reasoning.
However, it would be nice if the contract that was signed behind our backs was respected. The Bloc Québécois has enough class to say that we are are stuck with that, and that we are going to play by the rules until the day comes that everyone knows about already. It should surprise no one that our goal is not to stay here. Our goal is for the Government of Quebec to assume its full powers and manage its responsibilities.
I will use the example of Build Canada Homes. We are saying today that, yes, we will take the billion dollars. We need it, because the crisis is urgent. Ottawa has an agreement with the Quebec government stipulating that decisions will be made by the Government of Quebec based on its jurisdictions and priorities. We agree.
However, if we take a step back, $1 billion out of $6 billion represents 16.6% of the amount Canada allocated through Build Canada Homes, even though Quebeckers represent around 22% of the population. That means that while Quebeckers are paying 22%, they will receive only 16.6%. I know that I am going to get questions from government members, who will tell me that we are being ungrateful and that we should be happy and stop whining. I would like them to think about those numbers.
I am sure that the thousands of people who are watching us at home agree that this does not make any sense. If Quebec had control over all of its economic levers, then we would have a lot more money to put into housing. We would also do things more effectively because we are more in touch with the people.
When we say that this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, it is because the provincial governments and the Government of Quebec are closer to the people and they are in a better position to provide services. The municipalities are even closer to the people. This should be done in partnership with municipal governments. Who knows the needs of a community better than its municipal officials? That is true as long as they are doing their job properly and they are in touch with people in their community. When the federal government comes in with its heavy-handed approach and imposes its priorities, we always have to insist that it respect our jurisdictions. That is why we are always raising concerns. I hope that people are listening. I think that the parliamentary secretary is listening carefully. I am very pleased because I know that he will likely go and tell his caucus that what the guy from Berthier—Maskinongé said made a lot of sense and that his government should be vigilant. At least that is my hope, because I am sure Manitoba must also have regional priorities.
All that the federal government would have do is simply transfer the money, but because it would not get enough credit, it creates structures instead. Having an agreement with Quebec is important. However, it is appalling that every time we talk about housing—and the same holds for many other sectors, but housing in particular—the timelines grow longer. I remember that my former colleague, Denis Trudel, who I can call by name today because he is sadly no longer with us, long criticized this situation in his role as housing critic. I believe that it took four years the last time to reach an agreement with Quebec, even though the other provinces had already received the money. I could be wrong about the number of years, but it is around that many.
It took nearly two years for the Canada housing infrastructure fund. The general funds have been released, but agreements still need to be reached. It is frustrating, exhausting and discouraging to see the federal government make announcements and reach agreements after a few months with other provinces, but not with Quebec. Why? It is because the federal government wants to stick its nose into everything and that does not bother Canadians in other provinces. For them, the government is the federal government. This does not bother the provincial governments, because they have far fewer responsibilities than the Quebec government. I invite people from other provinces who might be listening to take a look at Quebec's administrative structure and its social and economic fabric. They will see that the country of Quebec already exists. I often say this, and people sometimes think I am joking, but I really mean it. Regional county municipalities, or RCMs, do not exist anywhere else. They are groupings of municipalities meant to foster greater regional cohesion.
I will give an anecdotal example regarding electoral redistribution. The riding of Berthier—Maskinongé already had three RCMs and one city. I explained to the commissioner that I really wanted to properly represent the people of Saint-Sulpice, whom I salute by the way and whom I am very pleased to represent, but that, for the sake of territorial cohesion, it might be better to give me a larger area of land, such as Matawinie, which I already shared with my esteemed colleague from Joliette—Manawan. When I explained that to the commissioner, he said it made sense. When I asked him if he had any questions, he said no, that everything was very clear, that I had made a good point and that he would look into it. When I received the card a month later, I realized that he had not listened to me. It is no big deal, because Saint-Sulpice is a beautiful part of the country. I have come to know a lot of people there, and I am very proud to represent them. However, this just goes to show that Canada could not care less about RCMs. They are not in its DNA, whereas they are a reality in Quebec.
When it comes to supporting businesses, we are trying to explain to people in the other provinces that Quebec's economic fabric is different from the rest of Canada. In Quebec, we have a very high concentration of small and medium-sized businesses that need more targeted support, including the infamous wage subsidy.
The wage subsidy is like OAS for seniors aged 65 to 74. We will not give up on this. I know that some people are sick and tired of hearing us talk about this, but we will not stop, because we stand up for such worthy causes. Wage subsidies are intended to maintain the employment relationship between businesses and employees. As for the old age pension for people aged 65 to 74, it is intended to ensure fairness among seniors so that different categories based on age do not exist. That is age-based discrimination.
It is an election promise and a housing measure. We want to work together, but we are putting the government on notice. We are asking the government to honour its commitments. I do not want to have to go on the attack again in three years when the agreement expires because Build Canada Homes might want to extend its reach into areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. Two years to reach an agreement is a long time. We do not want any further delays. Some people sometimes think we are here to block everything or to show that nothing works. However, we often simply point out that things rarely work.
The next time federal funds are released, I would like to see less red tape, a quicker response to Quebec's specific requests and no attempt to impose federal conditions on Quebec's economy, society and politics.
I am extending this olive branch to the parliamentary secretary. I assume he will accept it warmly and that he hears the message I am sending today. I am very keen to see what sort of question he will ask me.
That said, we are separatists. I know some people do not like it when I talk about that, but I do because it is my job. I mentioned earlier that we are going to take the billion dollars injected into Build Canada Homes because we want to make constructive progress here while awaiting Quebec's independence. I pointed out to members that this figure represents 16.6% of the total amount Canada has invested in Build Canada Homes. Quebec accounts for approximately 22% of the population. Once again, we are not receiving the full amount that should be coming to us. We will gladly take it and try to make it work, but there is still some missing.
My separatist argument stands. We would not have had to wait two years for a policy to be implemented if we had not had to negotiate with a federal government that does not understand Quebec's reality and that wants to impose its own rules and its own way of doing things.
That is the essence of my speech today. I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I impatiently await their questions.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I look at the federation as working in a collaborative way. When we think in terms of the important issues Canadians have, housing is one of them. When I think in terms of issues like housing co-ops, Quebec has a lot of housing co-ops, as Manitoba has housing co-ops. I think of organizations like Habitat for Humanity. Again, throughout our great nation, there is a presence, a footprint of Habitat for Humanity. These are organizations that I believe want to be able to see the federal government continue to work collaboratively, to continue to provide programs that are going to encourage growth and support non-profit housing. Ultimately, I believe the federal government does have a leadership role to play on the national scene. I guess we will have to agree to disagree, but the principle of government support for housing is something I think we can both agree on.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, for once, the parliamentary secretary anticipated my response quite well. We can both agree on that, but we will also have to agree to disagree.
