Debates of May 30th, 2025

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion for an address to His Majesty the King in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and of the amendment as amended.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment first to congratulate you on your first sitting; that is wonderful.

Before I begin, I would also like to take a moment to say thanks. It is hard to put into words how grateful I am to the people of Cloverdale—Langley City. They worked so hard to help me return to Ottawa. The volunteers gave up evenings and weekends to knock on doors, make phone calls and deliver signs. Someone even made apple pie for the team. Every single one of them played a very important role in making this possible.

I give a special shout-out to my husband. He just never stopped: rain or shine, early mornings and late nights. His head-down-and-work-hard attitude is inspirational. Those fluffy pancakes and perfect chai tea he was making every Saturday at the campaign office are now legendary. I am so blessed to have such an amazing better half.

Some members may know I campaigned in the December by-election and won the riding with over 65% of the vote, only to be sent right back into full campaign mode before I even had a chance to warm up a seat in the House. It has been quite a whirlwind, but let us just say I have worn out more than one pair of shoes this year and probably a few volunteers as well. There are so many amazing people I could name, but we would need another hour, so they should just know that their work mattered, their dedication mattered and I carry their voices with me every time I stand in the House.

I will move now to my main speech. This week, Canadians were treated to all the pomp and ceremony of a throne speech, delivered by His Majesty King Charles himself, but as we know, it was written by the Prime Minister. Tucked into all the lofty words and grand gestures was this promise: The government would be guided by what it called “a new fiscal discipline: spend less so Canadians can invest more.”

However, when the ways and means motion was tabled this week, rather than reducing the annual increase in spending to below 2% as the Liberals promised, there was a whopping 8.4% in increased federal spending. When we put all those numbers together, the Prime Minister will be spending 71% more than the Trudeau government projected in its fall estimates.

Is it really a good idea to pull the wool over Canadians' eyes with fancy accounting tricks to make the books look good? The whole idea of spending less so Canadians can invest more sounds great until we think about it for five seconds. It is kind of like someone telling their kids, “we are saving money this month” while standing in the checkout line with a brand new flat-screen TV. They are not saving; they are spending, and someone is going to have to pay for it.

Meanwhile, families are buckling under the weight of rising prices. I talked to people at the door, in church and at the grocery store, and they are cutting back on groceries, not just gadgets. They are cancelling their family summer plans just to keep up with mortgage payments, yet the government is talking about the largest transformation of Canada's economy since the Second World War. That does not come cheap; it will need to be paid for.

Canadians want a proper budget so we can see what this transformation will actually cost. It is time to stop the overspending, stop creating inflation and give Canadians a real chance to catch their breath, because this is not just about today's prices. When governments overspend, the cost hits every one of us through higher interest rates, cuts to services and broken promises. When the bill comes due, it does not land on the Prime Minister's desk; it lands in the lap of our children and grandchildren. If we do not act now, we will not just lose our standard of living; we will also be handing our children and grandchildren a country we cannot afford to fix.

Speaking of things young Canadians cannot afford, let us talk about housing. While I was out door knocking during the campaign, I met a young man standing outside his townhouse. It was a small place, and he was a nice guy who was probably in his early thirties. He told me he had a good job, saved hard and, even with help from his parents, just barely scraped together enough for a down payment. With interest rates now high for him and costs climbing, he looked me in the eye and said, “I always hoped that one day I could move into a place with enough room to raise a family, but with the way things are going, that dream is slipping away.” This stuck with me.

Imagine my shock when I found out that the new housing minister, the government's so-called solution to the housing crisis, is the former mayor of Vancouver, the same guy who saw housing prices explode under his watch. Vancouver did not just become expensive; it became one of the most unaffordable cities on the planet. If that is the government's idea of help, we should all be very worried.

The Liberals say they are going to double housing starts, but honestly, none of that matters if they do not fix the real problems: red tape, broken permitting systems and crushing taxes on building. The numbers do not lie. Costs are up, and young Canadians are giving up on ever owning a home. A country where the next generation cannot afford to put down roots is a country in trouble. We need a plan that gets homes built, not headlines written.

