House of Commons Hansard #151 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was procurement.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Criminal Code First reading of Bill C-293. The bill creates a stand-alone offence for violent home invasions, with a maximum life sentence, a five-year mandatory minimum, reverse onus for bail, and DNA orders upon conviction. 200 words.
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities Members debate a committee report on youth employment, citing rising unemployment and barriers to first jobs, training, housing, and seasonal work. Conservatives call for lower taxes and red tape, labour-market-aligned immigration and training, workforce housing, and EI reform; Liberals highlight job growth and Red Seal training, while the Bloc emphasizes gaps in EI coverage. 5200 words, 40 minutes.
Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act Second reading of Bill C-40. The bill would establish the Defence Investment Agency as a Crown corporation with expanded authority to coordinate defence procurement, production and investment, aiming to deliver military capabilities faster and strengthen Canadian industry. It would also broaden the Defence Production Act to cover national security. Supporters say the corporation retains ministerial and parliamentary oversight; critics warn its powers could weaken transparency, competition and accountability. 39000 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Alleged Premature Disclosure of Bill C-40 Kevin Lamoureux argues that an investigation found no evidence Bill C-40 was disclosed before its introduction. He says public discussion of making the Defence Investment Agency a Crown corporation and appointing a procurement minister made the proposal foreseeable, and asks the Speaker to reject the opposition’s privilege complaint. 2600 words.
Freedom of Speech in Members' Parliamentary Work Members hear a Conservative question of privilege arguing that an Ontario medical regulator’s investigation of a Liberal MP over a supplementary opinion in a parliamentary committee report may infringe parliamentary freedom of speech. The member asks the Speaker to find a prima facie breach and refer the matter to committee for study. The Liberal parliamentary secretary reserves a response. 2600 words, 15 minutes.
Canada Revenue Agency Act Second reading of Bill S-217. The bill requires the Canada Revenue Agency to report tax-evasion convictions and publish regular tax-gap statistics, while sharing data with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Supporters across opposition parties say the measures would strengthen transparency and parliamentary oversight; Liberal concerns focus on existing reporting and protecting confidential tax information. The House passes the bill at second reading and refers it to the Standing Committee on Finance. 5700 words, 40 minutes.
Canadian Fuel Affordability Act Report stage of Bill C-38. The bill extends the suspension of federal fuel excise taxes on gasoline and diesel through January 31, 2027, then restores half the tax in February and March before reinstating it fully on April 1. Liberals describe the temporary relief as support for affordability amid global fuel-price pressures. Conservatives support the extension but call for broader, longer-lasting tax cuts, while the Bloc questions whether the savings reach consumers and whether the measure is well-targeted. The bill passes. 48300 words, 6 hours.
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, the affordability crisis is there. I hear about it constantly from my constituents in London—Fanshawe. This crisis is also affecting Canadians as a whole. Therefore, with regard to Bill C-38 and removing taxes on diesel, it would be the first step in dealing with this affordability crisis that is taking place right now.
Jonathan Rowe Conservative The Eastern Peninsulas, NL
Mr. Speaker, oftentimes I hear people across the country, especially Liberals across the aisle, say that these high oil prices are because of Donald Trump and wars around the world. Would the hon. Conservative member like to talk about these issues and what our policies are on them?
Bill C-38 Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders
October 20th, 2026 / 11:15 p.m.
Conservative
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, obviously, we cannot control the events happening overseas with regard to fluctuations in the price of diesel, gas or oil in the world economy, but with the measures that I mentioned in my speech, if we proactively planned for the fluctuation of prices or, again, prices going up, and also removed the taxes on diesel, it would help Canadians, especially my constituents in London—Fanshawe, with this affordability crisis.
Jonathan Rowe Conservative The Eastern Peninsulas, NL
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise here tonight on behalf of the hard-working people of The Eastern Peninsulas and Newfoundland and Labrador to speak to this bill, Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. When I heard the Liberal government was bringing forward legislation to extend the suspension of federal fuel taxes, I was surprised. I was pleasantly surprised, but surprised.
