Debates of Oct. 20th, 2026

Finance

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing tonight the government's lack of respect for Parliament. What we are supposed to be having is Adjournment Proceedings, where the government follows up on a question that was asked in question period. My question was very specifically about payroll taxes. I asked, “Why are the Liberals paying for their costly credit card budget with further tax increases on jobs?” Instead, the government sent the parliamentary secretary for health, which is not related to finance or employment, which was the topic of the question asked, and the parliamentary secretary for health, a different file, read out a written response that had absolutely nothing to do with the question.

The question was not a request for a generic statement of the government's position on the budget. It was specifically about payroll taxes and why the government was paying for its proposed measures with further planned increases to the tax on jobs. That was the question. This is what is supposed to happen in this segment of parliamentary life. Can we get an actual answer?

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

Mr. Speaker, our plan is clear and disciplined. We are focused on what we can control, which is maintaining fiscal sustainability and making targeted high-impact investments for Canadians. That means reducing the operating deficit, upholding our fiscal anchors and ensuring every dollar supports growth, resilience and Canadians getting ahead.

If the member were interested in hearing an answer, he would be in the House to hear it, but he has left the House—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will interrupt the member. I know it is a late hour, or actually the morning now, but a member cannot make reference to the presence or absence of a member.

I will let the parliamentary secretary finish, but the parliamentary secretary cannot make that reference again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize, and thanks for overseeing the adjournment debate.

Health

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it now being, as you just mentioned a moment ago, the morning of October 21, I am speaking in Adjournment Proceedings at 12:12 a.m. on a subject that I raised in question period on June 9 of this year. It is related to what was being put forward and has now had royal assent, Bill C-30, which was the omnibus bill related to the implementation of the spring economic statement.

I will state one concern up front, which is that the measure I will discuss now with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health was not in any way telegraphed in the spring economic statement. If we are going to have an implementation act and it is an omnibus bill, it is justified in our parliamentary rules if the laws being changed in the spring economic statement omnibus bill have actually been announced, or at least suggested in clear terms, in the budget itself.

There was one throwaway line in the spring economic statement about how the government should revise, potentially, the Pest Control Products Act to take into account food costs and food security. It was a shock to find in Bill C-30, which I read when it was tabled on April 29, that it was putting remarkable, unprecedented new powers in the hands of cabinet to overturn decisions made by the Minister of Health or by the Pest Management Regulatory Agency.

This is quite astonishing. The bill had only three hours of debate before debate closure measures were put in place, and because it was an omnibus budget bill, not one single witness came to committee. Of course, the committee to study it was not the Standing Committee on Health or the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, but the Standing Committee on Finance. No witnesses came forward to that committee, which was the inappropriate committee in any case, about how doctors, medical experts and pesticide regulators would take this information. By that point, it was pushed through clause-by-clause, but again, no witnesses appeared before the finance committee.

The crux of what was done in Bill C-30 led to my question on June 9. I asked why this was happening. Why was there a massive rollback in the Pest Management Regulatory Agency such that a substance considered too dangerous for use by experts based on scientific review could be overturned based on the political discretion of cabinet? I did not get an answer that day, and now we have a second omnibus budget bill in Bill C-31, which is now before this place. It again opens up the Pest Control Products Act for what are now being called the “silent spring” amendments to further weaken our regulation of dangerous substances.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has long been a powerful voice for the environment. I have immense respect for her.

First and foremost, I want to reassure her that the health and safety of Canadians will always be our top concern, and nothing that was in Bill C-30 takes away from the fact that the minister's top concern in making economic security and food security orders is always going to be preventing unacceptable risks to human health and to the environment. However, I think it is worth looking more broadly at what these changes do.

The bill comes at a time when economic and food security are major concerns for all of us, not just because of the United States' action towards Canada, but also because of how climate change is impacting farmers and crops across the country and around the world. This is why our changes would be so important. For the first time, we would be asking that when Health Canada makes decisions on pesticides, we consider economic security and food security not above any other considerations, but alongside them. Any use of pesticides under these new rules would be temporary and would come with strict conditions attached. They would also be used in exceptional, time-limited circumstances where action was needed to protect national or regional economic security or national food security, such as in the event of a major crop failure or supply disruption. The goal really would be to protect the health and food security of Canadians while also ensuring a safe and affordable food supply.

As the Prime Minister and Minister of Health have both said, we are at a hinge moment. We must build on our strength to lead our country with confidence in its next chapter. A key part of this is working with our provincial and territorial partners, as well as local and global partners, to strengthen food security and economic resilience.

If we act now, we can ensure that Canada's agriculture and health sectors are a source of our stability, a catalyst for productivity and a strong foundation for our prosperity.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very disheartening that the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister for Health does not realize that Bill C-30 already says that, based on complete political discretion, cabinet can overturn a decision made by the Minister of Health and by the pest management regulatory agency. We already have weaker pesticide regulations in this country than the European Union or even Brazil.

Canadian crops have been turned back, so it is an economic question too. It is in the economic interest of Canadian farmers to make sure our products can be exported around the world as we diversify our trade. The European Union has already rejected grains, lentils, pulses and other products from Canada because we have too much contamination with products that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has determined to be carcinogenic.

Why do we have lax pesticide regulation and continue to make it weaker?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we want to make sure we are keeping Canadians safe and healthy, and that means ensuring we have a stable and secure food supply even during major disruptions. Our changes would help make that happen.

The Economy

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—South Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, good morning. It is 12:21 a.m., and I rise to get answers and accountability from the Liberal government on behalf of the hard-working people of York—South Simcoe.

Recently during question period, I referenced a letter written by one of my constituents, Margaret Haddon. In her letter, Margaret expressed concerns about the future facing young Canadians. She wrote to say that she raised her children to believe that if they worked hard, stayed focused and pursued an education, they would be able to build stable and independent lives. This is the promise many of us believed in when we raised our families here.

She continued on to say that today she is watching that promise slip further out of reach for them. Her children are now young adults who are working, studying and trying to build their futures. They are not asking for handouts. They are doing exactly what society expects of them, yet despite doing everything right, they are facing barriers that her generation never imagined. She goes on to highlight many of these barriers brought on after 11 years of the Liberal government: high inflation, the rising cost of living, unattainable housing prices, and few good-paying jobs for domestic Canadians.

When I raised the contents of this letter, I was very disappointed when the parliamentary secretary, on behalf of the Prime Minister, referenced the national child care program. According to Statistics Canada, more than half of Ontario families using child care, 52%, report difficulty finding it, which is up from 40% in 2022, the year Ontario signed on. The Financial Accountability Office of Ontario projects that families of more than 220,000 children will be left without a space. He referenced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which pays a measly $56 a month to a single adult, and only if that adult earns less than $60,000 a year. People must always read the fine print.

Margaret said in her letter that Canadians are not asking for handouts, but that is all the government can offer, despite the fact that many of these programs and handouts do not even move the needle for most families. Sadly, under the Prime Minister, we now live in a K-shaped economy, where Liberal insiders, the wealthy, the bankers and the bondholders climb higher while working Canadians fall further behind. It is truly unacceptable.

Conservatives are fighting every day for Canadians such as Margaret and her children and for everyone from coast to coast to coast who feels that the formula that worked here for over 150 years is now broken. Canadians are tired of empty Liberal promises. They want the made-in-Canada formula for prosperity to work once more. They should be able to work hard, invest and save, and to work towards goals and dreams for the future. They should not have to resort to government programs, food banks and extreme cost cutting just to get by.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I also want to echo what the member said and say good morning. I did not realize that it was past midnight already, so I appreciate the reminder.

I also want to thank the member for bringing Margaret's letter to the House. I think, as a representative of the House, it is one of the tools we can use to bring the voices of our constituents to this prestigious institution, so I thank my colleague across the aisle for bringing that letter. Margaret's concerns are valid.

There are a lot of challenges given the current unstable economic environment and given the trade situation we have with the United States. However, I think it is also important to recognize that it is time to work together to really focus on building Canada strong and building an economy that is really resilient. That is where we are making strategic investments in housing and infrastructure to secure that long-term prosperity for our country. We want to ensure, and we are doing the work to ensure, that Canadians have the opportunities they need to succeed by building that stronger economy and lowering the cost of living.

That is where the member and I may disagree a bit. He may see some of the measures as handouts, where I see them truly as supports to help families, young people and seniors get through a tough period while we build a better and brighter future.

Let me maybe expand on the point of affordability. Our government understand that affordability affects every segment of our life, whether young families can buy a home, workers can afford to commute to work or small businesses can continue to operate and maintain jobs. That is why making life more affordable for Canadians is at the centre of our economic plan.

We are not relying on a one-size-fits-all solution. We have introduced targeted measures that address specific pressures such as housing, fuel and groceries while protecting long-term stability. Extending the repayment grace period under the RRSP homebuyers' plan helps Canadians to enter the housing market with confidence. Tax relief on gasoline and diesel deliver broad-based cost savings across our economy. We are starting the automatic federal benefits for the 2026 tax year with pre-filled returns for up to 5.5 million low-income Canadians by the tax year 2028, ensuring that support will reach those who need it the most.

Young Canadians are gaining the opportunity to work and build careers. Through Canada summer jobs, we have had 175,000 placements supported in 2026-27. There is the horizontal youth employment skill strategy and the student work placement program. Families and young people are travelling and exploring Canada for less through the Canada strong pass.

Most recently, our government announced that the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuels would be extended to 2027. This will bring down everyday costs for Canadians, including truckers and businesses in the food, agriculture, housing, construction and delivery sectors.

These examples demonstrate how our government has been taking responsible actions to make life more affordable for families and communities across Canada, including Margaret's family.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—South Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government literally just voted against our motion to recognize that there is an affordability crisis in Canada. I asked six Liberal members of Parliament across the way if there is an affordability crisis in Canada. Do members know what happened? It is the thing that frustrates Canadians every time. There was a mumbo-jumbo word salad, and they would not answer the question.

None of these programs are working. If they were so great and worked the way the Liberals say they do, the shelves would not be empty in my community of Bradford right now. Canadians would not have lost 68,000 jobs, and insolvency rates would not be up to numbers that we have not seen before. Canada is continuing to be uncompetitive, and inflation will keep rising as the government keeps spending and keeps borrowing money.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to making life more affordable for Canadians. We have demonstrated that through very targeted measures since we arrived here. We are helping Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money while investing to build a strong economy and vibrant communities from coast to coast.

We will do this while making responsible choices with tax dollars. That means spending less on government operations and ensuring public funds are used where they deliver the greatest impacts. By managing costs carefully, we are creating the fiscal room to invest more in supporting workers and businesses to help them expand to new markets and developing the nation-building infrastructure our economy depends on. This balanced approach strengthens our economy today and protects public finances for the future. That is how we build Canada strong for generations to come.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12:29 a.m.)