Let me read the government's solution straight from the Liberals' platform: They are going to “get the federal government back into the business of [home] building”. Another new agency the government is creating, “build Canada homes”, will act as a developer, using our money to build housing on public land. The Liberals are planning to pour billions of dollars into prefab houses and low-cost financing to government-approved developers.

The thing is that the Liberals do not want to help Canadians build their own future; they want to build it for Canadians using taxpayer money, and the government owns the keys. Housing is supposed to be about ownership, roots, stability and a future people can build, but under this plan, that dream is slipping farther and farther out of reach. The government is creating a system where more and more Canadians will rent homes from the government, built with our tax dollars on our public land, with no chance to own.

I am thinking of young couples working two jobs, trying to save while prices keep rising; the new Canadian who came here for a better life, only to find that ownership is out of reach; and seniors watching their children and grandchildren struggle to afford what they took for granted. The truth is that this is not just a housing crisis; it is a hope crisis. A whole generation is being locked out, and we owe it to them to do better. We do not need more government landlords; we need a government that respects people's dream to own a home and fights to make that possible.

Housing should not be a luxury that few can afford, and neither should public safety. It is a basic promise and one the Liberals have broken time and time again, almost as if it were by design. They have been slow to jail repeat violent criminals but quick to treat law-abiding Canadians like criminals through Liberal handgun bans. They go easy on gang members and carjackers but come down hard on licensed, trained sport shooters and collectors who have done nothing wrong except follow the rules. That is the Liberals' approach to justice: Punish the innocent, excuse the guilty and put the rights of criminals first and the rights of victims last.

Let me share a heartbreaking case from my province of B.C. Last June, 40-year-old Adam Mann was charged with second-degree murder in the death of a young woman named Tori Dunn in Surrey. At the time of her death, he was out on bail, despite a violent history that included 22 prior convictions and a 12-year sentence for a home invasion. A pre-sentencing report had even described him as an “unmanageable risk”, yet he was walking free.

Tori's family did not just lose their daughter; they lost her to a system that failed them. It is a system that prioritized the rights of a repeat violent offender over the right of an innocent woman to live her life in peace. That is not justice, it is not safety and it certainly is not compassion.

Canadians deserve a justice system that protects the public, not one that gambles with their life. We need real bail reform, laws that protect victims not offenders, and a government that stands up for safe communities. If we do not get serious now, we are not just risking more crime; we are also risking the public's faith in the entire system.

Canadians have heard enough empty words. What they need now is a plan, an actual budget in black and white. Is there just too much red ink for the new Prime Minister to be honest with Canadians? He ran on his résumé. He promised competence, credibility and discipline, but so far we have seen none of it. There is no real fiscal restraint, no plan to fix housing and no action on crime. There is just more borrowed money, more bureaucratic programs and more empty headlines.

If the Prime Minister truly wants to lead, he needs to deliver a budget that stops the bleeding, one that reigns in the reckless spending, restores affordability and gives Canadians back the hope that they are losing. Is this what competence looks like? Is this the stellar economic prowess the Prime Minister promised millions of voters? I sure hope not, because Canadians deserve better.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech, my colleague talked a lot about government spending.

A by-election is about to be called in a Conservative Party riding, which will cost taxpayers over $1.5 million. Does the member think that is a necessary expense or not?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we can debate distractions all day. My job is to stand up here for families that are falling further behind while the government delays in delivering a real plan, and that starts with a real budget, a responsible budget. It is plain and simple: We cannot fix affordability without fixing the books. Every day that the government delays tabling a responsible budget, inflation keeps hurting families, interest rates stay high, small businesses cannot plan and retirees cannot budget.

The longer we wait for a clear plan, the more expensive the crisis becomes. It is time for leadership. It is time to stop the bleeding and to bring forward a budget that shows discipline and respect for the people footing the bill: Canadian taxpayers.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament representing a riding that borders the United States, I have an interest in border security.

