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. 121
CONTENTS
Monday, May 25, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 121
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Monday, May 25, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Criminal Code
The House resumed from February 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S-233, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (assault against persons who provide health services and first responders), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support Bill S-233, which is a bill that should not be controversial. It should not be controversial to say that people who care for us deserve to be protected. It should not be controversial to say that a nurse should not be punched, bitten, spat on, sexually assaulted or threatened while doing their job. It should not be controversial to say that when someone assaults a health care worker or a first responder on duty, the justice system should treat that assault seriously.
However, we have reached that point in Canada when health care workers are being told, directly or indirectly, that violence is just part of the job. That is wrong. Violence is not part of the job description of a nurse, a personal support worker, a paramedic or any first responder who runs toward danger while everyone else is running away from it.
The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions surveyed thousands of nurses across the country, and six in 10 reported that they had experienced job-related violence or abuse in just the previous year. Of the nurses who experienced violence or abuse, 82% reported verbal abuse. Nearly half reported physical violence, and almost one in five reported sexual abuse. These are not just statistics. These are mental and physical burdens that follow health care workers home at the end of their shift. They change how people work and how they feel. For far too many frontline workers, they change whether they stay in the profession at all.
In my home province of Manitoba, there were 812 workers' compensation claims accepted in 2024 for nurses who were victims of assault and violent acts. In 2015, that number was 298. That is an increase of nearly 200%.
At Winnipeg's Grace Hospital, after health care workers were threatened and assaulted, the president of the Manitoba Nurses Union said staff felt like it was “business as usual, carry on.” There should be nothing usual about health care workers being assaulted. It is not acceptable for health care workers to report an assault and be left with the feeling that the system expects them to take it and keep on going. Why do we tolerate it in health care?
The cost of tolerating these assaults is not limited to an individual. It creates a ripple effect throughout our entire health care system. The results of allowing the system to tolerate these assaults show up when nurses stop picking up overtime shifts or when workers leave unsafe units. It also discourages future generations from entering the health care profession altogether.
Canada is already experiencing a shortage of health care workers. We are facing closed emergency rooms, cancelled surgeries, delayed home care, overcrowded hospitals and families waiting months to get care, so when violence drives even one more health care worker out of the profession, it becomes a patient care issue too. It means longer wait times and more pressure on the workers who remain in an already burdened system.
A country that cannot protect its health care workers will not be able to protect the future viability of its health care system. That is why Bill S-233 matters. It would amend the Criminal Code so that when a court is sentencing someone for certain assault offences, the court must consider it an aggravating circumstance if the victim is a person providing health care services, including personal care services, or a first responder engaged in the performance of their duty. In other words, if someone attacks a nurse while they are caring for a patient, there are more consequences. If someone threatens a paramedic while they are trying to save their life, there are more consequences. If someone assaults a personal support worker while they are caring for someone vulnerable, there are more consequences. That is basic justice.
An assault on a health care worker or a first responder is not just an assault on one person. It is an attack on the people our communities depend on in moments of crisis. This bill is about telling every health care worker and first responder in this country that Parliament understands the seriousness of what they face.
This bill does not solve every safety problem in health care. Provinces and employers still have responsibilities and work to do, but the federal government has a responsibility for the Criminal Code, and that is why this bill makes a difference. Bill S-233 would ensure that if someone assaults the people who are providing care, they will face consequences.
The most frustrating part of this debate is that Parliament has already had a chance to act. In the last Parliament, my Conservative colleague from Cariboo—Prince George introduced an identical bill in Bill C-321. That bill was supported unanimously in both the House and the Senate. It was studied and agreed to, and it was ready to become law. The only reason it is in not law today is that Justin Trudeau prorogued Parliament and the current Prime Minister called an early election.
Let me remind Parliament and our Liberal colleagues across the way of where we are today. The bill has already been debated and studied, and it has received unanimous support. The workers affected by violence do not need another awareness week, a photo op or more talking points from the Liberal government. They need Parliament to pass this bill.
I will be honest. I am quite frustrated to hear other politicians speak about how good and important this legislation is, because in December, the Conservatives gave this House a chance to do the right thing. I might ask the Liberals to listen to this a little more closely. We called on Parliament to fast-track Bill S-233 so that it could become law last Christmas. My Conservative colleague from Cariboo—Prince George, who introduced the original bill, stood with me and called on Parliament to pass Bill S-233 at all stages with unanimous consent. We were joined in that call by the Canadian Nurses Association and representatives from Canada's paramedic community. In other words, the people who actually represent the workers being assaulted on the job were asking Parliament to act. What happened when the Conservatives moved the unanimous consent motion to fast-track the legislation? The Liberal Party said no. What a missed opportunity.
Less than a year ago, the Ontario Nurses’ Association held a vigil at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto to honour those impacted by violence and to demand safer workplaces. Let us think about that. Health care professionals are holding vigils and gathering in public squares to mourn and demand that politicians act because violence has become so common. That alone should motivate this House to pass Bill S-233 without delay.
I believe society reveals its values through what it is willing to protect. If we say we value health care, then we must value the people who deliver it. If we say we respect first responders, then our laws must reflect that respect. If we say nurses are the backbone of the health care system, then we cannot leave them to face violence as part of the job.
For years, frontline workers have been praised in speeches and press conferences, but words are not consequences for an assault or a threat. These workers are not asking Parliament for more applause. They are asking us to act. Workers are tired of being resilient in the face of violence that should have been prevented and punished. They are tired of politicians calling them essential while treating their safety as optional. There is nothing compassionate about tolerating violence against health care workers and there is nothing responsible about allowing the justice system to send the message that these assaults are just part of the job description.
The Conservatives believe in consequences and protecting the people who protect us, whether they be nurses, paramedics, personal support workers or every first responder serving our communities. We believe that if someone attacks them, the law should reflect the seriousness of that offence. That is what Bill S-233 would do.
To the health care workers and first responders listening today, I want to say we see what they are facing, we hear what they are telling us and we are not going to pretend that violence is normal. They should not have to choose between caring for Canadians and protecting themselves.
Health care workers have cared for us, and now it is time for us in Parliament to show that we are willing to protect them. Let us pass Bill S-233, let us take action to address violence against health care workers and let us do it without any more delay.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to Bill S-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to assault against persons who provide health services and first responders. This bill would add an aggravating factor in the Criminal Code that applies to specific assault and assault-related offences when they are committed against first responders or persons who provide health care services.
At the outset, as others have, I would like to thank my colleague in the Senate for bringing this bill forward, as well as the hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George, who introduced, as we have heard, a previous version of this legislation. Their work has provided all of us the opportunity to reflect on an important and, indeed, critical issue that affects people across this country.
Every Canadian relies on the simple but essential promise that in a moment of crisis, help will come. When someone calls 911 in the face of a life-threatening emergency, they do so with the expectation that a first responder will arrive, whether that first responder be a firefighter, a paramedic or the Coast Guard. When a person or a loved one is seriously ill or injured, they rely on the presence of a health care professional who will provide care often, as we know, under the most difficult of circumstances.
In Canada, first responders are there for us on our worst days. They run toward danger when others are told to stay back and provide care in uncertain and chaotic environments, and they do so not for recognition, but out of a deep commitment to serving their communities. For that, they deserve not only our gratitude, but our protection.
I am very supportive of the objective of this bill, which is, broadly, to better protect first responders and health care workers. At the same time, we should also consider how Bill S-233 would interact with existing Criminal Code provisions, as well as additional proposed measures currently before Parliament.
Members may recall that the concerns about violence against health care workers, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, led to the enactment of, among other measures, an aggravating factor at sentencing that applies when a person is being sentenced for an offence committed against a person who is providing health services in the performance of their duties. Aggravating factors serve an important role in the criminal sentencing process. When they are present and proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the offence may be found to be more serious or the offender's responsibility may be heightened. As a result, they can result in longer sentences. Bill S-233 seeks to add a new statutory aggravating factor to the Criminal Code to ensure that when an assault is committed against first responders and health care workers, it is explicitly recognized.
I would note that this proposal is very similar to the aggravating factor that already exists in the Criminal Code, but it differs in two key respects.
First, the bill would ensure that first responders who are not responding to a medical emergency are protected. As it currently stands, the existing aggravating factor applies broadly to people providing health services, which can include first responders if they are providing medical services. A first responder in a non-medical emergency may not fall within the scope of the current provision. For example, a firefighter who is responding to a fire but not providing medical services would not fall within the scope of the current aggravating factor.
Second, the proposed approach in Bill S-233 would apply only to assault and some other assault-related offences, such as uttering threats, whereas the current aggravating factor, in contrast, applies to all offences in the Criminal Code. This is where the government's bill, Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act, is stepping in. Bill C-14 proposes to expand the existing aggravating factor for offences against people providing health services to individuals or providing services as first responders. Importantly, as my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre noted in an earlier debate, it would take a broader approach than Bill S-233. Rather than applying only to certain assault-related offences, it would apply to all Criminal Code offences committed against first responders and health care workers.
While the legal framework is important, I would like to turn to why this issue requires our attention. In this, I think we are all aligned in the House. We have heard directly from those on the front lines about the challenges they face. As the Minister of Justice has said, good ideas stem from conversations with Canadians about their lived realities in the positions we are aiming to protect. Those conversations paint a troubling picture.
As my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre noted previously, the International Association of Fire Fighters, representing more than 350,000 firefighters and emergency medical workers across Canada and the United States, has called for stronger protections against threats and violence. Its data shows that violence is not an isolated occurrence but a reality that many first responders face with alarming frequency. Surveys have found that a significant proportion of firefighters have experienced violence while responding to emergencies, including both structure fires and medical calls.
This problem is not limited to one profession, nor is it confined to one region. My colleague from Winnipeg South Centre also spoke about the unacceptable rates of violence faced by paramedics in Ottawa and in Peel Region. Just this month, I saw a news article about an individual who was charged for threatening to shoot paramedics responding to a call in Windsor. These experiences, in addition to the other challenging aspects of the work that first responders do, undoubtedly take a serious toll on them with respect to their physical and mental health, and on their communities.
As one more of far too many examples of this, CBC News reported that between 2019 and 2025, more than 1,100 “Edmonton firefighters, paramedics and Edmonton Police Service...members have had to step away from [their work] due to psychological injuries”. These are deeply concerning realities. I would add that it goes without saying that in emergency situations, where seconds can mean the difference between life and death, any interference with the people providing assistance can have devastating consequences.
No one who sets out to save lives should have to fear for their own. No one who begins a shift as a first responder or a health care worker should have to wonder whether they themselves will be the victim of a crime before the day is done. Our justice system must send a clear and unequivocal message that this violence will not be tolerated.
We have a responsibility, as legislators, to respond. Bill S-233 represents an important contribution to that effort. Bill C-14 would offer a broader approach that may address some of the same concerns with respect to offences against first responders in a more comprehensive way. It will be for the House and committee to carefully study these proposals and determine the best path forward.
I believe that the committee's work would be invaluable. It would allow us to hear from experts, stakeholders and the people on the front lines and examine how these measures would operate in practice and how they could best achieve the objective we all share. I look forward to the study of the bill in committee, and I am hopeful that, working together, we can move forward measures that would better protect first responders and health care workers across Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-233, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to assault against persons who provide health services and first responders. As everyone knows, this is not the first time we are debating this bill in the House. Today we are discussing Bill S-233, but this bill was introduced in the last Parliament by my colleague, who I wish to acknowledge. This bill, which came back through the Senate, was not voted on during the last Parliament, but it received unanimous support from all parties in the House.
I will read the summary of the bill: “This enactment amends the Criminal Code to require a court to consider the fact that the victim of an assault is a person who provides health services or a first responder to be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing.” As I was saying, the bill we are considering today is the same as Bill C-321, which was introduced during the 44th Parliament.
As I mentioned earlier, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, which follows up on a recommendation set out in the Standing Committee on Health's June 2019 report on violence facing health care workers in Canada. It was nearly seven years ago today that the report was tabled. Needless to say, there was an election in 2019 and the government was unable to respond. Here we are again in the House almost 10 years later. We are talking about a committee, a study and a bill. We are here to provide a satisfactory response to this 2019 committee recommendation, which was naturally supported in Quebec and across Canada by a number of organizations, in particular, the Canadian Nurses Association.
That being said, here we are talking about this bill again today. I will be quick, because I have already said that we obviously agree that assault against first responders and health care workers should be an aggravating circumstance for the purposes of sentencing. Ultimately, I would like to the government to go even further with this. Members rightly pointed out that these workers experience all sorts of violence. We are talking about assault here, but they also have to deal with things like psychological and sexual harassment. That has been well documented. First responders experience more violence than other categories of workers, and that is even more true for women. They are the ones who are most affected.
Under the Criminal Code, assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault or bodily harm against a public transit operator are all considered aggravating factors, so we agree that these same aggravating factors should be applied for the purpose of sentencing when the victim is a health care worker or first responder. I was saying that I think the government should go even further, because these workers already have some level of protection under the Criminal Code. Such acts are prohibited, but that does not solve everything.
I heard my colleague from the government say earlier that we, as legislators, are responsible, and that we have a responsibility to take action. For several years now, the Bloc Québécois has been calling on the government to increase health transfers. Indeed, we are talking about sentencing here. There is a punitive aspect, but there is also the whole issue of prevention. We are talking about sexual harassment, psychological harassment and assault, but the fact remains that the health care sector is one of the sectors under the greatest pressure due to a lack of resources.
The Canadian Nurses Association, which I mentioned earlier, supports the bill. Here is what the association stated in its brief:
The work environment is also known to contribute to workplace violence. Examples of organizational factors that contribute to the problem include excessive workloads, inadequate staffing, excessive use of of overtime (mandatory and/or voluntary), lack of managerial support when reporting instances of workplace violence, and lack of perceived consequences when committing violent acts.
We think that the best way for the federal government to improve working conditions for nurses, health care workers and first responders is to increase health transfers. Instead of a paltry 22% transfer that falls far short of the health care system's needs, we want to see 35% transfers made to Quebec and the provinces to fill the gaps caused by the federal government and its refusal to see the direct, harmful and sometimes tragic consequences of denying the health care system proper and adequate funding.
I would add to that the whole issue of mental health. When we talk about prevention, naturally we want to protect our workers so that they can properly carry out their duties and avoid violent situations. However, we are not investing enough in the whole issue of mental health either. That is also part and parcel of health transfers, but I am addressing it more specifically because witnesses from various organizations commented that instances of violence have increased most noticeably since the pandemic precisely because of insufficient health funding, especially mental health funding, which is why we are again facing situations that could have been avoided.
I would perhaps add a third point, in addition to the issue of funding and the fact that we absolutely agree with Bill S-233, one that has come up several times and not just in relation to this bill. I find it unfortunate that the House is unable to pass bills like my colleague's within one parliamentary session. That means that we end up with several bills coming back from the Senate in the next Parliament. Obviously, we can continue to debate these bills, but that slows down the passage of bills and the introduction of new private members' bills. Introducing private members' bills is also part of our job and some members do not get the chance to do so because the House has a hard time getting things done in this regard. I know that we are talking about something else here and that this would require reform, but the fact remains that we keep debating the same bills over and over.
I am sure that my colleague's bill will be passed. The House agrees on that. We will send the bill to committee and I hope that no election will be called this time because then we will have to once again start studying this bill from scratch, even though we already agreed on it. Bringing bills back from the Senate is a relatively new practice, but it has an impact here. I hope that the House will also be able to find a way to resolve this situation, because then we would not be here discussing this same bill. It would have already been passed and we would already be taking care of first responders and health care workers.
I have said it before and I will say it again: The Bloc Québécois supports this bill. I would like to close by acknowledging all the health care workers and all the first responders in Quebec and, of course, in my riding of Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, which is facing significant challenges as a region that is considered rural. I am sure my colleague realizes that there are hundreds and hundreds of kilometres in my region without a network. Sometimes these workers have to respond to emergencies on the water or in the forest, in situations that are already difficult. Working in health care is more than just a job for these folks. It is truly a calling.
That is why I am thinking of the workers in my region. I would like to commend them, and I especially want to commend my mother, who was a nurse for nearly 40 years. I have heard many horror stories—wonderful stories too, but some horror stories—and I hope this bill will help address some of these situations, because we want workers who are happy in their jobs and therefore able to work for everyone's benefit.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in the words of the great Yogi Berra, “It's like déjà vu all over again.” Here we are again, debating a bill that was first introduced by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George on March 9, 2023.
This is a problem that has been escalating across the country: violence against emergency health care workers, first responders and others. I personally want to thank Senator Housakos and Senator Yussuff for bringing this bill back, because it is an important piece of legislation, one that this Parliament could have approved years ago, if not for delays with respect to prorogation and such. I often get asked, as a former firefighter, what is the one thing I find frustrating about being an MP and a parliamentarian. My answer is, how long it takes for things to happen and how long it takes for decisions to be made.
I can think back to my career and to others I worked with. What if we responded to a house fire, and we sat outside that house fire and said, “You know what? I think we're going to come back next week, after we have a few meetings on how to deal with this situation”? We identify the problems, we mitigate them, we solve them, and then we move on to what will inevitably be the next problem. That is how things work in real life, but around this place, everything gets delayed and obstructed. This is an important piece of legislation, as I said earlier, to protect the health and safety of health care workers and first responders.
One only has to look at the headlines, and I did look at some of them. There are thousands of headlines across this country about assaults that are taking place on health care workers and frontline first responders. On Sunday, May 3, a headline read, “Man, 59, charged after multiple health-care workers sexually assaulted, threatened at Grace Hospital”. Another states, “Charges pending after health-care worker assaulted at Edmonton hospital: 2 patients involved in alleged attack on Christmas Day”.
Another headline states, “In a rare move, two Manitoba hospitals declared unsafe for nurses: Staff describe being punched, kicked, and sexually assaulted. The union is discouraging members from the facilities.” The union is discouraging them and asking them to stay away from their workplace because of the assaults that are going on. Other headlines read, “Teen charged during hospital visit after nurses and police officers allegedly assaulted: The 17-year-old had been brought to the St. Thomas hospital for treatment”, and “Stabbing of health care worker outside [Vancouver General Hospital] the latest in long list of attacks”.
An article entitled “Firefighters say they face increasing rates of violence while on duty” stated the following:
In a survey of over 117 fire departments in Canada, 40 per cent of firefighters have experienced an assault within the last five years, says Edward Kelly, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters. Kelly also...believes incidents of violence are under-reported.
“We had a Toronto firefighter bitten by a patient,” Kelly said in an interview last month. “In Winnipeg, we’ve seen a severe rise; we’ve had 58 reported incidents in Winnipeg this year alone.”
I would suggest that Winnipeg is the epicentre of this violence. “Violence against Winnipeg firefighters escalates” is another headline, as is “3 assaults against first responders in 1 week 'unacceptable,' paramedic chief says”. One story reports, “A Kamloops, B.C., paramedic was assaulted while refuelling her ambulance at a gas station on Sunday evening.” Another headline says, “Brampton man charged after female paramedics sexually assaulted in Peel Region”.
Even CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, came out and talked about the increasing assaults that are happening on its members. There is a deeply troubling pattern that is underlying many of these incidents: repeat violent offenders cycling endlessly through the justice system.
On September 29, 2024, a Barrie police officer was stabbed while on duty by a violent repeat offender who was on probation at the time of the attack. Over the previous two years, that individual had reportedly been arrested and released 17 times and had more than 100 interactions with Barrie police. Still, despite all those warning signs, an officer was stabbed.
Canadians are increasingly asking themselves very reasonable questions: How many chances does the system have to give someone before innocent people, including first responders, pay the price? How many warning signs must exist before meaningful consequences follow?
It is not the politicians or the bureaucrats who are facing this danger. It is the police officers who answer the calls. It is the paramedics who enter chaotic scenes. It is the nurses working overnight shifts in emergency departments. It is the firefighters responding to dangerous and unpredictable emergencies. They are the ones placed directly in harm's way when the system fails to deal with violent offenders. After 10 years of failed Liberal bail reform, the least the government can do is stand behind the first responders and health care professionals who keep our communities safe despite the cards they have been dealt by it.
Why does Bill S-233 matter? It recognizes a simple and profoundly important principle, that an assault against a first responder or health care professional is not just an assault against an individual but an assault against the people of our communities who rely on them in moments of crisis. These are the people who run toward danger when everyone else is running away. These are the people who arrive at the worst moments in a person's life, such as accidents, overdoses, domestic violence incidents, mental health crises, fires and medical emergencies, in an attempt to restore safety and hope. For that service, they deserve more than just our simple gratitude. They deserve the protection of the law and the clear support of this Parliament.
Bill S-233 sends a message that Canada will not normalize violence against those who dedicate their lives to protecting others. It says clearly and firmly that violence is not part of the job description. The truth is that repeated exposure to violence changes people. It wears them down emotionally. It creates anxiety. It creates fear. It contributes to burnout, trauma and psychological injury. Ultimately, it drives people out of the professions our country desperately needs them in. Across Canada, we are already facing a shortage of nurses, paramedics, firefighters and police officers. We cannot afford to create working conditions where the people we rely on the most feel abandoned, unsupported and unsafe.
Bill S-233 matters because laws do more than punish conduct after the fact. They also reflect the values of our nation. This legislation says clearly that Canada values and respects those who protect, rescue, heal and care for others. It says that when a person assaults a first responder or health care worker, the justice system must recognize the heightened seriousness of that offence. Most importantly, it says to every frontline worker in this country that Parliament sees what they are enduring, recognizes the sacrifices they make and will not accept violence against them as simply part of the job.
I started off by saying that this is like déjà vu all over again. On March 9, 2023, the member for Cariboo—Prince George put this bill on the table, but because of prorogation it fell off. We are back at it again because of a Senate bill. I appreciate Senators Yussuff and Housakos for bringing this back.
This is a cascading problem happening right across the country. We need to send a message to not just our frontline health care workers but our first responders that Parliament has their backs. This would also act as a deterrent to those who normalize violence against our first responders. I want to thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his continued advocacy to ensure the safety of our health care workers and frontline officers.
This is an important piece of legislation. Today, we must make sure we pass it so that our frontline health care workers, paramedics, firefighters and police officers can continue to do their jobs in safety across communities in this country. We must stand with them.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on this bill that my colleague brought to the House a while ago. My colleague from Cariboo—Prince George has been stalwart in support of first responders in the Prince George community in northeastern B.C.
I know the member meets with firefighters from Prince George, as I do. We hear their stories, the first-hand accounts of firefighters who signed up to fight fires but are now dealing with overdoses. That is the vast majority of what they are doing. Sadly, some of the stuff that comes along with that response to the drug side of our community is violence against them. It is really sad. It is a shame that these people who sign up to protect us and keep us safe are having to deal with violence.
Maybe I will start off by saying that most Canadians expect this House to protect our first responders. For me, there are really a couple of aspects to this that I think about. It is one thing for our first responders to be assaulted while they are trying to help us. First of all, they sign up for their entire lives. They put years into university and all that training basically to serve their fellow men by providing health care. My daughter wants to be a doctor. She is studying to do that as we speak. My to-be daughter-in-law, my son's fiancée, is studying to be a nurse in the Philippines as we speak. I know this comes out of a servant heart. They really want to help their fellow Canadians, their fellow persons. The sad part is that when they do that, when they get into serving and taking care of us, that is when violence is committed against them.
The expectation of most Canadians, as I was saying before, is that it is one thing for them to be assaulted, but it is another thing for us to not do anything about it. We are in opposition, and the government is across the way. Canadians are looking at us and saying the Liberal government, the former prime minister Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister, are responsible for protecting these first responders. They had the opportunity in the last Parliament to do it, and for some reason, they sort of shoved it to the corner of the desk.
I saw my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George working tirelessly, putting hours and hours into this, and our first responders sitting in the gallery waiting for this to be passed, all to just be ignored. Again, what Canadians are expecting of us, and what first responders are watching for, is what they have been asking for, what this member has been working on. They have been coming to him and saying they need help, that they need help to really deal with the gap in legislation where this violence is being allowed to continue.
What is worse is that these people have sacrificed everything to serve us, and the government is looking the other way. That is just not cool on our watch.
I am just going to read the preamble to the bill. People hear about different bills, and they hear the titles. This is what the preamble to Bill S-233 says:
Whereas there are an increasing number of incidents involving violence against persons who provide health services and first responders;
Whereas assaults on persons who provide health services and first responders have both a physical and a psychological impact;
And whereas persons who provide health services and first responders, who care for and protect others, deserve to feel protected and valued by the justice system;
I think the most important line in the whole bill is that last line. They deserve to feel protected and valued by the justice system. That tells me that right now it is maybe a question sometimes. They are being assaulted. They are doing their duty as a doctor, nurse, ambulance worker, police officer or firefighter, and they are being assaulted in different ways. It is mentioned in the preamble too. It is not just the physical aspect of it but the psychological aspect of that kind of assault too. Again, when that assault goes on unabated, they probably start to question whether or not they are valued by this government.
Again, I applaud my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George for doing this.
As the member of Parliament for Tumbler Ridge, I cannot say enough about the first responders and the police officers who responded. Many of the stories of how they really stepped up and helped have not even come out yet. There is the police officer who was first on scene who lifted an injured girl off the floor and brought her to the hospital to give her care. She is alive today because that first responder acted.
The story is known by most people in Tumbler Ridge, but Maya is alive today because a first responder listened to a bit of advice from her classmate Addison, who I chatted with just last week. There was, of course, all the tragedy that had happened in the school. The police came, and Addison pointed out that Maya's finger had moved. He said, “Her finger just moved.” Part of the reason Maya is still alive today is that the police officer responded, picked her up and took her to be cared for.
To me, that is an amazing story, but it is a first responder's story. Here was somebody who had just signed up to be an RCMP officer in a very beautiful town, the normally peaceful town of Tumbler Ridge, and in the moment that we needed him, he stepped up. Maya is alive today because of it.
I will expand on that story a bit. Many people have been watching Maya's story, how she keeps improving, on social media. She has a long way to go, but I will take the time today to send our appreciation to the nurses and doctors in British Columbia who have taken Maya under their wing and are providing her with first world service. It is just incredible.
Maya is still in B.C. There have been a lot of stories saying that she was going to go elsewhere, but she is in British Columbia now. She is still recovering, more on the long-term side. I cannot say enough about the immediate service that she got from the police officers and from the nurses and doctors, both in Tumbler Ridge and then at BC Children's Hospital in Vancouver.
It goes without saying that these services are here. Sometimes, that is what it is, is it not? We just expect the services to be there, and we do not always appreciate the men and women who work in those services enough. This bill is meant to recognize that service. It would be a good shot in the arm to say to responders that, even though someone may not be assaulted physically or psychologically, we would recognize what they do for us in our communities. Maybe it would be the morale boost they need. Members can imagine the issues we are seeing with some first responders. Even going back to Tumbler Ridge, the long-term effects of responding to that kind of a tragedy are profound.
I have another story. Even a person involved in the funeral aspects is dealing with the trauma of the situations. I remember talking to Kaylee, one of the morticians up there. I said, “Well, I guess you are used to this.” She said, “Nobody is used to this.” It is just a tough situation all along, even for the folks who deal with this on a regular basis.
I wanted to have the chance to speak today, first of all, to support my colleague and what he is trying to do. I also want to say to our men and women, whether they are a firefighter, those who work in an ambulance every day, a doctor, a nurse or an RCMP officer, and I am sure I am forgetting somebody, that whoever they are, we appreciate them and we care about them. That is what Bill S-233 is about. It is to make them feel protected and valued by the justice system, just like we do on this side of the House. My hope is that the government will decide to proceed and that we will get this bill passed as soon as we can.
I thank all those who listened today and, again, I give special appreciation to my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. It is a great bill.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to put a few words on the record about Bill S-233. I know, although I am a new member, that it has been here before in different formats. I am very glad to see that it is back on the floor of the House of Commons again for debate. Of course, it is unfortunate that it did not pass previously and has not been in effect, but at least it has made its way back here now so we can try to get it through one last time to ensure protections are in place for our health care officials.
I want to thank my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. I know that this has been a passion project of his for a long time, something he has been championing across the country. It is a big issue. I hear about it all the time, unfortunately, from health care professionals, whether they are paramedics, firefighters responding to 911 calls or health care professionals in our emergency rooms, which are becoming a cross between a traditional emergency room, a detox centre and all kinds of different mental health crisis facilities. Our health care professionals are struggling under the weight of the addiction and mental health crisis going on in this country right now. Unfortunately, many of the individuals coming in are repeat violent offenders who need help, but we have to ensure that protections are in place for our health care workers.
I hear too often from young nurses and young health care professionals from many different professions that they were assaulted, attacked in some way, shape or form. They can be coming to work, leaving work, in the emergency room or responding to a call on the street. Individuals get bitten or stabbed with dirty needles. There are all kinds of other physical or violent assaults.
This is just simply and completely unacceptable for anyone in the health care profession, whether they are new to the job or have been doing it for 30 years. It is totally unacceptable to Canadians that these people, who are on our front lines, stepping up to protect Canadians and do what they can to save our lives when we get into accidents or have other types of health care issues, are being assaulted in their places of work. We all expect a safe workplace, and our health care professionals should too. Just because their workplace happens to sometimes be on the streets of our communities, that does not mean that they should be any less safe when they step up for Canadians.
In Manitoba, and in my constituency of Brandon—Souris, the Brandon firefighter and paramedic service does excellent work, as does the health care staff at the Brandon Regional Health Centre and the many rural hospitals that I represent across the Brandon—Souris constituency. These folks are nervous. They come to my office and say that they have seen the same person come in over and over again. Every time, there is a violent incident, and there are no repercussions for that person. They say there is nothing that they can do to prevent this from happening. They are obligated to provide health care to that individual and everybody else who is in the waiting room, and they are not safe when that individual is around. That is a major problem.
This bill would go a long way toward ensuring specifically that violence against a health care professional in their place of work is considered an aggravating factor in sentencing. There has to be some repercussions for these folks. We know that they are often experiencing some type of breakdown, whether it is an addiction crisis or a mental health crisis of their own, and we have services available for that. The provinces are obligated to make services available in our health care system to get those people the care they need to bring them back to a healthy lifestyle. There is nothing in the bill that tries to diminish that in any way, but for repeat offenders who are committing violence against our health care professionals, there must be consequences for those actions.
Perhaps, if it is dealt with through the court system as an aggravating factor, these folks who are experiencing and perpetrating this violence would get connected with the services they need to navigate their way back to a healthier life.
I know the Liberals know all about this, because the Health Sciences Centre is Manitoba's hospital. It is located in Winnipeg. It has some of the worst cases of violence against health care professionals in the country.
There are a series of Liberal MPs who represent Winnipeg. They need to step up for the health care professionals who work at this facility, as well as those at the Grace and St. Boniface emergency rooms. This is not just for the people in my riding, but for the people in Winnipeg and all of us from rural Manitoba who end up, in large part, having to go to Winnipeg's major hospitals for specialty surgical services and other things. We need to make sure that the health care professionals there are safe.
There are a number of workers who have been attacked, not just in the emergency rooms or in hospital rooms, but also in the parkades where they park their car. This is tragic. It is a horrific incidence.
I am really hopeful that the Liberals will step up, pass the bill, send it to committee, move it through the system and get it passed so that the member for Cariboo—Prince George and all of the advocates who have been asking for this, as well as health care professionals, get the support they need.
Let us get the bill passed. Let us make health care professionals safer in Brandon—Souris, in Manitoba and in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank our colleagues from all sides who spoke to Bill S-233.
I specifically want to thank two members. I thank the member for Barrie South—Innisfil for his service. What many people may not know is that he served as a firefighter for, I believe, 22 years. He served our communities. He knows first-hand the challenges firefighters face.
I also want to thank our colleague for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Todd Doherty: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should wait until government members can settle down and listen.
I would ask members to keep the side conversations to a minimum.
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George .
Mr. Speaker, it is indicative of what we faced with this bill, which is the disrespect for the hundreds of thousands of first responders, nurses and health care workers—
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have been listening intently throughout the debate on this, and I do not think the member is doing a service to health care workers by implying—
Mr. Speaker, I started off by saying I wanted to thank our colleagues who have all spoken on the bill, specifically the member for Barrie South—Innisfil, for his service, and the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. Through a tremendously hard time in our nation, his leadership on the ground within his community of Tumbler Ridge has been really remarkable. He has been there for the families. He has been there for the community. He has been there for the nation. I thank him.
Why are we here? Why are we here if we cannot stand up for those who actually stand up for us and fight for us? We are here for the 500,000 nurses in our country, the 40,000 paramedics, the 100,000 firefighters, the 25,000 correctional officers and the hundreds of thousands of first responders who put on their uniforms every day, not knowing what they are going to endure in their service to our country, to members' families or to mine. They are all asking for one thing, to pass Bill S-233, to put protections in place so that they know that if they face violence when they respond to an incident, we have their backs.
For 10 years, the IAFF has been asking for this. It has been their number one lobby ask. For seven years, we have been fighting to get a piece of legislation through.
I am embarrassed that we are here at this point. We had a bill that passed unanimously in the House and that passed in the other House but, because of the dissolution of Parliament, it did not become law. I want to thank Senator Housakos and Senator Yussuff. Senators from both sides came together last fall, saw the importance of the bill and passed it on all sides in the Senate.
I want to thank my friend Paul Hills, from the Saskatoon Paramedics Association and the IAFF, who has tirelessly worked to get a piece of legislation through, a piece of legislation that would protect his colleagues in the hospitals and on the front lines as first responders. They face unbelievable acts of violence.
The bill has already been studied twice. It is born of the 2019 HESA report, entitled “Violence Facing Health Care Workers in Canada”. It was studied in the last Parliament at both levels, the Senate and the House. Amendments were made that are reflected in the bill that we have today, Bill S-233.
