Debates of Oct. 8th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Affordability Crisis

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not done, as the member for Winnipeg North is heckling me. I am not sure there are any started in Winnipeg, by the way, but just 2,000 have shovels in the ground getting started after 18 months of the minister and his failed new bureaucracy.

Even CMHC data shows that housing starts are projected to fall to 203,000 by 2028. That level is less than half of what we need to restore housing affordability to the levels and prices we had in 2019, despite millions and millions of dollars, press conferences and sod-turning ceremonies for projects that never actually go anywhere. This is the cost of Liberal inaction and broken promises: Canadians fall further and further behind.

Sadly, the affordability crisis does not end at housing. Families are struggling to put food on the table. The cost of everyday necessities is forcing Canadians to change how they spend. Parents are helping their adult children pay for groceries. Young families who should be saving for their first home are watching more of their paycheques disappear at the grocery store. In fact, a recent Telus Health survey found that almost 40% of working Canadians described themselves as food-insecure.

Ahead of Thanksgiving, the outlook from Dalhousie University's Agri-Food Analytics Lab is not encouraging. The cost of a family's Thanksgiving dinner is going up. A turkey dinner is $35 and a ham dinner is $36.

Rising diesel prices are now adding another cost to the food Canadians rely on. In southwestern Manitoba, farmers are facing an especially difficult harvest. Wet weather has made an already challenging season harder, and rising diesel prices are adding costs that they cannot control. Fuel and fertilizer are not luxuries in agriculture; they are essential inputs. Farmers cannot control the weather or the price at the pump, but the federal government does control how much it taxes the industries that create these products. We put forward a plan to remove these costs, and yesterday the Liberals voted it down.

When it comes to housing, Conservatives have answers. When it comes to affordable food, Conservatives have solutions. For the last 11 years, we have served in opposition, but we have also put forward measures designed to help struggling Canadians.

We proposed removing the GST on new homes up to $1.3 million, saving homebuyers $65,000. When it comes to putting food on the table, Conservatives have proposed practical measures to provide relief from rising diesel costs and strengthen Canadian domestic production. These are measures aimed at reducing costs for Canadians and making life easier for young families.

Families want to put food on the table, and they want to know that the work they put in today will allow them to build a better future tomorrow. These should not be unreasonable expectations in a country like Canada. The next generation deserves the same opportunity to build the life that previous generations worked toward.

It is time for a government that understands that responsibility and is prepared to act. It starts with the Liberals admitting that there is a crisis that they created. It is happening today. They need to get on board, vote in favour of this motion and then work to fix the problems they started.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech.

I know that he is aware that it costs a lot to raise a family. I agree with him. I have children and grandchildren. It is very challenging. What does my colleague think about our measure to eliminate the GST on the purchase of new homes worth up to $1 million?

I do not understand why the Conservatives voted against the Canada child benefit, which is a big help for families across the country. They also voted against $10-a-day child care. Quebec has had a program like that for over 30 years, and we know that it increases women's labour force participation. The Conservatives also voted against that. There is also the national school food program. The Conservatives voted against that too.

How can our colleague claim to be concerned about affordability?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in that question, but the main point is that none of those initiatives go far enough, because there are still 2.5 million Canadians at food banks every month. The Liberals are wandering around with a “mission accomplished” banner, saying that everything is great, while we have families and children lined up at food banks. What does the member have to say to that? Obviously, what they have done is not enough. Why are they waving the “mission accomplished” banner? They need to get to work, solve the affordability crisis, put food back on the table in homes, not just in schools, and get people out of food bank lines.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to look at things from a slightly broader perspective because, clearly, one of the biggest factors affecting the price of groceries right now is the high cost of oil, of course, but more importantly, it is our dependence on oil. Building another pipeline will not bring down the cost of oil in Quebec. One way to reduce transport costs in Quebec would be to invest in the electrification of transportation.

For an individual, it is about eight times cheaper to charge an electric vehicle than to fill up with gas. If we also look at the rising cost of groceries, which is clearly due to droughts and floods, why would my colleague not propose helping people electrify their vehicles and their homes, as the Quebec government wants to do?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the technical nature of the member's question. To be quite honest with him, though, most people are not driving diesel vehicles. The cost of diesel prices going up is impacting farmers, whose equipment runs on diesel, and the truckers who ship the food.

