Bill C-59

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) limiting the deductibility of net interest and financing expenses by certain corporations and trusts, consistent with certain Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Twenty Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project recommendations;
(b) implementing hybrid mismatch rules consistent with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Twenty Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project recommendations regarding cross-border tax avoidance structures that exploit differences in the income tax laws of two or more countries to produce “deduction/non-inclusion mismatches”;
(c) allowing expenditures incurred in the exploration and development of all lithium to qualify as Canadian exploration expenses and Canadian development expenses;
(d) ensuring that only genuine intergenerational business transfers are excluded from the anti-surplus stripping rule in section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act ;
(e) denying the dividend received deduction for dividends received by Canadian financial institutions on certain shares that are held as mark-to-market property;
(f) increasing the rate of the rural supplement for Climate Action Incentive payments (CAIP) from 10% to 20% for the 2023 and subsequent taxation years as well as referencing the 2016 census data for the purposes of the CAIP rural supplement eligibility for the 2023 and 2024 taxation years;
(g) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for eligible carbon capture, utilization and storage equipment;
(h) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying businesses for eligible clean technology equipment;
(i) introducing, under certain circumstances, labour requirements in relation to the new refundable investment tax credits for eligible carbon capture, utilization and storage equipment as well as eligible clean technology equipment;
(j) removing the requirement that credit unions derive no more than 10% of their revenue from sources other than certain specified sources;
(k) permitting a qualifying family member to acquire rights as successor of a holder of a Registered Disability Savings Plan following the death of that plan’s last remaining holder who was also a qualifying family member;
(l) implementing consequential changes of a technical nature to facilitate the operation of the existing rules for First Home Savings Accounts;
(m) introducing a tax of 2% on the net value of equity repurchases by certain Canadian corporations, trusts and partnerships whose equity is listed on a designated stock exchange;
(n) exempting certain fees from the refundable tax applicable to contributions under retirement compensation arrangements;
(o) introducing a technical amendment to the provision that authorizes the sharing of taxpayer information for the purposes of the Canadian Dental Care Plan;
(p) implementing a number of amendments to the general anti-avoidance rule (GAAR) as well as introducing a new penalty applicable to transactions subject to the GAAR and extending the normal reassessment period for the GAAR by three years in certain circumstances;
(q) facilitating the creation of employee ownership trusts;
(r) introducing specific anti-avoidance rules in relation to corporations referred to as substantive CCPCs; and
(s) extending the phase-out by three years, and expanding the eligible activities, in relation to the reduced tax rates for certain zero-emission technology manufacturers.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, 2001 .
Part 2 enacts the Digital Services Tax Act and its regulations. That Act provides for the implementation of an annual tax of 3% on certain types of digital services revenue earned by businesses that meet certain revenue thresholds. It sets out rules for the purposes of establishing liability for the tax and also sets out applicable reporting and filing requirements. To promote compliance with its provisions, that Act includes modern administration and enforcement provisions generally aligned with those found in other taxation statutes. Finally, this Part also makes related and consequential amendments to other texts to ensure proper implementation of the tax and cohesive and efficient administration by the Canada Revenue Agency.
Part 3 implements certain Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) measures by
(a) ensuring that an interest in a corporation that does not have its capital divided into shares is treated as a financial instrument for GST/HST purposes;
(b) ensuring that interest and dividend income from a closely related partnership is not included in the determination of whether a person is a de minimis financial institution for GST/HST purposes;
(c) ensuring that an election related to supplies made within a closely related group of persons that includes a financial institution may not be revoked on a retroactive basis without the permission of the Minister of National Revenue;
(d) making technical amendments to an election that allows electing members of a closely related group to treat certain supplies made between them as having been made for nil consideration;
(e) ensuring that certain supplies between the members of a closely related group are not inadvertently taxed under the imported taxable supply rules that apply to financial institutions;
(f) raising the income threshold for the requirement to file an information return by certain financial institutions;
(g) allowing up to seven years to assess the net tax adjustments owing by certain financial institutions in respect of the imported taxable supply rules;
(h) expanding the GST/HST exemption for services rendered to individuals by certain health care practitioners to include professional services rendered by psychotherapists and counselling therapists;
(i) providing relief in relation to the GST/HST treatment of payment card clearing services;
(j) allowing the joint venture election to be made in respect of the operation of a pipeline, rail terminal or truck terminal that is used for the transportation of oil, natural gas or related products;
(k) raising the input tax credit (ITC) documentation thresholds from $30 to $100 and from $150 to $500 and allowing billing agents to be treated as intermediaries for the purposes of the ITC information rules; and
(l) extending the 100% GST rebate in respect of new purpose-built rental housing to certain cooperative housing corporations.
It also implements an excise tax measure by creating a joint election mechanism to specify who is eligible to claim a rebate of excise tax for goods purchased by provinces for their own use.
Part 4 implements certain excise measures by
(a) allowing vaping product licensees to import packaged vaping products for stamping by the licensee and entry into the Canadian duty-paid market as of January 1, 2024;
(b) permitting all cannabis licensees to elect to remit excise duties on a quarterly rather than a monthly basis, starting from the quarter that began on April 1, 2023;
(c) amending the marking requirements for vaping products to ensure that the volume of the vaping substance is marked on the package;
(d) requiring that a person importing vaping products must be at least 18 years old; and
(e) introducing administrative penalties for certain infractions related to the vaping taxation framework.
Part 5 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Subdivision A of Division 1 of Part 5 amends Subdivision A of Division 16 of Part 6 of the Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1 to clarify the scope of certain non-financial activities in which federal ‚financial institutions may engage and to remove certain discrepancies between the English and French versions of that Act.
Subdivision B of Division 1 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, permit federal financial institutions governed by those Acts to hold certain meetings by virtual means without having to obtain a court order and to permit voting during those meetings by virtual means.
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, provide a leave of absence of three days in the event of a pregnancy loss and modify certain provisions related to bereavement leave.
Division 3 of Part 5 enacts the Canada Water Agency Act . That Act establishes the Canada Water Agency, whose role is to assist the Minister of the Environment in exercising or performing that Minister’s powers, duties and functions in relation to fresh water. The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the making of regulations respecting fees or charges to be paid by tobacco and vaping product manufacturers for the purpose of recovering the costs incurred by His Majesty in right of Canada in relation to the carrying out of the purpose of that Act;
(b) provide for related administration and enforcement measures; and
(c) require information relating to the fees or charges to be made available to the public.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Payments Act to, among other things, provide that additional persons are entitled to be members of the Canadian Payments Association and clarify the composition of that Association’s Stakeholder Advisory Council.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to, among other things,
(a) modernize the merger review regime, including by modifying certain notification rules, clarifying that Act’s application to labour markets, allowing the Competition Tribunal to consider the effect of changes in market share and the likelihood of coordination between competitors following a merger, extending the limitation period for mergers that were not the subject of a notification to the Commissioner of Competition and placing a temporary restraint on the completion of certain mergers until the Tribunal has disposed of any application for an interim order;
(b) improve the effectiveness of the provisions that address anti-competitive conduct, including by allowing the Commissioner to review the effects of past agreements and arrangements, ensuring that an order related to a refusal to deal may address a refusal to supply a means of diagnosis or repair and ensuring that representations of a product’s benefits for protecting the environment must be supported by adequate and proper tests;
(c) strengthen the enforcement framework, including by creating new remedial orders, such as administrative monetary penalties, with respect to those collaborations that harm competition, by creating a civilly enforceable procedure to address non-compliance with certain provisions of that Act and by broadening the classes of persons who may bring private cases before the Tribunal and providing for the availability of monetary payments as a remedy in those cases; and
(d) provide for new procedures, such as the certification of agreements or arrangements related to protecting the environment and a remedial process for reprisal actions.
The Division also amends the Competition Tribunal Act to prevent the Competition Tribunal from awarding costs against His Majesty in right of Canada, except in specified circumstances.
Finally, the Division makes a consequential amendment to one other Act.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act to exclude from their application prescribed public post-secondary educational institutions.
Subdivision A of Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that, if a person or entity referred to in section 5 of that Act has reasonable grounds to suspect possible sanctions evasion, the relevant information is reported to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada;
(b) add reporting requirements for persons and entities providing certain services in respect of private automatic banking machines;
(c) require declarations respecting money laundering, the financing of terrorist activities and sanctions evasion to be made in relation to the importation and exportation of goods; and
(d) authorize the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada to disclose designated information to the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, subject to certain conditions.
It also amends the Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1 in relation to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and makes consequential amendments to other Acts and a regulation.
Subdivision B of Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) in certain circumstances, provide that a court may infer the knowledge or belief or recklessness required in relation to the offence of laundering proceeds of crime and specify that it is not necessary for the prosecutor to prove that the accused knew, believed they knew or was reckless as to the specific nature of the designated offence;
(b) remove, in the context of the special warrants and restraint order in relation to proceeds of crime, the requirement for the Attorney General to give an undertaking, as well as permit a judge to attach conditions to a special warrant for search and seizure of property that is proceeds of crime; and
(c) modify certain provisions relating to the production order for financial data to include elements specific to accounts associated with digital assets.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Seized Property Management Act and the Forfeited Property Sharing Regulations .
Division 9 of Part 5 retroactively amends section 42 of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to specify the payments about which information must be published on a Government of Canada website, as well as the information that must be published.
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act to increase the number of directors in the Public Sector Pension Investment Board, as well as to provide for consultation with the portion of the National Joint Council of the Public Service of Canada that represents employees when certain candidates are included on the list for proposed appointment as directors.
Division 11 of Part 5 enacts the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Act , which establishes the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, confers on the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities various responsibilities relating to public infrastructure and confers on the Minister of Housing various responsibilities relating to housing and the reduction and prevention of homelessness. The Division also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund Act .
Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things, create a benefit of 15 weeks for claimants who are carrying out responsibilities related to
(a) the placement with the claimant of one or more children for the purpose of adoption; or
(b) the arrival of one or more new-born children of the claimant into the claimant’s care, in the case where the person who will be giving or gave birth to the child or children is not, or is not intended to be, a parent of the child or children.
The Division also amends the Canada Labour Code to create a leave of absence of up to 16 weeks for an employee to carry out such responsibilities.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver, BC]

