Debates of Dec. 1st, 2025

Housing

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over 35,000 families fled the GTA last year because they could not afford a home. CTV News followed a Toronto woman who could not buy a house with a $200,000 income.

The Liberals pretend that the impact of the industrial carbon tax on a new house is imaginary, but clearly the industrial carbon tax increases the cost of cement, the cost of steel and the cost of all materials that go into new homes. Last month, only 25 new condos were sold in Toronto, a city of three million people.

When families are fleeing the GTA, why did the Liberals make housing even more expensive by increasing the industrial carbon tax? Why?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize the northern Ontario mayors who were here this week, talking about their incredible work to attract people to northern Ontario. These mayors are actually investing in the very things that create affordable housing, using the housing accelerator, working with infrastructure, working with the Province of Ontario and making sure that as critical mineral projects boom in our region, we have the housing to accommodate those workers.

Good things are coming for northern Ontario.

Public Safety

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, last week, despite obstruction and the stalling efforts of Conservatives, we successfully referred Bill C-12 back to the House. This legislation is critical to securing our borders, strengthening our immigration system and keeping Canadians safe.

Can the Minister of Public Safety tell Canadians why this legislation is essential to ensuring their safety and protection?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Compton—Stanstead for her incredible work at the SECU committee, and I want to thank the members of the SECU committee for making sure that Bill C-12 passes report stage at committee.

Bill C-12 would give law enforcement the tools to keep our borders secure and to combat organized crime, auto theft, extortion, money laundering and the trafficking of illegal weapons and drugs. The bill would enhance the integrity of our immigration system by creating robust screening standards, as well as ensuring fair and transparent enforcement.

Keeping Canada strong means keeping Canadians secure.

The Economy

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, December is shaping up to be the toughest month in decades. Back home, the director of Moisson Kamouraska told me that demand is literally exploding. Across Quebec, we are talking about 3.1 million requests in 2025. That is 37% more than in 2022. The demand for Christmas hampers is going to be off the charts.

With the price of food going up, eating is becoming almost a luxury. The Liberals are keeping their fuel tax in place, driving up the cost of food even more.

Why does the Prime Minister refuse to help families struggling to put food on the table?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. We work together very well. What he and I both know is that ordinary Quebeckers want to be able to get good jobs.

At a time when the U.S. administration is imposing a host of tariffs, we must always be there to protect businesses that provide good jobs in Quebec's regions.

I am therefore going to keep working with him, especially in summer, so that people can keep their jobs and to ensure that a social safety net is in place in Quebec and across Canada, because that is something we believe in.

Marine Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2021, the Zim Kingston lost over 100 shipping containers. In 2016, the Hanjin Seattle spilled dozens, and now a barge off Bella Bella has nearly gone down with a full load. Each time, first nations and local communities are left to respond and face lasting impacts. The Transportation Safety Board says that Canada still has no system for cargo unit or marine debris spills.

When will the government act on these recommendations and create a coordinated response system that includes coastal communities, backed by an ecosystem service fee on cargo units so industry can help protect our coasts?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important issue. We want to make sure we have marine safety and indeed the safety of all vessels. Their seaworthiness, the safety and security of those aboard them and the environment of those who must deal with these transgressions must all be dealt with.

I am very glad to have the hon. member's co-operation and interest in this file. I can assure him that we will continue to work on it as we work on the security of our supply chains and the sustainability of our marine transportation system.

Decline of Pollinators

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak today virtually.

I am honoured to present a petition from constituents and others concerned about the drastic and global decline in the population of pollinators, particularly honeybees.

The petitioners ask that the government consider following the lead of the European Union in exerting the precautionary principle and removing the authorizations, which are wide in Canada and restricted elsewhere, on what are called neonicotinoid insecticides. These are based in nicotine. They are highly toxic to pollinators, among other forms of life. It is time for Canada to step up and protect our pollinators, as the petitioners ask us to do.

I will await the response and share it with the petitioners when the government does respond.

Striped Bass

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fishers of Montmorency—Charlevoix, and particularly those from Isle-aux-Coudres who are the subject of today's petition, are facing a situation that makes no sense. The number of striped bass, which is a protected but unregulated species, has increased so much that it is now destroying the entire ecosystem of the St. Lawrence River. Striped bass are out of control, and they are very efficient predators. They attack herring, smelt, even crabs, lobsters and now salmon. They are so plentiful that fishers are unable to fish their quota despite having paid for a licence. The entire local economy and the balance of the river are at risk.

