Debates of Nov. 6th, 2025

Clean Coasts Act

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his Bill C‑244, which will allow us to address an important topic.

When we leave dry land and set sail, the ship that carries us transports us to another world. Things are different at sea. The horizon stretches out all around us, the air is salty, and the sky is vast. Boats are a gateway to other places, but they do not last forever. Boats wear out, break down, sometimes run aground and become wrecks. Sometimes boats are abandoned.

In Canada, there are thousands of abandoned boats. Some are still afloat, moored like ghost ships in ports. Others have already sunk and become wrecks. What do we do with these abandoned boats? They pose a clear environmental risk. I would like to tell the story of the Corfu Island that unfolded in my riding, the beautiful Magdalen Islands, to give members an idea of what we are talking about today.

The SS Corfu Island ran aground on December 20, 1963, on the West Dune of Cap aux Meules Island, in the L'Étang-du-Nord sector, with 27 Greek sailors on board. It was December and there was an intense blizzard. Through courage, ingenuity and islander rescuers' desire to help, tragedy was averted. In the end, all the sailors were rescued, but the Corfu Island became a wreck filled with heavy oil.

In 1966, three years after the shipwreck, a Quebec City company won the contract to demolish the hull of the Corfu Island and send it to the scrapyard. However, executing the contract proved difficult. The hull refused to slide easily enough, and the wreck had to be cut up, but only the part that was above the sandy section could be cut up. To this day, about 10 feet of the ship remains stuck in the sand dune, on the Magdalen Islands, on what is now known as Corfu beach.

The wreck is subject to shifting sands, which sometimes exposes small, sharp metal parts, and has recently caused oil spills. Two of those oil spills happened this summer, in August. They were minor, at roughly 500 millilitres, but still. For the people of the islands, who love their natural environment so much, seeing small traces of oil in the sea is worrisome and troubling.

Since 1996, 186 operations have been carried out to recover oil from the Corfu Island. Since 2015, 200 litres of oil have been recovered, but some still remains. The Canadian Coast Guard is now in charge of the wreck and believes that it poses little risk to the environment and the population but remains dangerous to visitors. The question Magdalen Islanders are asking is: What are they going to do with the rest of the Corfu Island? It is not a pretty sight. It is the remains of a wreck stuck in the sand on the Magdalen Islands. The Coast Guard says it cannot get rid of it until it can ensure that the benefits of removing it outweigh the environmental risks associated with the operation. That is where things stand. I am still getting emails from Magdalen Islanders who want to know what is going on with the Corfu Island.

In short, the archipelago is still dealing with this ship 62 years after it ran aground. This story shows that abandoned vessels are a major problem that needs to be better managed. Tracking down the owners is often difficult. The cost of removing vessels is often too high. Public funds are available to help, but it is insufficient given the number of vessels that need to be removed. These vessels also pose risks to maritime safety when they are in shipping lanes. They also pose environmental risks, given the oil leaks that can occur, as we have seen.

How do we make sure that what happened with Corfu Island does not happen again? I think Bill C‑244 is a partial attempt to answer that question, and that is why the Bloc Québécois supports it and will be voting in favour.

Bill C-244 seeks to amend two laws, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, to enhance the protection of marine areas by providing for increased liability for damage to marine areas. That means the owners' liability.

The first proposed change would amend the provision that says “no person or ship shall dispose of a substance” to add “or allow the disposal of”. This may seem like gibberish, so I will provide some context for those tuning in. Under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the term “disposal” means the disposal of a substance at sea from a ship, an aircraft, a platform or another structure.

The proposed amendment clarifies that it is not only illegal for a person who owns a vessel to simply sink it and pollute the area, but it is also illegal for someone to allow another person to do so. The explanation I received from my colleague was that this change was in response to a court ruling. Basically, that is how it works. When this situation arises, it constitutes a criminal offence and the offender ends up in court.

Someone argued that, under this provision, a degree of intent was needed for the person to be found criminally responsible. This amendment is intended to close that loophole. If it does indeed close it, I totally support it. However, when I read the clause, I am not sure I understand that this is what it does. I will have questions to ask about the clause and its effect.