That said, as I mentioned in my speech, we are here to salvage something from the wreckage. We are defending Quebec and trying to get as much as we can for our people. That is what we are doing today. We will take that billion dollars.
My colleague mentioned programs that work and working together. I gave an example of such a program in my speech. I hope he appreciated that. The rapid housing initiative is working. It has worked in the past and it is still working. Why get rid of it? Why replace it with an unknown quantity? When a program is working, we should invest in it and leave well enough alone.
Madam Speaker, I was unable to hear my colleague's entire speech, but he said certain things that deserve to be acknowledged.
First, he spoke about Daniel Johnson, leader of the Union Nationale and premier of Quebec from 1966 to 1968, who passed away on the day the magnificent Manic‑5 generating station was due to be inaugurated.
I would like to point out that today marks exactly 60 years since Mr. Johnson was elected. Some will recall that this 1966 election was particularly notable because there was an incredible discrepancy between the percentage of votes and the percentage of MNAs elected. There was the famous question posed by Pierre Nadeau to Daniel Johnson on election night. Mr. Nadeau asked him whether he was aware that Premier Lesage did not recognize the victory. Mr. Johnson replied that, although Jean Lesage might not recognize the victory, he himself recognized that he had won.
My colleague also spoke of the Constitution. I agree with his remarks. The Constitution must be respected. The Constitution quite clearly defines federal and provincial jurisdictions. When it is followed, things go well. To support this claim, I would remind the House that, during the 1981 constitutional debate, Conservative Party leader Mr. Clark allowed the provinces to join the debate. Speaking of Mr. Clark, I want to mention that today is his 87th birthday.
Does my colleague know that, although Quebec never signed the Constitution, which is extremely unfortunate for all of Quebec, it nevertheless managed to take full control over its affairs? I have to say that I would not have signed either. That said, let us hope that jurisdictions will be respected, which has not been the case over the past 11 years.
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question, which was very long but very interesting. It is always interesting to dialogue with colleagues who are cultured and give historical dates. It is wonderful. It is quite a coincidence that I am talking about Mr. Johnson when it is the 60th anniversary of when he was first elected and, at the same time it is also Mr. Clark's 87th birthday. I had not made the connection. This is wonderful.
My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk said that Quebec has been able to thrive. Fortunately, Quebec developed its own autonomy by introducing the single tax return, among other things. My colleague will be happy to hear me mention Maurice Duplessis, who established that. People often talk about Mr. Duplessis in a negative light, but he also had a very positive side, which in no way detracts from his darker side. He did, after all, get some things done, and Quebec has developed gradually. We have been developing on our own.
My colleague says we can grow to our full potential, but in this case, we will be growing at 16.6% instead of 22%. We manage to get things done because we are very smart and very strong. The day we become independent and have full control of our finances, people will be very impressed by everything we manage to achieve and by how quickly we manage to do it.
Madam Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to my colleague, the Bloc Québécois whip.
I would like my colleague to talk to us about the diversity of social housing in Quebec. There are housing co-operatives and non-profit organizations that manage social housing buildings for people with disabilities or seniors. There is also social housing or low-income housing for seniors. I understand that other provinces do not have as much diversity. This diversity is Quebec's strength.
I would like my colleague to tell us about one of Quebec's demands. Quebec would like to see funds set aside to allow alternative housing networks to flourish. When I think of Build Canada Homes, I tend to think that we are talking about housing in partnership with private entities, which might exclude community organizations, for example.
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my “original whip”. Today is the first time I have called her by her nickname in public. I want to thank her for her thoughtful question and the wise counsel that she kindly gives me on a regular basis. She is right to talk about Quebec's uniqueness, its specificity and the diversity of its models. We would like to see more respect for those things. We do not understand why it takes two or four years to reach an agreement. That is the problem.
The federal government needs to understand that. We need flexibility. I am going to make a constructive proposal to the government, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary is taking notes. The difference between the 22% and the 16.6% could be transferred to Quebec. That way, we could take care of our diversity, as my colleague explained so well.
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois members are great at defending the provinces in the House. I think I heard my colleague say that he thinks the federal government's only role in housing should be to transfer money to the provinces. If that is the case, then what would he do with existing federal agencies, like CMHC? Does he think that the federal government should get out of the housing business altogether?
Madam Speaker, I apologize to my Conservative colleagues from Quebec, but my colleague is gradually becoming my favourite Conservative. Not only is her French exemplary, but she is also very receptive. I would like other members of the House to take a lesson from her. She has only been here for a short time, but she is already doing extraordinary work.
I commend her and I appreciate the fact that she understood the gist of my message. Her question is very relevant and very intelligent. She can rest assured that we are very resourceful. We are going to turn things around quickly and manage our own affairs. As I was telling my other colleague earlier, we are capable of doing things well, faster and better if we have all the means at our disposal. I think the people in her province would certainly benefit from the same flexibility.
[English]
Madam Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I rise today on behalf of the people of Vancouver East, and on behalf of millions of Canadians, who are asking a very simple question. In one of the richest countries in the world, why is it becoming harder, not easier, to afford a place to live?
What an opportunity this is to do the right thing and to build truly affordable housing, once and for all. The government has a chance to step up to the plate and finally deal with the crisis of runaway housing costs. Instead, it is just tinkering at the edges. Behind the hype and the Prime Minister's rhetoric of re-establishing the federal government's direct role in building homes at speed and scale to address the housing crisis is just another repackaged intervention that reserves most of its funding for the private sector.
As shown in the spring economic update, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would build more housing faster to address the housing crisis, but instead of investing in the development of public community housing, over $93 billion, or two-thirds of the $140 billion in housing measures, would be gifted to real estate developers through special treatment and low-interest loans with minimal affordability requirements to help Canadians. Only one-third, less than $10 billion a year over five years, would be spent directly on building homes.
The Liberals are continuing to bank on the private sector to solve the housing crisis. We have seen that show before. It did not work 30 years ago, and it will not work now or in the future. The legislation contains no affordability or supply targets, no performance benchmarks and no regular reporting requirements beyond infrequent statutory reviews. To date, the government has announced just six sites that would meet affordability criteria. Without binding requirements, there is no assurance that future projects would do the same. This lack of ambition is especially concerning given that total federal housing spending is projected to fall by 56% by 2028-29.
Funding for existing affordability programs is set to expire, and CMHC is facing cuts of $860 million per year, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In addition, there could be the loss of up to 300,000 units of already built social and co-op housing if the government does not renew housing charge subsidies that are set to expire.