I have tried several times to discuss the issue with the Minister of Fisheries. My requests have been completely ignored. I received no response to the official letter I sent her. Faced with this lack of response, locals are now taking action with this petition. Their demands are clear: act quickly, work with local fishers to find concrete solutions and allow striped bass sport fishing in order to get the situation back under control.

The government must take action, help our fishers, help our local economy and regain control of a good idea that has gone awry, as is too often the case under the Liberals.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would like to clarify something. I know the member is a new member, but when it comes to presenting petitions, let us not get into debate. I understand that the member may not have been aware of it and that it was not his intention. That is just a little reminder for everyone.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

Opioids

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise again on behalf of the concerned parents who send their kids to Abbotsford Traditional School. They are rightly concerned about the increase in drug use, and they are rightly concerned about the proposed safe consumption site across the street from the school track.

Parents are calling on the federal government to respect the special agreement with British Columbia and not allow this project to go forward. Parents are demanding that all funding to BC Housing cease until they come to their senses and eliminate this project, in order to protect the innocence of children.

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time on behalf of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime.

Residents of Dauphin and the Parkland region are demanding that the Liberal government repeal the soft-on-crime policies that have fuelled the surge of crime throughout our communities. Since 2015, there has been a 54% increase in violent crime and a 75% increase in sexual assaults across Canada. Petitioners are deeply concerned about what they read in local papers, including a report last week that the Dauphin RCMP are searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants. Our once-safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their lives because the government's catch-and-release policies have allowed violent repeat offenders to be out on bail instead of in jail.

The people of Dauphin and the Parkland region demand that the Liberal government repeal the soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.

Firearms

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, again I rise on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley lawful firearms owners. Alberta does not endorse the firearm confiscation plan. Ontario police do not endorse the confiscation plan. In fact, the safety minister himself, the guy who is in charge of the firearms confiscation plan, does not support his own plan.

On behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley lawful firearms owners, I say that they want the Liberal gun grab to stop because it is misdirected and is not addressing crime.

Child Protection

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I met with a few constituents from the riding of Waterloo and also from ridings across the country, and today I present a petition that over 600 individuals have signed in regard to families in Canada that have wrongfully been separated due to what they suggest are flawed child abuse assessments by child abuse pediatricians.

Petitioners note there is no legal requirement for a second, independent medical opinion before children are apprehended. They note there are medical conditions that can mimic signs of abuse, yet differential diagnoses are often not properly considered. They note there is no federal data collection on child abuse cases that are initially substantiated but later found to have had medical explanations.

Petitioners are therefore calling on the House of Commons to require physicians offering medical opinions in federal or interprovincial child protection matters to hold certification. They are requesting that a second, independent expert opinion be offered or mandated, that national guidelines ensuring relevant medical conditions be ruled out before concluding that something is abuse, and that data be collected and published. In addition, because of past incidences, they are also calling for a national inquiry into wrongful apprehensions due to medical misdiagnosis.

I am presenting this petition on behalf of constituents of the riding of Waterloo, parents primarily, as well as from people across the country.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C‑12

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on Friday by the deputy government House leader regarding the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in relation to Bill C‑12, an act that deals with, among other things, “the integrity of the Canadian immigration system”.

In brief, the deputy government House Leader has asked that several common-sense amendments adopted by the committee be struck from the report and therefore stripped from the bill. Her argument relies on the so-called parent act rule. While she cited a passage from the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, allow me to quote the October 24, 2018, ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, found at page 22797 of the Debates, which elaborated upon this rule:

The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.

However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill. This is especially so when the amendments are consequential to other decisions taken by a committee or by the House.

...

The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment. Clearly, amendments that arise as a direct consequence of other admissible amendments should be considered relevant to the bill, even if they are made to a section of the parent act otherwise unamended.

Given that most of the challenged amendments touched upon the immigration portions of the bill, it is important to understand the purpose and the principle of the immigration-related measures proposed in Bill C-12. I can do no better than to quote the remarks of the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during the debate at second reading on October 21.

The bill would also strengthen the flexibility, efficiency and responsiveness of the asylum system by establishing new ineligibility rules, creating a more streamlined application process....

The minister concluded her second-reading speech by remarking this:

We want to be simpler, faster, fairer and more focused. These reforms would enhance public safety and security, reinforce the integrity of our programs and improve services for those who rely on them.

Conservatives think those goals are worthy, though Bill C-12 falls short of realizing them fully, so we offered amendments at committee to help get it there.

Bearing those quotations in mind, let us turn to the amendments mentioned by the hon. member for London West in her intervention.

First, there are the amendments known in committee as CPC-8 and CPC-14. Collectively these amendments would require, rather than allow discretion for, the issuing of arrest warrants in certain circumstances, such as danger to the public or to national security. That certainly sounds relevant to the minister's description of the bill.