The throne speech mentions the hiring of additional RCMP officers, but there is not a word about the government's intention to add human resources to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Does my colleague not find it odd, even abnormal, that the previous government's commitment to hire 1,000 border services officers was not included in the throne speech?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the real question Canadians are asking right now is whether the Prime Minister will deliver a budget that finally shows he understands the cost of living crisis. What Canadians are desperate for is a budget, not another glossy brochure of recycled promises. While the government pushes press conferences and platitudes, families are maxing out their grocery budget and skipping summer plans just to cover the mortgage.

We do not need more words; we need a real fiscal plan, one that reins in the reckless spending, respects taxpayer dollars and gives our economy a chance to breathe. Without it, we are not just talking about a failure to lead; we are talking about a failure to govern.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on her back-to-back re-elections.

She mentioned the lack of a plan from the Prime Minister, and I am wondering whether she has stories from her two campaigns of how Canadians view their own budget and the decisions they have to make in their own household, and whether any of those resemble what we are getting from the government. I thought she might have some insights from her conversations with voters.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just from my voters; it is actually also from my own experience as a businesswoman. Never, ever, did we work without a budget. The reason we need a budget is so we can see whether we are on track. If we are not on track, we will never know. Things will go off the rails very quickly. Even the bank requires that we be disciplined by having a budget, following the budget and making sure we are staying within our expenses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree in the House that a tragedy is playing out in Saskatchewan and Manitoba due to the wildfire exacerbated by climate change. I think we can all say that we share in sending our condolences and prayers to the people on the ground who are being impacted, and certainly the first responders.

One thing we heard in the election campaign in April is that the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs issued two calls to action for election candidates. One of them was calling for “a National Fire Administration intended to help Canada address and coordinate issues related to wildfire, explosives, housing policy, construction, tariffs, federal response to emergencies, green technologies, marine transportation, clean energy, defense”, and the list goes on. A national fire administration would serve as the nucleus of any future emergency management, responsible in terms of response to wildfires and an emergency such as the one that is playing out right now.

Does my colleague agree with the call to action by the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs, and how that would help right now?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we absolutely need to make sure that we are working to ensure that this tragedy is taken care of, and we will be providing as much support as we can.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank the residents of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke for the trust they have placed in me for a ninth time. It is their hard work and their determination to build communities in the Ottawa Valley that inspire me to work just as hard for them.

I would also like to thank His Majesty King Charles III for visiting Canada and delivering the throne speech. One of the first acts of the last prime minister was to pull down a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, so it was encouraging when the member for Nepean, as one of his first acts, invited His Majesty.

It was encouraging right up until the moment the speech was delivered, which was when we were all reminded that this is the same old Liberal Party, just dressed up in banker socks. This is the same party that seeks to seize hunting rifles from lawful citizens. It is the same party that promised the world it would expropriate 30% of Canada's developed lands and impose strict new environmental rules across the country. This is the same Liberal Party that has no economic plan other than to tax and spend and then borrow some more.

There is one difference between the Trudeau Liberals of six months ago and these repainted Liberals today. Whereas the last Liberals had a childish, obstinate mindset that treated any Conservative suggestion as radioactive, these light-fingered Liberals are ready to lift any idea out of our back pockets. Make no mistake: This is not a complaint. We want the Liberals to copy us, yet somehow, despite his university experience, the Prime Minister is bad at plagiarism.

What I mean is that, while they might steal our policy slogan, they will then twist it into a traditional Liberal policy. Take our policy to remove the GST on new homes. The elegance of our policy is in the ease of execution. It is easy for home builders to plan. It is easy for the CRA to implement, yet in the hands of the Liberals, the policy gets twisted into something else.

The Liberals said words like “remove GST” and “homes” and “new”, but they were not in the same order. The Liberals promised to remove the GST on sales of new homes to new buyers. Their policy creates uncertainty. Home builders will have to guess at how many new homes they will build for the first-time buyers. Their policies require the CRA to hire more bureaucrats to make sure the buyer is really buying their first home.

