Debates of June 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Food Inflation and Budgetary Policy

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a crisis. Children in Kitchener are increasingly affected by food insecurity, with 14,418 children using the food bank in the last quarter of 2024. Every child in Canada deserves the fundamental right to grow up free from hunger. Food is not a privilege; it is a necessity. A transparent, well-funded national budget must reflect this priority, outlining clear, actionable plans to eliminate food insecurity and support families across this country.

Will the Liberal government table a budget this spring?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a few times the desperation and the hunger being experienced. My daughter lives in Calgary and belongs to social media groups like Moms and Tots, where moms are trying to find someone who can give them infant formula or provide diapers to get them through the week until their next cheque comes in. That is how bad the situation has gotten under the Liberal government. People cannot afford to raise kids anymore.

We have a government that will not present a budget to show how it is going to do that. Non-profit organizations have to provide a budget, a balanced budget; otherwise, they do not last long. I come from a non-profit background. Does the member think it would be appropriate that a government that regulates not-for-profit organizations should be held to the same standard and present a budget at an appropriate time?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree. I just had a conversation the other day about someone having to put groceries back because they needed to buy formula, and so the other children in the family had to go without in order for the baby to have proper nutrition. This is a crisis we are in. Many households with employed individuals still lack sufficient income to afford food.

When will the Liberals be accountable and transparent to the residents of Kitchener Centre and Canada and actually table a budget? Will it be this spring?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the residents of Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay to speak concerning the motion that the member for Calgary East has brought forward.

As I have mentioned previously in this chamber, during the election the price of groceries was the number one issue I heard about from families in my region and at the doors. One conversation stood out. A young mom answered the door, joined by her two young children, wondering who was at the door on a Saturday morning. When I asked what was most worrying her, she did not hesitate: The soaring cost of food was her top concern. Later that same day, I happened to run into her at the grocery store. She wanted to explain to me that over the past year, rising prices had pushed fresh fruits, vegetables and meats out of her budget. While at this point she could still afford inexpensive items like pasta, boxed meals and processed cereals, she knew, as someone who worked in the health profession, that feeding her children this way could have long-term consequences for their health.

We are at risk of raising a generation of children who, through no fault of their own, will create a way of life leading toward obesity, diabetes and heart disease. Many families, if not yet having to turn to food banks, are being forced to make unhealthy choices to simply get by. Centre aisle and dollar store grocery shopping is increasing. The cost to our health care system and to our collective Canadian well-being will be profound if we do not act.

The “Food Banks BC Hunger Report 2024” found that “the rates of food insecurity have almost doubled since 2019.” It also says, “Since 2019, the number of individuals accessing food banks has risen by 32%.” Worse yet, these increases are not single-stop visits, with many British Columbians relying on food bank services several times a month, further proof of deepening dependency just to afford breakfast, lunch and dinner. Thirty-one per cent of all food bank users in British Columbia are children, and 11% are seniors. Many food banks are attempting to serve more clients with fewer resources.

The 2024 hunger report is very clear on the causes:

The increasing rates of food insecurity in BC can be attributed to the following recent shifts:

Sharp rise in inflation

Rapid interest rate hikes

The lack of available housing supply...

The loss of income supports...and...one-time affordability measures

Significant and rapid population growth without the social infrastructure [in place]

A slowdown in economic activity and a rising unemployment rate....

These all cross into the responsibilities of the federal Liberal government. Many of them are disasters that the Liberals spent years denying were ever occurring. It is a list of Liberal failures.

However, as the motion today is focused on the issue of food inflation, I will also highlight a report from the Salvation Army food bank in Penticton, my hometown, which says, “Since Covid ended, inflation has been the main driver, increasing visits by 40%.... We are seeing more homeowners and people who got out of poverty that have slid back into it.”

Communities across my region and Canadians across the country expect Parliament to address escalating grocery prices with every tool available, including countering inflationary pressures caused by a decade of wasteful spending from the Liberal government.

