Debates of June 19th, 2025

Citizenship Act

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

As we debate Bill C-3 today, we go back to the basics of what it means to be Canadian. We are not a postnational state, as my colleagues across the aisle would love us to believe. Canadians exist from coast to coast to coast. There are a great variety of experiences that make up our Canadian identity, but they are bounded within our great landmass. Canadian citizenship means something. It has weight in this world. For it to continue to have weight, there must be a cost. Nothing that is free continues to have any worth, any weight or any merit.

The Conservatives want nothing more than to preserve and increase the value of Canadian citizenship. We value and respect what it means to be a Canadian. The basic cost that Conservatives want to maintain in the price of Canadian citizenship is for there to be a continued connection to Canada. Unfortunately, my dear colleagues across the aisle do not value their peers who live coast to coast to coast. My most esteemed colleagues across the aisle would rather cheapen the value of our Canadian identity by siding with Canadians of convenience.

Let me repeat that concept one more time but more slowly: Canadians of convenience. Are these our brothers and sisters in arms? When push comes to shove in our fracturing global order, can we count on these Canadians of convenience to advance our national interests alongside us, or are they just people who would love to have a Canadian passport?

Bill C-3 would cheapen what it means to be a Canadian, and it would extend citizenship by descent beyond the first generation. In 2009, we, the Conservatives, enforced a first-generation limit. However, under Bill C-3, any person born abroad to a Canadian citizen who has also been born abroad would receive Canadian citizenship. In other words, the children of children born outside of Canada would be considered Canadian.

Before we critique this, it is important to note that the Liberals have made a conditional requirement of what they call a “substantial connection”. This requirement would allow parents to pass Canadian citizenship onto their children generation after generation as long as one parent spends only 1,095 non-consecutive days in Canada prior to the birth of the child.

That is just three years of non-consecutive time in Canada, and there is no need for a criminal record check. Merely three years of non-consecutive time is absolutely too low a standard to establish anyone as a fellow Canadian. At the absolute minimum, the three years should be consecutive and there should be a criminal record check. Without these absolute minimum standards, there can be no progress on this bill.

The goal of the Conservatives is simple: We want to foster generations of Canadians with a national spirit and who feel themselves to be truly Canadian. There is no way to do this unless they live here with us as fellow Canadians for some degree of time. This is why their presence in Canada has to be sustained and consecutive so that they live, learn and work beside their fellow Canadians.

If Bill C-3 passes in its current state, how is it fair to legitimate immigrants who spend years building lives here, from coast to coast to coast, when the Liberal government is ready to give citizenship to people who have never even lived in Canada for a sustained period? The government has cheapened what it means to be Canadian. We will all suffer for it.

With that established, let us quickly address what Bill C-3 could be, if it was precise and focused. The core historical problem we should be addressing is what has been framed as “lost Canadians”. These are people who either had Canadian citizenship and lost it, or thought they were entitled to Canadian citizenship but never received it. This was the original issue Conservatives gave support for and for which we will continue to give support. Historically, citizenship has been revoked due to issues like restrictions on dual citizenship or a child not being registered after being born abroad.

Section 8 of the Citizenship Act says all individuals born abroad to Canadian parents after February 14, 1977, had to apply to reinstate their Canadian citizenship before they turned 28 years old. In short, Conservatives wanted to restore citizenship to individuals who had lost it due to non-application for retention or application rejections under the former Citizenship Act, section 8. Some individuals lost citizenship at the age of 28. These generally included people born as the second generation abroad between February 15, 1977, and April 16, 1981, who turned 28. This was also the original content of Conservative Senator Yonah Martin's private member's bill, Bill S-245, which plays a more direct role in addressing concerns about the first-generation rule.

What I want to emphasize is how specific the problem was and how tailored the solution could be. What we have instead, with Bill C-3, is the use of this originally narrow problem of lost Canadians to spearhead broad, sweeping changes to the fundamentals of Canadian citizenship. Conservatives truly, fully support the provisions that relate to lost Canadians, but we cannot allow the pretext of solving the lost Canadians issue to lead to a sweeping change in what it means to be Canadian.