There are examples of semi-tractor-trailers that are running on batteries, but the range is limited. I have yet to see a combine or tractor in the field running on batteries. When the technology gets there, that will be great. Maybe someday that will happen, but in the meantime, tractors and combines have to run on diesel fuel. We need to bring the cost of diesel fuel down so that food costs less at the grocery store in the member's constituency and everybody else's constituencies.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member for Toronto—St. Paul's a simple question, and she really struggled to answer it, so I will also ask it of the member for Brandon—Souris. Does he believe there is an affordability crisis in Canada, yes or no?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the opposite side indicated a “mission accomplished” banner. On this side of the House, we have never said such a thing, because we always want to put forward more measures to support Canadians.

I am wondering why the member opposite's party is always voting against the affordability measures that this government has brought forward.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member needs to check with her colleague, who listed all of the things she believes have solved the affordability crisis in her previous question. I will let the two of them on that side sort that out. They can check Hansard and figure it out.

The reason we vote against the Liberals' budgets is that they are massively overspending in areas that do not matter and are not providing real relief to Canadians. In fact, because of the inflationary nature of them, they are actually causing the affordability crisis to get worse. If the member and her government are capable of bringing forward a balanced budget that makes targeted investments to bring the cost of food, diesel and other items down, we would consider voting in favour of it, but until they get their spending under control, they are making the problem worse, not better.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak today.

I am going to talk about measures that directly affect families, workers and seniors in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. As a reminder, my riding covers Saint-Eustache, Deux-Montagnes, Boisbriand and Rosemère, in the Lower Laurentians, north of Montreal.

When I am in my riding, people talk to me about very practical issues. They talk to me about the cost of groceries, the price of gas, their mortgage or their rent. Parents talk to me about the cost of buying clothes at the beginning of the school year, about sports and packed lunches. Workers tell me that they are watching every dollar they spend.

I want to start by making one thing clear: I know that many families are finding things difficult at the moment, and I would never suggest otherwise. Our job, as a government, is to listen to them and help ease some of the pressure. That is what we are doing.

Let us talk about groceries. As members are aware, groceries are getting more and more expensive. A family with two or three children sees this right away when they get to the cash register. That is why our government created the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. The people who are entitled to it received a payment this week. This benefit is now helping more than 12 million Canadians. Twelve million Canadians is a lot. This year, an eligible family of four can receive up to $1,900. A single person is entitled to receive up to $950. In July, the regular benefits increased by 25%. In practical terms, a family in Saint‑Eustache or Deux‑Montagnes can use this money to buy milk, fruit, vegetables or meat. It is up to them. It can also be used to pay for household essentials. It can make it possible to buy groceries without constantly having to take things out of the cart. I used to own a grocery store. Seeing people having to put items back when they get to the register because they cannot afford them is heartbreaking.

It will not fix everything, but we will keep going. It will help. When a family is counting every penny at the end of the month, this support really makes a difference.

There is another measure, the Canada child benefit. I want to mention it because it is likely one of the most important measures that our government put in place in 2016. This tax-free payment is deposited into the parents' bank account every month. Right now, an eligible family can receive up to $1,800 per year for a child under the age of six. For children aged six to 17, the maximum is $6,900. Believe me, this measure makes a big difference for families in Rivière-des-Milles-Îles.

In Quebec alone, nearly 892 families are receiving the Canada child benefit. Think about what that means in everyday life. It helps parents buy shoes when children grow too quickly. It helps them buy winter clothes. Winter is just around the corner. It helps pay for activities, fill the fridge or cover back-to-school expenses. It also helps the families who need it most.

Since the Canada child benefit was introduced, we have seen a significant decline in child poverty. Between 2015 and 2021 alone, at least 650,000 children were living below the poverty line. This is important because behind these numbers are children and families. There is a parent who might be sleeping a little better at night because they know they will be able to buy what their children need. To me, that is exactly what a government should do.

We also need to talk about children arriving at school in the morning. A child who is hungry will not be able to pay attention to what the teacher is trying to explain. It is as simple as that.

We have also implemented another measure, and it is a big one. It is the $10 child care program. I am from Quebec, and I was fortunate enough to take advantage of child care services there. Back then, they cost $5, but today they cost $10. Now they are available across the country, and we continue to invest in them. This has a significant impact on women's labour force participation and makes everything much easier.