Miloon Kothari, the former UN special rapporteur on housing, visited Canada on a national fact-finding mission and wrote a report in 2007 with recommendations. The point is that every government, Conservative and Liberal, has ignored his advice since. The report called for a continuum of housing to be built, including non-market affordable housing on scale, so that it could push the market into more affordable terrain.
What are we seeing today, more than 30 years later? Why are seniors being renovicted from communities that they helped build? Why are young people working full-time and still unable to afford rent? Why are families forced to choose between paying rent and putting food on the table? Why has this affordability crisis gone on for so long?
This did not happen by accident. This is the result of decades of political choices that have allowed housing in Canada to be transformed from a human need into a vehicle for profit. During the election campaign, the Liberals said they were going to have a wartime intervention in building affordable housing. What we see in reality is a program focused primarily on market incentives. History has shown us that true affordable housing, social housing and co-op housing, can be built by government with non-profit partners, and they know how to do this well.
The Liberals have a choice: stand with working people crushed by rent and unaffordable housing costs, or protect a system that keeps housing unaccountable and out of reach. Sadly, they choose the latter. Liberals are continuing to approach the affordability crisis through market incentives rather than building affordable housing directly with non-profit partners that guarantee affordability. That is the world view of the Conservatives as well. The NDP takes a very different approach, and that is why the NDP is calling for development of one million public homes over five years. That is the scale of ambition we need, to ensure that everyone has a safe, affordable place to call home.
At committee, I proposed something incredibly basic: an amendment to Bill C-20 calling for transparency, measurable targets and a clear definition of affordability rooted in reality, which is that people should not spend more than 30% of their total income just to keep a roof over their head. The amendment demanded data and required outcomes on how many homes are built, where they are, who they serve and whether they are actually affordable.
At a time when millions are one paycheque away from losing their homes, Canadians deserve more than announcements and market incentivization. They deserve accountability and clear affordability targets. The Liberals and Conservatives, by voting down the amendment, send a clear message that they are not interested in transparency and accountability. They do not really want Canadians to know the facts.
Here is the truth. Building more housing, on its own, will not solve the crisis. If we do not address who the system is built for, we will simply produce more housing that people still cannot afford. When we do not set affordability targets, it is déjà vu all over again.
There is a profound lack of urgency and priority by the Prime Minister to build a new supply of truly affordable housing for everyday Canadians. What is worse is that we will leave the most vulnerable even further behind. The Minister of Housing once had the ambition to end homelessness. Now that he is the minister, where has that ambition gone?
The Right Fit program did something very simple and very powerful. It matched wheelchair users with accessible housing. Over the years, it helped hundreds of people find stable homes, and yet despite its success, and despite a growing wait-list of people in desperate need, it lost federal funding as of April 1.
That means that in the middle of a housing crisis, we are not just failing to build enough homes but failing to ensure that the housing we have is accessible to those who need it most. It is not happening. This is not just a policy failure; it is a moral failure. It exposes a fundamental flaw in the government's approach.
The Build Canada Homes act focuses heavily on supply, but it is not asking a critical question: a supply of what, and for whom? Accessible housing is not interchangeable with market housing. This is a bureaucracy being built without adequate affordability targets. We cannot simply build more units and assume they will meet the needs of people with disabilities.
This is not simply an outlier situation. It is a warning. It shows us exactly what happens when we rely on a market-driven approach without strong public leadership and targeted investment. We get gaps, we get inequities, and people are left behind. This happens because it leans on the same idea, which is that if we incentivize developers, reduce barriers and speed up approvals, affordability will follow.
However, we have tried that for decades, and what has it delivered? It has delivered luxury developments instead of affordable homes, record profits for investors while renters struggle, and housing treated as a commodity, not a human right. The private market builds for profit, not for need. If luxury units generate higher returns, that is what will be built. If speculation drives higher prices, that is where capital flows. This is how the system is designed, but it is our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the system serves the people, not just the profits. Right now, it does not serve the people.
Where in this bill is the bold commitment to non-market housing? Where is the large-scale investment in co-op housing? Where is the expansion of public housing that remains affordable for generations? Where are the protections for renters facing eviction and unaffordable rent increases? Where is the action to stop the financialization of housing?
The housing crisis is not separate from inequity. It is a direct result of it. When wealth is concentrated, it flows into assets like housing and drives prices out of reach. If we are serious about solving the crisis, we must be serious about addressing inequality. This is not just about opposing development. We need to build, but we need to build the right kind of housing. We need to build housing that is affordable, accessible and secure. We need to build housing that is protected from speculation.
Housing is not just about supply. It is about dignity. It is about stability. It is about a basic human right. That is why the government needs to take action in a serious way. That is why there need to be accountability measures in this bill and we need to address the housing crisis for all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, I think it is important to recognize, within the legislation and the commitment of the government, the issue, in one word, of collaboration. It is not going to be the federal government itself that resolves the housing crisis. We have to work with many different stakeholders: provinces, indigenous communities, territories, municipalities, housing co-ops and others. Habitat for Humanity is one of the non-profits I constantly bring up. That is what this government has committed to do: increase the housing stock.
The member made reference to two things that I would like her to provide a bit of further comment on. She said to build one million public homes. How would she define public homes? Would the government build them in their entirety and then provide an ongoing subsidy of 30%, as the member said? Today, there are non-profit government-run houses where there is a percentage based on income. Is that what she is proposing for the one million homes?
Madam Speaker, the NDP has been a strong advocate of the federal government's getting back to building social housing and co-op housing like it used to, before the Liberals cancelled the national affordable housing program prior to 1993. That is what I want to see in place.
The build Canada homes act fails in its blueprint and the details on how it would actually deliver affordability, social housing and co-op housing for Canadians. By the way, my amendment called for accountability, to set baselines, to set targets and to set reported measures of what the government actually achieves. The Liberals voted against it, because they do not want Canadians to know the truth. They want to hide it from Canadians. There would be no accountability measures under the act.
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East anticipated my question, because I was just asking where the accountability measures are in the bill. I wonder if she has noticed, as I have, that the responsible minister is not actually listed. The bill just says they may be “designated by the Governor in Council”. Where is the accountability?
Madam Speaker, that is exactly the point. There is no accountability in the bill. It does not even name the minister responsible for ensuring the deliverability. It does not actually say what the government is trying to do. How many units will it build and in which provinces? What are the targets the government will set? The bill does not even ensure that the government delivers on letting Canadians know what the outcomes are, and there is no affordability measure. It is just like, “oh well, whatever”. If we have a plan like that, how is the housing crisis going to be solved? History has shown that what the government has done over the last 30 years is rely on just the private sector, and that has failed.