The Bloc Québécois supports the idea of making it easier to prosecute someone who deliberately sinks a vessel or is complicit in deliberately sinking a vessel. Basically, by broadening our powers and being more vigilant, we can avoid creating problems that will last for decades. Once a vessel is abandoned and sunk, it takes decades to get rid of it, and sometimes that cannot even be done.

Another of this bill's improvements is to amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by proposing a new section 34.1 concerning transfer of ownership. It clarifies that owners of a vessel will now be prohibited from selling the vessel to someone knowing that this person lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming wrecked or abandoned. The bill goes even further by stating that not only may the vessel not be sold if the owner knows that the buyer lacks the resources to look after it, but neither may it be sold if the owner is reckless as to whether the buyer has the ability to look after it.

That is interesting. Cases like these have been documented before. A broken-down ship is a whole lot of trouble. The owner has to find some way to offload it. It can be tempting to simply sell it off cheap to someone who will make the best of it or use it for shelter. That has happened before in some places on the west coast.

Now, a seller would be required to ensure that a buyer has the ability to properly care for the vessel. How are they supposed to do that? That is something the committee will have to discuss. What will be expected of the seller? How far would they have to go? Should they ask for bank statements? How do they know someone has the ability to care for a vessel? Those are very relevant questions. How long will they be responsible? My colleague actually answered that question earlier. That is a question the seller has to ask. If someone sells a vessel and the buyer appears to be solvent and responsible, but then sinks the vessel six months later, can the seller still be held responsible? Those are questions worth asking.

I would reiterate that we agree with the principle. We want to prevent the transfer of property that ends up being yet another wreck.

In closing, I believe we must act to prevent yet more wrecks from polluting our coasts. Let us ensure that the Corfu Island is the last of its kind.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak to this private member’s bill, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act, introduced by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. At its core, Bill C-244 aims to provide a tool to ensure that those who benefit from Canada’s waterways must also take responsibility for their use and for the safe end-of-life management of their vessels.

Bill C-244 proposes amendments to two important pieces of federal legislation: the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999; and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. The proposed amendment to the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act would prohibit vessel owners from transferring their vessels to individuals who do not intend to maintain, operate or dispose of them responsibly.

The intent of the bill, as outlined by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, is to ensure that when vessels are passed from one owner to another, they are not neglected to the point that they are abandoned, wrecked or hazardous. For those in coastal communities, we know this can pollute our waters and create hazards for Canadians.

Canadians are proud stewards of our coasts, lakes and rivers. Navigation is a right that has helped shape our economy, our communities and our identity. However, with that right comes a responsibility to do the right thing when vessels have reached the end of their life.

While the vast majority of vessel owners take this duty seriously, there are instances, which are too frequent and too visible, where individuals choose to abandon vessels rather than dispose of them properly. Across Canada, more than 1,300 vessels have been identified as wrecked, abandoned or hazardous. Many of these vessels no longer have known owners.

When ownership cannot be traced, the burden falls on taxpayers and communities to address the environmental and safety risks. These risks can include leaking fuel, sinking hulls, navigational hazards, and impacts on fish and wildlife habitats. This issue affects communities in all regions, along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, across the north, in inland lakes, along the St. Lawrence Seaway and in the Great Lakes. It is a national challenge with local consequences.

Marine areas carry deep cultural, spiritual and historical significance, especially for indigenous communities that have navigated, harvested and lived along these waters since time immemorial. Abandoned vessels harm ecosystems and can also disturb culturally significant sites, archaeological resources and areas of traditional use. For these reasons, the government has made addressing problem vessels a priority for several years. The approach has been centred on prevention, preparedness and accountability, while recognizing community realities and cultural context.

A key step in this effort came with the launch, in November 2016, of the national strategy to address Canada’s wrecked and abandoned vessels. That strategy was designed to reduce the prevalence of problem vessels, prevent new ones, and support responsible owners and safe disposal.

One of the pillars of the national strategy was the creation of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, or WAHVA, which came into force in July 2019 with the support of all parties in the House. WAHVA made it illegal to abandon a vessel in Canadian waters, strengthened enforcement powers and introduced new penalties. It reinforced the principle that the polluter, not the public, should pay.

