Debates of May 29th, 2025

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been very good at spending enormous amounts of money and driving our debt through the roof. Fiscal mismanagement is a hallmark of the government.

In the Speech from the Throne, there was talk of a 2% increase in spending, yet at the same time legislation was introduced that actually increased spending by 8%. What are the member's thoughts on that, and what is her confidence that the government will have any hope of getting government spending under control?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the government introduced a bill with half a trillion dollars of spending, but without a budget to back it up. There are people in my riding who simply do not know how to find another dime for government. I really hope the government will introduce a budget that will tell us where the savings will come from that are going to allow us to deliver for Canadians.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member, and a number of members prior to her, speak. Liberals have indicated when a budget will be coming forward, but is the member aware of how long it took Stephen Harper to bring a budget into the House of Commons? It was a considerable amount of time, about five to six months. Does the member think that was acceptable, given her comments regarding the current government?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has presented the Prime Minister as being a finance whiz, someone with considerable expertise in the world of finance, in the world of business and in government. He should be in a position to be well aware that the finance department stands ready to produce a budget on short notice.

I respectfully request again that the government inform Canadians of where the spending and the cuts will come from, to allow us to make informed choices on behalf of our constituents and, more than that, to allow us to represent our constituents properly. We need to be able to consult with them, and to do that, we need to have information. I would really like to know why the government is keeping my constituents in the dark.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with immense gratitude and a profound sense of responsibility. Representing this riding is an honour, and I do not take it lightly.

I want to sincerely thank the people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay for placing their trust in me and electing me to represent them in the House. I want to thank my campaign managers, Chris and Cheryl, who pushed us all to success. I want to thank the hundreds of volunteers who spent countless hours door knocking, making calls, putting signs in and doing other jobs that all members in the House know about. They spent so much time to elect me, a Conservative candidate and the first woman MP ever in this riding.

Most of all, I want to thank my family for their amazing support. I thank Adam and my wonderful children, Zoe and Zakary. They are my rock. I could not do it without them. I am here because of them.

We have an immense riding, and it is my mission to carry forward the voices of our communities into the House. From Castlegar to Princeton, from Osoyoos to Rossland, from Oliver to Grand Forks and from Penticton to Rock Creek, our riding is located in the heart of British Columbia's interior and is one of the most breathtaking places in Canada and, indeed, the world. It is home to hundreds of internationally recognized wineries, world-class ski resorts and some of Canada's warmest lakes, lined with pristine sandy beaches. This region is truly a national treasure.

Tourists come from across the country and around the world. They are drawn here to our region to float down the Similkameen River or the Penticton channel, to kayak in Christina Lake or to hike through pristine trails in the Kootenays. I invite all Canadians to come and experience this extraordinary part of our country for themselves.

Our economy is as diverse as our landscape. It is built on the strength of tourism, agriculture, mining, ranching, manufacturing, forestry and the emerging tech sector. Our communities are proud, hard-working and increasingly attractive as a retirement destination.

However, despite the beauty and promise of our region, we are facing challenges that cannot be ignored. I chose to seek federal office because these challenges have outpaced the resources and capacity of local governments, where much of this burden is falling, and because we need real, effective leadership in Ottawa. I served as a city councillor in the City of Penticton for nearly a decade. In that time, I witnessed alarming changes. Despite being a small city of 37,000, we are grappling with issues often seen in Canada's largest urban centres.

For one thing, as we have already heard, housing affordability has become a crisis. Home prices and rental rates continue to climb far beyond the means of average workers. Local governments are doing everything within their power to provide affordable housing. Of course they need to lower their development cost charges, but the reality is clear: The Liberal housing policy of the past decade has failed to keep pace with demand and to support our smaller rural communities.

This housing crisis has been accompanied by a deeply troubling rise in homelessness, of which I saw nothing mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. Tent encampments are now a regular sight, and because of the rural nature of our riding, multiple RVs, trailers and campers are tucked away on forestry roads and on Crown land. These people are the hidden poor. They are living are in precarious situations, particularly during the harsh winter months. Our capacity to provide safe, stable housing for those in need is being overwhelmed.