moved that Bill C-59, An Act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement tabled in Parliament on November 21, 2023 and certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 28, 2023, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise in the House for the last time, I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin people.

I hope that territorial recognition will soon be included at the opening of the House every day.

Some members, especially my karaoke friends, might have thought that I would start by singing my best karaoke version of Wind Beneath My Wings and then dedicate it to all the staff, volunteers and colleagues, or maybe I would just reiterate my advice to women in politics: no high heels and never check a bag. I hope members are not disappointed.

I have now represented the engaged citizens of Toronto—St. Paul's for more than 26 years. It is longer than I practised medicine, and next year will be my 50th anniversary of graduating from medicine, “class of 7T4”, U of T. When I got to my 18th year in Parliament, I joked that the over 2,000 babies I had delivered could now all vote. I promise that was never the long-term strategy of “the doctor delivers”.

After being a family doctor for over 20 years and our successful fight for the independence of Women's College Hospital, I had an unsuccessful run in provincial politics in 1995. I remember that when I was first asked to run, I answered that I know nothing about politics. The response was, “What do you think you just did? Saving Women's College Hospital was politics.”

Whenever I visit the grade 5 classrooms, I ask the students why anyone would leave the respected profession of medicine to become a politician, which is one of the least-respected callings there is. Sometimes after much discussion, there is an answer that makes me smile: “You wanted to make a difference. You wanted to help more people.” As difficult as it was to make a decision to leave my patients, I have never regretted the choice.

I have loved the work here in Parliament, but also the inspiration of the Toronto—St. Paul's community: the farmers' markets at Wychwood Barns and Little Jamaica; the transformation of the Spadina Museum and Casa Loma to better reflect the diversity of Toronto, ensuring that everyone feels included. I love walking in the ravines, along the Beltline Trail and being stopped by neighbours with great suggestions for building a better and fairer community, country and a sustainable planet; working on the Toronto—St. Paul's summits with Josh Matlow and Shelley Laskin; and conspiring at Aroma with my Yonge and Eglinton MP neighbours, the member for Don Valley West and the member for Eglinton—Lawrence. I am grateful to William Watson, who has been my riding president for over a decade, for his leadership, friendship and invaluable editorial skills, especially grammar and punctuation.

As an MP, like a doctor, every day we are learning something new and helping people. In 1995, when introducing Liberal leader Lyn McLeod at a campaign event in downtown Toronto, I defined leadership as vision, values and risk-taking. I still believe that. Leadership is not defending the status quo. We have all come to this place to build an even better Canada. I am proud that from the very first day I stepped onto Parliament Hill as an MP, I have profoundly understood the responsibility and the privilege of being part of a small group of Canadians who steer the direction of the best country in the world. That has not changed in over 26 years. Every day, I come to this place still acutely aware of my responsibility to do the best I can to support the policies that are good for the most people or the people who need it most.