In parallel, under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, or CEPA, the government administers the disposal at sea program, which regulates the disposal of substances at sea through a strict permit system and allows Canada to meet its international obligations under the London Convention and the London Protocol.

This program authorizes a limited set of materials for disposal at sea only after an assessment of risk and under strict environmental conditions. The program issues approximately 80 to 100 permits per year, and it conducts monitoring to ensure compliance and protect sensitive marine ecosystems. These efforts form part of Canada’s broader commitment to environmental protection, including through CEPA and its core principles, notably precaution, polluter pays and pollution prevention.

While the government has created a solid foundation of legislation, programs and partnerships, experience has also revealed gaps, especially related to vessel transfers and end-of-life management. Many vessels still change hands repeatedly, often among parties unable or unwilling to manage them. Ultimately, the costs and risks land on coastal communities, harbour authorities, indigenous governments and taxpayers. The bill proposes to prevent the transfer of vessels to individuals who lack the capacity or intent to manage them responsibly, and to place the responsibility with owners.

Work is already under way to modernize Canada's approach to vessel ownership. Measures include updating vessel registration and licensing rules so ownership information stays current; requiring faster registration of transferred vessels, which will help trace responsibility; developing an owner-financed cleanup fund, creating a sustainable source of funding for removals when owners cannot be identified or cannot pay; maintaining a national inventory of vessels of concern to support enforcement and planning; and supporting removal and disposal efforts through programs such as the abandoned boats program and Fisheries and Oceans Canada's small craft harbours abandoned and wrecked vessels removal program.

These tools are important; they mean that Transport Canada, Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Canadian Coast Guard can work together more effectively to hold owners accountable and prevent abandoned vessels from accumulating in communities and waterways. However, as parliamentarians have heard from coastal residents, harbour operators and indigenous partners, more can be done to address the causes of vessel abandonment.

Bill C-244 proposes to discourage irresponsible transfers, support the polluter-pays principle, and build a more responsible marine ownership culture. Some may ask why this issue matters when many Canadians never encounter abandoned boats. For those who live in coastal regions, particularly in British Columbia, as my colleague pointed out, the problem is highly visible. Vessels left to decay near marinas, anchorages or beaches are more than an eyesore; they represent environmental degradation, lost economic opportunity and an unfair burden on communities.

Beyond local impacts, there is a national interest. Abandoned vessels create navigational hazards, interfere with safe commercial and recreational boating, and cost significant public funds to remove. The challenge will only grow as fleets age, as the resale market grows online and as climate change increases the risks associated with damaged vessels from extreme weather.

Parliament has already demonstrated a shared commitment to addressing the issue. The unanimous passage of WAHVA in 2019 reflects a consensus that abandoned vessels do not belong in Canadian waters and that owners must be accountable. Addressing wrecked and abandoned vessels is long-term work. The national strategy has already laid the important groundwork: a modern legislative framework, a national inventory, improved owner identification processes and federal programs to assist communities. Regulations to support a dedicated removal fund are under way.

I would like to thank the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country for his long-standing advocacy for coastal protection and for bringing forward the proposed legislation, Bill C-244, and the ways it will help strengthen prevention.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today as the representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, a riding that stretches from the continental divide in Yoho National Park, through the lakes and highlands of the Shuswap, to the grasslands of Kamloops.

Today I rise to speak to Bill C-244, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. I thank the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, for bringing it forward. I have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with the hon. member, and I know that marine protection is a matter that is important to him and to the Canadians he represents.

Protecting Canada's waters and aquatic habitats is a priority that my constituents across Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies and I share with Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Having spent decades working with grassroots conservation organizations, I have experienced first-hand the value and importance of our waters. They are essential for aquatic species and wildlife, for biodiversity and for all Canadians who depend on fisheries and marine resources for food, livelihood and recreation. Our waters are also essential to our survival, and conserving our pristine waters is a priority we all can agree on.

As I mentioned, the sponsor of the bill and I serve on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, FOPO. On October 22, 2025, our committee tabled a report on the issue of derelict and abandoned vessels. The study was initiated in the 44th Parliament. During the study, multiple witnesses, including government officials, described difficulties in dealing with derelict and abandoned vessels, DAVs, because authorities are unable to identify the current owners of vessels.

