Debates of Nov. 19th, 2025

Export and Import Permits Act

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with Canada's current commitment, the export of arms and weaponry to every other country has to go through a permitting process. That has to be measured against risk assessments and the standards outlined in the Arms Trade Treaty, except for the United States. The vast majority of the weaponry that goes to the United States does not require a permitting process. This is what we are talking about. We need to close the loophole to ensure that weaponry, parts and components that go through to the United States are measured against the Arms Trade Treaty, and that the standard applied to every other country applies to U.S. exports as well. In that way, we can be—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We have to allow time for other questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed with this private member's bill. Essentially, what the member is trying to do is chase the defence industry right out of Canada and into the hands of Donald Trump.

Right now, the defence industry employs thousands of people right across this country. She talked about Saudi Arabia and the LAVs that are being built in London, Ontario, a riding that used to be held by an NDP member, Lindsay Mathyssen. Of course, she is no longer here because of the NDP's lack of support for the labour sector. As we know, creating these thousands of jobs and having these companies here actually support Canada's sovereign capabilities to build weapons for ourselves. Those industries are not sustainable with just Canadian orders.

Why is she chasing jobs out of Canada and into the arms of Donald Trump?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government continues to argue that Canada is not violating the Arms Trade Treaty. If that is the case, manufacturers here in Canada have nothing to worry about. All I am saying is that we need to make sure when we export to the United States that exports meet Arms Trade Treaty requirements so that we do not contribute our weaponry, parts and components to atrocities and to committing genocide and crimes against humanity. I do not think Canadians want blood on their hands, and that is what the bill would mean. If companies do not violate the act, there is nothing they need to worry about. It would not impact them at all.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Vancouver East on this extremely important initiative.

Canada is also a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Because of the American loophole, which allows weapons to be sold to the United States and then end up in Israel, Canada could be complicit in genocide—

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member. Some people seem to think they are in their living rooms right now, and it is very unpleasant.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Of course.

I will ask the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to start over and ask his question again.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Vancouver East on this important bill.

Canada is also a signatory to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. With the American loophole, which allows Canadian weapons to flow through the United States and then to be sold to the Netanyahu regime, does my colleague not think that Canada and the Liberal government could find themselves in a situation where they could be accused of being complicit in genocide?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We want Canadians to feel proud, and we want the Canadian government to take action so we can proudly stand on the international stage and say that Canada is not complicit, because as it stands right now, we are. Our arms, our components and our weaponry are ending up in some of the most brutal conflicts in this world, which are killing civilians using Canadian-made arms. That is wrong and has to stop.

I urge all members of the House to support Bill C-233.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by commending the member for Vancouver East for her ongoing and very steadfast commitment to strengthening oversight and to bringing peace in our world. She has attempted to do that in the bill, and I believe that all members of the House agree that Canada must maintain a strong export control system to prevent the misuse of weapons anywhere and everywhere.

Right now, global security matters more than ever, and Canada must act with clarity and resolve. The decisions we make today in the House will shape not only our sovereignty but also the safety of Canadians and of our allies around the world. Accountability does matter, but Bill C-233 as it is drafted, while perhaps well-intentioned, would risk undermining Canada's security, international security, our defence industry and our international partnerships at a critical moment.

Indeed, since the Second World War, Canada has strengthened our export controls for arms to the point where we are privileged to have one of the world's strongest, strictest and soundest regimes. For generations, countries have looked to Canada as a leader, as a peacekeeper and as one of the world's most steadfast promoters of the responsible use and sale of military equipment. Canada's voice matters.

Canadians are wanted and needed to promote peace, to make peace and to keep peace. That is why a Liberal government under then foreign minister Lester Pearson ensured that Canada was there to found the United Nations Peacekeeping Forces. It was a Liberal government that made sure Canada was a founding member of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.

That is why the Liberal government ensured that Canada was one of the founding members of the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies.

It was a Liberal government under then foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy that shepherded the Ottawa convention to ratification, banning the practice and use of landmines. A Liberal government then ratified the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019.

Canada's efforts do not go unnoticed. When looking to refine their export control systems, other countries have looked to our own as one of the strongest and most effective examples. I know it has been many years, but I would remind the member for Vancouver East of the debate while she was an MP in 2018, respecting Bill C-47 during the 42nd Parliament. Canada had a strong debate about that and put in standards that not only meet the Arms Trade Treaty requirements but exceed them.

