House Publications

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. This will be my first time speaking to Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sterilization procedures. We are now at third reading.

    As the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous relations and northern development, I must say I have heard from a number of witnesses at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. It is hard not to be moved by what indigenous women, as well as women from ethnic minorities, have gone through. We know that these women, including women with disabilities, are the most affected by something that simply should not exist. It is unacceptable, even terrifying, for women.

    I think the fact that I am here today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to offer our support for the quick passage of this bill is a victory in and of itself, a victory that belongs to all women and their loved ones. We know that when tragedy strikes, we are all affected by what those around us are going through, so this will be their victory too, because I believe that there is agreement on both sides of the House to finally pass this bill, which is actually very straightforward.

     This bill amends the Criminal Code to clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 268(1), a sterilization procedure is “an act that wounds or maims a person”. The bill defines a “sterilization procedure” as “the severing, clipping, tying or cauterizing, in whole or in part, of the Fallopian tubes, ovaries or uterus of a person or any other procedure performed on a person that results in the permanent prevention of reproduction, regardless of whether the procedure is reversible through a subsequent surgical procedure.”

    This constitutes aggravated assault. As we have already done with regard to rape, we want to specify in the Criminal Code that this indeed constitutes aggravated assault. We want to ensure that, even though some people have talked about symbols, we want to go beyond symbols. We really want to ensure that we always strengthen the protection of those women whose bodily integrity is threatened. We want to ensure they are protected and we also want to assure them that they will be able to access the same health care as any other woman and that their free and informed consent will be required and taken into account.

    Certainly, as critic, I wanted to ensure that unintended consequences of medical procedures would not be included. A number of people provided testimony and some expressed concerns. We want to ensure the bill has the desired effect. That is indeed what we tried to do, to allay any possible fears about the bill, and we have done so. Some of the fears were expressed by the medical community, but all the answers provided were able to, as I said, allay people's fears.

    For example, the definition I read in the bill earlier requires the primary purpose of the procedure to result in the “permanent prevention of reproduction”. One of the examples we considered is that of a patient who consents to chemotherapy, which could indirectly result in sterilization. We ensured that this would not be covered by the bill. It would therefore not be included in the Criminal Code.

    Once again, the purpose of the bill ensures that it applies only to acts that are intentionally sterilizing. I gave one example, but there are others. The idea is really to target intentional acts, acts that are performed without the patient's free and informed consent. We really wanted this provision to apply both to doctors and everyone else. Situations resulting in sterilization as a side effect are not covered by the bill.

    Then there was section 45 of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects doctors who are trying to save lives in emergency situations. Indeed obtaining free and informed consent in an emergency can be extremely difficult. It is certainly a different matter when a life is at risk and action must be taken. It is not considered a violation of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects the medical profession.

    That was pretty much the idea we put forward in the last study. The goal was to dispel any fears people might have because not knowing the potential impact is always scary. That could make people reluctant to support the bill.

    Both sides of the House now agree that the bill should be passed, particularly in light of all the testimony that has been heard. It is important to remember that, while witnesses appeared before the committee in this Parliament, the bill was also examined during the previous Parliament, so we have been working on it for a long time. We have broken down several barriers. Now we are coming to the very end. That means that there is a consensus. I believe that this is the most rigorous and responsible approach, even though, deep down, we fully support a bill like this one, which seeks to put an end to all discrimination regarding sterilization. However, we also need to listen to all community stakeholders and there is a strong consensus there too.

    To wrap up, I will not read out all of the statistics that I have in front of me or all of the international calls for action. For example, the United Nations is calling for the enactment of legislation to protect all women from this type of injustice or, quite frankly, this type of crime. We are merely strengthening the Criminal Code. I hope that we can also provide the necessary resources. Yes, this is enshrined in the Criminal Code, but we are well aware that not everything can be solved through the Criminal Code.

    This is an extremely complex issue. Therefore, we need to be able to support women while engaging in dialogue and collaborating with various governmental and non-governmental organizations to ensure we address the full scope of the issue. As I was saying, for me, the recurring theme is truly protecting women, being able to assure them that their bodies belong to them and that no one can make choices for them. What I am saying applies to just about every indigenous affairs issue that comes before the House and that we are involved in. We must consult with women, respect them and ensure that they are stakeholders in the decisions being made on their behalf.

    In closing, I would like to pay tribute to all the women listening to us.

     Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize from the outset. This is not a speech that will soar to oratorical heights, castigating the government for its many failures and its apparent inability to understand the needs of the country. There is a time for that, but it is not now because this is not a partisan issue. It is not a matter of left or right, but we could say it is a matter of right and wrong, or at least to ensure that a historical wrong is never repeated.

     Four years ago, the Senate human rights committee issued its report on forced or coerced sterilization of persons in Canada. For many people, it was eye‑opening. Canadians are vaguely aware of the history of forced sterilization in this country. Our history at times is nothing to be proud of.

     In the early part of the 20th century, a movement arose that had a flawed concept of human dignity and what it meant to be authentically human. The idea was that we should strive to create perfect people, which meant those who were considered to be imperfect should not be allowed to have children. The state would force those deemed unfit to be sterilized so they could not reproduce. This was, and is, a reprehensible view.

    Sadly, it was my home province of Alberta that led the way in this sad chapter of our history. The provincial Sexual Sterilization Act was passed in 1928, and more than 2,800 women were sterilized before the act was repealed in 1972. These women were denied the privilege of having children because society felt there was something wrong with them. What is more, they had no say in the matter. Many were sterilized at a young age. They were not even aware of what was being done to them, hardly the actions of a society and a government that was supposed to protect its citizens.

    While Alberta may have led the way, it was not the only province to carry out these shameful acts. What is even more reprehensible is who the state deemed to be unworthy of having children. Young people and minorities from indigenous backgrounds were targeted. Furthermore, many of those were declared to be mentally deficient. Because of that classification, their rights were denied, and they were sterilized without their consent.

    Canadians understand now that these actions were wrong; the product of another time and a warped view of the humanity of some individuals. We know that such things should not be allowed to happen again, but there is nothing in our laws to ensure that.

    Bill S-228 would fix that. It proposes to clarify one section of the Criminal Code to bring an end to a legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism that disproportionately, but not exclusively, affects indigenous and racialized persons. It will end the sterilization of persons without their consent.

     Section 268 of the Criminal Code deals with the crime of aggravated assault. I think we can all agree that sterilizing someone without their consent is indeed a form of assault.

    Bill S-228 would add a subsection, 268.1, to the Criminal Code of Canada, clarifying what a sterilization procedure is and ensuring it is understood that a sterilization procedure is an act that falls under this section. It is a simple change, but an important one if we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings.

    I should point out that, at the Senate committee, concerns were raised by witnesses and senators that the original drafting of Bill S‑228 was over-complicated and that it might have unintended consequences, especially in cases of emergency surgeries or medical procedures resulting in sterilization. That has been rectified. After consultation with the Minister of Justice and legal advisers, the bill was simplified while maintaining its core goal of making it explicitly clear in the Criminal Code that forced sterilization meets the requirements of an aggravated assault. It would be against the law and would be prosecuted.

     Some hon. members might be wondering about the issue of consent. What about those situations where an individual, for medical or other reasons, desires to be sterilized? Would this still constitute an assault? After all, in the Criminal Code, consent is not a defence against a charge of aggravated assault. The case law on that is very clear. However, there is jurisprudence concerning when the patient or substitute decision-maker is unable to consent and there is demonstrable severe suffering or an imminent threat to the life or health of the patient. In that case, a doctor has the duty to do what is immediately necessary, without consent.

    Additionally, section 45 of the Criminal Code of Canada protects individuals from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation if it “is performed with reasonable care and skill” and is reasonable based on the person's state of health and other circumstances.

    If this is a situation from the past, why do we need to address it today? Why is the bill necessary? As the Senate report noted after hearing from witnesses, this is not just a historical issue. The conclusion was that involuntary sterilization continues in Canada, under-reported and underestimated, and it needs to stop. As in the past, the targets are marginalized people, including racialized women, women with disabilities, institutionalized persons and indigenous women.

    Justice demands that we in the House deal with this situation. Forced sterilization is a clear human rights issue. Non-consenting sterilization is aggravated assault and should be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. It is as simple as that. Legislation, of course, is not enough. The bill cannot fix the past trauma and harms suffered by victims, but it would go a long way to preventing future violations and to providing survivors some measure of justice.

    It is a cliché to say that people who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, but those words have become a cliché because there is a lot of truth in them. With Bill S-228, we in the House have an opportunity to show that we have indeed learned from our past and that we are concerned about our present and, of course, our future. We want to put an end to the practice of forced sterilization in this country once and for all. We have the opportunity to do something meaningful. I encourage hon. members to do the right thing and support the legislation.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

    At the outset, I would like to thank the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate, the Hon. Senator Yvonne Boyer, for her leadership, dedication and tireless advocacy on this issue. Senator Boyer has been a powerful voice for survivors and for indigenous women across this country, and her work has helped bring national attention to a practice that should never have occurred in Canada.

    I also would like to thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for sponsoring the legislation in the House of Commons and helping move it through the parliamentary process.

    Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the survivors, whose courage, persistence and willingness to share deeply personal experiences have brought us to this point. Their voices have been at the centre of this discussion from the very beginning. The bill exists because survivors refused to allow these experiences to remain hidden and because they demanded accountability, recognition and action.

    Today, members from all sides of the House have an opportunity to take an important step forward. Bill S‑228 is straightforward in its purpose. It would clarify that sterilization procedures carried out without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault under the Criminal Code.

    The legislation would not create a new criminal offence. It would not change the law of consent. It would not alter legitimate medical practice. Rather, it would make explicit what many Canadians would reasonably expect the law to already recognize: A sterilization procedure performed without free and informed consent is among the most serious violations of a person's bodily autonomy and should be treated accordingly.

    At its core, the bill is about consent. Consent is one of the foundational principles of both our criminal law and our health care system. Consent must be given freely, consent must be informed, and consent must be voluntary. Consent cannot be obtained through coercion, manipulation, pressure, threats, deception or abuse of authority.

    These principles are not new. They are already deeply embedded in Canadian law, yet the experiences that have been brought forward by survivors demonstrate why clarity matters. For many survivors, particularly indigenous women, the issue was never simply what the law said on paper. The issue was whether the system recognized the seriousness of what had happened to them. The issue was whether there was sufficient clarity and accountability. That is why Bill S-228 is important. It would send a clear message that sterilization without free and informed consent is not merely a breach of medical ethics but is also a profound violation of bodily autonomy that engages the criminal law.

    Discussions surrounding the bill have also provided an opportunity to reflect on a difficult chapter in our country's history. We know that forced and coerced sterilization occurred in Canada. We know that indigenous women were disproportionately affected. We know that many survivors experienced lasting physical, emotional, psychological, cultural and intergenerational harms. We know that these harms have contributed to deep mistrust of institutions and systems that should have protected these women.

    The experiences shared by survivors have been powerful and heartbreaking, and they have reminded all of us that legislation is ultimately about people. Behind every discussion of criminal law, every amendment and every committee study, there are individuals whose lives have been affected. The bill recognizes that reality.

    One of the themes that emerged repeatedly during committee study was the importance of ensuring that the bill provides clarity while avoiding unintended consequences. I believe that the legislation successfully achieves that balance. Some questions were raised about whether the bill could affect lawful and consensual medical procedures. The answer is no. The bill would preserve lawful medical care. Some questions were raised about whether physicians acting appropriately in emergency circumstances could somehow face new criminal liability. Again, the answer is no.

    The legislation would clarify the existing state of the law. It would not change the legal framework governing emergency medical treatment. It would not remove existing protections available to health professionals acting with reasonable care and skill. It would not alter the long-standing principles that apply when urgent medical intervention is necessary to preserve life or health. These safeguards already exist within Canadian law and would continue to exist.

     That point was reinforced through testimony received during committee study. In other words, Bill S-228 would strengthen accountability for non-consensual sterilization, while preserving appropriate medical care. Those two objectives are not in conflict; indeed, they are complementary. A strong health care system depends upon trust, and trust depends upon consent.

    One aspect of the bill that deserves particular attention is its use of a “for greater certainty” provision. The legislation would not attempt to reinvent the criminal law. Instead, it would clarify how existing principles would apply in a specific context. Parliament uses this type of provision when it wishes to remove doubt and to provide greater certainty regarding the application of the law. That is precisely what the bill would do. It would provide greater clarity to courts, prosecutors, law enforcement and, most important, to survivors and Canadians. It would reinforce that sterilization without free and informed consent is conduct of the utmost seriousness.

    Another important feature of the bill is that it reflects a collaborative approach. This is not a partisan issue. The bill originated in the Senate, was advanced by Senator Boyer, was sponsored in the House of Commons by a Conservative member and has received support from members across party lines. That is how Parliament should function when addressing issues of fundamental human dignity. There are times when we will disagree vigorously, but there should also be moments when we can come together around shared principles. Respect for bodily autonomy is one of those principles. Respect for free and informed consent is another of those principles, as is the dignity of every person. Bill S-228 reflects those values.

    I also want to acknowledge the many organizations, advocates, academics, medical professionals and community leaders who have contributed to this conversation. We heard from individuals with expertise in reproductive justice, indigenous health, medical ethics, women's rights and criminal law. While witnesses approached the issue from different perspectives, there was broad recognition of the importance of affirming bodily autonomy and reinforcing the principle of free and informed consent. That broad support speaks to the strength of the bill. It also speaks to the seriousness of the issue before us.

    The legislation is also consistent with broader efforts to advance reconciliation. Reconciliation requires more than words; it requires action, listening, responding to the experiences of indigenous people and taking concrete steps when harms have occurred. No single bill can undo the harms experienced by survivors. No single legislative amendment can rebuild trust overnight. No single measure can address every aspect of this issue. That does not mean Parliament should do nothing.

    Meaningful progress often occurs through concrete and targeted steps. Bill S-228 is one such step. It would recognize the harms that occurred, reinforce accountability, strengthen clarity and affirm principles that are fundamental to a free and democratic society.

    Throughout this debate, we have heard discussions about bodily autonomy. That concept is sometimes discussed in legal, medical or policy language, but at its heart, bodily autonomy means something simple: Every person has the right to make decisions about their own body, those decisions must belong to the individual, and procedures with permanent consequences cannot be imposed through coercion, pressure, manipulation or abuse of authority. These principles should not be controversial; they should unite us, and I believe they do.

    The passage of Bill S-228 would not mark the end of this conversation. There would continue to be important discussions about patient safety, about reconciliation and about accountability. Those conversations should continue, but today Parliament is being asked to decide a specific question: Should the Criminal Code clearly state that sterilization procedures performed without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault? I believe the answer is yes.

    Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures. This legislation addresses a practice that should not even exist. Every Canadian has the right to make medical decisions for themselves, free from coercion, intimidation or force. When that right is violated, the consequences can be lifelong.

     Bill S-228 would explicitly recognize forced or coerced sterilization as aggravated assault under the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code states that, “Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.” Bill S-228 would add clarity by making it explicit that a sterilization procedure counts as wounding or maiming. It would also reinforce the principle that sterilization must never occur without free, prior and informed consent.

    The Criminal Code has a needed exemption for medical professionals, but there is a gap when it comes to coerced or forced sterilization. Even though it happens by a licensed professional in a medical facility, it is still an invasive assault with permanent consequences. This conversation is not just about legal definitions, though. This is about women in vulnerable situations being coerced into a decision that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. It is about the dignity of the individual and the responsibility we share to protect those who may be vulnerable to abuse or exploitation.

     It would be easy to dismiss forced sterilization as a historical issue, but, quite shockingly, we have allegations and documented cases of coercion from less than 20 years ago. The practice of forced sterilization is disturbing, but its origin in eugenics is especially troubling. The history of eugenics influenced laws and public policy in Canada, especially in the early 20th century. Some of those laws remained in place until the 1980s. In that history, individuals were judged on the basis of disability, race, poverty, social status and other characteristics, and were labelled as unfit to reproduce. These harmful ideas led to sterilization laws in some provinces and influenced policies that disproportionately affected indigenous people, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. Thousands of individuals were subjected to sterilization procedures, often without meaningful consent.

    While those laws were eventually repealed, the attitudes that allowed them to exist did not disappear. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights found evidence that forced and coerced sterilization continued long after formal eugenics legislation ended, and that reports of such practices have continued into recent decades.

     The lessons of the 20th century are clear. Whenever a society begins to judge the value of a human life based on ethnicity, disability, social standing or any other characteristic, fundamental rights are put at risk. When individuals are treated as problems to be managed rather than people deserving dignity and respect, abuse follows.

    Now we have an opportunity to further reject that ideology. Bill S-228 affirms that every Canadian possesses equal worth, equal dignity and equal protection under the law. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and others have been disproportionately affected. Many have described coercion that occurred in moments of extreme vulnerability, such as while recovering from childbirth, under the effects of medication or facing significant pressures from authoritative figures. These accounts demand our attention.

     Coming forward to share deeply personal experiences requires extraordinary courage. Many have spoken publicly, not only to seek recognition for what happened to them, but also to ensure that future generations are protected from similar harm. One of those survivors is Katy Bear, a Cree woman from my home province of Saskatchewan, where, regretfully, this took place all too often. She testified that she was pressured into sterilization shortly after giving birth at the age of 21. I will read some of that testimony, taken from a CBC News article. It reads:

     Sadly, hers is not the only story by far. Nicole Rabbit, a member of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, appeared before the Senate committee studying Bill S-250, the predecessor to this legislation. In her testimony, she spoke about her own experience and about the impact forced sterilization had on her family across generations. She shared that in her family alone, she, her mother and her niece had all been sterilized against their will. It went across generations. Reflecting on the harm caused by these practices, Ms. Rabbit told the committee, “It’s like you wiped out a generation.”

    Those words should weigh heavily on every member of the House. Every human life has inherent value. No government, institution or authority figure should ever have the power to decide that someone is less worthy of having a family because of their ethnicity, disability, economic circumstances or background. The experiences shared by survivors remind us of the consequences of that principle being forgotten or not being enforced. Forced sterilization is not simply a medical procedure performed without consent. It is a violation that affects families, communities and future generations. The harm extends far beyond a single moment in a hospital room. It leaves lasting impacts that survivors carry for years and, often, for decades.

    Other indigenous women have recounted similar experiences before parliamentary committees and in media reports. Some have described lasting feelings of grief and loss. Others have spoken about the erosion of trust in medical institutions and the difficulty of discussing what happened, even with close family members. The impact of forced or coerced sterilization extends far beyond the procedure itself. For many survivors, it affects family relationships, emotional well-being and future life plans. It can also create lasting feelings of institutional betrayal and broken trust in the institutions that are expected to provide care and protection.