I encourage everyone to read the report in order to better understand the challenge of DAVs, and I especially encourage them to read the Conservative supplemental report, which contains recommendations for a workable solution to the vessel registry issue.

Transport Canada operates a pleasure craft licence database, but transfers of ownership are not consistently reported to that database, so a vessel can change hands, sometimes multiple times, and the Transport Canada database does not reflect the changes in ownership if the transfers are not reported and the new owners fail to register vessels after purchase. This causes a major blind spot for enforcement of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act and regulations that flow from the act. Laws and regulations are in place, but enforcement of the laws and regulations is not possible when the current owner of a vessel cannot be identified.

Testimony that FOPO received from Transport Canada officials stated that regulatory changes related to the requirements for registering a transfer of vessel ownership are pending, but it is unclear what those changes will be. Will the regulatory amendments place the onus to report the transfer of vessel ownership on the buyer or on the seller of a vessel?

This is a very important question, because if the current owner of a vessel that is causing pollution or poses a threat to polluting waters cannot be identified, it is impossible to enforce laws and regulations that uphold the polluter pays principle, which is the current principle in federal statutes aimed at preventing and prohibiting pollution of our waters. The principle of polluter pays is essential to the sound policy to protect our environment, especially our waters and aquatic habitats.

In 2015, the Harper government formally established the polluter pays principle in legislation, through the Pipeline Safety Act, which enshrined the principle in law. The government also incorporated the polluter pays principle into other legislation, such as the Energy Safety and Security Act and international agreements. Conservatives also strengthened the polluter pays principle for the marine environment by introducing legislative and regulatory amendments for enhancing Canada's domestic ship-source oil pollution fund.

Since then, the Liberal government has taken additional steps to expand the application of this essential principle but, as I stated, when it comes to derelict and abandoned vessels, enforcement officials must know who the culpable party is before they can make a polluter pay. I certainly hope this blind spot for enforcement authorities is quickly dealt with in an effective manner.

Clause 3 of the bill proposes a prohibition related to the transfer of vessel ownership, specifically:

It is prohibited for an owner of a vessel to transfer ownership of it to a person, if the owner knows that — or is reckless as to whether — the person lacks the ability, resources or intent to maintain, operate or dispose of the vessel in a manner that prevents it from becoming wrecked, abandoned or hazardous.

I appreciate the intention of the bill, which I believe to be the prevention of pollution. That is an objective that we can all hopefully agree is worthwhile. However, I do have questions regarding the proposals of clause 3 that I just quoted.

For instance, how can a person who is transferring a vessel determine if the person acquiring the vessel is fit to care for the vessel? Similarly, in enforcement, how could the applicable enforcement authorities determine and prove that someone transferred ownership to someone unfit to care for a vessel knowing that or was reckless as to whether the person who acquired the vessel was unfit to care for it?

Does the sponsor of the bill envision sellers of vessels requesting financial statements from the prospective buyers or enforcement officials pressing the seller of a vessel as to whether the seller had compelled a buyer to produce financial statements demonstrating the means to care for the vessel in question? What about in an online auction sale, a more and more common channel for the sale of used vessels? For what length of time would the liability exist for the seller? How long would it go on after the sale?

I would also like to hear from my colleague who has sponsored the bill, who I know has a background in law, whether the proposals of clause 3 would be best delivered as a legislative or regulatory change.

From my previous occupation in the marine sector, I have seen the root causes for failures of the existing vessel registration system, which the government has failed to correct in any of the changes they have attempted over the years. This is the first hour of second reading, and I know that we have more debate ahead of us, so I hope the hon. member might be able to provide some clarity on these points.

Clause 2 of the bill states, “No person or ship shall dispose or allow the disposal of a substance in an area of the sea referred to in any of paragraphs 122(2)‍(a) to (e) unless”.

Regarding the part of the proposal that states “or allow the disposal of a substance”, it is unclear to me what kind of scenarios this proposal seeks to prohibit. Would the proposal establish an obligation, responsibility or duty for persons who witness a disposal occurring to intervene? For instance, if a recreational boater witnesses the disposal of a substance coming from a commercial cargo vessel in an area described, and that boater does not intervene, is that boater allowing the disposal by not intervening?