There is a big difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada when it comes to child care services right now, but we are working to make it available to everyone.

There is also the national school food program. We signed an agreement with the Quebec government to ensure that funds are paid directly to schools in order to guarantee that children in Quebec can have breakfast. The program is delivered through the Breakfast Club. We are investing $65 million over three years so that Quebec schools can provide breakfast.

In Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, organizations such as the Breakfast Club are already doing fantastic work. Getting up early in the morning to pack the kids' lunches can be a real struggle. Parents have to get ready for work, drop some kids off at school and take some to day care. If we want children to start the day off right, we need to make sure their bellies are full. This is also an affordability measure.

Now I would like to talk about workers, because affordability is not just about providing support for children. It also means making sure that going to work is always worthwhile. The Canada workers benefit is a measure that provides additional support to workers who earn a more modest income. Every job is important in our society, which is why it is so important to ensure that people living on lower incomes can make ends meet. This year, an eligible individual can receive up to $1,665. For an eligible family, it can be as much as $2,870.

The measures that I have been talking about all add up. This assistance is not just paid out after an eligible recipient files a tax return. Part of it is paid out in advance during the year. This measure will help people like retail workers at a store in Boisbriand, restaurant employees in Saint-Eustache, or single mothers who work full time. People work hard; they get up, pay their bills and contribute to our economy. If they earn a lower income, it makes sense for our tax system to lend them a hand.

We have also reduced income tax. The lowest federal income tax rate was cut from 15% to 14%. Twenty-two million Canadians are benefiting from this tax cut. For a two-income household, this can mean up to $840 in savings a year. Again, that $840 is on top of everything else I listed earlier. This could pay for several months of electricity bills. Sometimes the car needs repairs. Vehicles can break down out of nowhere. Then there are expenses like grocery bills spread out over several weeks or a child's sports registration fees. Families know all about these expenses.

We have also taken action on gas prices. I think this is particularly important for the people of Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. People would love to be able to take public transit everywhere all the time, but the fact is that many residents of the Lower Laurentians need their cars to get to work, pick up the kids, drive a parent to an appointment and go grocery shopping. It is hard for folks who live in the suburbs to get by without a car.

We have also temporarily suspended the excise tax on gasoline, reducing the price by 10¢ per litre until January 31 of next year. After that, the tax will be 50% of the regular rate until the end of March. For people who have to fill up their tank every week, that makes a real difference.

I am thinking of seniors. Lots of seniors in Boisbriand, Rosemère and Saint‑Eustache have worked their entire lives and want to live with dignity. We continue to support low-income seniors through the guaranteed income supplement.

We have introduced another measure that is making a real difference in people's lives, and that is the Canadian dental care plan. Older Canadians in particular have benefited significantly from it. Dental care is very expensive. No one in Canada should have to live with a toothache simply because they cannot afford to see a dentist. Today, millions of Canadians have access to this coverage. That means hundreds of dollars staying in the pockets of hundreds of Canadians.

I would like to move on to housing and support for first-time homebuyers. We have also proposed measures to lower banking fees, and we have eliminated the GST on the purchase of a new home.

We are delivering.

To conclude my speech, in the long term, the best way to improve Canadians' standard of living is to have a strong economy and good jobs. However, families need support now while we work to build that economy. Our government is stepping up.

I will always be proud to champion measures that make a real difference in the lives of my constituents. At the end of the day, they are the reason I am here. They are the ones I represent.

We will continue to work for the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the number one concern among Canadians, from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, is the cost of living. That is the reason why the Conservative Party has brought in this motion about the affordability crisis.

I was just appointed to the indigenous and northern affairs committee, which is hearing testimony from businesses, NGOs and others about the cost of living and the struggles they are having. It is getting very difficult. We asked if things are getting better and they said no. Things are getting worse. I appreciate all the programs the Liberals say they are bringing in, but they are putting Canada in a worse position.

Will the member not recognize that and take responsibility for plunging Canada into this situation?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the north. This summer, I had the opportunity to go to Nunavut. The people there are indeed facing difficult challenges that we must address.