Conservatives have been telling the government that Canadians cannot afford to keep paying more just to get to work, just to put food on the table and just to support their families, but the Liberals refuse to admit there is a problem. Even today, the Liberals voted against our motion to recognize that Canada is in an affordability crisis. Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister got up in the House, looked in the camera and told Canadians that affordability is the best it has been in over a decade. Who believes that?
The Liberals always refuse to admit there is a problem until we Conservatives use common sense to pressure them into doing something that is right. First, it was the carbon tax. The Prime Minister was advising Justin Trudeau when they kept adding more and more carbon tax, trying to get it to raise the pump price by 45¢ a litre. This was making Canadians less and less competitive in the business world and driving up the costs for everyday Canadians on everyday items. It was not until they needed a Hail Mary to save their skin in the 2025 election that they finally caved and did the right thing and reduced the carbon tax to zero, admitting that the Conservatives were right all along.
We also saw this with housing. The Liberals refused to do the right thing and take taxes off new homes until they needed that little boost in the polls. Months after saying it would not help, they copied our idea, once again admitting we were right. What if people did not vote for such a strong Conservative Party and strong Conservative leader? We are one of the most successful opposition parties in Canadian history, driving taxation reduction from the backbenches. Once again, the Liberals finally recognized that reducing the taxes, specifically fuel taxes, can provide much-needed relief. I am glad they are listening to us again.
Unfortunately, as they always do, they take our idea, but they never do it right. This bill just does not go far enough. This bill would extend the suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel until January 31, 2027. That is great. That is 10¢ off a litre on gasoline and four cents off diesel. They can bring it on. On February 1, though, the government plans to bring half those taxes back, and on April 1, the full tax returns. What do the members opposite think will happen between January and April? Do they think groceries will suddenly become more affordable? Do they think seniors will have enough money to stop worrying about their next heating bill? Do the Liberals have some kind of magic eight ball that tells them fuel prices are going to be reduced by April?
Why does this bill not simply have an escalator clause that says a certain amount of tax goes on when the fuel drops by this amount, and a little bit more tax goes on when the fuel drops even more? I think the answer is pretty clear. The Liberals want to waste time and public dollars to come here and talk about, once again, a problem they created. It is like they are a broken record or an excited parrot that wants to say the same things over and over without any real change.
I come from a province where driving is not a luxury. It is a necessity. In my riding, we have communities spanning hundreds of kilometres. In just one week of travelling in my riding, I put 3,000 kilometres on my truck. We have construction workers, truck drivers and families who depend on their vehicles every day. We do not have a subway system, trains or buses connecting our communities, so people see their fuel costs directly.
When someone needs to see a medical specialist, they might have to drive several hours. Members can imagine being a senior on a fixed income, trying to decide whether they can afford gas to go to a medical appointment, put food on the table or heat their home. We can imagine a young family with two children, both parents working, having to drive 40 kilometres in two different directions, now struggling to pay their grocery bill and to pay for heat. These are the realities facing people in Newfoundland and Labrador.
I have spent much of my working life in industries that kept the province moving. I have worked in construction, mining and the oil and gas industry. I know first-hand how important affordable energy is. When fuel prices increase, it does not just affect someone filling up their pickup truck. It affects the contractor operating the equipment, the trucking company delivering the materials and every small business depending on deliveries. These costs do not simply disappear. They get passed along through the economy, and Canadians end up paying more for the goods and services they depend on.
Just the other day a taxi owner called me, frustrated and discouraged. He explained to me how the price of fuel is killing his business, and he said he cannot pass the price on to the consumer, because the people, often seniors and struggling families, who use his service just do not have any more money to spend.
Construction is another major employer in my riding, but every excavator, loader and other piece of heavy equipment needs fuel. When operating costs increase, projects become more expensive. Sometimes the consumer pays more, sometimes the business makes less and sometimes the project just does not go ahead at all. This means fewer jobs and opportunities for the people who depend on these industries. Fuel affordability is not just about saving a few dollars at the pump. It is also about keeping our industries competitive and protecting Canadian livelihoods.
I have spoken in the House before about the enormous industrial potential sitting idle in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have shipyards, construction facilities and mining operations, but businesses need affordable energy, reasonable regulations and an environment that encourages investment. That is why Conservatives continue to call for the elimination of the industrial carbon tax and of policies that we believe are making Canada less competitive.