Again, today's debate is the preliminary stage of the bill's progression in the legislative process. I hope the sponsor, my hon. colleague, can further illuminate the proposals of the bill that he has sponsored. There are many questions I have about the bill as it moves forward, if it moves forward past the second reading stage.

As I stated, in my experience in the marine sector, I have witnessed boats being sold, re-sold, and re-sold to the point where it is impossible to find one's way back to who originally owned the vessel. I believe the answer to that is in the recommendations in the Conservative supplemental report that I mentioned earlier in my speech, and that would be to place the onus on the seller to simply report the sale of the vessel.

By placing the onus on the buyer, they take on a liability by reporting the purchase, the first liability being taxes. I have witnessed that. As a vessel buyer, if they register a vessel, the first thing that happens is they get a letter from the tax collector to make sure provincial taxes and the GST have been paid. It is a deterrent for buyers to report the sale. If is far better if the seller reports it and a small fine be paid if they do not.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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.

Employment

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I was profoundly disappointed this week to see that the Liberals' budget contains absolutely no jobs plan. The situation right now is very dire as it relates to unemployment, particularly unemployment for youth. As members know by now, as I have said it many times, we are in a situation where youth unemployment is at 14.7%, approaching 15%. Close to half a million young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are unemployed. We have the worst employment numbers in over 25 years, yet budget 2025 has absolutely no jobs plan.

The Conservatives put forward constructive proposals in the lead-up to the release of the budget as part of the Conservative youth jobs plan. We proposed measures to unleash the economy, to fix immigration, to fix training and to build homes where the jobs are. Instead, what we see from this budget is more of the same bad Liberal policies that got into this mess in the first place. We see a budget deficit of over $78 billion; the continuation of policies that constrain the growth of our economy, deter investment, fail to unleash our economy and make it harder for our economy to move forward; a doubling down on failure in many areas; and a failure to implement the proposals we put forward, which would have created jobs and opportunities.

The best the Liberals could do is announce the continuing existence of programs that have been in place since the 1990s. What we hear when discussing unemployment is government members say they have this strategy and that program. Those programs have been in place since the 1990s, and the Liberals have no new ideas. They are clearly not delivering the goods.

What matters when it comes to unemployment is the result, not the good intention of politicians and not the existence of programs or the expenditure on those programs. What matters is whether young people are working. Tragically, the situation right now, as a result of 10 years of bad Liberal policies, is that we have the worst employment numbers in over 25 years.

I will note that frequently the Liberals' response is that they have the Canada summer jobs program, a program that has existed since the 1990s. The Canada summer jobs program provides jobs, on average, for eight weeks. When we have a crisis of almost half a million young people who are unemployed and we say we are going to subsidize a few more eight-week jobs, that is clearly not a solution that meets the moment, that meets the magnitude of the crisis.

The Conservatives have mapped out a clear plan to get us there. We put forward the Conservative youth jobs plan in hopes that the Liberals would include parts of it in their budget, that they would borrow our good ideas around unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are. However, the Liberals chose not to implement those ideas and not to come up with any new ideas of their own. Instead, they put forward a budget with no youth jobs plan. It simply identifies the continuing existence of a few programs that have been in place since the 1990s.

Why did the Liberals not take this opportunity to use our good ideas to confront youth unemployment and put them in the budget?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to engage in debate, particularly with this member, whom I have now known for the better part of 10 years. I respect his passion, and I say that sincerely.

I know he is a student of many, and Milton Friedman would be counted on that list. I say that because he said that intention does not matter, outcome matters. That is what Milton Friedman had argued. I would go for that. I am not particularly partial to the arguments of Milton Friedman, although he had some very interesting points to make from time to time. I think Keynes is more interesting, for example, but I digress.

The member talks about outcomes being especially important. Okay, that is fine, but ideas matter too. The colleague spent his entire speech talking about the 1990s, talking about the past. We should be focused on the present and the future. In the 1990s, I was in elementary school. I am not sure my colleague was even born yet, and I say that as a compliment. The point is, if he has ideas to put on the floor of the House of Commons, he should do so. I would be interested, and I say that very sincerely.