    I will remind this place that institutions are made up of people, and Parliament has a responsibility to respond. Bill S-228 represents an important step in that process and that response. Clearly identifying forced or coerced sterilization as an aggravated assault would strengthen protections within the Criminal Code and affirm the importance of informed consent, which is something that should be spread across absolutely every procedure by medical professionals. It would also provide greater certainty for victims and survivors. Criminal law should clearly reflect the seriousness of conduct that permanently alters a person's reproductive capacity without their genuine agreement.

    At its foundation, informed consent requires more than a signature on a form. It requires that a person understands the nature of the procedure, the consequences involved and the alternatives that are available. It must be given voluntarily and without pressure. Consent obtained through intimidation, manipulation or coercion is not consent. That principle should be beyond dispute. The legislation gives Parliament an opportunity to reaffirm that principle in a meaningful way.

    I want to especially celebrate the people who have made this happen. Senator Yvonne Boyer is an amazing leader who has done an amazing thing in advocating for survivors and ensuring that their experiences cannot be ignored. Her work alongside indigenous organizations, legal advocates and community leaders has contributed significantly to the growing awareness of this issue across Canada.

    Most importantly, I want to recognize the survivors. To the survivors who have courageously shared their experiences, I want to express my incredible thankfulness. Their willingness to speak has brought attention to an issue that, unfortunately, many Canadians knew little about. Their advocacy has helped create the opportunity for meaningful change. While legislation alone cannot undo the pain that many have experienced, it can help ensure stronger protection for the future and provide a clear framework for accountability.

    Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to forced sterilization procedures.

    This is a short bill, but it deals with a grave wrong. It speaks to bodily autonomy, consent, human dignity, the equal worth of every person and the duty of the state to protect those who have been harmed by the systems that should have protected them. Bill S-228 would amend the Criminal Code to make it crystal clear that a sterilization procedure performed without consent is an act that “wounds or maims a person” for the purpose of an aggravated assault. It would also define what is meant by a “sterilization procedure”, including any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction.

    At first glance, some may ask why this change is needed. We already have laws against assault. We already have rules around consent in health care. We already have medical standards and professional oversight. However, the painful truth is that those protections have not always protected people equally. They have not always been clear enough. They have not always been enforced. For too many women, especially indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities and others in vulnerable situations, the promise of protection and the promise of consent have been broken in this country.

    A forced or coerced sterilization is not a minor medical error. It is not a paperwork problem. It is a profound violation of the person. It takes away from someone the ability to make one of the most personal decisions they will ever make in their life. It will affect their body, their mind, their family, their culture and their future. It is a harm that can last for generations. There is a saying in my own culture that when a person saves a life, it is as if they have saved the entire world. The corollary to that is that a person who prevents someone from making a life is preventing them from creating an entire world.

    No one should be pressured into giving up the ability to have children. No one should be asked for consent while they are in pain, in fear, under the effects medication, in labour or under the control of a person in authority. No one should be treated as though their poverty, identity, disability, race, age, family situation or social standing makes them less worthy of respect. Consent that is forced is not consent, no matter the situation. Consent that is coerced is not consent. Consent given without proper information is not consent.

    If someone has to ask why we need a bill like this in 2026, they are lucky. They are lucky to not know someone who has been in this situation. They are lucky not to have experienced this in their community.

     This bill is about drawing a clear line in federal criminal law. It would tell survivors that Parliament sees them. It would tell the health care system that vague language is not enough. It would tell prosecutors, the police, professional bodies and institutions that this is not a grey area and this is not a decision to be made on the fly. This is not something that someone can do because they think it is best in the circumstances. It is violence and it is a violation, and we will have a law in this country that makes it clear that it is to be treated as such.

    I want to recognize Senator Yvonne Boyer and everyone who has made it possible for all of us who have spoken this morning to stand in this House today to make it clear that this is not just something that Canada recognizes, but something that we will take concrete steps to prevent in the future.

     Everyone in this House believes in the dignity of the person. We believe in personal freedom, but freedom is not real when a person's body can be controlled by someone else. We believe in accountability, but accountability is not real when the people who commit or enable serious harm to another human being in this country face no clear consequences. We believe in equal justice under the law, but justice is not equal when vulnerable people are less likely to be heard, believed or protected. We have an opportunity in the House today to do the right thing, not just for past generations, but for future generations and for those who are still suffering today with the burden of having had those experiences.

     The history behind this bill is hard to face. Canada has had a long record of forced and coerced sterilization, often tied to racism, eugenics, colonization and the idea that some lives are less vulnerable than others. Those ideas were not harmless theories. They shaped policies, institutions and medical practices. They harmed first nations, Métis, Inuit and other indigenous peoples in this country. They harmed Black and racialized women. They harmed people with disabilities, people living in poverty and people who were placed in institutions and stripped of control in their own lives. By acknowledging these wrongs in the House, by putting them into the record of this place to be read and seen by future generations, we do not make Canada weaker; we make Canada stronger.

     We must also be honest about the fact that this is not only history. Survivors have come forward in recent years. They have spoken about being pressured in their most vulnerable moments. They have spoken of procedures that they did not understand, did not freely choose and did not consent to. They have also spoken of the shame, grief, fear, distrust and deep injury that has come with that. That is a second, additional injury that we have done to those people in this country, on top of the forced sterilization they had to endure without their consent. Many have had to carry that pain in silence, so all who speak to this bill in the House this morning lend our voices to them. We want to make sure they know that they do not have to suffer in silence, but even when they have to suffer in silence, we in this place will suffer with them.

    When survivors share these stories, our first duty is to listen, but our second duty is to act. Bill S-228 would not fix every harm in this country, but it is a start. Criminal law is a tool. Health care is, of course, largely within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Professional regulation belongs to colleges and licensing bodies. Hospitals, health authorities, medical schools and governments all have work to do. There must be better training on informed consent. There must be cultural safety. There must be clear reporting pathways.

    What we have done this morning in the House, and what my colleagues have done with Bill S-228, is a start. We have made a powerful pronouncement about what is to be tolerated in this country. Hopefully, in doing that, we will not only make sure that these atrocities do not happen to future generations but bring comfort to the people who have come to this place to advocate for the bill, letting them know that their advocacy, their actions, the things they have done and the messages they have brought to this place have been heard, that their sacrifices and the things they have done matter and that they have been a part of the solution for future generations.

    I urge every member of the House to stand with survivors and with those who were never able to be born, today and always, through this bill.

    The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes has the floor for his right of reply.

     Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues on all sides of the aisle for speaking so positively about this important piece of legislation. I know it has been said a few times already, but I would like to quickly reflect on why we are here today. It was reiterated a few times today, in fact.

    The bill, as we all know, did not originate in a government department, and it did not begin in a textbook. It actually began with survivors doing the hard work, right at the beginning, and advocating to politicians for change. It began with those courageous individuals who came forward to share some deeply personal experiences of forced and coerced sterilization. Many did so at great emotional cost. They relived trauma so that others would not have to endure it. They spoke not only for themselves but for future generations.

     Today Parliament prepares to make a decision, and I want those survivors to know that they have all been heard. For too long, many felt ignored, dismissed or even not believed at all. For too long, they carried those experiences alone, but they persisted. They organized and advocated. They educated parliamentarians and Canadians alike, and because of their determination, we are now here today considering legislation that would make it unmistakably clear that sterilization without informed consent is a serious criminal offence.

     I would like to recognize and thank those whose work brought us to this exact moment. Now, I want to name people who may or may not be in the city today, and I know we cannot say who is in the gallery with us. There is a danger of actually missing some people, and if I do, I deeply apologize. I would very much like to thank Susan Anderson, Katy Bear, Kahsenniyo Kick, Silvia Mckay, Morningstar Mercredi, survivor and board member Nicole Rabbit and Kitigan Zibi elder Shirley Tolley. I would like to recognize the many other survivors, family members, advocates and community leaders who, unfortunately, may not be named here, and I do apologize if I did not, but their work and contribution is just as important.

    As well, I offer sincere gratitude to Harmony Redsky, executive director; Claudette Dumont Smith, board co-chair; and staff members Jessica Danforth and Alisa Lombard of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. Through their tireless work, education and support of survivors right across the country, they ensured that this issue could no longer be ignored. Their work helped to transform individual stories into a national call for justice.

     I would also like to recognize Senator Yvonne Boyer, who for years has been a tireless champion for survivors. Long before this issue received widespread public attention, she was listening to those affected and working to ensure their experiences would be reflected in Canadian law.

    I would also like to mention two of my colleagues, who actually traded their spots in this rotation to ensure that this piece of legislation moved up very quickly and without whose support it would not be being dealt with right this second, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City and my colleague, and seatmate, the member for Cariboo—Prince George. Their efforts allowed this to be escalated.

    I thank all sides of the House for their contributions, as well as the members of my team here who have spoken so passionately about the issue. I really appreciate the support of caucus colleagues on all sides of the aisle.

     As was said, and I know I am running short on time, this builds on a lot of work, years of work. Previous legislation died on the Order Paper last Parliament, but it was those survivors and the great work of Senator Boyer that kept pushing this through. I know there were times we might not have agreed on everything in this piece of legislation. Some raised concerns about implementation, and others discussed the interaction between criminal law and medical practice. However, those are good conversations to have. They are important and worthwhile. We worked through them and came to an agreement on all sides of the aisle that we can be comfortable with here as federal lawmakers.

     Today we have an opportunity to respond. As we wrap up the Parliament for this sitting before the summer break, this is one of these moments here. The outcome of this vote will be very important, but more important is the message it will send. A strong vote in favour of Bill S-228 would send the message to survivors that Parliament believes them. It would send the message that Parliament recognizes the harm that was done and that Parliament stands firmly on the side of informed consent. No one should lose their reproductive future because of coercion, pressure, misinformation or abuse of authority.

    The question is on the motion.

    If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

    Madam Speaker, I would ask that it be carried unanimously.

    Madam Speaker, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 12 o'clock at this time so that we could begin the opposition day motion.

     Is it agreed?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    moved:

    Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of the appropriation bills.

    Do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Madam Speaker, before I get started, I want to notify you that I will be splitting my time with my good friend, fellow Calgarian and sometime airline seatmate, the member for Calgary Crowfoot.

    There is nothing technical about the 2.2 million Canadians waiting in a food bank line hungry because of rising grocery prices due to the Liberal government's failed policies. There is nothing technical about the dad in Windsor who has just lost his job telling his kids around the dinner table that times are going to get tough because of the failed policies of the Liberal government. There is nothing technical about the single mom who is at the grocery store wondering what she can and cannot buy this week and how much she will actually be able to eat because of failed Liberal policies.

    The Prime Minister is the guy who said he could get Canada back on track. He sold himself as the guy who would have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He sold himself as that during the election. What he ended up doing was plunging Canada into a full-blown Liberal recession, and in fact the only country in the entire G20 to do so. The Prime Minister is the only leader in the entire G7 to plunge their economy into economic decline in three out of the last four quarters. He has been Prime Minister only for a year, and he is already delivering these failed results. Canadians are the ones who are having to pay for it: through food bank lines that are growing, through the insolvencies that are growing, and just through the pain and suffering we are seeing all across this country because of failed policies.

    Last week, the independent PBO came out with a very scathing report on the government and its so-called fiscal anchors, which seem like they do not even exist anymore. First, members will remember, back in the day, when Chrystia Freeland was here and claimed that the debt-to-GDP ratio would go down. The Liberals were so confident in that, they completely removed it as a fiscal anchor altogether. Poof, they got rid of it, but now they quietly, sneakily, brought it back. However, the PBO slammed them, just last week, saying that the debt-to-GDP ratio would go up, debunking their claim that it would go down.

    In their last budget, the Liberals brought in another fiscal anchor. They said they would do deficit-to-GDP ratio. However, the PBO slammed them last week, saying that they will have a less than 1% chance of meeting that fiscal anchor, but that percentage is still better than actually having a Liberal answer a question in this place. Then they said they would balance their operating budget, but we just found out last week that they are actually going to spend $7 billion more than what they sold Canadians.

    It is always these fake promises, these fake handshakes and fake MOUs. Everything about this government is fake. The Liberals sell themselves as economic kings or someone who can handle the economy, but at the end of the day, it is always failure. It is more costs, more debt, more taxes, and it is always on the national credit card. At the end of the day, Canadians have to pay for all these Liberal failures.

     The PBO said, “Business investment continues to lag”, which is something the Bank of Canada has been warning about for years now. In fact, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, many years ago, said that Canada is in a “break glass” emergency. They said it is about our productivity, which has not gone up. Productivity and the cost of living or the way people live, their standard of living, are the exact same thing, according to them, and that is why we are seeing so much pain and suffering across the country.

    The PBO said that “firms postpone expansion plans amid heightened uncertainty.” The PBO also said, “Persistent uncertainty is...weighing on business investment and household spending”. Businesses are not investing, expanding or hiring because they do not have confidence in the direction of the economy.

    That is clear to see in the numbers. In the last year alone, $1 trillion of net Canadian investment has flown out of Canada to the U.S., and since this Prime Minister took office, $20 billion of net investment has also left Canada.

    We hear the Liberals brag about how good the economy is and how good Canadians have it. Then why do we not see it? They will cherry-pick or come up with random things that they think Canadians will fall for, but every time a Canadian goes to the grocery store or fills up a tank of gas, whenever they pay for something or get their taxes done, they see clearly and fully experience this full-blown Liberal recession, because when costs go up for them, that is what they experience. When their wages are not going up and their incomes are not sufficient, that is something they actually experience. The Liberal government continues to tell those 2.2 million Canadians in a food bank line that they are just technically hungry, technically out of food, technically out of money, and the people missing their mortgage payments are just technically experiencing that, but this is what they are actually experiencing.

    Canadians are suffering. The Liberals refuse to even listen to Canadians. In fact, the Prime Minister is so out of touch, he said that affordability is the best it has been in an entire decade, which is completely false. Canadians have increasing grocery prices because of things like high taxes and the burden that the Liberal government has put on businesses. On top of that, it is slamming Canadians, farmers, truckers and other industries with its industrial carbon tax, which does not make just the cost of food go up. It makes the cost of everything in the supply chain go up. With Liberal thinking and Liberal math, Liberals think they are just charging the highest emitters or the corporations. Those corporations and businesses will pass on the cost, and that cost, ultimately, has to be paid by the average Canadian. That is why Canadians cannot keep up.

    In fact, today, under the Liberals, an average Canadian is spending 120% of their paycheque on necessities like food and shelter. Liberals have doubled the cost of housing and made the cost of food go up. In fact, the Prime Minister gave Canadians the worst food inflation in the entire G7. That is why Canadians are now using up their entire paycheque mostly on housing, and everything else goes on a credit card or they borrow money. We are seeing debt loads. That is why Canadians are now also the most indebted households in the entire G7. They are picking up more and more on credit just for necessities.

    It is not like the government does not have solutions in front of it. In fact, for the last 10 years, Conservatives have been putting forward solutions, but for every solution, it seems the Liberal government puts up two or three more problems for Canadians. For instance, what Conservatives would do and what we are proposing is to scrap all the antidevelopment laws the Liberal government passed. Let us get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. Let us get pipelines built in this country, along with LNG plants, mines, dams, all the infrastructure that Canada needs to get its resources to market and spread them out to the world. Let us get those antidevelopment laws out of the way. Let us get rid of the tanker ban. My colleague from Calgary Signal Hill has put forward a bill in this place to get rid of the tanker ban. Let us get pipelines built. Let us get a pipeline built to the west coast, but it needs to be able to get from the west coast to Asian markets. We have to get rid of the tanker ban. Let us get rid of and scrap the industrial carbon tax, which will make Canada more competitive on the world stage.

    The world needs what Canada has. We have it all under our feet. We just need the Liberal government to get out of the way so we can produce more and spread it to the world. We need to lower taxes, whether it is personal, business or corporate tax, so we can create a better investing environment so that investment comes back to Canada and does not flow out. Let us get the capital gains tax deferred, as in the plan the Conservatives have put forward. Any company reinvesting its earned capital gains will be able to defer its capital gains tax so we can get more people investing in more jobs and more equipment and have more investment back into Canada, not let it flow out as the Liberals have done over the last 10 years. The government waste seems endless, whether it is the $20 billion in Liberal-connected insiders or the $90-billion train boondoggle.

    Let us get rid of those. Let us get Canada back on track and make Canada the most profitable country in the world.

    I am sorry, Madam Speaker, did the member miss half his speech? Maybe he should not have shared his time. He accused Liberals of cherry-picking data and then focused on one report from nine days ago, but seemingly missed the entire report that came out on Friday of last week, in which it was identified that Canada has seen an increase of 90,000 jobs, unemployment has dropped, full-time work has surged and sectors across the economy have grown. It is fascinating that the member got up in this House and accused the government of cherry-picking data, and the member actually used that word, but then did not even bother to utter one word about the incredible news for our economy that came out last Friday.

    I am wondering if he would like to somehow explain to this House how, in his debate, he completely missed that point.

    Madam Speaker, that out-of-touch Liberal has completely missed the point. Is he really going to stand up and brag about Canada, under the Liberal government, having the second-worst unemployment rate in the entire G7? Since this year started, the Liberal government is still responsible for 120,000 jobs that were lost. In fact, there is a net loss of jobs in this country under the incompetent Liberal government. The Liberals continue to make fake announcements, fake handshakes and fake MOUs. The solution is simple: The Liberal government just needs to get out of the way.

    Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. He really enjoyed quoting data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would like to ask him a question on that.

    The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that if, tomorrow morning, we were to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline project in western Canada, which is now operational, we would lose money. The project was initially expected to cost about $6 billion, but ultimately cost us $34 billion instead. That means it is not profitable. If we buy a pipeline and have to sell it again, we lose money.

    I would like my colleague to be clear. Does he support the government using public funds to buy pipeline projects?

    Madam Speaker, we did not need to buy a pipeline. Canada did not need to buy a pipeline. It is because of failed Liberal policies, which are antidevelopment and drove investment and proponents of pipelines away, that the government not only bought the pipeline but was over budget by a lot and missed every single timeline target as well. That just goes to the same background that the incompetent Liberal government has, which is that it can never do anything on time or on budget.

    Madam Speaker, coming from a rural area, when I go to the grocery store, people are telling me how expensive everything is, and it is a two-hour trip for me to go to a grocery store. Food prices are so high. Of course, fuel prices are high. I have had no one tell me they have never had it so good.

    I am wondering if the member can expand on that. Has he heard that? I cannot get out of a grocery store for two hours, because it is so expensive and people are blaming me for the food prices.