We have heard much since Parliament began that this will be a new government, but what confidence can we have in the same old ministers to address rising grocery prices when they have failed on exactly that issue for years? In fact, the Minister of Finance was also the Liberal minister of industry who declared he had struck a deal with Canada's five largest grocery chains to take action to stabilize food prices by Thanksgiving. That was Thanksgiving 2023. The minister's office said at the time that “in the coming days and weeks[,] Canadians can expect to see actions such as aggressive discounts across a basket of key food products that represent the most important purchases for most households”. The minister's office also said at the time, “If we don’t see results, we will take additional action to restore the food price stability that Canadians expect.”

Well, it has been 20 months since that statement. Let us check the numbers. In 2023, Dalhousie University's Agri-Food Analytics Lab did a food price report and estimated the average family of four spent $15,595 on groceries. That has now risen to $16,834 in 2025. That is an increase of $1,239 a year in cost to Canadians since the Minister of Finance said that he would stabilize grocery prices as industry minister.

Most Canadians do not get promotions if they fail at their job. Apparently, this rule does not apply to Liberal ministers. Five months into 2025, food inflation has skyrocketed well above the normal inflation rate. Beef is up 12% to 33%, pork and chicken breasts are up nearly 6%, oranges are up 26%, apples are up 18%, rice is up 14% and infant formula is up 9%. These are not luxury items. These are basic staples that parents need to feed their children properly or we risk creating unhealthy food habits and severe health challenges for future generations. This will also lead many Canadians into poverty.

Liberal ministers will blame American tariffs for these increases, yet food price increases in France, Germany, Italy and the U.K. remain well below ours, and they all remain under the same threat of these tariffs. To counteract made-in-Canada inflation, Canadians first need to see a full accounting in a federal budget of how the Liberals intend to spend the half a trillion dollars in new spending compared to how much they are bringing in revenue. This new spending already represents the first broken promise of the Liberal government, as it increases spending by 8%, when the Prime Minister promised to cap it at 2%.

Without a full accounting of our federal spending in the House, we risk creating more inflation and more price hikes as Canadians shop for groceries. The Prime Minister said he would be held accountable for the prices Canadians pay at the grocery store. Every Liberal member supported a throne speech that, thanks to a Conservative amendment passed by my Bloc and NDP colleagues, called for a budget to be tabled before this House rises for the summer. We certainly hope that is not yet another promise the Liberals intend to break.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the member opposite for her election and for taking her seat in the House of Commons.

I heard her talk about the hardship a lot of Canadians are experiencing across the country. In the past, her colleagues have voted against the benefits that help children across the country like the child tax benefit and bringing food programs into our schools. They voted against dental care for seniors and children. There are 9,000 people in my riding who have benefited from dental care.

Perhaps the member opposite can tell us if she plans to support measures that actually create opportunities for Canadian families to have extra money for groceries and other things that they need to be able to survive. Those sound like things she really cares about. I want to hear whether she is going to support those measures.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a budget is important to everyone in this country. Households need to have budgets. Businesses need to have budgets. Local governments are forced to have budgets. A municipality in British Columbia has to work on its budget during the year and table it by the spring. The Community Charter forces local governments to do that.

As federal members, we need to be the leaders. I do not think anyone in this House believes that local governments should not table budgets. We need to act as responsible citizens because the same tax dollar is being spent locally and federally.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague would think if I suggested that she invest her savings in a bank whose CEO spent hundreds of millions of dollars without ever making any budget forecasts, without ever checking to see whether he had the necessary funds to pay for these expenditures, even though they are nice expenditures that make people happy. If I told my colleague to invest her savings in this bank, which spends money to make people happy, what would she think?

Would my colleague agree to entrust her savings to a bank that is spending extraordinary amounts without checking whether it has the necessary funds to do so?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult to invest money in any type of business, let alone a bank, if it did not have a budget.