At the same time, the increase in substance use and addiction has transformed our public spaces. Parks, playgrounds and beaches, once places of relaxation and community, are increasingly marked by erratic and unsafe behaviour.

Unfortunately, Penticton now has one of the highest crime rates per capita in all of British Columbia. Prolific offenders and drug dealers continually cycle through the justice system with little consequence, putting vulnerable residents at risk and eroding public safety. A more effective and accountable judicial approach is urgently needed.

In fact, the only prison in the entire riding is only 20% full, even though our crime rate is so high. In response to the crime, Penticton has had to increase its bylaw enforcement staff from five officers in 2015 to over 25 in 2025. The fire department devotes 90% of its calls to overdose and life-saving-related incidents. The financial strain on all our communities throughout our riding is unsustainable.

The Liberal government's decision to make British Columbia a pilot project for drug decriminalization has had devastating consequences. This policy has not been accompanied by the investment in treatment and recovery services that is so desperately needed. My question to the Minister of Health is this: Why would the government single out one province to experiment with, and why would it continue with an experiment that is truly failing?

Conservatives called for desperately needed investment in treatment and recovery services to address this public health crisis, but we were ignored. We cannot decriminalize drugs without first ensuring that there are adequate supports in place. There are currently no detox beds available anywhere in our riding. When someone makes the courageous decision to seek help, they are met with a wait time of up to two years. If they do get assigned to a detox bed, it is in a distant community far from their support networks.

We are losing sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, lives that could be saved if the right services were in place. We must act now. The government must invest in treatment, recovery and prevention in small and rural communities. We must restore safety, dignity and hope for all Canadians. I saw none of this investment in the Speech from the Throne.

To put off the budget until the fall is completely irresponsible. How many people will die from overdose before the fall? I invite the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and the Minister of Health to come to our rural riding. I would give them a tour of the homeless encampments and the RVs on the forestry roads and Crown lands, and they could speak with those addicts who live in our riding and are unable to get any of the help they need.

This is why I ran for Parliament. I live in what I believe is the most beautiful place in the world in the best country in the world, but beauty alone cannot shield us from the consequences of bad policy. I am here to fight for meaningful change and for federal policies that respond to the real needs of our communities. I will continue to advocate for the people of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay and for a safer, healthier and more equitable Canada.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague about the importance of tackling the housing shortage head-on. I, too, represent a rural riding with significant housing needs.

However, I would like to point out that, during the last Parliament, Pierre Poilievre unilaterally demanded that his members stop supporting the cities in their region that wanted their share of the housing accelerator fund. While my colleagues were working with their communities to help them get housing built faster, the opposition leader was preventing his members from supporting their communities.

Can my colleague tell us whether, this time, the Conservatives will really work together to speed up housing construction, including in rural areas?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was, for over a decade, in local politics. The City of Penticton applied for the accelerator fund, as did multiple cities across the country. A very small percentage of them actually received any money.

The government is creating a competition among all the cities in the country for a small amount of money. It is as if they were all jumping after one little bone for snips and snaps, and then the government says it has given them money, so they should be happy. Communities spend money to apply for the grants. The City of Penticton spent quite a bit of money and used many staff in applying, but never received money from the accelerator fund.

No, I do not think that is a proper way to build housing in our country.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I share the same concern about homelessness and addiction in rural areas.

There is a problem in my riding of Shefford. There is a federal program that helps people experiencing homelessness called reaching home. Although Granby is a rather large municipality, it is still considered a rural community and not a designated community. As a result, it is not getting all the funding it should be getting to work on this important issue.

Is it not time to broaden and review this definition and acknowledge that people experiencing homelessness are no longer just in big cities, but that they are on the move and that the face of homelessness has changed?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree that the government needs to revamp how it looks at supporting people and supporting small and rural communities that need just as much help as the major urban centres with the addiction crisis.