Making something more complicated than it needs to be, growing the public service and having the government pick winners and losers is peak Liberal policy. The speech did not mention the Liberal campaign promise to seize the property of lawful firearms owners within the next four months. It was encouraging for His Majesty to say that the rights of lawful firearms owners would be protected. As the former public safety minister said last December, phase two of the great Liberal gun grab will involve sending the police to the home of every single licensed firearms owner to conduct searches for newly prohibited firearms. Those two statements are hard to square. Was the omission of the gun grab in the throne speech a quiet acknowledgement by our economist Prime Minister that spending over a billion dollars to destroy privately owned property is a form of investment destruction?

We can only guess, since the Prime Minister campaigned on a slogan to eat less and gain weight. My hunch is that, despite how wasteful a gun grab would be, the Prime Minister will cave to the pressure from within his cabinet. The cabinet members will claim that the gun grab is an investment in saving lives. They will say this while they divert the police from stopping crime to searching the homes of 2.3 million law-abiding Canadians. They will say this despite the complete lack of evidence. They will say that they are saving lives while record numbers of teenagers are being shot. That is because the Liberals will always privilege the fears of their affluent voters over the lives of poor kids.

Only time will tell if the Liberals' plan to make buying homes more complicated will lower prices. Only time will tell if the Liberals will move ahead with their half-decade-old promise to grab up all the guns that look scary. What Canadians do not need time to figure out is that the Liberal promise to implement the 30 by 30 treaty is an epic fantasy tale. While this story is hardly The Lord of the Rings, a red dragon does make a cameo appearance.

In the throne speech, His Majesty told the story of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Negotiations for this international agreement were led by the Communists who control China, and the Liberal minister who stood in the House, this temple to liberal democracy, and declared himself to be a proud socialist.

The fact that a self-declared, proud socialist has been elevated to the position of Minister of Canadian Identity should send a chill down the spine of every small-l liberal in the country. Putting a proud socialist and environmental radical in the same room as the Communist dragon crushing the people of China should have been a feeding frenzy for the legacy media, yet, to read any coverage of the treaty in the Liberal-funded media, one would think this treaty is a green miracle of international co-operation.

Most news reports only mention the treaty's target to conserve 30% of our land and water by 2030. The media and the Liberals do not like to mention the other two targets in the treaty. They only want to talk about the third target. That is understandable. Conserving our natural habitat is widely supported. What Canadians do not support is a government lying to the world in their name.

The promise to reach 30% by 2030 was dishonest. Canadians do not have to take my word for this. They can go online to google Canada's conserved areas. From there, they will be able to find the government's report on its conservation efforts. The government might delete these web pages shortly, but I made sure to download a copy of the report for when it tries to put its track record into a memory hole.

Here is what the report says: Over the last 10 years of Trudeau Liberal rule, Canada conserved an additional 3.5% of its natural habitat. That is about the same amount that had been conserved under Stephen Harper, which means, over the last 20 years, Canada has conserved about 7.5% of its land. That brings the total conserved area to around 15%, but that steady progress was not flashy enough for the Trudeau Liberals.

Despite having no plan to make it a reality, the Liberals committed us to conserving another 15% of Canada's wildlife and lands in five years. That pattern of over-promising and under-delivering was typical of the Trudeau Liberals, so it was a bit of a surprise to see the man from Brookfield stand before Canadians to make the exact same promise.

Even more surprising was the ridiculous claim the Prime Minister made during his announcement. The man who claimed he writes his own talking points told Canadians that, over the last 10 years, the Trudeau Liberals had conserved 15% of Canada's land. He actually said that Trudeau Liberals had taken us from 1% to 15%. I know the Prime Minister has lived much of his life outside Canada, but surely even he knew that we had national parks before Trudeau.

Conservatives support conserving more of Canada's natural habitat. We just think we should be honest with other countries on what is possible. What my constituents cannot support is the Liberals committing Canada to targets 1 and 2. Target 1 would require massive new environmental regulations to be imposed on every Canadian. Anyone who has lived on property that falls under a conservation authority knows what this will mean. The Prime Minister's slogan, “build, baby, build”, will be taken out quietly and smothered. Nothing will be built.

