Debates of June 18th, 2025

Strong Borders Act

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was young, I was very concerned about Bill C‑51, a bill introduced by Prime Minister Harper's Conservative government.

In my opinion, Bill C‑2 is not perfect. No bill introduced by any government is. That is the reality. However, we have to protect the country, we have to protect Canadians, and we have to work together to keep improving the situation, including through regulations and processes. The reality is that we have to be careful. We are taking action today to protect Canadians and protect our border.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Finance

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to ask the Minister of Finance why he finds it acceptable to not table a budget before he and the Prime Minister, the so-called man with the plan, head off on summer vacation.

Budgeting is not optional for families and small businesses across this great country, and it should not be optional for the federal government either. Months of uncertainty about Canada's finances will undoubtedly harm Canada's credit rating and spook investors into moving further capital out of this country. However, that should not surprise anyone, given the Prime Minister's track record of moving capital and jobs out of Canada and over to his friends on Wall Street in New York City.

The Prime Minister promised to cap spending at 2% but then immediately turned around and handed Canadians a tax bill that shattered the promise and jacked up spending 8%.

[An hon. member]

Point of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There are no points of order in Adjournment Proceedings.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I say good try to my friends from the Liberal Party.

The only thing Canadians can confidently expect from the Liberal government and these Liberal MPs, who just tried to silence me, is rising housing prices, now rising car prices, soaring debt, runaway overall inflation and absolutely zero economic leadership, just as we have seen for the last 10 years.

Canadians, and particularly the young Canadians I represent, are the ones who are going to be on the hook to pay for the government's reckless spending. Take the millions of dollars that were dished out to the Liberals' insiders at GC Strategies, for example. Tens of millions of dollars lined the pockets of their insider friends on the backs of young Canadian families who work hard to make an honest dollar and put healthy groceries on the table and gas in their vehicles to take their kids to hockey practice and piano lessons.

Just last week, the House voted to force the government to make sure the $64 million paid to GC Strategies was returned within 100 days. Only time will tell if the government will follow the will of Canadians and their democratically elected representatives or if it will side with its insider friends, who are surely sitting on a beach or a fancy yacht by now waiting for those Liberal MPs to join them.

A budget is Canada's best opportunity to review the decisions the Government of Canada is making. It is not optional for families and businesses in Brandon—Souris, and it should not be optional for the Liberal Prime Minister, his Liberal Minister of Finance or those Liberal MPs.

My question is, why are the finance minister and the Prime Minister completely ignoring the will of Canadians in the House of Commons and refusing to table a complete, transparent and accountable budget before the House rises on Friday?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, the people of my riding sent me here to get a job done. They sent our government here to get a job done. Let me be crystal clear: This government has been focused on getting the job done. We have delivered a middle-class tax cut that will support 22 million Canadians.

Housing is another area where Canadians asked us to be decisive and act quickly, and this government delivered targeted, ambitious measures to support first-time homebuyers. We are supporting purpose-built rentals, unlocking public lands and cutting red tape to get shovels in the ground faster.

When it comes to the business of Parliament, this government is showing what responsible leadership looks like. We have passed main estimates. We have passed supplementary estimates. We have funded what needed to be funded. We did it with transparency and we did it efficiently.

Now, we are moving forward with one Canadian economy, which is a transformative piece of legislation to strengthen our economic union. We are streamlining interprovincial trade so we can build a more productive, more competitive economy that works for every region of Canada.

We are breaking down barriers so we can build up the Canadian economy. In Newfoundland and Labrador, this means better access to markets, more efficient regulations and a more unified approach to energy development, infrastructure and workforce mobility. We are building one economy for all Canadians.

It is time to get to work; this is what the public wants us to do. This is what we as parliamentarians have been sent here to do. If we respect the will of Canadians, we will put petty politics aside and focus on getting things done for Canadians.