I will bring up the situation in British Columbia, where there is a pilot project going on concerning the decriminalization of drugs. No other province in this country is stepping forward to say it wants to do that too, because we know it is a failure. The longer it lasts, the more people will die. There is no need for that. People need resources and help. Drugs should not be distributed in our communities, but if they are, we need to have resources and detox beds to help these people.

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

Mr. Speaker, the opioid crisis is affecting communities all across Canada, but in particular it is hitting rural communities very hard because the health care services and response times are not there to help the people struggling with it. We are also seeing the disproportionate impact it is having on rural communities.

I am wondering whether the member has any thoughts on how rural communities are being left behind by the government as well.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, rural communities are being left out and ignored in this situation, and it is becoming a crisis. The Liberal government needs to focus on it. It has gotten worse and worse in this lost decade, and it is something that needs to be focused on immediately. As we speak, people are dying.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as this new Parliament begins, this is my first opportunity to address the House since the election, and with that I want to express my heartfelt gratitude to those who have sent me here to advocate on their behalf. They are, of course, the great constituents of Lethbridge. I also want to extend my sincere gratitude to my wonderful husband and my beautiful baby girl. They are an incredible support to me, as is my phenomenal campaign team, so I extend my gratitude to them.

During this election, I had the privilege of knocking on tens of thousands of doors and, of course, collecting people's stories. There is one that has stuck with me, and I have often reflected on it. It was toward the end of the campaign when I knocked on the door of a young woman. She came to the door, looked at the button I was wearing, and very quickly had a smile on her face. She said, “You know, I am 32 years old. This is the first election I am voting in, and you have my full support.” She explained that what we represented for her was hope for a great future. She went on to explain that she was someone who was struggling to make ends meet, although she was working very hard, and she was also living in constant fear. Having fled domestic violence, and with her partner still lurking on the streets, she was constantly looking over her shoulder. She was not at all confident that she was safe.

These are the real challenges that Canadians face. Her story, of course, is unique, but it could be told by tens of thousands of others. The motivation for her voting was hope, hope for affordability, for security of person, for safety and for a vibrant future. Not a day goes by that I do not recall this story and its elements. The Speech from the Throne should have chartered a clear path forward that gave Canadians hope for affordability, hope for security and hope for a future, but instead, Canadians were left with a series of slogans, photo ops and promises that turn a blind eye to the real problems Canadians face.

The government has made lofty claims, but words are not enough. Canadians need real concrete action, not theatre. They need a plan, not a performance. After nearly a decade of mismanagement under the Liberal government, nothing has changed. Sure, there is a new leader, but there are the same old policies, the same tired talking points and the same theatricals. Unfortunately, the throne speech was not at all a road map for a vibrant future, but rather a piece of theatre. It was entertaining, but without substance.

Let us begin with one of the government's stated ambitions, which is to make Canada “the world's leading energy superpower”. On its face, this is something that Conservatives can agree with. We believe in the energy sector. We believe that Canada should be the greatest supplier of energy in the entire world. Our abundant natural resources are not a problem to be managed, but rather a gift to be shared. This is what we believe. They are our key to prosperity, our global influence and our national unity, but ambition alone does not build pipelines, and it does not get product to market. Good intentions do not attract private capital, which is much needed, and press releases do not get projects done.

What was missing from the throne speech was in fact a credible plan. The government spoke vaguely of fast-tracking nation-building projects, but it offered few concrete answers to questions like these: Will the government repeal the broken Impact Assessment Act? Will it lift the tanker ban that still blocks exports from northern British Columbia? Will it scrap the arbitrary emissions cap on oil and gas, which is a cap that was never about emissions but purely about ideology? These are the concrete steps that would be required should the government be truly interested in energy development.

We heard from the energy minister that Ottawa is looking for “quick wins”. Well, the energy sector is not looking for that. It is looking for constancy, consistency, dependability and reliability.