However, I want to look back at the young families that we talked to at the doors. How are they going to handle their own budgets when, since the start of 2025, beef is up 33%, pork and chicken are up nearly 6%, oranges are up 26%, apples are up 18%, rice is up 14% and infant formula is up 9%? What am I supposed to tell these families that work hard to keep a budget so they do not end up at a food bank? What am I supposed to tell them about why our own government cannot keep a budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, it will have been 18 months since this country saw a federal budget. We all recall the fiasco when the fall economic statement was dropped in this Parliament.

Would the hon. member not agree that this is the time to have a budget so that Canadians can openly and transparently see what the numbers are? Of course, in the fall, we knew that the Liberals had blown through their fiscal guardrail and the deficit was $60 billion. Does the member share my sentiment, perhaps a cynic might, that they are actually trying to cook the books and hide the numbers from Canadians?

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to believe that nothing is being hidden or that this is not some nefarious trick, but why would the government not put forward a budget when all the other parties in this House voted unanimously to have a budget tabled before the summer?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and speak to an opposition day motion. I guess I am not supposed to heckle, but it kind of got the best of me. It was one of those great conspiracy moments from the members opposite. As they try to get an understanding as to why there is no budget being introduced, they come up with all these weird explanations, so they can breed fear among the population, as if there is something abnormal about this.

Let us put the record straight. Let us talk about what the Conservatives like to talk about: the budget. I want them to reflect, and I say this to my Conservative friends, on Pierre Poilievre in the last federal election. They might recall that they had a 100-day action plan, and they had initiatives that they were going to be taking. Let me tell members about one of the initiatives that was not there: a budget. Pierre Poilievre had no intention whatsoever of presenting a budget. The election was on April 28; that was not that long ago.

[An hon. member]

It sounds like a conspiracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are starting to put on the tinfoil hats again. April 28 was not that long ago, and we need to respect the fact that it does take time to develop and put forward a budget that is reflective of an election platform. After all, we have a new Prime Minister and a new government, and through that, there are many different initiatives that will need to be brought into the budget.

There are other things happening, not only here in Canada, but in the North American economy. President Trump, tariffs and trade are a sample of that, along with other things. I believe having a new prime minister does warrant some time in order to bring forward a budget to Canadians, which has been committed to come in the fall. I am told that Brian Mulroney took almost 300 days to present a budget after he became Prime Minister. Stephen Harper was elected as Prime Minister in February, and he presented a budget in May.

As such, I believe that, as much as the Conservatives want to come up with these conspiracy-type theories as to why there is no budget, they are not going to be able to fool Canadians. There is an expectation that, at the end of the day, it takes time to put together a national budget to spend billions and billions of dollars. I was encouraged when we had a vote last week on the ways and means, which kind of said where the money is going to be spent, at least in part.

Members might not believe this, but the Conservatives actually voted in favour of the ways and means motion. In fact, it was unanimous. Every member of the House of Commons recognized it. The Conservatives were voting in favour of the government's estimates, and they recognize that there are things not only here coming out of an election, but that are happening around the world, in particular in the United States. Given the fact that it took other prime ministers anywhere from several months to 100 days, Pierre Poilievre did not even commit to a budget and Brian Mulroney took 300 days, I do not think it is too much to ask for us to be reasonable in recognizing that it is better to make sure that we put the budget before the House in such a fashion that we have had the time to take into consideration the election platform, among other initiatives.

What we have seen coming out of the election is a government that is focused in a very significant way on several issues, but the issue of affordability is there. It is real. It is tangible. We all know that. We all knocked on doors.

We do not need to be told by the Conservatives how difficult it is for Canadians. We understand it and we appreciate it. The Prime Minister knows that. That is the reason his very first initiative was to indicate that he would give a tax break to 22 million Canadians. That is recognizing the issue of affordability.

The Conservatives pussyfooted around it. They did not know what they were going to do, because after all, back in 2015, they voted against a tax break. Then they realized that maybe it was a lesson learned from that time and that, yes, it is something they should be voting in favour of this time around. I am grateful. Seriously, I think it is wonderful.

There are other initiatives the government has brought forward, but before I leave the issue of affordability, members should be aware that affordability is more than just giving a tax break. Look at the number of initiatives this Prime Minister has reinforced we will continue with, such as child care. Child care has a very positive impact in every region of our country. We know from what took place in the province of Quebec, which pioneered it for the rest of Canada by developing and putting in place a child care program, that there will be more participation in the workforce, by women in particular. We have seen that and the benefits of it.

The Conservatives would argue that they do not support that sort of affordability issue. In fact, back in the day, they said they would tear it all up. There is a strong argument to be made, and I would make that argument, that it is in Canada's best interests to continue to support that program, because it increases the workforce, not to mention the social benefits for Canadians, to have that program. It is saving literally thousands and thousands of dollars for many individuals.

We hear Conservative after Conservative talk about the issue of inflation, and justifiably so. I am very much concerned about inflation, as I know the Prime Minister and all my colleagues are. If we do a comparison, we might not necessarily be the best, but looking at the G20 countries over a span of a couple of years, we see that Canada does reasonably well. We have put in place certain initiatives to try to give that even more strength, especially to protect food prices.

I think of changes that were made, for example, to the Competition Act. A good motivator for the Competition Act changes was food price instability, and one of the arguments back then was that we needed more competition in Canada because we have just five major grocery companies. It was felt that we needed more competition. We used to have six. We used to have Shoppers Drug Mart, which carried a good line of food products, but it was consumed under Loblaws. Interestingly enough, Pierre Poilievre was part of the government that allowed that to take place. We brought in legislation to ensure that there would be healthier competition because we believe that more competition does have an impact on the issue of providing food. That is a very positive initiative.

The grocery sector code of conduct took a while to put in place, but for the first time, we have a grocery sector code of conduct. It is in the implementation stage, but there was a great deal of effort there. We have a Prime Minister who recognizes the true value of that and has it as a part of the overall package to ensure that consumers are not being exploited.

The food file is a very important one. We need to recognize there are some factors, some issues out there that affect the cost of food that are beyond the government's control. Weather is a factor. The whole production line, I would suggest, is something we need to note, as are demand and supply. We all would like to see the price of food go down, but at a time of instability, we have to look at what the government can do to assist in ensuring people have food. The national school food program is one way we can ensure that children in Canada have nutritious food in schools. Again, we see it as a very strong and healthy program to advance.

There are opportunities for all of us to look internally within the constituencies we represent and talk about the types of things that could make a difference. I think of the issue of housing, which is of great concern to Canadians. I have made reference to the “build Canada homes” program, which is going to employ Canadians. It is going to take up Canadian technology. It is going to take up Canadian labour. It is going to expand the number of houses so we can get an increase in supply.

We can take programs such as that one, which has been proposed and will be funded, and complement them with some of the actions we have seen in Bill C-4, such as the first-time home builder tax break. If someone is building their first home, they will not have to pay the GST on it, saving literally thousands of dollars. There is a $1-million cap on that, but it is taking a holistic approach to the issue of housing because we want to see more homes being built here in Canada.

From the federal government's perspective, we are prepared to lead on the file, but let there be no doubt that it is going to take more than just the federal government. Housing is a shared responsibility among the different levels of government and should be encouraged even with the many non-profit organizations out there.

I am glad to hear the Conservatives are going to be supporting the elimination of the GST for first-time homebuyers. That is great, but I think they need to look even deeper than that. Their track record is not really that good on housing. All one needs to do is take a look at Pierre Poilievre when he was the minister of housing. The first thing that comes to my mind is the number six. A lot of people are aware of the number six when it comes to housing. It is relevant because when he was the minister of housing, that is the number of affordable houses he built in Canada; that is it. Wow.

I always find it interesting that Conservatives will stand in their places and be critical of the government when we have done more to support affordable housing than the previous government by a long shot. Members of the Conservative Party will downplay the accelerator fund, for example. Publicly, they will do that, but privately, we have a dozen to 18 of them who go around saying they want some of that money; they want some of that fund. Privately, they support it, but publicly they do not because they do not believe the government should be directly involved or give a tax break. Listen to what they say to the cities and the municipalities. It is a completely different approach to dealing with housing. I believe that with the budget coming up in the fall, we will get a better appreciation of what kind of role the federal government can play in leading the housing file.

We have other issues that deal with affordability. The dental care program is an excellent one. How many children or seniors have benefited from that program? Another initiative by our new Prime Minister is to expand that program, recognizing the value of having it, as it is helping a lot of low-income individuals in every region of Canada. Being able to provide a program of that nature does make affordability much better for the average person having a difficult time.

It is interesting when Conservatives talk about issues such as inflation and affordability and try to give the impression that the government is not doing a good job. I always think about the issue of poverty. Over the last number of years, we have witnessed hundreds of thousands of seniors being taken out of poverty because of social program initiatives such as the enhanced GIS program and the enhanced and modified Canada child benefit program. These types of programs have had a profoundly positive impact in Canada, in every region of our nation, and we need to recognize them.

That is why when we read the throne speech, we find, and I will get to some of these core things, it highlights that the social programs we have are worth preserving where we can. This is really important. On the pharmacare program, think of the constituents each of us has who have diabetes. The pharmacare program will allow them to have more disposable income and keep more disposable income in their pockets.

When we think of the issue of affordability, we have to look at what is happening to and influencing inflation. The threats we are hearing from President Trump about the tariffs and trade in general are obviously going to have somewhat of an impact on employment, inflation and potentially interest rates.

That is why I think Canadians, when contrasting the Prime Minister to Pierre Poilievre, saw in the Prime Minister an individual who has a comprehensive understanding of how an economy works. He is one of the most able-minded individuals in North America, I would argue, who understands what it is going to take to make sure Canada is able to build a strong Canada, a Canada that works for everyone.

We have seen that in the legislation we have introduced, legislation we talked about during the campaign. I am referring to having one economy and taking down internal barriers, potentially achieving somewhere in the neighbourhood of $200 billion in direct benefits by having provinces and Ottawa work closer together. There is also the security of our borders, not to mention additional investments. I have already talked about Bill C-4, but there are additional investments for the Canadian Forces. There are all sorts of initiatives.

There is in fact a plan, and the plan is coming together. In due course, as the Prime Minister has indicated, come fall we will get a detailed budget. I remind my colleagues across the way that they voted for the ways and means motion, the estimates, and I was pleased to see that. We will go through the summer and come fall time, we will have that budget.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his government are refusing to table a budget. It is as if they are telling the world, "We have no idea what we are doing. We have no plan, and we are just going to hope that we can stumble along and figure things out as we go, not making too much of a mess as we do it." This is exactly why they have not presented a budget. They had better have an answer for Canadians for why they are not tabling a budget.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much clearer I could be for the member across the way. The government had a ways and means vote on the estimates. The member had the opportunity to go through those estimates. In principle, all sorts of expenditures are going to be taking place. The member who just posed the question voted in favour of it. I just finished explaining to him, at the beginning of my comments, how even his own leader, Pierre Poilievre, was not prepared to commit to having a Conservative budget, had he been the prime minister, within the first 100 days.

It is better to get it right than to try to rush it through so that the Conservatives can be satisfied with the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Winnipeg North says that it is more important to first get things right and that it would be better to wait before coming up with a budget. I fail to understand how he can say that.

I respect him enough not to believe for one second that he would hand his money over to people who would announce all sorts of spending but promise to tell him how they would finance it only in the fall. No one would do that. My colleague from Winnipeg North is smart enough to agree with me.

On what basis is he able to tell us that it is fine to spend money now, that the government will try to figure out how to pay for it over the summer and that they will let us know what they came up with next year?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is an issue of priorities, and the Prime Minister has been very clear on those priorities.

The tax break, for example, will take effect on July 1. However, we have to pass that legislation. We look to the Bloc and other members to get the support to pass that legislation. We have other priority legislation. The government, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister continue to work on developing a detailed budget that will be presented in the fall. As I indicated, Brian Mulroney took 300 days to present a budget, Stephen Harper took months to present one, and the Conservative leader, Pierre Poilievre, said it would not happen in the first 100 days.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North was talking about the number six; I am sure he was talking about Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre's record when he was a minister of housing and only six houses were built. In my constituency, even a small builder builds more than six houses a year.

My question is for the hon. member. He talked about the $4-billion accelerator fund. Is it important that some of the Conservative members were also asking for that money?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I had indicated, Pierre Poilievre was in fact the minister of housing under Stephen Harper. At the time, housing just was not even on their radar. In fact, while he was minister of housing, it has been reported that he actually built six houses. I have no idea where those six houses are, but I am told that he did actually build six houses, not him personally, but the Harper government did.

Ironically, my colleague and friend pointed out something else. We have the accelerator fund, and we have Liberals, the Bloc and New Democrats getting behind the accelerator fund. Publicly, the Conservatives say it is a bad idea, but privately they have been writing letters, asking for their communities to have access to that fund too.

I will let the people determine to what degree the Conservatives really understand, or have any commitment towards, housing.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to be confused. He does not appear to know the difference between a ways and means motion and a budget.

There are Canadians across this country, young people, who are seeing a very bleak future for themselves. They cannot afford to buy a home in the community in which they are born. Seniors cannot afford to eat the same way they were eating just three years ago. Yet the Liberal government is refusing to present a budget. It wants a blank cheque of some $500 billion, half a trillion dollars, to spend six months' worth of that money, and to come back sometime in the fall and say, “We have already spent half of this money. Here is a budget now.” No Canadian would believe this is serious government.

My question to the member opposite is this: Why does he not stand up to his boss, the Prime Minister, and say, “Present a budget now before the House breaks for the summer”?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the member for voting for the ways and means motion, along with his colleagues, last week. I suspect he knew what he was voting on, because there are a lot of estimates documents and so forth out there, literally hundreds of pages that talk about expenditures. I am sure the member likely read through those documents before he voted, which means, given that he voted for the ways and means, that he is very supportive of what the government is spending money on.

There will be a budget in due course, just like with Stephen Harper, just like with Brian Mulroney, and who knows how long it would have taken Pierre Poilievre, because he did not give any indication. All we knew was that it would not be within the first 100 days.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the start of this debate and since the start of the session, it is as though I have been listening to some pie‑in‑the‑sky promoters of a start‑up focused on nation building and on building the one and only Canadian economy.

I would like to know specifically when and how the initiatives to help businesses and workers will be implemented and how the budget will be balanced in three years. The member said that he has a plan, so let us hear it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the number one priority is Canada's workforce and how we are going to not only maintain our many different industries that are so vitally important to the lifestyles we currently have, but look at ways in which we can expand them.

There are many industries that I like to think Quebec and Manitoba share in common, like our aerospace industries. There is a great deal of concern in terms of what is being said down south. I believe we have a grouping of ministerial cabinet positions who are there virtually on a daily basis working on that file, and I look forward to seeing some positive results. I think all of us should be working to build one Canadian economy that benefits every Canadian.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our colleague spoke truly about the six affordable homes that Pierre Poilievre built during his entire mandate. However, he did not mention the fact that Pierre Poilievre is against social housing because he says it promotes Soviet-style living. What does the hon. member think about that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is true. That is what Pierre Poilievre actually says. I found it amazing, as he talked about the accelerator program, amongst other things, yet we had progressive Conservatives who were looking to the government trying to get access to that program. A certain percentage, a dozen or 18, I am not too sure of the hard number, liked the program to the degree that they were advocating for it within their own constituencies.

We all know Pierre Poilievre is not a friend to non-profit housing. It has been clearly demonstrated, and he has talked about how he sees it with that whole communist type of conspiracy.