Look at what we have accomplished in a matter of just a couple of months. We are not just talking, we are acting. We are not just promising, we are delivering. I will say this with confidence and conviction: we are only just getting started.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what a relief they are just getting started because the first three weeks of the government have surely been a disappointment to Canadians.

The member talks about transparency, leadership and accountability. As the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, why have that minister and that parliamentary secretary not introduced a budget?

All of these things would give Canadians confidence in the financial literacy of the government, would give them confidence in the transparency, the leadership and financial accountability this member talks about but has not delivered in the first weeks of the government.

Why will this member, who talks laudably about all of these highfalutin goals but has delivered none of them, not stand up and force the minister to deliver a budget before the House rises for the summer to deliver for his constituents in Newfoundland and all the rest of this great country of Canadians?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind the member it is Newfoundland and Labrador.

As I said in my previous statement, we have hit the ground running and we are not wasting a single moment in delivering for Canadians. We have cut taxes for the middle class. We have launched bold measures for first-time homebuyers. We have passed main estimates. We have passed supplementary estimates.

Now, we are well on our way with the one Canadian economy act, legislation that would build a stronger, more unified economy from coast to coast to coast. Numbers speak for themselves. The Prime Minister is 65% in the polls. The only thing that has not changed in this Parliament is the petty politics of the opposition.

Firearms

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

Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the public safety minister in a question period recently stemmed from a rather bizarre exchange I had with him during committee of the whole, in which the minister responsible for overseeing Canada's gun laws admitted that he did not know what a firearms licence was. He admitted he did not know about the Canadian firearms safety course that all Canadian firearms owners must pass to get their firearms licence. I suspect if I had a bit more time, I might have learned that the minister did not even know what a firearm was, but unfortunately we will have to save that for the next committee of the whole.

Why this is important is that the Liberal government's firearms confiscation regime is predicated on misinformation. It is actually predicated on the idea that law-abiding firearms owners are the source of gun crime in Canada. I was not actually surprised that the minister responsible for the scheme did not know anything about guns and gun owners, because if he did know, the Liberals' plans would not exist; they would not make any sense, and they would be aware of that.

We know that the vast majority of firearms crime in Canada is the responsibility of guns that have been illegally smuggled across the Canada-U.S. border. It is guns that are very connected to organized crime and gangs. It is not Grandpa Joe's hunting rifle. It is not the firearm of a law-abiding, licensed firearms owner like I am and like many of my colleagues in the House are.

What I asked the minister in question period was whether he would commit to actually learning about his file, and, because he clearly did not know anything about it, whether he would commit to scrapping the Liberal government's firearms confiscation regime. Now, the minister has had a couple of weeks to bone up on this; maybe he has, or maybe he has not, but what I can tell members is that Canadian gun owners have been attacked by the government, which does not know that they are statistically less likely to commit a crime, and less likely to have any connection to gun violence or gun crime by virtue of having gone through the rigorous vetting, training and examination that the Canadian firearms program requires of gun owners.

The firearms that were banned by order in council five years ago, and the Liberals have added to this list continually, are firearms that were used by hunters, sport shooters and collectors, without any issue and without any connection to gun crime whatsoever.

I represent a riding that has a lot of rural communities where, unlike perhaps for the Laurentian elites across the aisle, firearms are a way of life. Firearms are a way of life for people in Aylmer, people in St. Thomas, people in Central Elgin and some Londoners as well, because they understand that firearms are a hobby and a pastime that has deep roots in Canada. Therefore, when the Liberal government passes its measures on firearms based on misinformation, it should take the opportunity to be educated and to learn. Only when the Liberal government and the minister responsible for the firearms program learn about guns will they apparently realize that its regime is based on complete and utter falsehoods.

I am here to ask once and for all whether the Minister of Public Safety will commit to scrapping the confiscation scheme that only, not majorly, not generally, but only, targets law-abiding gun owners.

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, I am pleased to be able to tell him about our government's commitments to strengthening gun control and fighting gun violence in Canada.