In 1997, I knew that I had been elected in a bellwether riding: Roland Michener, Ian Wahn, Ron Atkey, John Roberts, again Ron Atkey, John Roberts, Barbara McDougall and Barry Campbell.

I decided that I needed to take my family doctor's understanding of patient as partner into my my new role as an elected representative and have it shape a respectful two-way relationship with the people I was representing. The parallel was important. As a doctor, I would ask what was wrong, I would listen and then together with the patient we would make a plan. The patient knew their body best. I knew the system best. It was a partnership, with the sum greater than the parts.

From the beginning, it was clear that the people I represented knew what was working and what was not, and they so often had impressive advice and solutions.

I took Jane Jacobs' advice that good public policy comes when the decision-makers can keep in their mind's eye the people affected.

I also learned from Professor Stephen Coleman, the British expert on citizen engagement, that citizens do not want to govern, but they do want to know that they have been heard. I learned from my friend Richard Allan, now in the Lords at Westminster, on the potential of e-democracy.

Over the past few months, I have been sorting through many boxes. There are boxes from my early years in this House as chair of the subcommittee on persons with disabilities, chair of the Canada-Israel parliamentary friendship group, chair of the women's caucus twice, minister of state for public health, and in opposition, my various critic roles. From 2011 to 2015 was a life-changing experience, as Bob Rae appointed me the critic for indigenous affairs. There were boxes from my cabinet roles in this government.

I found that the biggest box by far dealt with the ongoing theme of democratic reform. Democratic reform to me has always included four things: parliamentary reform, party reform, electoral reform and meaningful citizen engagement. The last one I call democracy between elections. It became my brand. I actually found another box at the cottage. It was research and outline for a book I began 10 years ago, “Democracy between elections: a politician's guide to listening and a citizen's guide to being heard”. I may have to get back to that.

I have had the benefit of a posse of inspiring feminists who have kept the titanium in my spine: the late Doris Anderson, Ursula Franklin and Monique Bégin. The status quo was not okay.

Ursula helped me understand that government must be fair, transparent and take people seriously. She warned that if we were not fair, transparent and respectful of what people had to say in our small organizations and in our political parties, why would anybody think we would govern in a serious representative democracy?

Doris, who was chair of Fair Vote Canada, often asked if my support for electoral reform was a career-limiting move.

Monique and my constituent, the late John Turner, were always in our corners as MPs to make sure our voices were heard. As we know, Monique and her posse of députés had been responsible for getting MPs offices in their ridings instead of just on Parliament Hill.

In 2006, I ran for the party leadership on a platform of the urgent need for party reform. I said that we had to do things differently. No longer could we act as though we were the natural governing party. I was proud when the late Star journalist, Jim Travers, characterized my candidacy as “the reformer”.

We need to remove the barriers to women in politics, the nomination processes and fundraising. We need to listen to the riding associations from coast to coast to coast, not just in those ridings that are considered to be winnable. Parliamentary reform will require MPs to take a less partisan approach, especially at parliamentary committees.

The analysts at the Library of Parliament do an amazing job. We need to do everything we can to have unanimous reports, as Bill Young did with us when we had the subcommittee on persons with disabilities. Unanimous reports inform government of a consensus reached because all the members listened to the witnesses and were able to distill recommendations that would chart a way forward.

Committees need to travel more. They need to get out across the country to be available to hear first-hand the points of view of the regions. In my experience, committee travel was where colleagues in Parliament got to know one another across party lines and find out that we actually liked one another, with maybe a few exceptions.

Committee travel is also where we hear the stories we need to know and harvest solutions to the problems Canadians face every day. We also must insist on proper disaggregated data in all formal policy-making exercises. Stories and data; we need them both in order to deliver in our work Canada's core value: fairness.

I hope that wherever the privilege of being an MP has taken me, I have been there to listen and learn. In order to do the best for Canada, MPs can not only represent their own ridings and understand their own regions; they also need to understand the challenges we face from coast to coast to coast. From Cape Spear to Haida Gwaii, and from Grise Fiord to Point Pelee, our complex federal system requires MPs to have a deep understanding of the needs and aspirations of every region of this country.

I used to think that inclusive decision-making was a feminist value. I later learned that it was actually indigenous. Haudenosaunee women advised the first wave of North American feminists about the principles of indigenous leadership of asking, not telling, and how to work in a circle where everyone gets to speak.

People may find that there is already a consensus or that people are asking for more information before they are prepared to weigh in on a decision.

I have learned so much from extraordinary indigenous women. My fondest memories are of berry picking with Mary Simon in Kuujjuaq, tea with Maria Campbell at Gabriel's Crossing in Saskatchewan and ceremony with Sylvia Maracle at her office in Toronto. So many first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and young people have been there to teach and correct my mistakes.

I have described seven settler learnings, which could help all of us join on the journey of humility and reconciliation. What if we had listened to the first peoples and respected their imperative of protecting mother earth, thinking seven generations out? What if we understood the important teachings of the medicine wheel, focused on keeping people well, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, rather than relying on the medical repair shop model that I was taught in medical school? What if we were to practise the indigenous pedagogy of learning by doing, so that the land and the water themselves were the teachers of biology, chemistry and physics? What if we respected our elders instead of dismissing the elderly, if we listened to wise women and if we put children first in all decisions? What if we practised the indigenous leadership of asking, not telling? We can imagine these things.

The foundation of our democracy is that great people will run for public office. I have had the privilege of persuading many great women and indigenous people to run. Some were elected. All affirmed the importance of our democratic institutions by leaving jobs they loved and spending time away from their families in order to campaign for the opportunity to contribute to making this country even better than it is now.

I am a feminist and a politician. I look forward to a day where neither “feminist” nor “politician” is treated like a four-letter word. I am so proud to have served under this feminist Prime Minister, whose vision and values inspire us all. He has always been a leader, not a boss. He has always demonstrated that he knows that good ideas can come from many places. He is curious. He listens. He walks the talk of hope and hard work. He has always had my back. Every day, he shows us that better is indeed always possible.

In election campaigns, it has been important for me to explain that the Prime Minister is a true leader, not a boss. Leaders see themselves at the centre of a circle. Bosses see themselves at the top of a pyramid, barking orders, in their singular view, to those below. “Father knows best” has never worked. The Prime Minister has vision and values, and he can take risks. I am proud that we have been able to implement the ambitious risk-taking platform of 2015, even the legalization of cannabis.