We apply exemptions more narrowly than any other ATT signatory does. We control a wider range of items than the ATT requires. Not only do we place controls on conventional arms; we also control dual-use goods and nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technologies. We impose a stricter criterion for denials than those specified under the ATT, such as where there is a risk of contributing to gender-based violence, terrorism or organized crime, and we enforce those rules. We enforce controls on Canadians involved in the transfers of military goods, even if the goods never enter Canada. We have tabled annual reports to Parliament on the export of ATT items ever since the 1990s, long before the ATT's ratification.

In deciding whether to issue or not issue an export permit, the current law dictates that it be taken into consideration whether the proposed export would contribute to peace and security, or undermine it, and whether it could be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law. We are very serious when we take these matters into consideration, and we are vigilant on the enforcement of the law; those who breach it are held accountable.

Suggesting that Canada is not compliant with the ATT is not only misleading; Canadians also both need and deserve to hear the truth about it. We have a comprehensive legal framework, a legislative framework, that we in Parliament have contributed to and that now the Government of Canada enforces.

Thus, we can see that Bill C-233, while based on good intentions about keeping people safe, is actually based on false premises. Canada has one of the strongest military export control systems in the world, and considerations for human rights are at its very core.

Instead of strengthening Canada's ability to promote responsible use and sale of military goods, this well-intentioned but misguided piece of legislation has wide-reaching implications, and it would have unintended consequences. We are working to fulfill our NATO commitments. We want to bolster security and defence industries. We want to diversify trading partners, and this bill would put us out of step with our allies in licensing efficiency, transparency and the use of appropriate discretion.

We are a NATO country. We need to be part of NATO, and the security of NATO is something that Canadians depend on. That does mean, for us in the House today, that we need to keep our NATO obligations and build upon them. This legislation would undermine that.

The changes proposed in the bill would severely hinder our defence industry by creating further instability. It would weaken Canada's role in NATO by creating unnecessary delays and potentially blocking Canadian-made materials and equipment from getting to our allies to keep our world safe, allies like Ukraine, and it would jeopardize the capabilities of our Canadian Armed Forces by constraining the way they get the supply of critical equipment and impeding their operations in vital regions like the Arctic.

Under Canada's existing export control framework, Canada allows certain military items to be exported without permits, provided they are destined for specific countries. This flexibility is embedded in the systems of our closest allies, such as the U.K., the EU and Australia. We also have deep and symbolic relationships with other partners, such as the United States, and it is a party for which the ATT also provides certain exemptions. Canada already applies this discretion more narrowly than any of the other nations granting permit-free access to only one country.

Let me be perfectly clear. Any exemption that we provide the U.S. is not a loophole. It reflects a unique geopolitical relationship rooted in our shared security commitments, continental defence and decades of military integration. This legislation would undermine these efforts and make both of our countries less secure with greater threats to our sovereignty and our stability.

The bill's stringent permitting requirements would not only strain our relations with the United States and our co-operation, but also disrupt relationships around the world. Mandatory delays in approvals would place Canadian suppliers at competitive disadvantages in Europe and Oceania, while restrictive end-user requirements could hinder Canada's ability to support partners like Ukraine in a critical time.

Let me get to the heart of this. We are in a consequential moment for global security. We have had an election. Canadians have declared that our sovereignty and our security are paramount. We are serious. We call upon all parties in the House to take that consideration seriously to ensure that Canada can defend itself and can work with our NATO allies to defend ourselves in the world.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑233, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, was introduced by the member for Vancouver East. I would like to thank the hon. member for introducing this bill, as it allows us to highlight the role of the Export and Import Permits Act.

The bill would amend the Export and Import Permits Act, which governs Canada's defence and military exports, by removing exemptions for specific countries. Currently under the Export and Import Permits Act, the United States is exempt from its provisions, due to a ministerial order. This exemption allows the United States to re-export Canadian military exports without the Government of Canada's approval. The United States is the only country under the act that is currently granted this exemption.

The effect of the bill would be to bring the United States under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act by removing the power of the minister to grant exemptions such as the one that has been granted to the United States. This would result in an effective ban on Canadian defence exports to the United States if those exports were to be re-exported to another country on which Canada has implemented a defence export ban.

The bill would change the current legal framework by clarifying that parts, components and technology necessary for the assembly or use of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are included in the meaning of those terms. It would also change the legal framework by preventing exemptions to the export control list for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war based on their country of destination.

The bill would change the legal framework by preventing the issuance of general export permits and general brokering permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; by expanding the list of considerations that the minister must take into account in issuing a permit to export or broker arms, implements, ammunition or munitions of war; and by providing that the minister must require end-use certificates from the government of a country to which these arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are being exported if doing so would sufficiently mitigate a substantial risk of war crimes or violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law.

Finally, the bill would change the current legal framework by requiring the minister to prepare and table in Parliament an annual report on the export of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war and Canada's compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty.