With this little historical background out of the way, let us return to considering Bill C-3 as a whole. The debate on Bill C-3 boils down to one simple question: What does it mean to be a Canadian? Ultimately, do we truly value what it means to live from coast to coast to coast, or does place have no meaning?

I have often heard culture defined as a way of life, and a way of life is something learned by doing, learned beside people who are doing it. In this way, citizenship is like a trade, and it requires apprenticeship. To apprentice as a Canadian, one must live in Canada beside Canadians and learn a way of life over several consecutive years.

However, in the current state of Bill C-3, the Liberals want to serve Canadians of convenience who hold Canadian citizenship but live abroad and do not participate in Canadian society. Bill C-3 serves Canadians of convenience, but does it serve Canadians?

Only common-sense Conservatives will restore order to immigration and citizenship. We will restore integrity to citizenship by tightening requirements, because this is how we preserve the value of what it means to be Canadian.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑3 is intended to right a past wrong. In 2009, Stephen Harper's Conservative government passed legislation limiting citizenship by descent to the first generation. This has had significant repercussions. Individuals with genuine ties to our country have been excluded. It has also negatively affected Canadians whose children were born abroad.

In 2023, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice struck down these provisions, and we did not appeal that decision, given the unacceptable consequences these provisions had had.

Will my colleague work with us and support this bill, which will right a past wrong?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague responded earlier with the same answer, which is that we will support the bill with the amendments we are proposing to address specific issues and to not broaden the overall Citizenship Act to allow generations and generations abroad. If these people really have intentions of being Canadian, it is easy for them to do so and still apply those rules. To my colleague, I say the Conservatives will support it with the amendments we are proposing.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to my colleague. Maybe he was not here in the last Parliament, but the government's management of immigration was mediocre.

The influx of migrants into Quebec placed tremendous pressure on our health care system and social services, but Quebec was not paid back in full. Would my colleague not agree that this is a gross injustice?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely part of the problem. We have been asking the Liberal government, in terms of numbers, how many people would be impacted, and the answer is that the Liberals do not know. We asked how much it would cost us, and they do not know. Again, how is it going to impact each of the provinces, including Quebec? They obviously do not know that answer either.

What is the government doing putting a bill forward without having prepared for the consequences and impact of such a bill being implemented?

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed the member's speech. In particular, at the start of it, he was talking about the issue of Canadians of convenience. When I meet with people back home, especially people who have immigrated to Canada, they had to work hard. They had to prove they were solvent and had the means to be able to be a contributing member of society.

When we look at the bill, we see what the Liberals are doing with what it means to become a Canadian citizen. They have really cheapened what it takes to become a Canadian citizen. I am just wondering if my colleague has any thoughts on what the Liberals are doing with the bill in really cheapening what it takes and what it means to become Canadian.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do, per my speech. It used to mean something to be a Canadian, to be carrying that Canadian passport and feeling safe around the world, carrying that passport and knowing that it is respected. By cheapening this passport, it becomes almost like something we could get from online sales.

As I said in my speech, what does it mean to be a Canadian, to understand and know our values, to have lived with Canadian colleagues and friends in Canada and to understand our culture and understand our way of life? We would be giving out and granting citizenship for generation after generation of people, some of whom perhaps, as the colleague across the aisle admitted, may not even have the intention of wanting to be Canadian. This legislation would allow them to do so.

In terms of the other point that the member raised, very rightly, when we talk about the broken immigration system, we have a lot of people who came into the country under the pathways program, especially over—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. Today, that honour comes with a sense of duty to speak clearly and seriously about the need to uphold the integrity of Canadian citizenship.

Let me begin by saying clearly and unequivocally, Conservatives support the court's decision in Bjorkquist v. Canada. Conservatives believe in the rule of law, and Conservatives believe that unjustifiable discrimination has no place in Canadian citizenship policy.

The court found the first-generation limit to be unconstitutional, and I respect that judgment, but Bill C-3 is not simply a thoughtful response to a court decision. It is a wholesale rewrite of citizenship policy that goes far beyond the scope of the ruling.