Madam Speaker, I really appreciate that my colleague has taken the time to talk about the importance of having targets, measures and accountability in bills, and also about how important it is to have different kinds of housing.
I know that the member comes from Vancouver East, which is, like my riding, suffering very much from the addictions crisis. I am wondering if the member could talk about the importance of having sober housing in this environment.
Madam Speaker, there is a great need for a full range of housing, and that includes supportive housing. The truth of the matter is that building housing in and of itself is insufficient. We have to have the supports in place as well for a certain segment of the community, for example, those who are faced with multiple health issues, including addictions issues, mental health issues and so on. Supportive housing is what helps ensure people are successful in that housing, and that is what we need as well. We do not have enough supports from the federal government in that regard.
By the way, the spring economic update did not renew mental health support funding, and that is going to create greater problems for communities like Nanaimo and mine, and across the country.
Madam Speaker, I confess that I have been struggling as to whether I vote for or against the bill.
Of course, building homes for Canadians is a great goal. I would vote for that. I kept trying to figure out why it is that I am having trouble figuring out whether I would vote for it or against it. I guess it is because, when I really study the bill and think it through, it does absolutely nothing, even if fully implemented. That is troubling.
I am just going to get to the bare bones. To Canadians who may be watching, what does Bill C-20 do? It is called an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. That is a familiar-sounding announcement because it was made on September 14, 2025, when the government created Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency.
That is something it has done a couple of times since the new government came in. Special operating agencies operate under the Treasury Board in an opaque environment where nothing is particularly visible or transparent or included in legislation. We already created Build Canada Homes on September 14 of last year. We are creating Build Canada Homes but not as a special operating agency. The bill deals with that. It would now be a Crown corporation. The bill would set up a Crown corporation. That is what it would do. It does not talk about the housing crisis. It does not give tools to address the housing crisis. It sets no targets. It has no timelines. It does not talk about the housing crisis. The purpose is:
...to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing in Canada and to promote innovative and efficient building techniques in the housing construction sector in Canada.
The rest of the bill is devoted to how many people are on the board of directors, what it can borrow and what it can lend. My favourite part of the bill, which, again, is a bill about setting up a corporation, is that this new corporation, Build Canada Homes, can actually take money from the federal government and give it to the federal government. It is lacking, shall we say, in ambition.
The bill misses the point. If it is going to take us through the process of passing legislation in this place, it ought to have accountability. As the member for Vancouver East just pointed out, there is no minister of housing named in the bill as responsible. The minister shall be appointed by someone in the Privy Council at any given time, who will say, of the people around the cabinet table, this week it will be Joe. That is the kind of accountability we have here. That worries me.
We also have the fundamental reality that since the end of the Second World War, since 1945, we have had the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC. Was there something wrong with CMHC? It has been massively cut. It is not being scrapped. We will still have CMHC. The Minister of Housing is responsible for CMHC. That is an entity we understand. Are there endless delays? Are there things that should be done better at CMHC? Yes, but for a government that wants to, as we always hear from the Prime Minister, move fast, why not use, fit for purpose, the institution we have already? It has in it fewer people who know what they are doing, but it still has a goal and a principle and a practice that understands that housing is a human right.
We have two kinds of housing crises in Canada right now. I want to make sure that this is explicit in the rest of my remarks. We have a crisis of affordability in market housing. People earning good incomes cannot afford a good home. A lot of that is due to industry speculation, things like real estate investment trusts, corporations owning housing and making money out of speculation. That hurts, and so does the supply of housing not being adequate to our population.
The first housing crisis, I will underscore, is a market housing supply problem for affordable housing in rental and ownership. The second housing crisis we have is acute, cruel, grinding homelessness and it is on the rise. What do we do about that?
I want to share an inspiring example. I was so honoured to tour a little place called 12 Neighbours outside Fredericton. It was a few years ago now. I met Marcel LeBrun of Fredericton, a young man. He would maybe not think he is so young now. He is a multi-millionaire because of his own entrepreneurial instincts and because he got involved in an Internet company he built up and then sold. At a sermon in a Baptist church one day, he was called upon to do more.
He made a big donation to a local homelessness group. Then he thought that was not quite enough and the homelessness problem was growing in Fredericton. Long story short, this is what Marcel LeBrun decided to do. He realized that one of the critical obstacles for building affordable homes and social, non-market housing was the cost of land, so he bought a bunch of land. Then he said, “I'm going to build 99 tiny homes on this land, 240-square-foot homes. This will give a person dignity, a home of their own. They can lock the door. It will be their home.”
He applied to CMHC for funding. He was prepared to pay one-third of the cost of this project out of his own pocket. He was putting $12 million of his own money into it. CMHC told him it would take about two weeks to process. He built 35 homes before he heard from CMHC that his project was approved, because it took CMHC about a year and a half. He got it done. Not only did he get it done, but then he saw that these problems were acute. We cannot take someone who has been homeless, living in a tent or in an encampment in the woods, put them in their own home, and magically everything is good for them, because they lack community and they lack social skills. They are still wondering how they are going to make a living.
He created a whole network of social enterprise around the housing development he built himself, for the people in his community, things like a local restaurant that people could come to, where the people who lived in his tiny homes could learn how to work in that restaurant. There is a trade shop, so people can learn how to use a Skilsaw. What Marcel LeBrun has done goes on and on. With supports for mental health and addiction, he did not just build homes. He built a community with love, care and compassion. That can be done in every community if we mandate CMHC to see if it can follow the model of what Marcel LeBrun did on his own to create sustainable long-term housing with strong mental health supports and built-in dignity and community. That is what we should be building.
This Build Canada Homes bill is not about building homes. I am not being mean about it. If colleagues read it, they will see that the Build Canada Homes act is about setting up a Crown corporation, full stop. Build Canada Homes, Bill C-20, is about replacing a special operating agency set up last year with a Crown corporation this year. There are no goals, no timelines, no accountability, no listening to the briefs that the government got from the Assembly of First Nations about engaging indigenous people and no listening to the brief that it got from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, where the rubber really hits the road at the municipal housing level. That is where people have to figure out what we are going to do.
The government is not listening to the co-operatives in this country. The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada gave a great brief to the committee that studied this bill. Since the bill does not include timelines or goals, I think that, if we were to actually put meaning into this bill, the clerk of the committee would have said it was outside the scope of the bill, because the scope of the bill is to set up a Crown corporation. After that, well, I wish the current Minister of Housing a great deal of luck. I hope he becomes the designated minister. Maybe he can make something out of this, but this does nothing more than set up a Crown corporation.
We need to do so much more. There will be money thrown at this Crown corporation, for sure. There will be chief executive officers and board members and it will function as a Crown corporation, but will it do more than what Marcel LeBrun did for the people of Fredericton?