However, as we know, the world is changing rapidly. What is happening with the tariffs in the United States and the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East is not helping. It is driving global inflation. We, on the government side, believe that the stronger our country and our economy are, the better off all Canadians will be.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that the government has money for all sorts of things, including a $43-billion oil pipeline, but has decided not to extend the federal incentives for medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles, a program aimed at electrifying those vehicles.

Since March 31, there has been no more money to help reduce the use of diesel in the vehicles on our roads. Companies like Paccar manufacture electric heavy-duty vehicles right in Quebec, but there is no longer any support for those companies.

How is it that the government has money to invest in a pipeline that will benefit western Canada and the oil companies, but it has no money left to electrify transportation and support Quebec companies?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about pipelines. We currently export oil at a discount to the United States. That is the only avenue for our oil, a natural resource. That is why it is important to find new markets and make sure we do so in the best possible way. We also need to make Canada's economy as strong as possible.

We know that the Americans are not helping us right now with the tariffs they are imposing on us. That does not help us at all. If we can export our goods, diversify our markets and get more money, I think, like everyone else, that we will make Canada even stronger and our economy will be even better. All Canadians will benefit. As for the measure my colleague was talking about, it definitely still exists for cars.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague, who also sits on the trade committee, would like to tell the House a little more about some of the successful issues with diversification that we know the department and the minister have been working very actively on, and what those countries are.

Would she like to elaborate?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who chairs the Standing Committee on International Trade. It is a very interesting committee. As we seek to diversify our export markets, we are negotiating agreements with other countries. It is working. We have traditionally maintained very close ties with the United States, but we are diversifying our economy and it is working.

We are currently looking to Mercosur, which includes Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. There are opportunities to forge new ties, sell our products and share Canadian expertise in those markets. Beyond that, there is the whole of Asia, including countries such as the Philippines, India, China and Japan. We are working hard there. We are also continuing to work closely with our European partners and allies. I can assure members that these efforts are paying off. We have increased our exports to non-U.S. markets.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the good people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

I had some remarks prepared, but I have to respond to the previous member, who talked about diversification, pivoting and innovating. Many of these terms are referenced in the briefing members of Parliament received from Pacific Economic Development Canada last month. It talked about the regional tariff response initiative, the strategic response fund and the need for Canadian businesses, with support from the government, to diversify, pivot and innovate. We are not seeing that action, though.

Let me give members an example. Just a week or two ago, the Prime Minister went to British Columbia and talked about expanding the LNG terminal in northern B.C. It is a major investment. We learned that the Liberals will be using Chinese steel to build it. The Government of Canada said this is a major investment for our country and it is going to help us be better and more economically competitive. In response to the U.S. tariffs, the government set up all of these new funds I just mentioned, the regional tariff response initiative, the strategic response fund and the Canada diversification fund, and it was all to help Canadian businesses buy Canadian. There are specific funds for steel and aluminum to help them innovate, pivot to new businesses and do business in Canada, yet on the biggest announcement the government has made since the last election 18 months ago, the government is buying China.

This is the same government that is in cahoots with socialist extremist Premier David Eby and thought it was in the interests of British Columbia and Canada to build our ferries in China. BC Ferries is a cornerstone of our national transportation infrastructure network, and the ferries will be built in China. We have shipyards in Canada. I would much rather have them built in north Vancouver or at the Davie shipyard in Quebec, but no. The government chose China.

On the one hand, the Government of Canada is spending billions of dollars to supposedly support the forestry sector and the steel and aluminum sectors, but when it has a big, beautiful, massive project right in front of it, it goes to China. I believe that if the government wanted to help steel and aluminum companies pivot, like it said it did in the information members of Parliament received, and it wanted to help them innovate, it should have said it knows it does not have the capacity right now, but in the strategic interests of Canada, it will help those companies innovate and meet the demands of Canada's energy infrastructure. It had that opportunity, but it did not pivot. It cowered in the face of adversity at the expense of Canadian workers.

I want Canadian workers building LNG to the fullest possible capacity, but the Liberals decided to stick with their old processes, which do not uplift Canadian workers and do not stand up for Canada.

I said in this House earlier this week that the government needs to work with the Conservatives to stand up for Canada and bring in the structural reforms to our economy that will make us stronger in the long term. In fact, the government's tariff response initiative talks about that very point. We need to stand up for Canada and we need to help Canadian businesses do more work here, yet the government is not willing to do that.

