Debates of May 29th, 2025

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is a lovely sentiment the member is expressing, and I really dislike interrupting for that reason, but we are way over time. We will have to go to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply moved and truly pleased to rise and speak for the first time as the representative of and member for Bourassa. Before I begin, I would like to thank my family, who have always lovingly, faithfully and cheerfully supported me. I also want to thank the volunteers who gave of their time and took time away from their families to help me take this step.

Since this is my first time speaking in the House, I would like to respond to what I have heard today, but before I reply to the member, I would like to take a moment to congratulate the women in particular, because they are doing an excellent and important job in the House as elected members, with their faith and their interest in politics.

My question is very important. You talk about speeding up construction. Do you think your party, Ms.—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I know the member was recently elected, but I would ask him to address the member through the Chair.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the member from the official opposition be willing to work with the government, knowing that it is putting in place AI processes that can obviously facilitate this type of work?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Long Range Mountains have waited a very long time for their voices to be heard in this House, and I feel a deep responsibility to finish what I started. This House deserves to hear the stories they have passed along to me, because they are stories not just of struggle but of strength, perseverance and quiet determination. They are stories that have stayed with me and guide me, and I believe they deserve to be on record in this Parliament.

Quickly, if I may—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Time is really moving along, so we have to be succinct in our questions and answers. I know there are many new members, and I was a new member myself, but please be succinct.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, one day I travelled to Ramea by ferry to visit my friend Mikalah in her hometown, a small, proud and beautiful community. Mikalah is a courageous young woman who lost her mom at an early age and wants nothing more than to stay in the place she grew up.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That does not sound like an answer to the question. I am sorry.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my newly elected colleague on her first speech in the House. I remember mine as a very moving experience. When I rose for the first time, I also remember thanking my family members, being overcome with emotion and having tears in my eyes. I have a very good idea of the emotions my colleague is feeling right now.

We are currently debating a Bloc Québécois amendment to the amendment. It is an amendment to the Conservative Party amendment. The amendment to the amendment is very simple. All it does is insist that the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces be respected.

I would like my colleague to comment on that, if she has finished what was left of her speech. Does her party support the idea that the federal government must categorically and unconditionally respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces at all times?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there is Hunter from Port au Choix, who is not old enough to vote, but I can promise has more civic spirit than most adults. He worked hard on the campaign because he believes in change—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

In all fairness to the hon. member, she is not replying to the question about jurisdictions.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Certainly, I know that I and many of my colleagues want to hear the very important words that this new member from Newfoundland has to share. There is a reason it is called questions and comments. There is latitude given in the questions, and I hope you will ensure there is latitude given in the response, which certainly fits with not only the context of what the member's speech was, but the overall context for what the speech from—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I understand the hon. member. To my ears, it sounded like a continuation of the member's speech. Anyway—

[An hon. member]

She has latitude.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Yes, but it should be in relation to the question in some way. I get the member's point, but let us be brief, everybody, because we have to be brief if we want to get in at least three or four questions in a five-minute section.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to this point of order, I agree that we want to give new members a chance to be heard and to finish their speeches. However, there is such a thing as parliamentary privilege. When a member asks a question, he or she can expect to receive an answer.

I have no problem with the member making a speech, and she will have an opportunity to come back to it another time, but now is the time for questions and comments, and a question deserves an answer. The official opposition should not mimic the government's usual approach, but should instead answer the questions asked by members during the questions and comments period.

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

Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, we frequently have reason to object to the responses we receive from seasoned government ministers, given the fact that we ask questions in the House and government ministers who have been elected for a very long time stand up and say things that have absolutely no relationship to the topic or the question being asked.

Therefore, I find it a little surprising that we see a new standard being invented in relation to questions and comments for a new member that is not being applied to ministers of the Crown. If you wish to require ministers of the Crown to answer questions from the opposition, though, I think that would be great, and I would look forward to that.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask my fantastic new colleague from Newfoundland if she has any final comments she would like to put on the record for the constituents she stands for in this place.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I guess this is my whole point: The voices of the people of Long Range Mountains have not been heard in this House for a very long time. I was given the opportunity. It is very important to them. They feel forgotten about and left behind in the rural communities because of the Liberal government. I wanted to take the opportunity because, respectfully, they put me here and I will always speak for them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to comment on the same point of order. However, there is something that everyone needs to be reminded of, and I am certain it is your duty to remind them. It has to do with the interpreters' safety. My colleague may not realize she is banging very loudly on the desk close to the microphones. This is dangerous for the interpreters, who have to wear headphones to do their work. I would simply like to remind everyone that the microphones are very visible and that we must be careful not to handle objects or bang on the desks.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member raises a very important point. I myself always used to tap on my desk while I was speaking, but it is not good for the interpreters' ears.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to acknowledge my colleague and congratulate her on her election.

I want to highlight something that is happening in the fish industry, something that she would be concerned about if it was happening in Newfoundland. Right now, in British Columbia, harvesters are being displaced by foreign acquisition of Canada's commercial fishing licences and quotas. Canada does not currently have any limitations on foreign ownership of commercial fishing licences and quotas in the Pacific region. This is impacting the livelihood of small operators, and this is a practice only on the west coast.

I would like to ask my colleague, how would Newfoundlanders react if foreign owners were allowed to acquire a licence and did not even have to fish it? This is something the Liberal government has failed to address.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will always speak for the fish harvesters in my riding. There are a lot of coastal communities. It is a very important industry. I will always represent them fairly and respectfully.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you in the chair. Keep your stick on the ice. I should have had a footnote for that comment.