The first social housing ever built in this country was in the early part of the 1900s, after the Halifax explosion, when that devastating collision in Halifax Harbour wiped out homes for thousands of people and the government had to build housing for people. The government did it, and did it fast. Nobody froze that winter. Everybody was gotten into housing fast.
We need to act like this is an emergency, because it is an emergency. Women my age in my riding are living in their cars. This is driving me to distraction. Why can we not find the housing, build the housing? There are so many delays. They are unintentional in many cases, but they show a lack of political will, which has to come from the top down. Yes, there are multiple levels of government involved, but the federal government, in Build Canada Homes, should set the standard and set some goals.
Madam Speaker. I understand the member has not decided how she is going to be voting on the bill. I think it is important to recognize, as she has, the purpose of the bill. The bill is there, in a way, to clearly demonstrate that working collaboratively with provinces, indigenous peoples, territories and the many other stakeholders is the best way for us to address the multitude of issues facing Canada's housing situation.
The federal government is stepping up. Here we are talking about legislation, but we have also made serious dollar commitments through the budget to support Build Canada Homes. I think we have to take a holistic approach to dealing with it.
Could the member provide her thoughts in regard to how important it is to work collaboratively with others? This, at least, helps set that stage.
Madam Speaker, I know I cannot ask the member a question in response, but if he could show me the sections of the bill that talk about partnership, collaboration, working together and the things he just posed to me in the question, I would be fascinated to know where they are, because it is not that long a bill and they are not in here.
Madam Speaker, I agree that this bill is not going to do anything. What is scary in this whole process is this: Is the government losing direction? Is it losing focus? The focus has to be on building more homes for Canadians to fix the problem. Is the government only interested in building bureaucracies? I would like the hon. member to comment on that.
Madam Speaker, for my friend from Edmonton Manning, I want to be clear. The act would not do anything. I am not saying the government will not do anything. The act is kind of pointless, because the Liberals created a special operating agency. I would agree that there is a titch more transparency when we shift from an agency operating under the Treasury Board to a Crown corporation, but not much.
I would demand that the government act and respond to the housing crisis with non-market housing and market housing. The bill does not do it by itself. It does not do anything.
Madam Speaker, in Canada we have CMHC specifically designed to deliver housing. Now the government is coming forward with an act for Build Canada Homes, another Crown corporation, to deliver housing, yet in this bill there are no accountability measures, no targets and no affordability requirements. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that Build Canada Homes would only build around 50 to 100 units per year, a fraction of the annual 500,000 units, at least, that are required to address the housing crisis.
My question for my colleague is this: If there are no accountability measures, what is the point of creating yet another Crown corporation?
Madam Speaker, without intending to sound snarky or partisan, I guess the point of establishing yet another Crown corporation is to have an excuse for another set of press releases.
Madam Speaker, as the member pointed out in her speech, there is already the CMHC. Ottawa does not lack agencies with housing powers. On top of that, there is also the Canada Lands Company, which already has the power to develop federal land. There is Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, which already manages federal housing funding and agreements. There is the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which already has the power to finance infrastructure that unlocks housing. The last time I checked, it was a minister's job to knit all of that together and to find co-operation, so I am as baffled as she is that there is yet another Crown corporation being created. I wonder whether or not the issue here might be the minister.
Madam Speaker, I would say to my hon. colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith that I cannot speculate. I have known this minister a long time, so forgive me for trespassing into my personal history. I am terribly fond of him. I do not think it is the minister. I think it is the government.
Madam Speaker, when it comes to housing, bureaucrats count starts. They count units. They count dollars. They count funds, programs, agencies and promises, but in Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we count something different. We count the months our adult children have been living in the spare room because rent has eaten the down payment they were trying to save for. We count the number of graduates who cannot find a job that pays enough to cover rent. We count the number of people with no home at all as we pass them on the way to work.
Before I forget, I will be splitting my time.
On a more serious note, we count the graves of friends lost to addiction, the treatment beds that are not there, and the people who make it through detox only to be sent back to the same chaos they were trying to escape. We continue to measure the distance between the government's language and our reality. That distance is the distance between a young person with a diploma and a job and having no real path to owning a home in the community they grew up in. It is the distance between a person who is coming out of detox trying to stay clean and housing where drug use is not happening down the hall. Those are not separate crises. They are part of the same failure of government. We have lost the link between housing and hope.
Canada does not lack for housing announcements. In the last decade, we have had strategies, accelerators, funds, agencies, accords and photo ops, including some that have their own complete purpose-built backdrop. What we do not have is enough homes that people can afford. In Nanaimo—Ladysmith, we do not have enough of the right homes for people who are trying to rebuild their lives.
Now we have Bill C-20, which would create Build Canada Homes to promote, support and develop the supply of affordable housing. From the speeches, it sounds ambitious. The question is whether it will be useful once the media has packed up and gone home and the sets have been dismantled. All this bill does is create the skeleton. It creates the framework and the corporation itself.
The government is presenting Build Canada Homes as a generational housing investment, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says it will only have a modest impact. The headline number is $13 billion, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the actual planned spend is $7.3 billion over five years on an accrual basis. The projected result is about 26,000 homes over five years, or roughly 5,200 homes a year across the entire country. This would increase housing completions by only 2.1% above the baseline and address just 3.7% of the estimated housing gap. Even with Build Canada Homes included, planned federal housing spending is set to fall by 56%, from $9.8 billion in 2025-26 to $4.3 billion in 2028-29. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has put the scale of the new housing gap plainly: Canada needs 3.2 million net new housing units by 2035, which means an average of 290,000 units a year for a decade.
The PBO also warned that this would still not fully solve affordability in every region, because income, interest rates, regional gaps and the kind of housing built all matter, as my colleagues have pointed out in their speeches. That last point matters the most to growing communities like mine, because we do not just need more housing; we need the right housing in the right places for the people who need it. Housing experts have made this same point over and over again. Mike Moffatt's report says, “Canada needs to build millions more homes, but not just any homes.” They have to be homes built for today's needs, and getting there is going to require bolder reforms, in our opinion, than those that have been put forward so far.
Bill C-20 would not speed up local approvals. It would not give our provinces and municipalities the infrastructure they need. It would not service land, and it would not set binding targets for how many homes will be completed by when, for whom, at what price.
What Bill C-20 would do is create another federal bureaucracy on top of at least four others in this space. There is CMHC, which already has the power to finance housing, lend, guarantee loans, invest and run federal housing programs. The Canada Lands Company already has the power to develop federal land. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada already manages federal housing funding and agreements. The Canada Infrastructure Bank already has the power to finance infrastructure that unlocks housing.