Then there is amendment CPC-13, which would impose timelines for decisions on judicial review of security certificates before the federal court. That surely speaks to the minister's objectives of efficiency, responsiveness and a streamlined process.

Next are amendments CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17, which collectively would amend section 94 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which establishes the framework for the immigration minister's annual report to Parliament to require additional content in the report related to, among other things, removal orders, warrants, cancellation of documents and federal benefits for refugees.

This range of items touches upon proposals in the government's own legislation, such as the cancellation of documents, or speaks directly to the government's own stated objection with Bill C-12: public safety and security, responsiveness and, most importantly, integrity of the immigration system, which I would argue could be strengthened by public confidence built upon transparency and accountability.

With respect to amendment CPC-15, I might add that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship moved a subamendment, which the committee adopted. However, now there is a committee amendment that one London Liberal thought was good enough to ask the committee to tinker with, and another London Liberal wants the Speaker to throw the whole thing into the recycling bin.

With respect to amendment CPC-17, I might add that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, the Liberal responsible for shepherding Bill C-12 through the public safety committee, proposed a subamendment that, though defeated, suggests to me that again there is chaos inside the government caucus when one Liberal thinks a committee amendment is good enough to work with while another wants to tear it up.

I turn to amendment CPC-30, which would strengthen accountability for corporations convicted of human trafficking offences by increasing the maximum fine a court could impose from $1 million to $25 million. That too would strengthen public safety and security while reinforcing the integrity of our immigration system.

I might pause here to observe that during clause-by-clause consideration, the parliamentary secretary to the immigration minister asked questions of the public servant witnesses, which inspired a unanimously adopted subamendment. It is sad to see his London Liberal colleague the deputy government House leader now stand in the House and attack the work her fellow Liberals inspired at the committee table.

Next we come to amendment CPC-33, which would remove the requirement that the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board must live in the national capital region, and which would instead simply require that he or she reside in Canada. That simple gesture alone, I would argue, could boost public confidence in the integrity of the immigration system, knowing that the appointment is not in reality limited to a government crony or a bureaucratic crony living in Ottawa.

Finally, I would like to address amendment CPC-2, which would amend section 40 of the Oceans Act, an amendment which I must point out was identical to amendment G-3, standing in the name of the parliamentary secretary to the public safety minister. This amendment would reflect the reality that the Minister of Fisheries is no longer responsible for providing Coast Guard services, because that was reassigned, effective with Order in Council PC 2025-639, dated September 2, to the Minister of National Defence.

Moreover, amendment CPC-2 would simply coordinate with the change made by amendment CPC-3, which was identical to amendment G-4, to amend section 41 of the Oceans Act addressed in clause 25 of Bill C-12 to reflect the national defence minister's new responsibility for the Canadian Coast Guard. This amendment was admissible and was not subject to the deputy government House leader's objections.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge you to look at the challenged amendments through the lens of Mr. Speaker Regan's 2018 ruling, which I respectfully submit should lead you to the conclusion that the committee acted entirely within its authority and that it therefore legitimately adopted all the common-sense, Conservative amendments.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would like to thank the hon. member.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be read the third time and passed.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C‑4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act.

I am pleased to rise today to proudly represent the people of Beauport—Limoilou. It is the proudest and most beautiful riding in Canada. Representing it is the greatest honour I have ever been given. Beauport—Limoilou is made up of young families, workers and seniors who believe that we need strong leadership to build, protect and empower our country.

What we are doing here is not theoretical. It is not a discussion among financial experts. This bill directly affects what goes in the fridges and gas tanks of families in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, as well as the rents and mortgages they pay. I want to be clear from the outset: This bill is good for us. It is good for families, workers, students and seniors. It is good for all Canadians.

First, there is the middle class tax cut. Bill C-4 will reduce the tax rate for the first income bracket from 15% to 14%. That means nearly 22 million Canadians will end up with more money in their pockets. That represents more than 50,000 people in Beauport—Limoilou with more money in their pockets. In Beauport—Limoilou, people in the 25- to 64-year age group make up 58% of the population. The measures we are talking about today affect them directly.

The average and moderate incomes in a riding like mine, Beauport—Limoilou, remind us of the importance of social support and affordability measures, whether in terms of housing, transportation or services.

This tax cut has been in effect since July 1, 2025. Across Canada, it will put more than $27 billion over five years back into the pockets of Canadians. Middle-class taxpayers will benefit the most. About 85% of these amounts will go to taxpayers in the two lowest tax brackets. Almost half will go to those in the lowest tax bracket, made up of people with a taxable income of $57,375 or less in 2025. After just five months, people are already seeing the difference directly on their paycheques.