Albertans are asking for something very clear and very simple: a pipeline to the northwest coast. It is shorter and more efficient, and it is largely engineered already. That is the real test of the government's commitment. If the government can get that project done, we will take it seriously, but to turn a blind eye to that project, one that would be so easily completed, is to say that the government is truly interested in only lip service.

While the throne speech tried to sound like an invitation to build, it was delivered by a government that has spent the last weeks bypassing Parliament, faking authority and eroding public trust. Let me outline what I am talking about here. I am talking about a Prime Minister who signed fake documents, pretending that they held real power. I am talking about a Prime Minister who is functioning in a way that is actually contradictory to Canada's constitution.

Canada is not a presidential republic. We are, in fact, a parliamentary democracy. In this place, we have elected officials who have been sent here on behalf of their constituents to represent them. In this place, we engage in rigorous debate and then come to a decision. Once that decision is reached, it is signed off on, and of course enacted into law. For the Prime Minister to sit there, take a piece of paper, put it into a fancy red folder, sign it and say he is issuing a decree is laughable. It lacks true authority. It is unbecoming of the Prime Minister. Altogether, it is a sneaky, misleading action toward the Canadian public. It is wrong.

The thirst for show over substance has real consequences. Look no further than the main estimates. They were released alongside the speech. After promising restraint and after denouncing the previous government's waste, let us look at what we see.

In summary, spending is up by more than 8%. There is a 14% increase in planned appropriations. There is $26 billion committed to consultants. That is $26 billion, with a “b”. That is not a government committed to fiscal restraint. In fact, if that is fiscal restraint, I would hate to see the government on a spending spree. That is a scary thought. The current administration is not reducing the cost of government but rather ballooning it. Ultimately, it is the Canadian people who will have to pay for the government's misjudgment.

The Prime Minister claims that he will balance the budget in three years, yet his first real numbers show exactly the opposite. There are 75 departments that received an increase in funding. Only 14 were cut back a bit. This is not a government that is saying to do more with less; this is a government that says to continue to spend at will. As a reminder, it is the Canadian people who are providing the money that is being spent.

Even more troubling is the fact this key spending is actually being reclassified. The government is blurring the lines between capital investments and operating expenditures. Why would the Prime Minister wish to do this? He wants to pretend that he has made the books better. He wants to actually hide the true size of debt but have the appearance of being a better manager. In fact, that is not the case. The terms are simply being changed. It is sneaky, it is dishonest and it will generate ill will with the Canadian public. This is a government that consistently says the right things but does the wrong ones, a government that governs by theatre, not by principle.

My Conservative colleagues and I offer an alternative. We believe that cutting taxes means making hard choices. We believe that building pipelines, not building narratives, should be made the priority. We believe in keeping Canadians safe, not appeasing criminals. Above all, we are committed to fighting for hope: hope that a family can afford groceries again, hope that a young couple can buy their first home, hope that our streets can in fact once again be safe, and hope that every single Canadian, no matter where they live or what they do, can reach greater heights, go further and build a life of dignity and purpose.

In this session, my Conservative colleagues and I will be fighting for these things, because we believe in the Canadian people.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate all my new colleagues in the House on their election.

I am a proud Acadian and a proud francophone. When I read through the Speech from the Throne, I read this:

Canada is a country that respects and celebrates its official languages.... The Government is determined to protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/Radio-Canada.

Will my colleague, like her leader, continue to call for the dismantling of CBC/Radio-Canada? Will she continue to ask francophone members to answer her and speak to her in English?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in this country we have two official languages, French and English. I respect that. I believe that our country should continue with that, but to equate the existence of the CBC with the existence of a bilingual nation seems a little odd.

We do not need the CBC in order to remain a respected bilingual country. We can have two respected languages, two official languages, in this country, and we can respect speakers of both languages. We do not need the CBC. The vast majority of Canadians would agree.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, the member talked a lot about hope. Apparently one constituent voted for her in the hope that things would change.

I am the mother of three young women who have young children, babies. They need hope too. They wonder what kind of world their children are going to live in. They wonder what kind of planet we are going to leave them.