The defence industrial sector in Canada in 2022 contributed $14.3 billion to our GDP, which is roughly 0.5% of Canada's GDP. This sector is expected to grow substantially as a result of the government's commitment to massively increase Canada's military spending. Half of the production of Canada's defence industrial sector is exported, much of it to the United States, and herein lies the problem with the bill.

This bill could create some conflict between Canada and the United States. For example, the United States could view the passage of this bill as a significant threat to its defence and security. I would like to highlight one such example.

The United States military describes the F-35 fighter jet as an indispensable tool and a cornerstone of their fighter fleet, both for homeland defence and for warfare. Some of the F-35 parts are manufactured in the United States, but other parts of the F-35 are manufactured in Canada, with the final assembly of the F-35 in the United States in Fort Worth, Texas.

I would like to enumerate some of the F-35 parts that are manufactured in Canada, which my colleague across the way has highlighted. The horizontal tail assemblies for the F-35 are manufactured in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The weapons bay door inserts are manufactured in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. The engine sensors are manufactured in this city, the city of Ottawa in Ontario, and the outboard wing assemblies are manufactured in Delta, British Columbia.

One of the consequences of the bill is that it could result in a ban on F-35 parts manufactured in Canada being exported to the United States. It is not difficult to see how the United States would view this ban as a direct threat to their defence and security if Lockheed Martin's plant in Fort Worth, Texas, cannot complete the assembly of F-35 jets because of an inability of the company to import the necessary component parts from their plants in Canada.

Another consequence of the bill that I fear is a possible deintegration of the integrated North American defence industrial sector. Canada could see the exodus of thousands of good jobs from this country as defence industrial companies exit Canada to ensure access to the U.S. market. These are companies like L3 Harris Wescam in Hamilton, Ontario, which employs over 1,300 workers; Magellan Aerospace in Mississauga, Ontario, which employs over 600 workers; Honeywell, also in Mississauga, Ontario, which employs over 3,500 workers; General Dynamics Mission Systems—Canada in Ottawa, which employs over 1,000 workers; and Lockheed Martin Canada, which employs over 1,400 workers across multiple locations in Canada, such as Ottawa, Montreal, Calgary and Victoria.

For all these reasons, I do not support this bill.

I would again like to thank the member for Vancouver East for bringing the bill forward to allow this debate in the House to take place. However, again, for the reasons outlined, I do not support the bill.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tonight we are debating Bill C‑233, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, introduced by the member for Vancouver East.

I will begin by outlining the main points. Bill C‑233 amends the Export and Import Permits Act to remove certain exemptions for the export of arms, ammunition and military or dual-use equipment.

The objectives of the bill are as follows:

(a) clarifying that parts, components and technology necessary for the assembly or use of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are included in the meaning of those terms; (b) preventing exemptions from the Export Control List for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war based on their country of destination; (c) preventing the issuance of general export permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (d) preventing the issuance of general brokering permits for arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (e) enhancing the considerations that the Minister must take into account in issuing a permit to export or broker arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war; (f) providing that the Minister must require end-use certificates from the government of a country to which arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war are being exported if doing so would sufficiently mitigate a substantial risk of war crimes or violations of international humanitarian law or international human rights law; and (g) requiring the Minister to prepare and table in Parliament an annual report on the export of arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war and Canada’s compliance with the Arms Trade Treaty.

Obviously, the example that comes to mind today is the brutal Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I know that there are other examples, but this is the one we are going to use to illustrate certain points during our discussion. Let us not forget that the NDP, which is introducing this bill, and the Bloc Québécois were among the first to demand an end to arms sales to Israel. We still support that. Neither the NDP nor the Bloc Québécois has been shy about denouncing the crimes being committed by the Netanyahu administration in Palestine, whether in the past, present or possibly in the future.

The idea underlying the bill we are discussing is this: Even if everyone agrees on the need to stop selling weapons to a country that would misuse them, whether in Gaza or elsewhere, nothing currently stops a country from selling arms to a third country. A country could buy weapons from Canada and then resell them to another country officially boycotted by Canada. The example closest to home would be if the United States were to buy weapons from Canada and then ship them to Israel, making it appear as though Canada had sent weapons to Israel itself.

I want to start by saying that we support the intentions of Bill C‑233. I also want to commend the member for Vancouver East on her constant efforts to promote world peace. This bill is a testament to her commitment to that. The bill is full of good intentions, but the Bloc Québécois has a number of concerns about some of its aspects.

Our first concern is that it is doubtful whether it will actually work, because the defence industries of the United States and Canada are extremely integrated. That is already quite a headache. Bill C‑233 amends the Export and Import Permits Act to add restrictions. It eliminates the exemptions that were provided for under the act.