This bill is not about justice. It is about judgment. In this case, the government's judgment is deeply flawed, stretching far beyond what most Canadians would consider to be reasonable.

Let us talk about what is in the bill. Under Bill C-3, Canadian citizenship could be automatically passed down for multiple generations born outside of Canada, so long as just one parent has spent just 1,095 non-consecutive days, or three years of non-consecutive days, at any time in their life, on Canadian soil.

As an example, it would allow the 50-year-old child of a 75-year-old who left Canada at age 3 to claim Canadian citizenship even if that 50-year-old had never been to Canada. Let us be clear, that is not a strong connection to Canada. That is not growing up here, working here, paying taxes here, or raising a family here. It is not even vacationing here.

There are many other ridiculous examples. Vacations, work trips and conferences would all count. Getting stranded in Canada while in transit from one country to another because a snowstorm grounds their connecting flight would count as a night. I could go on.

The bottom line is that this bill would make a number of people with minimal or no exposure to Canada eligible for Canadian citizenship ad infinitum, and IRCC could not tell the committee how many people this could be. Unlike many of the programs Canadians have to navigate, there would be no proof required. If one were willing to swear an affidavit that their parent spent 1,095 days here, the government would take their word for it. No boarding passes, holiday pictures, or receipts for poutine or perhaps maple-cured salmon would be required. What could go wrong?

Members do not need to take my word for it. Let us hear from some of the experts. We have heard repeatedly from experts with concerns about the bill. This is not actually a partisan issue. It is a policy issue. It is about what it means to be Canadian. It is about what a substantial connection is. It is about how we spend the half trillion dollars the Liberal government is proposing we approve without a budget. It is about whether people with no connection to Canada can suddenly discover their parents' Canadian roots when times get tough or they decide they would like to live somewhere else.

We have a refugee program, and we have an immigration program. This is neither. This bill does an end run around those programs and would allow an ill-defined, undetermined number of people to jump the line without having to prove their value or show their work.

We support correcting past injustices. We support restoring citizenship to real lost Canadians, those caught in the bureaucratic net of outdated provisions, such as the former section 8 of the old Citizenship Act. These are people who were raised in Canada, have lived their lives as Canadians and who were denied the rights and privileges of citizenship due to paperwork or legislative gaps. They are Canadians in every meaningful sense, and they deserve to be treated as such.

We also support the provisions regarding adopted children, which would ensure children adopted abroad, like those of my colleague who spoke earlier, are treated equally under the law and are able to pass on citizenship in the same way as biological children.

This is a matter of fairness and equality. We have always backed those provisions, and we continue to support them now, but what we cannot and will not support is a system that waters down the meaning of citizenship and creates an unmanageable administrative burden on already strained government services.

Let us look at the numbers. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that Bill C-3 could immediately add about 115,000 new citizens, most of whom do not live in Canada, yet the government has provided no estimate for how many could be added in the long term as new generations become eligible. These new citizens would be eligible for services like old age security, GIS and health services, yet many of them would never have paid a single dollar of income tax in Canada.

The government has admitted that it has not completed a proper cost analysis. In committee hearings, IRCC officials acknowledge that they simply do not know how many people the bill would affect or what the long-term financial implications would be. That is not good governance or responsible legislation; it is just recklessness, and it is particularly troubling given the state of our public services today: Canadians are waiting weeks for passports, months for citizenship applications and years for permanent residency; housing is unaffordable; and health care is stretched to the brink. Resources are finite, and the bill would do nothing to prioritize those already in Canada who need help.

This is the bottom line: The so-called “substantial connection test” in the bill is vague and inadequate, 1,095 non-consecutive days can be spread across decades and attested to without proof, there is no requirement for a criminal record check and there is no clear plan on how IRCC would verify or process the influx of new applicants.

Conservatives are proposing simple, reasonable amendments to the bill: Make the 1,095 days consecutive, and disqualify those with serious criminal records. These are common-sense safeguards, and the government should accept them and adopt them as its own, as they have with many of our other policies.