We have changed history, but I am worried. Cynicism is at an all-time high. Voter turnout is down. The safety of parliamentarians is under threat. I truly believe that it is essential for us to re-engage in a meaningful way with citizens. Consultation that is shallow or not genuine is bad for democracy. It fuels cynicism. People are turned off by it, and then they tune out. People either believe that we get better policy when we include the views of those who will be affected by the policy, or they do not. If they do not, if they already think they know everything, then they should not waste people's time. Cynicism is also being fuelled by the ideology that proclaims that all government is bad and all politicians are bad or useless; it asks, “Why bother to vote at all?” It is wise to remember that the perma-mad people always vote.

We need to acknowledge that democracy is fragile. We should tackle, as a priority, the proliferation of mis- and disinformation, as well as the toxicity and anonymity of social media. There are ways to protect or immunize people from the onslaught of mis- and disinformation. People's ability to perform critical appraisal is heightened by greater civic literacy, health literacy, mental health literacy and digital literacy.

However, we must be concerned about more than mis- and disinformation. We cannot ignore that those who were once only keyboard warriors are now actually throwing stones and vandalizing, as well as threatening people in person. The safety of parliamentarians and those groups that are most often victims of hate and discrimination is at risk. At this dangerous time for democracy, it is important to remember the teaching of Ursula Franklin: Good government must be “fair, transparent and take people seriously.”

People are truly worried about so many aspects of our world today: the economy, the environment, their future and their children's well-being and opportunity. We need to let people know their concerns are being heard and taken into account, and we need to explain government decision-making in ways that will make sense.

As I look back, I remember how devastated I was in 2006 when we lost. We lost Kyoto, kids and Kelowna. The progress on climate change, child care and reconciliation were instantly rolled back. We had to fight back, and we did. I am proud now that Canada has made serious advances on climate change, child care and reconciliation.

As minister responsible for public health, the TRC calls to action, MMIWG and later mental health and addictions, I hope I have been able to help government bust through the silos and address complex issues across all government departments. I believe there is a role for government in people's lives. Our complex federal system requires real relationships among all orders of government, municipal, provincial and territorial, federal and indigenous, in order to deliver effective supports and services to the people who need them most.

In closing, I want to thank Barry Campbell for asking me to run in 1997. I want to thank the wind beneath my wings for 26 years, the EAs: Michael Spowart, Rob White and Tricia Geddes. They all came back to work in my office when I was minister of state for public health in 2003. Lynne Steele, Rick Theis, Sarah Welch and Carlene Campbell put together teams that shared our vision and values of accessibility and democracy between elections. They were always able to give fearless advice.

These are amazing teams, and I want to thank every single one of them. They continue to work on this truly important project of democracy. Thank yous are dangerous; I do not want to leave people out. Today I wanted to thank those who have travelled with me for almost a quarter century: Mary Eberts, Bill Young, Philippe Bussy, Michel Amar, Frank Graves, Jim Anderson, Robin Sears, Susan Delacourt, Don Lenihan, Anna and Paul Brehl, Constance Backhouse, Karen Breeck, Nora Spinks, Terry Hancock, Margo Greenwood, Will Falk, Stan Kutcher and, of course, Paul Martin and Bob Rae.

Today especially, I miss Bill Graham and Andy Scott.

I am so grateful to all my colleagues here. Many of my friends outside politics have paid me the biggest compliment, saying that being elected did not change me. I am still Carolyn, or Dr. Carolyn to some.

I want to thank my French teachers Géraldine, here in Ottawa, and Michel and Huguette from Logibec, in Quebec City, as well as my host family, René Courchesne and Claro Picard.

Their love for the beauty of the French language and culture was absolutely contagious.

Peter O'Brian is the best political spouse in the world. When graduating from college, he put “support a politician” on his bucket list. I am not sure he meant sharing these decades of ups and downs. Once, while canvassing, he asked at the door of a household in our neighbourhood if the resident wished to meet the candidate. He was told, “I would rather have my eyeballs taken out with fish hooks.” He quickly moved to become sign chair.

As all my colleagues in the House present and past know all too well, an MP's family has lots of these fish-hook moments over the years, of all different types, intensities and durations. I am grateful for the love of my sons, Jack and Ben, and the sacrifices they have made, happily and unhappily, to allow me to serve Canada as I have for over a quarter century.

For 26 years, I have been able to honestly reply to the critics with a question: “What country would you rather live in?” For 26 years, the answer has been the same, which is a moment of silence and then an acknowledgement that as much work as there still is to do, we are proud Canadians. I have never heard one word of other country envy.

I will miss my amazing parliamentary colleagues. I think we remember that moment in the House this fall when President Zelenskyy from Ukraine quoted Governor General Mary Simon with a word in Inuktitut: “ajuinnata”. As he said, it means “Don't give up. Stay strong against all odds”.

In these difficult times, I have every confidence that we will continue to fight together to make the best country in the world even better.

Merci. Meegwetch. Thank you. Ajuinnata.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart that I rise to ask a question of my friend from St. Paul's for the last time in this House. For 15 years, we have served together in various corners of the House. For 15 years and more, she has been a source of inspiration and sound advice to me on how to be a better feminist, how to recruit extraordinary women from across this country to build the kind of government that Canada deserves and how to move forward on reconciliation.

As Canada's first minister of Crown and indigenous relations, she blazed a trail in deepening the relationship that matters so much to all Canadians and to the future of our country. As the very first minister for mental health and addictions, she demonstrated the compassion, the perseverance and the drive that carried her through a storied career as a family doctor to have an impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Even during the depths of the pandemic, I had the benefit of turning to the very first minister of state for public health and the creator of the Public Health Agency of Canada for advice on how to handle a once-in-a-century event for Canada.

I look forward to continuing to draw on her advice in many ways, but right now, given all the things that she spoke about and all the pieces of advice that she has given to us, I guess my last question for her would be this: How do we make sure that the House has more like her, more people dedicated to this country, more young women growing up and seeing a place for themselves here and the responsibility and, therefore, the opportunity to shape this country for the better? What are the best pieces of advice that we should carry with us as we reach out to find even more extraordinary women to sit in this House, to lead and serve this country?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with your help, I think we have to make sure that teachers will feel that they can bring their students in here again and not just come to pick up bad habits. I also think that we all do the country a great service by getting into the grade five classrooms and putting a human face on what a politician is.

I hope that we can move to make sure of the diversity of this place, so people can see themselves here. I think it is also similar to Equal Voice's, “Be Her or Support Her” campaign, the idea that someone does not have to actually run, but they can help with policy, fundraising or organization. There are many ways, but the project of democracy cannot be taken for granted.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her many years of service. It gives me great pleasure to comment on her very long career. As the member and I share a great love of Georgian Bay, I expect to see her spending more time there, perhaps finishing her book on democracy, which we will all take great lessons from.