Conservatives have been calling for fuel tax relief for some time. We brought forward proposals in April and May, calling on the government to provide relief at the pumps, but the Liberals voted against them. Now we are debating a government bill that expands the very kind of ideas the Conservatives proposed. I guess it is better late than never, but Canadians could have had this help earlier.
The Liberal government tells us that global events are responsible for many of the pressures on fuel prices. There is no question that there is some truth to that. We cannot control what happens in every country in this world, but we can control what decisions are made in Ottawa. Fuel is more than 30¢ a litre more expensive in Canada than in the U.S. This is because of additional taxes that we as Canadians control.
I will finish with this one for the Liberal government: If reducing fuel taxes is the right thing to do for Canadians today, why is increasing those same taxes the right thing to do in February and April? Our construction contractors will still need fuel for their equipment. Our families will still need to bring their kids to hockey tournaments. Canadians deserve more than a temporary break. They deserve an affordable economy, affordable energy, good-paying jobs and a government that puts their livelihoods first. That is what Conservatives will fight for. That is what I will fight for.
Jennifer McKelvie LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague and congratulating him for being in the greatest opposition party in Canadian history. I will say that I wish him a very long career in that regard: lots of longevity and many years in that position.
My question for the member is this: How does he explain to his residents and to all Canadians why the Conservatives voted against introducing the Canadian groceries and essentials benefit, cutting taxes for the middle class, eliminating the goods and services tax, cancelling the federal consumer tax, making the national food school program permanent, introducing automatic federal benefits, expanding the Canada child benefit, the dental plan, the tax-free home savings account and the Canada disability benefit? There are many different affordability measures that our government is implementing, but the member continues to vote against. I wonder if he can explain that to his residents and to all Canadians.
Jonathan Rowe Conservative The Eastern Peninsulas, NL
Mr. Speaker, they are great ideas and great proposals. A lot of them seem like our ideas, but the devil is in the details. Let us talk about the school lunch program. It is a great program that feeds kids, but out of 64 schools in my riding, four get lunches. Where is the fairness in that?
Kurt Holman Conservative London—Fanshawe, ON
Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is this. Earlier today the Conservatives put forward a motion with regard to the affordability crisis. Unfortunately the Liberals voted it down and did not confirm the affordability crisis here in Canada. I wonder if my colleague could expand on what his constituents are telling him with regard to the affordability crisis and how it is affecting his riding.
Jonathan Rowe Conservative The Eastern Peninsulas, NL
Mr. Speaker, I think everyone knows that admission is the first step to recovery. I think that in order for the economy to recover and for things to be affordable, we need to realize it, to come to Parliament, put on our big-boy pants and recognize that we are in an affordability crisis and that we need to bring in measures that provide real relief to all Canadians, not just to the select few schools we choose in the right ridings that have red jerseys.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, this morning, we tried to move a motion and have a debate in the House on the ongoing youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment is at 13%. We actually have the lowest workforce participation in this country in 29 years. As a share of the population, we have the lowest number of people in the workforce. These are concerning numbers that affect people in my region and that I know affect people in Newfoundland and Labrador as well. While we were trying to have that debate, during the first speaking slot the Liberals had, they moved to shut down and end that discussion about what had been an all-party report of the human resources committee, with some really positive constructive proposals on how we could move forward.
I wonder if the member could share what he is hearing in terms of the challenge of unemployment and youth unemployment within his riding and in his region and what he thinks motivated the Liberals to shut down a positive debate on some common-sense solutions that came out of the human resources committee.
Jonathan Rowe Conservative The Eastern Peninsulas, NL
Mr. Speaker, youth unemployment is skyrocketing right now. When I was in high school, not very long ago, if someone wanted a job, they went down to McDonald's with their resume and were given a job on the spot. As long as someone showed up for work and did a good job, they could work. Kids are coming up to me, almost in tears, saying that they applied to 130 places and put out hundreds of resumes, but they cannot get a job anywhere.
This is a problem. This is a huge problem. I worked in a gold mine. People would go to college to be a heavy equipment operator, and the first job they would get was in a small gold mine. They would get experience, and they would then go out to launch their career. The issue was that this gold mine closed down at the time because fuel prices went too high.
This fuel crisis is killing our economy and taking jobs away from our young people, and we need to do something about it, permanently.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House tonight, as always. I was noting some of the commentary online today as I posted some of my fierce criticisms of the government over its failures on jobs and other things. People were saying, “How come yesterday you were campaigning to keep Alberta in Canada, and today you are criticizing the government?” I said that that is exactly the job, to fight for the country and also to fight for a better country by challenging the government. That is what it means to be the loyal opposition. Out of the mouths of Liberals here, the member was saying, “the greatest opposition of all time.”
The bill before the House, Bill C-38, deals with affordability. As I get into talking about this bill, I want to share with members that we recently marked an important milestone for my extended family. We were celebrating 60 years since my father-in-law immigrated to Canada from Pakistan. It has been a pleasure getting to know him since I joined the family 15 years or so ago. He has been a great success here in Canada, starting a business that employs many Canadians of all backgrounds, raising three beautiful daughters and, of course, having three exceptional sons-in-law.
I remember him sharing with us those early years as he was getting started out in business. He started a business while he was still working at another job. He had a car phone, which for those who do not know is a corded phone that was attached to the car. It is not a cell phone. I was telling my daughter recently that we did not have Skype when I was growing up. She said, “Did everyone just FaceTime then?” Technological reference points change.
He would share with us how he would use every opportunity to make calls to prospective clients from his car phone as he was trying to juggle the responsibilities of starting a business and also continuing with his job. This is sort of part of the “getting ahead” lore. For many families it is the “immigration lore” people heard from parents or grandparents, maybe about how they came to Canada with almost no money, and how they strove and struggled, and were able to get ahead and provide a better life for themselves and their families.
These are great stories that are the foundation of what our country has become. It is people coming and being welcomed from every part of the world, often with very little, and being able to build, create and ultimately contribute to the communities they are a part of. I remember hearing some of these stories from my grandparents. My paternal grandfather, for example, would tell us about how he arrived at the train station in Toronto. He got a job working for the rail lines before he left the train station, and he worked that same job until he retired. He told us the story about how he bought his first car. He had come from the little island of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea right after the Second World War. Malta had been heavily bombed by the Germans during the Second World War. When he came to Canada, he was buying a used car from a fellow who happened to be a former member of the German Air Force. He used his experience as a tool to try to negotiate down the price of the car. That was his way of trying to get ahead financially every moment that he could.
These are the stories of newcomers, of people from different backgrounds and different places who struggle to get ahead and to build this country. These are great stories that are part of my family and I am sure are part of the family experiences of many members in this House.
It occurs to me, thinking about this sort of connection between economic vitality and opportunity, and also about the struggles that people from different backgrounds have had to get ahead, that there is this connection between economic opportunity and also social cohesion and integration. When we are a society in which people can get ahead, in which people even those starting from very limited backgrounds can nonetheless create and build and become very successful, then we are a kind of society of greater hope and optimism where people say, “Yes, regardless of where I come from, I can get ahead. I can prevail and succeed in the face of various challenges.”
This is what our country has been and this is what our country could be again. It is a place where economic opportunity being widely available is a source of not only shared prosperity, but also shared goodwill and social cohesion, where we do not feel that we have to, in a negative way, compete with each other and pull each other down to get ahead, but rather where every person, through their own ingenuity, creativity and struggle from whatever point they start, can build, create and deliver opportunity, especially for the next generation. That is very much what this country has been and the hope of what this country can be.
However, we are living through a time where, because of government policy, red tape, regulation and burdensome costs that make it so much harder to start and grow a business and get ahead, people feel much more stuck in the context of their present circumstances. Those who already own their home and have certain assets or positions obviously hope to maintain those positions, but those who do not own a home or do not currently have a position involving opportunity are less optimistic about their ability to ever attain that greater position. Whereas at one time the combination of economic vitality and a baseline of social programs made Canada a very dynamic opportunity society in which anyone from anywhere had the hope of being able to do anything, we are now a society in which people feel much more stuck.
This is especially evident when talking to young people. Since taking on the role of Conservative shadow minister for employment, I have been meeting with young people across the country. I have been on various university campuses, in six different provinces now, asking young people the simple question of whether they think they are better or worse off than their parents' generation and to tell me why. Many young people feel they are worse off, feel stuck in their circumstances or situation and in particular struggle with the prospect of ever attaining the career they want that would provide them with the income necessary to afford a home where they live. These basic things of having a good job and a home people can afford, which were the presumed baseline at one point in time, are now things that young people increasingly perceive as being out of reach. This leaves them with a sense of being stuck. For these young people, getting to the critical starting points of having a home and a job is part of the road toward being able to start and establish a family, have children and meet the family goals they have.
The statistics show objectively that there is a major gap between the number of children people tell pollsters they want to have and the number of children people are actually having. This is not me making objective claims about what is desirable or not in terms of family size or structure. It is simply looking at what people say they want in terms of their own sought-out family goals and what people are realizing in their own lives. There is a big gap between desire and outcome, and I think part of it is because it is so much more difficult now for people to start out in life. It is so much more difficult to start a family, own a home and get to a secure position in a career where a person perhaps feels ready to take these steps that many people are delaying and delaying these starting points in life and are thus not able to achieve the kinds of family goals they had hoped for.
That is a real tragedy, individually, when people have these hoped-for goals for their families that they are not able to realize. It does have broader social implications for the young people that we have, the opportunities they have and what we are seeing in the next generation and their ability to provide for and be part of a shared community with older relatives.
These issues of young people and of people of all ages feeling stuck and not being able to achieve their goals, being limited by a lack of economic opportunity and vitality, the issues we are seeing right now, have real implications economically. They also have implications socially.
We need to do the work to again establish the kind of society where people do not feel stuck, where they have hope about the opportunities that they can achieve, where they are able to, early on, get a job, afford a home and access a career, where somebody, whether they have been in the country for 50 years or for five minutes, can use their ingenuity, their creativity and whatever limited start-up capital they have to start a business, to make a go of a new idea and to build something new.
We need to appreciate again the basic and critical insight of Adam Smith, which is that wealth is expandable, infinite and something that is not simply found and distributed but created. It is created under conditions where individuals can create and see the rewards of that creation. We have limitless potential as a society, not only because of our bountiful resources but also because of the ingenuity of our people, if we were only to have the policies in place that allow for that unleashing of opportunity.
Today, Conservatives moved to have debate on the 10th report of the human resources committee. Part of that report is recognizing the link between restrictions on business growth through red tape and high taxation and the implications that this has for youth unemployment. We put forward a number of recommendations in that report that had the unanimous support of the committee and that were oriented toward addressing these taxation and regulatory barriers so that we can unleash opportunity, recognizing the implications that this would have for youth employment. We had many constructive and very specific proposals in that report.
It is a shame that we did not have an opportunity to conclude debate on that today, but we will continue to be relentless in highlighting these issues of opportunity for Canadians, of again trying to build up an opportunity society, where people who are younger or older, people who are new Canadians and people who have been here for a very long time, can see that, regardless of where they come from, regardless of what their starting points are, they can have opportunities because of what the country is and what the country offers.
The bill before the House deals with what, on the face of it, might seem like a purely mechanical and mercantile issue, the issue of fuel prices. Fuel prices have much wider economic implications in what they can unlock or block for the creation and development of new businesses. So much economic activity in a country this vast obviously requires things to be able to move around. If we are going to make a go of a new idea, if we are going to try to bring something to market, if we are going to try to seize and create new opportunities, there is a very good chance that it is going to involve bringing something from somewhere to somewhere else.
The constraints that are imposed by unreasonably high fuel prices make it difficult for new entrepreneurs to start and grow a business. They make it difficult for people who are starting out, especially, to be able to see it as realistic, to put the capital needed into getting something new going. It makes it especially hard for that independent operator who is reliant on reasonable fuel prices in order to be able to move their product as required or to be able to work on their farm. Whatever the case may be, we are all deeply affected by fuel prices.
Fuel prices also impact our ability to interact with each other. They impact choices people are able to make in terms of visiting friends and family and maintaining and strengthening communities. Again, there are so many things about social cohesion, as well as economic vitality, that are impacted by our ability to get from place to place and to move things from place to place. This is why we have chosen to really focus, as part of this affordability issue, on the fuel price issue and the ripple effects that go out from it.
It was Conservatives who put forward the proposal to pause the fuel taxes that are imposed on all Canadians. The government kind of went partway in response to our proposal, but it has not gone far enough in terms of offering the relief that we have suggested and that Canadians really need right now. We can see the role of this historically effective opposition in winning these debates and getting the government to incrementally take some steps, but we can also recognize the need to do much more.
While we hear some piecemeal parroting of the rhetoric from the opposition, we have yet to see the full implementation of the agenda we have put forward, which is really about restoring prosperity and opportunity for this country and recognizing how, in the absence of opportunity, when people feel more constrained, more stuck and less able to get ahead, there is also more social conflict.
When people perceive that it is more difficult, or even impossible, to create their own wealth, there is intensifying conflict and competition over scarce resources. We are inserted into a Malthusian world of competition for limited resources, rather than being what we could be: a country of limitless potential and opportunity where there is a greater sense of cohesion and optimism flowing from the reality that a person's own ideas and own ingenuity can be put to work to build and create beautiful things.
This is what we want: a society of hope and opportunity where people can get a job, afford a home, start a family, start a business, move goods around and visit family members, without the kinds of constraints that have grown up over the last 11 years as a result of policy choices made by the current government to intentionally make fuel more expensive and to intentionally block resource development and export. The effect of these policies has been to create more social division because of greater constraints on wealth creation. We can do better. We must do better.
Even if there has been some shift in the rhetoric from the government, here is where we are in substance. We are today at a point, according to the latest job numbers, where youth unemployment is at 13% and overall unemployment is up to 6.5%. The job finding rate is around 30%, substantially down from the prepandemic averages. We are at an almost 30-year low in terms of workforce participation. Fewer Canadians are in the labour force as a proportion of the overall population than at almost any time in the last 30 years. This underlines how the results just are not there from the government.
There have been some improvements in rhetoric compared to where things were under the Trudeau government. The Liberals are saying some of the same things we are saying, but the results and the action have not been there. That is why it is so important to have more of the changes that are being advocated from this side of the House, so we can become a more cohesive, opportunity-oriented society once again. This is my hope for this country and for Parliament. We will keep putting forward positive, constructive solutions towards that end, towards that goal of a cohesive, opportunity-oriented and free society.
Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba Liberal Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the fine speech my colleague delivered. As for us, we are putting forward specific measures. I would like to know what measures he is proposing to help our businesses remain competitive and to help keep prices affordable for families and consumers across the country.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, what measures would we propose? There are a lot that I could list, but I think the simplest thing to do would be to reference the report that I highlighted in my speech and that we tried to get the House to adopt this morning.
The 10th report of the human resources committee has close to 20 recommendations that provide specific, concrete proposals, many of which came from Conservatives but were endorsed by all parties, for unleashing the economy, for fixing some of the issues in the immigration system, for unleashing training Canadian young people for Canadian jobs so they have the opportunity to get ahead, and for how exactly to promote home construction near where jobs are. These are solutions that we put forward in our Conservative youth jobs plan and our economic action plan.
Just to give one example, we proposed in the last election to have no capital gains tax for dollars that were immediately reinvested in Canada. Proposals like that to promote significant reinvestment in Canada are part of the large number of solutions we have put forward at different times.
I would encourage the member to read the 10th report of the human resources committee. I hope we will be able to come back to it, because it contains the critical solutions we need for addressing youth unemployment.
Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, as he is doing fantastic work within his riding of Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, across the region and across the country. He is advocating for youth and youth employment.
Many of my peers and I can relate to many of the same consequences that Liberal governments have put forward. Recently, many of my peers reached out to me during the Abbotsford-to-Vancouver convoy in the Lower Mainland of Vancouver, which was a rally against high diesel prices and against the fuel excise tax in general.
Youth are struggling in general. Youth are struggling across the nation, and they want results, especially because they are even struggling to work in blue-collar jobs.
I would like to know what the hon. member will be bringing to the table from our Conservative Party. I would also like to know what he has to say in opposition to the members across the aisle, who have brought minimal relief instead of full relief for Canadians.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure working with my colleague and friend.
Early on, in taking on the role as Conservative shadow minister for jobs, I spent some time in the member's region, and he was a great host. He brought my kids to their first ever kabaddi game. We also met with various employers and understood the challenges.
In particular, in his region, home prices are a significant barrier for young people. It is challenging everywhere, but especially in that region, where young people are trying to establish themselves and get ahead. Also, there are transportation challenges in terms of finding a job and being able to live near or get to where the work is. These are huge challenges that exist in his region, and I want to thank him for helping me and other colleagues understand those challenges.
We released positive, constructive proposals around unleashing home construction and getting the cost of government out of home construction so that young people can afford homes, around opportunities for jobs and around improving training to align training with the jobs that exist. There is a lot we can do. There is a lot we have already proposed.
I want to thank the member for his advocacy specifically for his riding and his region.
Vince Gasparro LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)
Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member be supporting this legislation, which would lower prices at the pump, or will he continue to obstruct and delay it?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, there is no obstruction and, respectfully, I think the member should have a conversation with his own House leader about the process that is happening here. The agreement has already been established in terms of the processes around this legislation. It is designed to give members an opportunity to debate and share their perspectives and also to allow the legislation to move forward in a timely way. I assume the House of Commons offers resources in terms of some of the procedural mechanisms that exist if members want to avail themselves of some of that information, but again, I am sure his House leader would be available to explain that.
We are supportive of the changes in this legislation. We wish they would go further, of course, as we have said repeatedly.
Sukhman Gill Conservative Abbotsford—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have a very reasonable question for the member. Many members from Abbotsford had to convoy all the way to Vancouver during this last couple of weeks. They had to make sure they raised awareness of the government in power about high diesel prices. Diesel prices have become very extraordinary for our community in the Lower Mainland as people go day to day filling up their tanks and making sure they can try to provide for their families. They sometimes fail on making the mark. I know this goes for people across the Lower Mainland and across our nation.
I know this affects people in my Conservative colleague's area as well, so I would like to understand what the effects are in my colleague's area.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing the effects of these high prices in every part of the country, including in my riding, my region, in Abbotsford and the Lower Mainland more broadly. Diesel prices are very consequential for all kinds of different businesses for the goods that all Canadians use, because we are a vast country. We need to be able to move things around.
It is so much more difficult to do almost anything in this country when we have government policy decisions as well as failures to act that are making it more expensive to do that essential work of moving things around in this big country.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague mentioned the importance of helping our young people access the labour market.
However, just last year, at budget time, he voted against increasing funding for Canada summer jobs. He voted against investing over $600 million in the student work placement program, which provides over 55,000 learning opportunities for young people across the country, and he voted against the $300 million we invested in the youth employment and skills strategy.
If this is so important to him, why did he vote against these investments, which address several of the concerns he mentioned in his speech?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, respectfully, this is the same general silliness as when a member tries to suggest that by voting against the budget, because someone does not agree with the government's budgetary policy, they are somehow necessarily opposed to every single part of the budget. Obviously, that is not the case. In any Parliament, opposition members typically will oppose the budget if they do not agree with the general direction of it, but they still are glad that parts of the budget exist.
I would not presume, for instance, that if a member voted against the budget, they are opposed to the existence of a military or a health care system simply because those things are funded through the budget. That is unreasonable and cheap and silly. We have called for improvements to the Canada summer jobs program to address some of the failures in terms of government action. We have called for various improvements to these youth unemployment programs, some of which could be better targeted and more effective. I am proud of that work. That work is clearly on the record.
Again, if the member and his colleagues had allowed debate on the 10th report of the human resources committee this morning, I think we would have been able to elucidate some of these important solutions.
Bill C-38 Canadian Fuel Affordability ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec
There being no further members wishing to speak, pursuant to order made on Monday, September 21, Bill C-38, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act regarding the extension of the federal fuel excise tax relief, is deemed read a third time and passed on division.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on the subject of the unemployment crisis, and in particular to speak about the implications of EI premiums for employment.
It is my view and the view of our party in general that payroll taxes are among the worst kinds of taxes. This is because payroll taxes create a greater cost and a disincentive around employment. While all kinds of taxes can have negative effects in terms of economic activity, payroll taxes are among the worst because they are not based on the profits that a company is earning or based on the overall income of an individual. They are targeted at employment specifically.
When we have payroll taxes, the cost falls most heavily on those who are employing others. Let us imagine that we have two businesses of equal size and equal profit, but one is employing twice as many people as the other. The company that is employing more people will be on the hook for more payroll taxes. One of the key action items we are hearing from small businesses that will help them be part of the solution to youth unemployment is simply to reduce the cost of hiring.
There was a great report done recently by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It looked at how we can address youth unemployment and looked at some of the disconnect that has existed between employers and young people. The report highlighted that many small businesses say that a lot of the programs that are designed to promote, through programmatic or subsidy means, the hiring of youth can be complicated and difficult to use. They would like to see simple measures aimed at reducing the costs of hiring young people. One way the government can act to reduce the costs of hiring young people and reduce the costs of hiring in general is to address the relatively high payroll taxes that businesses and individuals have to pay on top of employment.
In that context, therefore, Conservatives have been calling on the government to commit to not increasing EI premiums. Unfortunately, what we saw in the last budget, which goes to the question that I am following up on, were proposals for changes to EI that were associated with increases to premiums going forward. We pointed out and will continue to point out that increasing EI premiums creates the conditions in which it becomes even harder to employ young people and people of all ages. We will continue to highlight the negative impacts of payroll tax increases and encourage the government not to pursue policies that increase payroll taxes.
I am here tonight to ask the parliamentary secretary again if the government is prepared to commit to not increasing payroll taxes and to addressing the implications of payroll taxes for unemployment.
Maggie Chi LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to extend my deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of the four Canadian Armed Forces members who lost their lives at CFB Wainwright, and I wish a speedy recovery to the injured soldiers. We mourn with them, and Canadians across the country stand with them.
In an increasingly fragmented and uncertain world, our government is focused on what we can control, which is maintaining fiscal sustainability while making targeted high-impact investments in Canadians and the economy. Responsible leadership means investing in a brighter future while protecting Canada's fiscal strength, the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, a sound fiscal position and a clear path to long-term sustainability. By investing strategically and responsibly today, we are positioning Canadians to benefit from a stronger tomorrow. At the same time, our fiscally disciplined approach is helping to lower everyday costs for Canadians.
Budget 2025 marked a tactical shift in the government's management of public finances. Our plan is focused on expanding federal capital spending to mobilize investment while maintaining fiscal discipline. Our plan is built upon a bedrock of fiscal responsibility to create the capacity to invest in long-term economic strength and gain self-reliance. Consistent with this approach, decisions in the spring economic update 2026 were also guided by the government's two fiscal anchors: balancing operating spending with revenues by 2028-29 and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio.
Our plan is working.
As recently announced by the Prime Minister, the government is on track to balance the operating budget one year ahead of schedule in 2027-28. We are committed to the disciplined implementation of the efficiency measures in budget 2025. This includes the comprehensive expenditure review, which together with other measures identified in budget 2025, will achieve $60 billion in savings and revenues over five years. The comprehensive expenditure review is also returning the size of the public service to a more sustainable level through early retirement incentives, workforce adjustment and attrition.
With implementation well under way, the focus is now turning toward targeted ongoing horizontal reviews, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services. These challenging but necessary actions will continue to support our objective of spending less to invest more in Canadians.
In budget 2025, we also outlined our new approach to budgets through the capital budgeting framework. This framework has distinguished day-to-day operational spending from long-term investment that strengthens our economy. Importantly, the framework is designed to enhance existing financial reporting. Our government has also changed the budgetary cycle to fall budgets, supporting better planning for provinces and territories, municipalities, builders and investors, and aligning with the construction season.
Canada's economic growth is accelerating, and we are projected to have the second fastest rate in the G7 this year and next. We have reinforced the strongest fiscal position in the G7 by cutting direct program spending growth from over 8% to less than 2% while boosting our vital social programs. We reduced Canada's projected deficit for 2025-26 by more than $11 billion relative to budget 2025. We are deploying this fiscal uplift to improve affordability and help Canadians get ahead through targeted and responsible policy measures, particularly in the areas of fuel, food and housing affordability.