The Court gave the government a mandate to act but not to overreach. What Canadians need, expect and deserve is a balanced approach, one that upholds the charter and fixes past wrongs but preserves the integrity of Canadian citizenship. Bill C-3 does not strike that balance in its current form.

Canadian citizenship is an incredible thing. It is more than just a legal status; it is a profound connection to one of the most free, diverse and democratic nations in the world. It reflects a shared commitment to values that define Canada: respect for human rights, the rule of law and pluralism.

For millions, becoming a Canadian citizen is the fulfillment of a dream, and for those of us lucky enough to be born into it, it is a privilege that we should never take for granted. The bill would create a slippery slope where citizenship would no longer be tied to a meaningful presence or a substantial connection to Canada. It risks transforming Canadian citizenship from a living commitment into a legacy entitlement, something passed down with little or no connection to our land, our laws or our culture.

It is worth remembering why the first-generation limit was introduced in the first place. After the 2006 crisis in Lebanon, Canada evacuated 14,000 citizens at a cost of $94 million. Thousands returned to Lebanon shortly thereafter. That experience led to the realization that citizenship must come with responsibilities, not just rights. That is why a Conservative government enacted the first-generation limit in 2009, to restore integrity to our system. Bill C-3 goes far beyond correcting the unintentional oversights of that policy that were properly identified by the courts. It unacceptably rewrites the framework of Canadian citizenship in a way that undermines its integrity, dilutes its value and ignores the need for a balanced and principled approach.

Let me close by saying this: Conservatives believe in a strong, fair and principled citizenship regime, and that is what we would like to see in the bill.

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

Housing

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about housing. I have given notice that the responses the Liberal housing minister provided are unsatisfactory. They are unsatisfactory not just to me but to an entire generation of would-be and prospective homebuyers.

I have asked several questions in the House of the minister on housing. I know the Liberals like to say it is a new government, but they have been in power for 10 years and they cannot run away from their record. After 10 years, the reality is that people in the next generation are simply unable to afford a home.

The solution that has been proposed is that we can maybe live in modular homes, prefab homes or shipping containers, but what they have not proposed is a real solution to give the next generation of homebuyers choice in their housing. If a prefabricated home works for a family, that is excellent. If it does not, people should have a choice. They should not be forced into the government's one-size-fits-all proposal.

I want to share with the parliamentary secretary, who I hope will be providing some more enlightened answers this evening, just how bad it has gotten in my riding.

In the township of Scugog, according to the most recent Toronto Regional Real Estate Board report from May, the average price of a single-family detached home is now $989,000. Since 2015, since the Liberals were elected, the average price of all types of housing in the township has increased by 208%. At the same time, the median salary in the township of Scugog is, after tax, $92,000. That means housing is 10 times salary in the town. According to Statistics Canada, wages in the township have only increased by 9.5% since the last census period.

This is if we can find an average-priced house in the township. If the parliamentary secretary were to go on realtor.ca and look today, she would not find any homes that are selling for $989,000. She would find homes, for example on Waterbury Crescent, that are selling for $1.4 million.

In the town of Georgina, according to TRREB's May report, the average cost for a single-family detached home is now $808,000. Since 2015, since the Liberals were elected, the average price for all housing types in the town of Georgina has increased by 99.5%. At the same time, the median after-tax salary in the town is $85,000. Housing is 9.5 times salary. Statistics Canada has said that wages in the town only increased 11% in the last census period.

Lastly, in the township of Uxbridge, it is $1.2 million for a single-family detached home. Since 2015, the average prices for all housing are up 120%.

What this all means is that the average salary no longer buys the average house in the GTA, and almost all across the country. That is not right. In Toronto, for example, the Liberals handed out $471 million in housing decelerator funds and we have 58% fewer housing starts.

I want the parliamentary secretary to help me make sense of this. First, can she confirm to the House that the Liberal promise is still to build 500,000 new homes a year? Second, she should tell us whether that promise of building 500,000 new homes this year will be met.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, there is a housing crisis in Canada. We agree on that. Too many Canadians are seeing their dream of owning their own home drift further and further out of reach. Families are struggling with the rising cost, and young people are being priced out of the housing market. Communities across the country are being squeezed by a housing system that is simply not working as it should.

I thank my colleague for that long list of current market prices. However, as we promised during the election campaign, and as the measures put forward so far by our new government show, we are going to tackle the housing crisis head-on with focus, determination and innovation.

We are taking action to make housing more affordable for all Canadians. We have eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on homes up to $1 million and reduced the GST on homes up to $1.5 million. I thank my opposition colleagues for voting with us on that matter.

We are also cutting taxes for the middle class, saving two-income families up to $840 a year. This will help those looking to save up for their first home. Once again, I thank my colleagues for voting with us on that.

We are not just talking about change; we are delivering it. We are using every tool at our disposal to build homes at a scale and speed not seen in decades, and we are doing so by working in partnership with provinces, territories, indigenous communities, municipalities, and the private and non-profit sectors.

Earlier today, I met with an organization that is working on building modular homes. Over the past few weeks, people have been referring to shipping containers.

Our colleagues across the aisle are referring to modular homes as shipping containers. Maybe that was 50 years ago. This is not the reality anymore.

The “build Canada homes” initiative is a pillar of our plan. It will transform the way homes are built in our country. It will accelerate the construction of affordable homes by streamlining construction timelines, leveraging public land and reducing financial barriers.

This initiative will help nearly double the rate of housing construction, but it will also support investments in modular and prefabricated construction to develop a modern, sustainable housing industry built on Canadian innovation, Canadian businesses, Canadian workers and Canadian materials.

We are not stopping there. We are working with provinces, territories and municipalities to cut development charges in half for all multi-unit buildings.

In addition, the housing accelerator fund is helping us remove barriers to development, build tens of thousands of homes across the country and increase our housing supply. We are building a unified Canadian economy, and we are committed to making housing more affordable and more accessible for all Canadians. That is the promise we made, and we have a plan to deliver on that promise and build Canada strong.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's honest assessment of the crisis that we are in. It is important. We cannot get to a solution unless we accept the fact that there is a problem, so I thank her for that.

I disagree that certain types of housing solutions are from 15 years ago. We can go across the river and see the shipping container village in Gatineau that was opened in December 2024, so that is less than six months ago. I am okay with all types of housing, but I just want a choice, and I want Canadians to have a choice.

What I did not hear from the parliamentary secretary was an answer to the question. Is the commitment still to build 500,000 new homes every year? Second, will that commitment be met this year? These are simple questions; yes or no would be fine.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians can wait no longer to get the same home ownership opportunities that previous generations have had. Making Canada affordable for first-time homebuyers is one of our top priorities. We have been saying this since Parliament resumed. We said it during the election campaign. We released plans during the election campaign. We are committed to making this happen and we are putting the tools in place to do so.

As we have said, we are committed to nearly doubling the rate of housing construction while creating a new housing industry built on Canadian technology, Canadian skilled workers and Canadian softwood lumber. I have photos here of all sorts of modular homes. My colleague is welcome to come look at them later.

The government—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I must remind the hon. member that props are not allowed in the House.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is going to make housing more affordable. We will increase the housing supply to lower costs. Together, we will build Canada strong.

Natural Resources

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, just two months ago, Canadians were fully tuned into an election campaign set against the backdrop of a tariff war and uncertainty about Canada's relationship with our largest trading partner. Looking for a solution, they saw a Liberal leader who claimed to be a fresh face, declaring that he would be different from the last decade of inaction on the nation-building projects that we desperately need. He said he would be a change in direction from the Liberal policies that made it impossible to get anything built in this country, the very policies that he championed as Trudeau's economic adviser.

Last night on Power Play, his House leader basically admitted that the previous system was too onerous and Canadians have voted them in to now do big projects, another admission of 10 years of intentional sabotage of our energy resources, which the world needs and asks for.

It is important to note that the roles of the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders need to be respected, and Canadian workers and investors need to be prioritized. I want to give a shout-out to the excellent work of the transport committee into the wee hours of this morning to agree to 13 significant amendments to Bill C-5 that provide oversight, access to information, conflict of interest compliance, timelines, consultations and protections that will increase the confidence of Canadians moving forward.

However, there is still a glaring failure that will continue to inhibit the restoration of our economy and growth to become the energy superpower that we must become. The “no new pipelines” law or Bill C-69, the shipping ban that applies only to vessels carrying oil and gas, the job-killing oil and gas production cap and the industrial carbon tax, which will raise the cost of everything on all projects, remain in place.

Giving a free pass to a few federally controlled projects obviously fails to generate the private sector growth that we need to restore powerful paycheques that should stimulate individual prosperity in every corner of this country long into the future. Sixteen major energy projects have been delayed or denied under the Liberal government, projects that could have brought in over $176 billion. These are not merely devastating numbers; these are lost paycheques, lost opportunities and lost hope for thousands of Canadian families.

Canadians overwhelmingly rejected political parties at election time that, time and again, refused to recognize the vital importance of our resources and the prosperity they create. However, the Liberal Bill C-5 would marginally improve our ability to move projects forward, and yes, Conservatives will support any measure, no matter how small, if it would help one single project break ground.

So far, Bill C-5 is largely a symbolic move to make minor improvements to interprovincial trade and regulatory clarity. It would provide clearer or more streamlined regulatory guidance for designated resources and infrastructure projects, but the Prime Minister will need to do more to free his dream projects from the existing laws he helped create to choke development. With Bill C-5, the overall environment for free market private sector development remains restrictive.

Meanwhile, it was Conservatives who put forward the only credible plan to reignite energy investment in Canada. Canadians need to know that we are still committed to our plan: to repeal Liberal anti-development laws and regulations that have cost them half a trillion dollars in lost investment over the last lost decade; to build a national energy corridor to rapidly approve and build critical infrastructure and end our dependence on the Americans; to create one-and-done approvals to accelerate priority resource projects through one application and environmental review; to scrap the industrial carbon tax; and to lower costs for Canadians while boosting our economy and allowing our companies to become competitive again with the U.S. We would repeal Bill C-69 and the west coast tanker ban to build the infrastructure needed to export our clean, responsible energy overseas.

The Prime Minister is known to have a fondness for Conservative ideas, although he has watered each one down, with a minuscule tax cut, a very confined GST break and a sleight-of-hand huge increase in carbon tax measures. For the sake of our country, those who go to work every day to power Canada and the world and those who desperately want to do so, I implore the Liberal government to continue to follow our lead. If not, we are on the doorstep.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, from 2015 to 2023, global oil and gas production grew 5%. Over the same time period, Canadian oil and gas production grew 29%. Of course, we welcome constructive suggestions for improvement, and we will be working with partners, provinces and proponents because better is always possible, but a total retreat from that which made development possible and markets accessible is not better.

Demand for Canadian oil and gas grows because we develop our resources to high environmental and social standards, with indigenous partners and with an eye toward a robust, sustainable industry. Canada is at a pivotal moment, and we are taking a historically important step to establish ourselves as an energy superpower. That is why the government has introduced the one Canadian economy act: to remove federal barriers to internal trade and labour mobility and to advance projects of national interest.

We expect that if the one Canadian economy act passes in the next few days, it will reassure investors that Canada and our energy sector are open for business. I am pleased to say that the voting record on the one Canadian economy act so far shows that the official opposition supports our work to lead the world in energy production and transmission.

The government's vision is clear. We are focused on expanding our global energy reach beyond those who share our borders to those who share our values. Canadian conventional energy, LNG and hydrogen produced to the highest environmental and labour standards can displace more-polluting sources abroad, reduce global emissions and enhance energy security for our allies. While this work is being done, our government will keep investing in carbon capture, methane reduction and other technologies that help bring down emissions in the conventional energy sector.

I would also like to point out the TMX project. A Liberal government invested in TMX to expand the access to Canada's conventional energy producers so they have global market access. Greater access to international markets has improved the overall value of Canadian oil, generating significant benefits for the entire country.

We will also support clean energy and protect the environment because it is the right thing to do. It is a strong Canadian value. We will get more energy to market while fighting climate change through strategic investments in carbon capture, methane reduction and clean technologies.

As the Prime Minister has said before, the government will get projects built. Of course, we will work with provinces, private sector proponents and indigenous communities. Indigenous rights will not be an afterthought; they are the bedrock of our nation. The protections in section 35 are enshrined in our Constitution, and the government stands steadfastly in support of them and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We need to work together.

We are focused on growing our economy, carrying out our duty to our partners and supporting our energy producers. We must focus on delivery. The government will build more, build faster and build with confidence, confidence that will provide certainty to investors and confidence that will give Canadians a better, more prosperous future.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty clear to me that our effectiveness on this side of the floor has been significant.

On resource development, the Prime Minister made a revealing admission: He acknowledged that his government's own laws made it nearly impossible to build anything, and his solution is to give political exemptions to a few hand-picked projects. However, here is our question: If Liberals admit the laws do not work, why not repeal them altogether?

That is why Conservatives are calling for a true national sovereignty law, one that would repeal the disastrous Bill C-69, lift the tanker ban, scrap the energy cap and the job-killing industrial carbon tax, unlock our potential with shovel-ready zones, and provide clear permitting paths for mines, dams, nuclear plants, LNG facilities, pipelines and more. For the sake of our youth, we cannot wait.

We want a Canada that is self-reliant, sovereign and independent, and where workers take home powerful paycheques. What the member is saying on the other side of the floor reflects this side of the floor, and it is time to see the government actually do it.

[Corey Hogan, Liberal, Calgary Confederation, AB]

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we saw 29% growth in industry from 2015 to 2023, compared to a global average of 5%. An agenda that includes social and environmental protections is pro-development.

The government is focused on rapidly advancing major projects so potential projects that meet all requirements can be approved faster, shortening five-year approval timelines to two years. It is part of a broader effort, highlighted in the Prime Minister's mandate letter, that supports more infrastructure built “at speeds not seen in generations.” The major projects of national interest and the one Canadian economy act are going to be essential to growing Canada's economy and creating good-paying jobs. We will expand and diversify trade, invest in infrastructure like ports, roads, trade corridors and railways and responsibly develop our energy and natural resources.

Our government will increase Canada's resilience, security and prosperity for Canadians today and for future generations.

Housing

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised to sell surplus government properties in order to build 4,000 housing units by 2028, but a scathing report from the Auditor General showed that, after five years, they had built only 309 of those units and are on pace to build only about 12% of the 4,000 they promised. This is of particular concern now because Canadians are facing a housing crisis, and the Liberal government, according to the Auditor General, is sitting on 5.9 million square feet of space that could be utilized for housing development. We see this right across the country, but certainly in northwestern Ontario. We are feeling that significant effect of the housing shortage.

I have heard from many people across our region who are struggling to find a place to live, as well as many who cannot afford their first and last month's rent to even get into a new place. I have heard from some constituents, who have reached out to me indicating that they have to move out of the place they are currently living in but cannot afford or find something suitable for them to move into and are actually facing homelessness.

I would also note that there is a great economic cost to this housing crisis. Many employers in my district are struggling to find workers nearby. They are looking for people to move in from around the country and, frankly, around the world, but that is not able to happen, because people cannot find places to live to be able to work in northwestern Ontario. It has come to the point now that businesses and other organizations are actually purchasing housing themselves in order to be able to house their employees and make that part of the package when making a job offer.

As well, more broadly, we know that nearly half of Canadians are very concerned about housing affordability because of the rising costs of housing and rent, and nearly 60% of Canadians aged 20 to 35 have been reported to be experiencing housing affordability challenges. Just today, in fact, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation released new estimates on Canada's housing supply gaps, and it estimates, in the government's own words, that returning to the housing affordability levels of 2019 would require the government to build between 430,000 and 480,000 new housing units over the next decade. This is not even going back to 2015, but just to 2019. This means that Canada needs to double the number of homes it builds each year to restore that affordability level. That is a big goal. We have seen reports from the TD Bank indicating that housing starts are actually going to decline, and so we are on the wrong track.

I would add that the Conservatives have put forward a plan. We did so in the last Parliament, over the election campaign, and we still have the plan, which is truly the only real plan to get housing built. We have seen nothing from the government but platitudes. It will not even bring forward a budget that includes a plan for housing. Conservatives are calling for the government to prioritize a plan to build 2.3 million new homes over the next five years by axing the GST on new homes; incentivizing municipalities to cut red tape and development taxes; and, of course, to the root of my question, selling federal properties to developers who will be able to help build more affordable housing more quickly.

When will the Liberals finally keep the promise they made to Canadians so that they can free up that housing development and get more homes built across the country?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and his speech. As I said earlier, we agree that Canada is experiencing a housing crisis.

That is why the Government of Canada has developed the most ambitious housing plan ever. We pledged to double the rate of home construction to nearly 500,000 homes per year. We are taking decisive action to cut red tape, stimulate private investment and lower the cost of homebuilding.

We are building on successes and making historic investments in new housing construction. Through the national housing strategy, we have reduced or eliminated housing needs for more than 660,000 households, and we will support the creation of more than 166,000 new homes. We also launched the housing design catalogue, which includes 50 standardized housing designs to help builders reduce construction costs and simplify the process.

We are taking concrete action. We know that increasing supply will lower the cost of housing. That is why we continue to incentivize municipalities to remove barriers to construction with programs like the housing accelerator fund. To date, we have signed agreements with more than 200 communities across the country that have committed to reducing red tape and simplifying the development process. In my riding of Trois-Rivières, dozens of units have been built in the past 18 months, giving real families real homes, so the plan is working.

We are also committed to taking action to protect the supply of rental housing. We have eliminated the GST on new rental construction. We have committed more than $23 billion in loans to support the construction of more than 59,000 homes through the apartment construction loan program. We are in the process of creating “build Canada homes”. This new agency will bring together the appropriate financing and public-private partnerships to leverage public land, remove financial barriers and increase our supply of truly affordable housing for low- and middle-income Canadians. We are taking action where it is needed most.

We will also help develop the modular and prefab housing industry and create new careers and well-paying jobs in the skilled trades. As I said earlier, we will build a resilient housing industry using Canadian innovation, Canadian labour and Canadian softwood lumber. It is unconscionable that anyone in Canada does not have access to safe, affordable and inclusive housing. That is why the federal government is committed to solving the housing crisis and showing leadership when it comes to housing.

Team Canada, our team, is fully committed. We are working with home builders, the private sector, all levels of government and indigenous leaders to use every tool and every resource at our disposal. We are focused on creating a housing market that works for everyone and building Canada strong. That is what we were elected to do, and that is what we are going to do.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have finally admitted there is a housing crisis, and that is a good thing, but in the very same comments, they articulate that they believe their plan is working. They have been in government for the last 10 years, and it is because of their plan that we face this housing crisis across the country today.

I will remind members that when Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre was housing minister, Conservatives built nearly 200,000 homes and the average rent was $973 for a one-bedroom apartment. Since then, housing costs have doubled, and Canadians are struggling to afford a home, as the Liberals have rightly pointed out. My question was very specific to the Liberals' promise to build 4,000 housing units by 2028 using surplus government properties. They are only on track to meet 12% of the promised 4,000 units.

Can the parliamentary secretary tell us when the government is going to keep its promise to get more homes to the market?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as usual, my colleagues keep focusing on just a few parts of the Auditor General's report to cause a media stir.

The Government of Canada has committed to doubling the pace of housing construction over the next decade to 500,000 housing units a year. I invite my colleagues to reread the Auditor General's report properly, in its entirety.

To meet the needs of a growing Canada, we must increase the housing supply in every category, namely market housing, social housing and affordable housing. We have to build quickly, at scale, and reduce costs for builders. We are working with the municipalities to cut development charges in half for all multi-unit housing projects. What is more, we are encouraging municipalities to remove barriers to development through the housing accelerator fund. As I mentioned, we are launching the “build Canada homes” initiative to speed up construction—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion to adjourn the House is now 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 6:59 p.m.)