In addition, the bill would require U.S. importers to produce a certificate stating that the weapons or ammunition would not be used to commit any crimes. The intention is entirely commendable, but the addition of such constraints and the lack of predictability in the government's decision mean that American companies will simply seek out other suppliers to reduce the risk that their imports will be blocked by the Canadian government. In short, to use the example given, the Americans would stop buying weapons from Canada but could continue to get them elsewhere and sell them to be used in Gaza anyway. We have no control over the choices the Americans make, and it is unrealistic to think that we have any kind of leverage over them.

Another problem with the bill is that the threshold for refusing an export is unclear. For example, the bill states that an export permit should be denied if there is a risk that a weapon could be used against civilians or civilian buildings. In that case, all exports to the United States would have to be halted, since there is always a risk—through negligence, through error or sometimes deliberately out of necessity, unfortunately—that civilians or buildings will be hit by a U.S. strike. Take the example of soldiers who disobey their rules of engagement and commit war crimes. The threshold set out in the bill is too vague, too arbitrary.

Here is what the bill says:

...where there is a substantial risk that they would be used to commit or facilitate genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which Canada is a party;

While the threshold of “genocide” for denying an export permit is clear, the threshold of “attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such” is vague.

Let me give an example. In Iraq and Syria, Daesh terrorists frequently used mosques, schools or hospitals to store weapons and ammunition. Their reasoning was simple. If the global coalition avoided strikes on such locations, the weapons and ammunition would be safe. Conversely, if the coalition were to strike those places, other international bodies would condemn the attacks, undermining public support for military intervention in coalition countries. However, if I understand the spirit of Bill C-233 correctly, striking locations like schools and hospitals would immediately force Canada to halt its exports to coalition countries.

The Bloc Québécois thinks it would be better to leave this up to the government's discretion. Not only would it improve predictability, but it would allow for the possibility of putting pressure on other countries. For example, rather than following rigid rules, we would be able to threaten to halt exports to a country during negotiations and compel it to comply more strictly with international law. That discretion could give us a bargaining tool.

In short, the Bloc Québécois has serious reservations about Bill C‑233, but we believe it is important to listen carefully to the two-hour debate on the issue. We will listen to all the arguments from all sides on this bill and then make a final decision on whether we should refer the bill to committee.

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the member for Vancouver East for introducing Bill C‑233, an act to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, as part of Private Members' Business.

I have heard many comments about this bill from people in my riding of Ottawa—Vanier—Gloucester. It is clear that Canadians are deeply concerned about our country's role in global security and the responsible export of military equipment. The debate surrounding this bill touches on core Canadian values: our commitment to democracy, human rights, responsible trade and our contribution to making the world a safer place. These are not abstract ideals, but the very foundations of our foreign policy.

No one here disagrees with this bill in principle. Canada must maintain strong export controls to prevent the misuse of weapons. However, Bill C-233 rests upon a false premise.

Canada has one of the world's strongest export control regimes in the world and has updated it over the years accordingly. That is why Canada joined the Arms Trade Treaty in 2019 and updated our laws to ensure full compliance through Bill C-47, a bill that many members, including the member for Vancouver East, should remember well.

Canada's export control system aims to limit the illicit arms trade by preventing weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists, criminals or groups that foment conflict, and to reduce human suffering around the world. Oversight is essential, but it must be balanced and practical. While Bill C‑233 means well, its overly broad scope would create obstacles for Canadian businesses, slow trade and limit Canada's ability to respond effectively to global challenges.

When we debated Bill C‑47, we discussed many of the measures in the bill before us today that concern exemptions. What was true then remains true today in terms of the need to include these measures in our system. In short, the proposals in Bill C‑233 would disrupt a balance that we are able to achieve through existing legislation, regulations and policies.

Let me explain further. The world is changing. Conflicts are evolving and new threats are emerging. Canada must stay agile and ready to respond.

Canada's export control regime was built to keep pace with this changing world. Our risk-managed framework provides the tools needed to act swiftly, doing so, for example, by adding items to the export control list to prevent sensitive technologies from being misused.

Decisions on export permits are taken carefully after a rigorous process that involves a range of experts from across government. This includes evaluating permit applications against the criteria drawn from the Arms Trade Treaty and embedded in Canadian law through the Export and Import Permits Act.

Our system is flexible, but that flexibility does not mean that we are cutting corners. We have a carefully designed risk management framework that balances our national security, international obligations and defence partnerships with the commercial ties that support economic growth in Canada. Our process is designed to take into account intelligence, diplomatic information and human rights considerations. We work closely with Canada's missions abroad, our allies and partners, to make informed decisions that reflect the realities on the ground.

As parliamentarians and Canadians are aware, Canada has suspended or revoked permits when credible evidence of misuse has emerged. Any violations of the Export and Import Permits Act are taken extremely seriously. Those who are found to have breached the law face consequences, including fines, seizures and criminal prosecutions. That is how we help to protect lives and uphold our values. We will always work to do so.

Bill C-233 would hinder our ability to continue with this risk-based approach in three significant ways.

First, Bill C-233 seeks to create a statutory definition of arms that could potentially include items that are not weapons at all, such as navigation systems, software and even basic mechanical parts. The bill's proposed definition could have Canada needlessly regulating thousands of products, from nuts and bolts to steel and aluminum. This would put Canada out of step with allies, whose focus is rightly on high-risk technologies and high-risk destinations. Further, this would overwhelm our export control system, require staggering increases in government resources, slow legitimate trade and hurt Canada's reputation and Canadian businesses, especially small and medium-sized manufacturers, which rely on predictable rules.

Second, this bill seeks to prescribe how export applications are assessed by adding new mandatory requirements for governments to certify the end use of items purchased by private companies in their countries. Not only does this go well beyond what is required by the Arms Trade Treaty, but it would be virtually impossible to implement. Most countries simply do not issue official end-use certificates to private entities. Canada would have neither the authority nor the influence to enforce this provision, and imposing it would only block legitimate exports, including potentially those destined for our allies in Ukraine.

What is more, Canada already conducts thorough end-use and destination risk assessments. End use is verified using a variety of reliable methods. These may include end-use certificates issued by a government when it imports items itself, or other assurances provided by reputable private parties for private exports.

Canada assesses destination countries based on factors such as the strength of their export control systems and the risk of diversion, consistent with how our allies operate. The proposed addition to our assessment criteria would not make the world a safer place. Rather, it would hurt Canadian businesses and their customers, including the Canadian Armed Forces and our NATO allies at a time when we need them most, and undermine Canada's role as a trusted partner.

Third, Bill C-233 would impose costs and burdens on ordinary Canadians. Like many of our allies, Canada uses expedited licensing in specific circumstances for lower-risk military and dual-use items to countries with similarly robust approaches to export controls. This is a standard international practice that enables defence trade to move quickly and securely without compromising oversight and the agility it requires in a rapidly divided world, at a time when we are trying to increase our defence capacity, not decrease it.

This bill would disrupt the balance we have worked so hard to achieve. It proposes restrictions that would increase costs for both the government and Canadian businesses, without improving the quality of decisions. This bill would end the current system that allows most military goods and technology to be exported to the United States without the need for individual permits, which would harm an important trade and defence relationship.

In fact, this bill goes beyond what it claims to do in this area. It would cancel all existing export permits, including long-standing general export and brokering permits. This means that Canadian companies, many of which have already undergone rigorous review, would be forced to start from scratch and re-apply for permits, affecting hard-working Canadian companies that already have very limited resources.

As a result, I wish to inform the House that we are unable to support this bill as it stands, but I think it is important to thank the member for Vancouver East for bringing it before the House.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I will not have more time to discuss Bill C-233, the amendments being proposed by the NDP to the Export and Import Permits Act.

The intent is laudable in wanting to make sure that Canadian-made weapons and components are not being used in weapons by our adversaries, like terrorist organizations. Iran was using components in the Shahed drones that were bombing Israel, and they have been sold to Russia and are being used against the great people of Ukraine. We want to make sure that that does not happen and that we hold companies to account when they have sold components and weapons to other suppliers and they have ended up in the hands of our adversaries.

However, we know by what is being proposed in Bill C-233 that we would have an added layer of bureaucracy that would slow down the sale of parts, weapons, platforms and technology to our allies and partners. One thing that is going to happen with this bill is it would require that no country gets an exemption. Therefore, none of our NATO allies, none of our Five Eyes partners and none of our friends in the Middle East or Ukraine would be able to go to our suppliers and Canadian businesses to buy the parts and weapons systems they need to defend their sovereign territory. We want to make sure that does not interfere with the overall operations of our defence industry and our relationships with our allies.

I have to stress that, when we look at this, we have to remember, as Canadians, that our sovereignty is also threatened by this. Part of our sovereign capacity and capability is having a strong defence industry. When we have a defence industry that exports over $7 billion of the $9.6 billion it produces on an annual basis, and 63% of that goes to the United States, we have to protect that to ensure that those industries survive.

I will carry on this conversation the next time we rise on Bill C-233.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member. He will have about seven and a half minutes coming back to him the next time the House considers this matter.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Housing

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and again speak on an issue close to my heart and to the next generation of young Canadians, which of course is the issue of housing and the lack of housing in Canada.

Build Canada Homes, this new bureaucracy, is emblematic of what is wrong with government thinking these days. It is what is wrong with Liberal plans these days. For every problem, there is a new government-driven response. For childhood nutrition problems, we have a government-run lunch program. For bad actors on the Internet, we have a government-run censorship program. For a lack of housing supply, we have not one, not two, not even three, but four government-run bureaucracies. If any of these Liberal solutions worked, after 10 years, we would have seen things improve. However, in fact, in housing, the opposite has taken place. It is now more difficult than it has ever been in Canadian history for the next generation to own a home anywhere in Canada.

Even if we thought another government bureaucracy was the solution, Build Canada Homes will not fix our housing woes. That is because this bureaucracy's stated objective is only with respect to non-market housing, which means affordable housing and at non-market rates. This means that most Canadians, those of middle income or higher, will see zero benefit from this new bureaucracy.

Estimates suggest that this new bureaucracy will deliver only between 1% and 2% of the needed new home supply. Even at full capacity, the non-market focus would therefore only address a tiny fraction of the overall supply gap in Canada. A report from the Canadian Home Builders Association agrees, saying, “With the non-market housing focus of BCH, it will only impact a small fragment of what will be required to achieve the government’s 500,000 homes per year target.”

How about unimaginable speeds? The only thing that this budget could point to with respect to housing was the selection of certain sites for construction, maybe sometime in the future; a few hundred homes in the north, maybe in the future; and a few hundred in Toronto, maybe in the future. That is a far cry from the 500,000 new homes that the Liberals' own housing agency says need to be built in Canada, and that is just to get us back to 2019 affordability levels. In fact, the government's own housing bureaucracy said just this week that housing starts are actually down again year over year. CMHC reported this week that housing starts are down 3% year over year.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this: Can she please try to explain how a new government bureaucracy that builds only non-market homes at unimaginably slow speeds will allow the next generation to afford a home in Canada?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is taking action to build the infrastructure communities need and to make housing more affordable for Canadians. Budget 2025, “Canada Strong”, delivers generational investments to meet these goals. It includes $51 billion for a new infrastructure program, with $17 billion dedicated to housing enabling infrastructure. This will allow cuts to development charges that will significantly bring down the cost of housing for Canadians.

We are also addressing the housing crisis head-on with the recent launch of Build Canada Homes. This new federal agency will finance and build affordable housing at scale. It will leverage public lands, offer flexible financial incentives, attract private capital, facilitate large portfolio projects and support manufacturers to build the homes Canadians need.

Build Canada Homes will prioritize large-scale, long-term solutions to build on the successes of existing housing initiatives with a team Canada approach. These programs include the affordable housing fund and the apartment construction loan program, which have built hundreds of thousands of new homes and repaired hundreds of thousands more.

We have also seen how the $4.4-billion housing accelerator fund is eliminating barriers to development. So far, we have signed agreements with more than 240 communities across the country that have committed to cutting red tape and streamlining the development process.

The Government of Canada is dedicated to making Canada's housing market work better for everyone. We are focused on affordability, and we are building a stronger Canada.

We are not stopping there. The federal government is also reducing barriers to home ownership so that young people are not priced out of the housing market. Measures like the tax-free first home savings account and the homebuyers' plan help Canadians save for their first home. We have also made changes to mortgage financing rules to help more buyers qualify. Importantly, we are eliminating the goods and services tax, the GST, for the first time on homebuyers of new homes at or under $1 million and reducing GST on new homes up to $1.5 million.

Young Canadians deserve the same opportunities that previous generations enjoyed, and we are making that happen. The Government of Canada will continue to work closely with home builders, indigenous partners and all levels of government to deliver results. We are putting affordability front and centre, and we will innovate, invest and remove barriers so that every Canadian can find a place to call home.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if saying “generational” again and again built homes, we would not be here tonight having this discussion, but we know it does not build homes. In fact, we know the next generation is having the most difficult time in history owning a home.

The parliamentary secretary said she did not want the next generation priced out of the market. Well, here is a news flash: They are priced out of the market. The average salary in Canada no longer buys the average home in Canada. Young Canadians just want the same opportunity their parents and their grandparents had: to work hard and have the opportunity to buy a home.

Does the parliamentary secretary agree with me that the average salary in Canada should buy the average home in Canada? Will she admit that 10 years of Liberal proposals have done nothing to make that better?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this government is focused on restoring affordability and lowering housing costs. Build Canada Homes will build and finance affordable housing by partnering with builders and housing providers focused on long-term affordability. It will prioritize Canadian-made materials and modern methods of construction, such as factory-built housing, to catalyze a new Canadian housing industry, one that builds faster and more sustainably.

We are working closely with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities to improve affordability and build the supply Canada needs. The government is committed to making housing more affordable and more attainable, while growing the strength and resilience of Canada's economy at the same time, because every Canadian deserves a place to call home so they can focus on building a successful future for themselves and for their families.

Finance

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, most Canadians do not spend their evenings reading budget tables or credit reports, and frankly they should not have to. In a well-run country, those numbers are supposed to be boring. However, nothing about Canada's finances is boring right now, because the government has pushed us into territory where ordinary families are paying the price for extraordinary mismanagement.

Let us start with the simplest truth, one that is understood by any family, business or responsible adult: One cannot spend more than one earns forever. When a government does it, the consequences do not hit the politician who overspent; they hit Canadians. They show up in higher taxes, prices and interest rates, and they show up when one's grocery bill climbs but one's paycheque does not. Overspending may happen in Ottawa, but the fallout lands on Canadians' dinner tables, in their gas tanks and in their monthly budgets.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed, to the Liberals' great irritation, the very thing they hoped no one would say out loud: The deficit is not shrinking like they said it would. It is doubling, not because of a recession or an emergency but because the government has chosen to grow spending by tens of billions of dollars. When government expands operating spending faster than the economy grows, deficits explode. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is arithmetic.

The government insists that all this spending is investment. That would be convenient if it were true, but a label does not change reality. An investment is something that pays back, and a cost is something paid for. Confusing the two does not make someone sophisticated; it makes them irresponsible. A family understands this intuitively. Buying a new tool for work is an investment, while buying a new flat-screen TV for a man cave is a cost. Both may be great, but only one produces a return.

The government has been calling almost everything it does an investment, even things that are clearly not. Museums and cultural centres may sound great, but they do not generate revenue for the country, pay down the debt or expand Canada's productivity. They are costs. There is nothing wrong with costs when we can afford them, but it is dangerous to pretend that costs will magically behave like investments.

The PBO found that the government inflated its so-called capital investments by $94 billion simply by renaming ordinary spending as assets. Other countries do not do that, and nor do accountants and economists. It is the kind of creative bookkeeping that hides problems rather than solving them.

Now we see the consequence. Fitch Ratings, the agency responsible for evaluating our financial health, has warned of a downgrade of Canada's credit rating. That is not a symbolic gesture; it is the financial world's saying out loud what many Canadians have already begun to feel, which is that we do not trust the government to manage debt. A downgrade will mean we pay more to borrow. When we owe as much as Canada does, that is not a small problem. It means that the interest on the debt grows faster and that more tax dollars go toward servicing yesterday's overspending instead of building tomorrow's opportunities.

Canadians deserve honesty. They deserve a government that understands the difference between spending and investing. They deserve policies rooted in reality, not wishful thinking. Above all, they deserve leadership that protects the next generation instead of sending them the bill for this one.

How do we quit maxing out the national credit card and pull Canada back from the edge before the next generation pays the price?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the international orders and trading systems that powered Canada's prosperity for decades are quickly being changed and drastically reshaped, threatening our sovereignty, our prosperity and our values. Faced with these realities, where others would simply endeavour to weather the storm, our government is rising up to meet the moment with humility, vigour and confidence.

Budget 2025 is the generational plan Canada needs to build our economy, protect our way of life and empower Canadians like never seen before. We will build here at home, including supports for industries impacted by tariffs, nation-building infrastructure through the new Major Projects Office, and millions more homes for Canadians, including through a new agency, Build Canada Homes. We will protect what matters most, which are our people, our community and our sovereignty, by investing in our Armed Forces and border security and by rolling out bail reforms to ensure safer streets for all.

We will empower Canadians with better careers, strong public services and a more affordable life with measures to drive down competition in key sectors, automatic federal benefits that will reach up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians and a permanent national food program. With budget 2025's new trade diversification strategy, supported by a trade diversification corridors fund, we will explore new markets and sell more of the best that Canada has to offer.

We know that to make these generational investments, our government must make certain adjustments. This includes a new framework for budgeting, the cornerstone of which is a new capital budgeting framework that prioritizes spending that stimulates public and private sector capital investment while reining in day-to-day operational spending, which rose significantly during COVID and the post-COVID era. In doing so, we are creating a more efficient and productive government for the future.

The government will balance day-to-day operating spending with revenues by 2028 to 2029, while maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. We will do this while enabling $1 trillion in total investment over the next five years through smarter public spending and stronger capital investment. A key part of this process is the comprehensive expenditure review, which will reduce inefficiencies and refocus government spending on core priorities. It will rein in government spending, saving Canada $13 billion annually by 2028 to 2029, for a total with other savings and revenues of $60 billion over five years. Savings will be achieved by restructuring operations and consolidating internal services and rightsizing programs to realize efficiency. This will allow the government to invest more in the workers, businesses and nation-building infrastructure that will build Canada strong. By making these adjustments now, we are making it possible to build the strongest economy in the G7.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this budget is all about the magical $1 trillion investment boom, as if private investors are lining up to pour hundreds of billions of dollars into Canada, but so far, the Prime Minister has circled the globe four times, literally, with basically almost nothing to show for it because businesses do not invest where the numbers do not add up and, right now, the numbers do not add up.

Fitch Ratings, one of the world's major financial watchdogs, just warned that in this budget, Canada's finances are heading in the wrong direction. It stated straight up in its report that the government has a pattern of promising one number and then spending way more every time. Even more shocking is that the report says that, when it comes to the rules, they mean absolutely nothing because the Liberals do not follow them anyway. Just last year, they broke all three targets they set for budget 2024. An investor has the entire globe to choose from. They are not going to choose the one country that spins a great story but never keeps its promises.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 meets the moment Canada finds itself in with a responsible fiscal plan that would build Canada as an economic force for decades to come. The world is changing, and we must meet the moment by building on the solid foundation of strong Canadian industries bolstered by diverse international trade partners and the undeniable fact that we have exactly what the world needs.

By becoming our own best customers, we will transform our economy from one of reliance on specific trade partners to the one that is more resilient to global shocks. With budget 2025, we will spend less, invest more and build Canada as an economic force for decades to come. We will make life more affordable for Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and we will build Canada strong.

Mental Health and Addictions

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as members are well aware, I am rising again, as I have on many occasions in the past, to raise the issue of mental health for Canadians and the government's failure to follow through on its commitments. I am flagging that again because mental health is health.

Back on October 7, I asked the minister why the Liberals were abandoning their promise to make mental health a full and equal part of Canada's universal public health care system. At the time, I indicated this: “It is estimated [that] every dollar invested in mental health generates two dollars of long-term savings, while untreated mental health issues cost our economy more than $50 billion every year.”

First of all, I need to correct the record right now. That figure of $50 billion was from 2012. A new report released earlier this year by the Mental Health Commission of Canada estimates that the monetary cost associated with untreated mental health issues is actually more like $200 billion. That is an increase of $150 billion over 13 years.

I asked the Minister of Health to acknowledge that it is time to invest in the mental health of Canadians as a nation-building project. The response I received during question period, and I am being quite generous here, was woefully disappointing. She said, “Mental health is top of mind for this new government”.

We do not see that reality reflected in actual investment dollars in the past budget, apart from some funding for youth mental health that the NDP helped advocate for. Again, the Liberals made commitments in their 2025 election campaign that they would make the youth mental health fund permanent and earmark $150 million per year toward it, beginning this year and continuing through fiscal year 2028-29. They failed to do that.

What happened to these great ideas between the recent federal election and the budget? Even if the government followed through on its campaign promises, these figures are woefully inadequate, and they fall far short of meeting the $200 billion in annual costs to the Canadian economy resulting from untreated mental health issues, as I stated earlier. If the government is actually serious about improving productivity in this country, we need to double investments in mental health and we need to support workers, especially when we look at nation building. Investing in mental health is nation building. It does help support the GDP.

We are only spending about half what our peer countries do on mental health, when we look at the OECD average, and we are seeing the results of that underfunding. I go outside, and I can see the impact. Every family in this country is touched by someone struggling with mental health issues. Mental health funding is an investment in Canada's workforce, and while the youth mental health fund is an important investment, we need to ensure that all Canadians can access appropriate supports.

The Canadian Institute for Health Information found in data published just last month that in 2024, 41% of Canadian adults and 36% of children who needed mental health care had needs that were only partially met or were completely unmet. That shows we have a long way to go. As Canadians, we pride ourselves on taking care of each other, but right now too many people are being left to struggle on their own.

It is time to change that. It is time to finally bring mental health into our universal public health care system. That is why I tabled the first private member's bill in the 45th Parliament, Bill C-201. If that bill was passed, it would bring community-based mental health services into the Canada Health Act so that we would have parity, and all Canadians would access supports with a health card, not a credit card.

My question for the minister and the parliamentary secretary is whether they will commit here and now to fixing the Canada Health Act to ensure that we have parity with mental and physical health and make sure that it is implemented in our universal public health care system.