(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)
House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was build.
House of Commons Hansard #6 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was build.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply Members debate the Speech from the Throne and proposed amendments. Discussions cover the government's plan to build a stronger economy, address affordability and housing, reduce trade barriers, and invest in resource sectors. Members raise concerns about fiscal discipline without a budget, the government's approach to climate change and oil and gas, and public safety issues like crime and the drug crisis. Other topics include dental care, reconciliation, and skilled trades. 50600 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was agreed to on the following division:)
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I declare the subamendment carried.
The next question is on the amendment as amended.
If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment as amended be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne
An hon. member
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.
Resumption of Debate on Address in ReplySpeech from the Throne
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, it was Radio-Canada that first reported that the Prime Minister had co-founded an investment fund worth over $25 billion, combined from two funds. These investment funds were not headquartered here in Canada; they were headquartered above a bicycle shop in Bermuda. Why would investments be headquartered in Bermuda? Why would they be headquartered above a bike shop? It is because they are avoiding paying Canadian taxes.
We have raised questions that the Prime Minister can answer, that the Prime Minister should answer and that the Prime Minister must answer. After 10 years with the last government and Justin Trudeau breaking our ethics laws multiple times and presiding over a cabinet that saw repeated breaches of our ethics laws, Canadians are looking for leadership, for honesty and for transparency. The Prime Minister has an opportunity to provide that transparency to Canadians.
In response to my question in question period, we heard the government House leader say that Canada has stringent ethics rules and the Liberals take them very seriously. Canadians have no idea what the Prime Minister put into those blind trusts, but the Prime Minister knows what he put into those blind trusts. We do not know how much deferred compensation the Prime Minister will realize based on the performance of those funds that he set up, but he knows. That deferred compensation is not something that can be placed in a blind trust. It will be paid out based on the performance of those funds, and the Prime Minister has a real way to impact their performance based on decisions that he makes at the cabinet table.
What we want to know is this: What did the Prime Minister put into his blind trust, and is the Prime Minister going to be receiving deferred compensation payments? Finally, we need to know if the Prime Minister has ever been invested in funds that avoided paying taxes here in Canada. I would like to know if we can just get a clear answer. The government House leader has four minutes to tell us how seriously the government is going to take these ethics laws and that there is going to be a change in tone and tenor from the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he do that?
Was the Prime Minister invested in funds that were avoiding paying taxes? Will the government House leader admit that the Prime Minister had set up funds that were headquartered above a bike shop in Bermuda? Will the Prime Minister be the beneficiary of deferred compensation payments from those funds at Brookfield? Will the Prime Minister finally just take his obligations seriously and tell Canadians the totality of what that blind trust looked like at the time it was set up?
Steven MacKinnon LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that compliance with the ethics rules is not optional in Canada. It is an obligation that all elected members of the House must comply with, regardless of their position. These rules are designed to guarantee the integrity of our institutions and to maintain the trust that Canadians place in us.
The Prime Minister must obey the same rules as every other member of Parliament. However, it is important to note that the Prime Minister did more than just meet those requirements; he exceeded them. He proactively provided the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner with all the information required, and he did so pre-emptively. That is leadership. It is not simply a matter of following the rules when necessary. It is a matter of anticipating them, doing more than the bare minimum and setting an example for all elected officials. Canadians expect their Prime Minister to act with integrity, and that is exactly what he did.
Unfortunately, some members of the opposition are trying to sow doubt by raising unfounded concerns or even conspiracy theories. I firmly believe that this type of rhetoric does nothing to increase public confidence in the government or in the elected members of the opposition. On the contrary, they are undermining the credibility of all our institutions, for the sole purpose of trying to score cheap political points.
I would remind the House that Canada has one of the most stringent ethics regimes in the world. Our system demands transparency, full disclosure and accountability of all public office holders. Not only did the Prime Minister fully comply with the rules, he went further by clearly demonstrating that he has nothing to hide. It also needs to be said that each new member is bound by the same code as all other members. I sincerely hope that all members of the House comply with their obligations just as diligently. On this side of the House, we have always followed the rules, not out of obligation but out of principle.