It is an honour to rise today as the member of Parliament for New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury and to be given the opportunity to stand up for the communities of Bradford West Gwillimbury, the soup and salad bowl of Canada; East Gwillimbury, home to the Sharon Temple and the birthplace of responsible government; and Alliston, Beeton, Tottenham, home to the Beeton Fall Fair, Honda of Canada manufacturing and the best potatoes this side of P.E.I.

This is the beginning of a new Parliament, and with it heightened expectations from Canadians, who voted for hope and change and the belief that things will get better for families, seniors, workers and young people in this great country.

We have heard from the Prime Minister and his new Liberal government, who have tried to emphasize that there would be change. The Speech from the Throne promised new alliances, a new economy, a new era of economic growth, a new housing industry, new fiscal discipline and so on. Polished words and the suggestion that the current government is at all new ring hollow for Canadians struggling with the realities of day-to-day life. For them, life is even harder. They do not have any hope that change will come. Their grocery bills keep climbing, unemployment lines keep growing and communities continue to fracture under the weight of poverty, rising crime and a deepening sense of hopelessness. If everyday life keeps getting worse for Canadians, it is fair to question whether the so-called new direction is any direction at all.

At this critical time, our country needs a bold vision for the future, but without a serious course correction, calling this a “new” Liberal government is no different than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: same disaster, just a different view. We have already seen what this new direction looks like under the current Prime Minister with the Liberal government's approach to the rural top-up on the carbon tax. In recent weeks, Canadians from rural and remote communities in ridings like mine, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, have received angry letters from the Canada Revenue Agency, better known as the CRA—never answer those 613 numbers—demanding they repay thousands of dollars in carbon tax rebates that they were led to believe they were entitled to. These Canadians live far from urban centres, in areas where the carbon tax disproportionately affected their everyday lives, yet the Liberals chose to classify them as part of the Toronto census metropolitan area, better known as Toronto. As a result, they were denied the rural top-up they deserved. I raised this dozens of times in the last Parliament.

The Liberal government finally acknowledged this unfairness, in budget 2024 and again in the fall economic statement, but nothing was done. No actions were taken. At the same time, the current Liberal government is boasting about cancelling the carbon tax. It has begun to aggressively call back money from rural Canadians who were already struggling to get by. This is not change. This is another example of the Liberal government repeating many of the same mistakes and failures we saw over the past decade, a decade that led to so much decline and hopelessness across Canada. It is also more of the rural-urban divide we have seen time and again.

Therefore, we can see why so many Canadians are skeptical about the supposed new direction of the Prime Minister and his party.

After all, the government refused to release a budget during the spring session and provided no comprehensive plan for how it intends on addressing the cost of living crisis facing Canadians right now. The main estimates released yesterday make this even worse, with more spending than Trudeau and a massive increase in consultants, bureaucracy and the overall cost of government.

A throne speech is not a plan. It is aspirational and lacks any details and clarity needed at this critical time for our nation. There is no costing. What is the deficit? What about government spending? How much will all the promises in the speech cost? We do not have the answers to this, at a time when Canadians sorely need these answers.

We can also see, with the Liberals' approach to housing, a crisis they seem content to just make worse. We have a new Liberal housing minister, who said he has no intent to lower the prices of homes in a market that has become the most unaffordable in the G7. This is the real message the Liberals are sending to young people priced out of owning a home and all the dreams and opportunities that come along with it: Nothing will change, and it will not get any better.

The throne speech made this even more evident, as the Liberals boasted of the creation of another government agency, “build Canada homes”. That is just what Canadians who cannot afford a home need: more bureaucracy, more red tape, more delays and more barriers to getting homes built. I really think that Liberal members need to remember to touch the grass.

When I was out knocking on doors in the election, I heard from a 27-year-old man living in Bradford who told me that he was voting Conservative because he needs hope. This first-generation Canadian was the son of parents who immigrated to Canada in the early 1990s. His father drove tractor-trailers for over 30 years and actually became an owner-operator and bought a small home. His son is inspired to follow in his father's footsteps, but, sadly, he told me that he has been doing long-haul trucking seven days a week, 10 hours a day, and he just cannot climb out of his parents' basement. He just cannot get ahead.

Canada has become a country where hard work no longer pays, and where the most fundamental of dreams, like starting a business, owning a home or raising a family, are no longer attainable for too many people. The formula we used to have, that a job plus hard work would lead to a good paycheque, to save and put toward the future, is no longer working. I understand why Canadians feel like the hope and change they voted for are just not coming. How can they, when the throne speech and the earliest actions of the supposedly “new” Liberal government all point to the continuation of failures we have become accustomed to?

As a member of His Majesty's loyal opposition, I look forward to doing my job in this place in holding the government accountable to Canadians. In providing opposition to the government, we ensure that Canadians are well represented and, in doing so, we are making sure that the government can be the best it can be, often despite itself.

As Parliament gets under way, remember that no one has a monopoly on a good idea. Enthusiasm is free, and it is good to see the Liberals finally realizing that. After all, it has been the Conservatives leading the charge to axe the carbon tax, remove the GST from new homes and lower income taxes for working Canadians. We will keep fighting for all Canadians. Conservatives will be putting forward reasonable proposals in the coming days to ensure that the formula for a good life in Canada works for all Canadians once more.

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his address to the House and congratulate him on being re-elected. I quite enjoyed working with him at committee and look forward to working with him moving forward.

My question for the hon. member is twofold. First, will he be voting in favour of the tax cut that our government will be putting forward? Second, could he speak to some of the benefits that his constituents will benefit from with the tax cut that we will be putting forward?