I gather from the member's speech that she is in favour of building pipelines, which promote a fossil fuel industry that has lasting impacts on our environment.

What would she tell my three children, who say they need a better world, a healthier planet and climate change adaptation measures? I imagine she would not go so far as to deny that we are experiencing climate change.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, quite simply, I would say to the member's children that if they want a planet that is sustainable into the future, they should get behind Canada's energy sector and its development, because no other place on this planet does it better. In the way we have installed environmental protections, in the way we pay workers and respect them and in the way we produce this commodity and get it to market, nobody does it in a more responsible manner.

In fact, we would have an opportunity to make a real difference if we could get our commodities to places such as China, India, South Korea and Japan. We have an opportunity to be the supplier in those markets, thereby taking away demand from places such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, which do it very poorly, both in terms of the environment and of course in terms of respect for human rights.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the Speech from the Throne, and it highlights several areas that talk about creating an energy superpower by removing barriers, yet the government refuses to eliminate the job-killing Bill C-69 or the production cap. It talks about homes, yet the housing minister says housing prices should not fall. It talks about building “a safer and more secure Canada”, but for 10 years the government has done nothing about the fentanyl crisis. It talks about hiring 1,000 RCMP officers, but for a decade the government has refused to buy heavy body armour for the RCMP. It goes on to talk about cost issues, but the government went ahead and handed over $26 billion to friends like McKinsey.

Is this, as the government calls it, “Building Canada Strong”, or is it just building another empty PR program for this tired and stale government?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I outlined in my speech, that is exactly it. The government makes lofty promises and is really great at its talking points, but when it comes to actions of substance, when it comes down to actually making a meaningful difference for Canadians, unfortunately the government has not delivered in 10 years. Unfortunately, I do not believe it will deliver in this session either.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise here in this place, this being the first time I have had the opportunity to address Parliament since my re-election into this place, and this marks the third time I have had the good privilege of being able to maintain the confidence of the good people of Kings—Hants.

I want to start by recognizing the Deputy Speaker's nomination to that chair, and certainly I would like to recognize that I am going to be sharing my time with my learned colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore today.

All members of Parliament, when they come to this place, have a support system that allows them to be able to take on the work and to put their name forward as a candidate. I have been very fortunate to have a tremendous and supportive family that has allowed me to be a member of Parliament for almost six years now. It is amazing how quickly time goes by.

I want to thank my entire family. I want to thank my lovely wife at home, Kimberly, for all her support. We spend a lot of time away from our significant others and from our loved ones. I love my wife and thank her for her support.

I thank all the volunteers on my campaign for the work they put in. I have the privilege of being here, but it is their work that allows us to all sit here. This includes my campaign chair, Maura Ryan. She is a rock star. She led the team and deserves recognition in the House, so I thank her. I am looking forward to getting started, but I needed to make sure that was stated at the onset of my speech.

We are here today to reply to the Speech from the Throne, and of course, it was a momentous and historic day on Parliament Hill on Tuesday with King Charles III reading the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the government. I do want to take a moment to recognize that moment in our Canadian history. It is only the third time that the sovereign has read the Speech from the Throne here in Canada, with Queen Elizabeth opening Parliament in 1957 and 1977. I think all members of Parliament need to take a moment and think about the fact that this is significant, and it reinforces Canada's constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom and with the royal family.

I think the Prime Minister, before the writ, was smart to highlight Canada's deep connection to the United Kingdom, to France, of course, and also to our indigenous people. When I think about the legal foundations and even our Westminster tradition, it is that historic history that makes Canada different. It makes Canada what it is, and it allows us to be a country we ought to be very proud of in terms of our governing traditions.

I do want to highlight a brief interaction I had with the sovereign. I want this to show on the record, in Hansard. I am very proud of those constitutional roots, as I mentioned. The sovereign was particularly interested in Nova Scotia and in Nova Scotia's tartan, and I do want the record to show that, so that 50 years from now, someone can remember that it happened.