What I see, though, and this relates to outcomes, of course, is a Conservative Party that, faced with a budget that happens to hold the potential to transform this country for the better, is going to oppose it. This is a budget that helps to, among other things, build up the country in terms of infrastructure and more homebuilding.

We need more non-market housing, in particular. We will rely on the private sector to get those homes built, but in a way that matches with the needs of the moment. Non-market housing is essential to that, whether it is non-market housing with wraparound supports on site to ensure that those who are on the street are uplifted, those who are on the street dealing with addiction and other challenges related to alcoholism. There are many examples we could give here. Wraparound supports are critical in that. Not-for-profits are ready to continue to respond to the challenge. Housing with rent geared to income is another example.

Regardless of the form it takes, we can rely on skilled tradespeople, including young people, to help build those homes.

On the defence sector, I come from southwestern Ontario, a crucial area when it comes to this country and its defence sector. We have a number of companies that are specifically and directly involved with providing military equipment for democracies around the world, including the Canadian government. This budget holds the potential to unleash building in that area. That is only good for the economy. Young people want to see that too.

The member talks about EI. He talks about training programs. I have to say that at every opportunity, when the federal government of the past and this government now have put forward measures to help working people, to help deal with the trade issues we have, the Conservative Party has stood against that. I will give an example. We put forward EI measures to help, in a very targeted way, tariff-impacted sectors and workers. The Conservatives have either been silent or not supportive when they have spoken up.

I have a hard time understanding that. The Conservative Party champions itself, all of a sudden now, as a party of the working class. If we scratch the surface, we see a party that is anti-union and anti-worker. I will not say anti-youth, because I know they care about young people, but they do not have the ideas. Where are those vital ideas to help advance the cause, the needs, the interests of young people? They are not there.

Finally, we are talking about young people, but we also need to talk about young families and the Canada child benefit that, since 2015, has helped to uplift no less than 650,000 kids out of poverty. The Conservative Party has not supported it a single time. I do not understand why.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of what the member said really had nothing to do with the question that was asked.

I have highlighted our Conservative youth jobs plan, a constructive proposal around unleashing the economy, fixing immigration, fixing training and building homes where the jobs are, and I highlighted that this budget simply has no jobs plan. We would have liked to see the Liberals adopt our plan.

It is interesting that the parliamentary secretary for immigration is here tonight. We have repeatedly heard, at the human resources committee, about the link between failed Liberal immigration policies and unemployment. In fact, the budget uses language that almost seems to admit that Liberal immigration policies over the last 10 years have been profoundly ineffective and, really, have undermined the consensus we had on immigration prior to that.

I want to ask the member a simple question about his portfolio. Does the member agree that Liberal policies on immigration were a contributing factor to the high levels of youth unemployment we face?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend accuses me of not answering the question, but his question was all over the place. I am not sure what exactly he was talking about.

I am genuinely very interested in the youth employment plan of the Conservatives. I will look it up, but we do not know about it. Perhaps some of us do, but I think I follow things pretty closely, and I have not seen it.

As far as the immigration policy of the government goes, the member is stuck in the past. He continues to talk about the Trudeau years. This will be a common refrain, I am afraid, from the Conservatives in the coming weeks, months and years: to keep talking about Justin Trudeau.

We are focused on the present and the future. Yesterday's immigration levels plan speaks to that. It is immigration policy that is also economic policy at the same time. Sixty-four per cent of immigrants who will be here in Canada will be here helping build up the economy. That is an increase from 59%. Researchers are going to be coming.

The Conservatives have made temporary workers their only issue. Their big, bold idea is to get rid of a program that sustains, in many ways, businesses in remote communities—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for York—Durham has the floor.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, it is budget week here in Parliament. I have been poring over the budget on the issue of housing. As members know, I have risen on this topic again and again, and I will continue to do so until I see movement from the Liberal government that will actually get homes to the next generation.

Unfortunately, however, this budget is an unmitigated disaster when it comes to housing and homes. Let us take stock of some of what experts are saying. The Canadian Home Builders Association says, “Federal budget fails to support home ownership for next generation” and “Despite urgent calls for action, the budget presented no new measures to address housing affordability for the average Canadian who still wants to become a homeowner.”