    Madam Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister, who does not do his own grocery shopping and does not care that the Liberals' policies are raising the cost of groceries, when I go grocery shopping, just like the member, I spend at least two hours there because of how many people come up to me and talk to me about how much they are struggling. In fact, last week when I was grocery shopping at the local Superstore, a single mom said to me that she had to move in with her abusive ex-husband once again because she could not afford child care and to live anywhere else, and groceries are the last thing. She is one of those people having to put groceries back. This is the result of failed Liberal policies. This is the direct result. There is nothing technical about the suffering Canadians are facing under the failed Liberal government.

    Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been shouting themselves hoarse trying to convince us. Is there a recession or not? They want to launch a technical debate on this issue, yet the whole thing obscures the real debate, which concerns purchasing power and Canadian productivity. We have a problem: We are not growing. We have a productivity problem.

    Do the Conservatives not think it might be more effective for the House to debate fundamental problems rather than definitions?

    Madam Speaker, we are in a full-blown Liberal recession, and here is the answer to our productivity issues: Get the Liberal government out of the way, scrap all the antidevelopment laws so we can get more—

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.

    Madam Speaker, Canada is in a recession, but the Liberals, and even some of their apologists among the punditry, say that it is only a technical recession. Allow me to get technical for a few moments. Technically, economic growth is shrinking, and that is how we measure the strength of a national economy. Technically, 40,000 more Canadians are out of work so far this year. Technically, the cost of living has left millions of Canadians unable to afford basic necessities, like food. Technically, under the Liberals, Canadian families are the most indebted in the world, which means they are tapped out, and cannot lead the way out of a recession through increased consumption.

    Technically, young Canadians are giving up on the dream of home ownership, and with it, the dream of starting their own families, because Canadians technically have the most unaffordable housing among peer countries. Technically, over the last 11 years, the Liberals have passed a series of laws and ministerial orders that have prevented Canada from bringing its resource wealth to world markets and provide high-paying jobs for Canadians. Technically, the Liberal finance minister would make Chrystia Freeland and Bill Morneau blush over the fire hose of new spending and federal debt that young Canadians know they are going to be on the hook for. Technically, the PBO said the finance minister misled Canadians in his budget.

    Today, we are having a debate about the recession that the Liberals are responsible for and we demand specific actions in response. I can already hear the howls of protest from the Liberals saying things like, “What about the tariffs? What about the war in Ukraine? What about the war in Iran?” These global events affect every other economy in the world. Let me say something before I hear even more howls from the Liberals claiming, “Do the Conservatives not know that Canada is more vulnerable because we are more trade dependent on the United States than those other countries are?” They are the same Liberals who claimed that their leader would have a trade deal with the United States by summer 2025. They are the same Liberals who spent the last 11 years actively preventing Canada from diversifying its export markets by systematically preventing the construction of the energy infrastructure necessary to export Canadian energy to the world.

     Canadian oil and gas is by far Canada's most valuable export. It dwarfs everything else. Oil and gas exports are worth $160 billion a year. The Prime Minister said that he had the experience for this moment and assured Canadians that he would be successful in defending Canada's interests by negotiating a deal with the Americans while diversifying our trade. What has the Prime Minister done? He teased Canadians by saying it was time to get things built. He teased Canadians by claiming that his government would see that major projects would be built at speeds thought unimaginable. I thought that might mean that a year after he made these claims, there would be some kind of approval on the horizon for a pipeline project. I could easily imagine that.

    In fact, I could imagine maybe one like the Pacific north coast pipeline that the previous Conservative government approved and that the Liberals cancelled only a few days after they were sworn in, in November 2015, a decision endorsed by the current Prime Minister at an energy committee meeting in 2021. He said then, five years ago, that he supported cancelling northern gateway, and now all of a sudden, he is scratching his head saying, “Yeah, maybe we should build some major projects,” but the projects are not being built.

    The northern gateway pipeline that the government cancelled and the Prime Minister opposed did not get built. If it had been built, it would be carrying 525,000 barrels a day today to world markets. At today's prices, that would bring about $20 billion per year to the Canadian economy. Would we be in a recession today, if the Canadian economy had another 525,000 barrels a day in exported production? I do not know, but it would be better than what we have now. What if Canada had built an east coast pipeline too? Let us think of what that would mean for world energy security and what it would mean for the Canadian economy. The opportunities squandered by the Liberals contribute to the recession we are in now. They have prevented Canada from being part of the international solution to world markets that are cut off from the Middle East and from those that want to defund Putin's war machine.

    So far, all the government has done is create a so-called Major Projects Office that will have incredible sweeping powers of exemption from Canadian law. It was set up nearly a full year ago and there are no major projects.

    On top of the economic self-harm the Liberals have imposed on Canada, 11 years of incessant debt, deficits and money printing have left Canadians deeply in debt and unable to afford necessities. As bad as Bill Morneau and Chrystia Freeland were, the current finance minister is even worse. He might end up challenging Allan MacEachen and Marc Lalonde as perhaps the worst finance minister in Canadian history. Do members remember those guys? They ran up deficits in the eighties that were so big that by the time the Liberals were defeated in 1984, Canada was literally kiting interest payments by issuing new debt just to cover the interest on the existing debt. That disastrous time under the Liberals took successive governments, Conservative, Liberal and Conservative, to restore sanity to Canada's finances. Now the current government is threatening to take us back to those dark times. After Pierre Trudeau, there was a consensus that balanced budgets matter and ought to be every government's goal. The Liberals have blown it, despite their 2015 promise.

     Last week, there was a series of terrible reports that challenged the very credibility of the government and the finance minister. The Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report that said that the deficit would be billions of dollars higher than the finance minister said in his budget. It would be higher this year, higher next year and every year in the projection.

    The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that spending would be higher. She said that borrowing would be higher. She said expected income tax revenues would be lower because she expects Canadians will have less income than the finance minister projects. She said that, based on the government's stress tests, which, “draws on decades of Canadian economic and fiscal history, including, recessions, financial crises, oil price crashes, and runs thousands of combinations to show the range of possibilities....that the likelihood that the deficit-to-GDP ratio will decline...is less than 1 per cent.”

    That was the Liberals' latest fiscal anchor, the one they came up with when their last fiscal anchor was cut loose. They said that the deficit would decline as a percentage of GDP every year through 2031. The PBO said that the odds of that happening are less than 1%. After 11 years, they have made promise after promise about fiscal anchors and guardrails and have broken every single one of them.

     The finance minister is like a sailor who forgets to connect the anchor chain to the boat, then drops the anchor in the water and has to go back to the chandlery to get a new one while everybody on the dock laughs at him. I can only imagine what next year's fiscal anchor is going to be. This latest anchor, the one that is already on the bottom of the ocean with no chain allowing the budget to drift toward the rocks, was never even a good anchor to start with. In fact, the PBO notes that the IMF thinks Canada would be better off with its old anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but that anchor is also overboard on the bottom of the ocean. It has been dumped overboard without a chain I do not know how many times.

     Canadians are increasingly asking why the Liberals cannot table a plan to return to the balanced budget they started with in 2015. Many witnesses at the finance committee have called upon them to do so. However, the minister, in his arrogance and hubris, refuses and lectures those who ask him to simply do what his government promised to do way back in 2015. It is not just the PBO, not just the finance committee witnesses and not just Conservatives challenging the wisdom and credibility of the government's budgets; two of Canada's major banks have dropped reports downgrading their forecasts for the Canadian economy to below 1%.

     Given the fact that Canada is in a recession and the government's budget outlook is deteriorating and lacks credibility, Conservatives ask this House to call on the government to reverse its 11 years of continued deficits and broken fiscal promises, and rein in its spending and borrowing before things really do spiral out of its control.

    Madam Speaker, the member mentioned Liberal pundits at the beginning of his speech. Here is something a pundit said, “it's dangerous politics to be going out here claiming the sky is falling when in a month's time or two month's time, when the next numbers come out, it shows that it isn't. It was a week later.... The job numbers are better than they were last quarter. We have the C.D. Howe Institute coming out and arguing, another economist saying it's not a recession.”

    Does the House know which pundit that is? It is Fred DeLorey, the former Conservative campaign manager for Erin O'Toole, who said that on the CBC.

     Would the member like to comment on the comments of his Conservative friend's punditry?

     Madam Speaker, here we go again. Another Liberal, who would tell Canadians they have never had it so good and will deny that they are in recession, deny that the PBO and private sector economists have downgraded their growth projections and deny that they are misleading the House in their budgets.

    Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep saying that investments are needed in fossil fuels. They are in favour of approving a new pipeline project in western Canada.

    As members will recall, the Trudeau government purchased a pipeline that cost $34 billion, and if the government were to sell it tomorrow, it would ultimately lose money.

    I wonder if my colleague thinks that using public funds to buy a new pipeline should be regarded as inflationary spending.

     Madam Speaker, the member brings up the Trans Mountain pipeline and, again, Conservatives were not calling upon the government to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and build it themselves. They were calling upon the government to stop moving the goalposts on their approval process so that Kinder Morgan would commit and build it at its own expense.

     Conservatives do not believe in the public sector taking over and intruding on that which should be left to private investors. Let us just get the government out of the way, so that actual private investors, with their own money, will invest in Canada's energy infrastructure and allow our production to increase. This is not about subsidizing anything. This is about getting the government out of the way.

    Madam Speaker, this Liberal government keeps telling us how good we have it.

    I am here to say that 2.2 million people have been using the food bank, and 8.3% of those clients are seniors, up from 6.9%. Can the member please address this House as to why the Liberals do not care about seniors anymore?

    Madam Speaker, the Liberal government simply seems oblivious to the struggle of real Canadians, whether they are seniors, young people or really anybody.

    The Liberal government seems more focused on these large bureaucratic structures, giving itself more power to use public money to interfere in what would normally be private investment decisions. I can only imagine where its sovereign wealth fund is going to take us in the world of corporate welfare and insider enrichment. I do not believe that the Liberals are in touch with what is going on on the ground.

    Madam Speaker, anyone who has ever been a teacher knows that repetition is a teaching tool, so I am going to repeat the question my colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia asked. Is spending $34 billion of public funds on a pipeline inflationary? Is spending $34 billion of public funds on a pipeline inflationary? Is spending $34 billion of public funds on a pipeline inflationary? Is spending $34 billion of public money on a pipeline inflationary? I know the Chair can sometimes lose patience with us, so I will not repeat it a fifth time.

    The question is clear. Is spending $34 billion of public money on a pipeline inflationary, yes or no?

     Madam Speaker, I do not know, it probably is.

     We did not ask the federal government to borrow public money to build that pipeline. We asked it to get out of the way, so that a private business would invest its money without a hit to the public treasury and allow the thing to get built on its own.

     I do not know why the Bloc seems keen to call on Conservatives to defend that decision. We never defended that decision.

    Madam Speaker, I cannot believe I was away from the House for a whole weekend. It is great to be back.

    I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou, my hon. colleague.

    It is a pleasure to participate in today's debate and speak about the government's plan to maintain fiscal sustainability in Canada's outperforming economy.

    On Friday, Canadians woke up to good news on two fronts. First, the May labour force survey results showed that our plan, one that will build a strong and resilient economy and create good-paying jobs for Canadians, is working. Last week's labour force survey, despite the Conservatives' not wanting to talk about this, reinforces the fact that the Canadian economy is stronger than expected.

    With 88,000 net new jobs created, far higher than market expectations, which was 10,000 jobs, the Canadian economy performed in May at almost nine times the expectation. That means that on a year-over-year basis, Canada has created 147,000 new jobs, all in the face of historic economic uncertainty, trade tensions and geopolitical volatility. Since December 2024, in fact, Canada has added more jobs per capita than the United States has, creating 2.8 jobs per 1,000 people, nearly double the rate of the United States.

    The second piece of good news is that 12 million Canadians woke up to having received the first instalment of the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit on Friday, which boosted the GST rebate by 50% this year, delivering almost $1,900 to the average family of four, and which will continue for another four years at an increase of 25%. This provides significant support for the people who need it the most, at a time when many families are struggling to afford the high cost of food and essentials.

    None of this, of course, will make its way into today's Conservative opposition day motion. It will not make it into the Conservatives' petty slogans. We will hear no mention, in their social media clips or their fundraising emails, of Canadian job gains or support for groceries, because we know that what is good news for Canadian families, industries and workers is bad news for Conservative politicians, who have, honestly, nothing to offer in the House but tired, insulting and repetitive rhetoric that Canada is broken.

    In fact, the bottom fell out of the Conservatives' narrative at the end of last week. They could not even support that narrative for longer than a single week. They jumped on calling something a “technical recession” that clearly was not.

    I am not sure how Canadians can take Conservatives seriously when the Conservatives stand up in the House every day and say that they are empathetic towards what Canadian families are going through, but then they come skipping into the House with jubilation, clicking their heels, ready to pounce on any sign of bad news that the Canadian economy is struggling. They even do it prematurely, which they did last week when job numbers exceeded expectations by over eight times. It just shows us where the Conservative Party of today is at, looking for anything negative to support its narrative.

    While Conservatives talk down Canadian businesses, Canadian innovators and Canadian workers at every opportunity, we will take today's opposition day motion as an opportunity to set the record straight. Let me reassure the hon. member that the government's fiscal plan remains rooted in fiscal responsibility, not for its own sake but to create capacity to invest in long-term economic strength and greater self-reliance.

    Consistent with this approach, the recent spring economic update 2026 is the government's next step in our plan to build a stronger, more independent and resilient Canada for all Canadians. It advances our progress of building more affordable homes and the major infrastructure that transforms and connects our economy and helps us get goods to foreign markets, while bringing down costs to help Canadians get ahead. We are providing a clear and transparent account of how Canada's economy is performing in an increasingly uncertain world.

     We are advancing major projects that connect and transform our nation, turbocharging housing construction, catalyzing an entirely new housing industry and forging new economic and security partnerships. We are acting decisively to protect our economic sovereignty, strengthen our strategic industries and position Canada for long-term growth. It is a principled and pragmatic approach that is moving Canada's economy from reliance to resilience.

    However, some of the biggest long-term payoffs of this transformation will of course take time to be felt. To ensure that Canadians have the support they need right now, the government is providing a boost today and a bridge to a better tomorrow.

    For over a year, Canada's new government has been relentlessly focused on making life more affordable for Canadians. Nearly 22 million Canadians are keeping more of their hard-earned money with the middle-class tax cut that will save two-income families up to $840 this year. First-time homebuyers are saving up to $50,000 with the removal or reduction of the GST on new homes. With the deal that we signed with Ontario, that number goes up to 13%, up to about $130,000 of savings on a new home purchase, plus a 50% reduction in development charges. That could be estimated at up to $200,000 off the price of a first home purchase.

    We have also removed the consumer carbon price, driving gas prices down by about 18¢ per litre across most provinces and territories. We have reduced Canadians' bills at the gas station by up to 10¢ per litre on regular gasoline and 4¢ on diesel, by suspending the fuel excise tax over the summer. In addition, last week, more than 12 million Canadians began receiving hundreds of dollars more in their bank account through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit.

    These are important measures for serious times. In a world of geopolitical instability, governments need to rethink how they respond to the headwinds we face and to build resilience for the future. From a fiscal perspective, economic resilience, bolstered by government policies to respond to immediate challenges through temporary supports, is delivering an $11.5-billion improvement in the projections of the budgetary balance in 2025-26. That is $11.5 billion less of a deficit than was projected, due to the Canadian economy's being more resilient.

    This strength carries into future years, improving the budgetary balance, relative to budget 2025, by an average of $10.7 billion per year from 2026-27 to 2029-30 before new measures. This fiscal room allows the government to improve affordability and raise Canadians' standard of living through targeted and responsible policy measures, particularly in the areas of fuel, food and housing affordability. This move to invest more in Canadians started with budget 2025. It marked a strategic shift in the government's management of public finances, focused on expanding federal capital spending to mobilize investment, while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

    With significant investments to support infrastructure, innovation and productivity and to develop our domestic industrial capabilities, budget 2025 set out a clear plan to build the strongest economy in the G7.

    The government also remains committed to the disciplined implementation of budget 2025's efficiency measures. This includes the comprehensive expenditure review, which will save Canadians $60 billion over five years. With implementation well under way, the focus is now turning toward targeted, ongoing horizontal reviews, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services.

    These are challenging times, but these are necessary actions, and we will continue to support our objectives of spending less and investing more in Canadians. Canadians are navigating a rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented world. The global economy is more than a year into a profound rupture. Economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition are increasingly shaping investment, trade and financial decisions. The conflict in the Middle East, which has disrupted key shipping routes and damaged energy security, has pushed energy prices higher, underscoring the fragility of global supply chains and adding to already elevated uncertainty.

    Canada is obviously dealing with this by diversifying trade. We have signed 20 new trade and security agreements in the last year, and we will continue that work as we move forward to diversify and strengthen the Canadian economy.

     Madam Speaker, I just want to bring up to the member across the way that his government has been in power for the last 11 years, and the Northwest Territories should be one of the powerful cylinders in our economic engine, but it is seriously misfiring. The Northwest Territories was in a recession in six of the years since the Liberals formed government: 2016, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2024 and 2025, after job-killing Liberal policies were enacted by the previous prime minister and the current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister does not seem to be wanting to fix it either. He just turned 30% of the Northwest Territories into a park.

    My question for the member is this: Is the Northwest Territories in recession, yes or no?

     Madam Speaker, we have heard from the banks, the C.D. Howe Institute and Desjardins. The Conservatives seem to love to talk down the Canadian economy and Canadian workers, and to jump prematurely into a narrative that they then, by the end of the week, find out is untrue. However, the Bank of Montreal has said that the solid May jobs report “should silence the recession crowd”. RBC has said there are still signs that labour markets are broadly improving. The C.D. Howe Institute says the latest job figures show that it is too soon to use that label based solely on a pair of small quarterly contractions in the economy. Desjardins says, “according to our analysis, the Canadian economy"—

     Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the Northwest Territories—

    That is debatable.

    We will go back to the hon. parliamentary secretary to finish the answer.

    Madam Speaker, I was answering the hon. member's question. It pertained to the opposition day motion, which is claiming a number of things that are completely untrue. I am sure the member opposite is actually concerned with facts and figures given by Canadian financial institutions that do economics reports.

     Madam Speaker, I was hoping that my colleague could further elaborate on the Canadian grocery and essentials benefit. How many people qualify for that, and what does it mean for Canadians from coast to coast to coast in this time of uncertainty?

    Madam Speaker, that is a great question, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk more about the affordability measures the government has put forward.

    Obviously, we have cut back and have found optimization within the federal public service. We have reduced operational spending by $60 billion over five years, creating fiscal room both to make generational investments and to offer tax deductions and tax cuts, but we have also protected and, in fact, added federal benefits.

     We added the groceries and essentials benefit, which went out last Friday to 12 million Canadian families. This is good news. I have heard anecdotally from residents of my riding that they have received upward of $500 in their bank accounts. That is going to help. It is short-term, temporary, targeted support, which is exactly what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said at committee is needed, in a time of crisis when we do not know how long the oil price shock is going to last.