However, target 2 is the real shocker. The Liberals have committed us to restoring 30% of developed lands back to nature. The same Liberals want to pave over an area 400 times the size of Toronto to build windmills and solar farms. That a proud socialist could hold contradictory policies is not surprising.

What is surprising is the estimate of what it would cost the taxpayers of Canada to expropriate 30% of developed lands and restore them to their natural state. One estimate of the value of all the property in Canada puts it at $19 trillion. To buy 30% of that would cost almost $6 trillion. That is what I mean by fantastical. The only way this could ever happen would be for the Liberals to toss property rights overboard, claim the idea of property itself as a colonial legacy and give Canada a proud socialist identity.

The throne speech really does reveal that the Trudeau Liberals are alive and well. Let us just hope the new socks they are wearing were not made in China.

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

Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague attacked the media and questioned its credibility. This is not surprising, coming from a party that wants to slash funding to the CBC without any consideration for the impact that could have on the quality of information available in the regions and available in francophone communities outside Quebec.

We are living in an era when so much disinformation is being shared online, and this can erode trust in our institutions. Instead, we should be making greater efforts to support a strong, independent press in order to ensure access to quality information.

I would like to know why our colleague wants to go after the CBC. Why does she want to go after a strong and independent press, when we should be doing just the opposite?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not insult or attack the CBC. If we do not want to have a paid-off legacy media, we can just stop paying it off.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing, to a certain degree, that the member opposite continues to want to deny reality. We had an election where a government was elected with more votes than in any other federal election, and we had a very clear mandate that talks about building a stronger, healthier Canada. It is a mandate to enhance trade opportunities, as an example, yet we see an opposition member who continues to want to do nothing to provide a constructive critique of the budget while commenting on what she believes would be a healthy alternative. Does she have any intention of voting for the throne speech? If not, can she indicate what, if anything, she believes is good within the throne speech?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my biggest fan on that side of the aisle mentioned the budget. I did not see the budget or any dollar signs attached to anything in the throne speech. Once I have the numbers to demonstrate what each of the initiatives in the throne speech is going to cost, then I would be able to say something positive.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be very brief.

We are at the beginning of a new Parliament. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of a government that was elected on an economic platform, but is proposing rather extraordinary and exponential spending without presenting a budget. Does my colleague think that is responsible?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not think that is responsible.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad I was able to catch your eye. I would like to express my congratulations to you.

I wonder if the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke could comment further on the extent to which the Liberal Party campaigned on its purported plan, yet it has tabled a Speech from the Throne that contains no concrete plan whatsoever and no budget.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself said that a slogan is not a plan. Plans involve precise measures and the amount each measure is going to cost. Therefore, when he said he had a plan, his only plan was to pick the pockets of our policies, which we are happy about. However, he should make sure that he puts the full policy we proposed in, because that would be a responsible response for the government to go forward.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.

It is with a great deal of emotion and a great sense of responsibility that I rise in this honourable chamber as the member for Bourassa.

I want to start by thanking my family.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the translation was not coming through in English.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have interpretation now.

The problem has been fixed, so the member for Bourassa can restart his speech.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of emotion and a great sense of responsibility that I rise in the House as the member for Bourassa. I would like to begin by thanking my family, my friends and the volunteers who worked with me on the campaign. Their patience, dedication and confidence made it possible for me to be here today. This victory belongs to all the people with shared convictions who pounded the pavement and listened to voters.

I congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister on his appointment and applaud the Speech from the Throne read by His Majesty King Charles III. This speech maps out a decidedly forward-looking path guided by a vision for a stronger, more equitable and more innovative Canada. For this vision to work, it has to encompass the full range of realities, including the reality in Bourassa. I am from Bourassa, a vibrant, diverse and proud riding. Bourassa is a welcoming place, steeped in history. Sadly, it is also one of the most poverty-stricken ridings in Canada. Nearly 48% of its households live below the low income cut-off. It has a lot of single-parent families and is in desperate need of affordable housing, access to employment and psychological support. These challenges do not define us, but they are of concern. It would be nice if our government would take these factors into account. We need more investments in social housing, more recurrent funding for community organizations, funding that is as permanent as possible, and we we need to pay special attention to education, the success of our young people and mental health.