The safety of Canadians is one of the government's top priorities, and we are taking decisive action to prevent a rise in gun violence across the country, in all of our communities. In 2020, following the deadliest mass shooting in Canadian history, in which 22 Nova Scotians died, the government felt that the significant risk posed by certain firearms could in no way justify keeping them in Canadian communities. As a result, the government banned over 2,000 makes and models of firearms. Let us be clear, these are firearms that are not suitable for hunting or sport and that exceed safe civilian use. More firearms were banned in December 2024 and March 2025, bringing the total number of prohibited firearms to 2,500.

A compensation program that focused on businesses was put in place first. As of April 30, 2025, businesses have claimed compensation for more than 12,000 prohibited firearms, and as of June 16, more than 10,600 of these firearms have been destroyed. The government will soon introduce the second phase of this program, which will fairly and equitably compensate owners in the same way as it did gunsmiths. Work to expand this program to individuals is progressing well.

However, no single program or initiative can address the issue of gun violence. In addition to the gun buyback, the government's comprehensive plan to protect Canadians from gun crime includes other significant measures such as strengthening our borders, where we are committed to adding resources to combat gun trafficking and smuggling in order to keep guns from entering Canada.

Since 2017, the government has invested more than $1.3 billion in security initiatives, including the initiative to take action against gun and gang violence, the building safer communities fund, and investments to equip the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency with state‑of‑the‑art tools such as X-ray machines to detect smuggled firearms and firearm parts.

Furthermore, in the last throne speech, the government announced the deployment of scanners, drones and helicopters to detect illegal goods, as well as additional personnel and canine teams along the border. This will greatly increase the ability of law enforcement to detect and seize firearms at the border.

Furthermore, criminal sanctions for firearms smuggling and trafficking recently increased from 10 years in prison to 14. This change should act as a more powerful deterrent and support the prosecution of offenders involved in firearms smuggling. Together, these efforts seek to prevent guns from being diverted to the black market, where they would be used to commit crimes, such as future shootings.

Through these initiatives, the government is acting responsibly. It is taking concrete action to make Canada less vulnerable to gun-related violence, all while—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary had the audacity to mention the Portapique shooting to justify the Liberal government's attack on gun owners. The brutal murderer, in that case, used illegally acquired guns. He himself did not legally own them. It is disgraceful that the government would take advantage of those victims to score political points off the backs of law-abiding gun owners. He should be ashamed, and I hope he apologizes for that.

Will the government, since clearly the minister and the parliamentary secretary do not know anything about the gun file, abandon this half-baked confiscation scheme, which targets only law-abiding owners, not killers, not gang murderers and not those who are actually responsible for breaking the law?

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, I would like to reiterate our government's commitment to public safety, including through stricter gun control.

We have banned over 2,500 assault-style firearms that were deemed inappropriate for recreational use, whether it be for hunting or sport shooting. Some 12,000 guns were bought back during the business phase of the program. Phase two, for individuals, will be announced shortly. It will ensure that responsible gun owners are properly compensated.

The government has invested $1.3 billion in initiatives to make our communities safer. Too many lives have been lost to gun violence. We will continue to take decisive action to strengthen controls, stop guns from being smuggled across the border and impose tougher criminal sanctions for firearms trafficking. We remain committed, and we will always be there to keep Canadians safe.

Public Services and Procurement

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I asked the minister a pretty straightforward question: Why can the Liberals not get anything built on time or on budget? It is a reasonable question that most taxpayers ask, unfortunately, on a far too regular basis. His answer at the time was nonsensical. He completely ignored the question and gave some typical government gobbledygook answer.

Today, I am going to take the opportunity to outline a few examples of the Liberals' wasteful incompetence, and I would like to start local.

The Liberal government committed funds to the Municipality of Rhineland for its Gretna Arena project, but because of delays on the side of the federal Liberal government in signing the contribution agreement and due to, generally speaking, Liberal inflationary policies, the cost of the project ballooned in a huge way. As a result, the municipality cannot afford to move forward with the project any longer. To make matters worse, the Liberal government is trying to shake down the Municipality of Rhineland for $50,000 for part of the costs that went into this project.