The Large Urban Centre Alliance says, “What was once a promise to deliver 500,000 new homes annually has now become a plan that will cost 100,000 jobs.” Last, the Building Industry and Land Development association says the budget “missed an opportunity to address the historic downturn [in] the housing industry” and that it “relies on backward-looking data that provides false reassurances that Canada’s housing sector is prospering and that affordability is improving.”

People do not have to take my word for it; these are the experts who can tell us how this budget will play out.

It is not a surprise, because the Liberals have already abandoned every promise they made just six months ago during the election. In their platform, they promised to cut municipal development charges in half. What does the budget say about them? Now it is a hope and a prayer to maybe reduce them, by frameworks for federal, provincial and territorial agreements. I do not know what those are. Maybe the parliamentary secretary can enlighten us.

The second promise was the multi-unit residential building incentive that was pitched as a fabulous idea to bring about thousands of new units. Where is it in the budget? I do not know, because it is not there. Last, the Liberals promised to publicly report on municipalities' progress to speed up permitting and approvals. Again, that is not in the budget.

The dream of home ownership is slipping away and being replaced with the lie that the next generation must settle for less. I want the next generation of Canadians to know that I reject this lie. They deserve the opportunity to have a home and start a family, just as their parents and grandparents did before them.

Will the parliamentary secretary agree with me that we need to build homes, not bureaucracy, and targets for municipalities, bringing down development targets, bringing down development charges and getting homes to the next generation?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite, a fellow Durham region MP, for the question. The Government of Canada is focused on delivering change and ensuring that the country's housing system works for everyone. We know many Canadians are struggling to get ahead and buy their first home. Budget 2025, Canada strong, is making generational investments of $25 billion over five years for housing and $115 billion over five years for infrastructure. These strategic investments will build major infrastructure and homes and create lasting prosperity, empowering Canadians to get ahead.

We are working in collaboration with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities to build a stronger economy, lower housing costs and make life more affordable for Canadian families. To help new homebuyers enter the market, we are delivering savings of up to $50,000 for first-time homebuyers by cutting the GST on new homes at or under $1 million and lowering the GST on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. To eliminate barriers to development and build more homes faster, the Government of Canada has invested $4.4 billion in the housing accelerator fund. Over 240 communities across the country are benefiting from this funding and implementing changes that will help us grow the supply of housing faster.

We are also working alongside provinces, territories and municipalities to invest in critical infrastructure that is needed to support growing communities. These initiatives are complemented by the recent launch of Build Canada Homes, the government's bold new approach to building affordable housing. This new federal agency will finance and build affordable housing at scale and deploy modern methods of construction to catalyze a more productive homebuilding industry. It will leverage public lands, offer flexible financial incentives, attract private capital, facilitate large portfolio projects and support manufacturers to build the homes that Canadians need.

Build Canada Homes will focus on catalyzing a new Canadian housing industry, one that builds faster and more sustainably. It will help generate demand for innovative and sustainable building methods, like factory-built and prefabricated construction, helping industry scale up and strengthen supply chains.

Moving forward, we will continue to identify and implement innovative solutions to build more homes faster for Canadians. We will strengthen our relationships with key stakeholders and continue to leverage a team Canada approach with our municipal, provincial, territorial and indigenous partners. Together with our partners, we will develop innovative programs and take targeted action to increase housing supply, lower housing costs and transform the housing sector.

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

Mr. Speaker, if spending money and bureaucracies built homes, every Canadian would have a home right now. We have had 10 years of that. We have had three housing bureaucracies, and now we have a fourth. These Monopoly men handing out billions here and there have not resulted in one more person having a home in Canada.

I am glad the parliamentary secretary brought up modular and new forms of construction, because I have a question for her on that. In the budget, it says, “Build Canada Homes will identify Design-Build teams with proven expertise in factory-built housing and other modern methods of construction”.