    We know that Canadian families are struggling. That is why we keep stepping up with affordability measures that will help them get through the challenging times, while we are building a stronger, more resilient economy, making the investments that are needed, attracting private investment and ensuring that we have growth for generations to come.

     Madam Speaker, it is a wonder the way the member is talking, making it sound as though everything is just fine and there is nothing to see here. He suggests that our government is doing all the things and that everyone is getting everything they need. It is more gaslighting from a narcissistic partner than I have ever heard in my life.

    The member clearly is not living in the real world. Perhaps he needs to come down from the clouds and talk to constituents in his riding. I know it has been a while, maybe, since he was there. I am pretty sure he does not live there anymore. Perhaps he should talk to them and to folks in Whitby, Clarington and Oshawa about what they are really struggling with, because the day-to-day reality is harder than what he is gaslighting them to make them think it is.

     I would invite the hon. member to be careful with her language.

     The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Madam Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to point out many of the announcements I have happened to make in the member's riding. We have helped women's shelters in her riding. She was nowhere to be found—

    That is not true. That is a lie.

    Madam Speaker, her party voted against the national housing strategy. It did not support those organizations.

     What about the national school food program? Our government put in $1 billion over five years and then made that program permanent. I have gone and seen that program deliver food to kids who badly need it in her riding—

     The hon. chief government whip has a point of order.

    Madam Speaker, I am sure you heard it. In that exchange, the member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.”

    I am sorry. The neighbouring member for York—Durham thinks that is funny.

    The member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.” She should know that is unparliamentary. I would respectfully request that you ask her to withdraw that comment.

     The hon. chief government whip has a point. It was heard. I heard it.

     I would invite the hon. member for Oshawa to apologize.

     Madam Speaker, I was not standing to speak. I was shouting across, like we often do. I am sorry that it was heard, but it is categorically untrue what he said. I am always there for Oshawa—

     We are entering debate.

    The hon. chief government whip.

    Madam Speaker, the member for Oshawa is not recognizing the fact that what she said was wrong. At best, she was sorry that it was heard.

     The rules in the House are very clear. We cannot accuse someone of lying, much less call them a liar. The member needs to withdraw the comment and apologize for what she said without qualification or any caveat attached to it.

    Madam Speaker, I withdraw saying, “That is a lie,” but it was categorically untrue.

    We cannot say indirectly what we cannot say directly.

    The hon. chief government whip.

    Madam Speaker, we have seen twice now that the member is refusing to recognize your authority, because she is once again adding a caveat to it and saying, “I apologize, but”. She has to unreservedly remove the comment and apologize for what she said.

    The apology has to be unequivocal, with no caveats to it. We want to continue with the opposition day motion.

    The hon. member for Oshawa.

     Madam Speaker, I have already said I withdraw the comment, “That is a lie.”

    Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today.

    When I read the motion today, I could not help but think of a story my father told me when I was a kid. The story had to do with Optimist clubs.

    There are Optimist clubs in Quebec and in just about every province in Canada, and they are really essential to the community. They work hard. I am thinking in particular of the clubs in Beauport—Limoilou that sell hot dogs at baseball tournaments and donate the proceeds to young people. Everyone knows about the Optimist clubs in their community.

    When I was young, my father told me a little story to make me think. Given the success of the Optimist clubs, he told me a story about two guys. The first one tells the other that since Optimist clubs seem to work so well, they should start a “pessimist club”. The second replies that he does not think it will work. When I read the motion, it reminded me a bit of that story, and I will explain why. I think it is important to put some facts back into the debate today.

    Yes, the global economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. Yes, the challenges are real. However, presenting Canada as an economic failure is more pessimism than a serious analysis. The fact of the matter is that Canada is still in a great economic position today compared to many of its G7 partners.

    Canada is expected to have the second-fastest growth in the G7 this year and next. Our banking system, in which I worked for more than 20 years, is recognized as one of the strongest in the world. Our unemployment rate remains historically low despite global economic turbulence. Millions of jobs have been created since the pandemic, and Canada continues to attract major investments in growth sectors such as critical minerals, artificial intelligence, batteries, aerospace and clean technology.

    Let us not forget the fundamental fact that Canada and the United States share the world's longest international border. This proximity gives us privileged access to the world's largest economy. Billions of dollars' worth of goods and services cross that border every day, supporting millions of jobs on both sides. Few G7 countries enjoy such a significant advantage in terms of geography and trade.

    However, this advantage also comes with its share of challenges. When the American economy slows down, when trade tensions emerge or when political decisions are made in Washington, the effects are felt here in Canada right away. Our level of economic integration with the United States leaves us more exposed than many other countries to the ups and downs of the U.S. economy and the uncertainties of its trade policies.

    That is precisely why we must look at our economic performance in context and with a positive outlook. Despite the economic upheaval in recent years, the supply chain disruptions, the rising global inflation and the uncertainty when it comes to our main trading partner, Canada remains one of the most stable and resilient economies in the G7.

    That is why we need to assess Canada's economic performance rigorously and honestly. What do the numbers tell us? They tell us that Canada's economy is stronger and more resilient that many people expected.

    The May labour force survey results show that our plan is working. While several analysts had predicted that only 10,000 jobs would be created, we actually created 88,000 jobs in one month. That is unbelievable. That is not a small difference. It is almost nine times what the market expected.

    The unemployment rate also dropped to 6.6% from a high of 7.1% last August. These numbers demonstrate one very simple thing: Despite headwinds, global uncertainty and trade tensions with our main economic partner, Canada's labour market remains resilient.

    What is more, over the past 12 months, Canada has created 147,000 jobs. Since December 2024, Canada has added more jobs per capita than the United States. Canada has created 2.8 jobs for every 1,000 residents, nearly double the rate seen among our neighbours to the south. These are results we can be proud of.

    It is not just the number of jobs that matters. The quality of the jobs matters too. The recent gains have mainly come from full-time jobs, particularly in the construction industry.

    Why is that so important? It is because it shows that the investments we are making are in infrastructure, housing and major economic projects that deliver real results. That is good news for the people and the riding of Beauport—Limoilou. It also shows that our decision to align our public investments more closely with the construction season is paying off. Meanwhile, wages continue to rise faster than inflation. For over three years now, workers' incomes have been outpacing price increases. That means more money in the pockets of Canadian families. That is the reality for millions of workers across the country.

    Of course, there are still some challenges. I am thinking in particular about youth employment. Although youth unemployment is down by 0.9%, marking the first drop since January, we know that many young Canadians are still having a hard time entering the labour market. That is why our government is taking action. In the spring economic update, we announced over $6 billion in investments in our team Canada strong initiative. This initiative will mobilize Canada's skilled trades workforce and meet the growing needs of our economy.

    Thanks to these investments, we expect to create more than 100,000 new, well‑paying jobs in the skilled trades by 2030. We are making it easier to access apprenticeships. We are supporting training. We are helping young people find stable, well‑paying jobs that are in demand across the country. We are continuing to protect essential programs like Canada summer jobs and the youth climate corps.

    The opposition is asking us today to conclude that the Canadian economy is failing. The facts tell a very different story. They show us an economy that continues to add jobs despite global uncertainty. They show us wages rising faster than inflation. They show us investments that are boosting construction and strengthening our productive capacity. They show us a country that remains one of the strongest economies in the G20 despite global challenges.

    Our government remains focused on a clear priority: building the strongest economy in the G7. That is the goal of budget 2025. That is the goal of the spring economic update. That is the goal of every measure we are implementing to support workers, attract investment, and strengthen Canada's competitiveness.

    Canadians are asking us not to give in to pessimism. They want us to build the future. That is exactly what we are doing. Our free trade agreements with Europe and the Indo‑Pacific region have made Canada one of the best-positioned countries in the world for international trade.

    The real question is this: Are we in a better position to weather this storm than most of our international partners? The answer is yes, because we have strong institutions, strategic natural resources that are in demand all over the world, and access to over 1.5 billion consumers through our trade agreements and, most of all, because we can count on Canadians' talent, innovation and resilience.

    Rather than giving into pessimism, we have to acknowledge the challenges yet trust in the incredible strengths of our economy and the immense potential of Canadians. That is exactly what our government is focused on doing: investing in productivity, infrastructure, housing, trade and the workers building our collective prosperity.

    I, for one, am siding with the optimists.

     Madam Speaker, part of the concern I have about the Conservatives' opposition day is that, consistent with what they usually do, they are misleading Canadians.

     With the first two speakers, we had one member stand up and say there has been a net loss in jobs since this Prime Minister became the Prime Minister, which is just not true, and then another member stood up and said export numbers are going in the wrong direction. Again, it is just not true. Implying that Canada is constantly broken is something the Conservatives are very good at doing, and they seem to take great glee in talking down Canada.

     I wonder if my colleague could talk about what he believes is important in terms of how Canada is, in fact, growing and things are getting better in many different areas.

    Madam Speaker, I see that my colleague is part of the optimists' club too. I am glad about that, and I am sure we will make something good out of it.

    Canada is truly a superpower when it comes to clean and conventional energy. We have vast deposits of critical minerals, so we are well equipped. I see this because I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I have seen the agreements we are signing all over the world. As I mentioned earlier, that is nearly 1.5 billion consumers worldwide we can do business with.

    There is no doubt that by diversifying our economy and continuing to attract investment here, we are truly laying the groundwork for the future, and people know it. People know we are going through some rough times right now, but they still believe in us, and we really feel that.

    Madam Speaker, there are a few disturbing comments on the record already, unfortunately, early this Monday, from the government whip and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I find it very unfortunate that they continue to accuse Conservatives of hating Canada. I love this country, and the member for Winnipeg North knows that.

    I find it very disturbing that he continues to accuse us of rightfully calling out the government where it has failed over the last 11 years. There are more Canadians at food banks than ever before, including educated Canadians with post-secondary degrees, more than ever, lining up at food banks because their jobs do not pay them enough to pay for the increase in food prices under the Liberals. There are more Canadians under 35 out of the housing market than ever before.

    What exactly is it that the Liberals think they have to be so proud of?

    Madam Speaker, I am not sure that question was actually directed at me, but I will take the time to answer it. During my speech, I recounted a story my father used to tell me when I was young, a story about optimists and pessimists. The whole idea is that if we want to build a strong Canada, if we want to look to the future, we have to be part of the optimists' club. If we are pessimists, we will get nowhere together, and the word “together” will cease to exist.

    That is what we are building, and it saddens me to see members of the opposition parties saying one thing in the House and then doing another. I am talking about voting against measures that help, such as the Canadian dental care plan and the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. I would like to see them join us on the optimistic side.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to extend greetings to my colleague. We work very well together on the Standing Committee on Finance. As he said, he spent 20 years in banking.

    I would like to know whether he and his fellow optimists believe that spending $34 billion on a pipeline for the dirtiest oil in the world and funding a new pipeline forms part of what he referred to in his comments as Canada's strategy to become a clean energy superpower. I would like to know whether the optimists consider that to be clean.

    Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. I also know that he loves generating sound bites and I think what he just said will make a great one.

    I am definitely a member of the optimists' club, and I also believe in saying “and” instead of “or”. I believe that, in order to build a strong economy, we should not simply decide whether to do this thing or that thing. We must believe in saying “and”, that is, we need to build. We need to move forward, and Canadians want us to say “and”, not “or.”

    Canadians do not want to see us choose between a project in the west or a project in the east. They want both. That is the new strategy. In other words, we are going to grow our investments and build our projects so we can get Canada through these challenging global times by diversifying our economy, helping our businesses do things differently and doubling exports. That is what we are doing. We are working with the mindset of “and”, not “or”.

    Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, but even more so when it is before you.

    I will take a second to say that we obviously need to build a strong Quebec, and to build a strong Quebec, we need forward thinkers. I saw a lot of young people this weekend when I did the rounds of Young Entrepreneurs Day. I know there are young entrepreneurs in every one of our ridings.

    I also wanted to take a second to acknowledge all elementary and secondary students and graduates. It is exam time for them. I know it is June, the sun is shining and they want to go outside. I want to tell them that they need to keep studying and working hard, that they are our future, that I am thinking of them and that I will wish them a great summer when school is out. By studying hard, they will be better equipped to weigh the facts, so they might spread less disinformation than is often found in Conservative motions and in Liberal speeches like the one we just heard from my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

    I just asked the member for Beauport—Limoilou whether he considers pipelines carrying the dirtiest oil in the world to be clean energy. He replied that, no, in order to make something clean, we have to get our hands dirty, because to make something clean, we have to accept mess. The government wants to use the dirtiest oil to produce clean energy. Now those folks want to stand up in the House all day and say that the motion before us is nothing but disinformation. Clearly, the level of debate here is often pretty low.

    There are tons of nuances in the kind of debate we are having today on the motion before us. This Conservative motion is actually pretty similar to the one they moved last week on the last Conservative opposition day. They start by saying that we are the only G20 country in a recession, that everything is broken and that we need to put an end to inflationary spending.

    The last time I gave a speech, I explained that it might take a few months to find out whether we are in a recession today, once the data is revised and the next quarter or two of data comes out, given that we are in an unusual situation.

    There are clips of Conservative MPs talking about us. They call us the “Liberal Bloc” and say we deny the existence of a recession. I am not saying that everyone should take a course in economics, but these people have never taken one in their life. They studied kinesiology, and now they are going on social media to educate us about what a recession is.

    The problem is that while definitions are being debated, substantive issues are not. We are not debating the fact that we have a problem with very weak growth, endemic for a number of years now. We are not debating the fact that more of the past five quarters have been negative than positive. We are not debating the fact that, for the least wealthy 20% to 25% of people in our economy, the cost of living has risen faster than their purchasing power. We are not debating the fact that yes, these people need help and yes, it takes benefits. We voted for the new benefit, which the government says is intended to help with grocery bills but which is actually an enhanced GST rebate. We support that.

    However, it is not sound policy to constantly add new benefits and increase the tax burden when the government is unable to generate growth, negotiate a free trade agreement with the Americans, or even tell us what the negotiating strategy with the United States would be. We can debate what does or does not constitute a recession. The C.D. Howe Institute council that dates recessions in Canada says that there must be at least one quarter of negative growth, that the decline in that quarter must be significant and that it must be sufficiently widespread across the economy.

    Last week, Desjardins' chief economist said that 50% of sectors are affected. Normally, we say it is a recession when 60% of sectors are affected. It is a matter of the council's judgment, but that does not detract from the fact that things are not going well. The Liberals keep telling us that they are creating jobs. That said, governments always boast about creating jobs.

    I would invite everyone here to take a look at the work of Nicolas Petrovsky‑Nadeau, an economist who studied in Quebec and who I believe is currently working at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He explains how many jobs must be created each quarter to stop unemployment from rising. Just because jobs have been created, that does not mean that the government has succeeded.

    The Liberals are saying that they did better than analysts predicted. Of course they did. What is the best way to manage expectations? It is to keep them really low. When analysts think that we are going to do extremely poorly and things do not turn out quite as badly as they thought, then we end up doing better than predicted. That is what the Liberals are bragging about. However, we will be voting against this motion because, once again, the Conservatives have failed to define what constitutes inflationary spending.

    I think the chief government whip is not listening because I am speaking French. He does not even have his earpiece in. When we speak French in the House, nobody seems to listen, except you, Mr. Speaker, because your French is very good and we appreciate that. I listened to what the members for Whitby and Beauport—Limoilou had to say, but now that I am speaking, they are patting each other on the back, chatting, joking and laughing. The funny thing is that I am making fun of them and they do not even realize it. They are not interested in what is happening in the House of Commons. That member is a Liberal House officer, the whip, the guy who is supposed to be responsible for Liberal party discipline, but he is not listening.

    This Conservative motion contains disinformation. We do not know what inflationary spending is, but there is still a grain of truth to it, namely the assessment that the Canadian economy is in poor shape. I have spoken about the issue of growth. We have a persistent growth problem. The government disagrees. It tells us that, according to certain IMF forecasts, we will be the best in the G7. However, that has not happened yet. If the Liberals had done a good job, they would be talking to us about the past few quarters. Instead, what they are telling us is that they have done such a poor job in recent quarters that they are going to rely on a forecast from the IMF that is actually quite old. Let us wait and see what happens with those forecasts.

    In the same speech, the member for Whitby told us that his government outperformed the forecasts, but that it was still bad. Now the Liberals are telling us they will be the best in the G7 because there are forecasts. That is brilliant. The Liberals have mastered the art of twisting the numbers until they say what they want them to. We know what confessions under torture are worth. They are worth next to nothing.

    The government is breaking down the GDP even though it has not yet started trade negotiations with the United States. Granted, Donald Trump is not easy to work with. However, the government does not have a strategy. We are trying to find out what the strategy is. We, the separatists in the Bloc Québécois, were criticized during the election campaign for saying that we would work with the government on its strategy to normalize relations with the United States as far as possible. We are looking for the strategy. There is no strategy.

    Since the Prime Minister has been in office, since the arrival of the so-called new government, exports have steadily declined quarter after quarter. The decline has exceeded 4%, quarter after quarter, since the first quarter of 2026. That is because we do not have trade agreements. What are the Liberals doing to hide this? They tell us that they have increased our exports to Europe. When we break down the figures, we realize that it was basically a large volume of aluminum sent to Europe, at fairly high prices, that changed the statistics. We do not have a trade agreement. Why not hold an opposition day on that? That is something the Conservatives should consider.

    What is more, there is no reliable fiscal anchor. We do not even know how to assess the government's performance anymore, because the government no longer knows what to compare itself to. Previously, we had the debt-to-GDP ratio. The government told us that this no longer works, so it became the deficit-to-GDP ratio. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has also weighed in. By the way, the Liberals chose her themselves and unilaterally imposed this decision on the House. There was no consensus on this appointment, particularly because of the way it was made. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is clearly competent, but the government appointed her unilaterally. Now she is saying that the government will not be able to meet its fiscal anchor every year.

    Luc Godbout appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. I think it was last week. Luc Godbout holds the research chair in taxation and public finance at Université de Sherbrooke. His team does extraordinary work, they are recognized and they are non-partisan. They are not a bunch of bozos from the opposition who do nothing but complain, as the members on the other side of the House like to say. The witnesses told us that they do not understand what the government's fiscal anchors are and that we need to have some. They told us that they cannot even say whether they are good or bad because the Liberals change the rules whenever they feel like it. That is a valid point in the Conservative motion.

    What else is in the motion? It talks about inflationary and non-inflationary spending. That is just political rhetoric. What else did we learn from the representatives of the Université de Sherbrooke research chair? They said that our spending is in a shambles. A budget is drafted and presented, appropriations are voted on, and then we find ourselves in a situation where the Minister of Finance suddenly decides, on a whim, to add a new benefit, a new scheme, a new payout. Everything has been so poorly planned that even academics can no longer keep track of the deficit over the course of the year.

    That is a problem. It is a planning problem. It is a rigour problem. In the last budget cycle, the Minister of Finance decided to present a budget in the fall instead of in the winter. He was not ready, so he changed the provisions before the update, which means that the Standing Committee on Finance is still studying one budget bill anther another and can no longer keep track of them. That is mismanagement.

    What did Mr. Godbout, the research chair and professor at Université de Sherbrooke, say when he when he came to testify? He told us that the government needs to be clear about what constitutes capital expenditures and what constitutes operating expenditures. The government is making up its own rules, and they do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. In the budget, it is classifying security at FIFA matches as an investment. We need clear rules because the government is disguising operating expenses as investments. According to the professor from Université de Sherbrooke, the government is giving tax credits to companies that might invest and calling that an investment. That is not how any public accounting system in the world operates. Even in the United Kingdom, where investments are accounted for separately—where there is a balance sheet, a statement or some sort of equivalent in the public accounts—nobody does this. That is mismanagement.

    I do not know what the Conservatives call inflationary spending, because anything can fit in that category. I asked one Conservative MP a question earlier. I asked him whether spending $34 billion in public funds for a pipeline was inflationary. He practically turned himself inside out rather than answer my question. The Conservatives do not want to answer. What is inflationary spending? Does inflationary spending include a 10% increase in the OAS for people between 65 and 74 years of age, victims of Liberal discrimination who are suffering due to the increased cost of living? We do not know.

    Furthermore, I notice that no one seems to have a solution. No one is suggesting solutions. The government tells us that everything is fine and that the IMF thinks that everything will be fine. Well, we are proposing solutions. Last week, during the last opposition day, the member for Whitby told us that opposition members never do anything but complain. However, after the unions, the FTQ, the Syndicat des métallos and the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, we were the first to say that a wage subsidy was needed in response to the new tariff calculation method that the U.S. administration introduced in April. A wage subsidy is needed to protect businesses that are captured by the new tariff formula and that cannot increase their inventories any more.

    That is one thing. The employment rate is doing well because companies are accumulating stock, but that will not last forever. When these companies run into problems, we will need to maintain the employment relationship so that employees do not have to rely on employment insurance, so that they do not go work for competitors and so that we can free up some margin in the actuarial calculations that are used to balance the EI fund. Given the tariff crisis, we must ensure that we do not have to increase EI contributions for companies that may be struggling a bit right now. These are the kinds of solutions that we are proposing, but we are essentially being told that we do not want to build Canada strong by building pipelines and we never come up with any solutions.

    I understand that the government signed a separate infrastructure agreement with Quebec. We are pleased about that. The Liberals have been telling us for years that certain conditions must be met and that we were wrong. However, now they have signed a separate agreement and everything is fine. Instead of going with a non-existent high-speed train with a business plan that does not make any sense and that heartlessly expropriates people's land, as Alto is currently doing, we are asking for more funding for public transit. That is a solution that would help relieve congestion on our city highways. That would be a good idea.

    Let us talk about the forestry industry. The Saint-Michel sawmill just closed down. For years, these people have been facing tariffs that make no sense. They have been forced to pay countervailing duties that get tied up in the United States. These companies win their cases in court 10 years later. They get their money back, but by then, they have gone bankrupt.

    However, this is an asset. We are telling the government to buy back these countervailing duties. It is an asset that would not even be counted toward the deficit, and it would give these businesses some breathing room and liquidity. The response we get is that the government has already done everything it could. It grants loans to businesses on the verge of closing, but it refuses to implement this measure. Then it criticizes us for not coming up with proposals.

    The government wants to build a strong country, but Quebec and the provinces also have responsibilities. Think of the hospitals with leaky roofs and the infrastructure. The governments of Quebec and the provinces are closer to the people than the federal government is.

    The influx of asylum seekers has exceeded Quebec's capacity to accommodate them and has cost $733 million. The National Assembly has unanimously called for this amount to be repaid to Quebec. Why has it never been repaid? That would also give people some breathing room. After all, people do not just pay federal taxes. They also pay provincial taxes. When the provinces are financially squeezed, it does not help taxpayers. When a sick person has a hard time getting the services they need, that does not help them either. When teachers cannot be recruited, that does not help children. Another thing that Ottawa needs to do is transfer the money that is owed to Quebec.

    The Liberals say that they are investing, that it is important to boost productivity and adapt to climate change. The government wants to buy pipelines and, at the same time, it is closing the Department of Agriculture research centres in the riding of the Minister of Government Transformation. These centres are designed to support climate change adaptation, develop new species and boost agricultural productivity. There is a unanimous consensus in the agricultural sector. These research centres are vital to the future of our food. They are being shut down to save what amounts to practically 0% of the federal budget, yet still, they are being shut down.

    I am not going to talk about the Governor General, because not everybody likes that, but everyone knows what I think of the role.

    The Bloc Québécois is putting forward proposals to help our businesses. Take the example of an aerospace policy. The government has a nature policy, an energy policy and policies for just about everything, yet Liberal MPs from my area are going around saying we do not need an aerospace policy and that the government is handing out subsidies. These things take time. The aeronautics and aerospace sectors operate over decades. We need to connect the military, the civilian sector and everyone's needs so that we buy our own products. The government is saying that we do not need a policy. It is time to buy aircraft, and he is off in Sweden trying to convince someone to open a factory here rather than ordering planes, yet we are told we do not need a strategy.

    The government is also telling us that the industry is not asking for it. However, the Standing Committee on Finance heard from the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, or AIAC, and its representatives told us that we need an aerospace industrial policy. They made that clear to us. If we had one today, the government would not be doing the tango with every company in the world to determine which aircraft to choose, because the orders would already be coming in. That is what would happen.

    I am not saying that everything the Liberals do is bad. The productivity superdeduction is a good measure, and I think it should be expanded. I think the government has picked the winners, but its fiscal situation has become so bad that it cannot afford to do that anymore. That is a problem. Some good things have been done, but it is not enough.

    I hear the government saying that all the opposition does is complain, shout and spread disinformation. Do members know how difficult it is, politically, to say that we know the recession will be coming in the future? It would be easy to say we are in a recession, like the Conservatives do. Do members know how difficult it is politically for us to remain rigorous, to stand our ground and to keep things in perspective? We are doing that. When we do that, the government is happy. When we propose solutions that come from the front lines and the industry, in the same speech, we become the whiners of the minority opposition that the government no longer listens to.

    Now that they form a majority, I am asking the Liberals to dial down the arrogance and smugness. They have to stop saying that they are the best thing since sliced bread and start considering the good ideas coming from the other side of the House. I have very good relationships with the other members of the Standing Committee on Finance. I see the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin walking into the House. I think we have ideas to contribute, but the government needs to be at least a little receptive.

    I would remind the hon. member that referring to members entering or leaving the House is not permitted.

    The member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

     Madam Speaker, I would like to give my esteemed colleague the opportunity to tell me how people in Mirabel are feeling. The government told them that a high-speed rail project is going to cut right through their farmland. It did not offer much in the way of explanation. A lot of questions were asked, but not a lot of answers have been given.

    I am sure that my colleague has a lot to say about that.

    Madam Speaker, this issue has to do with the business of supply, because we just voted supply for the project.

    With Bill C‑15, the Minister of Transport callously decided to make people along the Alto corridor second-class citizens. He decided to take away their recourse and their right to question the need for expropriation for a train. Through his actions, the Minister of Transport is destroying what little social licence there was for this project.

    People in my riding are being harassed by Alto. There have been unauthorized drone flights. Now they have stopped because they were not allowed in the first place. People from Alto are knocking on doors without identifying themselves and without offering a business card.

    There are people in my riding who have been expropriated once already, who are familiar with expropriation and whose family or friends dealt with family tragedies such as suicides, broken families and depression. This is not ancient history. The last five pieces of land expropriated following the airport saga were only given back in 2024. That is what is happening with a train that does not exist and that has no business plan or cost-benefit analysis.

    Bill C‑15 is an injustice. The people of Mirabel think that we need to scrap this project and start over from scratch.

    Madam Speaker, the member talked a great deal about the lack of a strategy on the issue of trade. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The member would know that.

     For example, the Prime Minister and this government made a commitment to look at export opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. We have some 20 agreements related to trade and defence. We have passed legislation on trade agreements with Northern Ireland, England and Indonesia. We are actually in negotiations on trade agreements with the Philippines and India. We have a Prime Minister who has been very proactive in promoting Canadian exports.

    Contrary to what the member implied, in the first quarter, we had a net increase in trade between the United States and Canada.

     We are going to negotiate the best deal. It will be one that is in Canadians' best interests. The trade agreement will not necessarily be in the interests of the Conservatives or the Bloc, but it will be in Canadians' best interests.

    I wonder if the member sees the holistic approach we are taking and sees it as a strategy.

    Madam Speaker, it appears that we were not watching the same election campaign. When I was campaigning last year, I did not see the Prime Minister spend 30 days campaigning on the idea that he was going to strike a deal with Indonesia. That was not what the Prime Minister was saying during the campaign. He said that 80% of our trade was with the United States, that he was the best person to negotiate with Mr. Trump and that Mr. Trump would respect him. That did not happen.

    Afterwards, the government started saying that we have free trade agreements with all the G7 countries, but the Prime Minister did not sign any of those agreements. I am in favour of diversifying trade. It is a good thing. Our agreement with South Korea was signed by the Conservatives. The reality is that the current Prime Minister campaigned on the promise that he would be able to quickly get the United States to sign an agreement, and that did not happen.

    Do the Liberals have a strategy? It is possible that they do, but given the government's level of transparency, we are unaware of what that strategy is. If the Liberals want help, if they want us to work with them, if they want ideas and if they think we are smart enough to collaborate with, maybe they should tell us what is going on rather than keep us in the dark. More and more things in this government are becoming concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office. It is worrisome, because we thought that the concentration of power in the PMO became a thing of the past with the end of the Trudeau government.

     Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member called upon the government to turn down the arrogance a bit. The Liberals have a majority and they can win any vote they want. They could start being just a little more humble about their performance.

     I would note that the Minister of Finance recently appeared at the finance committee. He did not answer any of the member's questions. He did not answer any of my questions. He ignored the questions that were put to him by opposition members.

    Does the member have anything else to say about the government's performance and the need for a little humility, given that performance?

    Madam Speaker, it is true that the government has become increasingly arrogant since it bought itself a majority. First, as we saw during the consideration of all votes, the Minister of Finance has not answered a single question in his political career. This did not begin last week.

    Let us consider Driver Inc. People have died because of these truckers. Children have died. During the debate in committee on Driver Inc., the Liberals voted in favour of holding the meeting in camera, and we learned that the chair of the committee is attending events put on by those responsible for Driver Inc. With Bill C‑30, which is currently before us, they are relaxing the laws on pesticides. They are hiding that in a budget bill. We learned that the Minister of Health is participating in events put on by pesticide companies who have been pushing for this for years.

    Parliament exists for a reason. It deserves better than what the Liberals are doing to it. I believe in the work of Parliament. We are working hard in that regard. We read the bills. I am in contact with the parliamentary secretary and the member for Whitby. We have ideas. We submit amendments. However, the current government has decided that, now that it has a majority, it is free to do away with democracy in this place. I think that says a lot about the Prime Minister, who sees himself more as a CEO than as a prime minister.

     Madam Speaker, Canadians did not need a Parliamentary Budget Officer report to tell them that the economy was in trouble; families knew it when their groceries kept getting more expensive, when their mortgage payments doubled and when young people gave up on owning their own home.

    For years we have been sounding the alarms, yet the Liberals kept telling us, “Everything is fine.” Now, the PBO confirms that we have a bigger deficit, weaker growth, lower wages and only a 1% chance of meeting the government's own fiscal anchor.

    Why does my colleague think it took the Liberal government so long to admit what Canadians already knew, and why are they still refusing to change the costly policies that are making life less affordable?

    Madam Speaker, the devil is in the details. We need to look at the numbers and break them down a little. During question period, the Prime Minister stated that average wages have risen faster than inflation. However, we need to look at the people at the bottom of the ladder. Being rich in Canada today is not an issue. They can still afford to buy big cars. They can even afford to pay $2 a litre for gas. They can still go to restaurants. The problem is that things are stagnating for the 20% to 25% of people who live from paycheque to paycheque. Those people have not seen an increase in their purchasing power.

    This government has been in power for 10 or 11 years. We all agree that the previous prime minister was not much of an economics guy. Even his finance minister ran away, which says a lot. This government keeps doling out benefits and new cheques without acknowledging the problem. It is fine to help people in times of crisis, but when we see that 20% of the people in this country are getting poorer and losing purchasing power and the government simply hands them a cheque, that is hardly a vision for society. It is just making people lose faith in our institutions. That worries me.

    Madam Speaker, the member spoke earlier in the debate on Alto, and I know how sensitive the people in his riding are about expropriation. Going beyond the expropriation issue, just some cocktail-napkin math here, if it costs $90 billion and, as the McGill study said, there are only going to be 12 million annual passengers, and they borrow the money at, let us say, 4%, that is about $300 a ticket.

    Does the member think that the Liberals have done their homework in any way on what the actual cost would be in order for that project to be financially viable?

    Madam Speaker, there is no business plan. We ask questions and Alto responds by spending millions of dollars on advertising instead of giving us the facts.

    For the first full year of operation, according to McGill University researchers, Alto is overestimating the number of passengers by 15 million per year. According to the McGill University study, over the years and in today's dollars, more than $50 billion will have to be spent on subsidies, just to keep this project going. The government is going to have to pay 15% of the project's costs up front. The government is going to have to expropriate more land than they need so they can sell it back to developers to fund 15% of the project's costs. That is if there are no cost overruns, and there will be cost overruns. Let us see how they work. Let us see how they approach people. Aside from the expropriations, my constituents and all Quebeckers and Canadians are right to be worried about Alto when it comes to their taxes.

     Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

     I rise today in support of the opposition motion before us. This motion states that Canada has become the only G20 nation to fall into recession.

     Members may debate the definition of a recession, economists may debate what a technical recession is, but even if they disagree on the label, they should not ignore the signals. The question that Canadians are asking is not about the definition of recession, which is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth, but why Canadians feel weaker with more instability, why business investments have slowed, why families feel less secure and why opportunities feel harder to reach. Perhaps that is what the concern is mostly about.

    Canada should not accept becoming an outlier among advanced economies, and that is why Conservatives are very sad to hear that Canada is going through a recession. We warned what reckless inflationary spending would do to our economy and to our country. Recessions result in households making smaller plans, businesses delaying decisions, young people lowering their expectations and communities wondering whether growth can still include them.

    Many Canadians felt that financial hardship long before there was an announcement that we were in a recession, because Canadians do not experience the economy through quarterly reports or decimal points. They experience it when groceries cost more than they expect, when their children wonder whether they will ever own a home and when communities lose opportunities.

    This motion asks us to consider whether our current approach is producing the outcomes Canadians were promised. Canada has recorded declining real GDP in three of the last four quarters. Business capital investment fell by 0.7% in the first quarter of the year, marking the fifth consecutive quarter of decline. Businesses are leaving Canada. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, at 6.9%, and 112,000 Canadians lost work just in the first four months of this year. Food bank usage has reached 2.2 million visits every month, which is the highest level on record and double what it was in 2019. One in four Canadians is now experiencing food insecurity.

    These are not abstract indicators. These are not technicalities. They reflect pressure that households are experiencing every single day. Canadians are more cautious now about spending, investing and planning for their future. People are asking whether wages are keeping up, whether opportunities are shrinking and whether their children will have the same chances of success as they had.

    Canadians are also being asked to adopt major technological changes at the same time that households and businesses are becoming cautious and financially weaker. People are worried about whether their paycheques will stretch far enough, whether opportunities are shrinking and whether the future will offer more security or less.

    Recessions are not only periods of contraction. They are tests. They expose whether the economy has built the productive capacity, the investment conditions and the resilience needed to recover and grow. That is why this motion deserves serious attention.

     While concerns grow about recession, the government has announced major ambitions around artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure. Those ambitions deserve to be debated seriously, because digital infrastructure does not just exist on paper. Artificial intelligence requires data centres. Data centres require compute capacity. Compute capacity is something very physical. Reliable energy is needed. That deserves serious debate, because Canadians are being asked to carry two realities at once: economic weakness today and economic transition tomorrow.

    Workers and families are feeling the growing pains today, and we know the new AI system the Liberals are trying to build could even change the meaning of work. As tasks become automated, businesses will likely need fewer workers. Some sectors will become more productive with fewer workers. This is why we must be honest about the future with AI and automation and what it will look like. If Canadians are already struggling with affordability, weak growth and uncertainty, then the question becomes: Are we preparing people for the transition that the Liberals are putting forward? Are we informing people about what is to come with AI and the digital infrastructure that the Liberals are building? Are we creating enough growth to absorb the disruption that AI will bring? Are we strengthening productive capacity?

    Perhaps part of what Canadians are feeling right now is not only economic pressure but uncertainty about transition. People sense that systems are changing and that technology is becoming more integrated into daily life. Decisions once made by people may increasingly become influenced by digital systems, and they are asking deeper questions. As these systems become more powerful, what remains of humans? That question should not be dismissed, because as we build digital infrastructure and adapt to artificial intelligence, we should ensure that human judgment remains meaningful. That divine spark in us must be preserved through human dignity. We see our dignity in work, in providing for our families, in learning and volunteering to help others even without being paid or rewarded. It is through this dignity and charity that our society was built. We must ensure that people are never reduced to technicalities, profiles, outputs, data points or mere QR codes.

    Technology should strengthen human capability, not weaken human agency. If we are entering a period of profound change, then our responsibility is not simply to build smarter systems; it is to build systems that remember the value of people and exist to serve people. The question is whether Canadians will participate in the prosperity that new technology creates, whether workers who are displaced and lose their jobs can adapt to the technological change, whether businesses can adapt and grow, whether families can plan for the future and whether communities can benefit. The goal cannot simply be more technology and more spending deficits. The goal must be more opportunity, because opportunity, not deficits, is what builds confidence and confidence builds investments.

    That is why this recession is so real. It is not because of technical definitions. Economists may debate what “technical recession” means, but Canadians do not live in a technicality. Canadians live with grocery bills. They live with a lack of jobs. They live with a shrinking economy. They live with food bank lines. They live with cancelled plans and postponed dreams. They live with choosing between turning up the heat in their homes and buying food. They live with the uncertainty of wondering whether their children will have the same opportunities they had. That is why this debate matters. It is because recessions are not ultimately measured by quarters. They are measured by whether people still believe tomorrow can be better than today.

    If Canadians are losing confidence in their efforts and opportunities, then we should not dismiss that as a technicality. We should treat it as a warning that our responsibility is not simply to manage decline but restore the conditions that allow people to build, invest, contribute, believe in the future and, once again, unite in a prosperous Canada.

    Madam Speaker, I know the member read her speech, but perhaps she wrote it last week because the number that she used for Canada's unemployment in her speech does not reflect the new number that came out on Friday. She might want to update her numbers. She might also want to reflect on the fact that the report that came out last Friday showed that Canada had a net increase of 90,000 jobs in May, that full-time work surged and that sectors across the economy have grown.

    I am curious. Notwithstanding the fact that she may have written that speech on Wednesday of last week, why did nothing in the 10-minute speech she just provided talk about the new report that came out on Friday, which showed that there was a significant improvement in May alone?

     Madam Speaker, it is so sad that the Liberals will not admit the situation they are in. They use everything to deflect. They deflect even from the term “recession”. They try to redefine it. They try to use labour data from summer jobs to buttress, to increase, what the employment rate is.

    It is a really sad situation, because Canadians are suffering. They need truth. They need honesty. They need transparency. We are not getting these from the government.

    Madam Speaker, someone mentioned rigour and transparency earlier in the debate. I must admit that I am hearing a lot of rhetoric today. Some folks are trying to simply persuade people, rather than using real ideas to convince them.

    Yes, some Quebeckers and Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, and I would like to see some solutions brought forward.

    A $25-billion sovereign wealth fund has been proposed. This is a debt that will be used to finance other major projects, with all decisions being made behind closed doors, without any input from the public. These include pipelines, which entail huge debts and do nothing to reduce our carbon footprint.

    We know there is no official definition of the term, but I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that these are inflationary measures.

    Madam Speaker, countries that have a sovereign wealth fund are based on wealth. They are not based on debt, as the Liberal government is attempting.

    The member's question was also about pipelines. Every single day, Canada imports 550,000 barrels of oil. We have the third-largest accessible oil reserves on this planet, yet we continue to import oil from other nations. The lost opportunity, our not optimizing our full potential and not developing our natural resources, is one of the reasons we are in this recession. We are trying to solve the problem using creative deals like creating a sovereign debt fund and pretending it is wealth. It is not going to solve the problem.

    Madam Speaker, the London region, especially London—Fanshawe, has been hit hard with the Liberal policies with regard to the local economy. In March, we had a 9.1% unemployment rate. In April, we had a 9.2% unemployment rate, the highest in the country.

    Could my colleague elaborate on the economic issues in her riding?

    Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the economic issues in my riding are very similar to the economic issues in many ridings in the country. People are making tough decisions: Do they turn up the heat in their home, or do they make sure they put a meal on the table for their family that has sufficient nutrients in it to feed and energize their family? These are the tough decisions that people are making. Some families line up at food banks. These include families with two working parents who just cannot make ends meet. We have to do something to make life more affordable for average Canadians.

    Madam Speaker, when a truck is stuck in a ditch, there are two ways to make the problem worse. One is to keep flooring the gas while pretending that spinning the tires means we are getting somewhere. The other is to just simply blame the mud, the road and the person who told us to take the turn in the first place, but to never admit that the driver could be the problem. That is where Canada's economy is today. The government has been spinning the tires for years, throwing mud in every direction and telling everyone that if we wait just a little bit longer, the country is finally going to start pulling ahead. However, now we can see what is really happening: We are not moving ahead but are in fact falling behind.

    The motion before the House says what millions of families already know: Canada has been driven into the G20's only recession. Scotiabank and the Bank of Montreal have both downgraded growth expectations. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's latest report shows slowing growth, a weakening financial outlook and a bigger-than-promised deficit. Those words can sound very far removed from real life, but that is exactly where this bad news lands. It lands on the mortgage renewal, the grocery bill, the repair that cannot wait and the credit card bill that was supposed to be paid down but is, in fact, bigger than expected.

    The Parliamentary Budget Officer has now put numbers to what Canadians already feel. She projects real GDP growth of only 1.1% in 2026 and 1.6% in 2027. That is not an economy that is charging ahead. She also says that the deficit is expected to rise from $36.3 billion to $72 billion. That is not simply a rounding error. It is the fiscal equivalent of promising to back out of the driveway but ending up going through the garage door.

    The government did not miss its promise by just a little bit. It missed it by billions and billions of dollars. It told Canadians that spending was under control, but eventually the bills come due. The numbers are a lot harder to spin than the speeches the Liberals offer are. Canadians were promised one thing, but the numbers now show something completely different. As usual, Canadians are of course stuck with the invoice.

    Then there is the fiscal anchor that used to be a point of discussion. That is the government's own promise to keep the deficit from growing out of control. It is supposed to tell Canadians that someone around the cabinet table still knows when to stop borrowing, stop spending and stop pretending that the budget will balance itself. The PBO says that there is less than a 1% chance the government will meet that promise. That is not a fiscal anchor; that is a lottery ticket, at best. No person could walk into a bank with a 1% chance of making their household budget work and call that responsible. No small business owner could tell their employees that there is only a 1% chance that the paycheques will clear and call that a plan.

    A weak economy shows up long before anybody gives it a name. It shows up when the job sites get quiet, when the bay sits empty at the shop, when the truck stays parked in the yard and when a young worker who was supposed to start Monday is told he cannot because there is not enough work. That is what slow growth means when it reaches the real world: fewer hours, fewer raises, fewer orders and fewer chances for young people to get started in their career.

    The government wants us to believe that this was all just unavoidable. It says there have been global pressures. Of course there have been. Every G20 nation has faced interest rate hikes, supply chain challenges, inflation, war, energy shocks and global uncertainty. The difference is that Canada is now being described as the G20's only nation in a recession. When everyone faces the storm but only one boat starts taking on water, maybe it is time to see what the captain has been doing.

    A country does not get rich based on how much the government spends. A country gets richer when people can build, invest, produce, hire, export, take risks and succeed. It gets richer when a welder can leave the shop on Friday and start his own business on Monday, or when a mine with Canadian mineral workers can be approved before the opportunity moves somewhere else.

    We have all the ingredients of an incredibly prosperous country. We do not have a shortage of ability. We have a government that keeps turning that ability into delays, higher costs, and smaller paycheques for Canadians. Imagine someone who wants to build something in this country. Imagine a shop in a small town, a mine up north, a grain terminal, a processing plant, a power line or an energy project. They start with an idea, workers ready to go, suppliers lined up and a belief that Canada is still a place where real effort can become something real.

    These investors then meet the process that the government has built. First comes the permit delays, then some new rule and the consultation that leads to yet another consultation. Then the financing gets more expensive throughout the time that passes. Investors then ask why the same project could move so much faster somewhere else. After a while, the question is no longer whether the project makes sense; the question is how long people are willing to bleed money before they simply give up. That is why the government's own consultation paper on getting major projects built is so revealing.

    After years of Conservatives, provinces, workers, industry and investors warning that Canada had become too slow and too uncertain, the government is now admitting the same thing but in writing. Its own paper says major projects could “face a complicated and time-consuming” process. It points to duplication and poor coordination between departments. It says, “mines, ports, pipelines, nuclear facilities, and transportation infrastructure [are] often slow, expensive, and confusing.” It even admits that “it has often taken more than five years for a project to receive the federal decisions” needed before construction can even begin.

    Bill C-69 was passed in 2019. The Liberals sold it is a way to restore confidence, to protect the environment and to help good projects move forward. In reality, it became simply a symbol of delay and uncertainty. The Supreme Court later of course made clear that the problem was not only in the delays that it caused. The act went too far, by allowing the federal government to turn limited federal interests into a much broader review of projects that often mainly fell under provincial jurisdiction.

    The Liberals amended the act and then claimed that the problem was somehow fixed, yet here they are again admitting that major projects still face a process that is slow, expensive, confusing, poorly coordinated and too often takes longer than five years. The Prime Minister wants to sound like a man who can get Canada building again, but the system he is now allegedly trying to repair was built, defended and celebrated by his own Liberal Party.

    Canada does not need weaker environmental standards. It needs clear standards, real timelines, and decisions that actually get made. Money goes where it is welcome. Jobs go where projects can move forward. Opportunity goes where people are allowed to build things. If the government keeps making Canada slower, more expensive and more uncertain, it should not be shocked when investments start looking for a different address.

    What Conservatives are saying is not very complicated: Reverse the costly and inflationary decisions that helped put Canada in this position to begin with; restore discipline and federal spending; stop treating borrowed money as a substitute for private sector growth; make Canada a place where major projects can actually get approved and built again; lower the cost of work, investment, energy, transport and homebuilding; stop punishing the sectors that pay the bills; and focus on paycheques, production, homes, food, energy, exports and opportunity.

    Canada is not poor, Canada is not weak, and Canada is not doomed. The country has everything it needs to succeed, except a federal government willing to stop making excuses and stop making success harder. We could be a country to which investment comes because approvals are clear, taxes are competitive, energy is reliable, workers are respected and projects move forward. We could be a country where the next generation inherits more than debt and more than just excuses. It starts with admitting that the current approach has failed miserably.

    The government made the bills bigger, the economy weaker and the deficit worse, and now it wants us to be impressed that it found some gentler words for its own failure. Canadians deserve better than a government that asks them to settle for less. We were not handed a small country, a poor country or a country that is running out of promise. We were handed one of the greatest nations on earth, blessed with resources, talent, courage, and people who still believe tomorrow can be better than today.

    What we need now is a government with enough faith in Canadians to let them build, work, dream and prosper once again. It is time to stop spinning the wheels and calling that progress. It is time to change course.

    Madam Speaker, we have heard the “Canada is broken” rhetoric over and over from Conservative members, in which they stand up and gleefully cheer for any downturn in the Canadian economy as an opportunity to score cheap political points. It is a sad reflection, and it is insulting to Canadians. It is insulting to businesses and to Canadian workers.

    Recently, the May job report showed 88,000 new jobs were created. Unemployment is dropping, wages are growing faster than inflation, and the International Monetary Fund has concluded that Canada has the strongest economy in the G7. Will the member opposite please acknowledge that Canada is not broken?

    Madam Speaker, Canadians are thriving, despite the government.

    The member talks about this being just a technical recession. Are collectors just technically calling, asking for their money that has been loaned out? Is a mom just technically skipping meals so that she can afford to feed her daughter? Are these just technicalities? No.

     The crisis facing this country has been clear for many years. The government not only caused it, but refuses to accept that it is to blame for it. It is time to change course and recognize when the government is spinning its wheels and failing Canadians. Life has not been good for everyone. It is time to accept that and change direction.

     We can and must do better for the people we are here to represent.

    Madam Speaker, the analogy, I think, is just perfect. The Liberals are spinning their tires so hard in the mud, trying to prove to Canadians that they are improving the economic situation when they are in fact failing it, that they are actually going backward and making things worse. They are doing this instead of being stuck stationary and, certainly, instead of moving forward, which is exactly what people in this country need, particularly Manitobans and young Canadians across this country, from coast to coast to coast.

     I wonder if the member, who has been here a bit longer than I have, could provide a little more context about what it might take to finally get the Liberals to do a bit of self-reflection, eat a bit humble pie and maybe make a change so that Canadians are better off.

    Madam Speaker, I want to believe the Liberals have that in them. The last 10 years have not shown me that they have an ability to accept things as they are. It is like they do not talk to people who live in the real world and see the cost pressures they are facing.

     One thing that really bothers me is that in government, just like in life, it is okay to sometimes say, “We were wrong. We messed up.” We do not have to continuously hide behind the fact that things are not going okay and try to blame everybody else. The government should take a bit of responsibility. The other day, I heard a minister try to blame Stephen Harper. It is 11 years later.

     It is time to accept that things have not been going well because of the policies and accept the ideas that are coming collaboratively from the Conservatives to try to move this country forward. Change the policies and change course so that we can all be better off.

    Madam Speaker, we can see my colleague's love for his constituents and his desire to ensure that Canada's economy comes out okay, if not better.

    I did not get a satisfactory answer to my questions when we talked about rigour and transparency. The Conservative Party is talking about inflationary measures, and I was wondering whether my colleague thinks that a sovereign wealth fund is an inflationary measure since the government's sovereign wealth fund is not being created with money that has already been saved. It is a debt.

    I am wondering the same thing about the government's major projects and the pipelines in western Canada. The government is spending money, but do the Conservatives consider that to be inflationary spending?

    Madam Speaker, Canada led the way with this idea that we could borrow our way to calling something wealth. The idea of a sovereign wealth fund is a good one, if we are a country that is in a position to create wealth and has executed on the idea of creating wealth. Instead, we decided to keep our oil and gas in the ground as much as possible over the last decade.

     The idea of investing in projects in Canada is a good one. Financing it entirely based on debt and calling that progress is just another example of how the government seems to refuse to accept that things have not been going well for Canadians and that its policies are to blame.

     We can and must do better.

    Mr. Speaker, obviously, Canadians are not slow. They understand that transitions are tough. They understand the kinds of situations we have been in in the last couple of years, whether they were because of COVID or the unjustified tariffs that Canadians have experienced across the board.

     I am curious to know what the member opposite thinks Canadians think of him and his party when they see him get excited about Canadians not doing well.

    Mr. Speaker, the member says transitions are tough. That is another odd excuse. It would not be a tough transition to elect a Conservative government so that this country can once again prosper.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding work of the food banks in Prescott—Russell—Cumberland and to thank the dedicated volunteers who, day after day, support our constituents with dignity and compassion.

    Food banks are essential to our region's food security. From the beginning of my mandate, I have been committed to working closely with these organizations.

    Over the past year, I visited food banks in Hawkesbury, Vankleek Hill and Clarence-Rockland. Everywhere I went, I saw dedicated teams facing growing demand with often limited resources.

    I want to sincerely thank the food bank volunteers and staff. Their commitment is the backbone of our community.

    I am committed to keep working alongside them and to be a strong voice for the people of Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, who are counting on us.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly outstanding achievement by a young resident student from Plumas, Manitoba. Lenjo Uebersax, a student from Plumas Elementary School, has been named Mathletics' top grade 8 student in Canada and ranks 30th worldwide. This is a huge achievement. As his teacher Mark Dodds explained, this is “one of the largest academic competitions in the world”.

    More recently, through the Mathletics program, Lenjo completed the entire grade 9 math curriculum and, as of last Friday, began his grade 10 math curriculum independently. Plumas Elementary's principal, Fiona Rempel, extended congratulations on behalf of the school, noting that Lenjo's exceptional work ethic and determination are putting their small school on the map.

    Lenjo's accomplishments are very well deserved. Congratulations to Lenjo for his remarkable success. We look forward to following him on his journey of academia.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of UBC student Kai Smart, whom I worked with on fundraising for mental health. On March 20, at the age of 23, Kai tragically lost his life in an avalanche in Japan.

    I would like to share some words written by Kai's parents, John and Julia, who said Kai was a mountain man, an explorer of the world and a lover of people from all walks of life. He was an avid skier and adventurer. In his short life, he experienced more than many do in a lifetime.

     What stood out about Kai was how he moved through the world. He connected with people across borders, languages and cultures. He carried curiosity, courage, kindness and humility wherever he went, making others feel welcome, inspired and more alive.

    “Live like Kai” has emerged as a mantra in the mountain community he called home. In his memory, the Smart family is establishing a memorial fund to support young people making a positive impact.

    Rest in peace, Kai.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize five extraordinary young Edmontonians who are proudly representing Alberta and Canada on the world stage.

     Team Gladius from the River City Robotics club competed in the FIRST Tech Challenge, where students design, build and program their own robots from the ground up. In just their second season, these students engineered an award-winning robot and won the Inspire Award, which is the competition's highest award. That victory carried them to the FIRST world championships in Houston as one of only 14 teams from Canada competing, and they did not go to just watch. They won multiple matches against the very best teams in the world, which are much older and much more experienced teams.

     Sam, Jack, Luke, Tavin and Walter, along with their coaches, Kevin, Shawn and Angela, are exactly the innovators our future needs.

     Congratulations to Team Gladius. They have made Edmonton, Alberta and Canada proud.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada is a space-faring nation. We have contributed valuable technologies, research, scientists and engineers, and we are a global leader in the field of space exploration.

    We can now add another achievement to our list of accomplishments. The first Canadian to orbit the moon, Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen, is in Ottawa today following the success of the Artemis II mission.

    This mission has inspired Canadians and stands as a symbol of hope for our continued exploration of the final frontier.

    We commend Mr. Hansen's contribution and, on behalf of all Canadians across the country, thank him for his service.

     Mr. Speaker, thankfully, summer is here, and with its arrival comes the much anticipated opening of our local farmers' markets and the start of festival season in communities across Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

     We are very fortunate to have two major local farmers' markets operating this year. The Barrie Farmers' Market is back outdoors and open every Saturday on Collier Street from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. In Springwater, the Elmvale Farmers' Market kicks off its season on June 11 and will run from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Elmvale municipal parking lot. We are also fortunate to have several fantastic festivals in our region in the coming weeks, including the Troubadour Festival, Kempenfest, Boots and Hearts and many Canada Day celebrations, including those in Elmvale, Hawkstone and Barrie.

    Finally, this weekend, the Barrie Airshow will feature the Snowbirds, providing one of the last chances for residents to see them perform for years.

    I encourage all residents to get out and attend one or all of these great markets and festivals, and I wish them all a happy summer.

    Mr. Speaker, Saturday marked 20 years since the death of OPP sergeant Greg Stobbart, a beloved Burlington resident who was killed by a careless motorist while on a training ride on his bike. He was a dedicated officer with 25 years of experience, a committed athlete and a deeply loved family man and friend.

     In the face of unimaginable loss, Greg's wife, Eleanor McMahon, chose courage. She founded the Share the Road Cycling Coalition, which has since become one of the most influential road safety organizations in Canada. Eleanor's advocacy resulted in “Greg's law”, Ontario's one-metre safe passage law, strengthening penalties for drivers who injure or kill vulnerable road users. From grief to purpose, she transformed road safety in Ontario and saved lives.

     With the 20th-anniversary Share the Road Gran Fondo in Milton and the annual Ontario Bike Summit, we remember Sergeant Stobbart, honour his legacy and together continue the work.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today with profound sadness to pay tribute to a dear friend, a dedicated public servant and a remarkable leader, Murray Fearrey, who passed away on May 28.

     Murray spent his entire life in Haliburton, where he was born and raised and devoted time to his entire community, which he loved. His commitment to public service spanned nearly six decades, beginning in 1971. As reeve and mayor of Dysart, plus 12 years as county warden, he served with unwavering dedication, integrity and compassion, always putting the needs of residents first.

     Murray's impact can be found from Head Lake Park to the arena, the curling club, the library, the hospital, the long-term care centre and many more. He helped shape the institutions for generations that will benefit because of his work.

     Beyond his many accomplishments, of course, Murray was a trusted friend, a source of wise counsel and a true gentleman whose steady leadership earned the respect of all who knew him. I extend my deepest condolences to his partner Donna, his children, his friends and colleagues. May he rest in peace.

    Mr. Speaker, in the 1950s, today's Quebeckers were French Canadians who worked for the English. With the Quiet Revolution, which was also an economic revolution, the Quebec nation was created, along with a class of full-fledged Quebec entrepreneurs. In their garages, in their basements or on their boats, these small business owners started from nothing, often with the support of Caisses Desjardins at the time, and built Quebec's SMEs.

    One of those entrepreneurs is Robert Thibert, who started his business in a garage making rubber mud guards. Thibert has become a large company that distributes various vehicle parts. That is impressive enough. However, in addition to being a tough businessman, although I sometimes find that hard to believe, Robert Thibert is a gentle, attentive, loyal and generous man. For example, he has donated or raised close to $2 million for good causes in his region, in the area around Châteauguay.

    Let us applaud the great generosity and business acumen of a Quebec builder. Every region of Quebec should have somebody like him.

    I want to thank Mr. Thibert. The best is yet to come.

    Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Pride season across Canada, we are reminded that the rights and freedoms many enjoy today should never be taken for granted. Around the world, identifying as 2SLGBTQIA+ remains illegal in 65 countries, and in 12 jurisdictions, individuals still face the death penalty simply for being who they are.

    I would like to recognize the work of the Canadian Pride Caucus, which is well known for its work here at home, but it is also playing an increasingly important international role. Through engagement with foreign parliamentarians, human rights defenders, diplomatic missions and civil society organizations, the caucus helps advance Canada's commitment to dignity, inclusion and protection of human rights on the global scale.

    I invite all colleagues from all parties to join us tomorrow at noon on Parliament Hill for the Pride flag raising. Let us come together to celebrate Pride season and reaffirm Canada's commitment to equality, inclusion and protecting human rights for all. I wish everyone a happy Pride.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Now the Liberals want Canadians arguing over labels: technical recession, marginal recession, full recession. Even the Prime Minister himself admitted a technical recession and a recession are the same thing.

    Families are not sitting around the kitchen table debating definitions. They are looking at higher mortgage payments, grocery bills that keep climbing and paycheques that are not keeping up. Our economy has shrunk in three of the last four quarters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says there is less than a 1% chance that this government meets its own fiscal anchor. Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada is warning that one in 10 Torontonians may not be able to renew their mortgages next year.

    Canadians have worked hard, played by the rules and done everything asked of them. They should not be falling further behind because the government cannot control its spending. Canadians need a serious plan to restore growth, protect paycheques and bring hope back to the Canadian economy.

    Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I joined members of our London community for the annual remembering “our London family” vigil and march, marking the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack that took the lives of Salman, Madiha, Yumnah and Talat Afzaal because they were Muslim. I also had the privilege of spending time with members of the Afzaal family, whose courage and resilience continue to inspire all of us across our city.

    I would like to thank the Youth Coalition Combating Islamophobia for organizing this important commemoration and for its continued advocacy to build a more inclusive and compassionate world. I also want to thank my colleagues who joined me in London for this event.

    As we reflect on the legacy of the Afzaal family, let us recommit ourselves to confronting Islamophobia, rejecting hatred in all its forms and building a Canada where everyone can live safely and with dignity. The Afzaal family will never be forgotten.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has driven Canada into a full-scale recession. Our economy has been shrinking for three of the last four quarters. We are the only G20 country in an economic downturn. While the government tries to downplay it, families know something is wrong. They feel it every day at the checkout counter. Manitobans are worried. I have spoken with farmers, families and small business owners, and they all say the same thing. Everything costs more: groceries, gas, fertilizer and housing.

    At a time when we are seeing record food bank use, the Prime Minister is spending nearly $195,000 on luxury inflight catering. That is outrageous. The budget watchdog said the government has no chance of meeting its own fiscal targets. Growth is slowing, unemployment is growing, and businesses are leaving Canada.

    Manitobans cannot afford the Prime Minister's out-of-touch leadership or his luxury lifestyle. It is time the Liberals replace their costly and inflationary policies with solutions that put Canadians and Manitobans first, not last.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a rising star from my riding of Sackville—Bedford—Preston.

    Ten-year-old Elayce Clayton from North Preston is headed to Dublin, Ireland, this July to represent team Canada at the 2026 Dance World Cup, the second-largest dance competition in the world. Elayce's talent in dance has earned her a solo performance at the competition, where she is certain to make our community and country proud. Even at her young age, Elayce has been preparing for this moment her whole life. According to her mom, Elayce has been dancing on beat since she was just two years old.

    With her training in the categories of jazz, contemporary and hip hop, Elayce has an exciting dance career ahead of her, but first, she is off to Dublin, and no matter where her passion for dance takes her from there, all of us in Nova Scotia will be cheering her on. I offer my congratulations to Elayce.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the only leader in the entire G20 to plunge their economy into a recession. In his own words, he admitted a recession is two consecutive quarters of GDP decline.

    StatsCan confirms that Canada is in a full-blown Liberal recession now. The PBO came out with a scathing report against the government's so-called fiscal anchors. They are all going to be broken. The Liberals are not going to meet their debt-to-GDP ratio. They are going to blow through their own fiscal projection by $7 billion, and they have less than a 1% chance of meeting their deficit-to-GDP ratio. There is a better chance of a Liberal actually answering a question in this place.

    We have solutions. We would remove Liberal antidevelopment laws that block our resources and infrastructure. We would cut taxes for Canadians and Canadian businesses to unlock our Canadian growth, and remove capital gains taxes for companies that reinvest right here in Canada. The incompetent Liberal government just needs to do one thing: get out of the way.

    Mr. Speaker, when the craft safely returned to earth on April 10, an exciting new chapter began in space exploration.

    For the first time in over 50 years, humans left Earth's orbit and journeyed toward the moon, on the Artemis II mission, a mission that marked not only a major milestone in science and space exploration but also a proud moment for Canada. As the first Canadian to participate in a lunar mission, Colonel Jeremy Hansen joins the ranks of great explorers who have pushed the boundaries of what is possible. He and his fellow astronauts demonstrated the courage, dedication and excellence that define humanity's greatest achievements.

    For Canadians, Colonel Hansen's example is a source of pride and inspiration. On behalf of my community, Vaudreuil, all members of the House, and all Canadians, I would like to congratulate Colonel Hansen and the entire Artemis II crew on their historic mission. I thank them for inspiring a new generation to push the boundaries of what is possible.

    Mr. Speaker, while 2.2 million Canadians line up at food banks, the Liberals are still refusing to let Canadians know that we are the only G20 nation in a recession. The apparent reason has something to do with decisions made over the past 11 years and the Liberals' lack of vision. Let us look at the facts: Economic growth is sluggish, productivity is weak and deficits already exceed what was forecast in the budget.

    After a week of dodging the question, can the Prime Minister tell us, yes or no, if we are in a recession? The first step toward solving a problem is to acknowledge it.

     Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member opposite missed the stellar jobs report that came out last Friday. Had he read it, he would have seen that Canada has created some 88,000 jobs. However, there is more good news. In our province, Quebec, the province with the second-lowest unemployment rate, unemployment rates fell for women, youth and men. Across the country, this is good news for Canada. We are going to keep building Canada very strong.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague may not be aware of this, but on May 15, 2016, when the Prime Minister was the governor of the Bank of England, he said that the technical definition of a technical recession is two consecutive quarters of flat or negative growth. Let us look at what is happening in Canada. The economy has slowed down in three of the last four quarters. That is not two quarters, but rather three of the last four quarters.

    What will it take for the Prime Minister to realize that his plan is not working and that the Liberal government's actions over the past 11 years have led us straight into a recession?

    Mr. Speaker, despite the good news we received last Friday regarding employment and unemployment, we know that there are still people in this country who are struggling with affordability. That is why, also on Friday, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit was paid into the bank accounts of 12 million Canadians, providing $543 to single people and $1,086 to couples with two children. That is one-time assistance to Canadians who need it.

     Mr. Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and in the last few days, we have learned more about how bad the numbers actually are. Stats Canada reports that business investment has now fallen for five straight quarters. Labour productivity has declined in three of the last four quarters.

     If the Prime Minister's plan is working, why are Canadian businesses seeing a continuous decline in investment and productivity? Will the Liberals admit that we are in a recession and that their plan is not working at all?

     Mr. Speaker, what a great day it is to be Canadian when we have Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen on the Hill today. He brought this country together.

    The Conservatives love numbers. I know they love numbers, so here is a number for them: 88,000. The Canadian economy created 88,000 jobs in May. That is an amazing accomplishment.

    On this side of the House, we are going to focus on building a Canada strong. It is time for them to get on board.

    Mr. Speaker, while it is good to see some positive job numbers, the fact is that we are still thousands of jobs below where we were at the beginning of this year.

    Under this Liberal Prime Minister, household savings have fallen to their lowest level in years. Families are struggling to keep up with the cost of groceries, housing and other necessities. Some Canadians are now spending more than 120% of their income on food and rent alone. However, the Liberals claim that it is only a technical recession.

     Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why they are only technically worse off after a decade with this Liberal government?

    Mr. Speaker, actually, last Friday in Halifax, I had the honour to announce the one-time top-up payment of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will pay 50% of an annual groceries and essentials benefit return.

    On this side of the House, we are going to build a strong economy. I know that party loves the glass half empty, but on this side, the glass is half full. Our Prime Minister is building a strong economy for all Canadians. We are going to continue to invest in Canada and build Canada strong.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession right now, and it is no surprise why, with the Liberal Prime Minister's record. The economy has shrunk in three of the last four quarters. Labour productivity is getting worse. Investment is leaving the country. Government spending and debt are up. Even the Prime Minister's own hand-picked economic watchdog has had to downgrade the forecast for this country. A government that will not acknowledge the problem sure as heck cannot fix it.

    Will the Prime Minister admit that Canada is in a recession?

    Mr. Speaker, the member says that investment is leaving the country. How about the $20 billion that Shell just invested in this country? How about the $8 billion being invested for the Canadian Armed Forces in Goose Bay? How about the wind farms in Nova Scotia? How about the Darlington nuclear reactors in his province?

    They say investment is leaving this country. They should wake up and see what is going on.

    Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister were as interested in the jobs of Canadians as he is in his own.

    The Parliamentary Budget Officer said the Liberal government has a 1% chance of meeting its fiscal anchor, which is still better odds than getting a straight answer from the government in question period. Behind these numbers are people: people in food bank lines, people going on unemployment, young people who cannot get that critical first job. The London region, which includes St. Thomas and Elgin, has lost another 600 jobs in the last month, bringing it up to over 21,000 in the last two and a half years.

    Maybe the minister will not tell me there is a recession, but will he tell these Canadians there is?

    Mr. Speaker, what I am not interested in is his job. I am interested in the 18,000 jobs we have created at Darlington. I am interested in the 2,000 jobs we have created at Contrecœur. I am interested in the 8,000 jobs at LNG Canada. I am interested in the 5,000 jobs we are going to create at Ksi Lisims. I could keep going.

    He should start worrying about his job.

    Mr. Speaker, this time it is clear. The Prime Minister is abandoning the cultural sector in the face of American digital giants. Not only is he capitulating on the levy increase demanded from streaming platforms like Netflix, Prime, and Disney, but we also found out that he will require the CRTC to cancel every last bit of funding for Quebec and Canadian content. Even the meagre 5% that Ottawa was trying to impose is too much for the Prime Minister. In one fell swoop, he is undoing 10 years of fighting to defend our creators.

    Is he at least aware that he is openly threatening the future of Quebec culture?

    Mr. Speaker, only the Bloc Québécois would stand up in the House and vote against three-quarters of a billion dollars for culture, for CBC/Radio-Canada, for Telefilm Canada and for the National Film Board of Canada.

    Next, the Bloc Québécois members are going to turn their noses up at the $600 million offered to a cultural sector that we love and must support. While they pretend to support culture, we are taking action.

    Mr. Speaker, we predicted his appointment would be a disaster, and it is. The Prime Minister is once again abandoning Quebec culture because of Washington. The Union des artistes and the entire cultural community spoke out against it in the media on Saturday. Their letter is entitled “Chronicle of a disappearance foretold”, because our culture is sure to disappear unless the Prime Minister grows a proverbial spine.

    The European Union collects levies from the web giants. It even lets its member states add to them. Why is the Prime Minister incapable of taking a stand?

    Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more disastrous than that kind of question, especially coming from someone who was once the president of the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, or ADISQ. Earlier, ADISQ said that it was a good investment.

    We Liberals will invest in culture while the Bloc Québécois members keep pretending to help while doing nothing.

    Mr. Speaker, at least he prepares his answers. That is $3.4 billion that will be lost in the creative sector in Quebec and Canada. The minister is going to invest $600 million that he is taking directly out of taxpayers' pockets. He is talking about an announcement he made almost a year ago, before all the disastrous decisions made by the Prime Minister, who is kowtowing to the United States. He is even threatening the very existence of the convention on the diversity of cultural expressions, which originated in Quebec. That I know. I was there when it happened.

    Why is the Prime Minister giving up on the existence of a distinct French-Canadian culture?

    Mr. Speaker, while my colleague is spouting nonsense and talking about betrayal, we will continue to invest in Quebec and Canadian culture, not by waiting for years but by investing now.

    It is a bit rich for the member opposite to be talking about betrayal when he shows up in the House of Commons every day to try to destroy the country that I love.

     Mr. Speaker, under the costly Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. In the past few days, we have learned so much more about the dire state of our economy under his watch. While the cost of living skyrockets, our economy has shrunk for two quarters straight. Businesses are fleeing. Capital investment has plunged for five consecutive quarters, and Scotiabank warns that our growth is less than half that of the U.S.

    Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his policies caused the Liberal recession, or is he so out of touch that he thinks Canadians are just imagining their economic despair?

     Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my opposition colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador that employment numbers are up in our province. I also want to remind her once again of the almost $1 billion for small craft harbours, growing our rural, coastal and indigenous communities that support our fisheries, an essential part of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

    There are also supports around housing, road construction, infrastructure, community centres, and on and on this goes. We are actually in a time of growth. I hope the member gets on board.

    Mr. Speaker, clearly Liberal photo ops and empty Liberal announcements will not pay the mortgages of struggling Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just confirmed that there is less than a 1% chance that the Liberal government hits its own deficit targets. It is already borrowing $7 billion more than it admitted, while driving up bloated bureaucracy to $86 billion. The broad economic picture is getting worse, not better.

    Will the Liberal Prime Minister tell us, are we in a recession, or are Canadians just technically doing worse after a decade of Liberals being in power?

    Mr. Speaker, I will once again remind the member opposite that when we get people to work, when we invest in our young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians with programs like the apprenticeship program, which walks with them throughout the journey to a Red Seal designation, and when we have construction jobs, it enhances our economy and it raises our employment numbers, which we are now seeing.

    This is what it takes to build Canada strong. Empty slogans and negative responses are not helpful. I invite the member to work alongside us.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. There has been no answer as to why the government has failed us and brought us into a recession. First, it was a technical recession, but when Canadians pushed back, it became tariffs. When that did not stick, it became not enough spending and not enough immigration: What?

    When Canadians have to steal 10 billion dollars' worth of groceries because of affordability, is it because they are only technically hungry?

    Mr. Speaker, we are seeing rents come down across Canada right now. We are seeing 20 straight months of rents declining, which is a positive trend. We are investing in the affordable housing that Canada needs to make sure that Canadians can afford housing. We are investing in discounts and rebates with the groceries and essentials benefit, benefits for children and food programs, across the board.

    This side of the House votes for affordability. That side of the House votes against it.

    Mr. Speaker, I have hope that one day the government will actually answer questions and take accountability, but it seems as though today is not that day.

    When the news broke that Canada is in a recession, my very first thought was, “When is the government going to ask for another blank cheque?” It is already borrowing over its budget. The spring economic update said it would borrow $65 billion this year. However, the budget watchdog says it is going to be $72 billion.

    I would like to know just how much the Prime Minister will tell Canadians it is going to take to fix it.

     Mr. Speaker, we are making unprecedented investments in Canada's community infrastructure: $51 billion in the build communities strong fund, which is going into our communities for community centres, for housing-enabling infrastructure and for public transit. These are unprecedented investments to make Canada more affordable and to get jobs on the ground across Canada for our young people, with 100,000 new tradespeople who will be trained, supported by this House again. The other side of the House does not support any of this action. They are just negative. They should get with the program.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. The economy has shrunk in two consecutive quarters. Per capita GDP is only up 1.5% over seven years, and labour productivity has declined for four years straight. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer said there is a less than 1% chance that the government will meet its fiscal anchor.

    Will the Prime Minister tell us if we are in a recession, or are Canadians only technically doing worse after a decade of Liberal rule?

    Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are talking to me about the fact that they see we are facing headwinds for our economy right now. They see the U.S. charging tariffs that have not been seen since the Great Depression. They see the work that we are doing to invest in labour and to invest in good jobs for individuals, and they see the employment numbers coming up. British Columbians are optimistic, and they want us to continue the work we are doing.

    Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberals caused these economic headwinds. The fact is that the Liberal Prime Minister is the only prime minister who is running this country, which is in a recession. Canadian banks are now warning of economic decline, with Scotiabank forecasting just 0.8% growth for Canada compared to 1.9% in the United States, while BMO projects even weaker growth, 0.5%, in 2026. It is not only that, but the Liberals are already borrowing billions of dollars over their projected costly budget.

    Will the Prime Minister finally admit that Canada is technically in a real recession?

    Mr. Speaker, as I said, British Columbians see that we are facing headwinds caused by geopolitical events and tariffs. The U.S. has fundamentally changed its approach to trade, raising tariffs to levels that have not been seen since the Great Depression. Canadians want to see the steps that we are taking to address this. They want to see the diversification of trade. They want to see us invest in major projects, and they want to see us invest in Canadian workers. Why can our colleagues not join with us to make these investments?

    Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and the Prime Minister has zero respect for the sacrifices Canadians are making every day. We know families are cutting back. Businesses are delaying investment. Productivity is falling. A former central banker is driving the economy, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, appointed by him, is saying there is a 99% chance he is going to drive the economy into a ditch.

     Will the Prime Minister admit Canada is in a recession, or does he believe Canadians are better off after 10 years of Liberal rule?

    Mr. Speaker, instead of gleefully running down the economy, which the opposition does every day, those members should help us build it up. They do not like to point out that 88,000 new jobs were created, as said in the May report. They do not like to point out that wages have grown faster than inflation every month since we took office. They do not like to point out that rents are down 9%. In Windsor, when we invest in Central Stampings and when we invest in Unique Tool & Gauge, which we have done, the Conservatives oppose investing in their own communities.

     They should get with the program and build this country up together.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is overstepping once again. He wants to be able to re-authorize, by order in council, pesticides that have been banned on scientific grounds. In a provision buried in the omnibus budget Bill C‑30, he wants to give himself the right to overturn Health Canada's decisions by invoking undefined concepts such as economic security. Researchers and health and environmental organizations are unanimous: this is an anti-science measure serving the interests of large agrochemical companies. They are here today to ask for one thing.

    Will the government remove this provision from Bill C‑30?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

    I would like to say something to my colleague, and I will be very clear. The health of Canadians will always be the Canadian government's top priority. That said, we can also work with the agricultural sector and protect Canada's food sovereignty. As I always say, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are hiding a measure in Bill C‑30 that allows pesticides banned for scientific reasons to be re-authorized. This is the biggest setback since the Pest Control Products Act was created in 2002. Not only is the Minister of Health not upset about this, she even boasted that she was the only minister to ever attend a CropLife Canada event. CropLife Canada is an association of agrochemical companies that includes the pesticide giant Bayer.

    Why is the Minister of Health standing up for the profits of multinationals instead of standing up for public health?

    Mr. Speaker, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency do indeed fall under Health Canada. It is therefore perfectly normal for me to engage with the sectors I represent, because I need to meet with them to understand their concerns.

    On the first point the member raised, I do not understand, because normally, when I am responsible for something, I have to meet with stakeholders. I will say it again: We will never authorize a product that would put anyone's life at risk.

    Mr. Speaker, let us talk facts. Under this Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is reining in her growth forecasts. The RBC, TD Bank and BMO have downgraded their outlooks. Canadians look on as their standard of living erodes. The Prime Minister, however, still refuses to utter the word “recession”.

    I am therefore going to ask him this simple question again: Are we in a recession or are Canadians only theoretically poorer than before, after a decade of Liberal rule?

    Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development anticipates that Canada will achieve the second-strongest growth of the G7. Over the past year, foreign direct investment in Canada reached twice what it was for our G7 peers. For 38 months, wages have risen faster in Canada than inflation. On top of it all, one especially stubborn fact that displeases the Conservatives is last month's good news for Canada's economy with the creation of 88,000 jobs, because Canada's economy is a lot more resilient. This resilience is due in part to the efforts of this government.

    Mr. Speaker, here is another figure. There are 45,000 fewer Canadians in the workforce than at the beginning of the year. These facts speak for themselves.

    The Parliamentary Budget Officer just completely dismantled the economic narrative put forward by the Prime Minister and the minister opposite: We are facing lower growth, higher deficits and declining productivity, and we are the only G20 country that is in a recession. What is worse, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there is a 99% chance that the government will fail to meet its own fiscal anchor.

    The Liberal Prime Minister presents himself as a great economist. How would he describe a situation in which the economy is shrinking, Canadians are getting poorer and the government has no chance of meeting its anchor? Canadians call that a recession.

    Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Conservatives are overjoyed whenever we face even the slightest headwind in the Canadian economy. However, on this side of the House, we wake up in the morning and ask ourselves what we can do despite external circumstances, despite the illegal and unjustified tariff war we are facing. What can we do to build Canada's economy?

    We are investing in Nouveau Monde Graphite, the biggest graphite mine in the G7. We are investing in high-speed rail between Quebec City and Toronto. We are designating the Port of Québec as an international container port. We are investing in 150 Airbus aircraft, and we created 88,000 jobs last month. That is what we are doing on this side of the House.

    Mr. Speaker, I have a brief reminder for the minister. The country's best years were under the Conservatives.

    Slower growth and a higher deficit: That is the alarming assessment from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The result is that GDP per capita growth in Canada remains among the lowest in the G20; the Canadian economy has contracted over the last two quarters; and under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in recession.

    I have a simple multiple-choice question for the Prime Minister: Has Canada entered a recession or a technical recession?

    Mr. Speaker, we are focused on economic growth and we are working hard to achieve it. Our plan is working. The youth unemployment rate has fallen by nearly 1%. That means 22,000 jobs for our young people. What is more, we are investing $6 billion in the skilled trades to recruit, hire and train 100,000 young people. We on this side of the House are building Canada strong for everyone.

    Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I asked whether we were in a technical recession or a recession. Once again, there is no answer. In order to solve a problem, we first have to acknowledge that a problem exists. However, the Liberals still refuse to acknowledge that Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Liberals are going to add $318 billion to the national debt by 2031, assuming no other measures are put in place. There is no limit on the Liberal credit card.

    Will the government finally put an end to its mismanagement, which has, unfortunately, plunged Canada into a recession?

    Mr. Speaker, our government has a plan to transform the foundation of our economy and make it more resilient. We are creating tens of thousands of jobs, particularly in Darlington and Contrecoeur.

    We are investing in hospitals, community centres, public transit and affordable housing. We are creating the conditions for long-term prosperity and building Canada strong from coast to coast to coast.

    Mr. Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report confirms that the deficit could be as high as $72 billion in 2026. Meanwhile, Canadians' purchasing power has stagnated since 2015. For Quebeckers, that means that groceries, mortgages and gas are more expensive.

    Are these technical bills, or will the Prime Minister admit that Canada is in a recession?

    Mr. Speaker, since this summer, we have created more than 165,000 jobs here in Canada. In May alone, 88,000 jobs were created. If we look at the United States, for example, we see that Canada is creating jobs. The number of jobs created per capita in Canada is almost double that of the United States. It is great to see that so many Canadians are optimistic and have a positive outlook on the future.

    Mr. Speaker, young people deserve to grow up in safe, united communities brimming with opportunities.

    Could the Secretary of State for Children and Youth explain for the House what the historic agreement reached last week with Quebec means for young people in Quebec and Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Terrebonne for her question.

    Our government invested $10 billion in Quebec, and young people are going to reap the benefits. We are going to build modern school campuses, hospitals and emergency rooms. We are going to improve public transit to take people to school and to work. We are building a strong economy for our youth and for our future.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and the state of the economy is dire. The economy has shrunk three out of the last four quarters, per capita GDP shows annualized growth of only 0.2% per year over the last seven years, capital investment has declined for five quarters in a row and bankruptcies have hit rates not seen since 2009.

    At what point do the Liberals stop calling these technicalities and start admitting that Canadians were promised growth and fiscal responsibility but got a recession instead?

    Mr. Speaker, it is times like this that remind me of the famous pragmatic philosopher William James, who famously said, “Pessimism leads to weakness, optimism to power.” Perhaps there is no quote that could better explain the misfortunes of the Conservative Party of Canada in the House. However, let us be honest. Despite the headwinds, there is much to be optimistic about in the Canadian economy: 1.5% in consumer spending, wages outpacing inflation every month this government has been in power and 88,000 jobs in May. That is 800—

     The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora has the floor.

    Mr. Speaker, if denial could grow the economy, we would certainly be leading in the G20. Canada is in a recession. Scotiabank has forecast growth of just 0.8% and BMO 0.5% for this year. The Bank of Canada warns that one in 10 homeowners in Toronto might not be able to renew their mortgage. While the Liberals may try to dismiss this recession, Canadians cannot ignore losing their jobs and businesses or delaying retirement.

    Will the Prime Minister acknowledge these recessionary conditions Canadians are facing are real, or are those just technicalities too?

    Mr. Speaker, I want Canadians to realize what the Conservatives choose to spend their time on in a time of great anxiety and uncertainty. They choose to amplify bad news in our economy. They choose to be pessimistic at a time when Canadians need optimism.

    Canadians need a government that lifts them up. That is what our government is doing by investing in 12 million Canadians with the groceries and essentials benefit. We are celebrating 88,000 new jobs in the Canadian economy, exceeding expectations by 800%. That is the kind of government Canadians deserve.

     They deserve much better—

    The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and in the past few days, we have learned much more about how dire the state of our economy is under his watch. On Saturday night, in a Lake Cowichan pub, workers told me their biggest worry was affording groceries, but the Liberals' recycled grocery stunt cuts off at only $59,000 for a couple, meaning that full-time workers are shut out.

    The Prime Minister laughed at suffering Canadians in this House last week. Will he stop laughing and start caring so that Canadians can afford to eat?

    Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve facts, not Conservative fear. Labelling the economy without context does not help workers or businesses. The Bank of Canada has, in fact, cautioned against doing that.

     Economies around the world are facing global uncertainty, but Canada is weathering these global headwinds better than many of our peers. Our economy is stable, jobs are being created and we continue to support Canadians through these headwinds.

    We will remain focused on affordability, economic growth and supporting jobs, while the Conservatives remain focused on fearmongering.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. The economy has shrunk for two straight quarters, and in three of the last four quarters. Productivity is declining. Businesses are struggling. Families are working hard and unable to get ahead. Young people feel locked out of jobs, housing and starting a family. Canada's economy is getting worse, not better.

    Will the Prime Minister tell us if we are in a recession, or does he believe Canadians are only technically struggling to pay their bills?

    Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives' photocopier is out of toner, because they have all received the exact same photocopy of the exact same question. It is too bad that the Conservative leader does not trust his MPs to ask an original question. Perhaps they might ask about their local businesses or something that is happening in their own province. It is the same question over and again.

     We have to stick to the facts. Canada's economy is growing. In fact, Canada has surpassed the U.S. when it comes to having a higher employment rate. The Canadian economy, because Canadians are working hard, added 88,000 jobs in the last month.

     We have a plan and we are working hard to make sure that Canadians are getting ahead.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada has become the only country in the G20 in a recession. Businesses are no longer investing in Canada. Even the banks have lost faith. Scotiabank and BMO are projecting growth at less than half of that of the United States.

     The first step to fixing any problem is admitting that there is one. Will the Liberal Prime Minister admit to Canadians that we are in a recession, or will he continue to tell them they are only technically suffering after a decade of Liberal rule?

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Alberta on the Conservative benches must have missed the latest job numbers for our province. Employment in Alberta is up 104,000 compared to this time last year. It is the strongest year-over-year jobs growth of any province. This is thanks to resilient Alberta workers and businesses that are building, hiring, investing and helping to drive Canada's economy forward.

     Conservatives from Alberta should stop talking down their own constituents and acknowledge the work they are doing to build a better economy.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals on the health committee are blocking an investigation into the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. For over a month, they have stopped the committee from holding any new meetings to get answers. They have shut down meetings. They have turned off committee cameras. They have blocked the health minister from testifying. Now, in a disgusting political stunt, they are using Canadians suffering with HIV as an excuse to bury the truth.

     If the Liberals have nothing to hide, will they come clean today and allow a full investigation into the PrescribeIT $300-million scandal?

    Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. There were governance issues with Canada Health Infoway. Someone from the federal government sits on the board of directors, and the necessary measures were taken. The CEO has left, and we have an acting director right now.

    The people involved are currently reviewing the mandates together to see how we can do a better job of solving the governance issues.

    Mr. Speaker, despite handing 300 million tax dollars over to Canada Health Infoway for the government's failed PrescribeIT project, we can see that the Liberals have no interest in finding out why or how this money was wasted. The Liberals have voted down every attempt to get the answers.

     The Conservatives have been clear. We will work through the summer to get to the bottom of this. Canadians want to hear the minister and the former CEO provide testimony.

     Will the minister tell her Liberal colleagues to end their obstruction and get to the bottom of this scandal?

    Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer, but first, I would like to talk about the Standing Committee on Health's study on AIDS, which the Conservatives are blocking. I just want to tell them that there is a national crisis, particularly in Manitoba. That is the first thing I would say.

    The second thing I would say is that, yes, the board is reviewing the governance and the mandate. It will do so and report back by the end of the summer.

     Mr. Speaker, Canada Health Infoway blew $300 million of taxpayer money on PrescribeIT. They have blown $1 billion over 10 years with nothing tangible to show for it. For six weeks, they have failed to produce the documents the health committee has ordered them to produce.

     The health minister now says this totally dysfunctional organization will undergo a mandate review. Can she tell us how long the review will take and how much money the review will cost? Why does she not take the obvious decision today and pull their $50 million of yearly funding now?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The first thing I have to say is that, in the Canadian government, we are careful with every dollar we spend. That is why, when we realized that Canada Health Infoway was not completely fulfilling its mission, we decided to halt funding. That is the first thing.

    However, it is also important to know that the Canadian health care system needs to be modernized, and Canada Health Infoway, despite its governance issues, did a good job. The AI scribe program has really had a lot of—

    The hon. member for Red Deer.

    Mr. Speaker, it is week eight of the Liberals' obstruction at the health committee. They are desperately covering up the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal and the hundreds of millions wasted on a failed program that made Liberal insiders rich and did not fill prescriptions.

     Angry Canadians are calling out the Liberals and asking them to stop the obstruction, but apparently they are more afraid of getting yelled at by the Prime Minister again. The Liberals must end this two-month cover-up so that the Conservatives can get the answers Canadians deserve.

     What are the Liberals hiding?

     Mr. Speaker, these questions, written by the—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     There is too much noise. I cannot hear.

    The hon. government House leader can start from the beginning.

    Mr. Speaker, these questions, written by the Leader of the Opposition, are not really convincing anyone.

     What is convincing people is this attitude coming from the Conservative benches that what is a headwind and a challenge for Canada ought to be blamed on Canada. The “blame Canada brigade”, as people are calling them, skips in here at any hint of bad news for the Canadian economy, but when we remind them about 88,000 new jobs, they go into hiding.

    Hooray for Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, our government's goal is to build a stronger and more resilient Canadian economy to protect our jobs and industries. As this plan is rolled out, we are also providing support and assistance to make life more affordable.

    Can the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement provide the House with information on the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit and how it will help Canadian families?

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. Finally, someone asked me a good question. My colleague is right to highlight this initiative.

    Last Friday, June 5, 12 million Canadians received the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, including three million Quebeckers. For a family of four, this can amount to up to $1,890 a year to help cover the cost of groceries.

    That was not the only good news last Friday. Canada has created 88,000 jobs and, for the 38th consecutive month, wages are rising faster than inflation.

    Our plan to build a strong Canada and a prosperous economy for everyone is working.

    Mr. Speaker, Durham police just exposed a major criminal tourism ring, laying 1,500 charges against dozens of non-citizen criminals, primarily from Romania and India. Today, there are even more reports about the Bishnoi Gang, a violent extortion racket that has been recruiting Indian foreign nationals whom the Liberals let into Canada on foreign student visas.

    The Liberals' lax border policies and catch-and-release bail policies have turned Canada into a playground for international criminals. Which minister will finally be fired for this disgusting failure?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Durham police, Peel police and many police forces around this country that are working very hard, day in and day out, to crack down on organized crime. They have laid many arrests and many charges, and the criminal justice system will be dealing with these criminals.

     These are organized international crime groups. Many countries are suffering from their coordinated efforts, but Canada is cracking down and will punish these criminals.

    Mr. Speaker, the Durham police are busy because the Liberals lack screening policies, lack a criminal justice system and let these people into the country to begin with, which is a problem. It is the same light-touch process that recently granted a visitor permit to an IRGC terrorist.

     What is the best way to stop non-citizen criminals from committing crimes in Canada? It is preventing them from entering the country in the first place. Can the Liberals tell the victims of these violent, non-citizen criminals how they got into Canada to begin with?

    Mr. Speaker, do members know what victims in my community ask me? They ask me how long investigations will take. In order to speed up investigations and provide further tools to law enforcement, they need Bill C-22 to pass. However, the Conservatives in this House have been delaying that bill and have been on the side of social media giants, instead of on the side of Canadians so that public safety can be served.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody in Canada is buying that. Everyone sees what happened here. The Liberals had mass immigration and open border policies coupled with a woke judiciary and catch-and-release bail policies for a decade. Now, people across the country, law-abiding Canadians and newcomers alike, are paying the price.

    The Liberals rejected our common-sense Conservative bill that would have ensured that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes are sentenced based on their crimes, not on their passports. Why would they do that? Why are they continuing this craziness and allowing non-citizen criminal rings to continue to harass—

     The hon. secretary of state.

    Mr. Speaker, these crime groups are linked to many countries around the world, and law enforcement is finding that these criminals are operating not just from within Canada, but from many different countries.

    Do members know what would help? It would help to be able to investigate these crimes within Canada and be able to pass Bill C-22. We are one of the only western countries that does not have a legal access framework.

     When will the Conservatives become tough on crime? The government is ready to do the work.

     Mr. Speaker, last Friday, families in my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South woke up to good news. May's labour force survey showed robust job gains, which is a promising sign that our economic plan is bearing fruit. Also, the CRA began issuing payments under our government's enhanced Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which is equal to a 50% increase over the previous GST credit.

     Can the Secretary of State for the CRA and Financial Institutions update this House on how our economic plan is setting a long-term trajectory for growth and resilience, while also making life more affordable for Canadians here and now?

     Mr. Speaker, the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South's question is another great one today.

     Last week in Halifax, I was proud to announce that the CRA began issuing the top-up groceries and essentials benefit. By introducing that benefit, we are going to build a strong Canada. We are going to support families. We are going to build a strong economy. We see evidence of that with 88,000 jobs created just last month.

    The glass is half empty; the Conservatives are going to talk down our economy. We are going to build Canada strong.

    Mr. Speaker, Bill from the valley is a home renovation contractor. He called me to tell me that, by the end of May, he is usually fully booked for the entire season. It is June, and he has just two projects booked. People are more worried about putting food on the table than about fixing a leaky roof or a broken porch. He thinks he may have to take on an extra line of work.

    Will the Prime Minister tell Bill that Canada is in a recession, or is he going to tell Bill that he is just technically running out of work to do?

    Mr. Speaker, there are many signs of progress in the Canadian economy. There is a 1.5% increase in consumer spending, and GDP per capita is up almost 1%. Wages have outpaced inflation, and the new May job numbers came out just last Friday. I know the Conservatives want to completely and wilfully ignore those numbers, but there are 88,000 net new jobs in the Canadian economy, 800% beyond expectations and recovering 80% of the job losses due to the tariff threats from the United States.

    That is good news for Canada. We are building the foundations.

    Mr. Speaker, Alberta is considering several routes for a new diluted bitumen pipeline and export terminals through northern British Columbia, yet the Nisga'a Nation says that neither Alberta nor the federal Liberal government has discussed any oil pipeline proposal with the Nisga'a government. Reconciliation cannot mean making decisions first and talking to first nations later.

    Will the government commit today to meaningful consultation, accommodation and free, prior and informed consent of affected first nations, and to upholding the north coast oil tanker ban?

    Mr. Speaker, when the proponent has a path, there will be the duty to consult and, if necessary, accommodate. However, there is no project so far, so the duty to consult has not begun yet.

    It being 3:09 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-16.

    Call in the members.

     And the bells having rung:

    The Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1.

    A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.