I do want to get into the key elements of what the government presented in terms of priorities, because that ultimately is what is most important to my constituents and to Canadians across the country.

First of all is Canada and the United States, and trying to redefine what that relationship looks like. I think, objectively, we are living in a different world. Regardless of how we view our politics, the U.S. administration under President Trump is certainly doing things differently. Gone are the days of the American approach to multilateralism, in terms of what I am seeing as a member of Parliament, and we are way back to more of a bilateral relationship, in terms of how the U.S. is trying to engage.

I think our Prime Minister and our government were smart to make an early trip to Washington. I think, by all accounts, beyond partisanship, our Prime Minister handled himself well in the Oval Office. It seems as though those relationships have started, and we need to continue to try to define what the pathway forward is. There are some very open questions about how Canada should move in an uncertain world. That is this place, and Parliament is the place where those debates should happen.

However, I want to highlight the fact that I think it is important for us as parliamentarians to try to find a way to land the plane, so to speak, on what that relationship looks like, between Canada and the U.S. Of what this country produces, 77% goes to the United States. Should we diversify our economic relationships around the world? We absolutely should, and the Prime Minister and the government have committed to doing that, but we also have to be very open-eyed and wide-eyed to the fact that we do need to maintain that continental relationship on an economic basis.

I think about companies in my riding, such as Michelin. I think about our agriculture sector, particularly our fruit growers in the Annapolis Valley, all of whom rely heavily on the U.S. market. We can also talk about our forestry sector. I want to hear more about our forestry sector in the current Parliament. That is the responsibility not only of the government; it is also the responsibility of members of Parliament to raise issues of forestry, because it matters all across this country, and particularly in the riding of Kings—Hants and in Hants County, where I think about our sawmills: Elmsdale Lumber and Ledwidge Lumber.

We have an opportunity to build the homes Canadians need at a price they can afford and to use Canadian materials to make that a reality. I want to see more of that in the days ahead.

The government is committing to an affordability agenda with a middle-income tax cut of up to $840 a year for two-income families. This going to benefit a lot of people in Kings—Hants. The government's intention is to introduce that by July 1. I would be very interested to see the member of Parliament who would stand up on any side of the House to reject a tax cut at this moment when affordability is absolutely crucial. I am hoping the members opposite will see the value in this to make sure that we can provide that affordability for 22 million Canadians.

There is also a plan to remove the GST on all new home purchases by first-time homebuyers, up to $1 million. If we remove the GST, that is $50,000. For the average home in Kings—Hants for first-time homebuyers, that is going to represent thousands of dollars in savings, particularly for young people. I am in my mid-thirties, and I know that for a lot of people in my age demographic, this is an important element.

However, we do not get there if we do not build the supply. It is great to put the tax incentives on board, and the Conservatives talked about this being a measure they supported as well, but there was no actual supply side to build the homes people would be able to afford once the tax was removed. It is great if we just do that, but if we were to gut our supply side programs, which was being proposed in the Conservative platform, there would be real challenges. I like the fact that the government has put in a tax cut and kept the supply side for what we have to build.

I did not know what screw piles were, but after meeting with Shaw Resources in my riding, I now know that they are a requirement for modular housing to affix a property to the ground. My goal is to get rid of them, and I want the record to show that. Hopefully, I can do that in this Parliament because it adds about $15,000 to the cost of every single home in this country. It has very little to do with any type of security or safety, so it is something we need to change in the law to allow the Canadian building code to reflect that. It is an ancient principle based on the idea of mobile trailers and homes. It is not needed. I will be working with the Minister of Housing to try to address that concern because I think it is important.

I want to highlight a few more things here in the time I have left. One is the reform on financing from CMHC on rural housing. Again, this is something for any rural member of the House. They may have heard this from their stakeholders, but CMHC needs to reform the way it supports projects in rural Canada so we can be able to build more homes.

The first of the last two pieces that I think are extremely important, and they are things I am fully in support of, is building big projects more quickly. We have talked about this in the House. I think the last government had some merit in the social programs it talked about. We had the second highest overall cumulative economic growth, notwithstanding the fact that we have a competitiveness issue. The government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, is committed to building big nation-building projects.