Of course, no one has called me to complain. Instead, people are calling to thank us for that decision. For many people in Beauport—Limoilou, that means up to $420 a year, and $840 for a two-income household. That $420 can pay for groceries for a week or for part of the rent. It means a parent can enrol a child in a sporting activity. Above all, it is a clear choice to reduce the tax burden on the middle class. This is not symbolic. It is concrete and immediate.

Second, we are eliminating the GST on the purchase of a first home. In my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, I have met many young people who are working hard and saving money, but their dream of home ownership was slipping away because costs are too high. Bill C-4 completely eliminates the GST on the purchase of a first new home worth up to $1 million. This could mean as much as $50,000 in savings. The average house price in Beauport—Limoilou is about $450,000, so this will mean $22,500 in savings. That is huge. Everyone knows that that is huge for a young couple.

This measure applies to houses, condos, duplexes, mobile homes and co-op housing. It will encourage the construction of new housing. It will increase supply, including in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. This measure acts on both sides of the problem, meaning both supply and demand. It is smart public policy.

All of this is combined with the acceleration of housing construction in Canada. Our government knows that we need to build more housing more quickly in this country.

Third, the bill permanently repeals the consumer carbon pricing law, which, I would remind members, was already repealed last April. As many will recall, the government ended the federal fuel charge through regulatory action. Some may wonder why a bill is being introduced now if the levy is no longer in effect. The answer is simple. We must finish the job. By repealing the legislative provision, we are sending a clear and unambiguous message to consumers and businesses: Carbon pricing for consumers will not return. This provides stability, predictability and certainty. What is more, the government has also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to impose a carbon tax on consumers. Here again, we are doing what we said we would do. We are walking the talk, as they say.

However, let me be very clear. Pollution pricing for large emitters remains in place, and that is key. It is one of the pillars in our plan to build a strong, modern and sustainable economy. These industrial pricing systems are designed to minimize costs, protect the competitiveness of our industries and encourage investment in clean technologies. These investments will reduce emissions and create the green jobs of tomorrow. Our government has been clear, and I want to reiterate that today. Large emitters must continue to pay their fair share. Industrial pricing will remain a central element of our economic and environmental plan.

I want to be clear. The tangible impact that Bill C‑4 will have on Beauport—Limoilou includes things like more money in workers' pockets, more workers who can become homeowners, lower energy bills, better protection of personal information and more financial stability for families. This is a bill that affects everyday life—not in 10 years, not as a promise, but now. It is a bill that has been studied, analyzed and debated. It is a well-thought-out bill. It is proof of the serious work that has been done. It is proof that this bill is sound. It is proof that it deserves the support of all MPs who represent communities like mine. It is a vision for the future.

Creating affordability is not just about solving a present-day problem. It is about allowing families to look to the future, to make plans and to invest in their children, their neighbourhood and their community. Bill C-4 gives them the space they need to breathe, dream and build. That is exactly what my constituents need. I want to send my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou a direct message, and it is simply this: This bill is good for us. It was designed for our reality, for our budget and for our future. Sending me to Ottawa was not just a symbolic gesture. It was a mandate for action. Today, with Bill C-4, this mandate has become concrete action.

In closing, I am proud to repeat that this bill is good for Canada. It gives renewed hope to the middle class, opens a door to home ownership, makes life more affordable and energizes our families. For these reasons, I firmly support Bill C-4 on behalf of all the people I am honoured to represent in the riding of Beauport—Limoilou.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the very end, my colleague talked about how Bill C-4 would give new hope to the middle class and how they are going to be able to afford things. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says this Liberal tax cut, which is going to give so much new hope, for a single senior living by themselves, would be 13¢ a day in a tax reduction. A single parent would get 38¢ a day under this new tax regime.

How much hope is the government going to give to someone for 38¢ a day? How much hope does 13¢ a day purchase?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-4 is good for the middle class. We are lowering the tax rate for the first income bracket from 15% to 14%. This will save each family up to $840. This practical measure has been in place since July 1, with the money going straight into people's pockets. It affects them directly. It is combined with all the other measures in the budget.

The entire population is therefore affected by the budget and by Bill C-4, which take direct action. What is interesting is that these are not promises and they are not things that are going to happen a year from now. People have been benefiting from these measures since July 1. The same applies to the purchase of first homes.

In my riding, this will help more than 50,000 people. That is huge. People tell me when I see them. They thank me for doing this, because they have the money in their pockets right away.