I will now address the three issues of greatest concern to me.

The first is public safety. The Speech from the Throne talks about stricter enforcement of violent crime laws, and with good reason. I am fully on board with this desire to strengthen the rule of law, but we must not stop there, because every act of violence and every crime is preceded by multiple indicators and warning signs that are, more often than not, ignored. Let us talk about those indicators and warning signs. We cannot have a serious conversation about public safety without talking about chronic poverty, the shortage of sports, cultural and educational infrastructure for our young people, and the lack of safe green spaces. Some neighbourhoods are in dire need of these things. We also need to talk about the underfunding of community organizations, which often play a lead role in prevention. As I have said, we need to take a balanced approach to prevention and address the concerns expressed by members on the other side of the House. These are the indicators and warning signs I talked about earlier. If we do not invest in intervention and prevention, we will continue to pay the human, social and economic price for failing to step up today. We must strike a balance between deterrence and prevention. We must be firm in enforcing the law, but we also have to give young people reasons to believe in the law.

The second issue that resonates with me is artificial intelligence. I am an IT specialist. From a young age, I became actively interested in AI and was a believer in it long before it was used by most members of the House for the most basic of tasks. In my opinion, AI can speed up access to government programs. It can cut red tape for our organizations and industries, as well as for our citizens. It can also provide faster and more personalized services to citizens. It can improve infrastructure planning, emergency management and public facility maintenance in a much more proactive way. In today's world, there are many examples of this, which I will go into later. I would like to see our government align itself with this vision. This technology must, of course, remain a tool for serving people and putting them front and centre. It must never replace compassion and must never create new forms of social exclusion. We must build AI that is ethical, inclusive, transparent and accessible to vulnerable regions such as Bourassa.

The third issue that concerns us all and that several of my colleagues have spoken about is support for seniors. I cannot conclude my first speech without talking about an important segment of our society and population: our seniors. In Bourassa, many of them built our community through their hard work, commitment and wisdom. Today, many of them live alone. They may be isolated and living on very limited incomes. They have been very clear about two things.

The first is that they want a home support program. They want to stay in their own home and their own neighbourhood for as long as possible. To do that, they need more accessible home support programs, home care services, psychosocial support, paratransit and accessibility upgrades. These are very urgent needs.

The second is that they have financial anxiety. Seniors want their incomes to be protected against inflation. They want their pensions to be indexed to the actual cost of living. We must listen to them. Supporting our seniors is not just a social measure. It is a moral duty. It is a societal choice for the future.

In closing, being a member of Parliament means speaking on behalf of the people who elected us to sit here and who put their trust in us. It means speaking for young people, families, newcomers and especially our seniors. I am here to represent Bourassa with pride, dignity and, above all, determination. I am committed to standing up for my community's interests, sharing its realities and working with everyone to build a fairer, safer and more innovative Canada.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome the hon. member to this House.

We have seen mixed messages from the Prime Minister and from the government when it comes to getting resource projects and pipelines built. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister's mantra was “build, baby, build”. He even invoked using emergency powers to get pipelines built, but then backtracked by endorsing the “no pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, as well as the production cap.

We have seen the Minister of Natural Resources repeatedly say that the government would now support getting pipelines built only where there is a so-called consensus. Could the hon. member elaborate on what that might look like?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a little outside the scope of my speech. I would just like to tell him and the entire official opposition that, in my view, working together is essential to truly moving forward and building a stronger Canada. Offering up potentially meaningless criticism is not the way to move Canada forward and guarantee our country's future.

I think that your question strays a bit from what I said. However, I would say once again that our government is open to discussion and collaboration. I am sure the same is true on your side. That will make for a stronger Canada with more involvement and inclusion for everyone.