This should be good news to every parliamentarian in this country. We have to get the review process down to two years, which the government is committing to. The government is committed to natural resources, to forestry, to conventional energy and to renewable energy. We are committed to working to make sure we can drive the economy to build projects in western Canada, Atlantic Canada and all across this great country.

The last piece is federal barriers to trade. I know the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade is focused on this. This represents 2% to 4% of economic GDP we are leaving on the table every single year, which is $200 billion. I fully support the government's intention. We do need to be careful on a couple of little pieces, including meat inspection. I am a little worried as 97% of the meat processing in this country is of a federal standard. We are chasing the 3%, which is important, particularly for small abattoirs, but we need to make sure we do this in line with our international trade agreements so we are not hurting a $10-billion industry.

I am coming to the end of my time, so I will simply say I am glad the government has an ambitious agenda. I look forward to supporting it in the days ahead, and I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess there was a lot of talk about promises and commitments from the government in regard to the Speech from the Throne. My question for my hon. colleague is, without a budget in place, what advice does he have for Canadians to guarantee that every single commitment in the Speech from the Throne, and there are so many that he pointed out, will actually get done?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, the government is tabling estimates. That is why we have heard numbers being quoted from this side of the House today in terms of the overall aggregate. They are talking about half a trillion dollars, or a $500-billion budget, but at the end of the day, if we actually look at where the government had taken things on revenue and on spending versus the revenue collected, essentially the government is passing over the estimates. The budget will come with a more defined element.

We have a few big things that are outstanding, such as the Canada-U.S. relationship. The Prime Minister has committed to, perhaps, an engagement with the Europeans on July 1 in terms of the defence relationship. The government wants to spend more on defence and housing. These are things that have to be further defined. The government is being transparent about where we are. In terms of accountability, it is the job of every member in the House to hold the government to account. Of course, ultimately, we are all held to account come the next election.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague touched on two related issues that are extremely important to the riding of Shefford. He talked about international trade and agriculture in the context of negotiations.

This morning, the Bloc Québécois reintroduced a bill to fully protect supply management. My colleague's leader expressed his willingness during the debates to protect supply management. Is my colleague also prepared to vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois bill?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I served as minister of agriculture and agri-food and rural economic development for a short time before Parliament was dissolved. Like my colleague, I represent a riding that is home to many supply-managed farms. In fact, my riding has the largest concentration of supply-managed farms east of Quebec. Therefore, I fully support the supply management system.

The importance of any given bill is debatable. What is crucial right now is political commitment. Bills can always be amended. Under the Prime Minister's leadership, my Liberal colleagues and I, hopefully with the help of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, will protect supply management and support our supply-managed farmers.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. We worked together well in the Atlantic caucus. I want to thank him again for all the great work he did in our caucus.

According to my sources, my colleague and I received a number of project proposals under the housing accelerator fund in collaboration with municipalities. Members will recall that Pierre Poilievre said the fund was ineffective, and he even asked his MPs not to push our government to help municipalities interested in moving ahead with some of those projects.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he thinks his riding benefited from the fund. Does he think our new “build Canada homes” initiative will help build more housing in rural regions like ours in Atlantic Canada?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Acadie—Bathurst is a champion of rural communities, here in Parliament and of course in New Brunswick.

As far as housing is concerned, it is very important to lower taxes, as the government mentioned in the Speech from the Throne when it talked about eliminating the GST. That being said, we must also build the necessary infrastructure. Our programs for the municipalities, like Bathurst or East Hants in my riding, are absolutely crucial.

The Conservatives and Mr. Poilievre keep talking about the importance of lowering and eliminating taxes. However, they have no plan to increase supply in the market. Some targeted measures are necessary for lowering taxes, but we also need measures for building housing, especially in the rural communities. It is crucial.

I will work on that with my hon. colleague and with the minister responsible for housing.