Will she commit, and confirm for the House, that no Brookfield entity, not Modulaire Group, not Yes Communities, which it may acquire, not any entity affiliated with Brookfield or any investment the Prime Minister has in the real estate space, will get government money to build homes with this bureaucracy?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Build Canada Homes is focused on building affordable housing at scale. Through this newly launched agency, Build Canada Homes, we are taking a team Canada approach and strengthening our relationships with key partners in the housing sector. This government will leverage every tool at its disposal to address our country's housing crisis, deliver on our ambitious housing agenda and make housing more affordable and attainable for all Canadians.

We are also helping new homebuyers enter the market by helping make home ownership more affordable, including by eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes at or under $1 million and lowering the GST for new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million.

These measures are all part of our bold approach to build the homes that Canadians need.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in debate this evening to raise a question that I initially raised a number of months ago about a decision that is somewhat murky in its content. I have been trying to determine from the government for some time exactly if a decision was made to ban the band Kneecap. This is a question that I think some Canadians will have seen in the media. It attracted a lot of controversy.

This Irish band was apparently told it could not enter Canada. Although we do not have a clear decision chronology as to how the decision was made and how it was communicated to the band, it was certainly in the media that this band was alleged to have views that were unacceptable and was refused entry to Canada. It is not clear how this was decided or if, in fact, it was decided. That is why I pursued the matter with the Minister of Immigration in this place. Her position was that no particular case could be discussed, obviously for reasons of privacy.

This band had attracted attention in other parts of the world and was quite clear in saying there was no evidence whatsoever that it had ever supported Hamas or Hezbollah, and that the allegations to that effect were unfounded, incorrect and maligned the band's reputation. Meanwhile, the band also said it had not exactly been told by anyone in Canada that it was not welcome, but had merely seen the media coverage.

It is a long time ago now, as we are absorbed for obvious reasons in more recent issues, such as the budget that came down two days ago. We have lots of things on our mind. However, the fundamental principles of the rule of law honoured by this country, our commitment to human rights and our commitment to free speech should not be something that is questioned by an incident.

I admit that the name Kneecap only reminds me of having knee replacements, which is not something I would like to revisit. In any case, I think any artistic enterprise should be welcomed into Canada. On scanty evidence that the band disputes, I am wondering if the Government of Canada itself made a decision to ban this band from touring Canada. If so, the evidence should be available for parliamentary review. Did the decision get made within Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or was it, as I asked in my question, that at least one member of the Liberal caucus said that this particular musical group had been banned? The minister did not confirm that.

I do not need to belabour it. I know the parliamentary secretary is waiting to respond. I really am, in tonight's session of Adjournment Proceedings, seeking clarity. I do not have an agenda here except to know what decision was made, if it was made properly, if it was made based on evidence that this musical group represented some threat to Canada that was otherwise unacceptable under our values. At a minimum, I would like the House to be told who made the decision and was it made under immigration and refugee laws, as would normally be applied, or was this, as it appeared at the time in the media, potentially one rogue MP who decided to announce it for whatever benefit that might be. Certainly, the issue is highly charged. Therefore, people might seek to gain advantage one way or the other. I would just like to know what happened.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, the member knows the respect that I and other colleagues hold for her. Of course, she has served this country and never fails to bring up matters that are important to her and her constituents. I understand that very well.

What I would say, and she knows this as well, is that individual cases, for privacy reasons, should not be brought forward on the floor of the House of Commons. She brought it forward, yes, I understand that, but with respect to the response, addressing that would not be appropriate. I will also extend that the authorization of communications relating to individual cases issued by particular departments would also be inappropriate.

My advice to the member, and I say this very respectfully because she has brought up the matter before, is to engage with the relevant departments and seek an answer that way.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for such kind words; they are appreciated.

I will take his advice and pursue it, but I thought that without asking about a specific case, we could at least have clarity on whether there was a case. I do not think that trespasses into discussing a particular case, because at this point, I still do not know, and I do not think any Canadians know, if there was a decision made by the government. It was not communicated to Kneecap.

A yes or no would be lovely. Did the Government of Canada decide not to admit this musical group?

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will, I am afraid, repeat myself. Individual cases are not something I am going to address on the floor of the House of Commons. I am also not going to address the authorizations issued by particular departments. The member is able to contact the relevant departments and seek an answer that way. I invite her to do so if she wishes.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:31 p.m.)