To us, ethics is not a campaign slogan; it is an ongoing responsibility. Canadians can count on us to continue to be unequivocally transparent and diligent.
On this side of the House, we take these responsibilities seriously, and Canadians can count on that.
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, let me quote the government House leader. He said that on that side of the House, they have always followed the rules. He sat in cabinet with former prime minister Justin Trudeau, who broke those laws twice, as did other members of cabinet. We cannot take him at his word.
He also says that the reporting on Radio-Canada was a conspiracy theory. Well, it is a fact. The Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, set up these funds that were headquartered in Bermuda to avoid paying Canadian taxes, headquartered above a bicycle shop. We need to know if the Prime Minister is going to be the beneficiary of deferred compensation from those funds, when he stands to improve their performance based on decisions he can take around the cabinet table.
Canadians have no information because the Prime Minister is stonewalling, refusing to be transparent with Canadians. Will he come clean with Canadians today? Will the government House leader commit to transparency for a change and tell Canadians what they need to know about these investments?
Steven MacKinnon Liberal Gatineau, QC
Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Prime Minister fully complied with the Conflict of Interest Act and even went above and beyond what was required. From the outset, he proactively disclosed all relevant information to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, demonstrating his commitment to the transparency and accountability that this role demands.
Canada has some of the strictest ethics rules in the world, and Canadians can rest assured that those rules are being followed. For members on this side of the House, merely following the rules is not enough; we strive to go above and beyond.
Some people may choose to engage in speculation or political theatre, but we remain focused on maintaining the trust of Canadians. Ethics and integrity are not negotiable, and that is a standard we are proud to uphold.
Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his cabinet took the time to prepare a spending plan, but they did not make the time to prepare a plan to pay for it.
Last week, I asked a simple question: “With the economic storm clouds moving in, how is it possible not to have a budget this spring?”
Since then, the Liberal government presented the main estimates to Parliament to request nearly half a trillion dollars, $486 billion, to fund the government until next March. However, it has not presented a budget, which is the very document that shows how it intends to pay for all of this spending. How irresponsible is that? Imagine someone walking into a bank for a mortgage with all of their expenses, their car payments, groceries and student debt, but refusing to provide evidence of their income. Any lender would tell them to come back when they have evidence of their income.
As a finance professional of 14 years, I say the same to this Liberal government: Come back when there is a plan to pay for all of this spending. The government says economic conditions may change over the summer. Yes, there is an uncertain world, there are summits, and there are shifting forecasts. That is exactly why we need a budget. When income is lost, we budget. When costs rise, we budget. When we want to change our circumstances, we budget. Our GDP is struggling, our productivity is down, our purchasing power is crumbling and the unemployment rate is rising. These are the fingerprints of 10 years of failed Liberal policies.
If the Prime Minister and his finance minister want to be taken seriously as stewards of the economy, they need to do what every family, every business and every government must do: put forward a budget.
It is my sincere hope that we can work together to provide relief to Canadian families and businesses and to steer Canada in the right direction. However, the government needs to provide the fundamental information for every parliamentarian to make an informed decision on what is best for Canadians. On matters of finance, my trust is built on numbers, on accountability and on a budget.
I ask again: With the economic storm clouds moving in, how is it possible not to produce a budget this spring?
Wayne Long LiberalSecretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Newmarket—Aurora. Being in the House is a privilege, and I encourage her to enjoy every day. I have been privileged to be here since 2015, through four elections, and I know the excitement of being here. I know it is a big machine here in Ottawa, but I congratulate her for her win.
This is the first time I have risen in the House this Parliament, and I want to thank the wonderful constituents of Saint John—Kennebecasis for returning me here for the fourth time. I certainly want to thank my campaign manager, Kevin Collins, and I want to thank the wonderful staff, the wonderful team, I have in Saint John, with Jeannette McLaughlin and Don Darling making sure things are very well taken care of on the home front.