Let me move to the national level. The original budget of the Trans Mountain pipeline was what we would call a measly $7 billion. Then the Liberal government went ahead and nationalized it, and the budget ballooned to over $34 billion, nearly five times the cost of the original estimate.

Of course, we can talk about the Liberals' frankly ridiculous and unjustified firearms confiscation scheme. Instead of going after criminals, what they are doing is planning to spend $600 million to expropriate firearms from some of the most law-abiding Canadians in this country, I would argue.

Unfortunately, taxpayers know that I can go on and on, and we know there are many unfortunate, egregious examples, but I would like to ask some simple questions. Has anyone within the government ever lost their job? Even worse, did they receive a bonus for these abysmal failures?

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and the opportunity to rise tonight to address it.

Whether it is creating more affordable housing or boosting our defence efforts, this new government is committed to building Canada strong and delivering for Canadians. With the appointment of a new Minister of Government Transformation, we are focused on transforming the way we do business. That means improving productivity, but it also means focusing on meeting service delivery standards. That is going to require us to look at new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and change the way we manage many of our processes.

On housing, we have a plan to deliver affordable homes by creating “build Canada homes”, a mission-driven organization that will act to accelerate the development of new affordable housing.

On defence procurement, this government created a dedicated cabinet post of Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, and we have already committed to establishing a defence procurement agency focused on reforming and speeding up our military purchases.

As for the issues surrounding GC Strategies, we share the frustrations of others in this House. That is why we have taken action. Public Services and Procurement Canada has taken several steps over the last 18 months to implement changes based on recommendations that were made in the reports to Parliament. They include improving evaluation requirements, increasing transparency from suppliers around pricing and use of subcontractors, improving contract documentation and ensuring the clarification of work requirements and activities. We also introduced an updated ineligibility and suspension policy, and set up a new office of supplier integrity and compliance, empowering the government to better respond to misconduct and wrongdoing in a way that is impartial and free of political interference.

In addition, PSPC has terminated all contracts with GC Strategies and removed it from all supply arrangements. Earlier this month, the government found that the company's actions met the threshold for ineligibility, pursuant to the government's ineligibility and suspension policy, which will now prohibit the company from participating in federal contracts.

When it comes to cases of recovering funds for work not done or overbilling, we pursue them to ensure that Canadians get their money back. That is why we have taken legal action against GC Strategies, right now.

We remain committed to ensuring the best value for Canadian taxpayers with all federal procurements and projects.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just for frame of reference, the question that was read, but certainly not answered, was whether anyone ever lost their job or received a bonus despite these failures.

I am not exactly sure what I just heard, but I know it was a canned response. This is why people get so frustrated with government. The Liberals sit here and they want to look at Parliament. They want to hear what we have to say, the questions that opposition members want to ask the government, and those are the types of responses we get.

Speaking of the costly and wasteful programs that we are well aware of in the government, there is a net-zero accelerator fund under the Liberal government. It has doled out $8 billion in subsidies to very large, multinational companies without any commitment to actually reduce emissions. We know this agenda is not actually about achieving results. The Liberals, at the end of the day, have sidelined the hard-working Canadians, and at the end of the day, is this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jenna Sudds, Liberal, Kanata, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to manage public funds in a way that ensures Canadian taxpayers are getting the best possible value for their dollars. I would suggest to my colleagues opposite that it is time to stop the political games of the last Parliament, and it is time to get to work on the things that matter to Canadians and the things that we talked about throughout the campaign that got us re-elected to this place: To build the strongest economy in the G7, build our military, protect our borders and our sovereignty, and ensure that in everything that we are doing, we are building Canada strong. I encourage the opposition to join us in doing just that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

(The House adjourned at 6:55 p.m.)