In other words, the functions are already there, and Ottawa does not lack agencies with housing powers. What it lacks is results. Building another bureaucracy means time spent setting it up. Offices need to be set up, executives hired, mandates written, files moved around and programs reorganized, and that is time and money that could be spent getting homes built. That is the problem. The government is using language that Canadians want to hear, but the structure does not match the urgency of the moment.
Young Canadians understand this instinctively. We tell them to study, work, save and be patient. Then they graduate into a labour market where entry-level jobs are harder and harder to find, where rent consumes too much of their income and where ownership feels less like a goal than a memory from someone else's Canada.
This week, a recent software engineering graduate came to a committee of the House to say that he could still not find entry-level work in his field. When asked whether he was working, he said yes, but not as a software engineer. The Liberal MP's reply was, “At least you're employed.” That answer reveals something deeper than one exchange. It shows a government that has lowered the bar.
I will continue my speech when the House resumes next week.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[Translation]
Silver Alert National Framework Act
The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑263, An Act to establish a national framework for silver alerts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C‑263. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill, even though some colleagues in the House seem to support it. We do not support this type of bill, because it clearly encroaches on Quebec's jurisdictions. As well, a similar system already exists in Quebec.
Let us be clear, we are not against the alert, much less against leaving seniors to fend for themselves. However, since a similar system is already in place in Quebec, we have no choice but to vote against the bill. In our opinion, the bill could create additional bureaucracy or risk weakening protocols among police forces by trying to standardize and centralize procedures in Ottawa. We want Quebec, the provinces and the territories to create and adopt a silver alert protocol on their terms. We oppose any standardized effort led by Ottawa that disregards local and regional realities in Quebec or in Canada.
Many examples have shown that, when too many levels of government are involved, chains of command and approval become longer and far less efficient and that this can sometimes even leave the door open to disaster. One example is the disastrous situation that occurred with the truckers on Parliament Hill, when the federal government basically shut down the Hill for several weeks through its inaction and lack of coordination with law enforcement. As the saying goes, “less is more”. Our police officers already have a lot of power. We just need to let them do their job and carry out their planning.
The Bloc Québécois consulted with various people regarding this bill, including Pierre Lynch from the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or the AQDR. According to him, Quebec's silver alert system is working very well. He also pointed out that, in difficult budgetary times, the federal government should not be creating costly protocols that would undermine the efforts that Quebec and the other provinces have made to set up silver alert systems. He said that it is important to keep in mind that the ultimate goal of such a protocol is to find people safe and sound. Mr. Lynch also believes that a prescriptive framework should not interfere with the system that Quebec and Ontario police forces have spent years carefully building.
It should be noted that in missing persons cases, police forces in Quebec and across Canada already work together and coordinate efforts if there is a possibility that an older adult may have left their province of residence. Taking all these factors into account, we are left with the impression that Bill C‑263 is, in a sense, trying to reinvent the wheel and force Quebec, the provinces and the territories to operate under a single protocol, namely, the federal protocol.
However, Quebec did not wait for the federal government to act. The silver alert was launched as a pilot project in June 2022 in three Quebec RCMs: Drummond, Joliette, and Vallée-de-l'Or. The announcement was made in June 2022 by Marguerite Blais, a former Coalition Avenir Québec MNA and the then minister responsible for seniors and caregivers. As soon as it was launched, the project received support from the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec and the AQDR. Following several tragic incidents in Quebec in which seniors died or went missing, Minister Blais had made this a ministerial priority. Quebec did not wait for the federal government to act. Subsequent consultations and pilot projects led to the establishment of protocols that were quickly implemented, and the results were conclusive.
In February, Sonia Bélanger, Quebec's minister of health and minister responsible for social services, decided to expand the silver alert to cover the entire province of Quebec. The Federation of Quebec Alzheimer Societies also applauded the Quebec government's decision to implement a provincewide silver alert. The organization also noted that cognitive disorders will affect nearly 240,000 Quebeckers over the next 14 years. Quebec's initiative will therefore address a growing need.
The first instance of a silver alert in Quebec was officially recorded on February 27, 2026, following the pilot phase, after the silver alert was extended to cover the whole province. The missing person was a 91-year-old resident of Plessisville. The Sûreté du Québec issued the silver alert, and within 24 hours of its broadcast, the man was located in the Kamouraska region.
Since there is only a short period that can be analyzed, it should be noted that we do not yet have access to data at the Quebec level, nor to the number of official cases that have been the subject of a silver alert. We can, however, expect that these statistics will become available in the coming years and that we will be able to ascertain the effectiveness of silver alerts in Quebec.
In conclusion, I would say that we could support this bill if it were aimed at encouraging common protocols that draw inspiration from the success of the Quebec model for troubling disappearances. Unfortunately, the bill instead seems aimed at creating a purely Canadian solution, led by Ottawa. We cannot support an attempt to change something that is already working in Quebec and to alter initiatives that have already been put in place by the Quebec government.
I would also note that, under the Constitution, the federal government is responsible for criminal law, national security and border control, but not for provincial and municipal police forces, and certainly not for the administration of justice and law enforcement. Once again, this amounts to interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. We need to put an end to this constant reflex to centralize everything in Ottawa. The constitutional division of powers is clear, and it is up to the other governments to establish this type of policy, as we know.
These days, everything costs more when Ottawa gets involved. We have seen plenty of examples of this here. No one can deny that these days, so I do not see why the federal government would interfere in something that Quebec has already put in place and that is working very well.
That is why we will not be supporting this bill.
[English]
Madam Speaker, a husband wakes up in the night to find that his wife of 50 years has left the house. A daughter goes to visit her father in his apartment but sees that he is gone. Immediately, police, volunteers and neighbours begin searching woodlots and side roads and checking behind buildings. Every minute counts.
Canadians know that when a child goes missing, every minute counts. The lives of vulnerable people matter. This is true for children, and it is true for vulnerable seniors. Bill C-263, the silver alert national framework act, would create the opportunity for us to help protect vulnerable seniors. Right now there are growing numbers of seniors across our country. By 2030, just four years from now, there are expected to be more than a million Canadians living with dementia. When people with dementia go missing, the risks to them of bodily injury and death are great.
A silver alert is a notification system that people would be familiar with for its similarity to an Amber alert, but in this case, instead of an alert for a missing child, an alert is issued when an adult, typically a senior living with dementia or another cognitive impairment, goes missing or is at risk. The establishment of a national framework would be done in partnership with all the provinces and territories. This collaboration is so important, as we are part of a larger community.