Let me list some facts. Inflation is down from 8.1% in June 2022 to 1.7% now. The Conservatives, at every step up, said that it was our fault, yet now that inflation is down to below the Bank of Canada's target rate, I guess we do not get any credit for that. Canada right now has an unemployment rate of 6.9%. Labour force participation is at 65.3%, which is well above the U.S. number of 62.5%. We have a AAA credit rating and the lowest debt and deficit in the G7. The list goes on and on.
Sometimes I wonder why the Conservatives hold themselves as the major economic stewards of our economy. It was their government, prior to the Liberals, that ran nine straight deficits. They basically made a mess of our economy through regressive policies.
As Liberals, we believe in growing a strong economy. We believe in investing in Canadians. As Liberals, we believe that government has a role to play in people's lives, whether it is with the Canada child benefit the Conservatives voted against, the child care the Conservatives voted against, the dental care the Conservatives voted against or the wonderful housing programs and housing initiatives, such as the co-investment fund, the rapid housing initiative and the housing accelerator fund, which the Conservatives voted against. The Conservatives voted against each and every one of those initiatives, which have been proven to help Canada.
We will do the right things to build our economy, rebuild our economy and make our economy the greatest economy in the G7.
Sandra Cobena Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that there is no plan to pay for the $486 billion in spending that the Liberals have asked Parliament to authorize. It is not a plan to have no plan. If there were a plan, they would have presented it.
Our GDP is struggling. Our productivity is down. Our purchasing power is crumbling. The unemployment rate is rising, and tariffs are hurting our industries. The purpose of a budget is to bring order to uncertainty, but the Liberal government has done the opposite. By refusing to present a budget this spring, it has deepened the volatility in an already fragile economy. Fiscal credibility is earned by showing the numbers respecting the process that has defined Canada for more than half a century.
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB
Mr. Speaker, Canadians have voiced very clearly who they think should be running and leading our economy.
Listening to the member opposite, we would not think we just had an election on April 28 and a throne speech last week. The budget will come in due time. Our Prime Minister is regarded, I would argue, as one of the top economic minds in Canada.
We do have a plan. His Majesty said, during the Speech from the Throne, “In all of its actions, the Government will be guided by a new fiscal discipline: spend less so Canadians can invest more.” He also said we “will balance its operating budget over the next three years by cutting waste, capping the public service, ending duplication, and deploying technology to improve public sector productivity.”
We will deliver the details of our plan in the fall via a detailed, comprehensive, effective, ambitious and prudent federal budget.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, last week, I asked the Prime Minister and the government a very simple question about Canada's energy sector. I even did the homework for the government. I pointed out how the industrial carbon tax is making Canada less competitive and less affordable. I pointed out how the oil and gas production cap is keeping our resources in the ground and scaring away investors. I pointed out how Bill C-69 is making it essentially impossible to build pipelines in the country.
I asked the industry minister whether the government would commit to Canada's energy sector, as the Prime Minister occasionally says depending on what room he is in, and repeal these anti-energy laws. She responded without mentioning the words “oil”, “gas” or “resources”. The writer who wrote her response to my question must have been the same writer who wrote the government's throne speech because it did not address oil and gas in the least.
This is not just a western Canada issue. When we do not support Canada's energy sector, we are actually harming the country as a whole. We are making ourselves more dependent on the United States. We are making ourselves less competitive. We are compromising our sovereignty and independence and even our security. It is curious that the government is scared of the word “pipeline” and will not utter it in many of the responses we hear in this chamber and in much of the other communication we get from the government.
My question for the government is incredibly simple. It comes down to the path it wants to chart forward. Does it support a future that invests in Canadian energy or does it support the environmental radicals who want to keep our resources in the ground?
The reason I bring this up is that the facts are abundantly clear. Between 2015 and 2025, the Liberal government killed 16 major energy projects. This resulted in a $176-billion hit to the economy.
When I talk about the competitive advantage of investing in resources, we need not look further than our neighbour to the south, the United States. In the last 10 years or so, between 2010 and 2021, the United States grew its natural gas exports by 485%. What happened in Canada in that same time period? That is a good question. They actually went down by 18%. This is Canada, which has access to an incredible wealth of resources. The only thing standing in the way of embracing them is the “keep it in the ground”, anti-energy, innovation-killing attitude the Liberal government has embodied.
This is where we are right now. The Liberals like to talk about the fact that, in their words, they are not anti-pipeline; they just want there to be a consensus. How can there be a consensus when they do not even have a consensus in their front bench, as evidenced by a speaker in cabinet who just a couple of weeks ago said that he did not know and that we did not need any pipelines? That was the former environment minister, who is now the Minister of Canadian Identity.
We have laid out the facts clearly, so I will ask the government this: Once and for all, will it repeal its anti-energy policies and commit to pipeline development in Canada?
Julie Dabrusin LiberalMinister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with many things the member opposite said and how he characterized them. I appreciate that he asked the question on a day that I think is a particularly important day because the Prime Minister and premiers from provinces and territories across our country sat down to have conversations about how we can better work together to unify our country, stand together in the face of what we are facing from the United States and how we can build the nation-building projects that will make our country stronger.
On a day when we have seen unity across our country, I really want to highlight that, because that is where we need to go. That is where Canadians wanted us to go. Canadians from coast to coast to coast elected this government because they wanted to us to come together, protect our country, stand up for our country and build great things together. Today is a particularly good day to highlight how that is moving forward already, very early on in the new government.
Our Liberal government is focused on results, and that means protecting and creating good jobs, attracting investment and building a low-risk, low-cost and low-carbon clean economy for the future. Right now, as I mentioned, the Prime Minister is working with premiers to identify projects of national significance that will grow our economy, and Canadians rightly expect to see, as we look at those projects, that we are also upholding strong environmental standards. That is where the difference between our government and the Conservatives can be quite stark.
I will point out that Canadians rejected Pierre Poilievre's vision because it was to give polluters a free pass. There was talk about industrial carbon pricing. Pierre Poilievre's vision that was rejected by Canadians was to ignore the cost of climate change to our economy, to workers and to communities. What Canadians chose instead was to work on how to build a unified, strong country that can get things built. That is exactly what we are working on.
When it comes to approving major projects, we are focused on getting them built faster without cutting corners. That means respecting indigenous rights, collaborating with provinces and territories and ensuring that projects are in the national interest to build a strong future. The Conservative alternative, from what I have heard, is no environmental safeguards, no provincial involvement or input and no indigenous input or involvement in this process, and that does not create certainty for investors. Canadians have rejected that failed approach. In fact, with that approach under the previous Conservative government, things were not getting built.
This government will get major projects built, and we are going to make sure we do it right. We are going to be focused on protecting Canadian workers, growing our economy to be the strongest in the G7 and getting projects of national significance built.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am floored. The minister just had four uninterrupted minutes to answer a very simple question about where the government stands on development of the oil and gas sector in Canada and the construction of pipelines. In those four minutes, not once did the minister even say the word “pipeline”. She did not utter the word. It proves the point I made in my initial question, which is that the government does not view pipelines as having any part in its plan for the economy moving forward.
I have a very simple question: When the minister talks about projects she would like to see Canada move forward on, do they include pipelines, yes or no?
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, when the government looks at projects of national significance, we are not going to take the advice of the member opposite. We are going to look at how to build together with premiers from the provinces and territories and with indigenous peoples right across our country. We are going to look at the projects of national significance and we are going to get them built.
The meeting today with the Prime Minister and the premiers is an amazing first step on that. That is leadership that Canadians want to see, and that is the leadership that we are going to continue to build on so we can make sure we get projects built.
Natural ResourcesAdjournment Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
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 7:56 p.m.)