It is so frustrating for me that we are here at this point. Last fall, the gallery was full of firefighters and health care workers. We thought that we had support from the House to pass this. Before I stood to ask for it, I was told it was not going to happen. I literally stood in front of the House leader, who is in the House right now and I begged and said that I do not care who asks. It could be from their side, our side or anybody's side. I do not care who asks for unanimous consent. All I care about is that the bill passes and that we can tell the firefighters, the first responders and the nurses that we have their backs. That is what we owe to the hundreds of thousands of first responders.
I will just end with this. I carry a coin with me. It says that heroes are human, service before self and to never give up. I firmly believe and hope that when this comes to a vote in two days, all members will support the bill.
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.
The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.
[Translation]
Points of Order
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2
[Points of Order]
Mr. Speaker, I invoke Standing Order 69.1 of the House of Commons to ask you to divide division 17, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, in Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget.
As your predecessor reminded us in his ruling of January 30, 2024, the objective of Standing Order 69.1 is to enable the House to vote separately on provisions from an omnibus bill that are not closely related, either by their nature, their objective or their integration into a cohesive budgetary policy. In his ruling, the Chair also emphasized that the central criterion is the ability to identify a clear and common theme and the need to preserve members' rights to vote separately on legislative proposals that are, in fact, separate.
This is precisely the case with division 17 of Bill C-31. This division introduces substantial amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, particularly with regard to how complaints are handled in the airline industry. These are regulatory and structural measures that establish new mechanisms and fall within a distinct area of public policy. First, these provisions are not merely budget implementation measures. Second, they are not attached to a fiscal or financial measure. Third, they are not strictly required in order to implement the budget. Fourth, this measure was not even part of the budget in November 2025. Rather, it constitutes a separate legislative package that could perfectly well be the subject of a stand-alone bill.
As the Speaker acknowledged in the aforementioned ruling, the mere fact that a measure appears in a budget implementation bill is not sufficient in itself to establish the required connection if that measure introduces independent and substantial changes in public policy. Furthermore, in that same ruling, the Speaker emphasized the importance of protecting members' right to vote in an informed and separate manner on legislative matters that are not intrinsically linked. Lumping these amendments to the Canada Transportation Act together with a series of budget measures limits the House's ability to fully review these changes and to vote on them individually.
The question on which you will have to rule is this. Do the provisions of division 17 have a sufficiently close connection to the overall bill to justify a single vote? With all due respect, I would argue that that is not the case. These provisions pertain to a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget.
Accordingly, I respectfully ask that you exercise the authority granted to you under section 69.1 to order that division 17 of Bill C-31 be put to a separate vote and studied by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Thank you for your attention.
I thank the hon. member for his intervention.
[English]
I believe the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek is rising on the same point.
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives would like to reserve the right to speak to this very important point of order at a later date.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
Bill C-30—Time Allocation Motion
That, in relation to Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and
That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
[English]
The motion is in order.
Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30‑minute question period. Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some government members. Members should keep their interventions brief, and they may speak more than once.
I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in the House or to use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.
Mr. Speaker, we now see the character of this new majority government. Liberals are going to use their numbers to stifle debate and prevent scrutiny of their bills. Since they tabled Bill C-30, there have been maybe three hours of debate.
Does the minister think that is parliamentary accountability and a sufficient opportunity for members on all sides to question the minister on his horrific spring economic statement, with crippling debt service charges projected in the years ahead?
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised by the words used by the member, for whom I have enormous respect. I think he should listen to Canadians.
In Bill C-30, we see important measures. Outside this chamber, the one thing Canadians talk to us about is affordability. Affordability is top of mind for Canadians when it comes to the price of homes, gas and food. Bill C-30 would implement the very important measure we said we would implement, which is to suspend the federal excise tax on gas and diesel. If the Conservatives are true to their word, I hope they will all stand up and say, yes, they will support the motion, because we need to act in favour of Canadians. That is what Canadians expect, and that is what we will deliver.
Mr. Speaker, when the government forces Parliament to shut down debate, Canadians should ask themselves one very simple question: What exactly are the Liberals hoping that Canadians will not notice? The choice to use time allocation is the latest in the government's attempt to shortcut transparency. Debate is cut short, scrutiny is treated like obstruction and billions of taxpayer dollars are pushed through Parliament without good oversight. It is becoming a pattern. They change the rules halfway through the game, dim the lights and hope Canadians cannot see the scoreboard clearly enough to question the result.
However, a strong economy depends on trust, trust that the rules are fair, the books are honest and hard work still gets people ahead. Under the Liberal government, Canadians feel like they are in a nightmare game, expected to play blindfolded. Eventually, players stop taking risks, investors stop investing and builders stop building.
My question is simple. Why do the Liberals keep shutting off the cameras and using technicalities like time allocation when the trust of Canadians is at its lowest? Honesty and integrity—
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the cameras are on and I am quite happy to speak to Canadians.
I will go to other measures that I think the Conservatives should support. Division 4 of part 3 would amend the Employment Insurance Act and extend, until October 7, 2028, the duration of the measure that increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers. I am sure the seasonal workers watching at home today would expect the opposition to stand up and say, yes, they support seasonal workers and they want to make sure they have the measures that will support them and their families.
On this side of the House, I can assure everyone that all my colleagues want to make sure that, on the one hand, we respond to all the questions, but, on the other hand, we also do what is right for Canadians. That is what we will do.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, regardless of the content of the bill, we know that today we are dealing with a government and a Minister of Finance for whom the democratic process is purely cosmetic. During the committee's study on Driver Inc. truckers, we saw them shut down debate. We have seen them curtail the work of committees and impose in camera proceedings. As soon as they had their majority, their first move was to order an in camera meeting.
The Minister of Finance tells us that this bill contains important measures. We agree. We are willing to debate them. We are willing to discuss them, even though the government is not giving us the chance to do so. The government will likely tell us that time is of the essence and that we will not have enough time to pass all these measures.
Given that the government is forcing bills down our throats and cutting off debate in Parliament, will the Minister of Finance commit to ensuring that his party and his government will not adjourn the proceedings of the House of Commons before the June 18 deadline, so that we have all the time we need to debate the bills, since he seems to be in such a hurry?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is someone I hold in very high regard. I think that the people watching at home understand the circumstances we find ourselves in. I just got back from meetings with my G7 colleagues. The world is changing. We have to take concrete measures.
The issue of affordability, for example, is very real for all Canadians across the country. Bill C‑30 would allow us to implement the measure we announced to suspend the federal excise tax on gas and diesel. This is an important measure for Canadians as the summer season starts and Canadians travel across the country.
I know that my colleagues in the House understand the importance of taking action. Canadians expect us to take action here, in the House, with all haste they are entitled to expect of measures that will help them over the summer.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the very first thing these Liberals did when they got their backroom deal majority was to stack the deck on committees, and now they are ramming through legislation and cutting off debate. This bill needs proper scrutiny, because it is a budget implementation bill that would add billions of dollars to the national debt. The last projection for this current fiscal year by the Trudeau government was that the deficit would be in the low thirties of billions of dollars. Now the deficit is more than twice that, with $30 billion of extra debt racked up on the national credit card. All this adds to more inflation. This is the same playbook the Liberals were running for 11 years: more dollars chasing fewer goods.
Can the minister explain to the House why he thinks things will happen differently this time? We see the very same scenario. The Bank of Canada is buying government bonds. The creation of money, the money supply, the amount of money in circulation has been increasing at a rate of about twice that of the GDP. When we have more dollars chasing fewer goods, we get inflation, which is the worst kind of tax because Canadians have no say over it.
Can the minister explain why he thinks things will be different this time?
Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to talk about the deficit. In fact, the projected deficit for 2025-26 is actually $11 billion lower than what was projected, and this is because of the resiliency of the Canadian economy and the resiliency of Canadian workers. Even international agencies have said that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. I know the Conservatives do not want to hear that, but those are the facts. They want clips and they want video. They should rely on international agencies, which do not need clips or videos. They just say the facts as they are, and they say that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. Those are the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make two quick points. First, when the current leader of the Conservative Party was part of the Conservative government, which was a majority government, using time allocation was very commonplace. In fact, the record number of time allocations used was when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government.
The second is more of a question for the Minister of Finance. The government has put a great deal of focus on the issue of affordability. With this legislation, the minister has brought forward a series of tools that would assist Canadians on the issue of affordability. I am wondering if he could provide his thoughts on the gas tax break and on how important it was to provide the groceries and essentials benefit program. Again, both are dealing with the very important issue of affordability for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, indeed, this bill, Bill C-30, would be helping Canadians with affordability. We all know this is top of mind for Canadians, wherever we go in the country. Let me point out other good things that are in Bill C-30. It would modify the labour mobility deduction for eligible tradespeople by increasing the annual limit on expenses that can be deducted. It would make permanent the capital gains tax exemption for the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust or a worker co-operative. Those are the types of measures that have been asked for by labour, industry and workers, and they would make a difference. I know that everyone who was elected and sits in the House wants to make a difference for their constituents. There are 18 measures in Bill C-30 that would make a difference in the lives of Canadians. Therefore, I would hope and expect that every member of the House would stand up, support the motion and get down to work.
Mr. Speaker, there are parts of every omnibus bill that need to be studied, but when there are omnibus bills, they rarely are. I was the only member of Parliament to vote against part 1 of Bill C-5 last June. Why? It was because the Canadian Cancer Society reached me and asked me to please oppose reducing measures that would make it easier for toxic chemicals that are carcinogens to cross provincial borders.
I am very similarly concerned that this bill, in division 8, would increase carcinogens in our foods and in our environment because of changes being proposed to the Pest Control Products Act on the scanty evidence, or I would say the assumption without evidence, that somehow food would be cheaper if we made it easier for corporate profits to accrue in the chemical industry.
I ask the hon. Minister of Finance to please reconsider the amendments to the Pest Control Products Act. There are parts of this bill I would vote for, but please, to the Minister of Finance, do not reduce our health protections pretending it would bring down food prices.
Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my colleague, and I always listen to her comments.
In fact, what we are doing this morning would allow the committee to study the measures in the bill. The member will find that there are a number of measures there, for example with respect to seasonal workers and affordability. I know she would support them, because she is a member who has always supported the rights of workers.
There are measures, for example, of immediate expensing for greenhouses so that we can grow more food in Canada, reduce our dependency and be more resilient. Those are the types of measures that I know every member of this House, regardless of their political affiliation, would support, because being able to grow more food in Canada, to be more resilient and to provide communities the power to grow food in their own communities is something we should all be supportive of.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, cannot stand up and say how much he respects his colleagues and then not answer any of their questions. He cannot stand up and say that he respects the House of Commons and then avoid the questions. I asked a simple question, and I know that the minister is a smart man who is capable of understanding it.
The government is shutting down debate, saying that they are in a hurry and that things need to move forward. According to the official schedule, the House of Commons is scheduled to sit until June 18. Since we are in a hurry, can the Minister of Finance guarantee that he will be here, sitting in his chair, debating bills until June 18? Can he guarantee that, a week or so before the House rises for the summer, he will not be travelling all over Europe and that he will be sitting here debating bills until the last day? That is the question.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague, for whom I have a great deal of respect. The primary responsibility of each and every one of us is, of course, to be a parliamentarian. It is to be a member of Parliament, to sit in this chamber and debate bills. That is what I have always done. Tomorrow, I will even be appearing before a House committee for four hours to answer questions from my colleagues. I will also be in committee next week.
I am happy to answer questions in order to be transparent and to explain to Canadians the importance of the measures proposed in the economic statement that was just presented and the budget we tabled. The primary role of each and every one of us is to be a member of Parliament.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the transactional majority strikes again. It was not too long ago when the Liberals seized control of committees, and now they are seizing control of this Parliament. I will remind members that, over a year ago, a minority government was elected in order to hold government to account, to make sure that there was transparency, and to make sure that there was oversight as well. Here we are, with the government seizing control through this closure motion.
Actually, what the Liberals are doing is silencing the voices of nearly 50% of members in the House, including mine, who have something to say about this budget, particularly on the $30‑billion increase in deficits and the upward trend of $2.4 trillion in additional debt that could be added by this fall economic statement going into the future. They are silencing not just my voice, but the voices of many other MPs in this place representing Canadians who are fearful that they will be left picking up the scattered pieces of what is left of this government when they are done with it.
Does three hours of debate actually reflect the importance of this issue? That is my question for the finance minister.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, we are listening to Canadians.
I know the member quite well. I am sure he would be happy to report to his constituents that, when he is going to vote, there will be an additional two-year extension of the 2% cap on the annual alcohol excise duty inflation. He will go around and talk about the fact that he has been supporting the government, because this is something that constituents in his riding, the distilleries and those who are in the sector have been asking this government for.
I know the member. He is a good man, and he understands that we need to meet the moment. There are a lot of things that happen in the world, but one thing we can do is focus on what we can control. What we can control in this House is passing these measures, supporting affordability and supporting Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance how he can boast about his support for workers. He mentioned seasonal workers. There are some in my riding. The Liberals have been promising EI reform for over 10 years now, but they have not proposed anything. We offered them a ready-made bill, but they did not take it up. They could have introduced it themselves if they had wanted to. This is a persistent problem in my riding.
There is still no assistance to maintain the employment relationship with businesses that are forced to close. There are people back home who have lost their jobs and who are wondering about their future. The government denied them that support. We are talking about working conditions.
I would add that this is happening just as the government is threatening gains related to the Canada Labour Code, so I wonder how the government can claim to be working for workers when it is doing exactly the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I think that seasonal workers will be pleased. They will be surprised to hear what my colleague said. I have a great deal of respect for her, I know her well and she does extraordinary work. However, what I can say is that when we talk about seasonal workers, I think that all of my colleagues here are in favour of the measures we are offering in Bill C-30. Those workers need these measures because if they are not extended, they will expire.
I think my colleague will go back to her riding and explain to seasonal workers how important it is to support Bill C-30, which will provide the boost that seasonal workers need in her part of the country, in my part of the country, whether they are in the Gaspé Peninsula or elsewhere in Quebec. I expect that the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-30. It is an important bill for our seasonal workers.
Mr. Speaker, since coming to power, we have invested heavily in infrastructure and housing, and we have launched our defence industrial strategy. In order to complete these major projects, we need people to build our country. We need people in skilled trades.
I would like the Minister of Finance to talk about the measures we have put in place to substantially increase the number of workers in the skilled trades in Canada and to tell us why now is the time to take these steps.
Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is an important one because what we are saying is that we are making generational investments in infrastructure, housing, competitiveness, innovation and defence.
It is true that we are going to need these young workers to build the country together. That is why we included exceptional, even generational, measures in the spring economic statement to provide opportunities for approximately 80,000 to 100,000 young people who will help us build this great country.
This is a generational opportunity, and we are responding to the demand for workers who will help us build this great country.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, time and time again, Liberal members stand across the way and try to convince Canadians that they are a new government. Canadians need to look no further than the government's actions today to confirm that they are the same old government, spending more and limiting debate with time allocation.
When will this minister and the Liberal government realize they are here to serve Canadians, not themselves?
Mr. Speaker, serving Canadians is in fact acting on behalf of Canadians. The thing that Canadians care about is affordability. The member should be standing in this House and saying, “Yes, I will support the government.” Why? There are measures that support Canadians on affordability, important measures around the gas tax and the suspension we announced. The member should be standing here and saying that this government understands the needs of Canadians and that Conservatives will leave partisanship aside, leave these quotes and these clips, and do what is right for Canadians. What is right for Canadians is to act for affordability right now.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the finance minister mentioned affordability. Let us talk about that. We are in the midst of a housing crisis. The Liberal government, which has been in office for a whopping 10 years, launched a national housing strategy in 2017 that never dealt with the crisis. Now, the government has come up with a new gimmick to lull us into complacency: Build Canada Homes.
Build Canada Homes provides for the construction of 26,000 new housing units. How many are actually needed? According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we need 690,000, so either the government cannot do math or this is not a priority. I would like the finance minister to tell us whether he is really going to resolve the housing affordability crisis when he is addressing only 5% of the problem, if that.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that one of the pillars of affordability is, indeed, affordable housing. That is why we announced extraordinary measures to ramp up construction, increase innovation and help people find affordable housing. It is because we are very aware that this is one of the pillars of affordability.
Affordability is at the heart of Bill C‑30. I therefore expect my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who have the interests of Quebeckers and all Canadians at heart, to rise and say that, yes, they will support Quebeckers, yes, they will support affordability, yes, they will explain to their constituents why it is so important to act now so we can help them and give them a hand when they are facing unprecedented pressures, and yes, they will support affordability.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion to cut off debate on a budget bill after only three hours. The minister has been asked repeatedly but has not answered the question. Does he think that three hours is a sufficient debate for the bill?
Mr. Speaker, I have answered it a number of times. The Conservatives may not like my answer, but that is different. They may want to change the question.
What I can say is, yes, we will debate it. Yes, we will be here to answer questions. Yes, we believe in accountability, but we believe in action as well. Canadians demand action from their government. They demand action from Parliament. They demand that we tackle affordability. This is top of mind.
I know that the member is supportive of the measure to support seasonal workers. I know he is supportive of the immediate expenses for greenhouses. I know he is supportive of Bill C-30. Let us leave partisanship aside. Let us vote, and let us make sure we act for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Minister of Finance a question. I know he will not answer it because he is an expert at avoiding questions.
We are debating a bill that is 34 pages long and contains 52 clauses. The minister says he likes to debate. However, by limiting the entire debate to three hours, he is leaving us with three minutes and 27 seconds of debating time per clause in the bill. If we deduct the time the Liberals will take reading the notes written by the minister or the Prime Minister's Office in order to toe the party line, that leaves roughly one minute and 30 seconds for members of Parliament to present their comments on the bill.
I hope the minister is looking at me. Does Canada's Minister of Finance believe, yes or no, that one minute and 30 seconds per clause of a budget bill represents a healthy debate in a democracy, when his government tells us that its generational role in history is to defend democracy?
Mr. Speaker, I know that member well. He is a member of Parliament who likes to debate and do his part. He will have the opportunity to do so because this bill will be reviewed in committee. I know that my colleague excels at presenting his point of view in committee. I think that today, he should stand up and say that he is willing to work, that he wants the bill to be referred to committee and that he will do his part.
As I have always done as a parliamentarian, I will be here to answer my colleagues' questions, obviously, but there is also an urgent need to act. We see what is happening around the world and we know what we are able to control in terms of affordability. It is time to give Canadians a helping hand.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I find it remarkable to listen to the finance minister talk about how Canadians demand action, when auto workers in Oshawa have been asking for action from the government for well over a year. They believed the Prime Minister during the election campaign, when he said he was the guy to get a deal. They believed him when he said he would go to Washington and get a deal by July 21 last year. Why should they believe that the government wants action now?
Is the minister listening to the Bloc, Conservative and Green members when they talk about the affront to democracy this is? Is he listening to the questions? He says he is answering them, but, frankly, he is not. The question that was posed to him several times is whether three hours is enough. That is just over three minutes per section. Is that enough time to be held accountable?
Mr. Speaker, one thing I will not take is lessons from the Conservatives on the work we are doing with respect to the auto sector. If the member goes to her constituents, she will see that, as the former industry minister, I always stood up, and the current government has always stood up, for the auto workers and the auto industry. We will always continue to do so.
In fact, we have already put measures in the budget to support our auto workers. We have attracted investments in this country. We are going to support the industry. We are going to support our workers. When it comes time to debate, we are standing here to answer the questions.
We are saying the bill should go to committee, because there is one thing Canadians in Oshawa and around the country understand: The world is going through unprecedented changes, and we should act on what we can control. One thing we can control is supporting Canadians with affordability measures when they need them, and that is what we are going to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in the last budget and economic update, the Minister of Finance boasted about wanting to make Canada a global leader in innovation. However, in his last budget, he cut $40 million from the college and community innovation program. We reminded him of that and pointed out the inconsistency. The Liberals say they want to be leaders, but then they turn around and make cuts.
The minister ended up reversing course in the economic update. He announced funding that basically reduces the cuts, but the program's budget is still being cut by $5 million.
I would like the Minister of Finance to answer the following question. Does he know of any country in the world that wants to excel in innovation but that is cutting its investments in science and research?
Mr. Speaker, we have made some of the largest investments in science and research. Canada is a world leader. Take artificial intelligence, for example. Since I was asked the question by a Bloc Québécois member, I would like to point out that Montreal, along with other cities in Canada, is recognized as a global hub for AI. This did not happen by chance. It happened because we have the ability to attract the best researchers and the top talent to our country and to support them, so that technological research and development happen here at home.
We have always been there for research, development and innovation. We are going to continue being there today, as always.
Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, I want to commend the minister for making historic investments in science and research under budget 2024. I commend the bill we are debating today.
[English]
I want to ask particularly about employee ownership trusts. I was at an event that celebrated the 25th anniversary of Social Capital Partners, a very important organization that led the charge for the movement to support employee ownership in Canada. I want to ask the minister about his role in furthering employee ownership in Canada and about how the bill would assist with that.
Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question. In fact, we are going to make the capital gains tax exemption permanent when it comes to employee ownership trust. This is a measure that is being applauded by a number of people across the country. It is the kind of thing we see in Bill C-30. It is why, in the questions from opposition members, apart from the parliamentary opposition that we would expect, they should look beyond that.
This is a time when we need to do big things for the country and to support Canadians, industry and workers. That is exactly what Bill C-30 would do.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the current government is the least transparent government in Canadian history. We see what the Liberals have done with committees when they have shut down debate; they have gone off camera. Even yesterday, Bob Fife, whom we wish well in his retirement and thank for all the good work he has done, said that the government has done nothing but erode transparency since it was elected.
What is the government so afraid of when it comes to debating the bill and giving it proper time so we can scrutinize it?
Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I also want to wish Bob Fife a happy retirement. I had the chance to send him a note. He has done a great service to journalism in Canada and to our democracy, and we applaud his work.
When it comes to transparency, the member should be happy that the bill is going to go to committee. I am sure he will take all the time he needs in committee to make sure his voice can be heard.
We will be here to answer questions, but we will also act for Canadians in the time of need.
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
[Chair read text of motion to House]
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (John Nater): 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 invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
[Translation]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 120)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 171
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Gazan
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Johns
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Kmiec
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Kwan
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
May
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
McPherson
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 167
PAIRED
Members
MillerPlamondon
Total: -- 2
The House resumed from May 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Spadina—Harbourfront.
This is my first opportunity to speak to Bill C-30, and I welcome the opportunity to talk about the way we are going to guide our great country forward. I am very proud to rise today in support of the government's spring economic update, which is an update grounded in realism, responsibility and, above all, the lived experiences of many Canadians.
This document recognizes that while global forces remain uncertain, Canada is choosing to lead with focus and purpose. It shows that we are investing where it matters most: in people, communities and long-term economic resilience. This funding supports frontline responses that prioritize safety, dignity and coordination with municipal and community partners. It recognizes that addressing homelessness requires sustained federal leadership, not temporary fixes, and it ensures that communities are not left on their own.
The people of Humber River—Black Creek are proud of the diversity that defines our neighbourhoods, but they know that rising hate-motivated incidents are real and very terrible. They undermine people's sense of safety and belonging. That is why continued investments in the Canada community security program matter. Supporting places of worship, community centres and cultural institutions with enhanced security is not about fear, but ensuring that every Canadian feels safe participating fully in public life.
Economic strength and social cohesion go hand in hand. We cannot have one without the other.
My community is powered by workers, many of whom are in small and medium-sized enterprises, family businesses and co-operatives. The spring economic update's decision to make the employee ownership trust tax exemption permanent is a practical, forward-looking measure. It would help workers buy into the businesses they helped build, support succession planning for local entrepreneurs and keep jobs rooted in communities like Humber River—Black Creek, instead of being sold off or hollowed out. This is an economic policy that rewards work, loyalty and shared prosperity.
Affordability measures are felt especially sharply right now by students and young people. Many families in my riding rely on federal student support to make education possible. That is why extending enhanced Canada student grants and interest-free Canada student loans for the 2026-27 academic year is so very significant. In Ontario, approximately 400,000 students would benefit from these programs. This is about keeping the doors open so that post-secondary education remains a pathway to opportunity, not a barrier or a debt.
Economic growth is meaningful only if it improves daily life. Investments through programs like the build communities strong fund recognize that community infrastructure, recreation centres, parks and public spaces are essential to healthy neighbourhoods for everyone. These investments support youth, families, seniors and newcomers. They create safe places to gather, stay active and build connections. In communities like mine, this is how opportunities become tangible.
Let me also highlight the renewed support for the community volunteer income tax program. In Ontario alone, over 330,000 returns were filed last year through local clinics that help people with modest incomes, free of charge, access the benefits they are entitled to. For four Saturdays in a row, my constituency office, together with volunteers and community officers, filled out well over 800 income tax forms for many of my constituents. Renewing and expanding this program mean that seniors, newcomers, students and low-income families in Humber River—Black Creek can continue to access vital supports without barriers.
The spring economic update also looks to the future. The upcoming Canada investment summit, which will be held in Toronto, will reinforce Ontario's and Canada's position as a global destination for investment in advanced manufacturing, infrastructure, clean energy and artificial intelligence. This builds on our strengths, creates jobs and helps diversify trade at a time when resilience matters more than ever.
At the same time, Canada continues to maintain fiscal discipline. The deficit outlook has improved and investments are clearly targeted, not scattershot. Borrowing is focused on building capacity, not papering over problems.
This spring economic update reflects the simple but powerful idea that economic policy should be measured by how it shows up in people's lives. In communities like Humber River—Black Creek, it shows up as safer communities, as support for students and workers, as help for families struggling with affordability, and as investments that strengthen neighbourhoods and create opportunity. That is why I am so proud to support this update, and why I believe it deserves the support of everyone in the House. This will help to move Canada forward, to move our businesses forward and to move many communities like Humber River forward to provide more opportunity for the many people who are struggling today and will clearly move forward in a much better way.
I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this issue today. I look forward to it getting through the House and off to committee, and eventually through Parliament and through the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, I have worked with my colleague on the trade committee in the past, and I know she is someone who understands trade and how important it is for Canadian products to get to the world market.
The concern I have in her speech is that she talked about the importance of trade, but she did not mention the fact that if we cannot get the product to market, how do we actually achieve those results? One of the problems we have in Canada is that our ports are ranked next to dead last and our rail system is unreliable. Our infrastructure is just not there.
Where does the member see growth happening with this budget if it does not address the issues with our ports?
Mr. Speaker, the member was also a member of the international trade committee for many years. We have had the opportunity to work together and very much care about similar issues.
We are looking at the infrastructure dollars and the improvements that have to happen at the ports. I read this morning about two bridges that lead to the port of Vancouver and how those bridges have to be replaced. Otherwise, we are not going to be able to get anything to the port of Vancouver from that direction.
I believe the investment we are making will improve those access points. The member is 100% right: If we do not have access to the ports, how are we going to get our different goods there? I think that is all part of the plan for the future to make that difference.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about the importance of affordability in the economic update. The economic update talks about the new initiative announced by the government, specifically Build Canada Homes. The government plans to build 26,000 new homes over the next few years, but the need is much greater. The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that 690,000 homes need to be built.
With that in mind, I would really like my colleague to explain something. The government is not meeting even 5% of the need. In her opinion, is that what it means to take care of people when it comes to housing affordability and accessibility?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I know the member cares, as we all do, about ensuring that we can get much more housing out there, built by working with private developers and utilizing lots of land that are owned by different municipalities and provinces, and by us all coming together.
I am very confident that we will have much more than that small amount that he referenced. The need is tremendous and we all know that. We are all doing everything possible to move things along as fast as we can.
Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on the issue of trade.
The Conservative member made reference to ports. Within the last year, with our Prime Minister, we actually have serious investments in major projects, including in the port of Montreal. It is one of the major projects.
The member also talked about something that is really important to Manitoba, and that is the port of Churchill. For the first time in generations, there is a great deal of optimism about the port of Churchill actually moving forward, which is great for the province, but also, like the port of Montreal, it is good for Canada when we look at investments of that nature.
Could the member provide her thoughts on how important it is that we continue to look at major projects and investing in Canada's infrastructure?
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that my hon. colleague is feeling better and that he is back and standing up and down in his usual role in the House.
It is interesting that he mentions the port of Churchill. We did have a former member of the NDP who was constantly talking about the port of Churchill. That is the reason why, when the hon. member mentions it, I am so very well aware of it.
It will cost a lot of money, but there are enormous opportunities if we can develop. Through our Major Projects Office, all of those things where there are huge opportunities for us to move forward are making themselves available. I just had an opportunity, with our trade committee, to visit Brazil and Argentina and talk about the free trade agreement with the Mercosur area, which we plan to hopefully get signed by the summer. There are opportunities that are provided, with the investments we are making in major infrastructure products, to be able to move merchandise and agricultural goods through much faster. I look forward to that being successfully completed.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are living through a moment of real uncertainty. Families are feeling the pressure of rising costs, communities are anxious about economic instability and people want to know the government has their back and is prepared to step up and invest in the future of our country. At a time like this, we cannot afford to pull back from our cities. We need to invest in them. This is exactly what our government has been doing.
Toronto's 23 Liberal members of Parliament have been strong advocates for this city because we understand how important Toronto is to Canada's economic and cultural future, and our record reflects that. We have delivered historic federal investments in transit, housing, infrastructure and waterfront revitalization, including over $40 million for Harbourfront Centre and a tri-government commitment of roughly $1 billion for each level of government to the waterfront east transit project. These are investments in how people move through the city, where they live, how communities stay connected and whether families can continue to build a future in Toronto.
Through the spring economic statement and budget 2025, our government is continuing to make targeted investments that strengthen communities, support local economies and help Canadians navigate a highly competitive and uncertain global economy with great stability and opportunity. Over the last few months, I have spent a lot of time in community centres, town halls, small businesses, school gyms and on the doorsteps of Spadina—Harbourfront. No matter where the conversation starts, it almost always comes back to the same thing: People are worried about whether life in the city is becoming unaffordable for ordinary people.
A few weeks ago, I spoke with a young woman in my riding who wants to build her future here. She told me she has done everything she was told to do. She has worked hard, gone to school, built a career and taken care of her family, but she cannot imagine ever owning a home in the city where she has grown up. She told me that she does not need luxury and just wants stability. That feeling resonates with a lot of Canadians right now. People are not asking for miracles. They are asking for a fair shot at opportunities to improve their lives.
In a city like Toronto, that pressure shows up everywhere. It shows up in the student working two jobs while trying to finish school. It shows up in the parent deciding between child care costs and rent. It shows up in seniors stretching fixed incomes further every month. It shows up in young professionals who thought they were doing everything right but still feel like stability keeps moving further out of reach. Everyone wants to know that if they work hard, then they can afford a home, raise a family, get a good-paying job and remain in the communities they love.
Strengthening our economy requires hard work and must never come at the expense of Canadians. Now more than ever, Canadians need our support. Our government is focused on building a strong and resilient economy that keeps Canadians financially secure and ensures that no one is left behind. This is why the measures in the spring economic statement matter.
I also hear from small business owners across Spadina—Harbourfront who are trying to keep their doors open while navigating rising operating costs, staffing pressures and economic uncertainty. Whether it is a café like Ivy on Queens Quay or a food truck operator at Street Eats at Sugar Beach, local businesses are the heartbeat of our communities. When we invest in transit, public infrastructure, tourism, housing, arts and culture, and vibrant public spaces, we are also investing in the local economies that those businesses rely on every single day.
We know solving the housing crisis requires us to build differently and to build faster. That is why investments in modular and factory-built housing are so important. Canadians do not want endless debates about housing; they want homes built. Our government will be accelerating over $7 billion in low-cost loans through the apartment construction loan program to help build up to 16,500 new rental homes. Projects could include major waterfront and downtown developments, such as Quayside, which will help unlock new housing supply where it is needed most. In a community like Spadina—Harbourfront, where density is high and 57% of residents are renters, this investment will make a meaningful difference, helping more people find a place they can afford to call home.
Our government is also launching the build communities strong fund, a $51‑billion investment to strengthen infrastructure and improve quality of life in communities across Canada. We are moving beyond concrete and construction to build communities where people actually feel a sense of belonging. In my riding, we see that every day in places like Harbourfront Centre, spaces that have become gathering points for our city, where families attend festivals, young people take part in sports and recreation, artists share their work and residents reconnect with public space along Toronto's waterfront.
Last week, I was pleased to join an announcement with the Secretary of State for Sport at Harbourfront Centre, recognizing it as one of the 25 community mini-pitch projects across Canada aimed at increasing sport participation among children and youth. Watching kids immediately run onto the pitch and neighbours stopping to connect with one another was a reminder that investments in community space have a real impact on people's lives every day. This project builds on the investments outlined in the spring economic statement, including $660 million over five years with ongoing funding to strengthen community sport and create more opportunities for Canadians, especially children and youth, to participate, to connect and to thrive.
For many residents in downtown Toronto, public space matters deeply because not everyone has access to a backyard, access to green space or even room to gather with family and friends. That is why spaces like the Bathurst Quay Common, the Toronto Islands, Love Park, Sugar Beach, Fort York, Little Norway Park, Ireland Park, Coronation Park, Trillium Park, Canoe Landing and The Bentway are so important. These are places where people build community, where children play, where families gather, where cultural events take place and where residents reconnect with the city and waterfront around them.
They are also important economic and tourism assets for Toronto. Thoughtful public infrastructure attracts visitors, supports local businesses, encourages investment and strengthens the vibrancy of our downtown core. As Toronto continues to grow, protecting and investing in these public spaces will only become more important, not only for tourism and economic development, but for quality of life and the sense of connection people feel to the communities they call home.
I want to speak specifically about The Bentway, because it reflects what strong public infrastructure can look like when we invest in community space with intention. What was once underutilized space beneath the Gardiner Expressway has been transformed into a destination that draws residents and visitors year-round through public art, cultural programming, recreation and community events. Today, The Bentway is a place where people skate in the winter, check out contemporary art and connect with friends and neighbours. These kinds of spaces encourage people to stay longer, explore different parts of the waterfront, support nearby businesses and experience Toronto in a more connected and meaningful way.
Transit is not a luxury. It shapes people's quality of life and whether parents can make it home in time to see their kids before bed. Transit shapes access to jobs, education, health care and opportunity. Strong public transit systems are one of the ways we make cities more affordable, more connected and more livable. This is why our government continues to invest in critical transit projects such as the Ontario line. Once it is complete, Spadina—Harbourfront will be home to five Ontario line stations: Exhibition, King West, Chinatown, Osgoode and Queen. We are also working alongside the province and the City of Toronto to jointly fund the waterfront east transit, because building transit requires collaboration across all levels of government. These projects are a critical component to connecting our community and linking residents in Spadina—Harbourfront and beyond to their jobs, families and homes.
Toronto's tourism sector has welcomed more than 28 million visitors, spending $9 billion in our city. With FIFA World Cup 2026 fast approaching, Toronto, and in particular Spadina—Harbourfront, will welcome even more visitors. In fact, all six Ontario matches will be hosted on the vibrant waterfront in Spadina—Harbourfront.
Toronto has a proud record of hosting international sporting events, from the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup to the 2015 Pan Am Games. Spadina—Harbourfront is home to some of Canada's most recognizable destinations and sports and entertainment venues, like the Rogers Centre, or the SkyDome, Scotiabank Arena, the CN Tower, Union Station, our waterfront and Toronto's financial district. It is also home to the teams and events that bring millions of people into our city every year, from the Toronto Blue Jays and the Raptors to the Toronto FC, the Maple Leafs and Toronto Tempo, among others.
It has become one of the great sports and cultural cities in the world, and that economic activity matters for Canada. That is why our government will be investing $755 million over five years and $118 million ongoing to support Canada's sports ecosystem and help strengthen our ability to host major international events.
When we talk about growing our economy, Canada depends on strong local economies. Toronto's business improvement areas, including the Waterfront BIA, play a major role in that work. The Waterfront BIA brings together businesses, tourism partners, cultural institutions and community organizations to help strengthen Toronto's waterfront as a year-round destination for residents and visitors alike. This contributes to the economic growth across our city, and it builds on decades of sustained federal investment into Toronto's waterfront and public infrastructure.
Toronto's 23 Liberal MPs have been strong advocates for this city because we understand its importance to Canada's economic future. Our record reflects that commitment: historic investments in transit, housing, arts and culture, infrastructure and waterfront revitalization.
The spring economic statement is ultimately about the kind of future we want to build together. Through budget 2025 and the spring economic statement, we are continuing to make targeted investments that strengthen communities, support local economies, attract global investment and ensure that cities like Toronto continue to grow and thrive.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments that my colleague put on the record. There is one thing that I think is really important for us to recognize. She made reference to building a strong, healthy economy, an economy that is there for all Canadians, and that is something we want.
Earlier, there was a discussion in regard to the importance of trade. Trade is so critically important to our nation. We make up, I believe, 0.5% of the world population, yet when it comes to international trade, we contribute 2.5% of world trade. The province of Ontario has a manufacturing industry second to no other in the country.
Can the member provide her thoughts on just how important it is that we diversify our trade opportunities to help build a stronger, healthier economy?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the fantastic question on how we think about diversifying our economy at this really challenging time. We have a phenomenal organization in our riding called the Toronto Region Board of Trade. Its home is actually in Spadina—Harbourfront. They are doing some very important ecosystem work right now to help prepare companies and small businesses to pivot so that they are ready as we move into the conversations about CUSMA and compliance. This is part of the work that is happening in our riding to make sure that we grow the economy and support local and small businesses in Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I am kind of curious, with the member's location and where she lives, in regard to the privatization of airports, in particular Billy Bishop airport and the expansion of the runway. What is the Liberal Party's opinion on the expansion of the runway at Billy Bishop airport and its possible privatization?
Mr. Speaker, that is certainly a hot topic of conversation in our communities. I have recently hosted a number of town halls and had conversations with residents. Right now, I will say that I have not seen the plan, in terms of how the expansion might go forward, and I cannot speculate on something that I do not have the details on, but I do know that we are looking right now to think about how we strengthen and grow the economy. However, I truly want to talk about the incredible uses on the waterfront of a whole host of pieces, such as our institutions, and that is really critical to get that balance of uses right.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke to us about the importance of Toronto, which receives a large number of visitors. She mentioned $28 million per year. However, the problem in Toronto, aside from the housing crisis, is the mobility crisis.
People can no longer even afford to buy houses right downtown. They have to move to the suburbs, yet the federal government cut $5 billion from the Canada public transit fund in its latest budget. Moreover, in the most recent economic update, the $3 billion that had been allocated is no longer earmarked for the Canada public transit fund, but has instead been folded into the generalized funding pot for infrastructure.
I would like my colleague to tell us frankly, for the benefit of the people she represents, whether she truly believes her government is supporting public transit when it cuts funding and reallocates dedicated public transit funding to infrastructure in general.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I believe our government is stepping up in the ways that it is best suited to. We can invest the capital that is required to build these massive projects. I spoke about waterfront east transit. That is a project that I am very excited to see come online. It is years overdue. In this work, our role as a federal government is to work alongside other levels of government to ensure that we are investing in and building out the transit that we need.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to the issue of affordability, whether it is the tax break or the groceries and essentials benefit program that the government has. I would like her thoughts on affordability.
Mr. Speaker, one of the pieces of the groceries and essentials benefit that I really love, in terms of a policy measure, is that we are having the conversation about a national food strategy. This means that we are not just doing the immediate piece, but we are actually thinking about how we invest in a food system that works for the country. I think that is really critical when we are addressing these pieces: the urgent needs, but also thinking about the systems.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Middlesex—London.
We have reached this stage of the debate on the changes in Canada's financial situation. Let us remember that the Liberals have been in office and have been managing the public purse for over 10 years. Let us remember that most of the members on that side of the House who were elected in 2015 promised to run three small deficits and deliver a zero deficit in 2019. Obviously, that was not at all true because, in the past 11 years, the Liberal government has never kept that promise to balance the budget. It has done exactly the opposite.
When the new Prime Minister took office a year ago, no one would have thought that we would end up where we are today, seeing as how he has an international reputation in public finance, served as the governor of the national banks of two G7 countries and is widely recognized for his business acumen. With this fresh energy, we might have expected a much more rigorous approach to managing public funds than the one taken by the Right Hon. Justin Trudeau, who failed to deliver on his promise of a zero deficit in his nine years in office. With the new Prime Minister, anything seemed possible. However, after a year under this new Prime Minister, the member for Nepean, it is quite the opposite. He is doing a worse job than the drama teacher, even though he is an internationally renowned banker who promised a bright future in terms of the management of public funds.
As for the debt, it has been roughly $1 trillion for the past 10 years. Interest on the debt costs $58.7 billion. That is nearly $60 billion. For those watching at home, and even for me, when we are talking about billions of dollars, it is hard to picture what that actually means. It is important to understand that every penny we pay in GST is not going toward services from the federal government. It is not going toward having more doctors or more services. It is solely going toward paying the interest on the debt. That is right. Ten years of irresponsible Liberal governance has increased the debt by $1 trillion. Every family in Canada is spending an average of $3,400 just on interest payments.
It is worth noting that a deficit means that the government is living beyond its means. It means that it is kicking the can down the road and not facing its responsibilities. Above all, it means that the government is acting irresponsibly toward our children, our grandchildren and even our great-grandchildren. Sooner or later, that debt will have to be paid. That is what happens with the interest on debt. When we pay, we are paying for the mistakes and mismanagement of the past. The worst legacy we can leave our children and grandchildren is a massive debt, massive interest and a chronic deficit.
Speaking of deficits, it is quite extraordinary. A year and a half ago, under the former prime minister's watch, we were all outraged to learn that the deficit might be as high as $31 billion. Some people said that a $31‑billion deficit was insane. Now, a year later, it is twice as bad. The deficit now stands at $65 billion. As I was saying earlier, who would have thought the new Prime Minister could be worse than the old one? He doubled the deficit.
It is also worth noting that direct spending on services has increased by 12.4% and that, over the past 10 years, 100,000 new public servants have been hired. At the same time, there has been a massive increase in outsourcing contracts for consultants. The government cannot do both at the same time. It should either hire more public servants to deliver more services and rely less on consultants, or rely more on consultants and make less use of the public service. If it is doing both at the same time, it is because the system is being mismanaged. That is what we have seen over the past 10 years. The reality and the impact of all this is that when we have to pay interest on the debt, as I mentioned earlier, the money is not going toward improving services. It is going toward paying for expenses were not covered previously.
Who benefits most from this? The bankers do, because that is exactly how they make a living: from interest. We do not take issue with that. The issue is when interest levels are far too high and become astronomical. When taxpayers' money from the GST goes directly towards paying interest on the debt, we are propping up the banking system rather than the system we expect to support public services in Canada.
What is the reality after 10 years? We have the worst food inflation in the G7. My colleagues should talk about this with people in their ridings, with families, with friends, with people they know well. Everyone is affected by food inflation. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7.
This is happening under the leadership of the world-renowned banker who has failed to keep his promises. We are still waiting for him to deliver on all the promises that were made and the major projects that are supposed to be carried out. Housing prices are skyrocketing across Canada, and families are the ones directly paying the price.
It is also important to keep in mind that when there are taxes to pay, people end up with less money in their pockets. That is why our proposal was clear and positive for Canadians, because everyone is affected by the oil price hikes. We proposed temporarily suspending all federal gas taxes until December 31. We agreed on that proposal because it would have left $5 billion more in Canadians' pockets. However, the government accepted only a small portion of our suggestion, which involved removing the 10¢ per litre excise tax to give people a little break. Obviously, we had no objection to that, but it was barely a third of what we had suggested.
Our approach as Conservatives is not so much to give people money as to let them keep more money in their pockets. The best way to let them keep more in their pockets is to cut taxes. However, this government has been raising taxes for 10 years. Contrary to what the Liberals are going to say in a few moments when they ask me questions, it is important to point out that we were in agreement on the tax cuts. Small as they were, we supported them. We only wished they had been larger. That was the point of our suggestion.
One of our suggestions is to leave more money in people's pockets by cutting taxes, which is what we wanted to do with the federal fuel tax, because it has a direct impact on everything. It affects people who travel, but the federal taxes on transportation and gasoline consumption also directly affect the price of goods and food that are transported.
We should also get rid of some of the measures that create too much red tape, because there is no doubt that this directly affects us and stifles economic development. We must streamline bureaucracy and reduce our reliance on outside consultants. I mentioned that over the past 10 years, we have seen an increase of up to $20 billion. We see that the government has listened to us and reduced the amounts allocated for consultants, but it needs to go even further.
We must also put an end to the tax loopholes that can arise from certain investments that are so difficult to understand that they ultimately become tax loopholes.
We also need to review some of the benefits paid to bogus refugee claimants. Unfortunately, for 10 years, we had a government that took a completely irresponsible approach to immigration. The primary victims of this irresponsible immigration policy are the immigrants themselves, particularly those who have illegally made bogus asylum claims.
We need to cut red tape, dial back the use of external consultants and leave more money in people's pockets by eliminating some taxes and lowering income tax. That is how we can deliver an economic recovery for all Canadians.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Arthur Bielfeld
Mr. Speaker, he was a passionate advocate for social justice, a wise and thoughtful theologian, and a compassionate and caring rabbi. However, for me, Arthur Bielfeld was mostly my dear friend of 40 years, my mentor and teacher as a colleague in ministry, my supporter, and an occasional thorn in my flesh as a member of Parliament.
Arthur's life came to an end two weeks ago at a time and place of his choosing, but his legacy will continue for decades. Founder of the Leo Baeck Day School, Mazon Canada and Campaign Against Child Poverty, he served as rabbi and rabbi emeritus at Temple Emanu-El in North York for 58 years. He was awarded the Order of Canada for his extraordinary contributions to the Jewish community and decades of interfaith work on poverty, hunger and social inequality.
I will always be inspired by his work; his wit, even his bad jokes; his moral courage; his intelligence and his integrity. I just wanted one more cup of coffee with him.
Our country is richer for the life and work of Rabbi Arthur Bielfeld, but I hope heaven is ready for him.
Workers in London—Fanshawe
Mr. Speaker, in the most recent unemployment numbers, London has climbed to 9.2%, remaining the highest in Canada. Behind these numbers are people sending out résumés and hearing nothing back, parents trying to stretch every dollar further and young people wondering whether opportunity is moving out of reach.
Just an hour from the U.S. border, London is the canary in the coal mine. When things go wrong, Londoners are the first to feel it, and it hits our community the hardest, but this is not just a London issue. What we are seeing in our community is a warning sign for the rest of the country.
On behalf of all Londoners who are worried about their jobs, their bills and their future, I urge the Liberals to get serious and focus on creating the conditions for Canadian businesses to compete, invest, grow, and create private sector jobs. Conservatives are calling for lower taxes, less red tape and the trade deal the Liberal Prime Minister promised.
London is sounding the alarm. Londoners, especially those of London—Fanshawe, are seeing these concerns all around them. When will the Liberals finally listen?
Dental Care
Mr. Speaker, the dental care plan is having a real impact on the lives of Canadians. Across our beautiful country, 4.3 million people have received dental care since the program's launch, and over 21,000 residents in Pierrefonds—Dollard are benefiting from the plan.
This week at my constituency office, we are hosting our fourth open house to help residents renew and enrol in their dental coverage.
[Translation]
Oral health is a fundamental right. That is why our team is there to provide individual support.
[English]
Programs like the dental care plan show what we can achieve when we put Canadians first. Canadians no longer have to compromise on dental care.
[Translation]
Our government will continue to work to improve everyone's quality of life.
[English]
This week, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m., residents of Pierrefonds—Dollard are welcome to drop by my office without an appointment to renew their dental plan.
Assiniboine College Benefactors
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to recognize two remarkable Manitobans who are giving back in Brandon—Souris.
Earlier this month, it was announced that the late Mrs. Edna Edwards left a $4-million contribution to the Assiniboine College School of Nursing dedicated to funding research opportunities and financial awards for students. The now Edna Edwards School of Nursing will honour her legacy as a registered psychiatric nurse who was trained at the former Brandon Mental Health Centre, a facility that now forms part of Assiniboine College's North Hill campus, a truly full-circle moment.
The gift was announced by her husband, Mr. Russ Edwards, who is no stranger to Assiniboine College or to Brandon. Just four years ago, Mr. Edwards donated $4 million to create the Russ Edwards School of Agriculture and Environment aimed at the college's vision to build the Prairie Innovation Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, a project that is still waiting on federal investment, I might add.
The Edwards family's generosity is bringing enhanced educational opportunities closer to home for more Westman students, which is a remarkable legacy for two highly successful leaders in the business and health care sectors.
I thank Russ and Edna.
[Translation]
Brome—Missisquoi Business
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the remarkable contribution made by Happy Yak, an innovative company from Cowansville, in my riding, to the Artemis II mission.
Happy Yak's expertise in sustainable and functional food was a perfect fit for the rigorous demands of space exploration, as the company has developed solutions tailored to some of the most extreme environments imaginable. Its participation in the Artemis II mission is a testament to the exceptional expertise found in our regions and the ability of our businesses to make an impact far beyond our borders. Happy Yak's commitment demonstrates that local innovation can have a global and even an extraterrestrial impact.
This is a great source of pride for Brome—Missisquoi, for Quebec and for all of Canada. I want to congratulate Guy Dubuc and his entire team on this inspiring achievement and on the example it sets for young people who dream of science, innovation and bold action.
[English]
Elliott Family
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our community, I ask all parliamentarians to join me in honouring the memory of LouWanda, Mackayla and Nikita Elliott, whose lives were taken in a horrific act of intimate partner violence in Brockville on May 7, 2026.
We will remember LouWanda as a beloved mother, wife and sister, and Mackayla and Nikita as sisters, daughters and friends. They are deeply loved and missed by all who knew them, especially LouWanda's husband of 27 years, Andy Elliott; her brother Richard; and Andy and LouWanda's surviving daughters, Harley and Katherine.
I thank the Brockville Police Service and first responders, who responded with care and professionalism in the face of what can only be described as unimaginable tragedy for the family and for our community.
I want to recognize Leeds and Grenville Interval House and Shelter Movers for their vital work in supporting victims and survivors of intimate partner violence.
Together our community honours LouWanda, Mackayla and Nikita. I ask everyone to join us in honouring them as we stand in solidarity with all victims of intimate partner violence.
Housing Development in Vancouver Granville
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I attended the blessing ceremony of Sen̓áḵw, a housing development in my riding of Vancouver Granville. When complete, Sen̓áḵw will bring more than 6,000 rental homes to Vancouver open to everyone, including much-needed affordable and below-market housing units for families, workers and newcomers alike.
However, Sen̓áḵw is more than a housing project. It is a homecoming. More than a century after Squamish families were forcibly removed from their ancestral village, the Squamish nation gathered once again on their land. They gathered with elders. They gathered in language, in song, in ceremony and in strength.
I was honoured to be a witness to that ceremony, that blessing, as the first tower prepares to welcome families into 333 new homes. It is high-quality housing. It is affordable housing on prime land in Vancouver. Above all else, it is reconciliation in action.
Sen̓áḵw reminds us that when we work with first nations, when first nations lead and we partner, we do more than build homes. We build trust, we restore belonging and we build the future.
Cloverdale—Langley City
Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, people invested in our community because they believed in the future. Families moved there. Builders built there. Small businesses took risks there, but now developers are facing insolvency. Businesses are being extorted. Families are worried about crime and people are starting to wonder if the rules even make sense anymore.
After years of mixed signals from the Liberals, sudden policy shifts and weak-on-crime laws, the confidence that built our community is being shaken. When people stop feeling safe, physically, financially and legally, communities start to break apart.
Our leader was in Cloverdale last week talking about crime and property rights because this is no longer some abstract political debate. This is about whether ordinary people can still build a future in Canada.
When will the Liberal government realize that central planning is, as always, a recipe for disaster?
[Translation]
Montreal Victoire
Mr. Speaker, I can hardly contain my excitement over the Montreal Victoire winning their very first Walter Cup.
Our champions defeated the Ottawa Charge by a score of 4 to 0. This is the first time in the short history of the Professional Women's Hockey League that the cup has been won by a team north of the U.S. border.
All Quebeckers are celebrating alongside our captain, the GOAT and playoff MVP Marie‑Philip Poulin, and Laura Stacey. All Quebeckers were on the edge of their seats, cheering on Ann-Renée Desbiens for her shutout and Catherine Dubois, Alexandra Labelle and Erin Ambrose for their hard work. All Quebeckers jumped for joy when Abby Roque scored two goals.
Fortunately, the story does not end here. We will have another chance to applaud Danièle Sauvageau's team during Saturday's victory parade for the Victoire in Montreal.
The victorious Victoire. Is there a finer or more natural role model for all those young girls who dream of taking to the ice themselves?
I want to thank the team for their dedication to their sport. Well done. Long live the Victoire.
[English]
Palestine Day on the Hill
Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite everyone to join us tonight as the Canada-Palestine Parliamentary Friendship Group and the Association of Palestinian Arab Canadians celebrate the 10th annual Palestine Day on the Hill.
This year's theme, “Root to Justice”, highlights the deep connection Palestinians have to their homeland and the importance of dignity, rights and belonging. It also reflects on the challenges of dispossession and hardship, emphasizing that the pursuit of justice must be shared by communities, allies and policy-makers working toward a meaningful and constructive engagement.
This is the first Palestine Day on the Hill since Canada recognized the state of Palestine. It is an opportunity for reflection on the progress made and the work that remains to support peace, justice and mutual understanding.
Whatever our background or our faith, we can all work together to build a world where everyone lives in peace, security and harmony.
Snowbirds
Mr. Speaker, on May 19, the Minister of National Defence came to Moose Jaw, home of Canada's Snowbirds. He paraded the Snowbirds team out in front of the media and used them as his backdrop. Then he announced that the team were now losing their jobs. This is one of the most un‑Canadian things the people of Canada have ever witnessed happen to our military, and Canadians are disappointed with this behaviour.
The Liberals have sat on this file for over a decade. The Tutors are being grounded after $30 million was spent to keep the jets flying until 2030. Both L3Harris and Magellan Aerospace have said the Tutors are safe to fly. Now, out of nowhere, the minister has announced a replacement aircraft that has propellers but with no timeline, no number of planes, no in-service date. The Snowbirds Alumni Association calls this profoundly disappointing. So does Moose Jaw, and so does Canada.
Canadians deserve a jet team. The Prime Minister can make this happen by reversing his decision.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a pillar of the Mississauga community, Mrs. Anjum Begum, who recently passed away—
Excuse me, but I will ask the hon. member to start from the beginning. There is way too much noise.
I do not think I have ever had to interrupt Statements by Members because of so much noise. We need to keep the noise down so that all members can deliver their statements and so that these statements can be heard.
The hon. member for Mississauga—Erin Mills has the floor.
Anjum Begum
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a pillar of the Mississauga community, Mrs. Anjum Begum, who recently passed away.
Hers was a classic immigrant success story. Arriving in the 1990s, she and her life partner, prominent journalist Latafat Ali Siddiqui, built a beautiful life with their four daughters. Together they became the heartbeat of our community, defined by philanthropy and compassion.
Anjum's heart and her kitchen were always open. No one ever left her home without a hearty meal. Her values of hard work and integrity live on through her beloved daughters, Faran, Maleeha, Dania and Leena, whose successes and contributions were one of her proudest joys in life.
The massive outpouring of grief at her service last week was a true testament to who she was and the impact that she made.
I offer my deepest condolences to her family. May she rest in peace.
[Member spoke in Arabic]
[English]
CBC/Radio-Canada
Mr. Speaker, the only thing worse than seeing left-wing activists in the media denigrate this country and its heroes is knowing that we Canadians had to foot the bill for it.
The Liberals have heaped $1.5 billion on the CBC, and what is the CBC doing with this money? It is producing a show that lies, deceives and entraps Canadians who dare to disagree with the Liberals and dare to stand up for Sir John A. Macdonald and his legacy.
Also, we have learned that this show, called Northland Tales, more like northland fails, entrapped brave men and women who have served this country in the RCMP, luring them into a CBC studio to berate and shame them for their service to this country.
The CBC has said it is pausing the production, but that is not enough. When is the Liberal government going to turn off this tap on this unpatriotic, garbage propaganda?
[Translation]
Artists from Acadie—Bathurst
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to some fabulous artists from my riding of Acadie—Bathurst.
First, there is La Famille LeBlanc, a family of extraordinarily talented musicians who just won the Francophone Acadian artist of the year award at the East Coast Music Awards. For years, this family has been generously sharing the traditional Acadian music that brings generations closer together and strikes a chord deep within our communities. Their authenticity, stage presence and love of music make them true ambassadors of our Acadian culture and identity.
Second, I want to applaud JP LeBlanc for winning the blues release of the year award. His exceptional gift and his passion for music are helping to put New Brunswick and Acadia on the musical map.
I want to congratulate Robin, Rébecca, Charlotte, Rosalie and Mélodie LeBlanc, not to mention JP LeBlanc, on their outstanding accomplishments and thank them for shining a spotlight on our beloved Acadia.
[English]
Government Priorities
Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadian families are being financially crushed by the government, and it is no accident. A mountain of reckless inflationary spending and wasteful Liberal policies are what is weighing them down.
The government blew $300 million on the failed PrescribeIT app that never worked and $200 million on a Nova Scotia spaceport that is no more than a concrete pad. It spent over $1 billion a year propping up the CBC productions that, quite frankly, nobody watches or wants to watch. Billions get wasted on foreign aid that promotes ideological agendas, props up corrupt foreign officials or gets diverted to terrorist groups like Hamas. It spent $19 billion on insider consultants and nearly $1 billion on deluxe health benefits for fake refugees. This reckless spending is driving up grocery bills and mortgages.
Conservatives demand an end to this behaviour. Let us cut the waste, balance the budget, keep our tax dollars in Canada and deliver real results for Canadians.
Arts in University—Rosedale
Mr. Speaker, from local festivals to our country's biggest tourist attractions, the arts play a vital role in enriching the lives of all Canadians.
University—Rosedale houses pillars of the arts like the Royal Ontario Museum, the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Gardiner Museum. Our writers and artists are hard at work: Mother Maggie Helwig won the prestigious Shaughnessy Cohen Prize for her incredible book Encampment; the King of Spain personally presented Margaret Atwood the Joan Margarit prize for her poetry at Victoria University; Clementine Dempsey-Hall has been shortlisted for a youth short story award; Tafelmusik honoured the work of women baroque composers; and the Heliconian Club, a local women's art association, is celebrating the 150th anniversary of its hall.
I am so grateful for the role they and all artists play in our communities.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to blame global factors for the price at the pump, but that is an illusion. Over 10 years ago, during the Harper years, there were two wars going on in the Middle East, as well as a war in Ukraine. The price of a barrel of oil was also $100 back then, but the price at the pump was $1.35. That is almost 50¢ less than today.
The difference lies in the Liberals' taxes and the weakness of the Canadian dollar under the Liberal Prime Minister.
Will the Liberals stop blaming global factors and accept that these are Liberal factors?
Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition understands that we are currently facing a global energy crisis. We know that Canadians' top priority is affordability, meaning the cost of housing, food and gas.
The good news is that this is exactly what we have taken action on. We have suspended the federal excise tax on fuel, lowering the cost of gas for Canadians by 10¢.
We on this side are very aware that affordability is the number one issue for Canadians. That is why, together with all my colleagues, we will always be there to help Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are selling another illusion by trying to blame the war in Iran for the cost of housing. The homes are here, the land is here, the workers are here and the supplies are here. It is here at home that the costs have gone up.
Let us talk about the energy crisis. There was one in 2014, during the Harper years. The global price of oil was even higher than it is today. However, the price at the pump was 50¢ per litre lower.
Will the Liberals finally get rid of the Liberal taxes for the entire year so that Canadians can fill up their tanks?
Mr. Speaker, the executive director of the International Energy Agency has said that we are currently facing the largest energy crisis in history.
That is why we took action. We did not wait. In other words, we suspended the federal fuel tax. That is because we are acutely aware that we need to give Canadians a helping hand as the summer season approaches.
We will always be there to stand up for the interests of Canadians, and I invite my Conservative colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-30, which will give Canadians a helping hand this summer.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, for 10 years of this Liberal government and this Liberal minister, Canadians have spent more on taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined. They are taxed when they work. They are taxed to fill up their car to drive to and from work. When they get home and they want to have a beer to take the edge off all the tax, will they pay higher Liberal taxes on that too? We found out late last week that if they turn on Netflix and stream their favourite program, the Liberal government wants to triple the Netflix tax to charge them even more for that.
Canadians are already taxed to death. Why will they not follow our lead and get rid of the Netflix tax so that Canadians can stream affordably?
Mr. Speaker, we will take no lessons from the Conservatives. Members can take my word on that. At every step of the way, when we put measures around affordability, they voted against them. They should be ashamed.
At a time when Canadians are asking us to act on the cost of living, that is exactly what we have done. We are building more affordable houses, we have taken measures on affordability for food prices, and we have suspended the excise fuel tax on gas. On this side of the House, we know when to act for Canadians. We will continue to support Canadians, and I invite my colleagues on the other side to vote for Bill C-30.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, there is more tax, more cost, more chaos and more of the same. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal.
Take, for example, the threat to the property rights of British Columbians. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend the property rights of British Columbians in the Cowichan case. In fact, they are forbidden to this day, based on guideline 14, which is still on the government's website, from putting property rights first. That case is coming up for appeal. People who paid for their homes and paid down their mortgages are worried about losing their most treasured asset.
Will they reverse themselves, vote for the Conservative motion and defend property rights in court?
Mr. Speaker, at trial, Canada defended the validity of fee simple title granted by the Crown, and we will continue to do so on appeal. That is why, as far back as 2017, Canada argued before the court that private landowners should be notified of the litigation. This is why we supported Montrose's application to present evidence that was not before the court during the trial, which is occurring today. We will continue to pursue this matter where it belongs, in the courts, not on the floor of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, they are bragging that, back in 2017, they agreed that they would inform British Columbian homeowners that they might lose their property. British Columbians do not want to be informed that they are losing their homes. They want to be informed that their government is fighting to defend their property.
The hon. minister says they will debate it in the courts. They are not debating in the courts. They have a guideline. The Prime Minister has a guideline on the government's website banning federal lawyers from arguing that private property comes before every other claim.
Will the Liberals vote for our motion, reverse those instructions and defend property rights in court?
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the federal government has appealed the decision of the superior court because we believe it was incorrect. In addition to making that appeal, we have been advocating for the court to notify private property owners since 2017.
In addition, we are supporting the application of Montrose, a private property owner in the area, to ensure that the arguments they are making will be heard by the court in full. We believe in private property rights. We believe in reconciliation. We can manage this issue appropriately by continuing forward with the appeal. I look forward to having the opportunity to make that case.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the problem. There will be an appeal, and we want to ensure that federal lawyers are, this time, able to make the arguments that the Liberal government banned them from making last time, which is that when somebody has fee simple home ownership property, or when a small business owns a patch of land, there is no other claim that can supersede that one.
These are seniors who made down payments and worked for 30 years of their lives paying property taxes, and who toss and turn at night because they do not know if they own their homes.
Will the government reverse its disastrous direction, reverse its Liberal instruction and vote for our motion to protect property?
Mr. Speaker, our government will always raise legally viable arguments in court. That is what the law demands and what Canadians deserve. Litigation guideline number 14 does not preclude Canada from relying on any specific defences but requires a principled basis and evidence to support the defence.
Regardless of the directive, the government would never make arguments that do not have a principled basis and evidence to support them. Canada has appealed the Cowichan court ruling, and all viable defences remain on the table.
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Relations
Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is currently reviewing the question that the Alberta government will put to its population in a referendum to see if it is appropriate, because Ottawa knows so much better than anyone else what kind of question should be asked. Ottawa knows what is clear and what is unclear to ordinary people. The federal government is so superior, so much better. Good thing the government is here to look after us and to explain things we are capable of understanding.
Does the government realize that the Clarity Act is nothing but a demonstration of contempt for the populace and the provinces?
Mr. Speaker, what the government understands very well is that, now more than ever, this is the time to work together to counter the U.S. tariff threat in an increasing complex world. That is precisely what the Prime Minister is doing with the Government of Alberta. We are working with Albertans. We are working with all the provinces of Canada to prove that our federation is working well and that we all share Canadians' concerns.
It is a shame that the Bloc Québécois is not participating.
Mr. Speaker, contempt is when one considers a person, group or thing inferior. It is a feeling of superiority. When the government of a province or Quebec asks its people a question, it is up to the Government of Quebec or that provincial government to decide on the question, and it is up to the people to answer it. Ottawa has no business getting involved. Ottawa is interfering simply because it believes itself to be superior to everyone. There are two options: Either Ottawa respects the democratic process that is under way, or it interferes and confirms its contempt for the people.
What will it do?
Mr. Speaker, I have been clear about what we are going to do. We will work with our friends in the federation, with the Government of Quebec, the Government of Alberta and the governments of all of the other provinces and territories to address the issues that matter to Canadians across the country.
Our focus is squarely on economic issues. For example, I met with the provincial and territorial industry and trade ministers this morning. Minister Drainville actively participated in the discussion on what we can do to counter the U.S. tariff threat. That is the work that we are doing together.
Mr. Speaker, not only does the Clarity Act give the federal government some kind of veto over the wording of the question, as though people are too thick to understand the question, but this undemocratic law also calls into question the principle of majority rule in a democracy.
The Liberals want clarity. That is fine, let us be clear then. First, the government that initiates a referendum determines the question. That government alone. Second, 50% plus one is a clear majority.
Will Ottawa understand these basic democratic principles and repeal its undemocratic Clarity Act?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps my colleague was not entirely focused on the answers I gave his colleague earlier.
The federal government is absolutely focused on the issues that concern Quebeckers and all Canadians. We are ready to work with our provincial counterparts to counter the U.S. tariff threat and support the industries specifically affected by these tariffs. We are here and we are doing the work.
It is a shame that the Bloc Québécois is not showing up.
[English]
Employment
Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal with nothing to show for his waste. It is more cost, more debt, more taxes, more on the national credit card and more of the same. The Liberals' trillion dollars of debt means less growth, fewer jobs and fewer opportunities for Canadians. Eighteen thousand jobs were just lost, unemployment rose to 6.9% and 111,000 full-time jobs are gone under the current Liberal government in just the last four months.
How many more jobs will Canadians have to lose before the Liberal government stops its costly credit card budgeting?
Mr. Speaker, I am so excited to stand and talk about Bill C-30, the spring economic update that would invest $6 billion in working people, skilled trades workers, unions and great-paying jobs, building up the workforce of today and the future.
It is clear that these guys have no idea what working-class people are calling for. They are calling for investments in their communities, investments in their families and investments in the future. That is what we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, sending more students through trade schools without any jobs is creating certificates for unemployment. If the Liberals really want to invest in Canadians, the Liberal government can do one thing: just get out of the way.
Let our natural resources get produced so we can create more jobs, create more boots on the ground, get shovels in the ground and get more projects built. That is what is going to help our youth, not more blocking of our resource projects.
When will the Liberal government get out of the way and remove its anti-development laws so youth actually have a future in this country again?
Mr. Speaker, maybe if that member went to northern Ontario and talked to people in the mining sector and really listened to what big employers and small business owners are saying, he would hear that what we are doing is exactly what is needed. In fact, we have been applauded by employers, by union representatives, by trainees and by hard-working people who are saying, “We need an opportunity to take advantage of these jobs that are building Canada strong.”
Maybe the member needs to get out of this place and go into the communities and talk to people about what they need to get these projects off the ground. Then, actually, he would have something worthwhile to say in here.
Finance
Mr. Speaker, under this Prime Minister, we have the same old, same old, costly Liberals: more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card and nothing to show for the waste.
In April, gas prices exploded by 28.6¢ per litre, the largest monthly increase on record, hammering Canadians every time they fill up, and driving up the cost of everything. Now, the Liberal finance minister has even signalled that the Liberals think they have done enough.
Does the Prime Minister actually believe Canadians can afford this level of Liberal inflation?
It is good news, actually.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, when we put things before this House that actually provide relief for Canadians, the member, at the absolute demand of her leader, stands up and votes against them. She votes against child care. She votes against a reduction in fuel taxes. She votes against dental care. She votes against training and opportunities for young people. When will that member convince her leader to stop voting against help for Canadians?
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, once again, Canadians are not asking for excuses or these so-called half measures that the Liberals mention. They deserve relief.
Every time my neighbours in Oshawa fill up their tank, buy groceries or pay rent, they feel the impact of Liberal inflation. The Conservatives have a real plan to put money back into Canadians' pockets by removing all federal fuel taxes for all the year to bring the costs down immediately at the pump and across the entire economy.
Will the Prime Minister finally adopt this common-sense plan and give Canadians a break?
Mr. Speaker, we hear no common sense from the other side, and perhaps that is because they do not speak to Canadians.
Over here we are hearing from Canadians regularly, and they know that Canada faces a profound global economic uncertainty right now. That is why we are responding with responsible measures, like protecting seniors from fraud and making the social programs that they rely on efficient and resilient to global shocks. For example, the groceries and essentials benefit will give single seniors almost $950 back in their pockets. This is what it means to be fiscally responsible managers, investing in the public.
Mr. Speaker, it is more cost, more taxes, more debt, more on the national credit card, more of the same. The Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal with nothing to show for his waste.
Gas prices surged 28.6% in April, grocery prices were up 3.8% in April and energy prices rose 19.2%. My community is being squeezed, and they cannot pay more.
Conservatives have a real plan to give Canadians relief from Liberal inflation by removing all federal fuel taxes for the year. On what day will the Liberals adopt it?
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek should talk to the 10,600-plus people in his riding who have accessed dental care that he and his party voted against. Perhaps he should talk to the over 20,700 families that access the Canada child benefit and the benefits that this government has put on the table to fight for affordability that he and his party consistently vote against.
Whether it is child care, a national school food program or improvements in recreation facilities, the Conservatives have voted against every single measure to improve the lives of Canadians, including those in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.
Mr. Speaker, last week the CRTC announced that it will be tripling the online streaming tax from 5% to 15%. This tax will now drive up the cost that consumers pay for things like Netflix or Disney+. Just this weekend, Spotify announced that, taking effect in July, they will be increasing their prices.
For over 800 years, it has been parliamentary tradition that only Parliament imposes a tax. Regulators like the CRTC do not have the authority to do that. Will this government speak to the CRTC and make it reverse course?
Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear, this is not a new tax. This is an imaginary tax, once again brought up in the House.
Our government is relentlessly focused on the cost of living for Canadians. That is why we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. This decision from the CRTC only ensures that existing rules are applied in a way that fosters fair competition. This is about protecting Canada's distinct culture and identity, and ensuring the vitality of our cultural sectors.
Mr. Speaker, a tax is a tax is a tax. He can call it whatever he wants, but at the end of the day Canadians pay more. That is a tax.
This tax will do much more than just cost Canadians. It will actually impact us in terms of our negotiations with regards to CUSMA. The Liberal government has already been accused of escalating this irritant. It has already been signalled by the U.S. that this will in fact hinder us in terms of getting a deal, a deal that the Prime Minister promised to get for us months ago and has failed to deliver.
Will this Liberal government cancel this costly tax, protect our trade relationship with the United States, protect Canadian jobs, protect trade and get it done?
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, it is official: The Prime Minister is an environmental sellout. It has been announced that a new dirty oil pipeline will be built as early as 2027. This is a pipeline that could violate environmental laws and endanger species at risk. The environmental assessment for this pipeline will be carried out by the Canada Energy Regulator in Calgary, and the Prime Minister will even be able to change the criteria as time goes on. Furthermore, construction may begin before the assessment has even been completed.
This is an environmental sellout that will have a ripple effect for generations. Are there any Liberals who will refuse to be complicit?
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to paraphrase our Prime Minister. He said that we live in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. What matters to us is that we all work together, with all the provinces and across Canada, to improve our economic competitiveness, but also to meet our climate targets. We have not given up on meeting the 2050 net-zero target.
Personally, I am working very hard on the nature strategy, a strategy that has drawn unanimous support across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to selling out on the environment, the Prime Minister is taking things farther than Stephen Harper. We are not the ones saying it. The Liberal member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie says it, and he is not alone. About 15 Liberals have written to the Prime Minister to express their uneasiness with the shift to oil and gas. About 15 Liberals reminded him that climate change is the most serious threat of our time.
If this is the most serious threat of our time, what is stopping them from standing up and leaving their party?
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I am very proud to be part of a government that takes climate change and environmental protection very seriously. However, economic development is also essential to our country's future.
When we speak of the environment and the fight against climate change, we might think of clean energy tax credits amounting to as much as $90 billion, or the nature strategy, which will protect 30% of our land by 2030, or industrial carbon pricing, or regulations that will reduce our methane emissions by 75% by 2030. These are real and concrete actions for protecting nature.
Taxation
Mr. Speaker, after weeks of pressure from the Conservative Party, the Liberals have finally come to their senses and eliminated the excise tax on gasoline, but that is not enough. The Liberals continue to maintain the so-called clean fuel standard, another hidden tax that currently adds 7¢ per litre and could rise to 17¢ per litre by 2030. Canadians need real relief now, not a half-measure from the Liberals.
Will the Prime Minister finally abolish the clean fuel standard, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to take steps to improve affordability. We have already cut the gas tax by 10¢. That has an impact on Canadians. We need to keep implementing a range of measures, not just a single measure. That is important. We have been working on this, and people will soon receive their cheques for the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, if they have not already. That is what helping Canadians is all about.
We need to work on multiple fronts, and that is exactly what we are doing, in addition to working to grow our economy and protect the environment.
Mr. Speaker, countries around the world are working to help their citizens. As everyone knows, filling up the car with gas is really expensive these days. Everyone is talking about it everywhere. The holidays are coming up, and it costs a fortune to gas up. Australia, Spain and Ireland have realized this and have eliminated gas taxes.
What is the government waiting for now to eliminate the GST? The GST applied to the cost of gas is on top of other taxes. Will the government eliminate it, at least temporarily, to give people some breathing room?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about giving people some breathing room and about helping Canadians. He could start by voting for measures that directly help Canadians in their daily lives. One example is the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will help 12 million Canadians. They will receive their first payment on June 5. That member opposes this measure. Another example is the Canadian dental care plan, which helps at least 25,000 people in his riding, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. He also opposes that. Another example is the tax cut for 22 million Canadians. That was the first thing we did. It is time for my colleague to walk the talk and support the government.
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals we get higher costs, higher taxes, more spending, and more job losses. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue thinks that the Liberals have done enough. I agree. They have done enough damage.
Just look at how they are managing the new Liberal space launch pad. A company is renting land from the provincial government for $13,500 a year. That company then rents it to the Liberal government for $20 million a year, which is $200 million over 10 years on our children's credit card.
The question is simple: If it were your money, what would you do?
Mr. Speaker, establishing sovereign space launch capabilities in Canada will generate billions of dollars, create well-paying jobs, strengthen Canada's sovereignty, reduce our dependence on the United States and support a commercial space launch and re-entry sector that could be worth up to $40 billion.
That is what we are investing in.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, here is proof of how ridiculous the Liberals are. A company is leasing a piece of land for $13,500 a year and subletting it to the government for $20 million. That is Liberal management.
Right now, it is harder for our young people to find a job than it has been for 50 years. They are struggling to find jobs, secure housing and put food on the table. They can no longer dream of owning a home or starting a family.
Will the Prime Minister apologize for what he said about our children and stop spending on our children's credit card?
Mr. Speaker, a government that supports its young people with $6 billion for job training in the building trades that are going to be in high demand is a government that believes in its young people, that believes in the future and that walks the talk when it comes to major projects.
Last week, the Prime Minister was in Saint-Michel-des-Saints to announce Nouveau Monde Graphite. That is $2 billion that is being injected into the Quebec economy. This is the biggest graphite mine in the G7. We are talking about hundreds of jobs. This is the type of major project that we need in Quebec and across the country for our young people.
Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Liberal Prime Minister to look a young Quebecker in the eye and tell them that the economy is doing well.
How can he justify the 91,000 jobs lost so far this year in Quebec, including 43,000 in April alone? The Liberal Prime Minister is racking up endless credit card debt, and our young people will be getting a bill that they will never be able to pay. It is unbelievable.
When will the Liberal government stop making costly budgets and give the next generation hope and a chance?
Mr. Speaker, we know how to give the next generation a chance and an opportunity: by making investments that create jobs.
We can celebrate the new order for 150 new commercial aircraft from Airbus in Mirabel. This is the largest order in the history of commercial aviation in Canada. That is good news for people in the Lower Laurentians.
There is more good news. I was also with the Quebec government when we announced new funding for Kruger in Trois-Rivières, which represents 350 new jobs. We recognize the company's impact in the region.
Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister officially broke ground on Nouveau Monde Graphite's Matawinie mine in Saint-Michel-des-Saints, in the Lanaudière region of Quebec, just six months after the project was submitted to the Major Projects Office. Once completed, this mine will be the largest graphite mine in North America and the G7.
Can the Minister of Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant inform the House as to how this project will strengthen our critical minerals supply chain and support our efforts to build a stronger, more independent and more resilient Canadian economy?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Terrebonne and say that it is a pleasure to thank her in the House.
The launch of the Matawinie mine in Saint-Michel-des-Saints is a significant step toward our energy sovereignty. In addition to becoming the largest graphite mine in the G7 and increasing our production eightfold, it will meet Canadian demand and strengthen the resilience of our allies with whom we have signed more than 56 agreements on critical minerals over the past year.
I am proud of this project. It will inject $2 billion into our economy and create hundreds of jobs.
Projects like Nouveau Monde Graphite are what it means to be masters in our own house.
[English]
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, immediately following question period, the House will vote on our Conservative motion to protect homeowners from a failed Liberal approach that is putting British Columbians' homes and futures at risk. Our motion would prioritize private property rights in the Cowichan case, require explicit private property rights protections in future agreements with first nations and force the government to establish a plan to protect affected Canadians.
Will the government support our common-sense motion, yes or no?
Mr. Speaker, yet again, it is either misinformation or disinformation coming from the Conservatives. Either way, Canadians need to understand the facts.
The facts are that the government is appealing the Cowichan decision in the courts today and that the government has stood up for the rights of private property owners. It is also important that Canadians understand that not a single Canadian has ever lost any private property in any agreement with an indigenous community. Conservatives are spreading misinformation, risking substantial economic growth in British Columbia and putting at risk true reconciliation and economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, the only people putting reconciliation at risk are the Liberal government members and that member from British Columbia, who should know better. The amount of uncertainty created in British Columbia, not just in the city of Richmond, is the result of the Liberal government's failing to stand up for private property rights. It appealed at the last minute. It put so much uncertainty in the air. The only organization appealing for private property rights is the City of Richmond.
The government has failed. It needs to do better. Will it support our Conservative motion to fix the problem the government created?
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the way have brought up this issue numerous times, and we have been very clear that we will stand for private property rights and protect those rights in British Columbia.
This is about creating fear and uncertainty where it is unnecessary, and it is not helping us to move forward as a country, as a province and as a community. We are focused on defending private property rights in Canada, period.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing to defend Canada's system of private property rights and indefeasible title while sowing confusion and fear among homeowners about whether their land is secure. With the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement raising serious and valid concerns, British Columbians are wondering whether their private property rights will be defended at all, especially after the government constrained its arguments on extinguishment.
Will the Liberal government fix its litigation and negotiation policies and commit to protecting Canadians' property rights by supporting our Conservative motion today?
Mr. Speaker, it is shameful to continue to hear members of the opposition fearmongering about private property rights. We, on this side of the House, stand for private property rights. We stand for reconciliation. We have appealed the case alongside the B.C. government, the government of the City of Richmond and first nations. We will continue to be there for private property owners and to work for reconciliation. The fearmongering has to stop.
Mr. Speaker, families on Vancouver Island worked hard, played by the rules and bought their homes in good faith. They deserve certainty about their property and their futures, yet under the Prime Minister's watch, the mishandling of the Cowichan case and the closed-door Musqueam agreement have shaken that certainty. Industry, businesses and homeowners are anxious. Communities are divided. Meaningful reconciliation has been set back by division.
Leadership means bringing people together. The Prime Minister has failed that test. Will he finally show any leadership and support our Conservative motion to protect property rights, restore confidence and unite rather than divide the people he is supposed to serve?
Mr. Speaker, the only party in the House that is bringing that fear is the Conservative Party of Canada. The only party in British Columbia that is doing that is the Conservative Party of British Columbia, and the only reason they are doing this is to instill fear. Everyone knows that their private property rights are not at risk. The government is defending them as we speak, and that is how we will always protect the property rights of all individuals in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are in denial. Canadians are demanding certainty, yet the Liberal government continues to leave homeowners, businesses, farmers and municipalities in limbo after the Cowichan decision. Conservatives have put forth a motion that would compel the government to replace litigation guideline 14, put private property first in the Cowichan case, secure fee simple property protection in future agreements and publish a plan to protect Canadians' land titles.
Will the Liberal government finally stand with homeowners and vote for our Conservative motion to protect private property rights in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, our government has said time and time again, and has shown through action, that we stand with the people of British Columbia, we stand with private title rights holders and we stand with indigenous people. We are taking the appropriate action, and we are appealing the decision in the courts.
It is frightening how the Conservatives are attempting to whip up disinformation and scare private property owners, who need to know the government has their back.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, the Minister of Immigration is supposed to show up for four hours to be held to account for her decisions during the committee of the whole, but she has not confirmed that she will attend or that she will answer questions for the full four hours, as her colleague, the finance minister, did. I understand that she is scared to be held to account for the atrocious dumpster fire she has presided over for the last year, but she has a job to do, and if she will not do it, the Prime Minister needs to finally fire her.
Will the Minister of Immigration commit to answering questions for the full four hours on Thursday night, or will the Prime Minister finally fire her?
Mr. Speaker, the question is ridiculous coming from the member. I am here today, I am here every day this week and I am here on Thursday. How ridiculous can one be?
We have, in the last 12 months, acted for Canadians. We have managed migration. The facts prove it. The asylum claims are down. Temporary resident population is down. There are new express entry systems to fast-track doctors, tradespeople and people we need in rural communities. Our francophone immigration is proceeding at—
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take that as a “No, I cannot do my job and will not show up for work for four hours.” I understand why the minister does not want to show up for four hours. In the last two weeks alone, there have been multiple cases of sweetheart deals for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes. Terrorists are still in Canada, and money is being poured into refugee hotels.
I will ask again, will the Minister of Immigration show up for the full four hours on Thursday night and be held to account for her terrible decisions?
Mr. Speaker, the minister just said she would be here for committee of the whole. The real question is, as the minister recites the list of accomplishments and improvements that are occurring in the immigration system on a daily, weekly and monthly—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I could not hear the hon. government House leader. It is not his fault, and it is not my fault.
An hon. member: From the top.
The Speaker: He will not start from the top, but we will give maybe a few extra seconds at the end.
The hon. government House leader has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, the minister recites the formidable accomplishments that are being realized under her tenure: Immigration is down, and asylum seekers are down. There are incredible accomplishments of the minister.
The real question is, when will the member stop with the degrading and very condescending questioning that she continues to put, without any foundation, to the minister?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know about others, but I think it is a little condescending that the Minister of Transport gets up to answer the questions that were directed toward the Minister of Immigration.
I will say this: It is absolutely mind-boggling that the person in charge of one of the most critical files in government, who gets paid $300,000 and has a taxpayer-funded driver, cannot even be bothered to show up for work for four hours to be held to account. She has not committed to the full four hours. She needs to look behind her, because all of her caucus openly wonders to the CBC why she still has her job.
Will the Minister of Immigration stand up and say, “Yes, I will be there for four hours” to answer our questions?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians expect transparency and honesty, not bullying and degrading from the member and people she works with. I have said I am here today and am here Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. I am here at the committee of the whole, and I very much look forward to answering all their questions, because Canadians know that the government is doing the job they have elected us to do.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, a Pearson ramp worker said, “I walk right out through the terminal doors.... Nobody checks you”, and “We joke that you could walk out carrying a cruise missile”. That is from a W5 investigation exposing organized crime using travellers' baggage to traffic drugs through Pearson airport, a scheme that has been happening for a very long time.
Given the transport minister's silence on this brazen security failure, Canadians want to know, with the FIFA games set to start in weeks and over a billion dollars committed to security, if the Liberals are not taking this seriously now, why are Canadians to believe they ever will with our security?
Mr. Speaker, the safety and security of Canadians is our top priority. Canadian law enforcement works closely with airport authorities, airlines, border agencies and international counterparts to detect criminal activity, protect travellers and disrupt organized crime networks involved in drug trafficking.
[Translation]
Foreign Investment
Mr. Speaker, our aerospace sector is an economic driver that supports thousands of skilled, well-paid jobs, particularly in Quebec.
Earlier this month, Airbus and AirAsia announced the largest order in history for aircraft designed and manufactured in Canada. This is concrete proof that our strategy to diversify trade with international partners is bearing fruit.
Can the Minister of Industry inform the House of the measures the government is taking to attract investment, support innovation and continue to build a stronger economy?
Mr. Speaker, at last, a good question, and it comes from my colleague from Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.
Indeed, two weeks ago we received some very good news for the aerospace sector, particularly for Airbus in Mirabel. There are now 150 new aircraft under construction in Mirabel. This is an order placed by AirAsia, a Malaysian—and therefore Asian—airline, with Airbus, a European company.
All of this proves that our plan is working. We are capable of attracting foreign investment.
[English]
Justice
Mr. Speaker, with the Liberals, it is more crime, more fear and more chaos, simply more of the same. Extortion is raging across this country, and victims are living in a state of perpetual terror. Homes are being burned, businesses are being shot at and communities are under attack, yet the Liberal Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe that the Liberals are tough on crime, when Bill C-16 would actually make our justice system weaker.
When will the Liberal government repeal its failed soft-on-crime laws and finally make criminals who do the crime do their time?
Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the excellent work of Peel Regional Police in collaboration with the OPP, CBSA, FINTRAC and the FBI, which announced the arrest of 17 individuals connected to an international criminal network. This network is responsible for violent extortion targeting the South Asian community across Canada. The operation dismantled a campaign involving 24 incidents, resulting in 106 charges.
Extortion and intimidation will never be tolerated in Canada. That is why the Peel Police and others have asked for Bill C-22, on lawful access, to be passed by the House.
Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of the Liberals' soft-on-crime policies, Canadians are seeing more crime and chaos on our streets. Since 2015, violent crimes have risen by 55% nationally, while extortion has surged by 330%. In Surrey alone, extortion is up 2,400%. Liberal catch-and-release policies like Bill C-5 and Bill C-75 have led to Canadians' being more vulnerable and less safe.
When will the government repeal its failed soft-on-crime laws, restore mandatory minimums and make sure that criminals serve the time that they deserve?
Mr. Speaker, our plan is working, and that is what the Peel Regional Police's investigation results show. The police have arrested over 17 individuals.
Unfortunately, the investigation took eight months. What could have sped up that investigation so we could have caught those criminals within a month or less? Lawful access could have, but the Conservatives have been stalling the bill ever since we introduced it last year. It is what law enforcement is asking for, and we could mitigate having more victims because of the Conservatives' stalling.
Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals, criminals shoot by day and walk free by night. The Liberal criminal justice system is catch, release, arrest and repeat, while extortionists terrorize communities and families. Our Conservative plan would impose a mandatory 10-year sentence to lock these criminals up. We would kick out non-citizens convicted of these serious crimes.
Will the Liberals finally stand with victims, support our plan and bring back safe streets?
Mr. Speaker, like I said, our plan is working. We are strengthening our laws. We are catching criminals, and that is shown by the results we are seeing across the country right now. We have embedded FINTRAC into our law enforcement agencies, and we are also using CBSA to remove people who are removable. This plan is working, extortions are coming down and criminals are being put behind bars.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, conflicts around the world are intensifying, and Canadians are feeling their impact here at home. Meeting this moment means delivering on our security commitments and reinforcing the alliances that keep us safe. The Minister of Foreign Affairs recently came back from the NATO foreign ministers meeting in Sweden.
Can the minister please share with the House how Canada is working with our allies to turn our commitments into real capabilities?
Mr. Speaker, last week, I met with my NATO counterparts in Sweden following its historic accession to the NATO alliance, of which Canada was the first ratifier.
As global conflicts disrupt our supply chains, Canada is investing in our defence industry to meet 2% of GDP, reaffirming the support for Ukraine, condemning ongoing aggression and attacks against Ukraine and securing the confidence of our allies in establishing the defence, resilience and security bank. We are contributing to NATO's strength by building Canada strong.
CBC/Radio-Canada
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are outraged to learn that taxpayer dollars went to deceive and lie to individual Canadians, including RCMP veterans. A CBC production used fake websites, fake names and fake companies to lure them into supposed interviews about their lives after retirement, but it was all just a front, a set-up for some sort of twisted humiliation ritual in front of a live studio audience. This is insane.
Does the minister really think that it is acceptable for the state broadcaster to use taxpayer money to lie and deceive, and to smear the reputations of individual Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the CBC is an independent Crown corporation. Commenting on specific programming would be inappropriate, and I am sure the member opposite would agree.
To be clear with regard to this show, production has been paused, and the show has never aired. However, I think it is right that every citizen of Canada has the right to have an opinion on CBC, as it is a public broadcaster, so you can direct your comments directly to the CBC.
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians, “we don’t want to hear what people are against; we want to hear what they’re for”. He has abandoned the environment. He is gaslighting environmental groups that have been calling for renewable energy for decades. No wonder the former environment minister resigned and Liberal MPs feel they can raise their concerns only anonymously. This is an authoritarian approach, not democracy.
Will the Prime Minister stop his bullying tactics, the sidelining of indigenous leaders who dare to disagree with him, or do they need to do what Danielle Smith is doing: threaten to hold a referendum to separate from Canada?
Mr. Speaker, we cannot build Canada strong and clean if we are not working together. That is why we are thinking differently, strategically, to deliver real results for Canadians. We have introduced new methane regulations and $90 billion in clean investment tax credits. We brought Alberta to the table for the first time, making sure that we move together for the future, and I was so proud to be in Klemtu this weekend, where we worked with six first nations and the Province of British Columbia to protect 6,500 square kilometres of marine conservation for future generations.
Government Orders
[Business of Supply]
[English]
Business of Supply
Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada
The House resumed from May 7 consideration of the motion.
It being 3:13 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 121)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Block
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Small
Steinley
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 139
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Bonin
Boulerice
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
DeBellefeuille
d'Entremont
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thériault
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 199
PAIRED
Members
MillerPlamondon
Total: -- 2
Military Justice System Modernization Act
[Government Orders]
The House resumed from May 8 consideration of the motion that Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.
Pursuant to order made on Monday, May 4, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion at third reading stage of Bill C-11.
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberals voting no.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)
(Division No. 122)
YEAS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Barsalou-Duval
Beaulieu
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Block
Bonin
Bonk
Borrelli
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Brunelle-Duceppe
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Champoux
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
DeBellefeuille
Deltell
DeRidder
Deschênes
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Fortin
Gallant
Garon
Gaudreau
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Larouche
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Lemire
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Normandin
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Perron
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Savard-Tremblay
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Simard
Small
Steinley
Ste-Marie
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thériault
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 160
NAYS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Battiste
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blois
Boulerice
Brière
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
d'Entremont
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Gasparro
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 178
PAIRED
Members
MillerPlamondon
Total: -- 2
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberals voting yes.
[Translation]
[English]
[Translation]
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
(Division No. 123)
YEAS
Members
AcanAl Soud
Ali
Alty
Anand
Anandasangaree
Auguste
Bains
Baker
Bardeesy
Barsalou-Duval
Battiste
Beaulieu
Beech
Begum
Belanger (Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River)
Bendayan
Bittle
Blanchet
Blanchette-Joncas
Blois
Bonin
Brière
Brunelle-Duceppe
Carney
Carr
Casey
Chagger
Champagne
Champoux
Chang
Chartrand
Chatel
Chen
Chenette
Chi
Church
Clark
Connors
Cormier
Coteau
Dabrusin
Dandurand
Danko
DeBellefeuille
d'Entremont
Deschênes
Deschênes-Thériault
Desrochers
Dhaliwal
Dhillon
Diab
Duclos
Duguid
Dzerowicz
Earle
Ehsassi
El-Khoury
Erskine-Smith
Eyolfson
Fancy
Fanjoy
Fergus
Fisher
Fonseca
Fortier
Fortin
Fragiskatos
Fraser
Fry
Fuhr
Gaheer
Gainey
Garon
Gasparro
Gaudreau
Gazan
Gerretsen
Gill (Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan)
Gladu
Gould
Grant
Greaves
Guay
Guilbeault
Gull-Masty
Hajdu
Hanley
Harrison
Hepfner
Hirtle
Hodgson
Hogan
Housefather
Hussen
Iacono
Idlout
Jaczek
Jeneroux
Johns
Joly
Joseph
Kayabaga
Kelloway
Khalid
Klassen
Koutrakis
Kwan
Lalonde
Lambropoulos
Lamoureux
Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles)
Lapointe (Sudbury)
Larouche
Lattanzio
Lauzon
Lavack
Lavoie
LeBlanc
Leitão
Lemire
Lightbound
Long
Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga)
Ma
MacDonald (Malpeque)
MacDonald (Cardigan)
MacKinnon (Gatineau)
Malette (Bay of Quinte)
Maloney
Martin
May
McGuinty
McKelvie
McKinnon (Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam)
McKnight
McLean (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke)
McPherson
Ménard
Mendès
Michel
Miedema
Mingarelli
Morrissey
Myles
Naqvi
Nathan
Nguyen
Noormohamed
Normandin
Ntumba
Oliphant
Olszewski
O'Rourke
Osborne
Perron
Petitpas Taylor
Powlowski
Provost
Ramsay
Rana
Robertson
Rochefort
Romanado
Royer
Sahota
Saini
Sarai
Sari
Savard-Tremblay
Sawatzky
Schiefke
Sgro
Sheehan
Sidhu (Brampton East)
Sidhu (Brampton South)
Simard
Sodhi
Solomon
Sousa
Ste-Marie
St-Pierre
Sudds
Tesser Derksen
Thériault
Thompson
Turnbull
Valdez
van Koeverden
Vandenbeld
Villeneuve
Watchorn
Weiler
Wilkinson
Yip
Zahid
Zerucelli
Zuberi
Total: -- 198
NAYS
Members
AboultaifAitchison
Albas
Allison
Anderson
Anstey
Arnold
Au
Baber
Bailey
Baldinelli
Barlow
Barrett
Bélanger (Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt)
Berthold
Bexte
Bezan
Block
Bonk
Borrelli
Boulerice
Bragdon
Brassard
Brock
Calkins
Caputo
Chambers
Chong
Cobena
Cody
Cooper
Dalton
Dancho
Davidson
Davies (Niagara South)
Dawson
Deltell
DeRidder
Diotte
Doherty
Dowdall
Duncan
Epp
Falk (Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake)
Falk (Provencher)
Gallant
Généreux
Genuis
Gill (Calgary Skyview)
Gill (Brampton West)
Gill (Calgary McKnight)
Gill (Windsor West)
Gill (Abbotsford—South Langley)
Godin
Goodridge
Gourde
Groleau
Guglielmin
Gunn
Hallan
Hardy
Ho
Hoback
Holman
Jackson
Jansen
Jivani
Kelly
Khanna
Kibble
Kirkland
Konanz
Kram
Kramp-Neuman
Kronis
Kuruc
Kusie
Lake
Lantsman
Lawrence
Lawton
Lefebvre
Leslie
Lewis (Essex)
Lewis (Haldimand—Norfolk)
Lloyd
Lobb
Mahal
Majumdar
Malette (Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk)
Mantle
Martel
Mazier
McCauley
McKenzie
McLean (Calgary Centre)
Melillo
Menegakis
Moore
Morin
Morrison
Motz
Muys
Nater
Patzer
Paul-Hus
Poilievre
Redekopp
Reid
Rempel Garner
Reynolds
Richards
Roberts
Rood
Ross
Rowe
Ruff
Scheer
Schmale
Seeback
Shipley
Small
Steinley
Stevenson
Strahl
Strauss
Stubbs
Thomas
Tochor
Tolmie
Uppal
Van Popta
Vien
Viersen
Vis
Wagantall
Warkentin
Waugh
Williamson
Zimmer
Total: -- 140
PAIRED
Members
MillerPlamondon
Total: -- 2
[Translation]
Privilege
Premature Disclosure of a Bill and its Elements to a Third Party
[Privilege]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning a breach of the collective rights and privileges of members in the House, specifically the fundamental right of members and the House to be informed first about government legislation.
The Speaker has consistently ruled that premature disclosure of a bill and its elements to third parties can constitute a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. This principle has been confirmed on several occasions in rulings rendered by various Speakers of the House, notably on March 19, 2001, March 9, 2011, and December 3, 2012.
More recently, on April 10, 2019, Speaker Regan reiterated that disclosing legislative information outside the House before it is introduced in the House undermines the fundamental role of parliamentarians, which is to legislate. On November 29, 2021, Speaker Rota confirmed that such disclosures, even partial ones, may constitute a violation of the collective privileges of the House. Finally—
[English]
It is difficult to hear the member speaking to a question of privilege. I would ask members to take their side conversations out of the room.
The hon. member.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, finally, on June 16, 2022, the Chair clarified that establishing a proven leak is not necessary: The reasonable appearance of early third-party access may be enough to establish a prima facie breach. I respectfully submit that the facts before us meet that very threshold. The chronology of events leads us to believe that parliamentarians' rights have been violated.
On April 8, 2026, Air Canada publicly announced the implementation of a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints. In its economic statement on April 28, 2026, the government signalled its intention to reform precisely this type of mechanism. On May 6, 2026, the government tabled Bill C-31, which contains provisions directly related to these changes.
This series of events raises serious questions. How could a regulated entity not only have anticipated but also operationalized a mechanism aligned with legislative intentions which, at the time, had not been shared with Parliament or even made public by the government?
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am sure you will agree that this cannot be a mere coincidence or a random or uncertain interpretation. The facts and the sequence in which they occurred line up perfectly. First, Air Canada announced its initiative. Second, the government made an announcement 20 days later in its economic statement and third, the government tabled Bill C-31.
This situation echoes concerns raised in previous Speaker's rulings, namely, the actual or perceived granting of an informational advantage to a third party to the detriment of members of Parliament. As Speaker Scheer stated on March 3, 2014, members must be the first to see new legislation.
However, in this case, not only were members not the first to be informed, but specific action was taken outside the House before the government even disclosed the existence of this legislation. That raises not only the possibility of premature disclosure but also the reasonable perception that an external party was given privileged access to legislative content, which, according to the practices of the House, is sufficient to establish a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is not for the Chair to determine whether a leak occurred or to identify the source. The question is more limited: Does the evidence presented and documented support a finding of a potential breach of the privileges of the House? I would suggest that, in this case, the answer is obvious.
The sequence of events, the nature of the facts and the alignment between Air Canada's actions and the government's subsequent legislation raise, at the very least, a serious issue requiring careful examination, particularly since, according to the lobbyist registry, there were over 100 meetings between Air Canada representatives and government officials, among others.
In these circumstances, in keeping with established practice, I ask that you find that this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. If necessary, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I would just indicate to you that at some point we will come back to provide a view on the issue that has been raised.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we will consider the question of privilege raised by my colleague, and we reserve the right to speak on the matter later.
I thank all members for their interventions.
[English]
The Chair will take that under advisement and report back to the House.
I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded divisions, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by a further 18 minutes, for a total of 48 minutes.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C-16, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters regarding child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, entitled “'An Extraordinary Opportunity for Canada': The Development of Critical Minerals”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table our dissenting report, because what we heard at committee was 10 years of wasted time with these Liberals. Our dissenting report goes through the repealing of the Impact Assessment Act to shorten approvals, eliminate red tape and respect provincial jurisdiction. This is very important, because we have heard of many mining projects that have been shelved because of this act. We also, in this report, talk about the fast-tracking of all current mining-related projects stuck in the federal regulatory queue. That is supported by industry.
With the Major Projects Office, one witness warned that “looking to attract investment through the bottleneck of the MPO is unlikely to produce the outcomes that we're looking for.” For that and many other good reasons, we submit our dissenting report on what we should do as a nation.
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition initiated by a strong fellow Manitoban, Bea Bruske, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, which represents over three million workers across Canada.
This petition calls on the Liberal government to end its strike-breaking tactics, repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code and uphold workers' charter-protected right to strike, something that thousands of delegates at the CLC convention voted to support. My and my NDP colleagues' bill, Bill C-247, which will be debated this week, would repeal section 107. I echo the message from the thousands of workers who signed this petition for the Liberal government to uphold the right to strike in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present two petitions today, the first of which is an e-petition that received over 1,000 signatures from Canadians across the country, and particularly from my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands.
It is a civil society-based effort, launching as well this week in Victoria, with support from many nations around the world. The petitioners hope that Canada will take the lead in seeking the ratification of an international peace charter.
The petitioners note that global conflict is increasing and geopolitical instability threatens lives and livelihoods, and of course peaceful coexistence all around the world. In pursuit of an international peace charter, the petitioners have developed a strong campaign calling for self-determination, finding truth and countering disinformation, and promoting human dignity, diversity, justice and accountability.
I am honoured to present this petition today.
Mr. Speaker, the second petition comes from constituents concerned with the status of animals in this country. Under law, they are seen only as property, without recognizing that they are sentient beings, living beings, with the ability to feel pain, fear, comfort and other experiences.
The petitioners cite the support of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association in saying that animal sentience should be formally recognized in Canadian law. The e-petition, which was signed by many Canadians, asks that the Government of Canada take this consideration.
We have tried before in this House to have legislation to cease treating animals as property. The petitioners hope that we will take this up again and consider legislation to recognize the nature of animals as sentient beings.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by over 13,000 people about prolonged security screening delays for PR applicants.
Internal IRCC projections reveal that PR applications referred for comprehensive security screening are projected to take nearly 65 months, which is over five years, to complete. I have so many constituents who are faced with this problem.
The petitioners point out that the applicants from certain countries of origin face indefinite, non-transparent delays, that these delays cause severe harm, including prolonged family separation, mental health crises and significant financial burdens, and that the applicants lack meaningful recourse or transparent case information.
The petitioners call on the House for a number of measures to ensure accountability and transparency, so that people will know what is going on with their file. They want the reporting of data and for an independent immigration ombudsperson to investigate chronic delays and provide a formal escalation channel.
Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to be able to present a petition in support of the parental leave reforms announced by the Conservative Party. These are very popular reforms with petitioners and others. People want to see more flexible parental leave that allows people to make their own choices when it comes to integrating their work with time spent with family and children.
Petitioners draw the attention of the House to the fact that Canada's existing parental leave system is far too rigid. It should support families, instead of forcing them into rigid choices that do not reflect the realities of modern parenting. Petitioners want to see more flexibility to allow a balance between work, caregiving and skills development during the early years of a child's life. The current parental leave system, outside of Quebec, does not generally allow parents to pause and later resume parental leave, even where a temporary return to work would better suit the needs of the family and the employer.
Petitioners also point out that parents should be able to pursue education or skills training while on parental leave without loss of benefits, and that parents who provide occasional paid caregiving services to other families while caring for their own children should not face benefit clawbacks that discourage flexible work and the expansion of child care options.
Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to implement the Conservative proposals for a better parental leave system, to establish more flexible parental leave policies, allowing parental leave benefits to be paused and resumed within the existing maximum parental leave time frame of 18 months by mutual agreement between employer and employee, to ensure that parents can pursue education or skills training while on parental leave without losing access to benefits and to create a caregiving exception to EI parental leave benefit clawbacks so that parents may provide limited paid caregiving without penalty.
These changes are good for families, and they are good for the economy. They reflect the reality of the modern workforce, allowing people to continue to grow and develop their skills while being plugged into work at the same time as taking more time to be present and engaged with the lives of their children.
I commend that petition to the consideration of the House, and I certainly look forward to hearing what the government has to say in response to it.
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting highlights the concerns of Canadians about the government's attack on vocational institutions. Budget 2025 proposed restricting eligibility for the Canada student grant for full-time students to those attending public or not-for-profit institutions, excluding many students at regulated career colleges.
These are reputable institutions that provide important vocational training, providing skills to young people that align with the needs of the labour market, and yet the government is changing the situation such that any program at a university entitles one to make an application for student grants if they meet the financial need criteria, whereas no students would be eligible if they are at vocational institutions, outside of narrowly prescribed exceptions. This creates unequal treatment among students based on the type of institution they attend rather than the value or demand of their chosen field of study. For many in-demand careers, including in the skilled trades and in health care fields including, for instance, traditional Chinese medicine, the training is offered through regulated career colleges.
Removing grant eligibility risks reducing access to affordable training for students, particularly those from low and middle-income backgrounds, and limiting support for these programs may worsen existing labour shortages in critical sectors of the Canadian economy.
Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to reverse the proposed changes, to ensure equal and fair access to student financial assistance for all students regardless of institution type and to support training pathways that align with labour market needs, including skilled trades and other high-demand professions.
Mr. Speaker, next I would like to present a petition in support of my private member's bill, Bill C-260, the care not coercion act. Incidentally, more information about that is available at our custom website, carenotcoercion.ca.
Canadians are concerned about the many reports, including those laid out on our website, indicating a series of problems of veterans, people with disabilities, seniors and those living in poverty being offered MAID or euthanasia by bureaucrats when they are trying to access unrelated public services. These repeated, unprompted offers from those who are not even supposed to be involved in providing facilitated death can be coercive in nature and make it more difficult for people to access public services they are entitled to.
Petitioners call attention to the testimony of the CEO of Inclusion Canada, Krista Carr, before the finance committee, that she hears weekly complaints from people with disabilities who have had facilitated death proposed to them when they are trying to access other public services.
They highlight the story of Christine Gauthier, a veteran living with disability who was fighting simply to get a wheelchair stairlift from Veterans Affairs Canada. A caseworker suggested she pursue facilitated death instead.
These are not isolated cases. There are many examples of this on our website, carenotcoercion.ca. Bill C-260 would provide a response to this by prohibiting bureaucrats from proposing facilitated death to those who have not asked for information about it.
Petitioners hope that all members will get behind Bill C-260 and protect the ability of veterans, people with disabilities, the elderly, those living in poverty and all Canadians to be able to access public services without fear of this kind of coercion. They also want to see the government take additional steps to combat the problem of this coercion.
Mr. Speaker, finally, before we recessed, there was a very large group of young people from Newmarket—Aurora. My colleague from Newmarket—Aurora has convened a very large and active youth council that has been organizing its own petitions, responding to concerns that exist in that community.
I want to commend my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her incredible work with young people in her community and also the young people who worked hard to organize this petition, relating specifically to some issues of employment that I think are very important, relating to the desire of young people to have access to jobs, homes and hope.
Petitioners highlight that young Canadians are struggling to find jobs, afford housing and pay for education, yet the current Liberal government continues to prioritize international programs and foreign partnerships over the needs of young Canadians. Petitioners argue that the federal government has committed large amounts of money to foreign scholarships. While the federal government needs to continue to increase applicants' acceptance to current projected gaps in the labour market, it should be prioritizing the needs of domestic students first.
The petitioners note that the federal government continues to expand these international initiatives. Meanwhile, Canadian students continue to struggle in various ways to afford education and access employment opportunities that they need.
Therefore, petitioners call on the Government of Canada to prioritize public policy and funding that protect and expand access to education and work for Canadian youth, especially low- and middle-income students, before committing equivalent public resources to large international scholarship initiatives; to tie accepted applications to current and projected gaps within the workforce; and to create pathways for those who have completed their education within Canada to help fill current gaps within the Canadian labour market, and require that these international scholarships include a clear funding breakdown and a public assessment of likely effects on domestic students and labour markets, and measures to ensure that Canadian students benefit.
These wise young people from Newmarket—Aurora are proposing Canadian jobs and Canadian training for Canadian students. We want Canadian young people to be able to fill the gaps that exist in our labour market, so that we have opportunities for the next generation.
Again, I want to commend these young people from Newmarket—Aurora for their hard work on this excellent petition.
Mr. Speaker, I assure members that I only have one petition to present today. I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about human rights protections in India. The petitioners are saying that, according to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, various actors are supporting and enforcing sectarian policies that seek to establish India as a Hindu state.
The petitioners say that Christians in India are being targeted by extremists vandalizing their churches, attacking church workers, and threatening and humiliating their congregations. They also note that Indian Muslims are at risk of genocide, assault and sexual violence.
The petitioners are asking that the government ensure that any and all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists are sanctioned and that the government promote a respectful human rights dialogue between Canada and India.
Questions Passed as Orders for Return
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Privilege
Ministerial Compliance with Order in Council—Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 29 by the member for Peace River—Westlock concerning the government's failure to table certain documents.
The member argued that the Minister of International Trade failed to fulfill an obligation set out in an order in council by neglecting to table in the House the latest annual reports of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise.
Based on a decision rendered by Speaker Fraser on February 5, 1992, the member asserted that this failure deprived members of access to information required to carry out their parliamentary functions, particularly their oversight duties, and frustrated the operation of the House's processes for examining these reports. He therefore submitted that this failure engages the privileges of the House.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton also spoke in favour of this point of view.
In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said that the issue raised is one of statutory law, an area in which the Speaker is not empowered to intervene. He further noted that the case at hand differs from the situation in 1992 as the tabling of the ombudsperson's annual reports is not provided for by law, but by an order in council made by the executive. The parliamentary secretary added that the order in council does not include a deadline for tabling the reports. In his view, the matter does not relate to either a legislative requirement or a question currently before the House. Therefore, it cannot amount to a breach of privilege.
[Translation]
The Chair would like to begin by stating that, contrary to the arguments of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the House is the appropriate forum for raising this issue.
To paraphrase Speaker Fraser, while a matter may stem from a statutory requirement, it may still be procedural in nature. Indeed, it is the House that is responsible for determining whether the tabling of a document required by the House has been carried out or not.
That being the case, the Chair must determine the source of the requirement to table the documents in question.
First, it is critical to distinguish documents that are required by a law, an order of the House or the Standing Orders of the House from those that are not. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states in section 10.14:
A number of statutes set forth the specific circumstances for tabling documents. For example, some statutes require ministers to table annual reports of the departments, agencies and commissions that fall under their administrative responsibilities.
[English]
Standing Order 32(1) sets out the procedure to follow for tabling documents belonging to this first category, which are automatically referred to committee for review.
The tabling of the second type of documents, those that fall within the administrative responsibilities of the government but are not required by law, an order or the Standing Orders, is governed by Standing Order 32(2). It is the government's prerogative to decide whether it wishes to table these documents. Moreover, until 1968, this procedure was not automatic, and ministers had to obtain the House's approval before doing so.
[Translation]
In the ruling of February 5, 1992, referenced by the member for Peace River—Westlock, Speaker Fraser drew a link between the tabling of required documents and the ability of members and committees to discharge their functions. As he said on pages 6426–6427 of the Debates:
...all reports, returns and papers to be laid before the House in accordance with the requirements of the statute are automatically referred to a standing committee pursuant to Standing Order 32(5).
Thus, a failure to table any required document has the effect of impeding such committees from carrying out their mandate “to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House” as stipulated by Standing Order 108(1).
Yet, in the case before us, the mandate and mechanisms providing for the preparation and tabling of the annual reports of the Canadian ombudsperson for responsible enterprise are not set out in a law, an order of the House or the Standing Orders, but rather in an order in council made by the government.
In other words, the House has never required the tabling of this report.
[English]
The Journals of the House of February 11, 2022, and March 21, 2023, clearly show that the ombudsperson's previous reports were not tabled in accordance with the law, an order or the Standing Orders of the House, but instead pursuant to the government’s right to table documents under Standing Order 32(2).
Consequently, since no law, order of the House or standing order requires the tabling of these documents, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie breach of the House's privileges. However, it is strange that the government did not comply with a tabling requirement that it imposed on itself, and there are other parliamentary avenues available to members who wish to pursue this matter.
For these reasons, I now consider this question of privilege closed. I thank all members for their attention.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, my friend was making reference to the important issue of taxation during his speech. I would remind my friend that it has been about one year since the election, and the very first action that our Prime Minister took was to get rid of the carbon tax, which I think was very well-received by Canadians. Then a second action, taken just before summer, was a tax break for the middle class that benefited 22 million Canadians. Fast-forward to today, and we have yet another tax break dealing with the important issue of affordability, where we see the gas tax being reduced by the federal government on a temporary basis to help deal with the price of gas, given what is taking place in the Middle East.
I am wondering if my friend would not agree that those three tax initiatives were wonderful to see put into place and that he clearly supports them.
Mr. Speaker, yes, a year ago the government cancelled the carbon tax. I have to remind him that from 2015 to 2025, he spent all day long attacking those people who said that it was not very good to have a carbon tax. The Liberals said all the wrong things about that, but finally they recognized that was the right thing to do.
The member is talking about the tax break that his government gave for 10¢ of taxe d'accise, as we are calling it in French. By the way, in 1979, we have to remember that under Joe Clark, the Progressive Conservative Party government applied this and said that we had to raise it to a level that was attacked by the Liberals at that time, but when they were back in power in 1980, they doubled that taxation.
To the point about the taxe d'accise of 10¢—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for his speech, which I missed. I was going to ask him to give me a five-minute summary of his speech this morning, but I nevertheless agree with him on several points.
The government recently secured a majority. It is only fair to question the manoeuvring that led to this outcome. The government prepared an economic update without consulting the opposition parties or considering any requests that might have come from the other parties, which are doing their work thoroughly.
Now we have an economic update that does not include adequate support measures for businesses in the regions, particularly in the manufacturing sector. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on how the government handled the economic update. Why is there nothing concrete in it to help businesses in the regions?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague; his questions are always pertinent. It is indeed a pity that the government, which has now been in office for over a year, has not gone to the trouble of engaging with the opposition parties, which is absolutely essential, particularly in the case of a minority government.
That said, for the past few weeks, there has been talk of it being a majority government. It is a defector-led majority. It is a majority government made up of floor crossers. It is funny; I think it sounds quite good in both English and French.
Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals treat Canadians like a cash cow and spend so irresponsibly, they are adding more money to the national credit card, which means we have to put more money toward repaying the debt than funding public services.
What are the consequences of this kind of spending?
Mr. Speaker, I hear my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois applauding my colleague, who speaks impeccable French, with genuine enthusiasm. Incidentally, I urge everyone to read the biography he published a few months ago of our leader, the Leader of the Opposition.
My colleague's question is essential and fundamental. When someone lives beyond their means, sooner or later, they have to pay for that spending. What does that lead to? It leads to debt, deficits and interest on the debt. We know that every penny of GST we pay is used solely to pay the interest on the debt. That is terrible. It is great for bankers but terrible for Canadians. That is why we need to adopt a responsible and realistic approach. Unfortunately, the government that was elected in 2015 on the promise that there would be no deficit in 2019 has thrown that promise away.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hard-working small business owners, farmers and families in my riding of Middlesex—London, I say enough is enough. Bill C-30, the Liberal government's spring economic update implementation bill, does little to improve the quality of life for Canadians but does saddle them with lost investment opportunities and more generational debt. After months of the Prime Minister promising real change, Canadians are receiving more of the same temporary band-aids and half measures that fail to address the root causes of the affordability crisis, which is making life more expensive for every family across the country.
Let me be perfectly clear from the outset: This is not a serious economic policy but a collection of short-term, worthless political gestures designed to create headlines while the Liberals avoid making the hard decisions that Canada needs to get our economy back on track.
What does Bill C-30 actually deliver? It provides a temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel, but only until September 7. That is just four and a half months of partial relief. After that, the taxes snap right back, so families will be struggling at the pumps, small businesses will still face high operating costs and farmers will still have to pay more to bring food to our tables.
For those in Middlesex—London, where our rural roads stretch for kilometres and agriculture is the backbone of our local economy, this bill provides no relief at all. Farmers rely on diesel to run tractors, combines and transport trucks. Truckers haul our produce to market. Families drive long distances just to get to the city to buy groceries, go to a medical appointment or go to the grocery store. What the Liberal government is offering is not meaningful support. The bill gives it the opportunity for photo ops, plain and simple. It is a short-term gimmick to distract from the real pain that Canadians are facing every single day.
Conservatives have been crystal clear. We want the permanent removal of all federal taxes on fuel for the remainder of 2026 and beyond. That would deliver real, tangible results and savings of roughly 25¢ per litre at the pumps for families, truckers and farmers right across the country. That is about $1,200 a year for an average family. That is real help for the producers who keep our grocery store shelves stocked. Instead, the Liberals are offering this fleeting discount and calling it leadership. I call it what it is, which is insufficient and insulting to people who are struggling.
This pattern of temporary fixes repeats throughout the bill. There are minor tweaks to tax deductions for tradespeople, short extensions to EI benefits, small adjustments to the Canada pension plan and a few technical changes, such as an enhanced capital cost allowance. These may sound good in Liberal press releases and offer some temporary minor relief to some Canadians, but they do nothing to solve the real root causes of the problems, which are reckless Liberal spending, exploding Liberal deficits and a government that refuses to live within its means.
The so-called hero banker PM has run the federal deficit nearly double in less than a year, and there is nothing to show for it. We are now looking at the largest deficit, outside of the pandemic, in our history. The national debt exceeds $1.3 trillion. Interest payments alone now cost taxpayers more than $59 billion annually, more than we spend on health transfers to the provinces. Every Canadian family is effectively paying over $3,400 a year just to service this debt. That is money that could go toward schools and hospitals, or back into the pockets of hard-working Canadians, the ones who earned it.
While families in Middlesex—London are being forced to choose between filling their gas tank or their grocery cart and between paying the hydro bill or the mortgage, the Liberals are busy creating new funds and new ways to spend the money we do not have. They call it an “investment in the future”, but Canadians, especially rural Canadians, call that more debt being passed on to our children and grandchildren.
As someone who comes from a farming background, I hear every week from constituents that high fuel costs, with carbon taxes layered on top, and red tape are threatening the family farms that have been in operation for generations. These are the people who work from dawn to dusk to produce the food we all depend on, yet the government continues to punish them with policies that drive up their input costs while grocery prices keep climbing for everyone else.
The bill captures the Liberal approach perfectly: It manages the crisis instead of solves it and offers temporary relief instead of structural reform. The Liberals spend more, tax more and regulate more, and then hope no one notices when the bill is due.
If I were not a responsible, functioning adult, I might think that was a good idea. The Conservatives offer a fundamentally different vision, one grounded in common sense and fiscal responsibility. We believe that the government should live within its means, just as families and farmers across Middlesex—London do every single day. That starts with permanently axing the carbon tax, not just the consumer portion but the entire carbon tax, including the industrial backstop that is driving up the cost of fuel, fertilizers and natural gas for drying grain and heating barns.
The Conservatives would cut wasteful bureaucracy and the billions of dollars that are being squandered to consultants. We would repeal antidevelopment laws, such as Bill C-69, that block pipelines, energy projects and resource development. We would get serious about building homes by slashing red tape, speeding up approvals, incentivizing municipalities to build faster and removing the barriers that have made home ownership a distant dream for young families in our communities.
Only the Conservatives would unleash our natural resources responsibly so that Canada could be a leader in affordable, reliable energy, not just for ourselves but also for our allies around the world. By developing our oil and gas and critical minerals responsibly, we could create good jobs in ridings like mine that are rich in nearby manufacturing and development. We could also lower energy prices at home, strengthen our economic sovereignty and ensure that Canada is no longer held hostage by foreign supply chains.
I reject the idea that Canadians must keep paying higher taxes so that Ottawa can keep spending recklessly. I believe hard-working families deserve to keep more of their own money. I believe farmers and small businesses should not be punished for producing the foods and goods that keep this country running. I believe that the best way to help people is not through more government programs and subsidies, but through lower taxes, less red tape and real economic growth that creates opportunities for everyone. Bill C-30 would fail the test on every level. It is another chapter in the long, Liberal story of big promises and small results. It is more illusions of affordability, more illusions of fiscal irresponsibility and more credit card budgeting that would leave future generations to pay the price.
I am fed up. Canadians are fed up. They are tired of seeing their grocery and gas bills and their receipts go up, while their paycheques stay the same and their purchasing power shrinks. They are tired of broken promises from a government that talks about hope but purposely does nothing in its power to keep people from feeling hopeless. Canadians are tired of being told to just wait, while cynical Liberal politicians in Ottawa play games with their hard-earned money and their children's futures.
In Middlesex—London, the stories are the same. There are young couples unable to afford their first home, small business owners going bust because people cannot afford to go out anymore and seniors stretching fixed incomes to cover rising utilities. The people of Canada deserve better. They deserve a government that puts families first, respects taxpayers and focuses on the real priorities. They deserve affordable homes, lower costs at the pump and the grocery store, safer communities, and a strong, self-reliant Canada that stands on its own two feet.
That is exactly what Conservatives would deliver. We would bring common sense back to Ottawa. We would make life more affordable for every Canadian family. We would cut taxes, build homes that Canadians need, fix the budget and unleash the energy and resources that power our prosperity. We would rebuild Canada, where the next generation could actually get ahead and not just get by.
The choice before the House and before Canadians is clear. They can accept temporary gimmicks or demand a permanent solution. They can accept more debt or demand real relief. They can accept illusions or demand results. The Conservatives have chosen common sense. Will the Liberals listen to us?
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite spoke about her real concern for the affordability concerns that her residents are facing. She spoke a lot, in particular, about the increase in fuel prices and how that impacts farmers, as well as the increased costs of fertilizer.
I just want to give the member an opportunity. This has been caused by a unilateral war by the Trump administration against Iran, which caused the single largest increase in oil prices in world history. Would she acknowledge that as being the root cause of the current increase in fuel prices?
Mr. Speaker, the member's question fails to address something I can speak to, as I am someone who works in the agriculture industry and works daily with people in the agriculture industry. I can say that, since the carbon tax was implemented in Canada, our costs have gone up exponentially. Every single input cost in this country has gone up, and that started long before any conflict started around the globe.
I hear this from farmers every single day. Fuel costs are through the roof and fertilizer costs are through the roof. The government continues to pile on red tape and more bureaucracy that tie the hands of our producers, the ones who feed us. We should all be doing all we can to make sure it is easier to produce food in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague.
We are talking about consistency in government planning. I serve on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals are talking about Build Canada Homes, and they want to build more homes.
Our party has made concrete proposals and, right now, the industry's survival is in serious jeopardy. Does my colleague agree that it would have been a good idea to include the wage subsidy in the economic statement, or even to fix the spring gap for businesses?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very thoughtful question. Recently I have had the opportunity to sit down in London with homebuilders, developers and people who actually want to buy a home. I am hearing the same thing across my riding and across the country. We need to cut bureaucracy and red tape to make homes more affordable. Builders cannot build if they have to pay too many taxes. If the cost of a home now has hundreds of thousands of dollars in development charges, young families cannot afford to buy their first home.
We need to work together with municipal governments to find a way to cut red tape, cut taxes and incentivize builders to build homes that Canadians can afford.
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the member's speech, and I want to just bring things back a bit.
One part of her speech basically was about the shallow so-called half-measures, which is what we are calling them, of the Liberal government to provide relief for issues that it has caused. I am wondering if her constituents are seeing what mine are, that the reality does not match the illusion, the smoke and mirrors, of the government as it keeps pretending to be focused on Canadians and affordability.
Mr. Speaker, I hear from constituents every day.
Tony from Denfield wrote to me and said, “The Prime Minister says that Canadians need to suffer for a little while. Why can't the Liberals take half reduction in income so that they can feel the effects?”
John from Newbury said, “Cost of living is too high. People cannot afford groceries, let alone housing. What happened to fiscal responsibility? Tired of being forgotten.”
Ted from Putnam says, “Please keep fighting for the everyday taxpayer, and never forget who pays the bills. It seems like the other parties have forgotten where the buck stops.”
Well, I could not agree more with that. Conservatives will continue fighting every day to make sure that Canadians are not forgotten and that we hold this Liberal government to account.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my friend and colleague, the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas.
I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, which implements certain measures from the 2026 spring economic update. As members are well aware, we are debating this bill at a pivotal moment for our country. Around the world, economic and geopolitical uncertainty has reached unprecedented levels. Global markets remain extremely volatile. Conflicts in the Middle East and Europe continue to disrupt supply chains. Global energy disruptions and trade tensions are on the rise. Protectionism is making a comeback.
[English]
Around the world, economies continue to face significant instability. The world uncertainty index recently surged to its highest level ever recorded in its more than 60 years of history. Global growth remains very uneven. Trade tensions are on the rise. Geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East and in Europe continue to disrupt our supply chains and to create uncertainty in international markets. Many advanced economies are struggling with sluggish productivity growth, persistent inflationary pressures and rising debt burdens, and Canadians understand these global realities.
However, as I spoke with many constituents over the course of the last few weeks, and many Canadians indeed across the country, the feeling that keeps coming across is one of optimism. People see the chaos unfolding around the world, and more than ever, they are proud to be Canadian. In fact, a recent poll released just a few days ago shows that the number of Canadians who believe that Canada, this country, is headed in the right direction is at its highest level in a decade.
What Canadians expect from their federal government is seriousness, discipline and a clear economic path forward, and that is exactly what this government is delivering. The best way to ensure that Canada can weather this global wave of instability is by focusing on what we can control and building a strong economy here at home. The numbers speak for themselves. Wage growth has now outpaced inflation for more than three consecutive years, meaning Canadians are seeing sustained income growth. Inflation here in Canada has remained within the Bank of Canada's target range for two years now. In fact, inflation in Canada is now 26% lower than in the United States. Canada has the second-fastest growth rate in the G7 despite the trade war waged by the U.S. and continued global uncertainty, and according to the IMF, Canada is projected to remain the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 this year and next year. Since last summer, Canada has created over 77,000 jobs. Per capita, that is approximately two and a half times the pace of job creation in the United States.
While the war in Iran and the resulting disruptions in global energy flows have significantly increased prices at the pump, our government has taken decisive action to mitigate those impacts for Canadians by suspending the federal excise taxes on fuel from now until Labour Day.
Next Friday, 12 million Canadians will receive a one-time payment as part of the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This means a payment of up to $267 for individuals and up to $533 for a family of four. This benefit represents nearly $1,900 this year. That is real money and a real boost for Canadians who need it most.
[Translation]
Next Friday, 12 million Canadians will receive a top-up payment as part of our new groceries and essentials benefit. That means $267 for a single person and up to $533 for a family of four. We are talking about approximately $1,900 for the year. That is very tangible support that will make a real difference.
Over the past year, we have announced 15 major projects of national interest and six transformative economic strategies that will generate over $125 billion in investments and support more than 60,000 jobs across the country.
That includes the expansion of the Port of Montreal back home in Contrecoeur. It also includes Nouveau Monde Graphite's Matawinie mine in the Lanaudière region and the transformative high-speed rail project between Quebec City and Toronto.
[English]
To meet this moment, we also need to ensure that Canada has the reliable and affordable electricity needed to power the economy of the future. Through our new national electricity strategy, we will double our electricity supply here in Canada while building a stronger, more interconnected electricity grid right across the country. This means accelerating investments in transmission infrastructure, clean power generation, energy storage and grid modernization, all so that Canadian businesses and workers have access to the affordable energy they need in order to compete and to grow. This is good for our environment, and it is good for our economy. Canada's electricity is some of the cleanest in the entire world, and it is key to attracting more investments in advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence and critical minerals and, of course, to ensuring the competitiveness of our economy overall.
[Translation]
In the economic update, we are providing more than $13 billion in international climate finance. Although this investment received relatively little media attention, it was very important to me. It was also important to the Prime Minister. At a time when many countries, such as the United Kingdom and France, are cutting back on aid for climate protection, it is essential for all of us that Canada continue to show leadership, because climate change knows no borders, and helping the most vulnerable countries adapt and build their resilience is not only a moral responsibility for Canada, but also in our strategic interest.
As we make these investments, we are fulfilling our commitment to reduce the government's operating spending. Since last fall, we have reduced the deficit by $11.5 billion. In fact, Canada continues to have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Canada has by far the strongest fiscal position of any G7 economy, as well as an AAA credit rating, the highest in the world. I am not saying this just to boast about the Canadian economy, but because this fiscal strength is essential. In a world marked by instability, countries with sound and solid public finances like Canada have the ability to act, invest, and protect their citizens.
[English]
Canada is positioning itself to lead, and the world is taking notice. Foreign direct investment in Canada has reached its highest level in nearly two decades. Investors are choosing to invest here in Canada because of our skilled workforce, our stable institutions, our abundant natural resources and our responsible fiscal framework. That investment translates directly into jobs for Canadians, and it means new factories, new supply chains, new export opportunities and stronger economic sovereignty.
We are also redoubling our efforts to diversify Canada's economy. In a world where supply chains are being reshaped and global trade is becoming more fragmented, Canada must expand its economic partnerships and open new markets for Canadian businesses. Our objective is as clear as it is ambitious: to double Canada's non-U.S. trade over the next decade.
I have only a little time left but a lot to say. We simply cannot rely too heavily on any single market. That is why we have concluded over 20 new trade and security agreements on four different continents. Our non-U.S. exports are now up nearly 40%. That diversification makes Canada stronger and much more resilient. As the Prime Minister said very clearly at Davos, we know that “The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it.”
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the whole issue of a new electricity system across Canada to double our electricity. The thing I like best about this approach is that for years, the government, including this member, who has been here for years, as I have faced her for over six years now, has hobbled our electricity system across this country. Now it is flying in at the last minute saying, “Oh my gosh, we don't have enough electricity in Canada,” because we are actually importing electricity in Canada right now for the first time in decades, as a result of failed policies. It is now coming in as if it is the saviour and saying, “I get to fix this.” Well, if someone is an arsonist, they get to put out the fire.
Can I ask the member how she thinks she is going to solve something that she actually helped the government create, as opposed to turning it over to people who actually know how to solve something?
Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced our new electricity strategy and the beginning of consultations with stakeholders but also, importantly, with provinces and territories. We know electricity generation is done very differently from coast to coast to coast in this country. In Quebec, for example, we have incredible hydroelectricity, but that is not the case right across the country.
What we have set forward is an ambitious objective. Certainly, with all of the natural resources we have in Canada, we can be the provider of clean electricity to countries around the world.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 will increase food security risks by forcing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to give equal consideration to economic impacts and impacts on our food security. What does my colleague think about that?
Mr. Speaker, we are currently working on plan to ensure food security for Canadians. I would be pleased to continue discussing this issue with my colleague outside the House. However, it is important for us, as a government, to work together to secure our food sovereignty, especially since we have such a thriving agricultural sector here in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the spring economic update has some important new measures on the housing front: a $7-billion investment in the apartment construction loan program to build below-market rental units, and changes to the homebuyers plan.
Just yesterday I met a couple: Jack, a civil engineer, and Sophie, a youth counsellor. They just bought a new home, and they are very realistic about the costs that they are facing right now with some affordability pressures. I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister could speak a bit more about the measures in Bill C-30 and the spring economic update on housing, and how these are going to improve the outlook for young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that in my speech I did not have the time to go into detail about the many housing measures in the economic update. Of course, first-time homebuyers will be able to benefit from the purchase of their first home being tax free. There are significant investments in order to create affordable housing, including rental units, right across the country. There is social housing as well.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the incredible leadership of the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country when it comes to the $13 billion that we are investing in international climate financing, an issue I know he cares about very deeply.
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-30, there is not much climate commitment at all. We now know, concerning the MOU with the province of Alberta, that whereas the November 27 MOU said Canada and Alberta are committed to net zero by 2050, the May 15 MOU said they are committed to tangible progress toward net zero by 2050.
Has the Prime Minister now completely withdrawn from our legally binding commitments to reductions by 2035? Are we now retracting the commitment, which was already too late, to the year 2050?
Mr. Speaker, that is a very important question to delve into immediately. I do not know if the time given to me will be sufficient, but I would like to make very clear that the Prime Minister has committed and recommitted to our objective of reaching net zero by 2050. That is the commitment of our government.
It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, The Economy; the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Aerospace Industry; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Housing.
Mr. Speaker, as the representative for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, I want to take this moment to congratulate the Ancaster Lions Volleyball Club. The 18U rep team won a gold medal at nationals this past weekend in Calgary. The adage in sports is that we want to win the last game we play, and for many of these players, this was their last game of competitive volleyball. It was just amazing to go out on such a tremendous victory. I want to thank the coaches: Ed Bosveld; Coach Smitty, Jeff Smith; Caleb Joosse; and Brenden Vanderkruk.
As I reflect on this amazing achievement, I realize the importance of competitive sports, especially on the development of young men in their lives. It gives them a competitive outlet. There is the commitment, the training, the practice and the work on self-improvement. There is the personal responsibility that comes when the team relies on its players, and learning that their actions have consequences. Players learn that sometimes life is not fair and that, even when they do everything right, sometimes they do not win, and they have to learn how to deal with those losses. They have to train for success, learn the value of hard work, eat healthy and have healthy habits.
Above all, there is leadership and what it is to be part of a team working together towards a common goal. We are so proud of all the years of hard work by the athletes, coaches and the parents who supported these athletes all the way along. I say, “Way to go, boys.”
On that note, I will reflect on the spring economic statement. There is a $775-million investment in sports infrastructure and programming, from house leagues to the Olympics. Having been through competitive volleyball for a number of years, I can see first-hand the need for that investment on the ground in communities, in particular in the Golden Horseshoe area for court sports, such as basketball and volleyball, and for racquet sports. I am committed to advocating for those investments in our community.
I also want to take a moment to say happy birthday to my wife. It was her 50th birthday this past week when we were in our ridings. Members might ask how we celebrated her birthday. Well, it was a riding week, so we went to the Legion for Catch the Ace. We had a great evening. Everyone was very welcoming, but I do owe her a little bit more of a special evening event.
As we move on to the spring economic statement, I want to reflect that, just over a year ago, Canadians elected a serious, pragmatic government. Over the past year, our focus federally has really been on three major priorities: our economic and national security, responding to major global uncertainty and maintaining Canada's economy in constant in the face of that uncertainty. We are focused on affordability, lowering costs, supporting families, cutting taxes, and economic investments. In my personal role in advocating for federal investments in Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, my focus is on infrastructure spending, housing, and investments in the skilled trades and the next generation of workers.
I am really optimistic about Hamilton, Ancaster and Dundas's future. We have seen positive momentum in Canada over the past year, and Hamilton, Ancaster and Dundas are very well positioned for future growth. Our industrial base continues to power Canada's economy. We have one of the most diverse economies in all of Canada, led by steel and manufacturing and by health care and life sciences, which are actually Hamilton's largest employers. We are also leaders in research and innovation, with three post-secondary institutions in my riding, McMaster, Mohawk and Redeemer, leading in research and innovation and the skilled trades. Hamilton is a place that is known for labour for the skilled trades, and it will continue to lead in those sectors.
Of course, it goes without saying that there are challenges. The illegal American tariffs are an ongoing economic pressure for local industry. This is with an ongoing, unprecedented uncertainty in the world as we are dealing with a now hostile neighbour to the south. There are issues in Ukraine, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Taiwan and China, and a U.S. administration that has caused the single largest increase ever in the price of oil. While the U.S. has caused this problem and is risking a global recession because of it, it is the rest of the world that is left mitigating the impacts.
I also want to reflect on some of the successes of the past Trudeau government. There are three areas that come to mind as being particularly high points for the Trudeau government. The first is environment and climate change, making key commitments to take action on climate change, beginning Canada's transition to an electric future and taking action on mitigation of climate impacts.
The second is the protection of minority rights, in particular the rights of women. We have seen, in the U.S., systematic and deliberate erosion of the rights of women. MAGA-style politics is the basis for a lot of the current conservative approach. When I was watching The Handmaid's Tale with my wife, some of the flashbacks they showed hit a little too close to home, where we could see that kind of Christian nationalism taking form in the United States at this very moment. I want to talk about my Bloc colleagues as well. They are leaders on the separation of church and state, and I would like to work with them more collaboratively on how to make sure we continue that fundamental differentiation in Canada.
Last, the Trudeau government had an amazing response to the COVID pandemic. In hindsight, of course, our vision is 20/20. At the time, I was with the City of Hamilton, and we were dealing with the most profound public health crisis of the past century. From vaccines to taking concrete steps and leadership around the world in the face of a crisis, I think this will stand the test of time as being one of the shining moments for Canada. That brings me to the need for true leadership in a time of crisis.
There has been economic momentum in Canada, with Canada having the strongest fiscal position in the G7, among the highest employment growth, the second-highest GDP, inflation within the Bank of Canada's target range and wage growth exceeding inflation. We are the most tax-competitive jurisdiction for new business in the G7, and we have the lowest marginal tax rate. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and not just by a little bit. It is five times lower than Germany's and 10 times lower than the United States'. We have the best credit rating; record-high oil and gas production; record-high global investment, the highest in the G7, double that of the U.S.; and a 40% increase in non-U.S. trade in the last few months.
We are making investments to maintain this momentum. Locally in Hamilton, we are supporting workers with a regional tariff response plan, buy Canadian procurement policies and protections against unfair foreign steel dumping, and we are making major investments in Canada's economy, not for the next year or the next election cycle but for the next century.
We have invested $115 billion in infrastructure, including the $51-billion build Canada strong fund; $25 billion in housing, including $13 billion on build Canada homes, modernizing modular construction and supporting the housing industry; $30 billion toward defence and industrial strategy, currently at 2% of GDP, with a goal to be at 5% within five years; and $115 billion of investment in productivity, innovation and trade diversification.
We are taking fiscal responsibility for Canada's finances. We are balancing the operating budget within three years, a $60-billion savings target, and we are already $11 billion lower than targets. On top of all of this is diversifying Canada's trade, making real investments to diversify our reliance on one single trading partner, the United States. That work is already showing dividends right now, because Canada is not broken. Our challenges exist, but we are defining our own path.
With respect to federal affordability measures, we have also cut income tax. We have provided relief on gas prices by removing the consumer carbon tax, saving consumers 18¢ a litre, and by suspending the federal fuel excise tax, saving consumers 10¢ a litre.
All of this is, as I said, in the context of ongoing global conflicts. Canada is facing real challenges, such as global instability, tariffs and economic uncertainty, but Canada also has enormous strengths, which our government is leveraging: strong institutions, skilled workers, natural resources, industrial capacity, and innovation and research. The spring economic update focuses on protecting Canadians while preparing for the future, because we are optimistic about Canada's future, we are optimistic about Hamilton's future and we believe in Canada and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot in that speech. A lot of it did not make sense. A lot of it nobody on this side could relate to or understand.
The member talked a lot about the rights of his citizens, and we know the citizens in his area are suffering an affordability crisis. We know they are suffering a drug crisis, a housing crisis, an affordability crisis, a revenue crisis and an income crisis. In his speech, he even managed to disparage Christians in this country.
I have a simple question for him. If he is talking about the rights of the citizens in his riding, I think it is a right of every citizen to have access to their MP. When will he open his office? We are a quarter of the way through the mandate. He has been here a year and his office is still closed.
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives just love their conspiracy theories.
Our government is investing in affordable housing.
An hon. member: What is the street address?
John-Paul Danko: It is 1686 Main Street West, unit 3, where it has always been.
Mr. Speaker, our government is making generational investments to make sure that residents have the opportunities they deserve in Hamilton and communities across Canada.
The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South is rising on a point of order. I hope it is a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, it is. There might have been an issue with the audio. I do not know if the member knew he was being asked when his office will open.
Mr. Speaker, like Quebeckers generally, I am a bit fed up with the centralist, exclusive vision of elite sports that Canada constantly displays. My colleague alluded to this in his speech when he said he was proud to see investments of $750 million. In the meantime, families, young people and seniors are not getting any help even though they need access to physical activity too. Where is the federal government when the time comes to build infrastructure like gyms, pools and arenas?
The need in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is desperate. I want to point out that Rouyn‑Noranda was forced to build a pool with only six lanes and that a project in Témiscamingue was cut back to the bare bones, with an investment of $18.6 million. We could search in vain to find a cheaper project in Canada. That is the bare minimum. Still, the federal government is nowhere to be found.
Why is this happening? Why is the government boasting about this economic statement? Why are members boasting about investing in sports when the government is nowhere to be found when regular folks need help?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that part of the build Canada strong fund, that $51-billion build communities strong fund, also includes investment in community infrastructure, recreation infrastructure and sport infrastructure. On top of that is a specific $775 million to build up sport across Canada, as I said, from house league level all the way up to Olympic level athletes.
I completely agree with the member opposite that the federal government needs to take a leadership role in investing in sports and sports infrastructure, along with partnerships with the provinces and municipalities across Canada. That is something I will continue to advocate for.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the important Red Seal program we brought in. There are dozens of skilled trades with national recognition where a financial incentive is being provided for individuals, I am thinking specifically for young Canadians, to be able to enter into dozens of skilled trades. With the government providing that incentive, we are looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 80,000 to 100,000 potential trade jobs over the next five years.
Can the member provide his thoughts on why it is so important that we invest in Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, I did not get to that in my speech, but I am glad I get to answer it here. As we are investing $51 billion to build Canada strong and $13 billion in the affordable homes plan, or Build Canada Homes, we need to make sure that we have the next generation of workers in the skilled trades available to work on those projects.
I spent 20 years working in heavy civil construction, working with workers in the skilled trades directly. I know the amazing benefits those jobs have to communities, as well as the high pay and the pride workers take in the job they do when they are working in the skilled trades. Our government is investing in the next generation to make sure they have the jobs to provide for their families.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury.
[English]
This has been quite the spring economic statement or spring economic update, whatever the government wants to call it. A lot goes into every financial statement the government puts forward. It seems that there is no shortage of money to keep pouring out, but there is a real lack of fiscal discipline. One thing I did notice about this government over the last six and a half years that I have been here is its ability to announce and announce, as if it is going to continue to do great things. Announcing things, spending money and accomplishing very little seems to be the flavour of the day and that happens all the time here. I want to go through a bunch of things in my speech here. I do not mean to just be critical, so I will also be giving some good feedback on some of the things that work in this budget.
First of all, let us talk about what my colleague across the way talked about, all the announcements of the 20 economic and defence partnerships signed in the last year. Partnerships are signatures. I would like to see what really comes out of those at the end of the day. We need to measure these outcomes. These are not just papers we sign. We are not a republic. Our Prime Minister is not a president who gets to write executive orders and say, “This is the way things are.” We are diminishing the role of the House of Commons here. We need to get back to actually doing things in the House of Commons that are good for all Canadians and include the input of people from across this country.
I went through the budget. The budget talked about a few things, and I know that the government likes the high-level stuff to start the budget. It talks about the rule of law in Canada. If we had the rule of law in Canada, we would have a very stable investment dynamic right now, which we are clearly missing. This stable, reliable financial system is one that is layered more and more on top of an oligopoly that really benefits from the weight that it maintains and that, of course, the government would like that to be.
We need to make sure we have a more diverse economy, a more open economy, an economy where people can see what the rules are and invest accordingly, not just invest when the government says, “Hey, we have some friends here, let us give them some money so they will put some more money into the economy.” That is not the way a modern, democratic country is supposed to run.
It also talked about investment attractiveness. Let me tell the House what investment attractiveness would actually mean. It would mean that the pension funds that collect money from Canadians in Canada would actually reinvest that money into Canada. Most of those pension funds invest most of their money offshore and for good reason, because this government has created an economic and investment climate in this country that does not work if we want a return on capital. That return on capital, of course, is competitive with jurisdictions around the world, even to the south of us, where we have a trade partner that is not behaving as if we actually had a trade agreement with them. We have to make sure that we actually stand up against that.
The next thing the budget talked about was tax competitiveness, but it was talked about under new business investment. All the current business investment is not taxed efficiently here in Canada. However, the government will give all kinds of tax credits if some new capital is brought into Canada. There is no clear path to what that represents as far as the rule of law going forward is concerned.
Then it talked about Canadian resources, which we are proud to stand for on this side of the House. I am sure the members know the numerous entreaties we have made to the Liberal government to make sure we actually have a better resource industry in this country, with more transparency and more ability to get some things done, because the budget did talk about transparency.
However, there is no transparency. There is a complete black hole. What are the rules today? What are the rules tomorrow? Continually changing the rules on our resource industry is what holds back investment in our most important part of our economy. I say most important not because I am trying to diminish any of the other parts of the Canadian economy, but because I want to make sure people understand how much those resource industries contribute to Canada, in employment, in taxation and in the balance of payments with our trade partners around the world. It is lopsided how much we actually benefit from the resources we export. We have to make sure that we have a level playing field that says, “Invest here, in this country, in these resources and you will get a return and there will be a line of sight on how that actually turns out for your shareholders and your company.”
Now I am going to differ with a few things the government said in this economic statement. It talked about having the second-fastest growing economy in the G7. That is great, but most of those are in Europe. Japan's in a bit of a mix right now. Compared to our neighbour to the south, we are forecast to be growing at 1.5%, and they are at 2.3%. The growth rate in the United States is one and a half times higher than our growth rate.
We are not doing that well considering who our nearest neighbour is. We have to take a step back to understand what is happening here. Part of what is happening, of course, is the lack of transparency with respect to what happens to the investments people make in Canada.
The government talked about fiscal discipline. Let me contradict it very clearly here: There is no fiscal discipline on that side of the House whatsoever.
The Liberals talk about changing from a $78-billion deficit in the fall budget to a $67-billion deficit looking forward in the spring economic statement because of $7.8 billion more in collections from the resource industry. This is how we are making our money. This is how we are getting better. However, no sooner do they see a whole bunch of new revenue coming in from taxation than they decide to spend that in a bunch of other maladjusted ways as far as investing and throwing more money out the door.
They can call it an investment, but it is a really bad use of our money. This is not a bottomless pit. Canadians need to make sure that we get back to balance at some point in time. That balance means at least a zero deficit, and hopefully a surplus at some point in time, because we have gotten massively into debt in this country. The government got cute in the spring economic statement and changed its actual fiscal anchor from a net debt to GDP and a declining deficit to a net deficit to GDP. That is because the GDP is not increasing enough.
Members would know that when we talk about GDP, we are talking about consumption plus investment, plus government expenditures, plus exports, minus imports, one of which is government expenditures. Government expenditures keep increasing and therefore keep increasing the GDP. The rest of the equation is not holding weight because it is not that investable an economy. We need to do much better in that respect.
A $67‑billion deficit is one thing, but $1.4 trillion in debt is the government's book number. Let me explain what that means. The government has borrowed almost $2 trillion. It is paying interest on almost $2 trillion through its various agencies. The difference between $2 trillion and $1.4 trillion is $600 billion, which is in the various accounts at Crown corporations and other borrowing entities, many of which have opaque accounting mechanisms where they are not writing off their debts. Therefore, when the new government comes in, we are going to have to see a massive writeoff of all the debts that the current government has accumulated and has not put on its books at this point in time.
That includes things like, of course, the Canada Infrastructure Bank. We pointed out at committee that it had $600 million‑plus in loans to Lion Electric in the first place. We have all kinds of boondoggles like that sitting in several Crown corporations that are part of the government's debt profile. They have to be more transparent. This is something that has to change going forward.
On March 27, the Liberals increased the borrowing authority to $2.54 trillion. That tells Canadians where they are going with this. We are going to have an extra half trillion dollars in debt going forward. Congratulations. There is no stopping this train.
I need to give the government credit for what it has done with respect to training and for allocating a whole bunch of money to the trades. I am very thankful for that. I would like to thank the government because that is another page from the Conservative book that it took out of our policy manual, having more money put into the trades in this country so that we have better outcomes. For that whole layer of jobs that is unfulfilled at this point in time, we need to make sure we get those technical people trained. I thank the government for putting that in there.
Something else I think the Liberals could put on there, if they are thinking about taking something else from our books, is defence. I know they have increased the money for defence. They have increased the salaries. Good for them. Now they are going for another defence procurement agency, a defence bank, and all these things where they are spending money on bureaucrats.
Here is what the Liberals need to do. They need to spend money on defence and spend money on actually getting things. The United States has rightly been complaining about how much we have not spent on defence in Canada. They should take another page from our book. In the last election, we talked about getting Iqaluit built as a base. That should be a 90‑day process: Here is the money we need to spend on this and here is where we have to get going. They should act as if there is some urgency here and get some things going.
We do not mind sharing these ideas with the government. We need to make some things happen in this country as quickly as possible. I beseech the government to take the good ideas we have presented to it and make them work going forward.
There are a whole bunch of other issues here. I would love to keep talking, because there are other things I have to talk about, but I know my time has come to an end.
Mr. Speaker, I would take the member to task for his comments in regard to the degree to which this Prime Minister and this government, through their approach, are expanding Canada's economy beyond the United States. We have a Prime Minister who got commitments of billions of dollars last year. We have a Prime Minister and a government that have secured numerous signatories on trade agreements of different forms. We have passed legislation on trade agreements with Northern Ireland and Indonesia. We have trade agreements that are in the works for countries such as India, from which the biggest delegation ever, from what I understand, is in Ottawa today dealing with trade. We have commitments working with Philippines and other countries developing trade.
I wonder if he might want to retract some of his comments. We are seeing real results with trade.
Mr. Speaker, if I have said something that upset my colleague, I apologize, because I know they are working hard, but as I said in my speech, I think it is very clear that we need to measure these outcomes. At this point in time, we have signatures on letters of intent and everything. I am saying that the Liberals should bring these paths forward to the House of Commons. Let us pass all these documents they are signing that they think are going to do better for Canada. Let us measure the results. We do have a problem south of the border that we need to deal with at this point in time. Diversifying our trade, of course, is one of the most important things we do. We will look at the results when they arrive.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech.
The government boasts that it is truly the best at negotiating with the United States, yet this is producing absolutely no results at the moment, except that we appear to be lying flat on the ground, waiting for the U.S. to walk all over us. The government seems to be focused on negotiating agreements with other countries, particularly in Europe and Asia.
Meanwhile, businesses are suffering terribly. My riding of Drummond is home to an extremely vibrant manufacturing sector, but it is struggling desperately these days for a number of reasons. First, the tariffs have hit us hard. The impact has been devastating. There is also a very serious concern regarding the rules that have been put in place for the temporary foreign worker program.
When we raise these issues with the government, there is no response, no action. The Liberals seem to have no interest in solving the real problems that will cost Quebec jobs and businesses, even though solutions are within reach. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that this Liberal government is incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time and incapable of addressing real problems on the ground.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his long question. I think I got the gist of it. It is important to have support for stakeholders in the Canadian economy right now. I wonder how the federal government will measure success when we are losing so many jobs to the United States. It is important to keep jobs here in Canada. What measures will the government put in place to mitigate the effects of this situation?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we are all up here and have lots of questions for this member, so I am grateful that you called on me.
Last Friday, I spent some time with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Oshawa, and we talked about money for the trades. I can appreciate that they are giving the Liberals some props for putting money towards that, but they have a real concern, and I have one too: What about jobs? We are going to spend all this money on trades. It is great to invest in trades, but these folks need jobs when they are trained, and right now the electrical workers and folks in my riding are very concerned about that.
I wonder if the member could comment on that.
Mr. Speaker, it is very important. The government talks about training people, but it does not talk about how that is actually going to fit into the economy. I know the Prime Minister made an announcement while we were not sitting in the House of Commons last week about building our electricity system across Canada. Talking about the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, we know they are going to need those jobs.
I think we have to take a good look. As I said earlier, the government has caused the problem with the electricity system in Canada because it inherited a bunch of policy advisers from the Government of Ontario who more or less botched the electricity system in Ontario for a decade. Then they moved to Ottawa and decided to botch it even further. All they seem to be able to do is add a whole bunch of money into the equation whenever those messes seem evident to everybody. We have to make sure we have a real solution here that gets people working and actually gets an electricity system that works for the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the soup and salad bowl of Canada, home to Honda Civic and the best potatoes this side of P.E.I.
In the spring economic update, and throughout this debate, the Liberals have made it apparent that they believe Canadians have never had it so good. The Minister of Finance even introduced this update by telling us, “the dream of Canada is alive and well.” I think we need a reality check.
Let me share what is happening in my community, because it tells a very different story. Last week, my son came back from running a booth at a local job fair. He came back upset and shocked. He told me he saw hundreds of people lined up, résumés in hand, hoping for a chance to work for one of the few employers in the area still hiring. That was not the shocking part, given that the unemployment rate is now almost 7% across the country. What was shocking to him was the number of seniors in those lines.
I am lucky. My son is an old soul. He does not come to me often, but he was very upset. He told me how sad it was to see elderly men in dated suits that had not been worn in years, helped along by wives for whom just standing in that line was an immense effort. Those couples were not there out of choice or ambition. Those people had already worked their whole lives, earned for their retirement and assumed that this chapter was behind them, but now they are pushed back into the workforce because the cost of everything has risen so far and so fast.
Unfortunately, very few will manage to get a job at all. It is not just them: All generations are struggling, right across the country. Young people have given up on owning a home. Families are choosing between groceries and rent. It is infuriating that this is the reality facing our people today. This is the new normal in Canada, after 11 years of the Liberal government. Canadians are being asked to accept what used to be unacceptable: crowded emergency rooms, no doctors, two million people lined up for blocks around food banks, and rampant crime and homelessness in our streets. We see it every day.
Now even our proud Snowbirds, a symbol of Canadian excellence for generations, are being grounded for years and replaced with inferior aircraft that do not come close to what we have today. In every corner of Canadian life, the message from the government is the same: “Lower your expectations.”
Instead of aspiring to build a better Canada and restoring the fiscal responsibility this country sorely needs, the spring economic update confirms that the Liberals are spending money they do not have and charging the bill to Canadians who can least afford it.
The Prime Minister promised to spend less than Justin Trudeau, but under his leadership, direct program spending has increased 12.4%, and the deficit has doubled from $31 billion to $65 billion. Their own projections in this update show the national debt reaching $1.63 trillion by 2031. Every dollar of that debt comes with a price tag. This year alone, the price is $58.7 billion in interest payments. That is more than the federal government collects on GST and more than it transfers to the provinces through the Canada health transfer. That is $3,400 from every Canadian family: not for hospitals, not for highways, not for any of the people in that job fair line, just for the interest alone. This level of overspending is indefensible, given the windfall of tax revenue the government has collected through higher-than-expected oil prices over the past year.
What did they do with this windfall? They spent 80¢ of every new dollar. They fell short of their own promised savings in operating expenditures by $30 billion. The debt-to-GDP ratio, the government's own preferred measure of fiscal health, will continue rising until 2030. Instead of returning that good fortune to Canadians through lower taxes or applying it against the deficit, the government used it as a licence to spend even more. We see this with the so-called Canada Strong fund. There is another slogan. The Liberal government cannot even manage its own finances, but now it wants to leverage Canadians' own money towards projects underwritten by even more debt.
The key to a sovereign wealth fund is wealth, after all. After 11 years of the Liberal government, Canada has none. Our country is poorer due to Liberal policies that have blocked economic growth, fuelled inflation and increased our national debt to record levels. Now, just as they did with the failed Canada Infrastructure Bank, the Liberals claim that this $25-billion fund will attract investment that it would not otherwise attract. This begs the question that I have asked so many times in this chamber: If this fund is so great and will produce such an amazing return on that investment, why would we stop at $25 billion? Put in $100 billion. Why not put in $250 billion? After all, according to the government, it is just a capital investment. It is basically free. Well, we all know the answer to that, because at some point even the Liberal government has to own up to the fact that incurring massive amounts of debt is not an investment strategy. It is a liability, and $25 billion of it deployed into projects of the government's choosing is not a true wealth fund; it is a gamble, and Canadians are being asked to cover that bet.
This is a recurring theme with the Liberal government's approach to the economy. It is always our people who have to suffer the consequences of this Prime Minister's economic and trade failures, and right now they are struggling in record numbers. New insolvency data shows that over 37,000 Canadians filed for insolvency in the first quarter of 2026, the highest level since the great recession. Our people are carrying $2.6 trillion in household debt, while mortgage delinquency has reached its highest level in five years. With this spring economic update, the Liberals are adding more debt, more costs and more taxes on the backs of Canadians, who are already at the breaking point.
Even worse, all this is taking place while Canada is still without a trade agreement with the United States. The uncertainty, tariffs and job losses that flow from that into auto manufacturing, into agriculture and right across the economy have more of an impact than anything announced in this update. The Liberals are failing on both fronts: They have not lowered the debt, increased investment or unleashed our economy, and they still have not gotten Canadians the trade deal they need.
The Liberals would have us believe that if one does not support their spending, their failures and their misplaced priorities, they somehow do not support this country. It is crazy. Some members in this House may choose to set aside their principles to prop up this government. However, as a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, my job is not to blindly support the government's agenda. It is to make Canada the best it can be by holding the government to account on behalf of Canadians.
The spring economic update is not a plan to make Canada stronger. It is a plan to make Canadians poorer, and that is just not good enough. I believe in a Canada where hard work is rewarded, where the dream of owning a home is within reach and where the generations that follow us inherit something better than a lifetime of debt with nothing to show for it. That Canada is possible, and Conservatives will fight every day to make it happen.
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about reality at the very beginning, and he needs a reality shake. We can look at the holistic approach of this government in the last year, with a new Prime Minister and a new government, and look at the many initiatives that are actually driving and making a positive difference. I will use one example. The member mocks the idea of a sovereignty fund. Other countries around the world actually have sovereignty funds. The Conservatives do not understand what it is.
I have heard the debate, and the Speaker will not allow me enough time to provide the rationale as to why the sovereignty fund, or the Canada strong fund, is a good fund. The Conservative Kool-Aid says no, it is bad, and it is broken. That is all they ever say. They go around Canada, and Canada is—
Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North has had too much Kool-Aid today. That is a government that is out of touch. This so-called sovereign wealth fund is financed with debt. The government does not understand the way things work. The Liberals talk about imaginary taxes all the time. They say the industrial carbon tax does not drive up the price of things. That is how upside down the Liberals are.
Mr. Speaker, Canada now has some of the highest household debt and least affordable housing in the G7. Food bank use is at a record high. Seniors are skipping meals. Young families are delaying having children. Working parents are choosing between groceries, rent and medication. However, I have heard the Liberals say over and over today that they are improving affordability and that Canada's economy is doing great.
My question is simple. If life is supposedly getting better, why are so many Canadians feeling like they are falling further behind every single month?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Canadians are flat broke. I spent time in the riding over these last two weeks. I could not believe the stories people and small business owners were telling me. As an aside, and I have spoken about this a number of times, we have been waiting 10 years for natural gas lines in my riding and for phase three hydro so small businesses can start. People are coming to me, frustrated, asking, “Why are we sending all this money overseas? Why am I on the outside looking in when all I am trying to do is just get ahead?”
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's point of view. Forcing the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to consider both economic impact and impact on people's health equally will increase food safety risks.
Furthermore, encouraging foreign platforms to enter an open banking system will reduce the restrictions that prevent foreign banks from taking control of our banks.
What does my colleague think about that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as in my opening, I am always proud to represent the soup and salad bowl of Canada. Again, going back to the Liberal government with the industrial carbon tax, the Liberals sit there and say that the industrial carbon tax does not affect the price of anything and that it is actually good for prices. I go back to what I said about the wealth fund. If raising the industrial carbon tax does not affect anything, why only raise it to $170? They should put it up to $400. It does not affect anything. It is the same with the wealth fund. Why $25 billion? If the returns are so good, why not put $500 billion in it and get it going?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to agree with my colleague. The sovereign wealth funds of other countries, particularly Norway's, were designed on Peter Lougheed's plan, which was to take oil revenue out of government rents and using it as a set-aside for a rainy day, which is not what the Liberals' fund proposes to do.
I wonder if my hon. colleague has any comments.
Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about the promises the government makes. It is all pie in the sky. We spent $300 million. We were supposed to have a factory that actually created vaccines for Canadians in Quebec. Where is that factory now? Where is the $300 million? That is what Canadians call waste.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from La Prairie—Atateken.
[English]
I rise today to speak to the spring economic statement and to confirm that I will be voting in support of Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update that was tabled in the House of Commons on April 28.
There are many important elements within both the bill and the statement, but today I would like to focus on two central themes. First is the proposed Canada Strong fund and what it represents for the people of Nipissing—Timiskaming in providing an opportunity to be all in for Canada. Secondly, I would like to speak to the many ways that Canada is supporting the residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming, demonstrating that Canada is also all in for its citizens. I am glad that today in the House, there are members from my riding.
On that note, I spent the last two weeks in my riding meeting with residents and attending community events and local functions. What I sensed in general was a growing feeling that this is a moment for Canadians to come together. I believe it is much like being part of a team, and I am sure fans of the Montreal Canadiens understand the analogy well, especially today. When the stakes are high, it is not the time to sit back on the bench. It is time to ask ourselves, how can we contribute to the success of the team?
[Translation]
The same is true for Canada today. We may have different views on strategy, but once the game has started, our success depends on our ability to work together toward a common goal. In many ways, the times we are living in now remind me of the period following the Second World War. I was not alive then, but according to history books, Canada was facing the enormous task of rebuilding and strengthening the country. At that time, Canadians were able to directly participate in building the nation through Canada savings bonds.
[English]
As part of the spring economic statement, the Prime Minister announced the Canada Strong fund, the country's first national sovereign wealth fund. This proposed fund would allow individual Canadians to co-invest alongside institutional partners in large-scale, nation-building infrastructure projects. While we have discussed it here today, the final design of the fund has not yet been announced, as it will be shaped through consultations that will begin shortly.
However, even at this early stage, the spirit behind the initiative reminds me of the era of Canada savings bonds, established in 1945 under former prime minister William Lyon Mackenzie King. For generations, Canada savings bonds provided Canadians with a trusted and accessible way to support the growth and transformation of the economy, while building wealth for themselves and their families. They were promoted not merely as financial instruments but as tools of nation building, fostering a culture of shared economic purpose during a period when millions of Canadians were emerging from uncertainty and insecurity.
One constituent in my riding recently shared with me how much pride his father had. His father worked for a small township in Timiskaming, and he earned a modest income. His son spoke of how his father was proud when he purchased his first Canada savings bond because for him, it meant that he was contributing to Canada, to its growth, to the country he loved and to something that was larger than himself. I can actually relate to that personally because when I started to work, I purchased my own Canada savings bonds. I was in my 20s. I am somewhat embarrassed to say that my motivation was not about savings at that age, but it was about contributing to Canada. It was about supporting my country and feeling connected to something bigger than myself.
Although the program ended almost a decade ago, for almost 70 years it meant Canadians had the opportunity to contribute directly to our country's success. Because of my own experience, and what I continue to hear from residents across Nipissing—Timiskaming, I strongly support both the concept of and the rationale behind the proposed Canada Strong fund.
A strong economy is not built by government and industry alone. It is built when citizens feel connected to the opportunities ahead and confident they have a role to play in shaping the future. The Canada Strong fund is about building Canada together. From energy to infrastructure to mining, the fund will invest across key sectors while delivering market rate returns for Canadians who choose to participate.
[Translation]
I particularly appreciate the Prime Minister's emphasis on making the fund accessible to all Canadians, regardless of their economic situation. In my view, that is important because it strengthens Canadians' connection to their country and to the values that define us.
In many ways, the Canada Strong fund reflects the same spirit that was once behind the Canada savings bonds. As Prime Minister Mackenzie King said, our duty is to give all of our citizens a greater measure of security.
Today, Canada continues to pursue that same goal: to provide Canadians with greater security and greater certainty at a time that is marked by economic and geopolitical uncertainty, as many in the House have mentioned.
[English]
I am proud to live in a country that has the backs of its citizens in practical and meaningful ways. Canada is supporting families, workers, seniors, businesses and communities, including the residents of my riding, Nipissing—Timiskaming. While time permits only a few examples, these measures demonstrate how federal investments are making a tangible difference in the lives of the people in my riding. Last week, I was pleased to announce funding through the regional tariff response initiative to support five prominent mining sector companies in my riding as they modernize and expand their operations in the face of unfair and unjust tariffs. These investments will protect jobs and create better-paying jobs throughout our riding.
Through the strategic response fund, we also saw approval for Electra Battery Materials Corporation's $100-million project to produce battery-grade cobalt sulphate in Timiskaming. For our country, domestic cobalt sulphate production will reduce the reliance on imports and strengthen key sectors such as electric vehicles, defence manufacturing, semiconductors and medical technologies. For Nipissing—Timiskaming, that represents 60 direct jobs and, during the construction, 100 skilled trade workers who will be working on the construction site.
Last week, I was pleased to confirm an investment through the Canada-Ontario community housing initiative to support the construction of 60 affordable homes in North Bay. Affordable housing remains one of the most—
Mr. Speaker, I would point out that while spending as much money as the government is spending right now, perhaps we could at least maintain quorum in the House of Commons. I do not think there are enough members.
There is a quorum call by the member.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: We have quorum.
I will let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Rural Development continue and finish her comments.
Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to point out that I was surprised to see the numbers. In my riding, approximately 28,000 residents will begin benefiting from the new groceries and essentials benefit in July. There are more than 14,000 residents in Nipissing—Timiskaming who qualify for dental care support, more than 12,000 elementary school students benefit from healthy meal programs, and over 10,000 families are receiving the Canada child benefit.
Then there is the very strong support in Nipissing—Timiskaming for the recently announced 13% HST relief on new homes. This measure will help make home ownership more attainable for young people and families seeking to enter the housing market. At the same time, the federal government and the Province of Ontario have announced an $8.8-billion cost-shared infrastructure program over 10 years to support municipalities. This funding will help lower development costs for contractors and home builders while ensuring continued investment in roads, water systems and other housing-enabling infrastructure. These are precisely the kinds of measures that municipalities, builders and organizations, such as the Northern Ontario Home Builders' Association, have been calling for.
[Translation]
I believe I am coming to the end of my speech. I could give several more examples, but I would like to talk about 22 Wing in North Bay and the Northern Ontario Road to Defence. Residents are also seeing that new investments are strengthening Canada's ability to maintain its sovereignty, such as the over-the-horizon radar, which is very important for the town of North Bay.
[English]
Taken together, these measures demonstrate how Canada is supporting the residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming and showing that our country is all in for its residents. That matters because the federal government has important responsibilities to protect national security and public safety, to provide support through programs such as the Canada pension plan and old age security, and to provide support to indigenous communities to promote economic stability—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that my colleague from Nipissing—Timiskaming did not have more time. She could have started telling us about her government's support for regional media. Oops, there is none. There is no support for regional media in this economic update, particularly for independent regional TV stations.
I mention this because in her region and nearby, in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, local TV stations broadcasting independent news—probably the last in this region to offer a diversity of voices and information, apart from CBC/Radio-Canada—are at risk of closing because they are not receiving any support from this government.
Once again, Liberal MPs are going to vote for this budget while the regional media are being let down. My colleague is an MP for a regional riding in Ontario. I am certain she is concerned about the fate of the media. I would like to know what she intends to say to the minister or the Prime Minister to convince him to finally come to the aid of the regional media.
Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern. It is very important to have local media. In my riding, CBC/Radio-Canada plays a very important role. The support given to local journalists is also important. This program plays an important role in our community with media outlets, such as Le Voyageur. I agree with my colleague's comment. He can count on my support in that regard.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the government, midway through its term, change the definitions of its fiscal anchors. Instead of debt-to-GDP ratio, it is debt-to-deficit ratio.
One thing that I want to get a clear answer on from the member opposite is that, in the G7, Canada is the only country that does not count subnational debt when it is talking about debt-to-GDP ratios. What would the number be if Canada used the same accounting practices as all other countries?
Mr. Speaker, I understand the question fully.
I would like to point out to my colleague that the International Monetary Fund is a very important organization. Practically 90% of countries across the world belong to the fund. It plays an important role in comparing economies across the world. What it states, with respect to Canada, is very important. Basically, in April, it stated that Canada, among the G7, is the most fiscally responsible country. It takes a very important position. It speaks strongly about Canada.
There are so many other indicators that we could point to, and that is why I encourage all the citizens from my colleague's riding to read the spring economic update and to see and take good note of the many positive economic indicators.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's comments on the Canada Strong fund. I think it is a wonderful opportunity for Canadians to invest in Canada. To have that opportunity, I think is something that is being provided for here.
The Conservatives have come out against it. We often hear Conservatives being against the Infrastructure Bank, for example. It is a bank that, along with the federal government, has lured billions of dollars of investment, generated thousands of jobs and had major projects in every region of the country. The contrast seems to be that the current government believes in investing in Canada, in infrastructure and in Canadians, while the Conservatives tend to just want to get out of the way, as they often say.
I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts on why it is really important that, as a government, we invest in Canadians and in infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I have two comments. The International Monetary Fund speaks of Canada and its economy as being strong. It truly is the aggregate of the many organizations that work in the economic field. Canada's Infrastructure Bank is an excellent example of that. As I said, there are many other indicators that are in support of all of the various investment actions and tools that the government is taking.
With respect to the wealth fund, the sovereign fund that we have discussed, I do want to point out that it is very important that the design of the funds has not been publicly announced yet. There are consultations that are under way. Just to conclude, there are a hundred different funds across the world. Basically, the government is looking at all of these various funds as it structures what is best for Canada and for Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in La Prairie, Candiac, Sainte‑Catherine, Saint‑Constant, Delson, Saint‑Philippe, Saint‑Mathieu and Kahnawake. This is especially true today as I rise to illustrate what the spring economic update means in concrete terms for the families of La Prairie—Atateken, for our jobs, and for the future of our community.
Let me be blunt: This government is working for the people of La Prairie—Atateken, and the measures announced in the recent economic statement are proof of that.
The world has changed. Trade tensions with our neighbour, geopolitical turmoil such as the war in Iran, and disruptions in supply chains are creating real uncertainty. For the past year, we have been navigating an increasingly fragmented, rapidly changing world. However, what I can say is that, while other countries are retreating as they wait for better days to return, Canada is acting with conviction and resolve, without hesitation.
The spring economic update confirms Canada's fiscal strength, while investing in Canadians where it truly matters. The results speak for themselves. With an $11.5‑billion reduction in the projected deficit, our fiscal position is much stronger than expected. We are managing things well—all spending items have been reviewed—we are spending wisely, and we are focusing on long-term prosperity. Let us recall that, by 2028-29, the deficit will consist only of capital investment. The operating deficit, meanwhile, will have been eliminated. That is what is known as long-term vision.
Let me begin by addressing something that has an immediate bearing on the day-to-day finances of my constituents. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit will support more than 30,000 residents of La Prairie—Atateken so they can buy groceries and essential goods. Payments will go out starting June 5. This support will go directly into the bank accounts of many of my constituents. It is not a promise. It is a cheque.
We also made the national school food program permanent. This means that, year after year, Quebec will now receive its share to ensure that our schools can feed our children. Full bellies help children learn better. My colleague says that Quebec is handling that, but the federal government is also providing funds.
Another measure has to do with bank fees. The government is now capping overdraft fees at $10, thereby strengthening consumer protection. It is these small, cumulative measures that make a real difference in a tight family budget. We have also simplified the application process for the disability tax credit for people with certain long-term medical conditions. For families who have been battling bureaucracy for years, this simplification is a tangible victory. I used to be a family doctor, so I can attest to this.
The government is also extending assistance to people experiencing homelessness and working to ensure that victims of gender-based violence have access to safe housing. Of course, as is the case across the country, there is a shortage of public housing and transitional housing, but we are committed to supporting projects that address this need. Significant budgets are allocated for this purpose through Build Canada Homes, because a strong government is one that leaves no one behind.
I said this during the election campaign, and I will say it again: Housing is a key priority for the government, particularly for La Prairie—Atateken. This economic update clearly demonstrates that. One of the things the government is doing is reducing development charges. The government is also providing GST relief for first-time homebuyers, as well as simplifying rules and modernizing building codes to facilitate the construction of prefabricated and modular housing.
In fact, $7 billion in low-cost financing is being fast-tracked to CMHC so builders can get projects built sooner and get more rental units to market faster. Over the past year, there has been a significant increase in the supply of affordable housing in my region. Given that young families are looking to settle down and that property prices have skyrocketed in recent years, these measures are a lifeline that will help our children find housing close to home, not three hours away.
Our constituency is made up of working people—people who build houses, work in factories and keep the south shore economy going. This economic update recognizes them.
For example, I would like to mention the reduced CPP contribution rate, which will fall from 9.9% to 9.5% on January 1. This represents an annual saving of about $133 for an employee earning $70,000 a year, and equivalent savings for the employer. This is no small matter. For a couple where both partners work, that is nearly $270 more in their pockets each year.
Parents hope that their children will be able to build a stable career on the south shore. For our young people who are about to enter the job market and who are being hit hard by current unemployment rates, the government is launching a national initiative aimed at recruiting, training and hiring between 80,000 and 100,000 new skilled trades workers by 2030-31. These are more than 50 in-demand trades with solid wages, such as electricians, plumbers, carpenters and welders. Now there is a national program to access these trades, and it is going to be funded to the tune of $2 billion over five years.
The spring economic update also offers a long-term vision for Canada's economy, and our region will benefit from it directly. The Major Projects Office will oversee 21 initiatives of national interest that will interconnect, diversify and power our economy. These initiatives will support the creation of 60,000 jobs during construction and generate over $125 billion in new investments.
These infrastructure, road, trade corridor and energy projects will have a direct impact on our region, at the centre of Quebec's economic corridor. Consider, for example, Canada's defence industrial strategy and the proximity of the Saint-Jean military base. Consider, for example, the expansion of the Port of Montreal at Contrecoeur, which is expected to generate $140 million in spinoffs every year, including in my riding. Finally, consider the Saint-Hubert metropolitan airport, launched this week by Minister MacKinnon, which will soon welcome four million travellers a year—
I would remind the hon. member that the names of members or ministers cannot be used in the House. I would invite the hon. parliamentary secretary to consult the Standing Orders. He may continue his speech.
Mr. Speaker, consider the Saint-Hubert metropolitan airport, which was inaugurated this week by the Minister of Transport and will soon welcome four million travellers a year, with major implications for the tourism industry, to name just one.
Canada is buzzing with excitement. That is why the country has attracted more than $100 billion in foreign investment over the past year, a level not seen in nearly two decades. It also explains why we have established some 20 new economic and defence partnerships across four continents.
Canada has also increased its exports to markets outside the United States by $33 billion this year. That means jobs are being created here in Canada, including on the south shore. Some might say we are spending too much, but let us hear what the experts have to say. Canada is on track for long-term prosperity, according to estimates from the International Monetary Fund, which ranks Canada second among G7 nations this year in terms of projected growth.
We are investing in what matters, and we are doing so responsibly. As the member for La Prairie—Atateken, I want to tell my constituents that this economic update demonstrates that the government is working for them with lower taxes, greater affordability, more help with groceries, more accessible housing, jobs for our young people and a clear vision for Canada's economic future, a future that is diverse and focused on buying local. That is what we are delivering.
La Prairie—Atateken is growing, and the government will be there to support its development.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, one thing that would help Canada's fiscal situation substantially and would help our national unity situation substantially is if we were allowed to sell our resources from Alberta around the world. Currently, because of policies put in place by this member's government over the last 10 years, oil shipped from Alberta is subject to more rigorous emission standards than oil imported from Saudi Arabia and Nigeria to Canada.
Does the member think it is okay that oil coming from Nigeria, Saudi Arabia or Algeria is subject to less rigorous standards than oil and gas coming from Alberta?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague, I would say that, on the contrary, our government is currently doing a great deal to develop the economy of the western provinces, and I would refer him to the statements made by Danielle Smith, who has welcomed the projects we are launching with Alberta.
That said, there is no conflict here. I think that Canada, as a responsible country, must be concerned about the environment, certainly more than some of the countries my colleague mentioned. I believe we can do better than some of the countries he mentioned. There is no contradiction between building a strong economy and doing so efficiently and in an environmentally friendly way. I believe Canadians understand this and support the plan we are proposing.
Mr. Speaker, earlier I dared to speak my mind loud and clear, and I will say it again: One day the government will have to get its house in order and become experts on the “Buy Canadian” policy, among other things. I digress, but it will soon be clear why, as that is my question for my colleague.
How is it that government investments have a direct impact when we have free trade agreements, and how is it that the government is saying to buy Canadian when the goods will be manufactured abroad, in Europe, for example? This is somehow allowed under these agreements. Can we have a clear framework?
The deputy ministers will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, and we expect them to be clear, straightforward and precise.
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I properly understood the question. I understand that it had to do with buying local. I think the government has made its intentions clear on that subject. It took a tremendous amount of work to validate that. It was highly complex.
The government buys a lot. There are a lot of contracts. However, our intention is very clear. We intend to deliver something that will stimulate our local industry and Canadian industry, not only in terms of materials, but also in terms of hours worked here, domestically. I also believe that provisions covering this should be included in the contracts. That is my position. I hope that my government will support it.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the Red Seal program. It is a program that I believe has a great deal of support. To elevate that program by saying we want more young people to enter these dozens of trades, of skilled, good quality jobs, and that we want 80,000 to 100,000 new workers over the next five years, is a very powerful statement to young people and others.
Could the member expand on that point?
Business of Supply
[Translation]
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, training the workforce of tomorrow is the cornerstone of this government's economic development. It is fundamental, essential. We have projects, resources and a well-trained workforce. We have to be able to promise those workers jobs. That begins with this training, which takes place not only in the classroom but also on the job, in the actual workplace.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, before I start, I wanted to say that I am going to split my time with my good friend from Oxford, who is literally always behind my back or on my back, but he is a good guy. All jokes aside, I will begin my speech.
We are here today to speak about one of the most expensive economic updates, outside of COVID, in Canadian history. It was more of an update, not a mini-budget, as we saw, and the Prime Minister ran over and over again on the promise that it would not be more of the same. He promised that he would be different from other Liberals or the ones before him, even though he was the one advising them. He was right. He is not the same; he is even worse.
Ever since he became Prime Minister, Canadians' lives have gotten more expensive and more unsafe than they have ever been before. The Prime Minister ran on saying that he would be more prudent and more disciplined when it comes to spending, but he took the gold medal with his first budget for the most expensive and biggest deficit outside of COVID in Canadian history. Then he dropped this update in the spring economic statement, and he gave himself a silver medal for the second-biggest deficit in Canadian history outside of COVID. Canadians' lives got worse.
He said that he would bring back affordability and that he was going to be the guy who could do it. He also said that he could deal with President Donald Trump. Like every other Liberal before him, none of those promises were kept and they will never be kept. In fact, he is the same old costly, broken promises Liberal. This is the same Prime Minister who stood up in the House and said that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. This is the same guy who raised the cost of living by implementing and making sure to keep the industrial carbon tax, which will go up. Under him, food price inflation keeps going up. The cost of food is impossible for people to afford today, which is what leads to 2.2 million Canadians going to a food bank in a single month. Instead of reducing the food bank lines, he increased them. Instead of reducing the cost of food, he increased it.
Liberal taxes and Liberal deficits are what they do and what they have done over the last 11 years. There is no hope in sight that these are going to get any better because they are obsessed with the carbon tax. First, it was the consumer carbon tax that they were obsessed with and now we have the industrial carbon tax and the other carbon tax, which they call the clean fuel standard. All these taxes have made life more and more expensive for Canadians.
The finance minister said that he was going to haul in all the grocery store CEOs back in 2023 and that he was going to tell them what was on his mind and make sure that food prices came down by Thanksgiving 2023. We are heading toward Thanksgiving 2026, and food prices, taxes, costs, the debt and deficits have only gone up. Everything is put on the national credit card, which is why we call it the credit card budget. It is very costly to Canadians because they are the ones who have to foot the bill.
Everyone can remember back in the day when we had a responsible, disciplined Conservative government. Canadians could go to the grocery store and could have one income earner in the home. They could afford groceries and housing. They could get a week's worth of groceries for around $100 to $150, which today in the grocery store does not go very far.
Not only have the Liberals driven out $1 trillion of investment, but they have made it impossible for anyone to invest in Canada, which is why we do not see much competition here. They have put up so much red tape and so many barriers that companies do not want to come here. We all know that in a good free market, competition is a good thing; it drives down the cost of goods. With high Liberal taxes and the high burden of red tape and bureaucracy, companies do not want to invest here, which is why $1 trillion of good Canadian investment, including jobs and everything else, went to the U.S. It is easier to invest there and there is a rate of return that people can see. There is profit there.
This finance minister said he would bring down the cost of food. Absolutely nothing has gone down in cost. In fact, things have only gotten more and more expensive for Canadians. Canada's Food Price Report states that prices are expected to rise 4% to 6%. An average Canadian family of four will pay $17,000 for groceries this year, which is $1,000 more than they paid last year. This is what Liberal taxes do to Canadians and to the goods that we buy.
TD Economics states that grocery prices are over 30% higher than in 2019. In 2025, 9.8 million people lived in food-insecure households and those households included 2.4 million children. This is the highest in Canadian history. This is what high Liberal taxes do. This is what out-of-control deficits do and what debt does to Canadians because they have to foot the bill. It gives them less because when the Liberals increase housing costs and when they increase the cost of everything else, they raise taxes. Now, an average family pays more in taxes than it does in food, shelter and clothing combined. Those are necessities and Canadians have to pay more taxes now because of the current Liberal government. There is no end in sight. As I said before, this update would give the second-highest deficit in Canadian history outside of COVID. It is nothing to brag about. There is no good news in there for Canadians.
We proposed solutions. The finance minister recently said on TV that the Liberals have done enough for Canadians regarding affordability, and he is absolutely wrong. They could have done more. When these guys took 10¢ off in the excise tax on fuel, we said, “That is not far enough.” We proposed to take off 25¢. That would be taking off the GST and taking off the carbon tax, which the Liberals call the clean fuel standard. That would have saved Canadians 25¢ per litre, or $1,200 just this year. That would be real savings as opposed to the Liberals' cut, which is not even $100 of savings for an average family. Now, when summer is about to come, these savings would be realized. People could use that money. They could put their kids into sports. They could put savings away. However, the Liberals will never go far enough to help Canadians. They do just a bit and then they brag about it and say that people should be grateful for it. They could have done a lot more.
While I am on this topic, it is important for us to address what else we could have done. The Liberals could have gotten rid of their “no new pipelines“ bill, Bill C-69. They could have gotten rid of the tanker ban, Bill C-48. They could have gotten rid of the industrial carbon tax. This not only would help get more built here, with jobs in the economy. It would actually help unity in this country. People are more divided than ever under these Liberals today.
We want nothing more on this side than to have unity in this country once again. The Liberals have done the best job they could to separate people by every single demographic possible, whether by regions, industries or skin colour. That is what these Liberals are known for. They like to keep people divided so that they do not get together and they do not vote against them. However, the Conservatives will always have solutions.
Regarding this sovereign wealth fund that the Liberals would create, wealth funds are created with wealth. They are created with assets. They are created with surpluses or with resource revenues. However, these guys decided to do it with debt. Who is going to be responsible for all that? Once again, it is going to be Canadian taxpayers.
We need to end this ridiculousness. We need to get rid of these antidevelopment laws. We need to make sure we start developing here at home so that we are strong here and strong abroad. We need to make sure we bring Canadians together, not tear them apart. This economic update would do none of that. It would keep people divided more than ever. It would make people poorer. It would make taxes go up. It would make costs go up. It would make the debt go up. That would do nothing for Canadians. We would do the exact opposite to bring this country together and give back the affordability and the safety that Canadians deserve in this country once again.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the spring economic update, if they reflect on the 2025‑26 projected deficit, they will see that there would be a substantial $11‑billion reduction dealing with that issue alone.
I understand that the Conservatives want to cut and cut. One of the things that I would ask the member opposite, the finance critic, is this. The government has made a substantial commitment to increase military expenditures, bringing it to the 2% level. I would like a clear answer from the Conservative Party. Do the Conservatives support the investment that the Government of Canada would be putting into the military? Do they support the 2% investment and, further to that, growing it to 5%? A simple yes or no would be wonderful.
Mr. Speaker, is the member serious? Is he bragging about having the second-highest deficit in Canadian history outside of COVID?
He asked about cuts. I will tell him what we would cut. We would cut the $90 billion that would go to the Alto boondoggle and the $742‑million Liberal gun grab. We would get rid of the $20 billion for Liberal-connected insider consultants. The government's ministers are so incompetent, it has to get advice from outside, Liberal-connected consultants.
We would get rid of taxpayer-funded handouts to fake refugees. Of course, we would end the corporate welfare, which these Liberals are known for, that always rewards Liberal insiders instead of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I spoke about Témiscamingue earlier. I will do so again because we did not get an answer in the economic statement about what is happening with the forestry industry, a key sector for Témiscamingue and for the Quebec and Canadian economy.
There are no measures to help lumber mills retool. I am thinking in particular of the Béarn sawmill. In recent weeks, Chantiers Chibougamau announced that the mill was closing its doors. That hurts an economy like Témiscamingue's.
Once again, the federal government is nowhere to be found when it comes to transforming the economy and making investments. Why not convert this mill into a biochar plant? However, that would require major investments, and the government is not stepping up to help with wage subsidies or countervailing duties either.
When will the government really help regional economies, especially Témiscamingue's economy and forestry sector?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the member. Under the government, it is not just the forestry sector but every sector that is suffering. Coast to coast, it affects forestry, which also means lumber, and the auto industry, as well as all the workers who go along with those jobs.
In fact, under these guys, just in the first four months of this year, 111,000 full-time jobs have gone. They are not coming back. That is a record. That is the Liberal government's record. Because of its high taxes, its high burden when it comes to red tape and its bureaucracy, no one wants to stay here in Canada. Our industries and our workers end up suffering the most.
Having 111,000 jobs leave Canada, which are probably not going to come back, is not a good look. We are going down with that trend because nothing has changed. The government is going to keep on taxing.
It is unfortunate that the only people who get rewarded are at Brookfield.
Mr. Speaker, families across Canada know that, when their interest payments start eating up their household budget, something is seriously wrong. That is exactly what is happening with the Liberal government. Debt interest costs have now exploded to $59 billion a year, up 10% in just one year alone. Canadians are now paying more in interest than the federal government sends to provinces for health care. In fact, debt interest now costs more than the GST brings in.
Members can think about it. Canadians pay taxes and struggle to afford groceries and rent. More and more of that money is simply going toward interest payments instead of the services people need. Is it fair that the Liberals are forcing Canadians to pay thousands of dollars per family just to keep up with the interest on their own reckless spending?
Mr. Speaker, that was a great question. All of my colleague's advocacy is for her constituents, whether it is the issue of crime, which she raises all the time, or affordability. I fully agree with her.
The thing is, this has been brought up many times. The Prime Minister is more concerned about making sure his banker and bondholder buddies are better off than how Canadians are doing. It does not concern these guys that, budget after budget, more money is going to bankers and bondholders than what goes to doctors, nurses and hospitals or what we collect in GST. This is the trend. It is either Brookfield, the bankers or the bondholders who get rewarded by the government.
We will put an end to that under a Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary East not only for his great intervention but also for the work he does to hold the Liberal government accountable on finances.
The member is right. This update was a chance to give Canadians some hope. It was a chance for the government to lay out a plan that would show Canadians that the Liberals have their backs, that they care about the work they do and that they care about the sacrifices they make. They had an opportunity to reduce the deficit, but instead we got the opposite. We have a record number for the deficit, which has real consequences for Canadians.
When we have rising deficits, when we spend more than we bring in, when we send money outside the country, when we wastefully spend it on insiders and Liberal lobbyists, what happens? Canadians pay the price with inflation. Our country has one of the highest inflations in the G7.
Canadians are now struggling to put food on the table. We have single parents who are skipping meals just so their kids can have some decent food. We have seniors who are choosing between buying medicine, filling their gas tanks and paying their bills. We have farmers who are sacrificing so much every single day in our riding, yet barely getting any return for the yields. We have workers who are picking up extra shifts, working extra hard, staying away from their families, abandoning their vacations, staying away from their children and their friends and literally just working constantly to put food on the table for their families. There are IT professionals and young Canadians who actually have decent jobs and go to work with a decent income, but they still cannot make ends meet. The working poor is now a thing. They work harder and harder, but are barely getting by.
The Liberals had a chance to send a clear signal to Canadians, but it did not happen. What did we get as a result? We are now paying almost $60 billion every single year to finance their debt. Interest payments alone are $60 billion, which is more than what we pay for health care transfers in our country. That interest money goes to bondholders and bankers, and Canadians get the bill, again and again.
That money could be used to invest in our health care. In Oxford County, we have a shortage of doctors, nurse practitioners and nurses working in our health care sector. We have almost 8,000 residents who do not have a family doctor in our community. It would be amazing if that money was taken away from these bankers and bondholders and actually invested in rural communities. That money could be used to build up our infrastructure or maybe even to keep the Snowbirds going, which is a great heritage and a historic part of our country, but no, the Liberals want to keep wasting money.
If we look at the economic update, it is more of the same, while the Prime Minister promised to be different. He said he is different. He said he would get a deal. He said that he is a fiscal manager, but we are getting a lot worse, even worse than Justin Trudeau.
Who is getting rich? Who is making the money? It is not Canadians. Brookfield is getting contracts. We are seeing over $20 billion sent to external consultants and lobbyists, and there are billions of dollars for foreign aid that is connected to the government. That money should be brought back to Canada. The Liberals need to put Canadians first, lower the deficit and bring down inflation.
We should not have a situation where seniors are now starving to death. We should not have a situation where parents are not putting their kids in summer camps or sports, but we are seeing that.
Small businesses make so many sacrifices. They take the risks, try to give back to their communities and want to help out, but the government continues to kick them down at every moment. Our vision is very different. Our Conservative vision is about giving control back to Canadians, back to our workers, farmers and seniors, so that if they work hard in this country, make the sacrifices and follow the rules, they should be able to achieve their God-given potential.
Canadians used to be happy. Canada used to rank as one of the happiest places in the world. When we look at the rankings, we see that is changing. We can look around in our communities to see this. In Oxford County, if we walk down Dundas Street, we will see that some businesses are starting to close their doors. We will see the tents of homelessness popping up.
We see signs right across this country of a country that is heading in the wrong direction, but Canadians are resilient people. Canadians do not give up. Despite no support from the government, they still believe in our country. Conservatives believe in our country. We believe in our people, who are hard-working and talented.
We believe in the farmers who wake up before sunrise to plant in the fields and who look forward to the fall for a great harvest. We believe in them. We believe in the waitress who works a double shift, who washes dishes and makes sure she is serving customers with a smile on her face just so she can feed her children. We believe in her. We believe in the auto workers and the workers who work hard on our floor shops to make great Canadian products. We believe in our seniors who have sacrificed their whole lives. They have made the sacrifices, and all they want to do is retire in peace and with dignity. We believe in them.
We believe in Canada's potential. Canada has unlimited potential with its natural resources and our different industries, such as our auto industry and agriculture. There is so much going on in our country. We should be one of the richest countries in the world. We obviously believe in Canada's promise that people, whether they have come to this country, were born here or have been here for generations, who work hard, play by the rules, take a chance, give back to their community, integrate into our society and help their neighbours can achieve their potential.
What is missing now is that vision. That is why Conservatives believe in a smaller government. Smaller governments make for bigger citizens. We wanted to see a plan from the Liberals that would cut red tape. We did not see that. Red tape went up. There is more bureaucracy, more departments and more organizations monitoring other organizations. It is always something; it is always red tape. There are always these new bureaucracies being set up, which costs millions and billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
We wanted to see the Liberals lower taxes. We did not see that. On the gas tax, right now Canadians are being crushed. They are being crushed at the pump stations. We said we had a great plan to take all federal taxes off gas, which would save the average family almost $1,200 a year by cutting 25¢ cents a litre. Those are big savings. For an average family, it is big savings. Instead of taking the whole idea and giving Canadians relief, the Liberals put in half measures of only 10¢ per litre.
Canadians cannot survive like this, but on this side of the House, every single day we will stand for hard-working Canadians. We will push back against Liberal insiders, and we will make sure that Canada is a country for the workers who have sacrificed so much to build our country. We will make sure we hold the Liberal government accountable every step of the way.
Mr. Speaker, talk about extreme statements. We will have to review Hansard, but I believe the member said that seniors are now being starved to death.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, he says yes.
We have a Conservative leader who tours the country, as well as other Conservatives, saying that Canada is broken. Canadians are not stupid, and they are not going to believe the type of misinformation that the Conservatives pump out day after day. The extreme statement of saying that seniors are starving to death in Canada just highlights the type of irresponsible statements coming from the opposition today.
I am wondering if the member will withdraw that particular comment, or at least provide clarity.
Mr. Speaker, not only is the member so out of touch with reality, but even the Prime Minister said, a few weeks ago in the chamber, that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. The Liberals do not actually spend time on the ground meeting with families. A senior called me and said that they were considering MAID, not because they are sick but because they cannot afford to eat.
Shame on the government for destroying Canada's economic prosperity. Our seniors made so many sacrifices, but the member stands up to score cheap political points. Shame on the member.
[Translation]
[English]
Order. Two members are continuing a debate in a questions and comments session that had stopped. This is not questions and comments with the Speaker. I am just trying to get order in the chamber so I can continue questions and comments.
[Translation]
The hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.
Mr. Speaker, it is true that seniors are facing difficulties. We have been saying for many years that seniors aged 65 to 74 are being discriminated against by the government, and we expected that this situation would be rectified. Instead of offering a poisoned chalice in the form of election-time handouts, the government could have helped people in this age group.
What are my colleague's thoughts on that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my colleague that under the Liberal government, seniors have been pushed right to the back. The Liberals talk a big game, but they do not have the human decency to stand in the House and accept that their policies are hurting seniors. One in 10 seniors is now going to the food banks. That is not me saying that; it is the facts in our communities.
Instead of the Liberals' just issuing press releases, if they actually cared about seniors, stood up for them and supported them, we would not have the crisis we have today. The economic statement could have helped them, but again it is helping Liberal insiders, while seniors are being forced to homeless encampments.
Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that our Liberal colleague does not believe that Canadians are going without and having to skip meals. We know that the facts tell a very different story. There was the Great Depression, World War I, World War II and the global recession, and never had a Canadian government had to borrow money to help Canadians buy groceries, but that has happened twice in the last three years as a result of Liberal policy that is driving Canadians to food banks.
I would like to ask my colleague, after his excellent speech, about the impact Liberal policies are having on food inflation and grocery prices that are resulting in two million Canadians lining up at a food bank every single month.
Mr. Speaker, the food banks in my riding and right across our country are bursting at the seams. The demand at Operation Sharing at Helping Hand Food Bank, and at seniors in crisis in Oxford County is actually rising by exponential numbers. Usually we want these numbers to come down. That would be a good sign that we are taking care of our people. However, our numbers are going up. Donations are going down, and usage is going up.
As I mentioned earlier, there is also a new category, the working poor, people who are working harder and harder but barely getting by. They are lining up at the food banks. There are over two million visits to a food bank in a single month. One in four of them is for children. The most vulnerable people in our community are actually struggling. The Liberal government, instead of making food more affordable and supporting our farmers by taking the fertilizer tariff off and helping them, is missing in action. The cost of food is the highest in the G7, and food inflation is the highest in the G7, thanks to the government's failed policies.
On this side of the House, we are going to keep fighting for Canadians every step of the way.
Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.
Let me start with a quote that says, for all my life, I have been a Liberal who believed in rights, equity and an independent foreign policy. Since 1982, the charter gave us something that transcended party...courts that could check governments, refugee protection as obligation, reconciliation as shared responsibility. “The story is being re-written. The language hasn't changed. Ministers still invoke the Charter, the 'rules-based order'.... But...what's actually happening....” Asylum seekers are cut off before they reach a hearing, immigration detention is relocated into a federal prison, climate architecture is quietly dismantled, indigenous funding is eroded by inflation and international law is treated as optional when inconvenient. “The Liberal convention in Montreal confirmed the direction...security, defence, and major project....” Election reform was rejected. “Small-l liberals...are running out of political space. Their values haven't disappeared. The party that used to carry them is just moving on.”
Those are the comments of the Hon. Dr. Lloyd Axworthy, a former Liberal foreign affairs minister. I think he is reflecting the views of many progressives in Canada.
After the tabling of the spring economic update, the headline of Althia Raj's opinion piece in the Toronto Star, which names the Prime Minister, reads, “[He] has forgotten who helped get him elected”. Her article opens with this, “If one thing is clear from [the Prime Minister’s] economic update this week, it’s that he’s taking progressive voters for granted.”
Indeed the months since the fall 2025 budget have confirmed a hard truth. The Prime Minister is governing like a centralizing conservative. The warning signs were already in the budget itself: public service cuts, reduced immigration targets and a growing emphasis on sovereignty spending including defence. The NDP flagged it as an austerity-leaning framework at a time when Canadians were struggling with unaffordability, unemployment and rising costs.
Since then, the direction has only hardened. This government has overridden labour action, forcing striking workers back on the job, drawing fierce backlash from unions. It has pursued international trade and so-called nation-building legislation with Conservative support while sidelining indigenous rights and environmental standards. It has cut or constrained programs in areas like science, foreign aid, community support and public services, all while expanding military commitments and giving big corporations significant tax incentives and benefits as they continue to make record excessive profits. Day by day, it is becoming clearer that this is not progressive governance, but the consolidation of power, decision-making and priorities that tilt toward the market, megaprojects and militarization over people. It is a government that asks its working people to tighten their belts while opening the fiscal floodgates for defence and corporate-led growth. That is not balance; it is a political choice, and one that looks increasingly conservative by the day.
The spring economic update saw health care spending cut as Canadians continue to struggle to find a doctor. The provinces and territories that did not sign on to the pharmacare deal that the NDP forced the Liberals to move forward on before the last election will likely not get an agreement. Meanwhile, mental health funding will not be renewed. The chronic underfunding for mental health and addictions continues. The highly touted dedicated funding for transit has been axed. Support for many critical services, including the Right Fit program for people with disabilities, will sunset.
Canadians are worried about their future and are facing an everyday emergency to keep costs down. Instead of taking bold action that would actually make a difference in people's lives, the Prime Minister is relying on the private sector to save us. In fact, the spring economic update ensures the private sector is the biggest beneficiary in this affordability crisis. With the creation of a $25‑billion sovereign wealth fund, Canadians will see public funds shuffled into privately owned projects that will make a few wealthy investors and CEOs richer than they already are, including big oil and gas companies that are poised to reap over $90 billion in profits this year alone. The Prime Minister's approach is to take public tax dollars to subsidize private projects all while income inequality is at a record high.
Canada's wealth inequality report by Oxfam Canada cited that in 2025, there were approximately 89 billionaires in Canada. The report further noted that the richest 1% have a net worth of $7 million and above, and they hold nearly $3.9 trillion in wealth, almost as much as the bottom 80% combined. This is just plain wrong. The Prime Minister invoked the example of Norway's sovereign wealth fund, and the banker PM is doing the mirror image of what Norway did.
In contrast, Norway's success is built on state-led development. It directed its resource revenues into a sovereign wealth fund that is now worth over $2 trillion U.S., investing in green energy and initiatives and securing Norway's social safety net. Canada once had a similar opportunity with the state-owned Petro-Canada, but the Conservatives began the privatization process and the Liberals finished it off, costing Canadians a vital source of national wealth.
Instead of filling the pockets of big oil and gas companies, the NDP wants to see a windfall tax on oil and gas companies that are projected to make over $90 billion in profits this year alone because of Trump's illegal war in Iran, and use that money to grow the sovereign wealth fund to benefit Canadians.
This past week the Prime Minister told Canadians at the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, “We don’t want to hear what people are against. We want to hear what they're for. And if you're for something, we will get behind [it].”
He is delegitimizing the work of environmental groups and climate defenders who have been calling for green energy and infrastructure for decades. He is also threatening provinces and sidelining indigenous rights at the same time. Is it a wonder that the former minister of environment, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, resigned from cabinet? Now 14 Liberal MPs have written a letter anonymously, raising their concerns. If the Prime Minister can make such a comment to the Canadian public, one can only imagine how his cabinet is treated behind closed doors if any of them dare to voice their opposition.
The Prime Minister was the UN special envoy on climate action and finance, which championed integrating climate risks into mainstream financial decision-making. He called for faster decarbonization.
In 2015, Canada played an important role in the signing of the 2015 Paris Agreement. We agreed to lower emissions by 45% by 2030, a key deadline and organizing principle for the climate strategy. To achieve this, the main pillars of Canada's pan-Canadian framework for climate change included carbon pricing, an EV mandate, an emissions cap on the oil sands and clean energy growth. The consumer industrial carbon pricing was to reach $170 per tonne by 2030. The EV mandate was to see that 60% of vehicle sales were EVs by 2030 and 100% by 2025. The emissions cap on the oil sands was to be 45%.
Those targets have all been cancelled or delayed by a decade. Clean energy growth was watered down. Deadlines were pushed back. Instead of faster decarbonization, the Prime Minister signed a new agreement with Danielle Smith to build a new pipeline that would emit 160 megatonnes of carbon dioxide, 10 times more emissions than with its carbon capture project.
Canada will not meet its climate goals by 2030. The Canadian Climate Institute is saying Canada will not get to net zero by 2050. The Prime Minister has abandoned climate, plain and simple, and what did we get for that? It was not unity but a referendum for Alberta to separate from Canada.
Moreover, Canada is on a path to significantly increase defence spending to 5% of GDP. We have barely had public debate about this, nor was this talked about during the election. National security matters, but so does economic security. At the very same time as we are considering major increases in defence spending, we are also hearing about fiscal restraint, about the need to limit spending in other areas.
Let us be clear. When the government makes these choices, it falls hardest on people who rely on affordable housing, on the health care system, on income supports, on child care, on mental health and on accessible public services. It falls on middle-income and low-income Canadians. It falls on renters and on young people trying to get ahead. In other words, without careful and deliberate policy design, those trade-offs can deepen inequality.
We know policy choices can make a difference in people's lives. This is what the Prime Minister is doing. He is trading off the needs of Canadians for the oil and gas companies, which are already making billions and billions in profits.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member could give a clear indication of whether the NDP supports in any way increasing natural resource exports. In particular, does the NDP support any sort of pipeline extensions or expansion?
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what the NDP stands for. The NDP stands for calling on the government to actually impose an excessive profit tax on the oil and gas companies, which are poised to make over $90 billion just this year alone in profits. That money should go into the sovereign wealth fund. That money should go into green energy initiatives. That money should be going into supporting Canadians who are struggling with the affordability crisis.
Mr. Speaker, I have an honest question for my friend from the NDP. Earlier, we had the member for Winnipeg North laughing about seniors not being able to afford food in one of our members' ridings. He said—
Mr. Speaker, the member is imputing motives. That is just not true, and the member knows that. He should apologize for it.
It is a matter of debate how members interpret things.
I will let the member for Regina—Lewvan finish his comments.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I heard the member laughing when my colleague brought this up, so I think the member opposite should apologize and withdraw his comment.
I am just going to make a ruling here. Standing Order 18 is pretty darn clear about what members are allowed to say and are not allowed to say about each other. They are not supposed to impugn motives, but members do have reactions to what is being said in the House. That is part of being a member. We get to say things but also listen to things, and I think one of the greatest privileges we have is being listened to in the House and members seeing the reactions that we have in the moment when we are making them. We should also be judicious with our comments when we are making them, in case members interpret them in the wrong way.
With that being said, I will now invoke my favourite standing order, Standing Order 10, which is not debating with the Speaker. I will let the member finish his comment, and I will ask members to be judicious and careful in the commentary they make about actions that are taken in the chamber and outside the chamber when they have to do with members of the House.
The member for Regina—Lewvan.
Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the question I had for the member from B.C. I am wondering, how many Canadians in your riding are actually better off than they were five or six years ago? Are there lots of people in your riding saying that things have gotten better, or can you say that they have collectively gotten worse?
I am going to remind the member to speak through the Speaker. That is another standing order. I welcome the member's reading the Standing Orders.
With that, I will let the member for Vancouver East reply.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the affordability crisis is hitting everybody. In my riding of Vancouver East as well, people are struggling to get by. What the NDP cannot accept is an economy where wealth continues to concentrate at the top, where opportunity narrows for too many and where public policy moves in ways that risk reinforcing that divide. This is not inevitable. It is the result of the political decisions of the Prime Minister, and it is within our power to choose a different path. The NDP chooses a different path. We say, let us levy an excessive profit tax for those who are making billions of dollars at the expense of Canadians who are struggling to get by.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Vancouver East has two issues she is passionate about: the living conditions and housing conditions of first nations.
In the budget statement, the government clearly fails to address two major concerns affecting many Canadians. In the current context, the government has missed an opportunity, particularly to implement initiatives such as the Yänonhchia' initiative, which provided powers by and for first nations and empowered them to make decisions regarding housing. It also included an investment fund that would have made it possible to reinvest funds.
Is my colleague disappointed by the government's lack of solutions regarding indigenous housing and the increasingly urgent needs in this area?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, there is no question that I am deeply disappointed and deeply concerned that the Prime Minister has abandoned the indigenous community. He is riding roughshod over and sidelining their indigenous rights, as have been enshrined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. On the housing side, the government, in the economic update, actually ensured that the private sector would be the biggest beneficiary of the spring economic update. Of the $140 billion for measures toward housing, two-thirds is actually targeted toward the private sector in the way of benefits, tax incentives and so on. Only a small fraction of the money would actually be invested in building housing. So much for building faster and more for the Canadians who need housing the most.
Mr. Speaker, it is fascinating to hear the anti-capitalist rhetoric from the NDP, the party that is supposed to be representing workers.
Will the member opposite acknowledge that there are thousands of workers who work in the private sector and in the oil and gas industry, who make the steel and the components that go into that industry and who are benefiting from the government's investments?
Mr. Speaker, of course the NDP supports workers. We are not the party that will legislate them back to work. We are not the party that will run roughshod over workers. We are not the party that is pretending to engage in a consultative process about major changes to the Canada Labour Code without the meaningful participation from labour. This is what the Liberals are doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is with great humility and pride that I rise today, as the member for Trois-Rivières, to speak to the 2026 spring economic update and to share what I have heard in my riding, as well as the commitments and actions our government is taking to represent the people of our communities.
First, I want to talk about pride—pride in what I heard while going door to door, pride in our government's actions, pride in being part of this team at such a pivotal moment for our country and, above all, pride in representing a riding that wants to be part of the future and part of the solution. The number one thing I heard about while going door to door was the cost of living. That is really what people are most concerned about. However, contrary to what our Conservative colleagues like to claim about us living in a vacuum, my constituents understand that the global context is having an impact on the cost of living. The dependence on supply chains—
I have to interrupt the hon. member. There is a point of order from the hon. member for Leduc—Wetaskiwin.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have shortened debate on this really important amount of spending they are doing, and they cannot even be bothered to show up to have quorum. I would like to make sure we have quorum.
I will ask the clerk to help me with the count.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Deputy Speaker: Order. It is easier to do a count if members are not shouting across the aisle at each other and interrupting the count.
And the count having been taken:
The Deputy Speaker: We have quorum now.
[Translation]
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and member for Trois-Rivières may continue.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing members into the House, and I thank my colleagues for being here today.
When I went out to meet with people, the number one issue I heard about was the cost of living, which folks are concerned about. However, contrary to what our Conservative colleagues like to claim about us living in a vacuum, my constituents understand that the global context is having an impact on the cost of living and the dependence on supply chains. The physical wars in Ukraine and Iran are also having an impact. The illegal and unfair tariff wars are affecting input costs.
What I am hearing from people is that it is absolutely critical that we maintain the programs that are helping the most vulnerable Canadians. It is often said in the House that our programs are handouts given to Canadians. These are not handouts. These programs help families make ends meet and have a better life every day.
For example, 26,000 people in my riding, Trois-Rivières, are benefiting from the dental plan. There is the Canada child benefit, which 8,700 households back home are receiving. More than 35,000 people in Trois-Rivières are receiving the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Of course, we cannot overlook the school food program. Thousands of young people in the 22 most disadvantaged schools in my riding are receiving food assistance through the school food program. Canadians are proud that their government has succeeded in protecting its social programs, even in the current context.
I would like to talk a little about the housing crisis. We know that rent is one of the biggest expenses for families. That is why we need to build housing faster. Obviously, we have launched Build Canada Homes. In fact, soon we will be studying Bill C-20, which we hope our colleagues will support. Agreements have already been signed to build more than 10,000 units, and construction will begin in the coming weeks.
We have also proposed a GST rebate for first-time homebuyers. More recently, we announced $1.7 billion in transfers to the provinces to encourage cities and provinces to reduce barriers to construction, whether related to zoning, densification, or permitting. These are important measures.
It is also important to give our young people hope that one day, they will have good jobs and be able to buy a home. That is why, in this economic statement, we invested $750 million in sports infrastructure. We also increased the number of summer jobs, and this summer, 100,000 young people will get their first job experience. In my riding of Trois‑Rivières, these investments add up to nearly $1.2 million. This will give small businesses a break. It will help non-profit organizations expand their services. For example, the Trois-Rivières Native Friendship Centre will be able to accommodate 30 more children at its upcoming summer camp with the help it received from Canada summer jobs.
With the economic statement, we are moving ahead with the team Canada strong initiative, which involves a $10-billion investment in recruiting, training and hiring 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal trades workers. We want to build at speed and scale. That takes labour. We are rolling out the programs needed to equip ourselves to get there.
The people I spoke to also talked to me a lot about the economy. It was the second-most important issue when I met with people in recent weeks. They understand the global context and they understand the repercussions of what is happening south of the border. People told me that they are very satisfied with the government and with the actions that the government and our Prime Minister are taking.
I want to quickly tell members what people told me about the Prime Minister. They said that he was the right man for the job, that he governs with his head and that he is the adult in the room. They also told me to imagine what things would be like if the other guy were in power, referring to the Leader of the Opposition.
Above all, people talked to me about pride. They are proud that Canada is taking its rightful place in the world. They are proud of the investments that we are making in the Canadian Armed Forces. They are proud of the fact that Canada is not giving in to the will of the President of the United States just to secure an agreement at any cost. They also told me that it is time to build and time to do things differently, to turn things around and to take every opportunity that presents itself.
That is what we have been proposing since our government was elected in 2025. Through the Major Projects Office, for example, we will build and expand the port of Contrecoeur. There is the high-speed rail project, which I am sure my colleagues will want to discuss shortly. There is the defence industrial strategy, which will create up to 125,000 jobs. The build communities strong fund provides $51 billion to ensure our communities have the necessary infrastructure. Above all, there is the “buy Canadian” policy to favour Canadian companies in procurement processes.
We know that none of this will be built overnight. In the meantime, we know that our industries are suffering because of the global context and the unjust and illegal tariffs imposed by the U.S. administration. That is why we are here to support our businesses and our workers, notably through the regional tariff response initiative, which we enhanced in the latest economic statement: The funding was originally set at $1 billion, but we have added $500 million.
In my riding, companies such as FAB 3R, AGT Robotics and Captel are being hit hard by the tariffs. With these investments, they can diversify, protect jobs and modernize their production. This is in addition to other programs, such as the $5‑billion strategic response fund, which helps businesses adapt to the global context.
Just recently, Minister Joly joined me in my riding to announce—
I must interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary and remind her that members and ministers cannot be named in the House. The member may continue.
Just recently, the Minister of Industry and I were in my riding to annunce a $35‑million investment in Kruger to help this company diversify its production line and create market opportunities for Canada's forest products, which is another industry that is struggling right now.
In the economic statement, the government announced the Canada Strong fund, a sovereign wealth fund with $25 billion in initial capital that Canadians can contribute to in order to receive their share of the returns generated by the build Canada strong program. Canadians are proud of their country and want to participate in this major social project we are building.
While going door to door, I also had people raise the issue of the environment. We discussed the auto strategy and the nature strategy. We discussed our leadership on the international stage, which we are not abandoning. Canada is upholding its commitments. Canadians and Quebeckers know very well that no party has done as much to protect the environment and combat climate change as our party.
That brings me back to the topic of pride. Protecting our territory and fighting climate change are matters of national pride, both in Quebec and in Alberta. We have been witnessing a surge in national pride since last year. The economic statement tabled by my colleague, the hon. Minister of Finance, meets the moment we are experiencing together.
On this side of the House, we are taking action. We are adapting to a changing world. We are capable of envisioning the future. We are not afraid to make the necessary decisions. We are governing responsibly and ambitiously, and above all, we are continuing to be there for Canadians who need help. The economic statement feeds into the grand endeavour we launched in 2025 to build Canada strong for all Canadians, a proud Canada.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, The New York Times reported that Canada had the richest middle class in the world. In 2015, we had a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world.
Fast-forward to today. We have more than doubled our national debt. The Liberals brag about the fact that we are subsidizing groceries for a third of the population. That is the situation we are in. We are spending more on interest than we are on the Canada health transfer, and the Liberals' own financial statements indicate that by 2030‑31, the entire deficit would be used to pay interest on the debt. How did we get here?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in 2015, according to another statistic I would like to remind my colleague of, the child poverty rate was 16%. Today, it has fallen below 10%. That is exactly what we are doing: We are lifting people out of poverty.
Although I know it is my colleague's turn to ask a question, I would like him to tell me where he would make budget cuts. Every day, we are told that we are doing nothing right. Could my colleague tell me where he would make cuts?
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, if, when she speaks to her constituents in her riding, they fully understand the argument we constantly hear from the Conservatives about the so-called Liberal Party credit card.
I get the feeling that Canadians understand that we need to invest during this difficult time. We are going through a tariff war. Now is the time to take advantage of the fact that we are in the best economic position to be able to invest in our country.
What is she hearing from her constituents?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
When I talk to my constituents, they tell me not to take them for fools, because they know full well that the Conservatives do not care about affordability or the social programs we are putting forward. That is what my constituents are telling me.
They know that we are here to support Canadians by eliminating the gas tax, by providing the grocery benefit, by providing the school food program, by accelerating the construction of affordable housing and by protecting jobs in the industries most affected by tariffs.
The Conservatives voted against all those measures. No one believes that the Conservatives are actually there for the most vulnerable.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned to a Conservative colleague what we should cut to help Canadians. Repeatedly, with the Trudeau government, we heard about scandal upon scandal and about the waste of taxpayers' dollars. I am concerned, even with the current Liberal government, of potentially more scandals with regard to wasting taxpayers' dollars.
Is the Liberal government going to come to terms and stop wasting taxpayers' dollars on behalf of all Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I understand that it is hard for them to come up with a plan that makes sense. That is exactly what we are proposing: a plan that makes sense.
I repeat, we have announced $1.5 billion to help the industries most affected by the trade war. We are investing in our infrastructure to build the Canada of tomorrow.
We are going to train 100,000 youths in specialized trades to put them at the centre of the major projects that we are going to build.
We are doing all this while reducing the deficit, which according to the economic statement is down from $78 million to $67 million.
[English]
I will say this in English, because I do not have the right words in French.
I am so tired of hearing about the social programs as if they are handouts, and of hearing about people who need to rent apartments as if “Why are you guys building apartments? People want to own their home.”
Through the Chair, please stop putting Canadians down.
Before we return to debate, I will inform members that the five hours usually allocated for a government bill has now elapsed. At this time, members no longer need to say that they are splitting their time with another member. Standing Orders 43 and 74 cover this time period both during the five hours and after that time period.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Leduc—Wetaskiwin.
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. parliamentary secretary's speech. At one point she did ask what we would cut. Let me be very clear, because she also referenced my home province of Alberta in kind of a flippant way.
The first things we would cut would be Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which have made it impossible to compete in the global environment where, believe it or not, oil coming to Canada from Algeria, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia faces fewer restrictions and less rigorous regulation around reporting than oil coming from Alberta being sold in our own country. Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are where we would start cutting.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mike Lake: I know the member is heckling me, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to talk about something fairly serious to me. She made the assertion that Conservatives do not care about the most vulnerable. The member is new to the House and is mocking me as she smiles.
The member might not know that I have a son with autism. He is 30 years old. I talk about this a lot in the House. In 1995, when we were in a similar situation to what we are in now and we had a Liberal government dealing with a generation after the 14 out of 15 deficits that the former Trudeau government had run, that Liberal government, under Paul Martin, was forced to cut 32% from transfers for health, social services and education. Every province in the country and every vulnerable Canadian in the country had to pay the consequences of those devastating cuts.
Those devastating cuts happened for exactly the same reason, because of the exact same type of fiscal policy that the current Liberal government is running. We have massive deficits, a situation I mentioned a few minutes ago in which we are paying more on interest today than we are on the Canadian health transfer. Because of deliberate spending decisions made by the member's government, today we are spending more on interest than we are on the Canadian health transfer.
The Liberals' own budget documents presented in the spring economic statement indicate that by 2030, we are going to be using the entire deficit to pay off interest on the debt. It is the equivalent of going to a bank, getting a mortgage and convincing the bank to allow payment of only the interest on that mortgage, not paying off any of the principal but only making interest payments on the mortgage. That is the situation we are in today.
Another Liberal member just called that the best fiscal situation in the world. That is laughable. There is no Canadian who believes that right now. I have a quote from C.S. Lewis. This goes back a while, but I find it a perfect quote for where we are right now. Lewis said:
We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the [one] who turns back soonest is the most progressive....
We need to turn back. We need to get this country's fiscal situation back on track. We need to have a plan, at least someone on the government side who indicates that it is important to one day get back to a balanced budget and a time when we have the flexibility to make the best decisions we can for all Canadians, including the most vulnerable.
Mr. Speaker, the International Monetary Fund said straight up that Canada is in the best fiscal position of the G7. I am wondering if the member opposite understands the difference between investment and spending, because Canadians sure do.
Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that, in 2015, we had a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world, and we are a long ways from there today.
[Translation]
It being 7:03 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
[English]
If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment 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.
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, May 26, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
I see the parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.
Adjournment Proceedings
[Adjournment Proceedings]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take to my feet today to ask for a more substantive answer to a question I asked in question period about a month ago.
I asked the Liberal finance minister if he should be held to his own words. I remember back in 2023 that minister had said he would have grocery prices under control by Thanksgiving 2023. Those are not the only comments we have heard about grocery prices over the last few years from the Liberal government members. We also heard the Prime Minister tell all Canadians that he should be judged by the prices they see at the grocery store. I think it is fair to hold people accountable to their own words. Even my kids know they are responsible for the words that come out of their mouths. I would expect the same from these Liberals when they say something.
I would also ask about the fact that this Prime Minister was elected on a promise to Canadians that he would have a trade deal done with Donald Trump in the United States by July 1, 2025. That has long since passed, so I would ask the Canadian public to hold the Liberals accountable to the words they have actually spoken and the promises they have committed to.
We have seen these Liberals cheerlead and pat themselves on the back because they are giving out tariff relief. If they had kept their word and gotten a trade deal with the U.S.A. and handled Donald Trump, as the Prime Minister said on the campaign trail, they would not have to be handing out tariff relief to companies. They would be able to make their own money, trade, do what they do best and make great Canadian products and sell them from coast to coast, to our neighbours to the south and around the world.
I would like an answer on why the Liberals keep cheering for themselves when they have failed at every measurable thing they have committed to. They committed to lowering grocery prices. They failed. They committed to getting a trade deal done with the United States. They failed. They committed to child care. I know there is going to be an answer on this from whoever is going to answer over there that they do have child care, but, right now, the child care program has failed miserably. They promised 250,000 new spaces by the end of March. They are at 155,000 spaces, which is 62% of what they promised. Once again, the promise was made, but the promise was not kept by these Liberals. It is really a lie of the left. They commit to things, but they never follow through.
We see the Desjardins report, which says, “the share of respondents mentioning the lack of available childcare spaces or long waitlists rose sharply over this period, from 1 in 15 [in 2019] to...1 in 5 [now].” It is harder and harder for parents to find child care spaces because the private ones could not compete. We saw this in the GTA also. Before the child care program, child care spaces were rising from 5% to 7% a year. Now, during some years, we have seen decreases in child care spaces. It is an abject failure of a program that we had questions about from the start, and parents are being burdened by the failures of the government. Whether it be child care spaces or food prices, it is a fail. Trade deals with the U.S.A. are a fail.
Is there anything the government has succeeded at? Can it show us any segment of the Canadian population that is better off now than before the Liberals' last 10 terrible years of government?
Mr. Speaker, the member keeps talking about getting a deal, any deal, with the American administration, but I do not think this is what Canadians want. At a time when Canadians are facing heightened affordability pressures from sources beyond our control, it is more important than ever—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Caroline Desrochers: Mr. Speaker, the member is saying it is not true. Yes, it is.
It is more important than ever that we find opportunities for improvement that are within our control. We need to control what we can. We know that Canadians are feeling the pressure of everyday expenses right now, especially when it comes to the cost of fuel. Canadians and consumers around the world are facing higher prices at the pumps, creating uncertainty and pressure on household finances. This is stemming directly from the events that are unfolding in the Middle East right now.
This is why, on April 14, the Prime Minister announced a temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels across Canada. The suspension started on April 20 and will remain in effect until Labour Day. We are expecting that this will reduce Canadians' bill at the pumps by up to 10¢ per litre on gasoline and up to four cents per litre on diesel. This is adding to the 18¢ reduction from the carbon tax that we removed when we came into power last year.
This is also in addition to the other measures we have put in place to support Canadians. We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit to make everyday essentials like groceries more affordable. I know my colleagues across the aisle will mock this, but this measure builds on the GST credit and will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians. This is going to start with a one-time top-up next week, on June 5. Combined with a 25% increase in the benefit for five years as of July, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year, and a single person up to $950 in 2026. This is money in the pockets of Canadians. This is money that can help families make ends meet at the end of the month. This is money that can provide relief.
We also know that a big part of taking things into our own hands is making life more affordable for Canadians. That is why Bill C-30 is proposing to extend the grace period during which homeowners are not required to start repaying their homebuyers' plan withdrawals from the RRSP from two years to five years. The homebuyers' plan helps eligible homebuyers save for a down payment by allowing them to withdraw up to $60,000 from an RRSP to purchase or build their first home, something the Conservatives voted against, or a home for a specified disabled person, without having to pay tax on the withdrawal. This extended grace period already applies to withdrawals made between 2022 and 2025 and provides relief of up to $4,000 per individual per year for three years, over which they are not required to repay the amount into their RRSP.
Everyone deserves a roof over their head. That is why our government is taking action and putting housing and home ownership within reach of more Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, if my kids gave me that answer when I asked them a question, I would be bitterly disappointed. It is always someone else's fault with these Liberals. It is never their fault. Regarding gasoline prices, they say, “It is not our fault. We took the tax off.” However, there is not a place in the country where the price of gas is lower than it was before. They only went a third of the way. They could have taken off all the tax on all the gas for the year, but they did not.
With respect to home prices, they say, “We are going to build homes at speeds never seen before, generational speeds.” Fewer houses are being built in Canada this year than were built last year. You are failing at everything, and it is always someone else's fault.
The parliamentary secretary could give me another answer, but I am guessing she will say the dog ate her homework.
Just as a reminder, despite our being in Adjournment Proceedings, members should still speak through the Chair, when using “you” specifically.
I invite the parliamentary secretary to respond.
Mr. Speaker, the measures in the recent spring economic update are part of the next step in our plan to build a stronger, more independent and resilient Canada for all, because we do have a plan on this side of the House. It would advance our progress in building more affordable homes and the major infrastructure that transforms and connects our economy, while bringing down costs to help people get ahead. It would help businesses seize new opportunities and give families the confidence to plan their future. It would build a Canada that is not just strong, but good; not just prosperous, but fair.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.
Oftentimes, people who watch question period with the Liberal government in power will remark that there is a reason it is not called answer period. We often cannot get, in a 35-second sound bite, much substance from the Liberals, which is why I am glad to have the opportunity to take another crack at a very important question today.
Those watching who are not familiar with what we call “late shows” in this chamber will remark that there are very few people in the House. There are no journalists present. There is no one in the gallery. There is just me and the parliamentary secretary and a couple of other keen stragglers here. I am hoping we can have a discussion rooted in the substance of the matter, which is that Canadians cannot afford life right now. Canadians cannot afford groceries. Canadians cannot afford the price of fuel.
The question I initially asked in question period was about when the Liberals will commit to truly providing relief, not for Liberal insiders, not for consultants, not for bankers and bondholders, but for ordinary Canadians. Canadians cannot afford the price of gas right now, which is especially germane in rural ridings like my own where driving is not, in fact, a choice. It is a necessity to go to school, to work, to medical appointments.
We put forward a very clear-cut plan, which was to get the Liberals to cut all federal taxes on fuel for the entirety of the year, as a starting point. Instead, the Liberals responded by saying they would cut a third of the taxes for a third of the year. Something is better than nothing, but not that much. When we talked about this in recent weeks, some Liberals asked, “Well, where are you going to get the money for that from?”
The Liberals will often say that any tax cut has to come at the expense of services, but that is a red herring that is rooted in a fundamental misrepresentation of what the Liberals have prioritized spending on. I would like to mention a couple of those things here. The Liberals are committing $90 billion to an Alto rail project that Canadians do not want and that will not benefit people in the majority of the country, certainly not people in southwestern Ontario. They are spending $742 billion on a firearms confiscation scheme that law enforcement has said will not improve public safety. Federal bureaucracy spending is expected to reach $66 billion this year. It has grown in the last year, outpacing inflation and outpacing the rise in the population of this country. Debt interest is $58.7 billion. That is money paying the interest payments on the federal credit card.
Then we found out, of course, that the Liberals are spending $200 million on a launch pad. That is what they call it, but it is actually a gravel pit in Nova Scotia. It is on provincial government land, yet they are paying this to insider-connected companies as part of this ambitious Liberal space strategy that Canadians cannot afford in the way they are presenting it. They are spending $13 billion for Build Canada Homes, a housing bureaucracy with no track record of actually building homes, along with $20 billion on external consultants.
All of this could go away and fund a fuel tax reduction for Canadians and a significant other suite of relief measures without affecting services at all. My question is, why are the Liberals not doing this? Why are they not looking inside themselves, as the Prime Minister has said to some people in the past, and finding ways to save money, which is not theirs but the taxpayers'?
Mr. Speaker, Canada has long been a global leader in the aerospace sector. Establishing Canadian sovereign space launch capabilities will drive billions in investments, create good-paying jobs, increase Canada's sovereignty, and support a commercial space launch and re-entry industry that could be worth up to $40 billion. This is what we are investing in. These are essential capabilities that protect Canada and create massive economic benefits for Canadians. In fact, it is estimated that the sector sustains 225,000 jobs across Canada.
Through Canada's first-ever defence industrial strategy, along with our recent investments in aerospace capabilities, we are working hard to grow this sector even further. This strategy provides the signal to industry, allies, partners, the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadians that we are moving forward quickly and with purpose.
The defence industrial strategy identifies space as one of 10 sovereign capabilities for Canada. These are the capabilities we need to invest in and foster so that our military can remain agile, effective and ready to meet the requirements of a more complex security environment, and so that we can support Canadian workers and Canadian industry by building on what we already do very well.
[Translation]
By prioritizing space capabilities and other sovereign capabilities, and by making a host of other changes to how we are rebuilding and re-equipping our forces while reinvesting in them, we anticipate that the defence industrial strategy will deliver impressive results, including 125,000 high-quality jobs across the Canadian economy, an increase in total revenue for the Canadian defence industry of more than 240%, and a 50% increase in Canada's defence exports. This will all occur over the next decade.
[English]
Our new build-partner-buy strategy means that we are investing in Canadian workers, in Canadian industry and in the Canadian economy. Our investments in Canada's space capabilities will translate into new jobs, stronger supply chains, greater industrial capacity and a more resilient Canadian economy.
I will turn to one such investment in particular, the spaceport near Canso, Nova Scotia. As the Minister of National Defence announced back in March, Canada has signed a 10-year, $200-million agreement with Maritime Launch Services to build out Canada's sovereign launch infrastructure. As part of this agreement, Maritime Launch Services must spend 90% of that funding here in Canada. This means that $180 million will go back into Canadian businesses. Moreover, we expect that, once complete, it will help bring direct and indirect benefits to Canada's space, industrial, hospitality and tourism sectors, including those in the local community. Canada and Canso, in particular, are a natural choice for this launch capability.
[Translation]
We have the space expertise, the industrial capacity and a site near Canso that is suitable for safe and effective launch operations, because of its proximity to the ocean. That is why many of our allies and partners have already expressed interest in collaborating with us to support their own launches, which will create even more opportunities in the region.
[English]
The Canadian Space Agency is in Longueuil, and I have visited it many times. This capability is incredibly important to our national defence and our sovereignty. In short, this investment is good news for Nova Scotia, for Canada and for everyone who works in the space domain.
Mr. Speaker, when the Artemis mission was on the far side of the moon, it was still closer to answering the question than the parliamentary secretary just was.
I spoke about very real concerns, such as the price of fuel and groceries, and I mentioned a number of ways the Liberal government is not being respectful of taxpayer money. Instead, she came in here with a canned four-minute statement on just one of the many line items I mentioned, showing that the Liberals are not even prepared to rise in the House to defend their reckless spending.
A general contractor in my riding is saying that, without relief on the price of fuel, he will find himself forced to lay off employees. A man in Central Elgin, a struggling parent, says he is putting groceries on his credit card because that is the only way to pay for them. Another one says she has to move because she cannot afford the cost of living in a place that she always thought would be affordable.
Why are the Liberals ignoring these Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, only a Conservative would say that spending 2% of GDP on defence is a waste. Being from a military family, I find that, quite frankly, incredibly offensive.
The capabilities that this investment will allow us to have are incredibly important to not only our military response, but also our domestic response, whether that be wildfires, flooding or so on and so forth. To assume otherwise is absolutely incorrect.
By the way, seeing that it is Monday evening, I just want to say, go, Habs, go!
Mr. Speaker, Canada's housing market today looks a lot like a young man driving a road racer down an icy highway in the middle of winter. The engine roars, the tires grip and the driver thinks he is in control and so he presses harder on the gas. Imagine a souped-up, five-litre Mustang with more horsepower than common sense. The speed builds, but suddenly the tires lose traction. The steering becomes unstable, and the vehicle starts sliding. A smart driver would ease off carefully and regain control but, just like a reckless teenager, the Liberal government does not believe in restraint. It believes Ottawa can control markets better than Canadians themselves, and that arrogance is exactly what has driven Canada's housing market into the ditch.
First, the Liberals went full throttle on immigration and population growth without building the homes, infrastructure, roads, utilities or skilled labour force needed to support it. Canada added well over one million new residents in a single year, one of the fastest population growth rates in the developed world. The Liberal government drove demand through the roof while supply was trapped behind taxes, red tape, permitting delays and development charges, forcing prices to explode. Young families were suddenly bidding against impossible demand. Rents soared and house prices spiralled. Ordinary Canadians who worked hard and played by the rules found themselves locked out of home ownership altogether.
The Liberals treated the housing market like a driver flooring a powerful car on black ice and then acted surprised when the whole thing started fishtailing. Then, after overheating the market, the Liberals pulled the emergency brake, cutting immigration and locking us in a dangerous skid. At the peak, they brought one million international students into the country and then abruptly, this year, came to a screeching halt of less than half. However, when a car is already sliding, hitting the brakes too hard does not restore control; it sends the whole vehicle spinning. Adding to that chaos, the Liberals' so-called build Canada approach threw billions of dollars at the catastrophic crash site.
Once again, the Liberals believed they could centrally plan the economy from the top down. They encouraged prefab factories and construction suppliers to tool up for enormous future projects that have not materialized. Billions were announced, bureaucracies expanded, but uncertainty exploded. Development costs climbed even higher. Builders were crushed between rising interest rates, government interference, expensive regulations and constantly changing rules. Instead of stabilizing housing, Liberal central planning created even greater instability.
Now, we are seeing the devastating consequences. Across the Fraser Valley, we have warning lights flashing everywhere. Thind Properties, Maskeen Group, Brivia Group, Coromandel Properties, Square Nine Developments, 14 Property Group, Wade Development, and Everest Group are struggling with receiverships, insolvencies, foreclosures, creditor protection, stalled projects, laid-off workers and families left wondering whether the homes they paid for will ever even be built. This is what happens when government distorts markets long enough that confidence itself begins to collapse.
Conservatives believe in a common-sense approach. We believe that the people who know how to build homes are builders, not politicians. We believe government should stop choking developments with taxes, delays, gatekeepers and ideological central planning. We believe in getting government out of the way so the private sector can do what it does best: build. Canadians do not need more politicians grabbing the steering wheel. They need a government with enough wisdom to finally let the country get back on track.
Will the Liberal government admit that its housing policies are the reason Canadians cannot afford a home?
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is focused on making housing more affordable and on making home buying more attainable for Canadians. Through budget 2025, we are making generational investments of $25 billion over five years for housing and $115 billion over five years for infrastructure. These strategic investments will build major infrastructure and homes, and create lasting prosperity, empowering Canadians to get ahead.
That is why the Prime Minister launched Build Canada Homes in September 2025. It is a completely different way to build affordable housing for Canadians. The new federal agency is going to catalyze a more productive housing industry, something that sets it apart from anything that has been done previously. There are already agreements for over 10,000 units to be built over the coming months, and some of those shovels are already in the ground.
Build Canada Homes is not going to act alone. It will work in close partnership with developers, manufacturers, provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous partners to get housing financed and built. The goal is to make it faster and easier for builders to get big projects off the ground and deliver homes for Canadians right across the country.
Young families and first-time homebuyers deserve the same opportunity to own a home their parents did. That is why we are taking action to provide Canadians with immediate relief through targeted tax measures. We are cutting the goods and services tax on new homes at or under $1 million for first-time homebuyers, delivering savings of up to $50,000. We are lowering GST on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. These initiatives, despite what the Conservatives are saying, will help more Canadians buy their first home.
We are also helping first-time homebuyers through the tax-free home savings account that helps Canadians to save for their first home, which the Conservatives voted against.
We are building on the success of programs delivered through the national housing strategy, like the $4.4-billion housing accelerator fund, which incentivizes municipalities to eliminate barriers to building that can be big obstacles to building fast.
We are investing in a purpose-built rental supply through the apartment construction loan program.
We are also taking action to help the community housing sector acquire at-risk rental apartment buildings, ensuring they remain affordable over the long term with the launch of the Canada rental protection fund.
It is unacceptable for anybody in Canada to go without safe, affordable and inclusive housing. That is why the federal government is committed to solving the housing crisis and taking a leadership role on housing.
The Government of Canada is removing barriers to construction, reducing risks for home builders and making significant investments in non-market housing in partnership with developers. We are working closely with builders, investors, indigenous partners and all levels of government to implement innovative solutions to get the job done. Together with partners, the Government of Canada is leading transformative changes in Canada's housing sector.
Mr. Speaker, what we are witnessing now is the consequence of years of Liberal market distortion through subsidies, red tape and unpredictable government policy. The Liberals overheated the housing market with record immigration levels and developers responded by investing billions, hiring workers and putting shovels in the ground based on the conditions the government created. Then Ottawa suddenly slammed on the brakes. After years of overheating demand, the Liberals abruptly reversed course without a plan, leaving developers watching the market shift beneath projects already under way as rental vacancy rates jumped more than 40% year over year.
Housing projects take years to plan and build. The government cannot pull one policy lever to flood the market and then yank another to choke off demand and expect builders, renters or buyers to have any stability. This is a failure of central planning. The Liberals created this distortion and now Canadians are paying the price.
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is committed to solving the housing crisis. We are working together with all our partners to use every tool available and get the job done. The housing accelerator fund and the apartment construction loan program are just some of the key programs that are helping Canadians and helping developers get apartments and homes built.
Build Canada Homes is going to partner across the housing ecosystem to drive the development of affordable housing, supporting a mix of income needs. We need to increase our stock of affordable housing. There is no way around it. We are at 4%. We need to get to 8%. It will catalyze modern methods of construction as part of a national effort to increase housing construction, restore affordability and reduce homelessness.
The federal government is back in the business of building homes for Canadians. We are taking bold action to build a housing market that works for everyone and to create lasting, meaningful change across the country.
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer