Debates of June 2nd, 2025

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, this is my first time speaking in the House. It is nothing less than a privilege. This is my second week, and I am hearing this member on the other side of the House. I literally love him, but that is not the question. He is trying to sell us a fancy menu without telling us the price of the items that he wants to sell us on that menu. The issue is that, if he wants members of the CPC or the Bloc to support the Liberals, we need to know what we are doing to support that and where the Liberals are going to take us.

The second thing I am failing to understand is that, it is the second week, and the Liberals have not provided us with the definition of “one economy”. They are circumventing it, and they have not provided it, despite the fact that we have a diverse economy. Different provinces have different economies. How are the Liberals going to accommodate those?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the principles of the question being posed. There are issues there that are very tangible.

For example, one of the first initiatives was the tax break for Canadians, which I made reference to. I would think that the Conservatives would be onside and that we would not have a problem in passing that, but I do not take that for granted because the first time we attempted that was back in 2015, and members will recall that the Conservatives actually voted against that tax break.

When I refer to working “onside”, the opposition can still be critical. Its members can still say that they want X, Y, and Z, but in terms of our delivering that tax break, I would think that the Conservative Party should actually vote in favour of it. On the legislation that would come before the House to take down some of these barriers, especially after consultation with the provinces, I would think the Conservatives would vote in favour of that also.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his remarks and for reminding us once again of our moral obligation.

I actually want to ask him about morality. Does he think that his colleague from Terrebonne has a legitimate right to be here in the House? We know that Elections Canada screwed up some mail-in ballots. We also know that, in the judicial recount, four ballots on which only Tatiana's first name appeared were allowed. I would remind the House that the Bloc Québécois lost by a single vote. Four votes would have changed the outcome. Does he think that is legitimate? The Elections Canada website clearly states that the candidate's first and last names must appear. Had those ballots been rejected, Nathalie Sinclair‑Desgagné would be the one sitting here.

Does he think his colleague's presence in the House is legitimate?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, there were some very close calls. We had one election result where the Liberals lost by four votes. We had another one, as the member points out, where the Liberals won by one vote, or I should say that the respective candidates won and lost. I have absolute, one hundred per cent, full confidence in Elections Canada and the things Elections Canada has done.

Around the world, Elections Canada is recognized as a go-to organization when it comes to issues such as democracy and how to run a fair election. I do not think any one of us do a favour when we start attacking Elections Canada, and Elections Canada has my full support. I had to go through a recount myself. I learned things by going through those recounts, and I believe that we should accept the results that have been given—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for London West has the floor.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start, before I ask my question, by saying that members should not mention the names of other colleagues, but I do want to congratulate my hon. colleague for his re-election.

I am sure that he came back to the House with the mandate his electors gave him, as electors gave the Liberal Party, and that was a mandate to come back to talk about the tax cut, dental care and all the programs that help young families, which I am sure the member has in his riding, to have a better life in Canada. Can the member expand on that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is a fair reflection of what the member for London West was hearing at the doors, and that is what she wants to advocate for here, whether it is on the floor of the House of Commons or in a respective caucus. People want to be able to see the issue of affordability being dealt with. It might not be resolved overnight, but the Prime Minister's first action of the tax break is going to make a substantial difference, and it is going to help her constituents, my constituents and all Canadians.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into debate on the throne speech. I was not anticipating that I would get to speak until tomorrow, but nonetheless, the opportunity arose, and I am at the ready.

Looking at the throne speech, the real question is, what is not in the throne speech. More to the point, when I was out campaigning, when I was talking to people in Vancouver East, there were many issues that people raised. Yes, of course, people were talking about their concern with respect to the United States and what was going on with the United States. With that being said, though, while people said we should absolutely take action together in dealing with the United States, they also said that there is another element of the threat that Canada faces, and that is foreign interference.

It is a mystery to me how it is that, since the election, we have not heard the Prime Minister raise the issue of foreign interference, the threat to our democratic institutions and our democracy. That is one thing that we must also stand together to protect as well, which we have not seen.

The foreign interference registry was something that all members of the previous Parliament, across party lines, worked together to expedite. To date, that act has not yet been enacted. We still do not have the registry up and running, so I do have a question for the government with respect to it: Why has it not been enacted, and where is it?

I want to turn to other areas absent in the throne speech, and concerns have already been raised. Seniors and their concerns were not mentioned in the throne speech. Women, for example, were not mentioned in the throne speech. Issues surrounding the impact of gender equality were not addressed in the throne speech. People with different abilities were not mentioned in the throne speech.

I was absolutely dismayed with respect to housing. There were two aspects that the government highlighted around housing, such as the GST tax break for first-time homebuyers. That was something that the NDP had pushed for and called for. It is good it is in there, but I should note that there is a major difference in the housing costs in the Lower Mainland. The cap put in place is not going to help a lot of people there.

The government also put in a piece about development cost levies and reducing them by half. Reducing development cost levies by half would mean that local governments that need the resources to build the infrastructure would not have that resource. That is still top of mind. In fact, the FCM was here last week and over the weekend. Today I ran into some of the councillors who were still in Ottawa, and they want answers. They want to know how the government is going to address the gap that will be created with the reduction of the development cost levies for the development of housing. That is a major concern for people in the community and local councillors. They do not know how they are going to make that up.

Of course, there are other infrastructure needs that are not being met as well, especially with the growing populations of communities. They were not mentioned in the throne speech.

I should note that, on housing, renters were not mentioned. It is such a bizarre thing to me. Renters are a large part of our communities and our population. Renters and their concerns were not mentioned in the throne speech. The issues that brought us to the housing crisis were the cancellation of the co-op housing program by the Progressive Conservatives in 1992 and the cancellation of the national affordable housing program by the federal Liberal government in 1993, yet a national affordable housing program and a national co-op housing program are not mentioned in the throne speech.

There is no mention of needing to invest in building social housing and co-op housing in Canada. There is no mention of the subsidies that are required to make sure that the non-profit sector has the resources it needs to manage these buildings and keep rents affordable. I do not get it.

We have a new Minister of Housing. In his first interview with the media, he said that affordability in the housing crisis is not an issue. How is affordability not an issue in the housing crisis we are faced with when affordability is the number one issue?

Last year, the FCM posted that, yes, we need to have more stock, but having more stock alone would not resolve the issue. What we need is affordability, and what that means is that we need the federal government at the table providing resources, both on the capital side in the development of social housing and on the management and operating side. Canada's affordable housing stock is sitting at below 4%, compared to at least 7% in other G7 countries. The countries that are doing well, where they do not have an affordability housing crisis, are at 20%.

I know Pierre Poilievre thinks that community housing is somehow Soviet-style housing. I hope the Liberals do not think that. I hope they will counter that narrative and say that Canada will invest in social and co-op housing and that Canada will bring back subsidies to reduce the cost of housing.

There is a whole spectrum of need with respect to housing. There are those who are unhoused, those who are low-income renters who need subsidized housing, those who need low-income market rental, those who need some support with a moderate income in the market and those who want to get into the market for the first time to own their own home.

For people who want to get into the market to own their own home for the first time, they need the government to address housing profiteering. Those are the actors who come in to evict people so they can jack up the rent because their number one goal is to maximize profit. They are not thinking about how to keep rent low or housing costs low. They are thinking about how to stuff their pockets and how to get the most return for their investment. Therefore, we need to address the financialization of housing, and there is nothing in the throne speech that speaks to that.

I would like to move an amendment to the amendment because I think the other part that needs to be dealt with is the issue of indigenous rights. To that end, I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following: “, as well as Indigenous peoples”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The subamendment is in order.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard a lot about different kinds of housing challenges in the member's riding and across Canada, and the pressures that private sector and other players have in that. Is the ideal housing market, as a well-functioning housing market, one that has a multiplicity of operators, or is it one where it is just the public sector providing housing?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to housing, the reality is this: There is a continuum of need, and trying to focus on the model of just relying on the private sector to deliver the housing that Canadians need has failed. For the last 30 years, that is what successive Liberal and Conservative governments have relied on. Guess what, Mr. Speaker? We have a major housing crisis in Vancouver East and all across the country.

We have to get back to having the federal government at the table as a true partner: a partner with local governments, indigenous governments and provincial governments; a partner with the non-profit sector; and yes, a partner even with the private sector. However, we have to build social housing to the degree it is needed and build co-op housing to the degree we had previously, without which we have this housing crisis. Reliance on just the private sector would only yield housing profiteering. This is what we are faced with.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on the issue of housing affordability and attainability, I think we can all agree there is a crisis in this country. One area in which we need to address that is obviously in the case of a federal budget. We have not had a federal budget in the last 18 months. Members will recall the fiasco that went on with the fall economic statement being tabled by the then House leader, not even by the then finance minister, because she had resigned that day.

Does the hon. member agree that in the absence of a federal budget, it is difficult for us as parliamentarians to understand not just how the government is going to spend its money but also where that money is going to come from?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one thing I am very worried about in the throne speech. The Prime Minister actually talked about reducing spending and capping it at 2% increases. That is a 7% cut, which would mean cuts to public services. There is no question about it. No amount of efficiencies will make up that gap.

That is on top of the Prime Minister making the comment and the commitment that Canada would boost military spending to the 2% of GDP that NATO has requested. That is at least $20 billion to $25 billion of additional spending. My question is this: Where is the money going to come from? Yes, we need to see the budget.

My point on housing is this: The Conservatives need to stop with the rhetoric that social housing and co-op housing are Soviet-style housing. Social housing and co-op housing are types of housing that Canada needs for our community, and it is time for them to get on board.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my NDP colleague that the housing crisis is a terrible thing, in Quebec and Canada alike. This is everyone's business.

Just yesterday, I learned that some 17,000 people in Manitoba have been evacuated because of wildfires. That is another 17,000 people who need somewhere to live. Meanwhile, the government's response to these wildfires caused by climate change is to buy another pipeline so Canada can export more oil.

Does my colleague think that makes sense, or should we be focusing on climate change instead and redirecting our efforts toward green energy instead of selling oil, when we know the consequences of that?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the member. We have to face the climate crisis head-on, not pretend it is not here and not having an impact on our community. Sticking our head in the sand is not going to solve the crisis.

We have a forest fire going on in our communities right now, and people are losing their homes. In my own community of Vancouver East, during the heat dome, people died. People went to live in the parks and set up encampments because they could not survive in the face of the heat dome, so we had better get on board with it.

Talking about expediting the oil and gas sector, development and so on without thinking about the climate crisis would be putting all of Canada in jeopardy, including Quebec.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before we go to resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, Ethics; the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora, Finance; the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Natural Resources.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Laurent.

I have the tremendous honour of standing here today because of the unwavering support and trust that has been bestowed upon me by the people who are the heart of the riding of Peterborough. From the first nations communities of Hiawatha and Curve Lake to true small-town Canada in Lakefield, Ennismore, Norwood, Havelock, Bridgenorth and Keene, just to name a few, which are home to a vibrant and growing farming community, and to the bustling city centre of Peterborough, which is home to an incredible art scene and world-class education at Trent University and Sir Sandford Fleming College, the people who call the riding of Peterborough home know how fortunate we are to live, work and play in such a beautiful place.

It was no surprise that no amount of rain, snow or even an ice storm that knocked the power out for over a week and created a state of emergency was able to derail the monumental efforts made by our campaign team and hundreds of volunteers, who all joined our campaign very quickly and with great determination because of the unity and positivity we displayed. The stories people so generously shared with me, and continue to share, will be with me and guide me to do what is best for my community and to be their voice. A “thanks” will never be enough to truly show the people of Peterborough how much their support means to me.

I was raised on my family's farm in the rural part of my riding. What a gift it was to be raised on a farm in rural Ontario, learning often and very young the lessons of caring for others before ourselves and staying the course even when all odds seem stacked up against us, as well as that there is no substitute for hard work and dedication. I know that when our communities rally together, there is not anything we cannot accomplish.

Rural Ontario is still the place I call home. I am proud to be able to call myself a third-generation farmer. My husband serves our community as a paramedic; together we are raising our three children while rebuilding my family's farm. Our youngest, my daughter, was born just nine months ago. From the outside looking in, it may not be the ideal time for my family for me to be here. However, my husband and I agreed that I could not sit idly by at a time when the call from our community and country was so loud to find people who know the incredible potential Canada has and to elect those who are ready to move Canada forward for all Canadians. People are called for who will not only listen but act and will work tirelessly to make sure all Canadians know that they are supported. I can assure members that I did not think I would ever be standing here, but the privilege and responsibility are not lost on me for a moment.

Today, I have chosen to share with the House a bit about my father. My father passed in 2010 of pancreatic cancer. He was a farmer and a skilled tradesman. He was very proudly a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers. He was a cutting-equipment mechanic who spent much of his life travelling northern Ontario and many parts of Canada. Even now, I can still feel what the atmosphere of the farm felt like when he received a call to head north or out west. Another telltale sign was his signature one grape-tipped Colts cigar, which he seemed to reserve for the excitement of his next adventure. He loved the work of being a highly sought-after mechanic, seemingly able to fix everything. There was no machine too big or too small. He would always return home to the farm and would love to share stories of his time away.

I speak about this today because I have witnessed the pride that comes with working in the skilled trades. The skilled trades create opportunities for well-paying, meaningful work that supports Canadian families. My father had the opportunity to be part of projects of national significance that gave him and my family a physical, lasting legacy in the landscape of Canada now that he is gone.

I know that skilled trades have been overlooked and underappreciated for too long. However, I stand here today knowing that our new government knows that when Canadians come together, Canada builds things that last. We will build hundreds of thousands of careers in the skilled trades. Skilled-trades workers will continue to be at the forefront of tackling the housing crisis. They will build projects of national importance and proudly play an instrumental role as we build the strongest economy in the G7.

We must take these opportunities to build and protect the future for our children, to make sure families have what they need to help shoulder the growing issues of affordability. As we continue to build our economy, our government will protect the programs that are helping families, such as child care, pharmacare and the expansion of the Canadian dental care plan, which are saving families thousands of dollars every year. Our middle-class tax cut would be a welcome addition in helping Canadians who are struggling to get ahead.

Residents in my home of Peterborough were ready to have a member of Parliament who would listen to them and be their voice in Ottawa. They understood that we must seize the opportunity for renewal that we have as a country. They know, as we do, that we have an opportunity to think big and to act bigger.

I look forward to collaborating with all members of the House to move Canada forward into the strong and prosperous potential it has always had. I believe that across our beautiful country, the people who elect us to be here are expecting the same from all of us. I am thankful to my husband and family for supporting me so that I can be here, helping build a future all Canadians deserve.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on her election. I listened to her speech very carefully. I also lost a grandfather a couple of years ago. He was like my father, and I very much sympathize with what she told the House today. I am also well familiar with Peterborough and the very many families she represents, who sound much like the member's family.

The member recognized the affordability crisis her constituents are going through right now. Given that, is a tax cut worth $20 a month going to make any material difference in their lives? Should it not be a greater tax cut to help her constituents?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear about the member's grandfather. Cancer is a terrible, terrible disease that affects Canadians all across our country and around the world. I really empathize with anyone who has been through dealing with such a terrible disease. I am thankful for the member's words.

Our new government is committed to helping with the affordability crisis, and it is a great start. We hope the member will support, moving forward, that we need a middle-class tax cut for Canadians and that every little bit does help at this point. We absolutely need to do more. I do not disagree with the member, but I think it is a fabulous start.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was moved by my colleague from Peterborough's intervention.

I also lost my father, in 2011. He loved his cigars, too, Panters if memory serves me correctly. I thank her for this duty to remember. It is important in the House. Remembering where we come from gives a great deal of meaning to our actions here in the House.

We are here to debate an issue on which an agricultural producer or someone who has worked in the agricultural sector would like a stand to be taken: supply management. I think it goes without saying that everyone wants to keep supply management. However, are we going to keep the entire system or are parts of it going to be sacrificed again? Could my colleague from Peterborough be an ally and support the Bloc Québécois bill to fully protect supply management?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we will unequivocally support the Bloc's bill and support supply management, including for our wonderful farmers in Quebec.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague for winning her election in Peterborough, and I am sure she will serve the residents of Peterborough well.

In her speech, the member spoke about the importance of skilled trades and shared a very compelling personal story. Could she expand further on why supporting the skilled trades is so critical at this moment for both workers and our economy?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to my lovely new friend and colleague from Don Valley North.

The skilled trades are vital to any country and to building anything that is meant to last and is meant to support our economy and the people who live in our country. It is also a meaningful job.

My brother is a member of the International Union of Operating Engineers, and that was his goal for his life, watching my father also be in that union. It is meaningful work that pays really well and does support families. As we put forth our commitments to build projects of national significance, we will need to continue to build our workforce, especially in the skilled trades, because we do not have nearly enough of those workers.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the absence of a budget, the main estimates came out last week, and they said there would be a 37% increase, to $26 billion a year. That will cost the average family about $1,400 in consultant fees. This is on top of the fact that the bureaucracy has grown almost 50% under the government.

Does the hon. member not think there is a disconnect there, that we basically have a tax cut that is going to reduce the amount of taxes by the cost of a cup of coffee a week, yet on the back end of that, it is going to cost each Canadian family $1,400 a year for new consultants? Is that not a disconnect in her view?

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we look forward to presenting our budget this fall. I am from a place where we are taught to measure twice and cut once, and that is just what we will do. We will take our time. In an ever-changing world and economy, we need to do our due diligence to make sure we are putting every dollar forward that is best for Canadians.