When I was first elected, I was provided advice by many people, and someone said I should get to know members in all parties. Shortly after being elected, when the member was the then minister of mental health and addictions, she reached out to me. She said I had a mental health hospital in my riding and she would love to visit it with me, which we did this past summer. We have heard the member talk about the things that she is passionate about. She has dedicated her life of public service to indigenous reconciliation, of course, as well as mental health and increasing the number of women in politics and getting women involved in politics at all different levels.

The member had an opportunity to continue serving her community well as a doctor, but she put that aside to make thousands of Canadians' lives better through her 26 years of public service. I will not say what I was doing in 1997, or my age then, but I was not quite yet in high school. This is the length of the member's dedication to public service.

While we may disagree on ways to make this country better, we do agree that we live in the best country on this planet and that we can work together to make it better. As I said, when opportunities arise that allow us to work together, visit institutions or work on a file, we can do great things for Canadians.

I look forward to what is to come for the member. I know her life of service will not be over. I am sure she has other things planned to continue serving in different ways. I and all my colleagues wish the member good luck and thank her for her service.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my member of Parliament in Georgian Bay. There will be many more trips on the Georgian Bay, and I will continue to conspire with the member for his wise advice.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech and her years of service.

I see that she, like me, has a passion for karaoke. Maybe we could go do karaoke together sometime and have some fun. I will take her advice about high heels to heart. In fact, I lost one of mine on the stairs earlier. We can chat about that later too.

On a more serious note, I would like to congratulate her on her years of service. I was not very old in 1997 either, but if not for the women who came before me in politics, I would not be here today. There are still so many glass ceilings to break in this boys' club.

I also see that we also share an obsession with democracy. I look forward to seeing what she does next. Maybe, in response to my question, she can tell me a bit more about how she perceives the issue of disinformation in our time. I would like her to tell us how this contributes to diminishing democracy, how social media and online hate sometimes contribute to deterring women from entering politics, and how excessive partisanship and petty politics can put women off a career in politics. We have a vision that is much less partisan and much more collaborative.

Perhaps she can advise us on how women can make a greater contribution to our democracy. She may also be able to tell me how, as parliamentarians, we can help halt the further erosion of democracy. What is happening now is very worrisome.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope the future will bring opportunities to improve civic literacy as well as physical and mental health literacy. The ability to ascertain the truth is very important. It is foundational for every young person. It is important to truly hear people's concerns and, I believe, to truly hear women.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Toronto—St. Paul's for her years of service.

I did not know until today that she loves karaoke. I too love karaoke. Perhaps we could have had a Broadway kickoff at a local karaoke club in Ottawa, but I am sure we will have time to do that in the coming years.

I really appreciated the hon. member's acknowledgement of the importance of territorial recognition, the understanding that we all sit on lands that were dispossessed from indigenous peoples. I think it is foundational to reconciliation in this country to recognize the privileges that have been borne on the backs of indigenous peoples. I truly respect that.

I thank her, as well, for the barriers she broke down for women in politics. We still do not have enough women in politics, but it is folks like the member for Toronto—St. Paul's who really broke those glass ceilings to even let us have a space in here. As we work within a new trajectory of intersectionalities, I hope, one day, to be an example, just as the member for Toronto—St. Paul's is for women, for other indigenous women who are trying to find space in a place that was never supposed to house us. I thank the member for her sacrifice.

I am also a proud feminist. At a time when we see women's reproductive rights under threat, even in this House, with bills trying to be passed that attack women's reproductive rights, I thank her for bringing up the discussion about women's right to bodily autonomy before it was even a discussion.

I share her concern for the threat to democracy with populist, extreme right-wing politics and a rise of white supremacy in this country, which is not just flourishing outside these walls but within these walls as well, in the House of Commons. For people who have already been marginalized by systems, that is very scary.

I wanted to take this opportunity to thank the member for doing her best to be such a good ally to indigenous peoples through the years, taking the time to learn when needed. I want to thank her for that.

I also want to take this opportunity to ask the member for her wisdom on how we protect democracy at a time of rising hate and what we can do to ensure that we can protect the rights of all people living in Canada going forward.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the ability to work with her in her riding on all of the things she cares about.

I also thank her because, in my comments I said that thanking people was dangerous, and I now realize I forgot some of my best coaches, such as Cynthia Wesley-Esquimaux, Steve Koptie and Michèle Audette, who should have been there in the top rung of all of this, but they have always been. Even though Cynthia ran against the distinguished members for York—Simcoe and Simcoe North, my two colleagues here, she has never stopped being there to support me and give me wise counsel

I think part of it is to be able to instill that coaching from the very youngest age. There is a grade one teacher in my riding, just at the end of my street, who has a unit on leadership. I think that we cannot start early enough in teaching people to understand how to do a critical appraisal and what civic literacy is.

I think of the amazing Ilona Kickbusch at the WHO, and some others who are really focused on digital literacy so that people can sort out what is true, what is not and what a bot is. How do we help people seek out those kinds of advice and truths? I am a doctor so I always talk about immunization, but we have to immunize people against this really evil threat.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish it did not take a great parliamentarian to retire to turn down the partisan temperature in this place, but it may be fitting because, in the short time I have been here, it is everything I have known of the hon. member for Toronto—St. Paul's.

When she was the minister of mental health and addictions, she was keen to hear from me about advice on the upcoming budget and to push for a really critical program, the substance use and addictions program.

When it came to announcing funding on behalf of the Government of Canada, when she arrived in my community, she was keen to ensure that all parliamentarians from this place were represented and supportive there. We heard it from her again this afternoon. I join colleagues in thanking her for her service to this country over the last 26 years. We are all better for it.

One aspect of her advocacy I particularly appreciated was her advocacy for improving our democracy through electoral reform. As a parting thought, I would love to hear more from her, if she would be open to sharing with us her reflections, on how to continue to move forward on electoral reform.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the push on electoral reform. I think we are learning, as we choose our leaders and so many things on ranked ballots, that it is a good way to start in municipal politics. I have always thought, on electoral reform, that we have to start by having citizens understand it.

In 1993, Conservatives were able to get 20-something per cent of the vote and two members, and we see that we could get a separatist government in the Province of Quebec with really less than a majority, so I think there is a risk. We have to teach that first, and then we move on to what would be the best thing to do in this huge country, from coast to coast to coast, where the land and the people are important.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank everyone for their interventions for the hon. member.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Automotive Industry, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Carbon Pricing, and the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot, Carbon Pricing.

Now we go back to the hon. leader of the official opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House of Commons to talk about the $23 billion in inflationary deficits added by this bill alone. Here is yet another example of a Prime Minister who, after eight years, is not worth the cost.

When I say that he is not worth the cost, I am talking about his false advertising. Normally, in the private sector, false advertising is a criminal offence. If, for example, a business advertises a product at a certain price and does not deliver the promised product, that business may have to face criminal charges in court. Governments do it all the time. They ask for money to deliver a product to Canadians. We see the Prime Minister do that all the time.

For example, in very general terms, take his program to help the middle class. Eight years down the road, nine out of 10 middle-class young people are unable to afford a house and believe that will never change. Eight years on, the number of employed Ontarians using food banks has increased by 86%. These are middle-class people. They are suffering. They never needed to use food banks before, but eight years after the government floated the idea of helping the middle class, they need it now.

We have a Prime Minister who promised to help the media by giving them big subsidies to buy their love. How did that turn out? Media articles are now being erased from social networks.

There is also talk about a program to help kids get lunch at school. However, if we read the bill to find out what the program is about, no food is included. The money is for two federal ministers to hold consultations with provincial ministers and interest groups and write a report about a plan to create a policy to someday feed children. Here is just another example of a government that says it is going to feed kids, but then turns around and feeds bureaucracies instead.

Now let us move on to housing. While criticizing Jean Chrétien for eliminating housing bureaucracy at the federal level, the Prime Minister announced that the feds would once again fund housing by setting up major, $87‑billion programs for affordable housing. Eight years later, what has happened? Housing prices have doubled. The cost of a mortgage on an average home has more than doubled, with payments increasing from $1,400 to nearly $3,500 a month. The cost of a one-bedroom apartment has risen from an average of $900 to almost $2,000, and the down payment for the average home in this country has increased from $20,000 to more than $50,000.

The program proposes spending billions and billions of dollars on affordable homes and apartments. The result is that costs have doubled. That is exactly the opposite of what the ads said. Unfortunately, these ads sometimes appear in documents voted on in the House of Commons. For example, there are affordable housing programs that increase the price of homes, and millions or billions of dollars are provided to fund them.

In the private sector, charging money for a product and then failing to deliver that product would land a CEO in jail. The Prime Minister does that all the time, but he keeps his privileges while the population suffers.

That is why I created a monumental documentary on the housing hell that this Prime Minister has caused. The bought-and-paid-for media had a meltdown. They had a meltdown across the country, but they had a problem. They could not find a single error in any of the facts that were presented. I presented around 55 facts. The documentary introduces a new fact roughly every 20 seconds. There is not a single journalist who could find one factual error.

Let me review some of these facts. I found many of these facts in articles published by the media that attacked me for my documentary. They published those same facts. That is the problem. They published facts about the housing crisis, but failed to mention the Prime Minister who caused this housing crisis, who is in power and who has seen prices double.

Here are the facts.

First, nine out of 10 Canadians believe that they will never own a home. The journalist who wrote that is Shazia Nazir from Milton, Ontario. That is a fact. There is no denying it. Which Prime Minister created this phenomenon, which had never been seen before in our history? It is this Liberal Prime Minister.

Second, I demonstrated that it takes 66% of an average paycheque to make the monthly payments on the average single-family home. A Radio‑Canada journalist said that figure was made up, but it comes from the Royal Bank of Canada. It is published on the RBC website. Radio‑Canada could have found it, if its journalists had wanted to share the truth. It takes 66% of an average paycheque to make the average payments for an average home in Canada. The remaining 34% is needed to pay taxes, leaving nothing after that. People will not be able to buy groceries, do anything fun or go on vacation. They will have barely enough money to pay their mortgage. This is compared to 39% when I was the minister responsible for housing. Eight years ago, it took 39% of an average family's paycheque to buy an average home and pay the monthly expenses. That means the percentage of a family's monthly income needed to afford an average home has increased by half. That is after eight years under this Prime Minister, and it is a record. It has never been the case before now.

A 57-year-old grandmother had to live in her van because of the housing crisis caused by this Prime Minister. Refugees have to live in the streets because the shelters are full. After eight years of this Prime Minister, there is no more room. Eight years ago, the average price of a house in Canada was $454,000. Now, it is about $700,000. With the higher interest rates, monthly payments are even worse.

The Liberals and their bought-and-paid-for media are trying to blame a global phenomenon, but that is not going to fly. Other countries are not experiencing the same crisis as we are here, in Canada.

All the international data show that prices in Canada have gone up much faster than in nearly every other country. Housing costs in Canada have outpaced wage growth faster than in all but one OECD country. On affordability, Canada ranks next to last out of almost 40 industrialized countries for the period from 2015 to 2023. Interestingly, the Prime Minister has been in power that entire time.

According to UBS Bank, Toronto has the worst housing bubble in the world. This is not a phenomenon observed in all of the world's biggest cities; it is just in Toronto. Moreover, Vancouver ranks sixth. According to UBS, these two markets were reasonably priced 10 years ago. That is another fact that the Prime Minister's bought-and-paid-for media tried to contradict, but they failed.

Houses near the border on the Canadian side can be three times more expensive than those on the U.S. side. How does that make sense if it is an international phenomenon? In general, prices in the United States are 25% to 40% lower than in Canada, even though the U.S. population is eight times the Canadian population and their land mass is smaller. After eight years of this Prime Minister, people can buy a Swedish castle for less than it costs to buy a two-bedroom house in Kitchener.

Of all the G7 countries, ours is the largest by landmass. A Radio-Canada reporter who was trying to save the Prime Minister's reputation said that that argument was ridiculous because people cannot live in Canada's far north, for example. He was suggesting that the only land available in Canada is in the far north. That is what is ridiculous. There is plenty of land around our big cities. If those claims are true, then why is the U.S. able to provide housing at a much lower cost, even though its population is concentrated in New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles and other large cities?

Even if the population is concentrated in big cities, houses are a lot less expensive in the U.S. than they are in Canada after eight years of this Prime Minister. Those who say it is irrelevant to talk about the amount of land that we have to provide Canadians with property are forgetting that the reality is that supply and demand always determine the price. Prices should be very low in Canada because there is land available around cities, in southern Canada, western Canada, eastern Canada and even northern Canada, land on which we could be building housing, if we could cut through all the red tape put in place by governments at all levels.

The fact is, since this Prime Minister came to power, there are fewer houses per capita than before. Of all the G7 countries, Canada has the fewest houses per capita, even though it has the largest landmass available for housing. I find it very interesting that there were more houses per capita eight years ago, when there were no bureaucratic programs to make properties more affordable. Do my colleagues not find that interesting?

According to the Prime Minister, $87 billion was spent on building affordable homes. However, eight years later, there are fewer houses per capita. It is unbelievable. It is like being in a restaurant, ordering something that tastes terrible, getting the wrong order and terrible service, and then being told it is going to cost $500. Then we turn around and say it was a great meal because it cost so much. That is the Prime Minister's argument. His programs are expensive, so they must be good.

He just attacked us for voting against the money allocated for programs because he believes that money equals results, even if that spending results in the opposite of what the programs promise. He criticizes me for not having spent enough on housing. I delivered affordable homes and apartments when I was minister at a lower cost to taxpayers. That is good, common sense: lower costs for taxpayers and lower costs for those buying or renting homes. That is what it means to know the value of money. The Prime Minister does not understand that because he has never had to work in his life. He inherited his wealth and kept his wealth in a tax-sheltered trust fund. I understand why it is hard for him to grasp the value of money.

I will give an example. In 1972, 232,000 housing units were built in Canada. In 2022, 219,000 homes were built in Canada. In 1972, there were 22 million Canadians. Last year, there were 39 million. The Canadian population has practically doubled, but fewer houses are being built after eight years of this Prime Minister and after $87 billion of government spending to build more. This government spends more to build less at a higher price. That is its approach.

What is the highest cost of building a home today in Vancouver, for example? Is it lumber, the workers' wages, the land? No, it is not even the construction company's profits. It is government fees and red tape. Yes, the red tape is local. It comes mainly from local governments, but it is funded by the federal government.

The Prime Minister boasts about the fact that he is sending bigger cheques to municipal politicians to build a bigger bureaucracy to prevent construction in the name of affordable housing. In Nova Scotia, after completely failing to provide a decent quality of life for people in Halifax, after 30 homeless encampments cropped up around the city, the housing minister came along with money from the housing accelerator fund and gave millions of dollars to his friend, the Liberal mayor of Halifax. He said that it would speed up housing construction.

We later learned what that money will be used for. It is going to be used to hire more public servants, the same public servants who are preventing construction in Halifax. There is going to be more red tape thanks to the money the federal government is sending. The Prime Minister has learned absolutely nothing. That is why we need to make a common-sense change that will build houses, not bureaucracy. That is our approach.

Some people have criticized my monumental documentary. According to them, nothing can be built because there is not enough land in places where people want to live.

The Squamish people have proven otherwise. In Vancouver, the Squamish are building 6,000 apartments on a 10-acre property. On 10 acres, they are building an unbelievable 6,000 apartments. That means they are building 600 apartments per acre. These are outstanding results. This would have never happened if they had been forced to listen to the bureaucrats in downtown Vancouver. On their traditional land, a traditional reserve of their people, they did not need permits from local bureaucrats. That enabled them to build housing.

This proves that if we could cut out the bureaucracy, we could build more large apartments downtown and more houses in the suburbs at the same time. That is exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister is doing right now.

I have heard other excuses from staunch defenders of the Prime Minister, who set up a huge fund to financially support the media and buy their loyalty. They say it is not the Prime Minister's fault that the cost of housing has doubled, because it was COVID-19 that drove up housing prices.

A Journal de Montréal columnist I admire said that COVID-19 has become a scapegoat. COVID-19 should have lowered housing prices, because there was less immigration during COVID-19. The immigration system was practically shut down for nine or 10 months, and it slowed down for another nine or 10 months after that. The figures show that there was less immigration, fewer jobs and lower wages.

All these factors would normally reduce demand in the real estate market. I am not the only one saying this. In spring 2020, the federal government's housing agency predicted that housing prices would drop by 32% because of COVID-19. They were wrong, but it is understandable why they predicted that prices would fall. When the country loses jobs and wages and closes its doors to immigration, the results are lower prices and less demand. However, prices have gone up. Why did prices rise in the two years following COVID-19? Because the central bank printed $600 billion. Money was created out of thin air.

The media said that that was not true and had nothing to do with it, but my documentary includes a Bank of Canada graph that shows the number of houses bought by investors doubled. It started in the spring of 2020, right when the Bank of Canada started printing money and buying bonds from banks and financial institutions, which flooded the financial system. All that money was loaned to investors that have relationships with the bankers. They are the ones who helped double the amount invested. Prices jumped by 50% after that massive injection of newly printed money. It was not COVID‑19. It was the sense that people had money that caused a sudden spike in housing prices.

In fact, the Liberals and their supporters in the bought-off media will say that all that government spending was necessary because of COVID-19. Is that really true?

There was a $100-billion deficit before the first case of COVID-19. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, 40% of new spending during the COVID-19 pandemic had nothing to do with COVID-19. The pandemic has been over for a year or two, but the deficits continue. The government can no longer blame COVID-19 and say that COVID-19 ate its homework, when the deficits were there before COVID-19, the deficits during COVID-19 were not related to the pandemic, and the deficits after COVID-19, in some cases, are increasing. Although COVID-19 is disappearing in the rear-view mirror, deficits continue to increase. We cannot accept the Prime Minister's excuse that the dog ate his homework. Printing money to spend recklessly was an irresponsible decision, and I warned against it. That is continuing to this day and it is driving up interest rates.

It just goes to show, once again, that every time this Prime Minister stands up in the House of Commons and says he has no other choice, he is spending money on all kinds of slogans. However, when we look at the results behind those slogans, it is the exact opposite of what has been promised. It is false advertising. That is why we often vote against spending that, according to the slogans, sounds great, but in reality does exactly the opposite of what the slogans promise. That is why we need a common-sense government. That is what I can offer as Canada's future prime minister.

A few months ago, the Bloc Québécois asked me what common sense actually is. I admire their humility in admitting that they have no idea what common sense is. I was able to help them by defining common sense. It struck them as a strange idea, because they live in a utopia. They are here in the House of Commons to make life more miserable, arguing that Canada should be split up into pieces. Again, to help the Bloc Québécois, commons sense actually means many things.

First, we need to bring back lower prices. How do we do that? We do that by axing the carbon tax that is increasing the price of everything. I know that the government wants to quadruple the carbon tax on farmers who produce food, on fuel and on all our industries. I know that the Bloc Québécois wants to radically increase the carbon tax. I know that there is a second carbon tax under the name fuel regulations. However, the Bloc Québécois is not satisfied. It wants to radically increase it. Only the Conservative Party will axe the tax on carbon to reduce the price of energy for all Canadians.

We will rely on technology to fight climate change. I know that the Bloc Québécois is against technology. For example, it is against the nuclear energy that France uses to produce electricity without any greenhouse gas emissions. The Bloc Québécois is against that. It is so ideologically radical. It is against nuclear energy and other sources of energy that do not produce carbon emissions. We will use these technologies instead of taxing F-150s in Saguenay or in Trois‑Rivières, where workers and farmers need their truck for work. These are good people. They work hard, and we are the only party for the vast regions of Quebec. That is all. That is the truth.

Another common-sense solution is to control spending. I find the Bloc Québécois funny. It always wants the federal government to do more. It is strange. The Bloc says that it wants to get rid of the federal government, but at the same time, it is always voting to increase the federal government's costs at Quebeckers' expense. The Bloc voted for all the spending increases that the Liberal government proposed. It voted against the financial discipline that we are proposing.

The common-sense idea I am proposing is a dollar-for-dollar law, which says that if we spend a dollar on one thing, then we need to save a dollar somewhere else. A law like that existed during the Clinton administration in the 1990s. It enabled the Democratic president to balance the budget and eliminate $400 billion in debt. That resulted in an enormous increase in jobs and wages, an increase in the stock market and plenty of other things. However, just after the law expired, the U.S. plunged back into a deficit and they are still in that situation today. That shows that politicians need a legal limit to control their spending. We are going to do things the same way that single mothers, small businesses and families do them. Every time a Canadian with common sense increases their spending in one area, they find a way to decrease it in another so that they can pay the bills, instead of just continuing to add expenses to their credit card. That is how we are going to impose discipline.

We will also eliminate waste. The Canada Infrastructure Bank costs $35 billion and has not delivered one single infrastructure project. We will get rid of ArriveCAN. We will get rid of the Asian Infrastructure Bank, which sends our money to China to build pipelines. We are building pipelines in China and banning them here in Canada. That makes no sense. We are not here to build the ancient Chinese empire. We are here to build a good quality of life for Canadians here at home. That is common sense.

We will tell municipalities that, if they want infrastructure money, they have to approve more housing construction. The reason we do not have enough homes is that there is too much bureaucracy getting in the way of construction. Canada is the second-slowest OECD country when it comes to granting construction permits. How will we get municipalities to speed up the permitting process? We will say that the amount of infrastructure money they are going to get is tied to the number of houses built. It will be based on results. I will tell every municipality to allow 15% more construction. If they do more, they will get bonuses. If they do less, they will lose money. Those bureaucrats will be paid like realtors. Realtors get paid according to how much they sell. The federal government will pay municipal bureaucrats according to how much construction they allow. We will demand that every public transit station be surrounded by apartments. The money will flow once those apartments are built and occupied by people.

We are going to sell off 6,000 federal government buildings and thousands of acres of federal land to build new homes. We are going to ask the federal agency that approves financing for apartments do so in two months instead of two years, or else we will fire their executives. It is easy. If you work in a senior position in my government and you do not keep your commitments, you will be fired. That is life. That is the real world. That is how life works for a carpenter or a mechanic. That is also how it will work for executives in my government. Eventually, this will speed up construction, after eight years of delays and people finding they can no longer buy houses.

Common sense also means putting real repeat offenders in prison instead of allowing them to commit the same acts of violence against Canadians over and over again.

We understand that some young people make mistakes. I get that, and we are going to rehabilitate them. However, we are not going to let people commit 40, 50 or 60 crimes over and over, each one more violent than the last, by releasing them, like the Bloc Québécois and the Liberals want to do. We want these criminals to go to prison. We do not want to let them out on bail or stay at home. We are going to offer treatment to people who are addicted to drugs, and we are going to stop targeting hunters and sport shooters.

The Bloc Québécois tried to help the Liberals ban hunting rifles. When the Liberals published 300 pages of hunting rifles that they wanted to ban, the Bloc member was there. It is on the video. They can deny it if they want, but there is video evidence. He was there and even said that it was his dream to see 300 pages of hunting rifles banned. Then all of a sudden, the Bloc members realized that there were hunters in the regions in Quebec.

That was quite a realization for the Bloc members, who spend most of their time with the lefties in Plateau-Mont-Royal, so it never occurred to them that there were hunters in Quebec. Like the Prime Minister, the Bloc Québécois had to back down because of Conservative pressure. The Bloc had to apologize and say that they would not try to ban hunting rifles after all, after hearing the Conservatives' strong arguments. Now that is common sense.

We know that this radical coalition will once again try to ban our hunters. People in the regions of Quebec will have to depend on the Conservative Party to protect their traditions, which have existed in Canada for thousands of years among indigenous peoples. I want to thank first nations for defending their right to hunt and opposing the Prime Minister's plan to ban their hunting rifles.

We are the only party that believes we should instead invest money in tightening the border against illegal guns. At the same time, we will put the real criminals in jail, while respecting hunters and sport shooters. That is common sense. Common sense is such a strange concept to our Bloc Québécois friends.

Common sense also means protecting our freedom. The Conservative Party is still the only party that voted against the censorship law. The Bloc Québécois voted to give Canada's federal bureaucrats in Ottawa the power to prevent Quebeckers from watching certain things online. Imagine a supposed sovereignist from Quebec saying that an official from a woke agency in Ottawa should be able to control what Quebeckers see and say on the Internet. We will never agree to that. The Conservative Party is the only party that will defend freedom of expression. Accordingly, we will scrap Bill C-11.

We cannot have freedom of expression without national freedom. That is why the Conservative Party is going to rebuild our army. This Prime Minister has wasted so much money by bungling procurement and delaying the F-35 aircraft replacement, for example. We are going to wipe out incompetence and waste and invest in helping our soldiers and rebuilding our army. We will stop giving money to dictatorships, terrorists and international bureaucracies and bring that money back here to Canada to rebuild our armed forces. We will defend our freedom by defending our military.

In conclusion, I know that, for most Canadians, things are miserable in Canada right now. Everything is broken. Do not take it from me. That is coming from two-thirds of Canadians polled. We have a Prime Minister who always wants to promote negativity. He is always negative. He tries to divide people.

I am here with a positive message, a common-sense message that gives hope to Canadians across the country. Yes, the future will be better than the eight years we have just gone through. Yes, we can have a country where people are free to earn big paycheques to buy food, fuel and affordable homes in safe communities. That is the goal of the Conservative Party. That is the goal of bringing home common sense.

Now in English.

[Some hon. members]

More, more.