The lives of seniors at risk in all provinces need to be protected. While there are individual programs and different alert mechanisms in different parts of the country, there is not a national standard. For example, a really great program in my community is Project Lifesaver. The Brockville Police Service, along with the Alzheimer Society of Lanark Leeds Grenville, has deployed Project Lifesaver to address this very situation: Someone with a cognitive impairment goes missing.
The project participants wear a wristband, and the tracking signal it emits becomes life-saving technology in that instant. They go missing; their caregiver calls 911, reporting that their loved one is at risk; and specialized tools are then deployed by highly trained teams to mobilize and find them. The average time of a rescue with the technology in Project Lifesaver is 30 minutes. That is incredible. We are going to have a tough time getting a wristband on all one million Canadians whom I referenced who will be living with dementia four years from now.
What can we do as a community when we see an alert on a highway sign, our mobile phones or the news ticker on TV that a vulnerable senior is missing in our community? How are we left to feel when we could have been in the same place, running our daily errands, living our lives, taking our child to dance practice, going to get groceries or on our way to work, had we known that the individual in the red jacket, wearing slippers, moving down the sidewalk on the other side of the street was actually a senior who had wandered off when seconds turn into minutes, minutes turn into hours, and the risk went up?
On our way to live our lives, we are not on the lookout for just anyone wearing a red jacket and maybe wearing slides on their feet, but that national alert, that standard, would let us know that their loved ones are looking for them, that this individual suffers from a cognitive impairment and that they are in grave danger if they do not receive assistance or are not returned to the safety of their home. It really exemplifies who we are as Canadians.
I know we have all had the experience of receiving an Amber alert and immediately memorizing the description of the car or the first four digits of the licence plate. It does not matter that it was first reported four hours before. My community is along North America's busiest highway, the 401. People can get there pretty quick from some of the most-populated areas in Montreal or Toronto.
My attention to a push notification on my phone could save a child's life. It is incredible. To be able to do that for seniors as well speaks to our compassion. That speaks to who we are, and it would not be at a great cost. The technology exists. It does not require the physical deployment of those very effective and innovative tools like they are using with Project Lifesaver. I encourage folks living in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to contact the Alzheimer Society if a loved one in their family could benefit from participation in that program.
What can we do as Canada's Parliament, as federal legislators? When we look at those minutes that count, we can make our time here count. During the progression of, for example, Alzheimer's, which is a disease that affects a great number of Canadians, 60% of individuals will wander away from home at least once. Those are staggering numbers. By those statistics, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people wandering away across this vast, complicated country we have. What can we do?
Bill C-263 is inspired by a very moving story from my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, and we should reflect on the opportunity that we have to honour seniors. The month of June is Seniors Month, so let us do right by them. They have done right by us by building our country up and raising all of us, and now we need to look out for them. That is why I think this is the least we can do, and I very much look forward to supporting this important legislation.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-263, an act to establish a national framework for silver alerts. I would like to thank the member for Kildonan—St. Paul for bringing this important matter to the House for debate.
[Translation]
The safety of our seniors, especially those living with dementia or other cognitive impairments, is a priority for us all.
[English]
This is a topic that transcends party lines, and it is no exaggeration to say that dementia impacts every community across Canada. The silver alert concept is born from a place of genuine compassion and a desire to protect our most vulnerable citizens. We can all imagine the heartbreak and terror that families must feel when a loved one with a cognitive impairment such as Alzheimer's wanders away from home.
[Translation]
It is estimated that nearly one million Canadians will be living with dementia by 2030. We need to make sure that we have the right methods and tools in place to protect vulnerable people who may go missing, people like Earl Moberg, who inspired this bill and who serves as a poignant reminder of the very real consequences if we do not get this right.
[English]
Bill C-263 proposes a national framework to support a coordinated silver alert system. Among other things, it seeks to use our existing national public alerting system to issue alerts when a vulnerable senior disappears.
The federal, provincial and territorial governments already collaborate on Alert Ready, or the national public alerting system. It alerts the public through TV, radio and wireless devices to life-threatening situations, such as tornados, fires and Amber alerts. In 2024 alone, 855 emergency alerts were issued across Canada. These alerts provide life-saving information during extreme weather or other critical events.
[Translation]
We need to make sure that any framework is developed in consultation with our provincial and territorial counterparts across the country so that it complements existing local protocols, rather than complicating or duplicating them. This step is crucial, considering that missing persons are an area of provincial and territorial jurisdiction. To date, no preliminary discussions have been held with the provinces and territories to determine whether they would even support such a framework.
[English]
Search and rescue operations are often led by local police services in coordination with provincial agencies and volunteer organizations. Whether a senior goes missing in a rural township or a dense urban core, the response must be immediate and tailored to that specific area or community. The local authorities are the ones who have the on-the-ground knowledge to respond quickly and effectively.
[Translation]
Quebec has implemented a non-intrusive alert program that was announced in February 2026. It is an evidence-based program that alerts the public in non-intrusive ways, on social media, TV or radio, for example.
[English]
Budget 2025 committed to renewing the national public alerting system model to better support emergency alerting across Canada. Guidance for consistent NPAS alerting, including missing vulnerable people, is already a topic of discussion with provinces and territories, and it is expected to be covered by this work. Bill C-263 could be strengthened by acknowledging this work and collaboration in its preamble.
[Translation]
For a notification system to be effective, it must be used judiciously and the parameters must be clear.
[English]
Canada already has a highly effective system for the direst circumstances, the Amber alert. The power of the Amber alert lies in its rarity. When that sound goes off on Canadians' phones, they know it is a life-or-death emergency involving a child in immediate danger. If we expand the criteria for emergency broadcasts to include every instance of a missing senior when thousands of such incidents occur annually across this country, we run a very real risk of creating alert fatigue. If the public begins to perceive these alerts as routine, they may start to ignore them. By overusing the emergency broadcast system, we would inadvertently weaken its effectiveness for everyone, including the very seniors this bill seeks to protect.
[Translation]
We must therefore ensure that alerts are only issued when necessary, in order to maintain the public's high level of responsiveness in the event of an emergency. Clear thresholds must first be established and would have to be met before such alerts are issued.
[English]
Therefore, the bill would be further strengthened by including these thresholds in the preamble to ensure consistent application across the country.
[Translation]
Our government often speaks of its commitment to the safety and dignity of all Canadians, and these are not just empty words. The government is determined to take concrete action to ensure everyone's safety.
[English]
It is because of our seniors that we have the great communities and country we have today. We owe it to them to keep them safe from danger.
In conclusion, the government recognizes the merit in exploring a national approach to silver alerts. However, a national framework must be efficient, clear and non-duplicative. Therefore, with some amendments to streamline the bill and include clear thresholds, the government is prepared to support Bill C‑263.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the legislation from my Conservative colleague from Manitoba, Bill C-263, the silver alert national framework act.
I want everyone to imagine a cold winter evening in rural Manitoba. The sun has gone down in early evening yet again, and somewhere between the house and the road, or between a personal care home and the street, a vulnerable senior has gone missing. Maybe it is the father who has farmed the same land for 50 years, or maybe it is the grandmother who has raised children, helped raise grandchildren, volunteers at the church and still knows the names of half the people in town. One day, because of dementia or another vulnerability, that person walks out the door and does not come home when expected.
For the family, the world changes in an instant. The shoes are gone, and the door is unlocked. Someone checks the garage, and someone checks the street. Someone drives the road that they know someone would take into town. Someone phones the RCMP. Neighbours start looking. People shine headlights into ditches, down lanes and around farmyards. In that moment, time is not a number; it is the space between what can still be done and what may never be undone. Hours matter. Minutes matter. That is why this bill matters so much.
Bill C-263 would require the federal government to develop a national framework to support a coordinated silver alert system across the country. A silver alert is an emergency notification used to inform the public when a vulnerable older person, including someone living with dementia, has gone missing and when public assistance may help locate that person as quickly as possible. It is much like an Amber Alert, and having this system in place is common sense. The bill could help save lives. It is the kind of measure the House should be able to support across party lines. It deals with the safety and dignity of vulnerable Canadians and the peace of mind of the families who love them so much.
The bill begins from a reality that every province is facing: Canada's population is aging, and dementia is becoming more common, unfortunately. More families are caring for parents, grandparents, spouses and neighbours who may still live with independence and dignity but who can also face moments of confusion and disorientation. Any of us who has had or currently has family members battling dementia recognizes how important that independence is, and the worry that comes with knowing how difficult it can be for them.
The bill notes that nearly one million Canadians will be living with dementia by 2030, and more than 1.7 million by 2050. Those numbers are large, but behind every number is a family trying to keep someone safe. The bill also points to a rather terrifying fact: If a person living with dementia is not found within 12 hours of going missing, there is a 50% probability that they will be found dead by drowning or will suffer severe or fatal hypothermia or dehydration.
In Manitoba, we understand what the cold can mean. We know what cold weather does to a person. We know how quickly a person can disappear from sight on a gravel road, along a highway, around a farmyard or at the edge of town. In Portage—Lisgar, our communities are unbelievably generous and neighbourly. When someone is in trouble, people will show up. When crisis strikes, they will bring trucks, flashlights, side-by-side, snowmobiles, local knowledge and whatever else is necessary to help. They know the roads. They know which yard has an old shed. They know the area somebody might turn to if confused. That community instinct is one of rural Manitoba's greatest strengths, but instinct needs information.
Good people cannot help find someone if they do not know whom they are looking for, where they were last seen, what they may be wearing and whether or not a vehicle was involved. A silver alert is not a replacement for police. It is not a replacement for family. It is a tool that helps them move faster and together. One of the strengths of the bill is that it does not try to invent a new bureaucracy. It would direct the minister to develop a national framework that uses existing infrastructure for public alerts. Everyone already understands that when an emergency alert comes through their phone, they should pay attention.
The bill says that we should coordinate when a vulnerable senior is missing and when the public can help make a difference. That is just common sense. The clock does not care which level of government owns which responsibility. When the risk is real, the response must be fast and coordinated, without unnecessary delay. The bill also respects the role of provinces. It would require the minister to consult provinces, and with police forces that issue the alerts. That is the right approach.
The people closest to these cases must help shape the system in order to protect the people in need. Police know how missing persons investigations work. Provinces know their own emergency systems. Care providers understand the realities of dementia.
The federal role should be to help coordinate, not dominate, provinces and municipalities. This is an important Conservative principle. We should not pretend every answer can be fixed by the federal government. The best answer here will come from coordination, standards, sharing best practices and respect for the people who are already on the ground doing the work.
The bill also understands the need for safeguards. Public alerts are powerful tools because they are rare, targeted and credible, and Canadians take them seriously. If they are overused, people start tuning them out. If they are poorly designed, they can violate privacy or create confusion.
Bill C-263 would make sure there is one clear, consistent set of rules for deciding when a silver alert should be issued so families and police are not left dealing with a patchwork system. That includes whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the missing person's health or safety is at risk and whether sharing information with the public is likely to help locate them.
Importantly, the bill also calls for geographically targeted alerts as well as interprovincial alerts, because both are necessary. In a large country, a targeted alert can be more effective than a blanketed alert. If someone goes missing in southern Manitoba, the most useful alert may be directed just to a particular region, highway, town or a surrounding area. However, we also know that people do move. Vehicles cross borders and highways connect communities. A person missing in Manitoba could be headed toward Saskatchewan or anywhere along a route familiar to them. A coordinated system must account for that.
The bill would also require privacy guidelines for the personal information that may be disclosed for the duration of the alert. An effective system must disclose enough to assist with the search, but not more than the situation requires. There is also a public education component. An alert is only as effective as the public response it creates.
Canadians need to know what a silver alert means, what to look for, what to do and how to report information. In small communities, this can be especially important, because people notice the little details. They notice a person walking alone in the cold, thinking it is a little strange. They notice a vehicle stopped in an unusual place they would not normally see one parked. They notice when something just simply is not right.
I also want to speak about the seniors at the heart of this bill. They are not just statistics. They are the people who built this country in very practical ways. In Manitoba, they are the people who raised families. They volunteered at legions, churches and community halls and kept our small towns alive. They are the people who showed up for others when it mattered most. When they become vulnerable, we should do our minimum and show up for them.
I know MPs may come at this issue from different perspectives. Some will think of large cities where a person can disappear into crowds, a busy transit station or a bustling hub of the community on the street. Some will think of more northern, remote communities where terrain and weather can be absolutely unforgiving. I think of rural Manitoba, where distance can become a danger very quickly.
The fear of losing a vulnerable parent or grandparent is not partisan, is not urban and is not rural. It is simply human. The bill would give us a chance to do something useful, not just symbolic, but useful. It would require a framework within one year. It would require the framework to be tabled in Parliament and published publicly. It would require a review of the effectiveness within two years.
That would give Parliament a way to hold the government accountable for whether the framework is working, whether it needs updates or whether it is helping in the way it was intended. That accountability matters, because families do not need just another vague promise. They need a system that is well thought out, coordinated and ready for use.
When a vulnerable person disappears, the first question should not be whether the system knows what to do. The first answer should be action.
I will be proudly supporting this bill because it is the right thing to do for vulnerable seniors, for police and for our communities, like the one I represent in Portage—Lisgar. I urge all members across party lines to support this important legislation.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion.
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer