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. 125
CONTENTS
Friday, May 29, 2026
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 125
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Friday, May 29, 2026
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[Translation]
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2
The House resumed from May 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are rather disappointed with Bill C-31.
We are disappointed because neither the implementation bill nor the economic update really take into account the current tariff crisis. This serious crisis is affecting businesses in general, but, once again, it has been particularly hard on businesses in Quebec, where these tariffs apply to one-quarter of exports. Smaller businesses have been particularly hard hit.
That is something else that makes Quebec unique. When I say that the country of Quebec already exists, I mean that there are already structural differences between Quebec and Canada. Quebec's economy is made up of SMEs, and they need support. They need a government that is there for them and that tells them that we are going through a tough time because our neighbours to the south have an unpredictable president. No one here knows what he will do next. There is nothing worse for the economy and for our businesses than uncertainty, so we have to be there for them, but the government is not taking serious action.
Then, the Bloc Québécois put forward 11 requests. That may seem like a lot, but they are reasonable requests. We wanted to put them up for discussion. Ever since I arrived here in 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been an intelligent and constructive opposition. In fact, it is in the Bloc Québécois's DNA to work that way. We are not here to obstruct everything, despite what some may think or say. We are here to move things forward for the common good, at least for the time being, of course, because our ultimate goal remains achieving Quebec's independence. In our day-to-day work here, we are well aware that time is of the essence and that our goal is far from unrealistic. It is essential to the full and comprehensive development of our society, in accordance with its values and, above all, its priorities. It is not that Canada is not a beautiful country. That is not the issue, and this is not directed against Canada. It is really about our own development according to our own choices and priorities. This will certainly be done in partnership with Canada, since Canada will always be an important neighbour. However, we are in Parliament and we have made proposals. We asked our colleagues to look at them and we have not even received a call. There has not even been 12 seconds of consultation.
Things were different a few months ago. However, because of some backroom deals, people crossed the floor and the government built itself a majority. Once it had a majority, consultation was over. The government talks a good game. They say that they will continue to work in the common interest and listen to opposition parties, and so on.
In fact, the reality is that we get bills like C‑31, for which we did some serious work early on. That is probably the most insulting part of all of this. It is not as though we did not bother to work or as though we just spouted some populist rhetoric and said that the government is bad or rotten. We analyzed the situation. We have a team of researchers and a team of MPs. We are serious. We are dedicated. We came up with real proposals. I get the feeling that the government did not even bother to read them.
Of course, we fully expected that some of our proposals would be rejected, such as the idea to reimburse Quebeckers for the money that was stolen from us and used to buy Liberal votes in the last election. We included that out of principle, to make sure no one forgets. We honestly do not understand why this is not generating more reaction in the media. That said, it seems to me that the government should have considered some of the other proposals. After all, it claims to be reasonable.
Bill C-31 is a major, complex bill that is several hundred pages long and that contains numerous amendments. Once again, and this sums up the essence of my speech this morning, the Bloc leader's office requested, in good faith and in a constructive way, a briefing session on the subtleties and specific features of the bill. We waited more than three weeks before that briefing was held. It took place this week.
At the same time, we are expected to pass this bill as soon as possible. The answer is going to be no. We cannot hand over a blank cheque for such important, large-scale measures while the government continues to expand its subsidies to the oil and gas industry, for example. Enough is enough. Let us be serious and work together. This government has three years left, if it manages to hold on to its majority. People may get fed up, like the former environment minister, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who announced this week that he is leaving politics. Now that is really something, forcing someone like him to leave politics. That means that the Liberals have pushed things too far when it comes to the highly polluting oil from the west. That is also part of the issue.
Returning to today's topic, the bill proposes to once again expand oil and gas industry subsidies. We requested a briefing to ensure that we properly understood the bill, but since the Liberals won a majority, the government seems to scorn us. They seem to have no need for a group of MPs that want Quebec to become independent. They seem no longer interested in even talking to us, now that they can vote as a majority and pass bills as fast as they please. Is that democracy? Has the government now decided to administer things at lightning speed? Let us just say that we do not like it.
Furthermore, based on our initial interpretation, considering the limited time we were given and the information we received, Bill C-31 opens the door to increased government powers and less transparency. We also see that the system for processing air traveller complaints has changed. The government appears to be trying to sweep that issue under the rug. We are deeply concerned about travellers' rights. The government says it wants to take a different approach by having these complaints handled not by the Canadian Transportation Agency, but by a private firm.
Once again, and I will repeat this several times in my speech to make sure that the government hears me, we were not given a proper explanation and we were not given the opportunity to carefully examine the provisions of this bill. As we understand it, we could end up with private companies working for the airlines to quickly resolve passengers' complaints. Now passengers can be treated with contempt by those companies too. Why not? That is already the way things have been going. It is unfortunate, but for all of these reasons, I have to announce that we will be voting against this bill.
Before I close, I want to mention a few of the constructive proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois. For one, the government needs to stop subsidizing big oil. Oil companies are making exorbitant profits. When the government makes the mistake of removing a tax, it does not take long for the benefits to disappear. We saw this with the suspension of the excise tax and the 10¢ rebate. How many years has the Bloc Québécois been repeating the same message? If the government removes a tax, then this greedy sector will fill that void and put the money in its own pockets. That is what happened. If the government removes another tax, then the same thing will happen. The oil companies will wait a few weeks and then they will do it subtly on some pretext about what is happening abroad. At the end of the day, they will pocket the money. Enough with the subsidies. There are other things we could be doing with those billions of dollars.
Take SME wage subsidy programs, for example. They play a vital and important role in maintaining the economic fabric of our regions. However, they are not being used. As for the EI reform, it makes no sense for an EI system to cover only about 60% of its contributors. It means that 40% of people contributing to the plan are throwing money out the window and will never qualify for benefits. We cannot accept that. It constitutes a serious injustice. We could talk about the spring gap that seasonal workers face. There are lots of things we could talk about. We need meaningful measures for our media, the reinstatement of the digital services tax and the reinstatement of labour tax credits.
The federal government must listen to the opposition parties. We are not here to block everything. We are here to contribute our opinion, to share Quebec's take on situations and to work constructively. I am sending the government a message. If it wants us to vote in favour of a future bill, it will have to get serious and respect opposition MPs, because just like Liberal MPs, they too were elected.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick point about the member's talking about respecting the opposition. I think there has been a great deal of collaboration in different ways from the government. We are looking for ideas, as we see with numerous private members' bills. I think back to the days when I was in opposition. Very rarely did the government support a private member's bill, and we can contrast that to what we have been able to do in the last year.
I must say that I am disappointed in the Bloc for not recognizing the bigger picture in terms of what is taking place: the idea of expanding trade opportunities and looking at infrastructure. I think of the port of Montreal, for example. There are many things happening today that are going to be there to give strength and to build a stronger and healthier Canada. The budget is a very important aspect of that build, and the Bloc is determined to vote against it. I am somewhat disappointed. I would have thought that it would have seen the bigger picture.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, he is not the only one who is disappointed. I am disappointed with that answer. The government talks a good game. It says that it is working co-operatively and that it voted in favour of private members' bills, but that was when there was a minority government. For the past few weeks, the government has had a rigged majority, a manufactured majority. It is a similar story in the previous Parliament. At a certain point, the government made a deal with the NDP and started acting like a majority government.
Co-operation happens in a minority setting. That should send an important message to the public. We heard the parliamentary secretary. The best government is a minority government. It helps prevent authoritarian excesses and bills that are passed are reasonable and arise from consensus.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.
I know that for many years he was the Bloc Québécois agriculture critic and I know that he cares about local craft producers of berry-based alcoholic beverages. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a modest measure that would not cost the government much, but that would make a difference for local producers of alcoholic beverages made from berries and maple syrup.
Can my colleague explain to the government how exempting small local producers from the excise tax would make life much easier for our farmers?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her intelligent and logical question.
I hope the government is listening when I say that this is essential. This measure has already been implemented in the case of mead, for example. When it was done in committee, it was done quickly, and the amendment was incomplete, because it did not include berry-based alcohol. This is a fundamental measure.
There are a lot of members on the other side of the House. The Liberals often boast about having 44 members from Quebec and representing the regions. Many of the members across the aisle have farmers in their ridings.
We are not talking about huge sums of money here, unlike the billions of dollars the government is throwing at oil companies. Let us be serious and support small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech.
My question is about the last part of his speech, when he talked about the difference between a minority and a majority Parliament, from a democracy standpoint.
Some citizens, some Quebeckers, do believe that it is better if the government has a majority. Why is a minority government better for democracy?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question, which is an interesting one.
Having a minority government forces parties to compromise. Absolute power is never a good thing. When the government has a minority, it is forced to consult with the other parties. If it wants a bill to be passed, it must talk with with the opposition and convince them. The opposition may raise some concerns; it may say that it agrees on one thing, but that another aspect should also be considered.
The best thing about that—and I have experienced this over many years—is that, often, the government realizes that it is actually a good idea. They mull it over and may even include it. That is how it worked when we discussed legislation to protect supply management. The trouble at the moment is that the government is not listening to us anymore; I am not even sure they have read our proposals. That is the tragic part about it.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong. If we look at it, we see that the very first action of the government when we acquired the majority, when the three new members were brought into the chamber, was to pass a private member's bill that was an opposition bill. Since then, we have seen pass out of second reading support pending on amendments to private members' bills that again were opposition bills.
I have been in opposition for many years, more years than in government, and I can tell members that it is more about the responsibility of the opposition and the way in which it works, which is often based on personalities. To try to give a false impression that a majority government is a bad government I think does a disservice. Yes, at times a majority can be a problem; I have been in that situation too, but it is not a generalization that should be made. A majority, especially at a time when we need to build a stronger, healthier Canada, I would suggest is a good thing.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we could spend all day getting caught up in semantics, but the parliamentary secretary is completely mistaken. When private members' bills were passed, the Liberals were in the minority. That is the key difference.
I hope they will do it again. They will probably do it for bills that are not controversial. For example, if we vote on the bill establishing Arab heritage month, which is currently under consideration and is a consensus bill, they will take credit for passing private members' bills.
When it comes to the substance of the budget, it seems to me that if the parliamentary secretary were even remotely serious, he would take a moment to reflect. He would speak with the members of his party and tell them that he did not come across very well this morning in Parliament and that the Liberals might want to have a little chat with the members of the Bloc Québécois.
The parliamentary secretary is talking about attitude, but our attitude has not changed. We are always constructive. He says that a wage subsidy proposal for SMEs is not a good idea. The Liberals do not have to accept it, but they should at least talk to us about it.
There was no consultation. We waited three weeks to get a briefing. Now the government is saying that we need to have a vote this week. The answer is written on my face, because I am not allowed to use the words I want to use.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to talk about what SMEs in Quebec really need. We know that the Bloc Québécois is very close to businesses in our communities, which have a different approach than the rest of Canada. What we are hearing from these business people is that the measures currently in place are not adapted to their reality. Businesses are closing and the regions are in a precarious economic situation.
What could the government have done to prevent this situation?
Mr. Speaker, for one, it could have done more than just provide loans, because, eventually, a company's debt level rises dramatically. I just mentioned the wage subsidy. What a wonderful way to preserve the economic fabric of the regions by maintaining the employment relationship between the worker and the company, even if production has to slow down or operations have to stop temporarily.
It seems that the government's current intention is to see small businesses disappear and for everything to be concentrated in large companies, because the focus is on helping large companies. I hope that is not the case, but I feel I need to raise the issue publicly. I would like an answer on that.
Ordinary people in the regions are asking us for help, asking us for support, and the government should be more present than it is. At the very least, I urge the government to sit down with us so that we can discuss potential solutions. If it does not like this solution, let us find another one that will suit everyone. That is how government is supposed to work for the common good.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
I wanted to start today by giving my best regards to Albertans who are standing up for the “Fight Back Now” day of action that is taking place across Alberta today. It is being organized by the Alberta Federation of Labour. I really wish I could be there today. I want to congratulate the workers, union members, indigenous leaders, community organizers, students, health care advocates and every ordinary Albertan who is coming together to raise their voices for fairness, for dignity and for a better future for our province and for our country.
At a time when separatist rhetoric is being fuelled by Danielle Smith and the UCP government, at a time when workers' rights, public health care, public education, indigenous rights and human rights of many Albertans are under attack, these Albertans are standing up for the values that built my province: solidarity, public service, good jobs and looking out for one another. Their message is clear. Albertans are tired of governments that prioritize corporate profits and political division, while families struggle to afford housing, access health care and make ends meet.
Today's day of action is a reminder that democracy is not passive. Change happens because people organize, speak out and demand better. Albertans, today, are demanding better.
I want to start by talking a little bit about Alberta. The frustrations that Albertans feel are real. When we talk about the budget implementation act and the spring economic statement, we have to acknowledge the moment we find ourselves in. People in Alberta feel economically insecure and politically alienated.
We are seeing problems on both sides of this House in response to that. We know that the Conservatives are fuelling division and rage, exploiting that anger in Alberta with the UCP government. We know that the Liberals think dangling a pipeline in front of Albertans will in fact fix the separation issue. That is not the way this works. Appeasing separatists with symbolic concessions is like appeasing Donald Trump. It never works because the goalposts change. It never works because they will move the goalposts further down the line.
Canadians, including Albertans, need economic security. They need strong public services and national unity that is based on fairness. National unity cannot be bought with a pipeline announcement, while people cannot afford rent, cannot find a doctor and feel abandoned by the governments that represent them. This economic statement did not help any of that.
Budgets reveal priorities and values. Canadians are struggling with affordability, access to health care and a health care system in Alberta that is at the point of collapse. We have housing insecurity and global instability. This moment we find ourselves in right now calls for courage and it calls for transformational leadership. Instead what we saw from this spring economic statement was the protection of corporate interests, while asking ordinary Canadians to settle for less.
At a time when Canadians needed bold action, the Liberal government delivered corporate subsidies and broken promises. The reality is Canadians cannot afford their groceries, rent, insurance, utilities or medication. The cost of all of it is continuing to rise. People are working full-time and they cannot get ahead. Young people feel locked out of home ownership and stability entirely. Seniors are skipping meals and prescription medication. Disability supports remain wildly inadequate. While I will congratulate the government on tinkering on the edges and making the application process somewhat easier, the amount that we are giving to some of the most vulnerable people in our community does not meet the needs that those members of our community face. Temporary rebates and boutique programs do not solve structural affordability problems.
The government refuses to confront corporate profiteering. There is no serious excess profit tax on grocery giants or oil companies, and the government continues to provide corporate subsidies while families in this country are struggling. There is a progressive alternative. We could tax excess profits. We could build market housing at the scale needed to deal with the national housing crisis we are facing in this country right now. We could strengthen public services instead of privatizing them. We could invest directly in people, not in shareholders. We do not need more corporate press releases disguised as affordability policy. Canadians need governments that are willing to take on concentrated wealth and corporate greed.
Now I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the health care crisis we are facing. I know Alberta is ground zero for this, but I also know it is happening across the country. The institution of public health care, universally delivered, publicly delivered health care, is under attack in this country. Canadians cannot access family doctors. Emergency waiting rooms are closing. The wait times are in the hours, if not days. Hallway medicine has become normalized. Health care workers across the country are being left burnt-out and discouraged, and they are leaving the profession.
In Alberta, Danielle Smith is dismantling public health care, and the federal government is refusing to stand up for the law in this country, the Canada Health Act. In the budget implementation act, the government could have stood up. It could have stood up and invested in mental health care. It could have recommitted the dollars and support for a pharmacare program that it has been promising for decades. The vast majority of Canadians still do not have access to pharmacare, including in my province of Alberta. That is not the principle of the Canada Health Act. The principle of universality says every Canadian, regardless of where they live, should access the same level of care.
There is the dental care program that the New Democrats fought so hard for and has helped so many Canadians across this country. The government is failing to invest in it. The government is failing to support it. Canadians deserve a government looking after them, and they deserve a government that believes in the Canada Health Act and is willing to fight to enforce it. The hypocrisy of claiming to defend public health care while allowing privatization to spread and the hypocrisy of saying they support the Canada Health Act and then refusing to enforce it are not what Canadians need.
We need universal pharmacare. We need mental health care fully integrated into the public system. We need to defend and expand dental care. We need to train and retain health care workers. We need to enforce the Canada Health Act aggressively.
I want to finish by spending a few moments on international development and peacekeeping. Canada's role in the world has diminished. Canada once played a respected role in peacekeeping, diplomacy and international development, but the budget would continue a retreat from that leadership with a $2.7-billion cut to international development. This comes at a time when around the world, global insecurity is fuelling economic collapse and causing people to suffer everywhere. On the back of Donald Trump shutting down U.S. aid, Canada had an obligation to stand up. Canada had an obligation to be that country that so many of us believe we can be. Instead, the government has chosen to retreat once again from human rights.
The budget is about choices, and the choices the government has made are very disappointing.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to have an exchange with the member opposite in regard to health care. Health care is an issue that is problematic in a number of provinces. It is not only any one particular province that has been challenged in dealing with health care.
From my personal perspective, and I believe from a government perspective, we respect, follow, encourage and support the health care that Canadians want. It is a joint responsibility between the federal government and the provincial government, where provinces are responsible for the administration of health care.
With respect to the member's specific case in the province of Alberta, the federal Minister of Health has had discussions. We have been provided assurances that Alberta's Bill 11, the bill the member is so concerned about, is very clear. The premier has indicated that it will remain completely within the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Speaker, I think you were in the chair and the member was across the hall when we had this exact same exchange yesterday. Bill 11 breaks the Canada Health Act; the Canadian Health Coalition has a legal opinion that makes it very clear that it does.
Therefore, I do not understand why the Liberal government continues to say, “We have received assurances from the UCP government.” That assurance is not worth anything. Danielle Smith's mandate, her goal, her priorities and her plan is to dismantle health care, so it is a problem to have one of her ministers say, “Don't worry, there's nothing to see here”, and to have the Liberals, either through naivety or a desire to look the other way and not be bothered, say, “Oh, it's okay, they've told us it's good, so we're not looking any closer.” It is a problem for my province and for health care across this country.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for Edmonton Strathcona, not just for today's speech but for absolutely everything. I do not always get to put a question to her, and she is stalwart on so many issues that it would take my time in a question just to list them.
My question is this: Is the member also struggling, as I am, to understand why we have now received a 331-page, part 2 budget bill, Bill C-31, and what within it has attracted her attention other than the macro-level issues she addressed in her speech?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague as well. She is somebody I have learned a lot from in the House, and I appreciate her mentorship.
The fact of the matter is that every single budget is about choices. Every bill that comes forward to the House from the government is about the choices the government is making. Time and time again what we are seeing is a Liberal government that is putting corporate interests ahead of the interests of Canadian families.
At a moment in time in our country when people cannot afford to live, when folks are worried about their jobs and when they are worried about the security of our economy, what they are seeing is a constant investment in corporations at the expense of Canadians. What that looks like for an everyday Canadian is that they still cannot afford groceries and rent, they are still struggling to make sure their bills get paid, yet they are seeing time and time again corporations getting the benefit of the government.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague a question in French, to give her the opportunity to practise for her next leadership race. One never knows.
I want to ask her about the money the federal government owes Quebec. I could talk about the $814 million that was sent out right before the election to buy votes, but I will not go there. I want to ask her about the large numbers of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec. I am sure my colleague would agree that these people need to be taken care of. That costs money, and it falls under federal jurisdiction. We have been asking the federal government to do its part for many years now. We estimate that Ottawa owes Quebec $700 million. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.
Hypothetically, if she had been elected leader and found herself the Prime Minister of Canada, is that the kind of thing she would do to finally take Quebec's reality into account?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the federal government is not living up to its obligations, and this is one of the things that are irritants to people across this country. The way we solve issues of separatist sentiment is to make sure the federal government is proving to citizens across this country that there is real value in staying part of our country, by making sure we are investing in the health care system, making sure we are protecting the CPP and making sure that when we give dollars to the provinces, they are able to deliver the services people are entitled to.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the second budget implementation act. The core of this bill reflects our intention to build Canada strong. I thought I would use the next few minutes to talk a little about what we mean by “building Canada strong”.
First of all, we mean building a strong Canadian economy. From day one, we have focused on making the Canadian economy stronger and more resilient. Although we are facing a tariff war that we never asked for, we have to act first and foremost to support the sectors and workers that are most affected. I am thinking of the steel, aluminum, auto and lumber sectors.
My riding offers some concrete examples. The first announcement related to the strategic response fund was made in Madawaska—Restigouche and involved a business based in Clair, operating in the steel sector. The funds are intended to support the hardest-hit sectors to help them maintain operations and retool during challenging times.
I am also thinking about everything we have done to support the softwood lumber sector, which is particularly important for the economy in my riding. In particular, I am thinking about access to loan guarantees to facilitate quick access to liquidity when times are tough, as well as various measures that help the industry adapt, innovate and transform. In fact, there is a softwood lumber task force, in which New Brunswick is represented, of course.
In addition to this immediate work, we are also working hard to support our SMEs, which are the backbone of the Canadian economy. I am thinking in particular about all the programs to support innovation and encourage productivity gains.
Through budget 2025, we put in place a suite of measures called investment super-deductions, such as immediate expensing and other forms of accelerated depreciation. These measures send a clear message: The time to invest in Canada is now. In particular, these measures help businesses cover the cost of buying machinery, new technologies and various types of equipment so they can increase productivity and innovate.
There is also all the work we are doing to improve and streamline our scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. In fact, I have visited companies in my riding that are benefiting from this program and are eager to see the results of the improvements we are currently making to it.
There is also all the work we need to do to diversify the Canadian economy. Last year, in just 11 months, some 20 agreements were signed with countries around the world. This means new markets are opening up for Canadian businesses. It also means we will attract investment to Canada. This is already yielding meaningful results: a substantial increase in the value of Canadian goods exported to other regions of the world, outside the United States.
I can think of a tangible example from my riding. The agreement we signed with Mexico will, among other things, allow potatoes to be exported to the Mexican market both for processing and for consumption. This means that our local potato farmers will gain access to a market of over 130 million people. I have spoken with several potato farmers, and I must say they certainly welcomed the news.
In addition to the work we are doing to develop new trade ties around the world, we are also focusing on building a strong domestic market. That is an important pillar of our strategy to make Canada's economy more resilient. Take, for example, all of the measures that we have put in place to remove the interprovincial trade barriers that fall under federal jurisdiction, or our “buy Canadian” policy, which sends a clear message: The government wants us to be our own best customer.
I am also thinking of the various investment policies that stimulate domestic demand. I am thinking of housing, Canada's defence industrial strategy and infrastructure. We want to get Canadian businesses and workers involved and use Canadian products on these major projects to increase domestic demand and strengthen Canada's economy.
When we talk about building Canada strong, we are also talking about safe communities. Thanks to our ambitious legislative agenda, practical measures have already been introduced in the House. I am thinking of Bill C-14, which would make it harder for offenders to get bail and would provide for tougher sentences for the most dangerous criminals, particularly violent and repeat offenders. There is also Bill C-16, which is about offering better protection for victims of crime, such as victims of intimate partner violence, and protecting children from online predators.
In addition to introducing these legislative measures, we are also making significant investments in prevention, because that is key to ensuring safe communities. Here is a very recent and specific example related to the national crime prevention strategy. I had the pleasure of announcing over $560,000 in federal funding to help the Northwest Regional Service Commission implement the Planet Youth Northwest program.
Through this program, partners like the regional service commission, municipalities, the public health department, schools and community stakeholders will develop a range of activities to help reduce youth substance use, which is recognized as a factor that can lead to delinquent behaviour. They will also work to strengthen youth mental health and provide positive youth engagement experiences in their community.
Planet Youth is based on an Icelandic model. It will be rolled out and adapted to local realities in northwestern New Brunswick. It is also based on the ongoing collection of evidence-based data to ensure that the services and activities put in place truly meet the needs of our young people. As an MP, I can say that it is always a pleasure to announce funding in my region, especially when it supports young people.
When we talk about building Canada strong, as I often say, that also means having strong rural communities. Our rural regions are an integral part of our country. It is important that the programs we implement, including the ones targeting innovation, also benefit businesses in rural areas. I am thinking in particular of all the work done by our regional economic development agencies, such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, including through the regional economic growth through innovation program.
In recent weeks, I was pleased to announce more than $210,000 in federal funding for the Charlo Salmonid Enhancement Centre. This investment will support the drilling of a new artesian well, as well as the acquisition of an industrial fish grader that will help manage the growth of juvenile fish stocks. This type of investment will help solidify the centre's position within New Brunswick's aquaculture supply chain. It also contributes to the economic vitality of my region, particularly by helping to preserve good jobs.
This centre has been operating in the Restigouche area since 1938, helping to revitalize fish stocks in New Brunswick's waterways; that is nearly 90 years of activity. As an MP, I feel it is important to give these institutions—which are vital to our economy and our local communities—the means to continue operating in the long term. This investment will ensure the centre's stability. In the context of climate change, it will also give the centre access to groundwater sources. There was a problem with access to water, and this investment will help resolve it. As well as being a project that contributes to the economy, it is also in line with the new nature strategies, as it will help to better protect our natural ecosystems, particularly through the revitalization of fish stocks.
When we talk about building Canada strong, that also means supporting our community organizations, which are making a real difference on the ground. I am thinking in particular of organizations like the Acanthus Gallery in Grand Falls, which recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. I attended an event to mark the occasion and took the opportunity to announce $25,000 in funding. It is not always the largest amounts that make a difference, but these funds help our organizations meet their needs and continue contributing to the vitality of our communities. Over the past decade, the Acanthus Gallery has become a key arts and culture hub in Grand Falls. It is a popular destination for both local residents and visitors. It showcases local artists as well as artists from outside the region who come to exhibit there. Thanks to the grant that was recently announced, pottery classes will now be offered in the Grand Falls area. These are some of the measures we are implementing to strengthen our social fabric and support our community organizations.
When I talk about strengthening the socio-cultural vitality of our communities, that also means supporting our festivals. Summer is just around the corner, and I can tell the House that there will be no shortage of things to do in Madawaska—Restigouche. We have volunteers who are deeply committed to the vitality of our communities and are working hard to put together a great summer of programming. I am very pleased that our government is investing to support these initiatives. To give a few examples, I am thinking in particular of the financial support we provide to the Campbellton Salmon Festival, the Saint-Quentin Western Festival, the Grand Falls Potato Festival, the Rendez-Vous des Artistes de Saint-Léonard, and the Sortie branchée en Acadie, which takes place at the Botanical Garden in Saint-Jacques.
All these different types of investments send a clear message that the socio-cultural vitality of our communities is very much a priority for us.
I appreciate having the opportunity to expand a bit on what we mean when we talk about building Canada strong.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the work he has been doing in the House for over a year now.
Let us talk about the past year. For the past year, we have had a Liberal Prime Minister with a strong economic background. However, today, we learned that Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession.
Given everything the member said about how great and wonderful things are in Canada, how is that we are the only G7 country that is in a recession?
Mr. Speaker, as I said, since day one, we have been focusing on strengthening the Canadian economy. We did not ask for this tariff dispute, but we are not standing idly by. Since the United States is our largest trading partner, this dispute has had a major impact on our economy, our businesses and our workers, but we are working to diversify our economy. We have signed over 20 agreements, and that is producing real results.
I would invite my colleague to come talk to potato farmers in my riding who are seeing real economic benefits from these agreements. I am also thinking of the support that we are giving to the hardest-hit businesses, including those in the steel and softwood lumber industries. Once again, I would invite the member to come talk to businesses that have received this support, which has enabled them to maintain their operations. These businesses see the efforts that we are making to boost innovation and enhance their productivity gains through a variety of programs.
Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, has given us a glimpse into the beauty of his riding, and it has made me want to spend my summer holidays in that part of the country. I do not know if Tatamagouche is in his riding, but I had the pleasure of taking a short trip to that area.
I know that his riding includes cities as well as rural areas, and I am guessing there are berry growers in his riding who produce spirits. My colleagues will hear me talking about this several times today because this ongoing injustice is close to my heart. Three years ago, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government granted an excise duty exemption for mead-based berry spirits and also for apple cider, but not for berry-based spirits.
I would like to know if my colleague is willing to pressure his government to add an amendment to Bill C-31 that would make things fair for other berry producers, such as those who make blueberry or maple liqueurs. This is an important issue in rural Quebec. There are many Liberal members from Quebec who know that what I am saying is important.
Is my colleague ready to take up the cause in his own province and make it clear to the Minister of Finance that it is time to right this wrong?
Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague is welcome to visit Madawaska—Restigouche. There are indeed berry wine producers there. In fact, one of the wines served at the Parliamentary restaurant comes from my riding and is made from berries grown in my riding.
Over the past month, we announced, among other things, that we would be extending the cap on alcohol excise duties. Various discussions are ongoing. I would like to thank my colleague for her commitment to this issue. It would certainly be worthwhile for us to continue discussing this matter together.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of what we are doing as a government in the current geopolitical context. I come from a rural area. I come from Brome—Missisquoi, a riding that is also very rural. I would like my colleague to tell me something. How will the efforts to build Canada strong also help to build strong rural communities?
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my colleague in our rural caucus, which is made up of MPs who are committed to the development of our rural regions. For us, it is clear: Building Canada strong means building strong rural regions.
It means programs tailored to life in rural areas. I am thinking of the rural transit solutions fund. Last fall, I announced an investment of over $700,000 in my riding to implement a public transit system that truly responds to the needs of rural areas. It has been a tremendous success. This has changed many people's lives. It makes it easier for them to get to work and school or to travel around the riding at very little cost.
Building strong rural regions also involves raising issues that are important to them. I am thinking in particular of cellular connectivity and the bill introduced by our colleague from Compton—Stanstead on spectrum issues to improve cellular connectivity in Canada. There are a whole range of initiatives that my colleague and I, along with other members from rural Canada, are committed to working on to build strong rural regions for a strong Canada.
[English]
Resuming debate. As I recognize the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I have to let him know that he will have about eight minutes and then he will be interrupted for Standing Order 31 statements and question period. He will be able to have the balance of his time after Routine Proceedings.
With that, the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has the floor.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing my speech to bracket the all-important question and member statement periods.
I will be splitting my time today with the member for Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry.
I am pleased to rise to share my analysis of this important piece of legislation. I want to be clear from the outset that not all of this bill is without merit, but there are provisions within it that deserve serious scrutiny, serious debate and serious answers from the government.
As a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, I have a particular and direct interest in division 16 of this bill, the establishment of the Defence Investment Agency act and the amendments to the Defence Production Act, which would be renamed the defence and national security production and procurement act. It sounds complicated. Although buried as a peripheral issue within a budget bill, in reality this is a fundamental restructuring of how Canada processes and invests in its own defence, which deserves far more scrutiny than an omnibus budget process will ever allow.
I want to be direct about something. I served nearly three decades in the Royal Canadian Navy. I served at CFB Esquimalt, one of the largest military installations in this country and the beating heart of our naval presence on the Pacific. It is a base that Vancouver Island depends on and has given more to this country than most Canadians will ever know. When I stand in the House and speak about defence procurement, I do not speak from a briefing note; I speak with 30 years of experience and of knowing exactly what happens when governments get procurement wrong. The government has this part of this bill catastrophically wrong.
Bill C-31 is 330 pages long. It touches on everything. That is the first problem. Changes of this magnitude, such as giving a minister up to $1 billion in spending authority with no meaningful oversight, deserve their own bills, their own debates and to be studied in defence committee, not buried inside a budget omnibus bill that only gets sent to finance committee. When we bury such a key strategic plan, we hide it, and when it is hidden, Canadians cannot hold the government accountable.
This is not an accident but yet another Liberal illusion. It is as if the Liberals have turned Parliament Hill into Emerald City on the Hill. They constructed a gleaming facade, the rhetoric sounds good, industry gets excited, and people are tricked into believing the illusion, while the Liberals ask Canadians to pay no attention to the wizard behind the curtain. Instead of the Prime Minister of Canada, perhaps we should refer to the position as the “Prime Minister of Oz”. My job is to pull back that curtain to reveal the reality and shatter the illusion.
Let me speak to what the Defence Investment Agency actually is and what it is not. The Prime Minister has hired a CEO, a successful investment banker with no defence experience or procurement background who used to work alongside the Prime Minister at Goldman Sachs. He is now head of the new Defence Investment Agency. It goes further than that. In testimony in committee, this CEO admitted that in his former role as a top-level investment banker, he worked with high-value companies directly connected with the communist government in China. This is a serious security risk. On a file this sensitive, it is a detail we cannot brush aside. He also worked with high-value companies that have direct connections to the defence industry. This presents a very real potential for conflict of interest.
This is not a risk Canada should be taking on one of the most consequential files this country faces, but here we are. The CEO of the DIA reports to a junior secretary of state, who reports to another minister, who reports to the Prime Minister, not at a cabinet table. There is no direct line of accountability or single point of authority. It is a rather confusing chain that only adds to more bureaucracy, red tape and delays and more boards, advisory committees, consultants and patronage. This is not procurement reform but the illusion of procurement reform. The Canadian Armed Forces cannot afford the difference, nor can Canada.
Let me share some numbers with the House, because the numbers tell the story the government will not. Only 59% of our maritime fleet is serviceable and ready for operations, and that figure only holds because the government retired the entire Kingston class coastal fleet to make the math work. Of our 12 major warships, the navy, through no fault of its own, can barely keep three fully crewed, operational and ready to deploy.
Only 51% of land vehicles are ready for troops to use. They are worn out and undermaintained. Over $2 billion a year was cut from defence budgets between 2021 and 2025. As for our aerospace fleet, only 42% of our aircraft are ready to fly. Our CF-18s are nearly aged out, and we still do not have a signed contract for the F-35s because the government spent years playing political games with the air force. I will leave the government's failure to keep our beloved Snowbirds flying for another debate.
The brave men and women who serve at CFB Esquimalt, who serve across the country, deserve better than 42%. They deserve better than 51%. They deserve more than only three operational frigates. They deserve a government that signs contracts, shows stability and has a realistic strategy to build upon, not the illusion of reannouncements and press releases and fancy-sounding new layers of bureaucracy.
It has been more than four years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, four years since we heard the language of putting Canada on a war footing. In four years, the only increases in the production of munitions, artillery shells and rockets in this country have come through contracts with the American military, not for Canada but for America. The government never signed the contracts for our own requirements.
We can announce an agency. We can name a CEO. We can create a board. However, until we put ink to paper and actually buy the equipment our forces need, we have done nothing. Division 16 of the bill does not fix this. It locks in the inefficiencies. It entrenches the old bureaucracy. It gives the minister the power to exclude companies from competition without ever explaining why. It creates the ability to sole-source contracts without accountability. It grants authorities to procure shares in corporations and to replace directors and officers, language that sounds an awful lot like nationalization.
We have been down this road before. It is called the Emergencies Act. This reeks of the same unaccountable overreach. In clause 310, there is more sole-sourcing. In clause 322, there is a competitive process riddled with exceptions so wide that almost anything can be exempted. In clause 312, there is ministerial power to replace corporate leadership at will. There is no transparency, no explanation and no accountability.
Here is the foundational problem that makes all of this worse. Canada has no national security strategy, a strategy that should be the key foundation upon which the defence investment strategy and the Defence Investment Agency should be built. Without a national security strategy, none of this works. We cannot design a procurement architecture for a mission we have never defined—
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Ride for Dad
Mr. Speaker, this Saturday, May 30, I will once again be riding my Triumph Bonneville in Winnipeg's Ride for Dad to help raise funds and awareness for prostate cancer research. This year's ride is especially meaningful to me because I will be riding in memory of my dear friend Paul Stewart, a long-time participant and organizer of Ride for Dad who passed away from prostate cancer nearly one year ago. Paul dedicated countless hours to this cause and inspired many in our community to join the fight against prostate cancer.
More than 5,300 Canadian men die from this disease every year, accounting for approximately 15% of cancer deaths among men in Canada. Behind these numbers are fathers, brothers, friends and loved ones whose lives are cut far too short. Thanks to advances in research, screening and treatment, more lives are being saved, but there is still more work to do. Every dollar raised through Ride for Dad helps support life-saving research, increase awareness and promote early detection.
I encourage all Canadians to support a rider in their community and to help us continue to fight against prostate cancer. Together, we can save lives and and make prostrate cancer history.
Youth Employment
Mr. Speaker, as graduation ceremonies take take place in Nanaimo—Ladysmith and across Canada, new grads are facing one of the toughest job markets in years. Unemployment in the Nanaimo census metropolitan area hit 8.7% in April, which is a whopping increase of 2.3% over this time last year. Youth unemployment is up half a percentage point to 14.3% nationwide. Statistics Canada revealed this morning that Canada is the only G7 country in a recession.
Our young people have the talent, determination and ambition it takes to succeed. They have done everything we have asked: studied hard, developed their skills and overcame obstacles. What they need are opportunities to gain experience, build careers and make enough money to put down roots in the communities we call home.
To the graduating class of 2026, I congratulate them on their achievements. Their future matters and their contributions matter. Canada needs their talent more than ever. We keep fighting for the opportunities they deserve.
Soloway Jewish Community Centre
Mr. Speaker, last week, I was honoured to join the Soloway Jewish Community Centre of Ottawa as it celebrated its 75th anniversary at the Soloway centre in my riding. I heard heartwarming stories of dances, children's camps and friendships, even marriages, that began there. Photos from the 1950s to today reflected a generous and thriving community that has contributed so much to our city. Speakers at the event emphasized how welcome they feel at the Jewish Community Centre, something that is sadly not always the case everywhere.
The deplorable and increasing anti-Semitic incidents, such as the despicable effigies in Montreal this week, make a joyful space like the Soloway centre so much more important. In addition to being a welcoming space for the Jewish community, the Soloway centre also welcomes the broader community. I thank the JCC for all it does to support our city and our neighbours.
Exposure to Pornography
Mr. Speaker, stats show that a very large number of 9-, 10-, 11- and 12-year-old boys are accessing violent, sexually explicit material on the Internet. Exposing children to sexually explicit images is a form of child abuse. The proportions of this abuse make early exposure to pornography the most underdiscussed crisis in our nation. It is at the root of so much sexual violence, family breakdown and personal crisis.
There is an urgent need to protect young children from the abuse they so regularly experience through being shown violent sexual images online. Bill S-209 proposes a simple solution: Pornography websites should be required to verify or credibly estimate the age of those who access them. This bill has passed the Senate unanimously three times. This bill is now one of the most repeatedly and thoroughly studied bills ever, but we have still not acted.
We are past due for action, and I hope this Parliament is the one that finally acts to protect kids from abuse, women from violence and families from crisis by completing the work on Bill S-209.
[Translation]
Importance of Young People in Building Canada Strong
Mr. Speaker, last Sunday, I had the opportunity to attend the ceremonial parade of the 806 Sainte-Thérèse Air Cadet Squadron, which brought together more than 90 young cadets. What a great organization that teaches leadership, civic responsibility and teamwork.
I would like to congratulate all the cadets for their participation and commitment, as well as Blainville's own Raphaëlle Chicoine for an exceptional honour. At just 17 years old, she received the Lord Strathcona Medal for her leadership and dedication, the highest honour awarded to a cadet. She has been flying planes and actively participating in our community for more than two years. Through her determination and passion, Raphaëlle is a true source of inspiration for her peers and a shining example of what our young people can accomplish.
Attending this event served as a reminder that young people are not just the future, but also the present. It is crucial to recognize young people like Raphaëlle. With their active contributions, we are building Canada strong.
[English]
Alberta
Mr. Speaker, as an MP from Alberta, I can tell members that the foundation of our present environment is decades of being ignored or even harmed by years of ideological Liberal government.
Albertans want to be treated the same way they feel about their fellow Canadians: with amity, with respect and with the opportunity to not only grow as a province but also fully contribute to the Confederation. Sadly, this has not been the case. Liberal governments have perpetually ignored Alberta, stifled our growth and, therefore, limited the growth of this nation, leading to our current situation of economic despair, no housing and two million Canadians visiting food banks.
I firmly believe that not only Albertans but also Canadians deserve a government that believes in every corner of this nation and that would allow Canadians to contribute and prosper to their full capacity. Only a federal Conservative government can save Canada.
[Translation]
Local Businesses
Mr. Speaker, summer has arrived in Outremont, Mile End and the Plateau. I would like to say thanks to all our shopkeepers, restaurant owners, cafés and everyone who brings our shopping areas to life. Bernard Avenue is once again a pedestrian zone this year. Children are playing in the street, parents are enjoying the patios and everyone gets ice cream.
Last week, I took part in a Mile End celebration, alongside thousands of people, thanks to the incredible work of the Laurier West BIA, the Mile End Business Association and, of course, Gabriel Dallaire and his entire team.
This year, I was able to count on the invaluable help of my daughter Ellie to hand out lemonade and popcorn to residents. She rose to the challenge brilliantly.
In the Plateau, the Rue Saint-Denis BIA and Pauline Béchu helped make the Montreal Comic Arts Festival a resounding success. On Mont-Royal Avenue, which is once again pedestrian only, the trade fair is in full swing until Sunday.
This summer, support local businesses.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, this morning, we learned that Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession. Our economy contracted both in the last quarter of 2025 and in the first quarter of 2026, which is two straight quarters of negative growth.
This happened because the Liberal Prime Minister raised industrial carbon taxes, kept antidevelopment laws in place and doubled Justin Trudeau's deficits. Every other G7 country faces the same tariffs and global challenges, yet none are in a recession. It is only Canada. The Prime Minister is now the only G7 leader to push his country into recession.
The Conservatives would cut taxes, repeal antidevelopment laws, control spending and restore growth and investment to Canada's economy. It is time for the Liberals to realize their policies have failed and to change course.
[Translation]
Claude Lemieux
Mr. Speaker, he touched our hearts on Monday night as he carried the torch ahead of the Canadiens game. Then our hearts were broken by the news of his sudden death.
Claude Lemieux, the most formidable playoff performer in history, passed away at just 60 years old. He was a four-time Stanley Cup champion, including in 1986 with Montreal. Claude Lemieux was the playoff MVP with New Jersey and a symbol of the 1990s rivalry between Colorado and Detroit. He embodied the spirit of Quebec. He was proud, he was a fighter, and he refused to give up. When the chips were down, he could be counted on to deliver. His 80 playoff goals rank him ninth all-time in hockey history.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer our deepest condolences to his wife, Deborah, and his children, Brendan, Claudia, Michael and Christopher.
We are proud of Claude Lemieux in Mont-Laurier, where he grew up. I am also thinking of Mr. and Mrs. Lemieux and Jocelyn. My heart goes out to them.
[English]
Arbour Glen Day Nursery
Mr. Speaker, I rise to mark the remarkable legacy and contributions of Arbour Glen Day Nursery, a child care centre in our community of London, Ontario, that will soon mark its 60th anniversary.
I say it is remarkable because I speak from experience. Our daughter Ava took her first few steps there, formed her first friendships there and learned her first words there. What is true of Ava and our experience is true of so many other families and kids in London. This is a great place. It has been around for 60 years and for very good reason. It is because of the leadership, and it is because of the board, but it is especially because of the early childhood educators. I use those words very deliberately, as they are the teachers who help these kids day in and day out.
With that, I wish the nursery another 60 years of incredible contributions and thank it for all the work that it has done. It matters. It has made a difference.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, this morning Canadians learned what many families on Vancouver Island already feel. Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession. The Liberal government's tax hikes, antidevelopment laws and reckless spending have doubled Trudeau's deficit, with Canada now owing over $1.4 trillion. There has been negative economic growth in the last quarter in 2025 and again in the first quarter of 2026.
The Prime Minister claims that Canada has the best economy in the G7. Reality tells a different story. Every other G7 nation is facing the same tariffs and global headwinds, yet not one of them is in a recession. Only Canada is in a recession. Workers, families and small business owners on Vancouver Island are paying the price for Liberal economic failure and mismanagement. They deserve a government that grows our economy, removes barriers to development and stops loading future generations with debt.
This recession was a choice and Canadians did not make it. The Liberal Prime Minister did.
Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work
Mr. Speaker, today I want to recognize an extraordinary milestone, the 50th anniversary of the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work, a national organization headquartered in my riding of Toronto—St. Paul's.
For half a century, CCRW has championed the idea that a stronger Canada is one where everyone can fully participate in the workforce. Its work has connected Canadians with disabilities to employment, supported inclusive workplaces and helped employers understand that accessibility and economic growth go hand in hand.
Across our country, businesses succeed when they can draw on the full range of Canadian talent, workers succeed when barriers are removed, and communities succeed when all Canadians can contribute their skills, experience, hard work and ambition to the project of building Canada.
The Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work has spent 50 fantastic years breaking barriers and helping make that vision a reality. I thank everyone who is a part of that important work for their leadership and commitment. Here is to more years building an inclusive Canada.
Affordability
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is the only G7 leader to push his country into a recession. All other G7 countries are facing the same issues with tariffs and global challenges, but no others are in a recession.
The real GDP fell in quarter one, making it two consecutive quarters of annualized decline, pushing Canada into a recession. The decline was mostly driven by decline in investments. Household savings dropped to the lowest level in two years as Canadians try to absorb the higher interest and debt servicing costs. This is the direct result of Liberal policies and taxes, including the clean fuel standard, the industrial carbon tax and the fuel excise tax, which are making everything more expensive.
The Prime Minister tried to claim that affordability is the best it has been in over a decade, but families cannot get ahead while paying for Liberal taxes, waste and mistakes. The Liberals have the means to make life more affordable, yet they continue pushing Canadians into a recession.
[Translation]
Two Residences in Honoré‑Mercier
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to honour two residences that are a credit to Honoré‑Mercier: La Seigneurie d'Anjou, a residence celebrating its 25th year of operation, and Fil de l'Eau, a residence in Rivière‑des‑Prairies—Pointe‑aux‑Trembles that is celebrating its 40th year of operation.
These anniversaries remind us that seniors are the beating heart of our neighbourhoods, the keepers of our memories and the builders of our collective history. Whether in Anjou or Rivière‑des‑Prairies—Pointe‑aux‑Trembles, their journey, diversity and resilience profoundly enrich our social fabric.
I also want to commend the Filippin family and the team at La Seigneurie d'Anjou, as well as Salvatore Migliara and the team at Fil de l'Eau, for their outstanding dedication.
To everyone who lives, works or contributes at these residences, I offer my thanks and congratulations on these momentous anniversaries.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, this morning Canadians received deeply troubling news. According to the latest StatsCan data, Canada is now in a recession, with two consecutive quarters of negative growth. That makes Canada the only G7 country in a recession. In a global environment where all G7 nations are facing similar challenges, tariffs, war and global uncertainty, Canada alone has fallen into a recession.
How did we get here? It is because of the 11 years of Liberal policy choices that continue to stifle investment, block productivity and undermine confidence in our economy, choices like hiking the industrial carbon tax, maintaining antidevelopment legislation that discourages major projects and having a deficit that is double the size of Justin Trudeau's.
Canada deserves better than a Liberal recession. We need a change, one that restores competitiveness, creates jobs, unleashes resource development, supports investment and puts affordability first, because Canadians deserve results, not more Liberal excuses.
Africa Day
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to attend a flag-raising ceremony at city hall in my community of Ottawa Centre to celebrate Africa Day. Representatives from multiple African nations and leaders of the African diaspora came together to celebrate the 63rd anniversary of the African Union and its work to advance a more peaceful, sustainable and prosperous Africa.
The continent of Africa is big and beautiful. It is rich in diversity and opportunity. Canada's Africa strategy is an integral road map for shared economic prosperity and security. I want to thank the African Union's Sixth Region here in Canada for its hard work to make this important event a success.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, today we learned that the Liberal Prime Minister is the only leader in the G7 to take his country into a recession, but while Canadians live on leftovers, the Prime Minister is enjoying fine dining 30,000 feet in the sky. On the menu are the finest meats and wines, crème brûlée and even imported butter cups, for a whopping bill of $200,000 for just three trips.
Will the Prime Minister cut the fat, stop his speeches and ground his gravy plane so Canadians can afford to eat?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that the world is facing some headwinds. Canadians understand that, in the words of the International Energy Agency, we have the most severe energy crisis in the world. On this side of the House, we have a plan. We have a plan to make generational investments in housing, in infrastructure in productivity and in innovation. We have a plan to support workers, and we have a plan to support Canadians with affordability. On this side of the House, we are going to keep on working to build the strongest economy in the G7.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' message to Canadians is “Suck it up, buttercup”, because excuses on tariffs will not work anymore. Canada is the only country in the G7 to be in a recession. Food bank usage is at a record high. Families are cutting back on their groceries. They are cancelling their summer plans and skipping meals just to get by. What does the Prime Minister do? He blows $200,000 on fancy meals for himself.
Does the Prime Minister not realize that this is Canada, not Brookfield, and that taxpayers are not his personal bankers?
Mr. Speaker, it is disconcerting to hear the Conservatives talking down the Canadian economy. I have confidence in the Canadian economy. I have confidence in our workers. I have confidence in our industry. I have confidence in our plan.
We have made record generational investments in infrastructure, housing, productivity and innovation. We have made generational investments to support workers. We have made investments to support Canadians in terms of affordability.
The Conservatives can shout as much as they want, but Canadians know we have their back.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have had it with the Prime Minister's costly credit card budget. The deficit is $65.3 billion, and this year, Canadians will pay $58.7 billion on debt interest. Food inflation rose 3.8% in April, with gas prices surging 28.6% last month alone. Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession.
The Prime Minister is more focused on his American stock portfolio and his friends at Brookfield than on Canadians. How many more negative quarters of growth will it take for him to change course?
Mr. Speaker, in that question, I think there were at least three conspiracy theories going on in the member's head.
What we are doing is trying to build Canada strong. That is why we are building nuclear in Ontario. That is why we are building new wind and transmission in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. That is why we are building new LNG and mines in British Columbia. That is why we are building everywhere across this country. That is why we are working with provinces and indigenous peoples to respond to what we can control.
The Conservatives should get off the conspiracy theories and start working to build Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the hypocrisy is palpable. Canadians were promised relief, but the Prime Minister's costly credit card budget is driving up costs for Canadians while driving investment away. Twenty billion dollars' worth of investment has left Canada in the last four quarters alone. Over $1 trillion has left since 2015. As a result, Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession.
Instead of putting his friends at Alto and Brookfield first, the Prime Minister should put Canadians first so they can finally get ahead instead of constantly being left behind.
How many more quarters of negative growth will it take for the Prime Minister to choose Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives really have to stop these conspiracy theories. When Canadian companies invest abroad, they are building strong. We have the single biggest foreign investment in this country in over two decades. We can look at Shell, which just invested $20 billion in this country.
The Conservatives cannot actually see beyond their conspiracy theories. We are building in every province in this country. The Conservatives should start helping.
[Translation]
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, Canadians like Noelle, Richard, Christiane and Aaron all ask me the same question: Why do asylum seekers, even those whose applications have been rejected and who should no longer be in the country, have access to free health care when taxpayers do not even have a family doctor? The interim federal health program has grown from $211 million a year to $1.5 billion in less than 10 years.
Does the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship think it is acceptable to give free health care to non-residents while some Quebeckers do not even have access to a doctor?
Mr. Speaker, we are always willing to review the various programs currently in place. My colleague should be reassured by the fact that we found $60 billion in savings across various federal government departments. We understand that Quebeckers and Canadians have been tightening their belts for some time now, and we need to do the same in the federal government. We are always willing to find a way, to find savings within the government, to do more with technology and to improve our processes. Canadians know that we will always be there to help them.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, in the vast majority of cases, the firearms used to commit crimes in Canada were never owned legally and were often smuggled across the border. In 2024, the accused in over 80% of firearm-related homicides did not even have a valid license. Most of the other homicides involved mental health issues. Instead of investing in mental health prevention, in border safety, or in fighting street-gang crime, the Liberals are going to spend close to $1 billion targeting law-abiding citizens.
Why are the Liberals wasting taxpayer money on programs that do not work?
Mr. Speaker, we are taking action precisely to support honest people who obey firearm laws. The real question is, why do the Conservatives constantly oppose every single measure we put forward to limit the presence of assault-style weapons on Canada's streets, to limit crime? Every time we make a move to crack down on people, to crack down on criminals, we get blow-back from the Conservatives. Of course we want to support people who act within the law, but the Conservatives—
Justice
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has shown his true colours by claiming that 50% of the vote plus one would not be enough to win a referendum. He has shown that he will flout democracy if he is not happy with a decision made by the people. He has shown that he adheres to a long tradition of federalism that tramples on peoples' right to self-determination—a federalism prepared to cheat to win. Quebeckers, for their part, are deeply democratic. They proved this by accepting the result of the 1995 referendum.
Why is Canada fundamentally incapable of playing by the rules?
Mr. Speaker, let us look back at the last few weeks in Quebec. We saw the announcement of the largest aircraft order in Canadian history from Airbus, in Mirabel. We saw the start of construction at Nouveau Monde Graphite, in Saint-Michel-des-Saints. This represents thousands of jobs for Quebeckers. The Port of Québec has been designated as Canada’s primary port of entry. We are making progress in the economy, in jobs and in opportunities for Québec.
What does the Bloc Québécois like talking about? It talks about separation, rupture, instability and a referendum. All they do is pick fights all the time.
Mr. Speaker, it was the Prime Minister who started this debate, not the Bloc Québécois. He was the one who raised the issue of referendum clarity. What is more, he did so regarding a referendum in Alberta where the law does not even apply. He cannot help himself. He just had to demonstrate that he will not respect democracy if he is not happy with what the people choose. The fact that he was so eager to start this debate when it was not even necessary speaks volumes.
Why is he so eager to prove that he is willing to cheat to win?
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about democracy. Let us talk about the democratic process. There will be an election in Quebec this fall. It has not even yet begun. The fate of my colleague's parent party has not yet been decided. Quebec is still a long way from achieving independence, even though the Bloc Québécois is working hard to cause this break, this separation, this split within Canada that would destabilize Quebec's economy.
Prime Minister of Canada
Mr. Speaker, in the span of two weeks, the Prime Minister announced that he will undermine democracy in a referendum by disregarding the 50%-plus-one rule; he announced, together with Alberta, a new pipeline that crosses the territory of another province without that province's consent; he forced the former environment minister to resign over his shift toward the oil industry; and he proved himself to be an anti-democratic Prime Minister and a proponent of predatory federalism in the service of the oil industry. All of this happened in just two weeks.
How can the Liberals support this?
Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about announcements the Prime Minister has made over the past two weeks in Quebec, let us talk about the GlobalEye aircraft set to be built by Bombardier, a flagship of Quebec's economy.
Let us talk about Nouveau Monde Graphite. This is an extraordinary announcement involving the largest graphite mine in the G7. It was the Prime Minister himself who made the announcement.
On this side of the House, we will always fight to attract investment to Quebec and to build Canada stronger together.
[English]
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, on World Hunger Day, food security organizations came to the finance committee and told us that more people from more demographics are using food banks more often in Canada. Forty-three per cent of Canadians now say that the cost of groceries severely affects their ability to access food, and food inflation in Canada remains the highest in the G7.
The Prime Minister promised to lead, and he did: straight to the only recession in the G7. There are more costs, more taxes and more debt on the national credit card.
When is the Prime Minister going to show us that he is not just another Liberal and get serious about reducing the cost of food?
Mr. Speaker, talking about seriousness, Canadians know we are in the middle of a global economic disruption. Our Prime Minister is a serious person. He is working hard. He already cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. He also launched the national school food program, which helps families with affordability. In addition, he proposed to launch very soon a national food security strategy, which will really help families during this time of crisis.
Mr. Speaker, two quarters of negative growth mean we are the only G7 economy in a recession. Excuses and deflection will not cut it. StatsCan has the receipts.
Liberals chose to add more debt, more spending and more people. By doing that, they created more pressure on housing, health care and food costs than the system can bear. Every dollar the government adds to the national credit card eventually shows up in the grocery aisle.
When the only thing growing faster than grocery prices is the lineups at the food banks, it is no wonder these Liberals have stopped talking about the middle class and those seeking to join it.
Mr. Speaker, in that member's own riding, next Friday over 36,000 of her constituents are going to receive the groceries and essentials benefit. That is up to a $530 payment for a couple in her riding. That is part of this government's plan to make life more affordable for Canadians, part of a plan that includes efforts not only to make life more affordable but to grow our economy as well. I hope she asks some of those 36,000 constituents whether they appreciate receiving the groceries and essentials benefit.
Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of Liberal spending, Canada is in fact the only G7 country in a recession. While one in three working Canadians is going into debt just to put groceries on their table, the Prime Minister, at 30,000 feet, is spending $95,000 on inflight food. We are talking about braised beef, special butter cups and fine wines.
Deficits have doubled, costs keep going up and Canadians are falling behind, so when will the Liberal government admit its failure and reverse course?
Mr. Speaker, as we know, Canada has been especially dependent on the relationship with the United States. That relationship is experiencing a rupture. The global economy is experiencing a rupture. The result is that, if we are going to be serious about these matters, we must work together to better this country. If they do not want to listen to the Liberals, that is fine; they should listen to Stephen Harper. We must work together to find ways to ensure our future and our children's future. That is exactly what the Prime Minister is doing. Diversification is a priority. Building this country up, focusing on our resources and focusing on the infrastructure that will get our resources to market—
Mr. Speaker, those same global problems are being experienced by all countries within the G7, but only Canada's leader, only Canada's Prime Minister, has led this country into a recession. It is only Canada. He is not worried, but why would he be? He is fine. He is fine because, again, he is enjoying fine wine, he is enjoying braised beef and he is enjoying luxury Normandy butter cups, whatever the heck that is. That is his reality, but that is not the reality of Canadians. Canadians are lining up at food banks like never before. Canadians are defaulting on their mortgages, and Canadians are declaring bankruptcy.
When will the government wake up to reality, the reality that is faced by everyday Canadians, and do something about it?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians recognize that we are living in some really economically uncertain times. There are unjustified tariffs on Canadian autos, steel, lumber and aluminum, and there is a war going on in the Middle East that is impacting our economy and the global economy. That is why this Prime Minister and this government have a plan. Our plan includes diversifying our trade, making sure that we are engaging with other countries so that we can sell more of our goods and services. That is why we are investing hundreds of billions of dollars into our economy, so that we can keep creating good-paying jobs for Canadians.
Families, Children and Social Development
Mr. Speaker, Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession, and it is getting harder and harder for young people to start and grow a family. Parents are struggling to afford homes and balance the pressures of competing careers. Conservatives are proposing to make life easier through significant reforms to parental leave: more flexible leave, freedom to learn while on leave and the ability to earn caregiving income without clawbacks. These policies would mean more flexibility, more opportunity and more available child care. Will the government adopt these constructive suggestions?
Mr. Speaker, we have many programs that are helping Canadians deal with the rising cost of living. In fact, next week Canadians will start to receive Canada's new groceries and essentials benefit. For a family of four, that is $1,900 this year. That is real money that is going to help Canadians face the rising cost of living. A few days ago, there was a poll released that shows that Canadians' optimism, their sense that Canada is moving in the right direction, is at its highest level in over a decade.
Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I will just state the obvious. My question was about parental leave reform. That response did not even attempt to mention the issue of parental leave reform. Canadian parents have been waiting long enough with a parental leave system that is inflexible and poorly aligned with the realities of modern parenting. Modern parents want the flexibility to work in different ways that integrate work and family life. Why does the government not simply implement the constructive proposed suggestions that we have put forward as part of its upcoming fall budget?
Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich for that member to stand up and talk about supports for parents and families, when he does not support affordable early learning and child care in his very province. It is a program that is delivering for thousands of children right across the province and saving families in Alberta over $10,000 on the cost of their child care in a given year. On this side of the House, we have enhanced maternity and paternity benefits. We have brought in paid sick days. We have increased pay equity for women and for families. That member has stood against all of those measures.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 nation facing a recession under this Liberal Prime Minister. After months of “elbows up” rhetoric, he went to New York this week and said he would be making America great again. If flip-flopping generated electricity, the Liberal Prime Minister could power the EV sector all by himself. As a former cop, I have seen plenty of U-turns, but I have never seen one presented as a trade strategy.
Can the Prime Minister just make up his mind and get to work, or are Canadians expected to live with a government that is always a day late and several dollars short?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are well aware of the headwinds facing the global economy: trade wars and actual wars in the Middle East and in Europe. This government has a plan: a plan for infrastructure, for major projects and for investing in people and skilled trades workers, giving our young people opportunities.
I think Canadians are troubled by the enthusiasm and the glee that they witnessed when the Conservatives paraded in here this morning and trumpeted bad news in terms of these headwinds for the Canadian economy. It is time for the Conservatives to stop celebrating the challenges we face and get on board.
[Translation]
The Environment
Mr. Speaker, this week marks a turning point, with the Prime Minister's climate betrayal and the Liberals' election deceit on environmental issues. The green banker they sold us on is green only in his thirst for wads of cash derived from black gold. He is also dragging down all the Liberals who ran on a platform that mentioned the words “climate change” 28 times, but never once mentioned the word “pipeline”.
Is there a single Liberal member who will refuse to be complicit in this betrayal?
Mr. Speaker, I am a woman of strong principles, and I know the member knows that. We work very well together.
One thing that is important to me is protecting nature, of course, and I am privileged to have been appointed Secretary of State for Nature. However, the fight against climate change is also important. I am a mother of four. I hope to be a grandmother like my colleague one day. I know this is important. We will continue our efforts. We are going to do it differently. We will do so in the context we find ourselves in today.
We already have methane regulations, we have the nature strategy, and we will continue to achieve—
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister's environmental track record had been acceptable, the former minister of the environment, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, would not have stepped down. Nor would his predecessor, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano, have announced his departure too. His predecessor, Catherine McKenna, would not have said that we live in a petrostate where rich oil and gas companies have convinced politicians that fossil fuels are better than renewables. Every environment minister of the past decade is pulling away from the Prime Minister.
How can the Liberals possibly brag about his record?
Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to get these questions from Bloc Québécois members because of their blatant flip-flopping. Let me remind members again that the leader of the Bloc Québécois was ready to move forward and support oil drilling in Anticosti. Now it seems that Bloc Québécois members are taking a keen interest in the issue.
Let us talk about what we are doing on this side of the House. We are still fighting climate change. Our work on methane and our international investments in climate change issues have made us a world leader. We are going to keep doing the work.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, this morning, we learned that Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. What is more, according to one report, more than 50% of workers say that the cost of living has gone up.
The Prime Minister told young Canadians that they would have to make sacrifices, and yet he is recklessly using the national credit card to pay for luxury inflight meals, while 2.2 million Canadians are relying on food banks to put food on the table.
Why is this Liberal Prime Minister asking Canadians to tighten their belts while he and his friends are treating themselves to lavish meals on the dime of hard-working Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, it is odd to see the Conservatives looking so pleased this morning. I do not understand their attitude this morning.
I know the people of Portneuf. They are watching question period this morning. Those who are watching understand that the world is facing headwinds in the global economy. People understand that there is a conflict in the Middle East, the most significant conflict we have seen in terms of energy.
However, because I know the people of Portneuf well, I know that they know that we have a plan. We have a plan to invest in our country, a plan to invest in our young people, a plan to invest in our workers and our industry. That is exactly what we are going to do.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, we are not pleased. We want the Liberal government, which has been in power for 11 years, to take meaningful action to ensure that Canadians have a better quality of life.
Our seniors have to skip meals just to put food on the table. Our children have to give up their dream of owning a home. Last year, this same Prime Minister asked young people to make sacrifices.
Obviously the Prime Minister has to eat, but could he show a little more judgment? There is a huge difference between baloney and caviar.
Will the Liberal Prime Minister—
Mr. Speaker, we are still hearing rhetoric from the other side. On this side of the House, we know that the cost of housing and food are the biggest expenses for families.
That is why we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians and why a groceries benefit for 12 million Canadians will be deposited into their accounts next week. We also put in place a school food program for 400,000 children. We created Build Canada Homes. We have already reached agreements to build tens of thousands of units, with the work scheduled to start in the coming weeks. They voted against all these measures. They need to stop showing contempt for Canadians.
My question for them is this: When will they get out of their echo chamber, listen to Canadians and get to work?
Mr. Speaker, Canadians woke up this morning saddened to learn that Canada is the only G7 country to have been in a recession for the past year, despite the fact that the current government is led by what is said to be one of the world's most prestigious economists. The result is that Canada has the worst economic record in the G7. Furthermore, it has the highest food inflation of any G7 country. We also learned that one in three workers has to borrow money to buy groceries.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spent $190,000 on food during three trips. Earlier, the finance minister said that the government was tightening its belt. Is he proud of his Prime Minister?
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Canada is not in a recession. I could tell the member that, per capita, the GDP rose in the first quarter, but I am not going to say that. I could have also told him that the financial markets have completely ignored this message and that they are not in turmoil over it.
What I can say, however, is that the Canadian economy is suffering directly from the impact of the trade war and is suffering directly from the impact of the war in the Middle East. Fuel prices are very high. Investment is down, due to uncertainty. That is the problem, but we have a plan.
Mr. Speaker, there is a misunderstanding. How can the parliamentary secretary say something that is in no way based in reality?
Is my colleague familiar with Statistics Canada? It just so happens that it is part of the Government of Canada. Statistics Canada states that Canada is in a recession and that it is the only G7 country in this situation. While all G7 countries are facing the same challenges, Canada has the worst record and is the only country in a recession.
How can the parliamentary secretary say the opposite of the truth? Canadians have had enough of this sort of lie.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk is well aware that one cannot use the word “lie” in the House when referring to another member; one cannot say that a member said a lie. I would remind him that this is a rule of the House. He cannot use that sort of word.
Gérard Deltell: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.
Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised.
[English]
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I believe this is straight harassment from that side. It is trying to shut me up. You cannot do that. We are supposed to be able to—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
I am going to interrupt the parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary is a veteran member of two Houses. He understands that we speak through the Chair and that he is not to address members directly.
I will let the parliamentary secretary start from 20 seconds and finish his response.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Canada is not in a recession. Statistics Canada has never said that we are in a recession. The financial markets will determine that. There is no cause for alarm.
However, our economy is under threat. Our economy is directly affected by the tariffs. We are the only G7 country that borders the United States, and we are heavily dependent on trade with the United States. That is our problem, and we have a plan to address it.
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that Canada is the only G7 country currently in a recession. Despite this, in Nova Scotia, the provincial government leased a plot of land to a private company with close ties to the Liberals for $13,500 a year.
That company then turned around and sublet the same land to the Liberal federal government for $20 million a year. It went from $13,500 to $20 million. What is more, the government has leased it for 10 years. That is $200 million down the drain.
Could the Liberals possibly stop wasting Canadians' money?
Mr. Speaker, establishing sovereign space launch capabilities in Canada will generate billions of dollars in investment, 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. This could represent as much as $40 billion.
That is what we are investing in. These are essential capabilities that protect Canada and generate significant economic benefits for Canadians.
[English]
National Defence
Mr. Speaker, the Victoria Cross is the highest military honour Canada awards for acts of extraordinary valour. It was created in 1993, yet has never been awarded. Constituents in my riding are calling for an independent review of military decorations from the Afghanistan mission. The time for action is now.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence inform this House how the government is committed to a fair and transparent process to honour the valour of our veterans?
Mr. Speaker, honouring bravery and sacrifice in service to Canada is among our government's most solemn responsibilities. We are profoundly grateful to all those who have served and who continue to serve our country.
Military honours, including Canada's Victoria Cross, are subject to a thorough and rigorous review process by the Canadian Armed Forces. I can confirm that the government agrees to the establishment of an independent military honours review board to review Afghanistan veteran cases where new evidence may suggest that the criteria for the Victoria Cross may have been met.
I look forward to providing further updates to this House in due course.
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government spent years ignoring and enabling anti-Semitism in Canada. We are now watching the consequences unfold in real time. In a single week in the country, effigies of Jews were hung in Montreal in the streets, while genocidal slogans were chanted. Government-funded organizations openly discussed a Jew-free Canada. Posters of a missing 14-year-old girl were torn down because she was Jewish. That is in just one week in Canada.
Will any member on that side of the House get up and admit that we are in a full-blown crisis?
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. There is a crisis of anti-Semitism in Canada. That is why the government denounced, through the Minister of Public Safety, what happened in Montreal last weekend. That is why we put forward the combatting hate act to listen to the demands that the Jewish community has been making for the last three years. That is why we augmented funding for Jewish community security across the country. The Prime Minister and every single member of this caucus is committed to the safety of Jewish communities across the country.
Mr. Speaker, we all know the laws exist. The member opposite knows full well that Bill C-9 and anything he mentioned would not have stopped a single thing that happened in the streets. We already know the Prime Minister will not act because he has not acted. In fact, he did not say a thing last week. More effigies will be hung, more firebombs will be thrown into synagogues and more Liberal MPs will pose for pictures with those who glorify terrorism. The question is not whether the government will finally call this a crisis. We know they will not.
The question is how much more needs to happen in order for anybody to do anything.
Mr. Speaker, in December 2024, the justice committee, of which I was a part, put out a report. It recommended to governments across the country, the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments, and police and universities what we thought they should do in this circumstance. We need to show leadership. The Prime Minister will show leadership and has shown leadership on this issue. It is unacceptable that the Jewish community of Canada does not feel as safe as it used to feel. Jewish schools should not have to have guards in front of them. We will work incessantly to make sure every level of government in the country works with us to solve the crisis of anti-Semitism.
Rail Transportation
Mr. Speaker, in a September letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance said that he would be in a conflict of interest if he participated in discussions, decisions, debates or votes related to Alto. We now know he went on to do those things anyway.
What we have learned this week is that the minister's department hired an executive from Alto to write his budget speech and budget presentation.
Why?
Mr. Speaker, Alto is a nation-transforming project. We are pleased and proud to support it. Conservatives should be ashamed of their opposition to this nation-building project.
With respect to how the conduct of the finance minister and the government is going, I will respond to my friend, the Death Valley well driller over there. The minister has put in place a rigid and approved set of measures from the Commissioner of Ethics and he will always act with integrity.
I am going to remind the hon. government House leader not to describe members in that particular way. It has been done in the House before. It has led to disorder in the House. I would ask the government House leader to help the Speaker out and make sure that we can end question period on a high note.
The hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes.
Mr. Speaker, as a surprise to no one, the government House leader is lowering the decorum in the House at the same time that he is also unleashing devastation on communities across Ontario and Quebec, as well as the expropriation of farms, homes, businesses and the destruction of environmentally sensitive land like the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, with a program that will cost more than $90 billion, while they let atrophy Canadian infrastructure and services like Via Rail, which services the same communities that Alto will pass by while destroying.
Why will they not invest in Canada instead of destroying it?
Mr. Speaker, Via Rail will always be a prominent feature of our transportation network. Via Rail will continue to be a source of pride and, obviously, utility for Canadians. I will note that this is the first time, I think, in the history of the chamber that we have heard the Conservatives utter the word “biosphere”.
I can assure him that the environment, farms and agriculture will be treated with the utmost sensitivity as we build this very popular, very important high-speed rail project in Canada.
Aerospace Industry
Mr. Speaker, despite strange denials from the Liberals, the breaking news this morning is that, thanks to the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Due to decisions like spending $200 million on a small concrete pad and a gravel road, it is all starting to make sense.
What are taxpayers getting? Insiders getting rich and the potential to maybe launch rockets in the future, but only if taxpayers continue to hand money over, hand over fist. What is worse is the private company that owns it has yet to put a single rocket into space and has lost $7 million in two years.
I am no rocket scientist, but it is clear someone is getting rich. The question is, who is it?
Mr. Speaker, establishing Canadian sovereignty of space launch capabilities is essential for us, not only in terms of our defence capabilities, but also in terms of our ability to detect wildfires and atmospheric issues. This is incredibly important for Canada.
The premier of Nova Scotia is in support. The industry is in support. This is going to generate billions of dollars in economic returns and create jobs. I do not understand why the Conservatives are against innovation.
Mr. Speaker, immediately after the Liberals funnelled $20 million to Maritime Launch Services for no work to a nearly bankrupt company, the board chair sold previously worthless shares and pocketed $1.8 million.
That is what we are against: insiders getting rich while taxpayers get fleeced. No wonder Canada is the only G7 nation in a recession. The Liberal Prime Minister has led us straight there. The Liberals are willing to burn $200 million, or over $50,000 a day, on a concrete pad, a gravel road, a hope and a dream.
Will the Liberals finally come back to Earth and stop wasting taxpayers' money?
Mr. Speaker, as someone who has the Canadian Space Agency in Longueuil, I do not understand why the member opposite is not supporting space domain awareness. This is incredibly important. Our job is to make sure that our forces are ready and resilient when operating in the space domain.
We are standing up 3 Canadian Space Division, which will ensure space domain awareness, defend and protect our satellites, and deliver space power in support of military operations. This will allow Canada to have sovereignty in terms of our ability to launch satellites into space. Our allies are asking for this. I do not understand what the problem is.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, last night, the Minister of Immigration tried to dodge a very simple question. When asked whether taxpayer dollars are being used to buy hotels for asylum claimants, she attempted to rebrand them as “reception centres”. Canadians know the facts. Municipalities like Ottawa and Pickering have already used millions of dollars in public funds to purchase hotels to house asylum claimants. Changing the label does not change the reality.
With Canada now the only G7 country in a recession, will the minister stop hiding behind bureaucratic language and finally confirm the Liberals are funding municipalities to purchase hotels for asylum claimants?
Mr. Speaker, there is a pattern here with the Conservative questions on immigration. I have great respect for that member. We work together on the immigration committee. However, instead of putting meaningful reform forward that is constitutional, they go back to refugees constantly. That is not an illegitimate issue, but the way they frame it rings familiar. It is right-wing populism. He knows, because we have heard about it at committee, that there is no merit to those points. We are working with communities on long-term housing solutions for everyone.
Mr. Speaker, with Canada now the only G7 country in a recession, Canadians cannot understand why the government continues wasting millions of dollars through government programs that fund municipalities to buy hotels for asylum claimants. A hotel does not stop being a hotel because the Liberals rename it a “reception centre”. Canadians are tired of political spin and word games, as families struggle with rising costs and economic uncertainty.
Will the minister stop misleading Canadians and answer a question directly? Is the Liberal government funding municipalities to buy hotels for asylum claimants?
Mr. Speaker, the member knows, because he works on the House of Commons committee responsible for immigration, that for some time now, hotels have not been used to resettle refugee claimants. We are certainly working with municipalities to assist in a variety of ways. We know that the global displacement crisis that has been in effect since 2015 has certainly created challenges for Canada and other democracies.
We are there for municipalities in response. We will continue to do that. I look forward to the report on the matter that is upcoming in committee as well.
Mr. Speaker, 74,000 rejected asylum claimants still in Canada whom the government refuses to deport are under the bloated interim federal health program. The Liberals rejected them for a reason. While Canada is the only G7 country in a recession, these fraudsters still get taxpayer-funded health care, such as physio and counselling, but Canadians do not. End the handouts, and the fraudsters will go.
When will the Liberal government cut the supplementary health care handout for fake refugee fugitives and finally deport them?
Mr. Speaker, that was almost on cue. I guess the member did not have time to revise the question. There the Conservatives go again about refugee claimants. The members knows or should know that the interim federal health program has been in existence since the 1950s, supported by successive Conservative and Liberal governments.
Let us also continue with the facts. Refugee claimants comprise less than 1% of the total population. That program, the interim federal health program, makes up less than 0.2% of the total health care spending in Canada.
We have an obligation to respond in a compassionate way and also in a responsible way.
[Translation]
Steel and Aluminum Industry
Mr. Speaker, we know that a strong and autonomous steel and aluminum industry is key to Canada's security and prosperity. However, our metal processing businesses in Quebec are facing unjustified tariffs imposed by our neighbours to the south. Our government recently announced $1.5 billion in regional tariff relief, which will help support manufacturers of metal products and invest in Canadian workers.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry tell the House how our government is supporting manufacturers?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the fine member for Terrebonne, for that very good question.
Our aluminum processing companies across Canada, and particularly in Quebec, are facing difficulties related to the tariffs imposed by the United States. Our aluminum processors are the backbone of the Quebec and Canadian economy, representing more than 30,000 jobs and more than $11 billion in sales.
That is why we have already allocated more than $20 million to Quebec aluminum processors as part of our regional tariff response initiative, with an overall budget of $500 million. Our government is taking concrete action and we will always be there to help our—
[English]
Public Safety
Mr. Speaker, residents of Williams Lake are once again sounding the alarm about rising crime, street disorder, open drug use and repeat violent offenders terrorizing local businesses and families. Williams Lake city council is holding an emergency public safety meeting after RCMP reported more than 1,400 calls connected to the downtown core already this year.
The Prime Minister promised Canadians safer communities, but after 11 years, people in Williams Lake feel less safe walking down the street, less safe opening their businesses and less safe raising their kids.
Will the Prime Minister stand in the House today and finally admit that his soft-on-crime policies have failed?
Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting that the hon. member raised that subject, since the government, within one year, has done more than any government before it: Bill C-8 on cyberthreat, Bill C-9 on heinous crimes, Bill C-12 on border security, Bill C-14 on bail reform and more severe sentences, Bill C-16 on protecting victims and accelerating justice, and now Bill C-22 on legal access.
I hope that this time the Conservatives will vote with us.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what fantasy world my colleague is living in, but there are bad people doing bad things to good people, and Canadians are fed up with it.
I spoke this week about a constituent who was run over, dragged down the street and left for dead. The perpetrators got off scot-free. Williams Lake city council is actually considering sending all the criminals to another jurisdiction because of soft-on-crime policies. This is real.
When will the Prime Minister admit that his catch-and-release experiment has failed to keep repeat offenders off the streets?
Mr. Speaker, my colleague just set out a number of bills, and he was quite right. This is the most ambitious agenda on fighting crime ever presented before the House.
What have we been met with? I want the people of Williams Lake to know that their member of Parliament stood up and obstructed and voted against measures that would help that community: measures that would keep violent criminals in jail, measures that would keep places of worship safe and measures that would keep child pornographers and extortionists behind bars. The people of Williams Lake need to know that.
Mr. Speaker, after 11 long years of the Liberals, crime is up everywhere, not just in big cities but in small rural communities as well. Many people will recall a recent case where a Wetaskiwin man shot and murdered another man on his own doorstep. Ten months later, the same murderer was out on Liberal bail when he beat his girlfriend to death in her home in Ponoka.
When is enough going to be enough? How many more families have to suffer losing loved ones before Liberals get serious and put dangerous offenders behind bars, where they belong?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the government has made massive investments to strengthen the services provided by the RCMP and the CBSA. We are taking action to crack down on gang-related violence and hate crimes.
Bill C-14 will soon come into force to reform—
[English]
Northern Affairs
Mr. Speaker, whether in rural Nova Scotia, such as in South Shore—St. Margarets, or in the Yukon, Canadians know that strong communities depend on the basics, including homes people can afford, roads and water systems that work, local food security, and infrastructure that withstands a changing climate.
Can the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs tell the House how our new government is working with Yukon partners to deliver real, practical results in our northern rural communities?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for South Shore—St. Margarets for her leadership and incredible advocacy, not just for her riding but for all of rural Canada.
Canada's security and prosperity are rooted in the north, and the Yukon is central to how Canada builds and defends the north. Last week, the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and I were in the territory to announce investments of over $150 million in health and community infrastructure, as well as $100 million to deliver affordable homes through Build Canada Homes.
From Nova Scotia to the Yukon, we are ensuring that Canadians have the tools, the power and the housing to drive our own future.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has taken Canada into a recession, the only one in the G7. How does he respond? His latest inflight catering bill for only three flights was $195,000. That is enough to pay for 2,600 food hampers at a Windsor food bank, enough for 36,400 days. While the Liberal Prime Minister led us into recession, he dined on luxury inflight meals while Canadians were starving.
How many more bad economic reports will it take for the Liberals to rein in their out-of-control, wasteful spending?
Mr. Speaker, of course, government members follow all federal regulations when they travel. The allegation was absurd.
The Conservatives read the same questions prepared by their leader 32 times a question period. I think Canadians have taken note this morning of a very important thing. Conservatives paraded into the House with glee, while we know Canadians face historic headwinds, wars in the Middle East, war in Europe and a trade war with our closest neighbour and trading partner. Canadians know that the government has a plan.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Canadian citizens were subjected to physical, sexual and psychological abuse while illegally detained by Israeli forces last week. Canadians report being beaten and stabbed, while other international detainees report torture and rape by Israeli forces. This week, The New York Times and the UN confirmed wide-ranging sexual abuse and torture of Palestinian detainees, and this abuse is being celebrated by Israeli government ministers. Canada's inaction must end.
When will Canada impose sanctions on the Israeli government and suspend trade with Israel?
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have condemned, in the strongest terms, mistreatment of any people who were on the flotilla. We have made our opinion extremely clear that it is unacceptable to treat people in that way.
At the same time, we continue to work on delivering humanitarian aid and ensuring that we find solutions that are permanent for the people of Gaza and all Palestinians to live in peace and security, with Israel and Palestine living side by side.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Premier of Alberta, Danielle Smith, recently suggested that the Constitution be amended because she finds section 35 rights problematic for her pipeline dream. What is more troublesome, though, is that the Liberal Prime Minister has remained silent. However, that is not surprising, considering Amnesty International has confirmed that he has backslid on indigenous rights.
Indigenous peoples want to know, does the Prime Minister agree with Premier Smith, or will he take the honourable stand and condemn this dangerous proposition?
[Translation]
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2
Bill C-31—Notice of Time Allocation Motion
Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to second reading stage of Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[English]
Government Response to Petitions
[Translation]
I must interrupt the parliamentary secretary to remind members that they cannot pass between the person who is speaking and the Speaker during deliberations.
[English]
The hon. parliamentary secretary can start from the beginning.
[Translation]
Committees of the House
Environment and Sustainable Development
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled, “Main Estimates 2026-27: Votes 1 and 5 under Canada Water Agency, Votes 1, 5 and 10 under Department of the Environment, Votes 1 and 5 under Impact Assessment Agency of Canada and Votes 1, 5 and 10 under Parks Canada Agency”.
[English]
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of concerned workers and business owners at the Regina International Airport.
The signatories of the petition are concerned about the Liberals' proposed official languages administrative monetary penalties regulations and their application to businesses operating at airports. Smaller regional airports, such as Regina, do not have easy access to a fluently bilingual labour force, and as a result, it is not practical to expect every restaurant, souvenir shop and car rental business on the airport's property to offer services in French. They fear that penalties as high as $25,000 per infraction could drive them out of business. Their solution is to simply exclude from the regulations any airport with fewer than four million passengers annually.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to present this petition today in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of over 1,000 people who are urging the government to support the proposed REACH facility in Red Lake. The petitioners note that the current Cochenour Arena is one of the oldest in northern Ontario, and a new facility would provide a modern, expanded space for recreation. The petitioners also note that the facility could serve as an evacuation centre for northern communities frequently displaced by wildfires. Lastly, Red Lake has submitted numerous funding applications but has not received the necessary approvals.
I am proud to stand with the good people of Red Lake.
Mr. Speaker, it is a true honour, as always, to stand in this place, particularly with the petition I am presenting today, which concerns one of my constituents. I know I am just to present the petition, so with a tiny bit of latitude I would like to say that Robert Bateman's birthday was last week. He is one of Canada's most extraordinary wildlife artists.
The petitioners from Saanich—Gulf Islands are asking that the government speak to the National Gallery of Canada. Obviously, the National Gallery is independently run, and the petitioners know this, but they point out the shocking reality that even though its mandate is to showcase artists who contribute significantly to Canadian culture and identity, Mr. Robert Bateman's work has never been exhibited there. Therefore, the petitioners call on the government to urge the National Gallery of Canada to redress this and hold an exhibition for Canadians on the lifetime work of Robert Bateman.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today from my seat in the House of Commons to present e-petition 7359.
The petitioners were alarmed by recent reporting that noted a concerning number of absences by the Prime Minister during question period, and they sponsored this petition, which over 2,100 Canadians have signed, calling on him to attend question period on a weekly basis and to wholly and truthfully answer questions from members of Parliament during those sessions, including on luxury items consumed.
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have the deepest respect for the petitions that are brought forward. I just would not want to see something taking place that cannot be done directly.
If, in fact, it is part of the Conservative agenda to introduce petitions of this nature, I do not believe it would be appropriate. I say this more as a warning. This is the first time I have heard that petition. We hope not to hear its constant repetition, because it refers to a member's absence or presence inside the chamber.
I thank the parliamentary secretary. Standing Order 15 covers whether one can or cannot make reference, at the present moment and during sitting days, to the presence or absence of members, because members have House business and parliamentary business to conduct outside of the chamber. That has always been interpreted to mean that during a sitting day, one cannot make reference to the presence or absence of a member.
The petition was certified by the member and by the clerks. This is a petition presented by the people of Canada in her riding who have signed it. Also, it makes past-tense references. The member did not make reference to today's sitting or to the present moment either.
Members are allowed to table those petitions as long as they stick directly to the text of the petition, which I understand is what she did. I do not find that a rule has been broken here.
The parliamentary secretary knows how much I love the Standing Orders, especially Standing Orders 15, 18 and 10.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Prime Minister will be meeting the foreign minister of China today. I appreciate the opportunity to present a petition that highlights a number of concerns of Canadians that he might want to take up in the context of that meeting.
The petitioners note that credible reports have documented the use of forced labour in China, particularly involving Uyghurs and other persecuted minorities, and that goods produced using forced labour risk entering Canadian supply chains, undermining ethical trade and human rights. Canadian allies, including the United States, have taken stronger measures to combat forced labour and protect supply chains. The petitioners also note that foreign interference has targeted cultural and artistic expression in Canada, including performances such as Shen Yun, and that Canadian citizens, including Huseyin Celil, remain unjustly detained abroad, while other individuals, such as Jimmy Lai, are imprisoned for exercising fundamental freedoms. They note that Canada has a responsibility to defend human rights, uphold the rule of law and protect its sovereignty.
Petitioners want to see the House and the government formally recognize and address the use of forced labour in China; strengthen co-operation with allies, including the United States, to eliminate forced labour from Canadian supply chains; take action to oppose and prevent foreign interference targeting artistic and cultural performances in Canada; advocate for the immediate release of Canadian citizens, including Huseyin Celil, who are unjustly detained abroad; and advocate for the release of individuals unjustly imprisoned for defending fundamental freedoms, including Jimmy Lai.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition in support of families dealing with bereavement and loss who want to see reforms to the employment insurance system that allow for the continuation of certain benefits with as little red tape as possible in the process. Later today, we are going to be debating a private member's bill that goes partway there. The petitioners are highlighting further action that is required.
They note that if a person on parental leave passes away, their family immediately loses access to benefits that they have paid into. A family that pays into that system should not lose benefits they paid for, especially when they need them most. Compounding grief with the abrupt end of benefits creates financial distress at a time when families are already dealing with the unimaginable. Petitioners note that the human resources committee has recently agreed to study this issue and has requested costing information on a proposal to protect these benefits if the parent on leave passes away.
Petitioners want to see the government reform the EI system to support all grieving families by preserving access to parental leave if the parent on leave passes away.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am tabling a petition in support of Bill C-260, the care not coercion act, on which I understand people can find more information by visiting www.carenotcoercion.ca. This is an excellent private member's bill tabled by a member of Parliament I know well.
Petitioners note that many reports, including media stories and evidence received by parliamentary committees, indicate a serious problem of veterans, people with disabilities, seniors and those living in poverty being offered euthanasia, or facilitated death, by bureaucrats while trying to access completely unrelated public services. People are seeking access to services from the government or other agencies and are having those people in positions of authority or trust tell them, “Well, instead of accessing these services, how about you die instead?” This is ghoulish and horrifying, but it is very real in this country. The CEO of Inclusion Canada, Krista Carr, has testified before the finance committee that she hears weekly complaints from people with disabilities who have had facilitated death proposed to them when they were trying to access other services.
There is a wide gap between what members of Parliament, in many cases, perceive on these issues and the lived experience of people with disabilities. Petitioners would encourage members of Parliament to listen to those concerns. Petitioners note that Bill C-260, the care not coercion act preventing coercion of persons not seeking medical assistance in dying, would prevent instances of coercion in which a bureaucrat offers medically facilitated death to those who are not asking for it.
Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-260, the care not coercion act; to find more information at carenotcoercion.ca; and to support additional action to combat the growing problem of MAID coercion.
Questions Passed as Orders for Return
It it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to conclude my remarks. I was speaking about not having a national security strategy for Canada to back up the government's Defence Investment Agency and defence industrial strategy. None of this will work without this key foundation. A procurement architecture cannot be designed for a mission that has never been defined or for threats that have not been assessed. We cannot build an agency to deliver capability to our armed forces when we have not decided what capability Canada actually needs.
The Minister of National Defence admitted to me in testimony at committee that no consideration of threat assessments, pre-kinetic warfare, grey zone warfare, cognitive operations or PSYOPS is in the defence investment strategy. How could there be? That would require a foundational national security strategy, a strategy the government does not have.
Simply put, the government has put the cart before the horse, and Canadians in uniform will pay the price. Indeed, all of Canada will pay the price. This is the exact opposite of creating a self-reliant and sovereign country.
The fancy speeches, the hollow announcements and the promises are all illusions. The reality is that it seems as if the Prime Minister is more focused on building his own defence industry oligarchy.
As Conservatives, we have always stood proudly with the women and men who serve in uniform. We ask them to do dangerous things. We ask them to stand between Canadians and harm. We send them to protect our sovereignty, to serve our allies and to represent our country at its best. The very least we owe them is the right equipment, honestly procured without corruption, without patronage and without a $1-billion slush fund that answers to no one.
Vancouver Island is home to both CFB Comox and CFB Esquimalt. The families there are watching, the veterans there are watching and the serving members are watching. They are all starting to see behind the curtain of illusion, and the illusion is starting to crumble.
We will oppose division 16 of this bill, not because we oppose defence investment, but because we refuse to accept the illusion of it in place of reality. Canada deserves better. Our armed forces deserve better. The people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who live alongside—
Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member can actually make those statements and keep a straight face. Under the Conservative Party, they actually had just below 1% of GDP going to Canada's military.
The current Prime Minister, elected just over a year ago, made a commitment to bring it up to 2% of Canada's GDP. We accomplished that months after. Before the end of last year, we achieved the 2%. We provided support, financial pay and so forth, investing in the military and building a military industry. That is what this government has done.
What did the Conservative government do? It did zip, nothing. In fact, it closed veterans offices. Imagine what—
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's question was ill-informed. The 2% NATO spending that the government constantly boasts about is truly an illusion. Money was shuffled. The Coast Guard, which is not operationally deployable, was accounted for, and that is not within the NATO regulations.
In fact, I would like to draw the member opposite's attention to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the gold and global standard for identifying government and NATO spending, which said that the discrepancy was 0.4%. In other words, Canada has only actually spent, by this gold standard assessment, 1.6%. This is another Liberal illusion, and Canadians need to see that reality. Of note, I will add that Canada was the only country mentioned with such a large discrepancy in our alleged 2% spending. It is shameful.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his service.
Two days ago, to much fanfare at CANSEC, the Prime Minister announced a deal to purchase military aircraft from Saab, which I believe is an affiliate company of Brookfield.
Have they actually signed a deal, or is it another Liberal illusion?
Mr. Speaker, indeed, there was much fanfare and much excitement from industry as this amazing deal was supposedly announced. This is more illusion, as I alluded to throughout my speech. The Prime Minister of Oz made this great announcement. Let me hold back the curtain and show the reality, right from Saab's press release. On its web page, Saab stated, “Canada has announced that they will enter into detailed discussions and formal negotiations with Saab [to be potentially] the preferred supplier of Canada’s future.... Saab has not signed a contract nor received an order.”
That is the reality. Across the way is the illusion, and Canadians are seeing through it.
Mr. Speaker, I would reinforce where the Conservative Party is probably at its weakest. The member tried to paint a picture that is just not true. At the end of the day, I would compare our investments in the Canadian Forces to the Conservatives' when his leader was a member of government for 10 years. They actually dipped just below 1% of Canada's GDP. It is truly amazing that the member would try to give this false impression, as if the Conservatives actually supported the Canadian Forces, when in fact they cut nine offices from Veterans Affairs. It is delusional that the member is able to make the statements that he has.
Why does he not stick straight to the facts?
Mr. Speaker, I was looking at nothing but the facts, and I hear the frustration in the member opposite's voice. Clearly, reality is colliding with illusion, and his frustration is building. Let me be clear. With the investments of 1% under the Harper government, they still managed to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, because they had solid, well-founded programs that did not waste money. Right now, we are seeing creative accounting and self-reporting. When the Stockholm Institute reports on actual numbers, we see it is more Liberal illusion, just like their announcements. It is all illusion, and our military is no stronger. In fact, it is weaker under this government's illusion and failure. I am bringing reality.
Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry to add my contributions and views based on what I am hearing in my community, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, as well as Cornwall and Akwesasne, and bring that to the floor of the House to make sure their voices are heard.
As we discuss this piece of budget implementation legislation, it is important to acknowledge some of the breaking news today. The unfortunate news that we had from Stats Canada confirmed that under the Prime Minister, just 15 months into office, Canada has entered into a recession. We have now had two quarters of negative economic growth. We can look at the last four quarters, as a matter of fact, and we have had three quarters of negative economic growth. That is showing that despite the speeches, the photo ops and the good intentions that are always mentioned by the Liberals, we are seeing that their plan is failing to resonate when it comes to economic growth and creating jobs. We have seen tens of thousands of jobs lost so far in 2026. Sadly and very frustratingly, we are now entering into a recession, as confirmed by the government's own Stats Canada agency.
Conservatives on this side of the House are going to keep advocating for a change in direction and for getting rid of the anti-development laws that are on the books, like Bill C-69, and some of the caps that have been put in that are prohibiting and inhibiting our natural resources from getting built. Let us remember that it was this Prime Minister who promised to move at unimaginable speeds to get things done. Here we are, seeing that it can take, in cases of getting a mine built, upwards of 25 years to get a mine permitted and built in this country.
At the same time, we are seeing the idea or possibility of a pipeline out to the west coast, but we do not know a proponent, a start date, a route or the details. We are years and years away, because the Prime Minister and the Liberal government continue to put those anti-development laws in place. They are trying to weasel through certain exceptions, different side deals and MOUs. At the end of the day, we are seeing, again confirmed, a shrinking economy, not a growing one, despite the vast natural resources we have in this country.
When it comes to a change in course, it is not just those anti-development laws; it is the change in our housing policies. Right across this country, we should be removing the GST on all new home builds and encouraging partnerships with every single province to take the HST off, which could provide significant savings, not just for first-time homebuyers but for all new home builds in this country. We need to invigorate and pump-start our housing economy.
Again, the rhetoric was that the Liberal government was going to double house building in this country, to about half a million homes per year, which is what its own stats say is needed just to keep up with affordability and demand in the coming years. We are only at half that. As opposed to seeing new housing starts accelerate, we are seeing them, in many cases and over many months, decelerate, not grow. Our Conservative plan will continue to be on the table. We will continue to pressure the government in that regard.
When it comes to the high price of gas, what we need to do is go further to provide inflationary and financial relief for Canadians. The Liberals are removing only one-third of the federal taxes for one-third of the year. What we are proposing is to remove all federal taxes, not just the federal excise tax but the seven-cents-a-litre fuel standard, which under the Liberals will be going from seven cents, currently, to 17¢ a litre in the coming years, and also to get rid of the GST that is charged on the price of gas. That could provide real relief of 25¢ a litre for the entire year, allowing Canadians to keep more money in their pockets to help with the rising cost of living. This is yet another contrast and another change the Liberals could make to combat the Liberal recession that we are now in.
Of course, it is about the out-of-control spending. I hear, repeatedly, in Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry and other parts of eastern Ontario, particularly Prescott and Russell, where we have a lot of correspondence from, the frustration and the opposition to the $90-billion boondoggle that is Alto high-speed rail. The Liberal government spends $20 billion each and every year on consultants, many of them Liberal insiders who get repeated sole-sourced contracts, at a time when our federal public service has ballooned to higher levels than we had just 10 years ago.
There is the $742-million gun grab, which is an absolute waste of law-abiding Canadians' resources and time. It is costing taxpayers money, and it is not going after the root cause of gun violence in this country, which is illegal and smuggled guns. Taking a law-abiding firearm owner's firearms away from them when they go up to the Cornwall Handgun Club, for example, is not going to tackle the crisis. The Minister of Public Safety has even admitted in leaked audio that their plan does not work, but there is $742 million that has gone down the drain in wasteful Liberal spending.
It continues with the PrescribeIT program, which was $300 million spent on a software program. That was done by Health Canada, and it was supposed to digitize records. After pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the program, the Liberals decided that nobody wanted it and nobody used it. They had to shut it down, all while paying the CEO of that organization over $800,000 per year in an executive salary and bonuses. It is absolutely absurd, and it was a waste of taxpayers' money, once again.
If that is not enough, Conservatives are digging up more wasteful spending by the Liberal government. No wonder we have such a high deficit and debt in this country. The Liberals are spending $200 million over the next 10 years on a gravel pit and concrete pad in rural Nova Scotia for a rocket launch service. The company was nearly bankrupt and almost shut down. It then got an injection of $20 million with a backdated contract retroactive to last year. This infusion of $20 million saw its key investors suddenly cash out with millions of dollars, and we have a gravel pad with a concrete pad on top of it that is costing $20 million per year. The lease of that land, just for the record, was about $15,000 per year. Where is the other $19.99 million a year going? Canadians have a right to know.
When we talk about waste and about ways to lower our deficit, there are several key ways.There are the billions of dollars we Conservatives have been mentioning. That would be a common-sense way to get our finances under control.
We see the massive deficits that the Liberals have included in their budget documents this year, and they are ongoing for the next few years. The Liberals have no plans to balance the budget. I looked at the numbers and did some rough math. They are looking to add $330 billion more to our national debt in the next five or six years alone. That is on top of the $1.3 trillion or $1.4 trillion already on the debt. These Liberals have added more to our national debt than every other government combined before it. That is how bad it is.
I have said this repeatedly in my tenure in public life, and it bears repeating: The easiest thing for government to do in public life is to tell Canadians what it is going to spend money on. That is the easy part. The part that Canadians need to pay attention to, and where we are with this Liberal government, is how it is going to pay for it all. This is what we call a costly credit card budget, because that is exactly what it is doing. It is adding tens of billions of dollars each and every year. In this case, there is $67 billion in the spring statement that was just proposed and, like I said, $330 billion in new debt in the coming year.
The thing we need to remember is that, when that goes on the credit card, there are public debt charges, which is the interest to service that debt. As a matter of fact, we spent $54 billion this year just to pay the interest on our national debt. That is not paying it down. It is just paying the interest on that proverbial credit card, and that interest is expected to go up to $59 billion next year. It will then go to $65 billion the year after that, and then on to $71 billion and $76 billion. Finally, in 2030, we will be spending $81 billion per year servicing our national debt.
That is not sustainable and not the right way. Canadian households do not do that with their credit card and their home budgets. They expect, as Canadian taxpayers, government to do the same thing.
It is ridiculous to see that the new Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. Whether it is the budget implementation act or the Liberals' efforts here on defence, we are seeing more bureaucracy, more taxes and more ineffective measures. Now that we are in a recession, under the Liberal Prime Minister, it is time to smarten up and change course.
Mr. Speaker, there is no surprise at the approach the Conservative Party of Canada is taking. It does not necessarily believe in investing in Canada's infrastructure. The information that the member talks about focuses on taxes and tax breaks. The government has provided tax breaks for the issue of affordability in several different ways. I will get into that in my comments.
I would like to understand why the Conservatives say two things. The first thing they constantly say is that Canada is broken, and the second, which is their default or natural fallback, is to tell us to just get out of the way.
Why do the Conservatives not believe in investing in Canadians and investing in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, when I talk about our economy, I am saying that it is the Liberal government that is broken. Let us make it very clear: We are now in a recession. We have seen negative growth for two quarters in a row, and over the course of the last year, three of those four quarters have seen negative growth. That is the Liberal record. That is the reason we are criticizing the Liberal government and its record. It is clearly not working.
Let us be very clear: We are the only G7 country now in a recession. All the other G7 countries are facing the same headwinds with tariffs, gas prices and oil prices. They are facing the exact same circumstances and headwinds, yet they are not in a recession. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. That is the Liberal Prime Minister's record.
When we criticize, we are criticizing the Liberal government's record, because as Statistics Canada is showing today, we are going into a recession. Clearly the government's plan is not working.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about where Canada is at economically. I would like him to drill down on that further and its impact on Canadians.
What I mean is that the Liberal government has spent and spent for over a decade, and today we learned that Canada is now in a recession. It is the only G7 country to enter into that. That is due to the current Prime Minister's policies.
That is more than stats on a page. That impacts Canadians. It impacts families. It impacts seniors. It impacts students. It impacts those who are simply trying to make ends meet. I am curious if my colleague would care to expand on that impact.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lethbridge has an insightful question, and I thank her for the opportunity to reflect.
Today, I am thinking, as we look at the struggles, that the data confirms that Canada is the only G7 country going into a recession. Canada is officially in a recession under the Liberal government. Today, I am thinking of the millions of Canadians who are relying on food banks. Under the government, we have seen food prices double over the course of the last 10 years.
We have also seen rent and housing prices double, not just in Cornwall and Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, but in every part of the country. We are seeing the strain when it comes to housing. We are seeing the strain on our immigration system and the chaos there. We are seeing, when it comes to affordability, things getting worse. The Liberals have a big laundry list of all the things they claim to be doing to help with affordability, but affordability has never been more difficult for families to meet.
Whether it is the House of Lazarus in Mountain, the Agapè Centre in Cornwall, or Saint Vincent de Paul in Cornwall or Alexandria, we have many people and organizations stepping up to help thousands of people in need in this country. Our goal, as Conservatives, is to change the trajectory, to get ourselves back out of the recession and have Canadians able to afford rent and food in this country. After 11 years, things have gotten worse, not better, under the Liberal government. That is the fact.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best credit rating in the G7, arguably in the world, with a AAA rating. We have the opportunity to use our financial space in order to build a stronger Canada.
Why does the Conservative Party oppose that?
Mr. Speaker, deficits and money printing add to inflation, the inflationary fire being set by the Liberal government. We are seeing now our public debt at $1.4 trillion, and it is expected to go to $1.8 trillion by the year 2030. That is using the government's own summary statement of transactions when it comes to budgetary revenues and expenses.
For 11 years, the government has borrowed and spent incredible amounts. We are seeing affordability get worse. We are seeing housing access get worse. We are seeing our immigration and government services getting worse. It leaves a lot—
Mr. Speaker, let me give a bit of a sense of this to those who might have been following the debate over the last number of months here in the House of Commons. Let me give a sense of the reality of what has taken place since the last federal election.
I think we do need to take a more holistic approach, because the picture that the Conservatives paint every day, whether inside or outside the House, is one that leads to an opinion, which the Conservative leader says all the time, that Canada is broken, when actually nothing could be further from the truth.
Looking at the lead-up to the last federal election just over a year ago, we can ask what was on the minds of Canadians back then. People were concerned about Trump, the tariffs, trade and the issue of crime. Those were the top four issues that were raised with me constantly. Health care was also something that was raised. I would like to be able to attempt to deal with those.
The issue of affordability really started to gel and come to the surface just prior to the election, when the Prime Minister made the commitment to get rid of the carbon tax. Members will recall that it was the very first initiative that our Prime Minister took.
Then we went into an election where, by far, the issue was, as I say, the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. We made a commitment back then to Canadians that, as a government, we would build one Canadian economy. We would look at diversification of our trade. We would look at how we could attract more investment into Canada.
Canadians had the opportunity to take a look at the Prime Minister's background and what it was that the leader of the Liberal Party was proposing during the last federal election. They understood that he had been the Governor of the Bank of Canada, a Stephen Harper appointee. He was not a Liberal appointee. It was Stephen Harper who appointed him to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He then went on to be the Governor of the Bank of England.
The Prime Minister's economic credentials are not questionable. He is someone who has been looked at as a source, in many different ways, of providing economic advice, not just here in Canada. Canadians contrasted him to, as I have said before, the leader of the Conservative Party, who is, much like myself to a certain degree, a career politician. That is not to take anything away from career politicians, but I do believe that, at a time when Canadians were looking for someone to take care and provide that sense of security and understanding of the economy, they chose, I would argue, the right person. Never before had the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as it did in the last national election. I attribute that in good part to the background of Canada's Prime Minister.
We should take a look at some of the things that have taken place since we first formed government. I already made reference to getting rid of the carbon tax. The government, shortly after the election, brought forward legislation, in particular, Bill C-5, and a commitment to Canadians to reduce the middle-class tax rate, and 22 million Canadians benefited from that tax break. Our population, by the way, is just over 40 million people.
We also brought in legislation to bring forward a one Canadian economy. I remember, shortly after the election, how busy the government was in terms of reaching out to and consulting and working with premiers, indigenous leaders, business leaders and union leaders, in whole or in part, to really amplify how important it was that we work collectively, in a collaborative fashion, to build a stronger and healthier Canada that is there for all Canadians, in every way, whether it was of an economic nature, a health care nature or a crime nature.
In order to be able to achieve that, we have to have a sense of co-operation. There needs to be collaboration. Many of the responsibilities that I just listed off are joint responsibilities. When we talk about building a one Canadian economy, that means taking down the barriers that would allow for more trade, whether it is merchandise or labour, among the federation. We actually did that. We took down the national barriers. We also continue to encourage, where we can, like-minded provinces and territories to do likewise. We have seen significant progress in that area. There have been significant initiatives taken by provincial jurisdictions in Canada to build upon the principle of a one Canadian economy. I hope that we continue to see barriers being taken down.
The Prime Minister also made a commitment to build a stronger Canada by investing in infrastructure and in major projects, again, looking to the different stakeholders in particular provinces and territories, indigenous leaders and others, to identify what those major projects should be.
The office is located Alberta, which is one of the driving economic forces in the nation. I was pleased at the decision to locate the Major Projects Office there.
When we take a look at the amount of investment that is projected to go through that office, we are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150 billion. Those are investments that are going to be throughout our nation. Every region of Canada will invest because we have a Prime Minister who understands the federal system and understands the benefits of working collaboratively with others to ensure that we have the right projects and that all regions of our nation are going to benefit.
We talk about, and we will put into place, Canada being an energy superpower in the world. Members can take a look at the major projects that we are talking about from coast to coast and will see the potential of things like energy and wind power in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about nuclear power in Ontario. We can talk about fossil fuels in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Prairies, where I am from. I have lived many years in all three provinces. I have a personal thing that I love about our Prairies. In B.C., we have LNG. The opportunities are there. They are real. They are tangible.
The Prime Minister, the cabinet and all Liberal members of Parliament understand why it is so important that we do not do what the Conservative Party is saying and just get out of the way. To me that would be silly. We recognize that the government has a role, and we have seen that in a very tangible way with these major projects. They are just some of the things that I talk about with regard to energy.
We can talk about our resources and mining opportunities in northern Canada. In Saskatchewan, there is potash and copper. In B.C., there is copper. We have a forest industry that we are supporting in whatever way we can today, because we want it to be there for future generations. We understand the true value of the resources that Canada has and the ways we can work through consultation, in particular with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories. When I talk about the idea of building bigger and better, we can do it at the same time as protecting our environment; expanding, where we can, our national parks; and protecting our waterways, all of which are very important to this government. We will do the work that is necessary to ensure that there is sustainable development, because we recognize that is the expectation that Canadians have.
We have seen things in this budget and in the budget implementation bill that I would have thought every member of the House would have been in support of. I was disappointed in the collective opposition parties, in terms of their not seeing the benefit of a sovereign wealth fund. They come up with excuses to try to justify their position on it, but they do not realize there are many nations that have sovereign wealth funds. It has been demonstrated that they can work and that they can be effective. This is a wonderful opportunity for the government to allow Canadians to invest. It is a wonderful opportunity for us to see the types of investments that we are going to need in order to get many of the major projects not only off the ground, but completed.
This government and this Prime Minister have a very high objective. The bar has been set at a trillion dollars over five years, and we are committed to achieving that and to making sure that we continue to strive to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, and we are prepared to do the necessary work.
We need to realize what has taken place south of our border. It has had an impact; let there be no doubt about it. That is the reason we have the tariff issues. We have supports in place to protect some of our most valuable industries. We will continue to have the backs of the workers who are being most affected by some of the decisions that are being made in the United States today.
However, having said that, as the Prime Minister indicated in the last election, we are committed to diversifying our trading opportunities far beyond the Canada-U.S. border.
That means taking a look at export opportunities in areas where we have seen trade agreements brought to the floor of the House. There were two, one with Indonesia and one with Northern Ireland and the U.K. That is legislation we have already passed through the House, not to mention the dozen other trade agreements that were signed.
We are talking with two great nations that I am a very big fan of, India and the Philippines. The Prime Minister has had communications directly with both the President and the Prime Minister. I am very optimistic that Canada will have trade agreements with the Philippines and India in 2026.
Canada is the only nation to have trade arrangements and agreements with all G7 countries. Canada is a trading nation. We make up 0.5% of the population, yet we contribute 2.5% to world trade. We understand the importance of trade and we have been very successful at reaching out. If we talk to the Prime Minister or other ministers, like the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of International Trade, what we hear when they come back is that everyone wants to do business with Canada. We need to set the stage to allow that to happen. That is why we have a Prime Minister and a government committed to being in Toronto this September, where we are going to have investment, ideas, thoughts and billions in potential out there that we need to secure to help build Canada strong.
I can tell members that there is a very strong social component to this government. We are committed to the Canada Health Act. We are committed to supporting people through our social net. Whether it be for seniors, young people or people with disabilities, we are providing those core services that are absolutely essential. We are continuing to support programs such as the OAS, the GIS and the New Horizons program, all of which are for seniors. With respect to health care, whether it is dealing with things such as mental health, home care or providing that financial support, we continue to support it financially in a very big way. No government has given more money toward health care than the current government, and there were no cuts made there. At the end of the day, we need to focus our attention on the way we can continue to see that growth.
At the tail end of his speech, the last Conservative speaker talked about the military. I indicated that it is truly amazing that the Conservatives spent at one point just under 1% of the GDP on the military and the Canadian Armed Forces. This government, under this Prime Minister's leadership, has already hit 2% of the GDP. However, that is not good enough. We are also looking at ways to modernize, generate and support a military industry. Canada already contributes worldwide in that industry area, but there is so much more that we can do. Just earlier this week we had a good example of that. By working collaboratively with our international allies, there is so much more potential. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, we will not neglect that area because we see the potential. Equally, we have legislation before us that will enable us to grow.
Yes, there will be some bumps as we go forward, but let there be no doubt that every single Liberal member of Parliament is committed to building Canada strong, a Canada that is there for every Canadian, and we will have their backs.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member has well understood the debate about the sovereign wealth fund. I will explain it simply by analogy. If I open a savings account to save my money, that is a good idea. If I have no money, so I open a savings account then take money off the credit card and put it in the savings account, that does not make a lot of sense. The issue is not the existence of the account but whether or not we have something to put into it.
The principle of having a sovereign wealth fund is great, but when the government is running massive deficits, its proposal is not for a sovereign wealth fund. It is for a sovereign debt fund. It would be taking out even more money we do not have and then requiring the additional costs and capacity around a fund that would invest borrowed money. There is also a lack of the protections from political interference, and all kinds of other problems.
Will the parliamentary secretary recognize the real problem and understand that the Liberals should not have a sovereign debt fund that would land on future generations?
Mr. Speaker, part of what the member said might actually have been a little encouraging, because he seems to imply that, in principle, he would support a sovereign wealth fund. Well, I can tell the member opposite that there are many countries that actually have a sovereign wealth fund for which borrowed money was used.
If the member genuinely supports the principle of a sovereign wealth fund, I would suggest that he flip his position and actually support it. The Conservative Party should change its position and support the sovereign wealth fund, a Canada Strong fund in which Canadians will ultimately be able to invest. I think that there might be some hope for some members of the Conservative caucus.
Mr. Speaker, we hear the phrase “Government should get out of the way.” Whenever I hear that phrase, I think that someone has been reading a little too much Ayn Rand.
I would like to ask the hon. member this: In the face of the punishing tariffs from the United States, what would be happening to Canadian businesses if government got out of the way?
Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister, the government, or any member of the Liberal caucus, that is something we will not do, because we understand the significance of the Canada-U.S.A. relationship. Billions of dollars cross our borders every day. The relationship between Canada and the United States is well rooted, but there is something that is really important for us to recognize: Canada is a sovereign nation.
We are not going to capitulate, as the Conservatives were proposing yesterday, on our arts programs in Canada. We are going to continue to recognize that if it is going to take time, we are prepared not only to take the time but also to put the resources and energy into ensuring that Canada gets the best deal possible. On Trump version one, what we found was there was an abandonment by the Conservative Party. We are not going to do that. We are going to persist at getting that deal.
Mr. Speaker, the bill would allow ministers to hand out sole-source contracts to insider friends without competition. I am wondering if the member agrees that if there is no clear mechanism to hold ministers accountable when decisions go wrong, this is effectively granting immunity from consequences.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that really have not changed since the last election. In fact, this has been there for a long time. Even when I was in opposition, the Conservative twist always seems to be to attack the personalities through personal character assassinations. We often hear that today and have heard it in the past. It is a consistent issue for the Conservative Party.
I say to my friends opposite that, as much as they like to attack the character of individuals such as the people who sit on the government benches, our benches will continue to focus on Canadians and on building Canada strong.
Mr. Speaker, building Canada strong for all creates an extraordinary opportunity in the trades. Can the hon. member please inform the House of the opportunities that exist for young people in the trades?
Mr. Speaker, I really welcome that question. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I was not able to bring that into my comments.
We have a fabulous program for the Red Seals. The Red Seal program is literally dozens of skilled trades that are recognized across our nation, and we have made a commitment to support Red Seal certificates. It is about $5,000 for people who actually complete the program. We are talking about anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled workers. That is tangible. It is real. That is what is going to help build Canada well into the future. It is investing in young people. It is investing in the skills of the future that we need in order to continue that building.
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our friend does not get enough time to talk in the chamber, so I have arranged for a literal “choose your own adventure” question, remarking both on his speech and also on his previous answers.
On affordability, I know for a fact how much dental care, child care and the national school food program have helped constituents in my riding of Burnaby North—Seymour. On defence, the member talked about how we went from less than 1% in the Harper days to more than 2%, but he did not talk about how the economy has grown, so it sounds like we doubled the spending, but we more than doubled it. With regard to the Conservatives' saying that we are antidevelopment, we are actually at a stage where there is record bitumen production in Alberta, record royalties and record corporate profit.
On any of those three areas that the member would like to talk about, I would like to hear his ideas.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend has actually articulated exceptionally well, within a very short time allocation, some very important issues.
If there is something I would like to just re-amplify, something I am very passionate about, it is Canada's national health program. I believe it is a part of our identity. It helps identify who we are as Canadians. I am very proud of the fact that this is an area in which we continue to work and to look at ways we could potentially not only preserve but grow. I want to be a part of a government that sees the value of a national health care system.
At the end of the day, it is about working with provinces, trying to get a higher sense of co-operation so we have a universal health care system based on the five fundamental principles of health care, enacted here in Ottawa. So that it does not matter where people choose to live in Canada, and I believe in the mobility of Canadians to go wherever they like in Canada, it is important that we have a health care system that is similar in all regions.
Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the situation of the economy, one thing I often hear from young people is about how difficult it is right now for young people to start out in life.
Youth unemployment is extremely high, at 14.3%, and we have very low workforce participation as well. Homes are extremely expensive. All these challenges make it more difficult for young people to start out, to start a family and to start to have children. We see this showing up in the numbers. People are having far fewer kids than they tell pollsters they want to have, because of these pressures.
Meanwhile, the Liberal government is cutting funding for students attending vocational programs. Will the government reverse its removal of grants to students studying in vocational programs?
Mr. Speaker, the youth unemployment rate is at around 14.3% today. In 2012, when I was in opposition, it was at 14.3%. Therefore, it is roughly the same, if not the same.
What I will tell the member is that we are not going to cut summer youth jobs programs, because that is one of the ways young people are gaining expertise, contacts and so much more, so they will in fact have better opportunities for employment.
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
The Prime Minister has spent much of the last year arguing that Canada faces a more dangerous, more competitive and less forgiving world. He is absolutely right. Trade relationships are more fragile, supply chains have become matters of national security, and energy, minerals, data, defence production and industrial capacity are no longer simply economic assets but have become instruments of sovereignty. Few serious observers would deny that Canada faces a more demanding world than the one we recognized a decade ago.
The question before Parliament, however, is whether Bill C-31 reflects the seriousness of that diagnosis. A serious country must be able to build. It must be able to defend itself, educate and train its people, approve projects, mobilize capital, protect consumers and make decisions that endure beyond a single news cycle. The Prime Minister has framed this moment as one that requires ambition, discipline and state capacity. I agree with that premise. What I question is whether Bill C-31 would advance it.
If the challenge is state capacity, the answer cannot simply be layers of state complexity. If the goal is economic sovereignty, the answer cannot be legislation that gestures in many directions while avoiding difficult choices. Bill C-31 is more than 330 pages long. It would amend tax law, financial law, labour law, transportation law and defence procurement law. It would touch housing finance, automatic benefit delivery, crypto asset reporting, the clean hydrogen tax credit, non-compete clauses, air passenger complaints and a defence investment agency, to name just some of the topics.
Some of the measures may be worthwhile. Some deserve support. Others deserve amendment. The problem is that Parliament is being asked to evaluate them all at once. The government will argue that time is short, and it is going to pressure us to pass the bill before the summer recess. A lack of planning on its part should not be and should not necessitate an emergency for all of us.
Major reforms to defence procurement deserve their own legislation and committee study, as so many of my colleagues have explained today. Lord knows, air passenger rights deserve their own scrutiny. Significant tax reforms need to be thought through. Instead, they are being bundled together in an omnibus bill that makes serious examination more difficult.
We have already seen how sloppy Liberal drafting has unintended consequences through a number of other bills that have come before the House and that, we have learned, have significantly impinged upon Canadian freedom. Parliamentary scrutiny is one of the institutions that makes good government possible. A government confident in its reforms should welcome rigorous examination rather than continuously dilute it.
The most revealing aspect of Bill C-31 may be what it does not contain. On April 27, the Prime Minister announced the Canada Strong fund, describing it as Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund. It was presented as a cornerstone of economic sovereignty and nation building. Canadians were told it would help mobilize capital for strategic projects that are so desperately needed and give future generations a stake in national prosperity. A sovereign wealth fund can be a powerful instrument of public policy. It can also become an expensive political investment vehicle if its governance is weak. The difference lies in the design, and the devil, as they say, is in the details.
There is no statutory framework in Bill C-31 for the Canada Strong fund, no explanation of how it will operate or how Parliament will oversee it. More than a month after its announcement, all we have is a short government backgrounder promising yet another office with yet another CEO and consultations to determine, over the next several months, what the fund will eventually become. That omission matters because it reveals a broader disconnect between the government's rhetoric and announcements and its implementation.
The same pattern applies to its skills training. The government has repeatedly argued that Canada's future prosperity depends on building the most skilled workforce in the world, and it does.
It has spoken about the training that workers need to build homes, develop critical minerals, expand advanced manufacturing and strengthen defence production. The diagnosis is correct, yet the legislative response is remarkably thin. Bill C-31 contains measures related to labour mobility and employment. Those may be useful, but they do not amount to a national skills strategy. They do not explain how Canada will train workers at the scale required, accelerate credential recognition, strengthen apprenticeship and completion rates or address the labour shortages already delaying major projects across the country.
The government's language is national. It is big, and it is ambitious. The legislative response is partial. This pattern extends to the economy more broadly. Bill C-31 contains investment incentives, tax changes and reporting requirements. Some may improve the functioning of the tax system, but none constitutes a serious productivity agenda, and productivity is the quiet crisis beneath the politics of affordability.
We learned this morning that Canada has quietly slipped into a recession, with two consecutive quarters of shrinkage. If Canada produces less per worker than its competitors, wages stagnate. When wages stagnate, affordability deteriorates. Governments can soften the consequences through transfers, credits and subsidies. They can send all the cheques they want, but they cannot permanently compensate for weak productivity, and the spending has consequences at the grocery store and everywhere else in our economy as things continue to get more expensive. That is because prosperity must be created before it can be distributed.
The same concern arises with the Defence Investment Agency. Canada unquestionably needs procurement reform. Our armed forces require equipment, readiness and capability. In a more dangerous world, faster procurement is not just a bureaucratic preference but a strategic necessity, yet speed is not competence. National security is not an area for weak accountability. The Defence Investment Agency may prove useful. It may not. Parliament has not yet been given sufficient evidence to determine which outcome is more likely. What is clear is that such significant reform deserves its own legislation and its own committee study. It should be examined by the defence committee with witnesses who understand defence procurement, military readiness, industry and national security. It should not be one division in a big budget bill competing for attention with tax rules, air passenger complaints and labour measures.
The central question here is not whether Canada should move faster. The question is whether this structure will make us faster or merely more complicated. A ship that cannot sail does not defend sovereignty. An aircraft that cannot fly does not secure the Arctic. A procurement system that produces announcements faster than equipment does not serve the Canadian Armed Forces. State capacity is not measured by the number of institutions government creates. It is measured by the ability of its institutions to deliver.
The air passenger rights provisions raise a similar concern. The current system is clearly failing Canadians. Complaint backlogs are unacceptable. Delays are excessive. Compensation is often very difficult to obtain. However, consumer protection is not achieved by announcing rights. It is achieved when ordinary people can enforce those rights without needing a lawyer, a media campaign, an MP or two years of patience. That observation applies far beyond air travel.
Capability is not centralization for its own sake. It is not ministerial discretion without accountability. It is not omnibus legislation without scrutiny, and it is not the appearance of motion while standing still.
The Prime Minister often speaks about resilience, sovereignty and national purpose. At a time when Canadians are carrying the burdens of housing scarcity, weak productivity, affordability pressures and global uncertainty, we should insist on something better. We should insist on competence, accountability and results.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for standing up in this House on the very important topic of air passenger protection regulations and the government's absolute mess of it.
The member mentioned that we are in a recession and the economy is contracting. What is not contracting? It is the backlog of the CTA. It has around 97,000, perhaps even 100,000 cases in backlog. That means people are waiting three years to have someone hear their case. Instead of the government fixing the system and simplifying the rules, it provided $75 million over three years to make the CTA process faster, and by this particular provision in the bill that she mentions, it shows that it has been a complete disaster.
Could the member please let us know if she thinks that this is the best use of her constituents' money in this bill and by the government?
Mr. Speaker, a central problem with tribunal systems, and I have had experience with them, is they are intended to make life simpler for Canadians. They are intended to be a process that is outside the court. However, as anyone who has dealt with any of these tribunals knows, people inevitably need a lawyer and inevitably need to navigate all kinds of complicated case law.
If the government is serious about making life simpler for Canadians, it will clear these backlogs and provide redress in a faster, more efficient way, because the longer these cases sit in tribunal systems, the more paper they accumulate and the more complicated they get.
Mr. Speaker, the member referred to the labour issue and skills. The Red Seal program is going to see up to 100,000 young Canadians and others who will be able to get that Red Seal certificate through a program of this nature where we are helping.
Does the member support the program?
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law)
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-222, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code (death of a child), as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
[English]
Hon. Julie Dabrusin (for the Minister of Employment and Families)
propose:Motion No. 1
That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after the heading “Employment Insurance Act” after line 5 on page 1 the following:
1.1 Section 10 of the Employment Insurance Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (13.01):
(13.011) If a child referred to in subsection 23(1) dies during the period referred to in subsection 23(2), or any extension of it, the benefit period is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to give effect to subsection 12(4.02).
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after the heading “Employment Insurance Act” after line 5 on page 1 the following:
1.2 Section 12 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4.01):
(4.02) In the case of deemed care under subsection 23(2.1), the applicable maximum number of weeks set out in paragraph (3)(b) or (4)(b) or subsection (4.01) is, if necessary, increased by the number of weeks that allows each claimant to receive at least five weeks of benefits after the death of the child.l’enfant.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-222, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 21 on page 1 with the following
2 (1) Section 23 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.1) If a child referred to in subsection (1) dies during the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, while benefits under this section are payable to any claimant in respect of that child, the claimant is deemed to care for that child for the purposes of subsection (1) until that period or the extension of it expires.
(2.2) If the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, expires before a claimant referred to in subsection (2.1) has received at least five weeks of benefits after the week in which the child dies, that period or extension of it is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to ensure that the claimant receives five weeks of benefits.
(2) Subsection 23(3.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(3.1) No extension under subsection (2.2), (3) or (3.01) may result in the period being longer than 104 weeks.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after line 21 on page 1 the following:
2.1 Section 54 of the Act is amended by adding the following after paragraph (y):
(y.1) respecting the provision of information to the Commission in relation to subsection 23(2.1) or (2.2) or 152.05(2.1) or (2.2);
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-222, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 1 to 16 on page 2 with the following:
3 (1) Section 152.05 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.1) If a child referred to in subsection (1) dies during the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, while benefits under this section are payable to any claimant in respect of that child, the self-employed person is deemed to care for that child for the purposes of subsection (1) until that period or the extension of it expires.
(2.2) If the period referred to in subsection (2), or any extension of it, expires before a self-employed person referred to subsection (2.1) has received at least five weeks of benefits after the week in which the child dies, that period or extension of it is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to ensure that the self-employed person receives five weeks of benefits.
(2) Subsection 152.05(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) No extension under subsection (2.2) or (3) may result in the period being longer than 104 weeks.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 2 the following:
3.1 Subsection 152.11(15) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(14.2) If a child referred to in subsection 152.05(1) dies during the period referred to in subsection 152.05(2), or any extension of it, the benefit period is extended by the number of weeks that is necessary to give effect to subsection 152.14(4.1).
(15) An extension under one or more of subsections (11) to (14.2) must not result in a benefit period of more than 104 weeks.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-222 be amended by adding after line 16 on page 2 the following:
3.2 Section 152.14 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (4):
(4.1) In the case of deemed care under subsection 152.05(2.1), the applicable maximum number of weeks set out in paragraph (1)(b) or (2)(b) or subsection (4) is, if necessary, increased by the number of weeks that allows each claimant to receive at least five weeks of benefits after the death of the child.
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-222 be amended by restoring Clause 5 as follows:
5 Section 206.1 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):
(2.01) For the purposes of subsection (1), if the child dies during the period referred to in subsection (2), the employee is deemed to care for that child until that period expires.
Motion No. 9
Que le projet de loi C-222 soit modifié par suppression de l’article 6.
Motion No. 10
Que le projet de loi C-222 soit modifié par suppression de l’article 7.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a profound sense of gratitude and purpose as we debate Bill C-222, otherwise known as Evan's law, at report stage.
This is a bit of a historic moment. Just two days ago, we officially secured a royal recommendation for the legislation. This marks only the fourth time in Canadian history that a private member's bill has received a royal recommendation and the first time it has ever been obtained through this specific legislative path. We were, in fact, joking about this just before the debate started.
Before we discuss the mechanics of the bill and the amendments before us today, we must remember why we are here. Legislation often deals in the cold realities of budgets, bureaucracy and statutory language, but Evan's law is fundamentally about compassion. It is about how our government treats Canadian families in some of their darkest moments.
For me, this is deeply personal. As I shared during second reading, my wife and I came incredibly close to losing one of our daughters during a difficult birth. Those 20 days we spent in the NICU gave us a glimpse of the heartbreak that is experienced by many families. In fact, we are still friends with many of the families we met in the NICU during that experience.
Sadly, for approximately 1,600 families in Canada every year, there is no happy ending. They leave the hospital without their child, and they return home to a government system that inadvertently adds to their unimaginable pain. Under the current rules of the Employment Insurance Act, if a child passes away while a parent is on leave, the parent legally ceases to qualify for parental benefits in that very moment.
Members can consider what this means in practice. In the midst of planning a funeral and grieving a profound loss, a parent is expected to contact Service Canada immediately. If they do not, they are subject to a financial liability that the Canada Revenue Agency will later claw back. Parents can switch to EI sickness benefits, which offer similar financial support, but to do so, they have to contact Service Canada every two weeks and prove that they are still grieving, to rejustify their need for support.
Imagine forcing grieving parents to repeatedly explain their tragedy to strangers every 14 days. It is a cruel and unnecessary administrative burden placed on people who are barely holding it together. In fact, we do not need to imagine this because we heard these stories during the committee appearances at HUMA.
I have always believed that Bill C-222 sells itself. It is straightforward and compassionate, and it provides an elegant solution to a glaring bureaucratic failure.
Evan's mom is a constituent of Burlington. As the two former ministers of Service Canada, the member for Burlington and I were well-versed in what was operationally possible within the department. We were careful to maximize the benefit for grieving families while simultaneously reducing administrative and incremental costs. It is one of those rare cases in government where we can do the right thing while reducing unnecessary red tape.
From the beginning, we have had strong and early support from the Minister of Finance and ESDC. When we presented the framework to the Prime Minister last spring, it was very well received. During second reading, the debate was incredibly compelling and the bill was unanimously supported by the House. When the bill proceeded to the HUMA committee, the testimony we heard was extraordinarily moving. Many MPs commented that it was some of the most heart-wrenching testimony they had ever heard during a legislative debate.
I want to give immense credit to our committee colleagues from all parties. When I first introduced the bill, I was honest that I was going to need help to secure a royal recommendation. I was honest that it was going to be difficult. The committee worked brilliantly and strategically to keep the bill strictly within its original scope so that it could survive the legislative process, paving the exact procedural runway needed for the Prime Minister and cabinet to officially support it with the royal recommendation that we have before us today.
That brings us to the amendments being introduced at this stage. As I promised in the House, I committed to working co-operatively to tie up the technical loose ends to properly execute this within the EI framework. The government amendments before us today do exactly that.
Rather than abruptly cutting off support, the newly amended framework would explicitly ensure that parental benefits can continue to be paid for the entire eligibility period, whether that is the 40-week standard or the 69-week extended window. It clarifies that these benefits remain payable even when the eligibility period has been extended for special circumstances such as hospitalization. Crucially, these amendments introduce a vital safety net. If a child tragically passes away near the very end of a parent's leave, when they have limited remaining entitlement, the amendments grant up to five additional weeks of benefits per eligible parent. This would ensure equitable support for all families, regardless of when a tragedy occurs.
Furthermore, we are making corresponding amendments to the Canada Labour Code. We are extending job-protected bereavement leave to 17 weeks. This ensures parents will have the protected time off they need to access these EI benefits and provides additional flexibility for mothers whose maternity leave overlaps with their bereavement.
Most importantly, we are addressing the cruel administrative burdens. The amendments introduce a regulatory authority allowing the Canada Employment Insurance Commission to establish a compassionate, simplified notification process, such as a basic attestation. This avoids forcing parents into biweekly reporting, while ensuring and protecting program integrity.
I also want to address the fiscal reality of the bill head-on. While some costing estimates looked at payouts in isolation, they failed to account for the fact that many of these parents would otherwise switch to EI sickness benefits, which pay out a similar amount. Therefore, on a net basis, the measures are somewhat cost neutral. In fact, there are savings because the CRA will no longer need to chase down grieving parents for clawbacks. As well, by stopping Service Canada offices from having to process biweekly sickness reports, we are reducing administrative waste. We are saving the government money while delivering infinitely better services to Canadians.
This is a prime example of Parliament working exactly as it should, prioritizing compassion, focusing on practical solutions and working across the aisle to get the details right. My hope now is that we can move quickly through the House and through the Senate. It is my expectation that we will get this bill implemented before Christmas of this year. Once that happens, any parent who faces the unimaginable loss of losing a child while on parental leave will no longer face additional administrative cost pressures from our government. Instead, they will be given the time, space and support they need to heal.
Wednesday was a historic day, but we will not stop pushing until affected parents are directly benefiting from Evan's law. Let us pass this bill. Let us show Canadians that their Parliament can be efficient, smart, and above all, kind and compassionate.
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging it is great to see you in the chair today. I know this is an issue that you have spoken out on, in terms of your own experience, with great courage and significance. I know the parameters of being Deputy Speaker limit your ability to give speeches on bills now, but I thank you for giving aid and confidence to other families who are confronting similar situations. It is good to see you presiding over this debate today.
Bill C-222 is an important piece of legislation that has been the subject of significant cross-party co-operation. As the Conservative shadow minister for employment, it has been an honour for me to do this work with colleagues, collaboratively across the aisle, on behalf of our caucus as we work to deliver on our clear commitment from the beginning, to do all we can to maximize support for families who are dealing with loss.
I want to start by highlighting that the journey to this legislation did not start in this Parliament, and it did not start with just this bill. Over 10 years ago, our colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane put forward Motion No. 110, which began driving the necessary national conversation on offering more support to parents dealing with loss. It recognized that parents who have paid into a parental leave system and then faced the loss of a child should obviously not be forced immediately back to work and should have a system that allows them to continue to receive benefits that they have paid for, with clarity, with simplicity, without disruption and without red tape.
That national conversation on this issue was started and driven in this place by my colleague from Airdrie—Cochrane, a member with so much compassion and empathy. I want to salute his work on this, continuing throughout this process.
As members of Parliament speaking on these issues in this place, we are in many ways the tiny tip of the iceberg. There is a vast array of people underneath us and behind us, pushing us forward and magnifying this issue. Without the courage of families speaking out about their own experience, I do not think this would have happened today. I know it is very difficult for people who have faced personal tragedy and personal grief to speak publicly about it, to come to Parliament and share from their own experiences, but we know in history that so often justice and compassion move forward because people who have had terrible situations themselves are willing to speak up and share their pain, share their experience and motivate others to understand that experience and to walk with them.
I want to thank the families who have spoken out about their own experiences and salute them for making that happen.
In this Parliament, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, a member of the government, is putting forward Bill C-222 with our complete and strong support. I want to thank him for taking this step and continuing this important work in putting this bill forward. I do not in any way mean to diminish his work by noting the history. The first bill I put forward in Parliament had in fact previously been a Liberal bill that I took up and tabled in this House. I want to highlight the collaboration, the continuation and the important work that the member has done.
As we signalled during the second reading debate on the bill, it was our desire to put forward an amendment to the bill that would include more grieving families, following conversations that I had with the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North. He had highlighted a situation in his riding where a parent, not a child in this case, who was an EI parental leave recipient, had passed away. Following the death of that person who was the parent recipient of the parental leave benefit, those benefits were immediately cut off, compounding the grief for the family with financial hardship. Our position has been that, if a parent receiving leave benefits passes away, and they were entitled to those benefits as they had paid into those benefits, then those benefits, which they had paid into and had been entitled to prior to their death, should be able to continue. We should not be immediately cutting off those benefits at the point at which a parents dies.
That was not the purpose of this bill in how it was initially written and constrained. This bill was designed to deal with the situation of the loss of a child. We proposed amending it to extend that support to more families, in cases where there is the loss of a parent. Following that proposal, which we put forward at second reading, we had many constructive conversations across the aisle about the best way to move forward with that idea, whether it was including it in the bill or working on that issue of supporting families dealing with the loss of a parent through a separate track. In the end, we were able to come to what I think was a constructive and effective agreement on the best way to move forward, which was an agreement at committee to have the committee undertake, separately from this bill, a study of the issue of extending parental leave in cases where there is the loss of a parent.
Further, our committee adopted a motion asking the Parliamentary Budget Officer to provide us with costing on that particular proposal. I do not think it would cost very much. We are talking about extending benefits out of a sense of justice and compassion to a very small number of families who have paid into the system. I do not think it would cost very much because we are not talking about very many families, of course.
In any event, the compromise we arrived at was that we would not include it in this bill, although I would have liked to. Instead, we requested information on costing from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We agreed to do that study at the human resources committee. I hope that, coming out of that process, we will see a report to the House and see legislation on this. Perhaps the government will even consider including in the next budget a further extension of leave to protect benefits in cases where there is the loss of a parent.
In the process of making that agreement with the government, we were clear-eyed about the reality that private members' bills that spend new money cannot pass unless they have a royal recommendation. That is, they cannot pass without the support of the government. Even if the revised, beefed-up and strengthened version of the bill that Conservatives had initially proposed had the support of a majority of members of Parliament, it would not have been able to become law because, I suspect, it would not have received a royal recommendation from the government.
Out of what were at times difficult and challenging, but sincere, discussions across parties, we were able to come up with a very good path forward under the circumstances, recognizing that the government was not prepared to do the version in the fullness of what we had hoped for all at once. We now have a royal recommendation to proceed with offering this essential support to families dealing with the loss of a child. Meanwhile, the human resources committee is committed to a path where we will get more information and do further study, and we will continue to push the issue of extending benefits in the case of a loss of a parent as well. I think we can do both. We do not have to do both things as part of the same legislation, but we can do both, and I think we should get there.
I want to say as well that in the process of those negotiations, working with my colleague and friend the member for Vimy, the parliamentary secretary responsible, has been a pleasure. It is good for Canadians to know, because they see the cut and thrust and the conflict of this place. I definitely think that has a place. It is right and important for the opposition to fulfill its responsibilities, to hold the government accountable, to challenge the government when it is on the wrong path and to push for better outcomes for everyday Canadians. However, when it comes to the work of legislation, we do and we must work collaboratively across the aisle to propose constructive reforms and changes. Those relationships exist, and those behind-the-scenes conversations are important.
We in the official opposition are committed to playing a constructive role, to opposing the government where we think it wrong, working with it where we see opportunities for collaboration and supporting good ideas it puts forward and asking it to support good ideas we put forward. As the official opposition, we have stood up, and will continue to stand up, for families dealing with loss, to support this legislation and to build on it with further measures to include more families dealing with loss as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am quite moved to speak today on the bill introduced by my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour in British Columbia. It is moving because this is a bill that will achieve consensus with financial support from the government and will truly change the lives of people who are experiencing immense suffering.
Today, I am moved. I am happy for my colleague. I am happy for him because he managed to convince everyone, including members of the government. Parents who are grieving the loss of a child will be able to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits without having to worry about paperwork and red tape. They will be able to focus on their grief, come together as a family, and receive the support they need without worrying about a missed payment or a letter asking them to explain themselves.
I feel that I am participating in a wonderful parliamentary moment today, and it reminds me that one of the reasons that brought me here is that I love making a difference in people's lives. As members of Parliament, we can do that, and this is a fine example of that. The beauty of private members' bills is that they are often based on personal experience, an observation we have made, or a significant need we can address. When we have the privilege of having our name drawn, we realize we have the opportunity to introduce a bill that will make a real difference in the lives of individuals and families.
I wanted to commend the member for his perseverance, his tenacity and the way he worked to mobilize us and bring us together on such an important issue. I am also pleased with the important amendments that were proposed. In our view, the royal recommendation was the most important factor because, without it, the bill would have gone through the legislative process more quickly. Clearly, any families who are listening at home, and certainly those who are currently grieving, want us to pass the bill quickly so that they can have peace of mind. I also agree with my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour that we seem to be on the same page and that it would be really good to expedite passing the legislation so that families can benefit from it.
There is also one recommendation that matters to me a lot, the one that extends this privilege to self-employed workers as well. I am going to make a statement. I have spent the past 42 years with the same man. He has been self-employed his entire life. He is an artist, a graphic artist. A lot of people are self-employed, but it has not been that long since self-employed workers in Quebec were allowed to contribute to the Quebec pension plan to qualify for a pension. It might be 20 or so years ago. The whole issue of employment insurance for the self-employed was sticky. I am pleased with this amendment, because it allows workers who chose self-employment access to the same protections as salaried workers. Actually taking them into account is extremely important.
It reminds me of the need for EI reform across the board. My colleague from British Columbia managed to get his bill through the legislative process quite successfully, and families are happy with it, but we could have made plenty of other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act that would have righted certain wrongs. I would like to share one that means a lot to me. It concerns women who take maternity leave only to find out when then return to work that their position has been cut. These women are not eligible for EI benefits.
In my opinion, this is discrimination. In fact, this has been denounced by all workers' advocacy groups and unions. How can we still accept that, today, a woman who exercised her right to maternity leave is told, upon her return, that she no longer has a job and that she is also denied EI benefits on the grounds that she did not accumulate sufficient hours during her leave? That is something that really needs to be looked at because it is quite unacceptable. I even wonder why the Liberals, now that they have a majority, are not fixing this gender discrimination, since, the last time I checked, men cannot get pregnant. That is something the government could change.
My colleague Louise Chabot, who was here during the last Parliament, prepared a bill that included all the necessary changes to reform EI. There is a nice bill that is now dormant and contains all the amendments that could be made to modernize the Employment Insurance Act. Today, we are talking about one specific section, about specific individuals, and that is great, we are very happy about that. However, the work to modernize EI must continue. We believe that EI needs to be completely overhauled.
Like my colleague, I also had the privilege of being randomly selected. I will therefore have the pleasure of introducing a bill next week. My bill seeks to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 who did not receive the increase that those aged 75 and older did. Like my colleague, I am definitely going to take up the torch, because I am surrounded by seniors who have no pension funds, who live solely on their old age pension and who cannot make ends meet because of inflation. Like my colleague, I will also make it my mission to try to convince everyone that seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 deserve the increase too.
The government should grant a royal recommendation for our bill too so that vulnerable seniors, those who are not lucky enough to have a pension fund or a job that allowed them to save, can enjoy a dignified retirement. It is up to the Quebec government and the federal government to provide seniors, the people who built the society we have today, with the means to enjoy a dignified retirement.
This is the first time I am asking this, but I encourage everyone to seriously consider how we treat our seniors today. Are they really the ones that we are choosing to abandon? Personally, I have lots of ideas on how to fund solutions, but I will come back to them in my speech next week.
I want to sincerely and warmly congratulate my colleague for choosing to come to the aid of parents grieving the loss of a child. The worst suffering a parent can experience must be to lose a child while on maternity leave. We have to cut through the red tape and give parents time to grieve.
In committee, we unequivocally expressed the view that the benefit period should increase to 50 weeks. It is wrong to think that healing from loss takes only a few weeks. We believe that it would have been advisable to increase the number of weeks of benefits so that people could truly work their way through the grieving process.
Together with our colleagues across the way and with our Conservative colleagues, we agreed not to put any obstacles in the way that would prevent the government from backpedaling on the royal recommendation. We were able to agree on fast-tracking it. I sincerely congratulate my colleague. I also want to tell the people listening to us or watching us that all parties in the House of Commons can work together. When parties work in good faith and focus on the common good, we get results that make a difference in people's lives. I want to thank him and wish him all the best. The Bloc Québécois looks forward to voting in favour of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I feel privileged to rise to speak to this important bill.
This is a compassionate bill that will add more humanity to the employment insurance regime, particularly for grieving parents. As I mentioned, it is an honour to rise in support of the amendments that have been presented to facilitate the passage of Bill C-222, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with regard to the death of a child.
[English]
First of all, I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour. He deserves immense credit for his work in support of grieving parents.
[Translation]
I also want to thank all of my colleagues who helped shape this bill, as well as the witnesses who testified in committee on this very sensitive subject.
There is nothing more devastating for parents and a family than the loss of a child. It is, of course, an ordeal that causes deep and lasting pain. According to mental health professionals, parental grief is one of the most intense and persistent forms of grief.
The death of a child is a tragedy that affects many Canadian families every year. Data show that, in 2024, approximately 3,100 children under the age of 19 died in Canada. Of those children, 1,661 were infants who died before their first birthday and 1,210 were infants who died within their first month of life. That means that, every year, approximately 1,600 Canadian families experience the unthinkable loss of a child while they are still receiving EI parental benefits.
Research shows that returning to work after the death of a child can be difficult and takes time. Dealing with administrative institutions can also add to the emotional burden. This burden can become even heavier when the bereaved parent is no longer eligible for the income support measures available under the EI program.
It goes without saying that work and financial considerations are not the priority for these parents while they are going through an extremely difficult time. Having to deal with various administrative procedures and worry about their job security or financial situation adds an unnecessary burden to their emotional distress. Some parents who return to work quickly may experience what is known as presenteeism: They are physically present at work but unable to participate fully due to their emotional and psychological state.
No law can alleviate such grief, but our federal system—in particular EI and the protections provided by the Canada Labour Code—can at least ensure that bereaved parents have swift access to the support they need, when they need it most. That is what compassion looks like.
At present, EI parental benefits end as soon as the claimant's child dies. In its current form, Bill C-222 will allow parents who lose a newborn or an adopted child to keep receiving parental benefits after their child's death. The bill would also amend the Canada Labour Code so that employees who work in the federally regulated private sector and are on parental leave can continue to take that leave even if their child dies during the leave period that was initially granted.
For now, however, unless the claimant contacts Service Canada within a week of their child's death, they begin accumulating a debt to the Canada Revenue Agency.
Bereaved parents can also apply for EI sickness benefits, but they are then required to check in with Service Canada every two weeks to confirm that their benefits are still needed. Again, this creates an unnecessary burden at a difficult time. It is easy to see how hard this process can be for parents still grieving the loss of their child.
The current process lacks compassion and needs to be changed to ease some of the burden these parents face. The government wants to ensure that the parental leave provisions meet the needs of bereaved parents in a fair, reasonable and compassionate way. That is the spirit in which the amendments to Bill C-222 are being proposed today. These amendments are intended to strengthen the proposed bereavement and EI benefits for parents who are nearing the end of their parental leave. The amendments will help ensure that the bill actually meets parents' real needs.
The proposed changes also make consequential amendments to the leave provisions in the Canada Labour Code to align them with the proposed changes to EI parental benefits for bereaved parents.
Today's topic is an emotional one, but for the purposes of debate, I will also focus on a few technical details related to the proposed amendments to fully understand the scope of what we are discussing today. I want to take a few moments to talk about some of them.
The amendments to Bill C‑222 propose that EI parental benefits continue to be paid for a maximum number of weeks after the death of a child, up to 40 weeks for parents who share standard parental benefits and up to 69 weeks for parents who share extended parental benefits. By allowing EI parental benefits to continue to be paid without any additional administrative burden, these amendments would help ensure ongoing support during a time of great emotional distress.
For eligible parents who have already used almost all of their weeks of benefits at the time of their child's death, Bill C-222, as amended, would guarantee every eligible parent up to five additional weeks of benefits in the form of bereavement support. This measure will apply no matter which parental benefit option the claimant chose, whether standard or extended parental benefits. These additional weeks of EI parental benefits would be paid at the same income replacement rate as the option they chose initially. For example, if the claimant chose the extended parental benefits option at 33% of their average weekly insurable earnings, that rate would continue to apply for the remaining weeks and for the additional weeks of bereavement support.
Under the proposed amendments, parents must inform the Canada Employment Insurance Commission if they want to add the additional weeks of bereavement support to their benefits. However, given the heavy emotional burden this would place on parents at a time of deep grief, a regulatory authority will be established to set up a simple and compassionate process that grieving parents can use to notify the commission.
Bill-222 would also ensure that employees subject to the Canada Labour Code are entitled to the remaining weeks of parental leave that they would have been entitled to had the child not died. This proposed amendment would allow employees in the federally regulated private sector to benefit from protected parental leave while receiving EI parental benefits. Parents could also take advantage of the existing eight-week bereavement leave provided in the event of the death of a child, if they are nearing the end of their parental leave and wish to claim additional weeks of EI benefits.
In closing, I want to reiterate that the loss of a child is a profound and tragic event that no Canadian parent should have to experience. These parents deserve our full support, not administrative hurdles, in their darkest moments. Our government is committed to ensuring that families facing this tragic situation get the support they need. There is no doubt that Bill C-222, as amended, would promote a compassionate and flexible approach for parents facing the unthinkable, allowing bereaved parents to remain eligible for parental benefits even after their loss, thereby ensuring continuity, compassion and stability.
More importantly, Bill C-222 restores compassion and dignity to families during their darkest hours. It recognizes that no parent should have to navigate confusing red tape or repeatedly prove their loss in order to access the support they are already entitled to. This legislation represents a rare opportunity to achieve three goals at once: reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, improving government efficiency, and showing empathy toward bereaved Canadians.
By supporting Bill C-222, Parliament can ensure that no family is punished by the system for having experienced an unimaginable tragedy. It is a small change, but it will have a profound human impact, and it reflects the best of who we are as a country. As other colleagues have already mentioned, we are here to make a tangible difference in the lives of the people we represent, and this bill allows us to improve things for people who are going through an extremely difficult situation.
Once again, I would like to reiterate my congratulations and thanks to my colleague from British Columbia for introducing this bill in the House, as well as to all my colleagues who supported it and worked on the amendments in committee. I will conclude by saying that I fully support this bill and the proposed amendments.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, there are moments in this place when we speak about policy and there are moments when we speak about people. Today, as I rise to address Bill C-222, also known as Evan's law, I am speaking about both. I am mostly speaking about love, about loss and about what happens when the two collide in ways that change a family forever. With love, the heart is full. With grief, the heart is heavy.
I want to begin by thanking my colleague across the aisle, the member for Burnaby North—Seymour, for bringing forward this legislation. I also want to acknowledge the extraordinary courage of Evan's family, who turned their deepest heartbreak into a force for change so that other families might be spared even a small portion of the pain they endured. Their advocacy reminds us that sometimes the most profound acts of love come from the places where our hearts are most broken.
The journey to parenthood begins well before a child enters a home. Whether someone is expecting the birth of a child, becoming a step-parent or welcoming a child through adoption, families make the same kinds of preparations. Homes are reorganized, routines are reshaped and hearts are opened to make space for someone new. They look ahead to milestones, both small and large, like first steps and first words, school graduations, weddings, and the hope of grandchildren far in the future.
Families prepare not just for a child, but for a future shaped by that child's place in their lives. However, sometimes life takes a different path than the one that was planned. Sometimes the dreams held so carefully are shattered in ways that leave families struggling to understand how they are supposed to continue breathing, let alone navigate bureaucratic processes and government forms. I know this reality, not just as a parliamentarian, but as a mother who has walked this path.
Years ago, my husband and I lost a son. In the days and weeks that followed, even the most basic tasks, like grocery shopping, folding laundry and answering the phone, felt overwhelming. Ordinary moments could undo us. Hearing a parent call out their child's name could stop us in our tracks because it was our son's name. Tears would fall without warning and without reason.
At the same time, life did not pause. We still had other children who needed care, routines that had to be maintained and a world that expected us to continue. We did, but it was hard. Each holiday, each celebration and each quiet reminder exposed just how vulnerable we were. It was the memories, the moments we had lived and the love we had shared that held the broken pieces together.
What I know now, and what Bill C-222 so clearly recognizes, is the importance of time. When we lost our son, immediately the world felt completely upside down. We needed time to breathe, time to grieve and time to begin finding our way back to our daily routine, yet we only had two weeks.
Too often, processes are built around administrative efficiency, yet families live their lives around moments; moments of joy and moments of profound loss. This bill would take an important step toward narrowing that gap. It invites us to reflect on how other federal systems handle the loss of a child. Beyond employment insurance itself, current federal rules often require parents to meet strict filing, reporting or notification deadlines within weeks of a loss.
These timelines may be efficient from a systems perspective, but they are not designed for moments of tragedy. Extending federal deadlines by an additional 60 days would be a limited practical adjustment, one that does not expand government or create new benefits, but simply ensures federal processes better align with the realities families face in the immediate aftermath of a loss.
The research shows us what any parent who has lost a child already knows. This kind of loss affects everything. It affects one's ability to concentrate, to sleep and to trust that anything will ever be the same again. Studies tell us that grieving parents experience increased rates of anxiety, depression and physical health problems. They struggle to return to work, not because they do not want to, but because their minds and bodies are trying to process something that fundamentally changes who they are.
Even when employment insurance benefits barely cover families' expenses, they provide something more valuable than money. They provide space. They provide space to grieve without the added pressure of financial crisis, and space to be in the slow, difficult work of learning how to live in a world that no longer contains their child. Giving parents that space does not weaken our workforce. In fact, it strengthens it. Parents who are forced back to work too soon often struggle longer and return less prepared to engage fully. Parents who are given reasonable and structured time are better able to return and to contribute. Compassion in moments of loss is not a barrier to participation. It is often what makes participation possible, helping parents rebuild the bridge back to employment.
Bill C-222 recognizes that when we lose a child, we do not stop being parents. We do not stop needing time to care for them, even if that care now looks different: arranging funerals, creating memorials and finding ways to honour a life that was too brief but no less precious.
Under Bill C-222, parents would continue to receive employment insurance parental benefits until their benefit period expires, even after the death of a child. The bill would remove the requirement for new claims and reports during this time and work within the existing framework that already provides up to eight weeks of bereavement leave under the Canada Labour Code, acknowledging that this time can make the difference between surviving and drowning.
These changes might seem small to someone who has never lived this reality, but to a parent trying to arrange their child's funeral while worrying about keeping the lights on, to a family struggling to return to routines that no longer make sense, or to someone trying to figure out how to go back to work when work feels meaningless, these changes are everything.
Grief does not belong to any one party, and neither should compassion. This is not a partisan issue. This is about whether federal systems respond reasonably when Canadians face the most devastating moments of their lives. No member of the House is immune to loss. It will touch every community, every family and, at some point, every one of us. When it does, Canadians deserve systems that reflect not just efficiency but understanding.
My Conservative colleagues have long advocated for improvements to the system, and we are pleased to see progress with Bill C-222, though we recognize this is only the beginning. The bill does not pretend that government can fix heartbreak. It cannot restore what has been lost or ease the pain that will always persist. What it can do is ensure that in a family's darkest moments, when it is least equipped to navigate systems, forms and bureaucratic requirements, it is met with understanding rather than additional hardship.
When someone we love dies, we learn that grief is not something we recover from. It is something we learn to carry. The weight never fully leaves, but over time we learn how to balance it alongside all the other things we must carry: hope, responsibility and the determination to keep moving forward, not because the pain has ended but because love requires it. What Bill C-222 offers is recognition that love does not end with death and that neither does the work of being a parent. With love, the heart is full. With grief, the heart is heavy, and sometimes the heaviest hearts need the most support.
I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-222, to stand with grieving families and to ensure that when Canadians face the unthinkable loss of a child, our response reflects the best of who we are as a nation.
Mr. Speaker, as I rise today to speak, I ask for unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Winnipeg North.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-222, the relieving grieving parents of an administrative burden act, also known as Evan's law. The bill is called Evan's law because it was inspired by the experience of a grieving family whose son Evan died while they were receiving parental benefits. After his death, the family had to deal not only with their loss, but also with the bureaucratic consequences of our EI system, including benefit disruptions, paperwork and administrative requirements during a period of profound grief.
I want to thank the member for Burnaby North—Seymour for putting this bill forward on behalf of every parent who has grieved a baby in my riding and across our great nation. I also want to thank all the witnesses who appeared before the committee and shared their pain.
The death of a child is every parent's worst nightmare. It is a loss that changes a family forever. In those moments of grief, families should be surrounded by compassion, support and understanding. The last thing they need is paperwork, bureaucratic hurdles, confusion about government benefits or being forced back to work, yet that is exactly what can happen under our current employment insurance system. This bill would address that problem in a practical and compassionate way by allowing parents who have already qualified for parental benefits to continue to receive those benefits for the remainder of the approved period and through other means. It would also provide corresponding protections under the Canada Labour Code for employees in federally regulated workplaces.
I believe this bill reflects values that all members of the House can support, and I am grateful to all parties in the House for coming together to do the right thing. It is heartening, as a member in my first term in this place, to see members who understand that government systems should serve people, not the other way around, and who understand that compassion and common sense are not partisan principles, but are principles that should guide us whenever we legislate. Sometimes the most meaningful changes are ones that affect a relatively small number of people, but make an enormous difference in their lives.
For the parents impacted by this legislation, the effect will be that government stays out of their lives at a time when the last thing they need is government. Instead of worrying about paperwork, they can worry about each other and focus on grieving. Instead of being wrapped in government bureaucracy, they can stay wrapped in the arms of those who are helping them grieve.
There is also a broader principle at stake here. One measure of a society is how it treats people during their most vulnerable moments. Government cannot erase grief. No law passed in this chamber can undo the loss of a child. We cannot restore what has been taken away from a family, but we can ensure that our public institutions respond with humanity rather than rigidity. Too often, government programs are designed around standard circumstances. They assume life will unfold according to expectations, yet life does not always follow a predictable path. Families experience tragedies, illnesses, accidents and unexpected hardships. When these moments occur, government systems should have the flexibility and compassion to respond appropriately. Bill C-222 helps move us in that direction.
The stories behind legislation and the words of those who have spoken in the House today remind us why these changes matter. Behind every policy discussion, there is a real person, a real family and real experiences. I want to thank all of my hon. colleagues for the stories they have shared with us today. I also want to extend comfort to all those who carry burdens that are too heavy to share. Statistics can help us understand the scale of a problem, but they cannot help us understand pain. Words matter. A government that removes unnecessary obstacles and does not kick people when they are suffering from shattering pain matters as well. This bill would recognize that reality. It would acknowledge that stability and certainty have value during a period of crisis.
For those reasons, I am pleased that we are all supporting Bill C-222, and I want to thank all those involved in this bill for bringing us—
Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to pick up on a couple of points. We have heard a lot of wonderful, encouraging words this afternoon. Even though I was not at committee, I can imagine the mixed emotions that would have been expressed to the committee members and were, no doubt, part of the driving force behind building the goodwill we are witnessing today.
I want to recognize the efforts of the member for Burnaby North—Seymour because we are in a very unique situation. This is the first time ever that I have witnessed, and the member tells me that it might actually be the first time we have seen it, a royal assent potentially given to a bill that needed a recommendation from the Governor in Council. That is not an easy thing to have accomplished. I believe the member for Burnaby North—Seymour approached it in a manner that reflects the type of debate we have witnessed, not only now but also at second reading.
We see a high sense of empathy in what the legislation is attempting to do. I applaud the member's actions and those of the individuals he sat around when he was in the hospital for the birth of his child, when he met with many others who were experiencing the same thing, having a premature baby. He made reference to that emotional bond having remained with a number of them. I can appreciate that this is something that was well discussed, no doubt, as well as the frustration.
If we put it in its simplest way, we can all imagine, whether it is our parents, ourselves or, in my case, even my children, the sense of excitement when someone finds out that they are going to have a newborn, whether by natural birth or through an adoption, and then for that sense of excitement, that child, to be taken away from them for whatever reason. One can imagine the thoughts and emotions around having a stillborn child or a complication at birth or with the birth mother, for someone who is adopting. It would be absolutely devastating and hard to comprehend, and it would create an emotional impact and anxiety.
When we think of a parent who has the parental leave application, is receiving the benefits and going through the process, only to have this terrible thing occur and then find that they have to work through the government and ultimately reapply in a different form, it seems ultimately unnecessary. From my understanding of what has been called “Evan's law”, Bill C-222 would, in a very compassionate way, deal with a real and tangible issue and make a positive difference.
To see the support that has been given to the legislation is very encouraging. My understanding, after talking with the table, is that there will be one more hour of debate and then we will see the vote take place, both on the amendments and, immediately following, on third reading, if we have another day of debate, and I am anticipating that is what will happen.
I want to acknowledge all the discussions to date and applaud the member for the fine work he has done in presenting the legislation.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday, June 1, at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer