Debates of Nov. 24th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House of Commons and speak on behalf of the great people of southwest and west-central Saskatchewan. It was a nice weekend back home, but it looks as though, this week, winter is going to be settling in for the long haul. Unfortunately, there is some snow on the forecast, so I just want to wish everyone well back home as we get ready for winter to settle in.

I want to start by saying what the national debt was during question period. It was $1,281,213,600,467. I am ballparking those last six figures because the debt clock moves really fast, and I cannot even see what the numbers are because it is reeling at such a great speed. Since then, the national debt has increased by over $15 million on just the interest that has accrued. Right now, we are sitting at $1,281,228,741,000, now 42,000, now 43,000. Again, I cannot even read the hundreds column because it is going way too fast.

I wanted to bring that up for people so that they can understand what we are talking about when we say that the government needs to exercise fiscal constraint and that it needs to be responsible with the budget. What does it mean when those numbers go high? When government spends way more money than it brings in, that leads to inflation in what people pay for goods. When we talk about many of the issues we face as a country, particularly the next generation of youngsters, the government sets the tone with its own finances. Youngsters are looking to figure out how they are going to build a home and how they will afford groceries or go to university, things like that. The current budget is a terrible example for the next generation of how to set a budget, follow a budget and stick to a goal in terms of what one is going to do.

The Prime Minister said that he was never going to go higher than Justin Trudeau's debt number. That was $42.2 billion. We are at $78.3 billion. In fact, the member of Parliament for University—Rosedale was the finance minister. She actually resigned her position because of what Justin Trudeau was doing with the budget, which precipitated the whole process through which the current Prime Minister became the leader of the Liberal Party and, therefore, the Prime Minister of Canada.

Why does all this matter? I was comparing the budget to the 2024 budget, which had “fairness for every generation”. The projections the Liberals had for the 2024 budget and in relation to the fall economic statement were that the projected deficit for this fiscal year was going to be only $38.9 billion. When we look at the budget, right now, we are sitting at $78.3 billion, so there is a discrepancy of almost $40 billion.

The Liberals are probably going to get up, and someone is going to say that it is Donald Trump's fault and so on and so forth. There is a bit of blame that can maybe go there, but there is another promise that was broken. The Prime Minister said that he was the man who was fit to deal with a crisis and that he knew how to manage a crisis. As we saw in the media today, “whatever, so what?” was his whole response to how things have been going with Donald Trump.

We know that the Prime Minister has been a failure on trade and with the current budget. Something else that caught my attention, and I do not think that it caught the attention of too many other people, is that the debt ceiling for Canada was also increased. It has actually increased three times in the last four years. Most people do not know that. It is another small fact that slides on through without anybody really talking about it. Let us compare and contrast that with how things go in the United States: If the government has to increase the debt ceiling, it is a big process that gets national attention and makes the news. It even makes it on to CBC, which is supposed to be the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but it spends more time covering American than Canadian politics.

Anyway, the debt ceiling has increased three times in the last four years. It has been increased to somewhere around $2.3 trillion. It makes one wonder what the government's plan and projection is going forward if it is already increasing the debt ceiling that high above what the current debt already is.

Going forward, let us go out the next four or five years, because the budget actually does that. It forecasts what the year-over-year deficit is going to be, and it also projects what the cost to service the debt is going to be. It is going to cost about $76 billion to $78 billion just to pay the interest on the national debt three or four years from now.

Why is that significant? I am going to give people back home a specific example. Everybody in Saskatchewan remembers when, in the 1990s, the federal government's debt got out of control. Jean Chrétien tried to borrow more money and was told that he could not. He ended up rolling back health care transfers to the Province of Saskatchewan. In Saskatchewan, 52 hospitals that had eight beds or less were closed or were repurposed and had their service delivery changed. That was the impact that this had all across Saskatchewan. I am sure other provinces went through the same thing.

In Saskatchewan, that was devastating. Our health care services have now become so heavily centralized. In some cases we have to drive three or four hours just to be able to see a doctor, when there used to be a hospital or a health clinic only half an hour or even 20 minutes down the road. That is no longer the case. For example, someone living on a farm or in a rural community who wants to start a young family has to go two hours to get to the hospital to be able to deliver their child.

Things like that have had a dramatic impact and have been a change over the years. With the Liberal government's budget running such a massive deficit, people in Saskatchewan always remember what the ripple effect of that was and how it happened.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau had done exactly what Justin Trudeau did. Interest rates were low, so they locked in crazy spending. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, in the 1970s, ran a deficit of an equivalent of, I think, $72 billion when we factor in the value of today's dollars. The way that the borrowing happened at that point in time, when that all came to be renewed in the late 1980s and into the 1990s, interest rate percentages were in the high teens and into the 20s. There is a reason why the government could no longer borrow more money.

That was why, when Jean Chrétien tried to borrow more money and he could not, he had to massively slash government spending, which meant that he slashed the transfers to the provinces. That is what took one of the biggest hits.

That is the track record of out-of-control Liberal spending. Canadians do not want those results again.

Let us talk about the fiscal anchors. The fiscal anchors from the previous budget have all been completely abandoned. Those included not spending over $42 billion, and also making sure that the debt-to-GDP ratio did not go over a certain level. We have blown way past that level. The government has now switched to a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio and also to the balancing of the operating budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, the independent PBO, did a fantastic study. He said that there is only a 7.5% chance that the deficit-to-GDP ratio will decline. There is a 92.5% chance that the government is going to fail on that fiscal anchor as well.

Let us talk about a few other things. There are a couple of things the government has said that we will give it credit for. It wanted to repeal the carbon tax. The Conservatives opposed the tax for a very long time, and the Liberals repealed it. We opposed the emissions cap, which they are repealing because, they cited, it would have marginal value on actually accomplishing any emissions reduction. We all know that it was actually a production cap all along.

There is a section in the budget that I was looking at earlier, called “Improving the Efficiency of the Tax System”. It does not even get half a page. All it does is remove the luxury tax from airplanes and yachts. It also repeals the underused housing tax. That is it for improving the tax system.

During tax season, so many people came in to talk about their issues with CRA, how the tax system was unfair and how it needed to be massively overhauled and reformed. The government could have chosen to, for example, change how the livestock tax deferral works for our ranchers when they go through drought. It would have had a massive impact if that livestock tax deferral were to have been extended. That would have been a positive measure and a step in the right direction, but no.

The gun buyback program is in the budget: $742 million to take property away from law-abiding Canadians. That is shameful.

They are spending $362 million on farmers overseas, not on farmers here in Canada or in Saskatchewan. With the trade issues that we are seeing going on, I can think of lots of great places where that money could have been used instead.

Maybe in questions, we will get to that.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's drawing such focused attention to the fiscal disaster that the previous Progressive Conservative government left to the Liberals in the 1990s, which necessitated the very challenging fiscal decisions that were made at that time. That is clear; that is the historical record, and the member seems well aware of that challenge.

In the context of our colleagues' concerns about the level of federal spending over the last couple of years, I would encourage them to be a bit more specific in terms of what they would have chosen not to spend on. Would it be the Canada child benefit that the Conservative Party would not have supported and not have spent money on? Would it be $10-a-day child care? Would it be the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion? Would it be national defence spending such that Canada would meet its 2% NATO target? Would it be CERB, which rescued Canadians from the effect of the pandemic, or the other pandemic supports that the government provided?

What would you not have spent?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Members should address questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite publicly supported defunding the police. I did not hear him say that.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to talk about ways that we can save money, for example, Conservatives proposed that we would cut funding to the CBC. That is a pretty simple and easy one there. There is the $742-million gun buyback program, which I mentioned already. The $10-a-day child care system is not working the way the Liberals said it would work. There have been day care closures. There have been all kinds of issues with that. Access to day care has not actually increased at all.

I could go on and on. The private sector was going to build the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The Liberals should have let the private sector build it. Instead, they meddled with it and messed up the process. They should fix the process and let the private sector build things.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the thing that is probably most disappointing in the budget is the lack of help for our young adults, the adults who cannot afford a home, who are full of fear and anxiety. Quite frankly, they now have a belief system that nine out of 10 young adults will never be able to afford a home. We need to get rid of that belief system.

I know my hon. colleague has an up-and-coming family as well. What should have been in the budget, such as removing the industrial carbon tax, to help our young Canadians to be able to afford a home and to start a family?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that was a fantastic question. There are several things they could have taken out of the budget that would have helped the next generation.

The industrial carbon tax is a huge one. It is largely a hidden tax. We cannot see it on line items, but it is baked into a lot of things. Any of the large emitters that have it include the steel producers. The Prime Minister, when he was running to be the leader of the Liberal Party, asked, who uses steel anymore anyway? That shows how little he actually knows about how buildings are built and how large projects are built in this country. There are many such things that could have been done differently and should have been done differently. The industrial carbon tax is one great example.

As another example, there is no software lumber agreement. Ever since the government has been in power, for over 10 years now, we have not had a softwood lumber agreement with the United States. We need lumber to build homes. We have had 30 sawmill closures in B.C. alone, yet there has been no acknowledgement from the government about that.

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

Mr. Speaker, we just heard at COP30 that Canada got awarded the fossil award. Here we have, right now, Liberals who are competing with Conservatives on who can out-pipeline the other.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

The Conservatives are saying they won. Mr. Speaker, they want to keep the fossil award, year after year. I do not doubt that they are going to get it, the way things are going.

There is a proposal that is going to be talked about later in the week. The Prime Minister is meeting in private with Danielle Smith, the Premier of Alberta. He is not consulting with the Province of British Columbia, nor is he consulting with first nations, about lifting the tanker ban that has been in place for over 50 years.

Would my colleague think it appropriate if this were to happen in his home province, that there was a proposal such as for a pipeline, but neither his premier nor the first nations in his home riding were consulted?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what I will say to the member opposite is that he was sort of getting on the right track because I think the point he was trying to make was that natural resource development is the jurisdiction of the province. It is not the federal government's jurisdiction to be in natural resource development.

When I look at the Major Project Office, most of the projects it is developing are projects that are under provincial jurisdiction and should be left alone to the provinces. Instead, the federal government wants to maintain a hammer over the provinces and be the one to try to cherry-pick what projects can and cannot be built, when it should not be meddling in provincial governments' or first nations' jurisdiction to begin with.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the good people of Milton East—Halton Hills South to bring reflections on our government's 2025 budget and Bill C-15, the budget implementation act. This is a budget that lays the blueprint to address a new paradigm of economic development, nation-building and generational investment. This is a budget that believes in Canada. This budget is historic, and it comes at a historic time, but is also a time of challenges.

We know that Canada is grappling with recent economic hardships as a result of the unfair tariffs the United States has thrust upon us. These tariffs have contributed to a global disruption of economic conventions and to unaffordability around the world. It is not just a Canadian problem. In fact, we saw recently that unaffordability in the United States is so critical that the American President has actually reversed course on his prized tariff policy, reversing tariffs on food items that Americans were struggling to afford, and they still do.

However, Canadians know that times of challenge are also times of opportunity. Now is the time for us to re-evaluate and recommit to our own destiny. We do not need to rely on anyone to be prosperous. We have much of what we need right here: an educated, hard-working and patriotic population; vast natural resources that the world wants; and a philosophy of co-operation, quality and responsibility that makes us a desired partner for trade, investment and collaboration the world over.

The broad shifting tides of the global economic landscape are being felt in the daily lives of Canadians. As a government, it is our duty to address this. Our 2025 budget is the foundation of our answer to this challenge. Here, in the people's House, we all hear it and feel it. Affordability, housing, employment, our young people, crime and defence all need and deserve our collective attention.

It is the right of every Canadian to feel secure in their daily needs and endeavours. We understand the importance of investing in resources for a safer community, and that is why budget 2025 would invest $1.7 billion over four years into public safety and border security by hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new border security agents. Safety in our communities is also top of mind. By investing in law enforcement and justice reform, we would tackle organized crime, gun violence, auto theft and many other crimes. Safety is the first pillar of prosperity.

I have four young adult children. As a mother, their struggles are my struggles. Youth unemployment rates are not acceptable. Over the next two years, $594 million will develop 100,000 summer jobs under our Canada summer jobs program. Investing over $300 million over two years in our youth employment and skills strategy would provide employment and support to 20,000 young people facing employment barriers, and we would create 55,000 work-integrated learning opportunities for post-secondary students by investing $635 million in our student work placement program.

This new government has also committed $40 million to create a youth climate corps that will provide paid skills training to young Canadians to quickly respond to environmental emergencies, support recovery and create a resilient Canada for generations to come.

Hand in hand with employment is the pride and accomplishment of a home to call one's own. We have been facing a steep housing supply gap. To combat this, our government has allotted $13 billion over five years to our Build Canada Homes initiative, supercharging the housing industry and catalyzing private sector partnerships to build homes at a rate unseen since the postwar period. We would also expand transitional and supportive housing for the most vulnerable among us, working with our provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities.

In the short term, we are providing relief by bringing down house purchase costs through our elimination of the GST for first-time homebuyers, allowing them to recover up to $50,000 of the GST paid toward a new home, money that would go directly back into their pockets. We are also protecting existing affordable housing through launching the $1.5-billion Canada rental protection fund under Build Canada Homes to ensure that affordable rent is not being lost to increases.

To provide quick relief to nearly 22 million Canadians, our government has implemented a middle-class tax cut aimed to specifically target Canadians in the lower and middle tax brackets. In hand with this, our government is transitioning to automated federal benefits for Canadians through simplifying the filing of tax returns. This would result in approximately five and a half million Canadians receiving the benefits they are entitled to but are not currently collecting simply because they are not filing tax returns. These benefits belong to the people, and our government is removing obstacles so the people can benefit.

Canadians are not afraid of hard work, and the government is implementing a new re-skilling package for workers. By providing $570 million, we would support training and employment assistance to workers who have been affected by tariffs and global market shifts.

Guaranteed in our charter is security of the person, and this is a foundational tenet in Canada's health care system, a system that is envied the world over and that every Canadian can look to with pride. The government would invest $5 billion over three years to our dedicated health infrastructure fund. We recognize that hospitals, urgent care centres, emergency rooms and medical schools need to be at the forefront of our investment to serve Canadians.

In my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South, plans are under way for a new hospital in Georgetown and a palliative care hospice, each facing significant capital costs. Budget 2025's health infrastructure proposal is the type of plan that will support such projects. Our municipalities and our people need this support.

My history as a municipal councillor in Milton gives me an insightful perspective in this sphere. So much of our municipal planning depends on investing in core public infrastructure. Municipalities have limited ways to raise revenue and cannot run budget deficits, yet they are burdened with increasing responsibilities, typically without the corresponding financial support.

I am so proud to stand up for this budget, which commits $54 billion to core public infrastructure over the next five years through our build communities strong fund. This infrastructure is imperative to supporting municipalities as they work to facilitate homebuilding in our communities.

Of course, with development, we must be mindful of our impact on our natural environment. Our budget outlines the path to supporting a green future while providing prosperity by becoming an energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy. Lowering our emissions is a necessity to protect the competitiveness of our oil, gas and steel sectors. By placing emission reduction first, we are securing access to markets that prioritize sustainability.

The world economy is undergoing historical transformations in clean technology, and we are ready to lead. Canada's power sector has a clear emissions advantage compared to those of our peers, and we will capitalize on it. With this budget, we will build new infrastructure that places Canada as a clean energy superpower. This will include renewable energy projects, high-speed rail and investments in low-carbon fuels.

Budget 2025 strengthens industrial carbon pricing, supports critical mineral projects and boosts clean economy investments with tax credits. As we plant the seeds to invest in Canada, we will be doing it with a green thumb.

Our Prime Minister has been clear: Canada's new government will spend less so we can invest more. At a time when Canadians are facing economic pressures in their daily lives, this government recognizes its duties in solidarity with all Canadians. That is why this budget demands $60 billion in savings, and we have done this while still protecting the vital services Canadians rely on: child care, dental care, pharmacare and our national school food program.

It is our duty to guard tax dollars and reduce inefficiencies. Our comprehensive expenditure review will focus on investments that meet program objectives, that complement, rather than duplicate, services delivered by other levels of government and that cut red tape while creating efficiencies.

I am so proud to be a Canadian and a member of a government that is unafraid of taking bold action and meeting challenges head-on. It is at times of adversity that leadership is tested, and this government under this Prime Minister is leading this moment.

Canada is remarkably poised to lead through the shifting sands of global trade and embark on a new era of nation building. We are among the top producers of critical minerals and a world leader in artificial intelligence. We have unmatched market access as the only country in the G7 with comprehensive free trade agreements with all other G7 members.

We have the people, the resources and the stability necessary to prosper, compete and lead in the new economy being shaped before us, and to contribute to its formation in a way that benefits Canadians. Our mission is clear: protect, build and invest. This moment is a time for reflection, for honesty and for taking our place as a nation of builders and innovators. This moment is a turning point for economic prosperity and nation building in Canada.

We are taking control of our own future. We will achieve this by capturing all the promise and potential of our great nation and ourselves. For everything, there is a time, and this is a time to believe in ourselves, to believe in Canada.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the member of Parliament that represents the RCMP depot where all RCMP officers are trained.

One thing this budget does, as the member said she wanted to have an honest look at it, is it cuts $98 million from the RCMP budget. How does she expect Canadians to feel safer on the streets when the Liberals are cutting $98 million from the RCMP budget?

Also, they are asking the RCMP to train 1,000 more recruits by 2030, which will cost $120 million. Where are they supposed to find that money when they have already cut the RCMP budget by $98 million?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, our government has plans to invest a great deal in public safety. It is something we all heard a lot about at the doors.

We are hiring 1,000 RCMP officers and 1,000 Canada Border Services agents. This will result in a stronger border.

This government is serious about supporting our law enforcement men and women, who are keeping us all safe. I hope the opposition will join us in that endeavour.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the new youth climate corps, and I am really happy to see the government do that, but the intention when the NDP advocated for the creation of the youth climate corps was not for young people to clean up catastrophic oil spills on the coast of British Columbia.

When Bill C-5 was brought forward, the government made a commitment. The Prime Minister said he would consult with first nations and the premiers of every province before deciding to move forward with proposed economic developments such as pipelines. As of right now, the Province of B.C. has not been consulted, while there are backdoor conversations happening with Premier Danielle Smith, and neither have coastal first nations.

Are the Liberals trying to out-compete the Conservatives when it comes to pipelines? They won the fossil fuel award at COP. What is my colleague going to do to reverse that trend?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I respect my colleague's concerns about this. Our Prime Minister and our government have been extremely clear on this point. No project of this nature is going to move forward without the buy-in and informed consent of the indigenous communities and provinces that are impacted.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for her phenomenal reflection on this extraordinary budget.

I will ask her to elaborate a little more, given her deep experience as a municipal councillor, on the challenges we are seeing at other levels of government. What are some of the strengths you see in the proposed budget?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Let us ask questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Milton East—Halton Hills South.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my background as a municipal councillor has been extremely valuable in this role because I understand how the policies of other orders of government trickle down to municipalities and how they impact folks living in municipalities.

We were thrilled to see the investments made in community infrastructure, for example, for building stronger communities. This is so important, because communities and municipalities now find that they are being delegated more and more responsibility from provincial governments without the corresponding financial support. Even though we are incentivizing builders and developers to build homes in our communities, we are also ensuring that municipalities are being made whole through infrastructure support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member opposite's speech, and she mentioned trade disruption as one of the reasons for this budget and for the generational debt binge the Liberal government is on.

On this side of the House, we certainly support efforts to diversify and strengthen Canada's trade, but of course our number one and most important trading relationship is the one we have with the United States. I wonder if the member will tell us if she thinks that relationship is the most important and whether she cares about that relationship. Does she have any burning questions she would like to ask the administration on that relationship?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very timely question. Obviously, trade with what had traditionally been our largest trading partner and closest ally for over 100 years is extremely important.

Through no fault of our own, we have found that the United States has changed course and decided to become completely unreliable. As Canadians, we need to control what we can control. While we will keep the option open to continue negotiating on trade with the United States, we need to seek other reliable allies and partners in that field.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians opened the budget, they were shocked. They were shocked because the Prime Minister promised he would be different from Justin Trudeau. He promised fiscal responsibility. He promised to reduce spending. He promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. However, it was all show.

Canadians now see the truth. Instead, the Prime Minister has delivered the largest deficit outside COVID, at a staggering $78 billion, but there are some people celebrating. I could almost hear the bankers and bondholders clinking their champagne glasses, thrilled about higher inflation and interest rates that will put more money in their pockets. The global elites are grinning too, because the Prime Minister quietly removed the luxury tax on yachts and private jets. However, the middle class are the ones who were fooled. As the saying goes, “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.”

As I read through the pages of the budget, I was struck by what was not there. There was not a single meaningful measure to confront the drug and addictions crisis devastating our communities. For a decade, the Liberals have normalized drug use. They have promoted the consumption of illegal drugs, such as crack cocaine, meth and fentanyl, under the guise of safe supply. There is nothing safe about fentanyl. There is nothing safe about enabling someone to slowly poison themselves to death, yet the Minister of Health continues to make drugs more accessible and treatment harder to find. If it sounds insane, that is because it is.

Let us look at the facts. The Liberals approved the decriminalization of hard drugs in British Columbia. The then associate health minister signed an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act that legalized drug use across the province. What has this experiment produced? If the minister walked down East Hastings Street in Vancouver as I did this last month, she would see what happens when government enables drug use. It is not just crime and chaos; it is costing lives too.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

I cannot believe what I am hearing across the aisle, Mr. Speaker, but last year alone, over 2,200 British Columbians died from toxic drugs, which is more than six lives every single day. The Liberals could have used the budget to shut down the failed experiment, but, for some unknown reason, they did not; instead, they let it continue while Canadians keep dying.

However, it does not end in B.C. The Minister of Health is approving supervised drug consumption sites across the country, including next to day cares, schools and playgrounds. Parents should never have to walk their children past people smoking fentanyl in broad daylight. Children should never find used needles in their playgrounds. Health Canada's own data shows that the most used substance at these federally approved sites is fentanyl. Nearly every second visit consists of fentanyl use.

How is this safe? It is unbelievable that the Liberals actually consider this safe.

It is not just the Conservatives who are saying this, but law enforcement is sounding the alarm as well. In a letter sent to the Liberal government earlier this year, the chief of the Ottawa Police warned that a federally approved supervised drug site in downtown Ottawa has become the focal point of community safety concerns. He reported an escalation in open drug use, aggressive behaviour and public intoxication in the neighbourhood. This is right in the middle of a community.

I walked down those streets as well, and it is unbelievable, yet the Liberal government consistently turns a blind eye to this. Law enforcement warned that the impacts have become so serious that nearby child care centres have been shut down over safety concerns.