Earlier today, I met with members of the community of Kingston who talked about capital gains rollovers on major investments in Canada. There is another major policy change that the government could be making in our taxation system to help Canadian businesses invest right here in Canada. Again, I encourage the member of Parliament for Kingston to hear the pleas of businesses in his own riding that are saying we need to bring in a structural taxation reform to do things better.

Now, let us go back to the steel and aluminum tariff program. Make no mistake, Canadian businesses are suffering. I met with probably over 100 businesses over the last four months when Parliament was not sitting, and they are scared. I am not saying everything the Government of Canada is doing is not working, but what was most alarming is that Naina Sloan, President of PacifiCan, acknowledged to members of Parliament that the government is not meeting its own timelines. There were announcements made in August on the tariff response initiative, many of those applications were made nine months earlier and the government has been slow in its response.

We want Canada to be more affordable, and the government and the ministers responsible need to work with Canadians to stand up for Canada, give us better responses, and demand better operational processes to ensure that programs are working effectively, because right now they are not.

My encouragement to the Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry is to come forward and give this House an update, today, on how the tariff response initiative is going. The president of PacifiCan said that they are not meeting their own standards. It takes a lot of courage for a senior public servant to admit that, but she made those remarks because she is a true leader. She knows that we need to stand by our businesses right now. However, she is not getting that oversight from the minister responsible, and that is not okay.

I am aware of companies in the Fraser Valley that, because the government has not reached a deal with the United States, are still looking at moving their operations because they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. These are long-standing employers in aerospace and advanced manufacturing that are hit on both sides, by the American tariffs, the unjustified American tax increases through those tariffs and Canada's tariff responses. Some of these companies, although they have major global impact, are not very large. They kind of fall in the middle. They do not feel the government has been quick enough to help them and to work alongside them. Again, I would encourage the Government of Canada to work with those medium-sized enterprises that make up such an important part of our economy and to hear from them about how those tariffs are impacting them.

In conclusion, affordability is getting much worse. It is getting really bad, and no other statistic outlines that better than our birthrate stats. In 2015, Canada's fertility rate dropped from 1.6 to 1.26. In B.C., it has dropped to 1.04. People are not having kids in Canada anymore because it is too expensive. So many young families come to me to relay the lack of child care, the broken promises of the government and the cost of housing in British Columbia, and they say it just does not work. Kids costs a lot of money. People want to have more children, but our economy is not set up in a way that allows for that.

Just before I finish up, I will be splitting my time with a member from Oshawa.

My encouragement to the government today is to come clean about the tariff response initiative, to come clean about the true cost of living crisis that we are facing, to come clean about the deals it is doing with China at the expense of Canadian workers and businesses, and to pivot, just like the government documents say, to provide resiliency for Canadian companies and to provide new opportunities for steel and aluminum manufacturers to build LNG Canada phase two. We can do it. I believe in our economy. I believe that the government wants to do the right thing, but it needs to step up, grow up and do what is required to use Canadian steel on a Canadian project.

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

Mr. Speaker, the reality is the member who just spoke would ensure that LNG does not take off. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in his comments and him not being able to acknowledge the modules and the reason that steel is coming from China. Shame on him for not being more transparent on that issue.

My question to the member is related specifically to the motion we have before us. The Conservatives talk about affordability, but when they have the chance, for example, to provide dental assistance to seniors who are on fixed incomes, they vote no. In fact, they are telling those seniors that they are going to get rid of the program.

Does the member not see any inconsistency when the Conservatives talk about affordability, but they say they are not going to increase the disposable income of seniors on fixed incomes?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the very first point, 15 years ago, Canada did not have the capacity to build naval warships, but it built that capacity. I believe we have the most educated workforce in the world. We have all the talent right here and the technology to do what is required to build LNG phase two with Canadian steel.

The government talks about diversifying, pivoting and innovating. This is the chance to innovate. This is the chance to stand up for Canadian workers and, by extension, stand up for our country at a critical juncture. It is not going to be easy, but exporting that work to China is not the answer. The government needs to do better on that front, and I believe Canada can.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's thoughts about the fact that oil, gas and LNG projects in this country are often majority foreign-owned. For example, LNG Canada phase 2 is 100% owned by foreign companies, including Shell from the U.K., Petronas from Malaysia and PetroChina from China, along with Mitsubishi and KOGAS. Another LNG project in Quebec is owned by Marinvest, a European company.

The government created tax superdeductions for these projects in the last budget. They will probably also receive substantial government investment.

Does my colleague support the government's decision to encourage foreign ownership of projects here in Canada and in Quebec?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point about the role of foreign capital in the Canadian economy. I believe in free trade, and I believe that if companies invest responsibly in Canada, that is a good thing for Canada. Others might disagree with me, but I ultimately believe that, as a free market society, we need to encourage investment in a regulated environment that makes sure that it is a win-win deal for Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not refer to the second question I asked. The core of the motion today is the issue of affordability.

The federal government has initiated, under the Prime Minister's leadership, numerous affordability programs, one of which is supporting our seniors, particularly seniors on fixed incomes, with dental support. However, the Conservatives voted against it. Not only did they vote against it, but they are saying they are going to take the program away. That would have an impact on seniors on fixed incomes.

Will the Conservatives reverse that policy?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the history of Canada, there has been one government that has had to make policy decisions to feed Canadians. That is the current Liberal government. The government is extending many benefits to Canadians because it made so many horrible errors over the last 10 years that put dental care and affordable, healthy groceries out of reach for so many in our communities. I believe that we can get our country back to where Canadians can afford those goods and services with a good job and a strong pension in retirement. However, the government, through the extremist socialist policies of Justin Trudeau, took away the ability of Canadians to do those things.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Oshawa in support of our Conservative motion, which asks the House something simple: to recognize these facts. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years and Canada is in an affordability crisis, yet in March of this year the Prime Minister stood in this very House and claimed, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” I would invite the Prime Minister to come to Oshawa and tell that to my neighbours, where Canada's affordability crisis is their everyday reality. It is the young Canadian working full time who cannot afford to move out of their parents' home, the mother putting groceries back on the shelf because she cannot afford everything in her cart, the senior choosing between rent and medication and the auto worker wondering whether their job will still be there tomorrow.

When hard-working Canadians cannot afford life's basics, the Liberal government is completely disconnected from reality. A generation of Canadians are doing everything right and still cannot afford the opportunities their parents and grandparents enjoyed. After 11 years, the government must answer for that reality

Remember, just last spring, the Prime Minister stood up in the House and said, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” Tell that to the food banks in Oshawa. I recently heard from Tiffany Kift at Simcoe Hall Settlement House, an extraordinary organization serving vulnerable families in Oshawa. What she shared with me was heartbreaking. Simcoe Hall is now serving more than 3,600 people every month and they have been forced to cap food bank visits to 70 households per day, not because fewer people need help but because they simply do not have the resources to help everyone who does.

Every day they sadly have to turn people away. Who is walking through their doors? Seniors, young adults, parents and even families with two incomes are walking through their doors.

Tiffany described a growing group of Canadians as the working poor. These are Canadians who get up every morning, work hard, earn a paycheque and still cannot afford groceries. Imagine both parents working, doing everything they can to provide for their children and still having to visit a food bank. When two incomes are no longer enough to put food on the table, the Liberal government is out of touch with the struggles of working Canadians.

What Tiffany told me about children in Oshawa was even more heartbreaking. Simcoe Hall staff are sending children home with food because, for some, it may be the only food they eat that day. Feeding children dinner is not even a mandatory part of their after-school programming, but staff do it as much as they can anyway because those children need to eat. The Liberal government would promote its national school food program, yet frontline workers at Simcoe Hall report that some of Oshawa's most vulnerable children are still not consistently receiving completely nutritious meals at school or at home.

When school closes for the summer, demand for food assistance grows even greater. Where do they get their lunches then? When children are going hungry while the government announces one program or another intended to feed them, there is a serious disconnect between the Liberal promises and what families are experiencing.

Last spring, the Prime Minister said, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” Our seniors are also struggling. Tell them that. Recently, my office heard from Clifford, a senior in Oshawa who is living on a fixed income, of course. Clifford is struggling to pay his rent, afford his groceries and, most concerning of all, purchase the medication he needs.

Tiffany tells me that Simcoe Hall has even introduced a program called Dinner for One to provide prepared meals for seniors who are struggling to feed themselves. A lifetime of hard work should not end with a trip to the food bank. When seniors cannot afford groceries or medication, the Liberal government is out of touch with the struggles that Canadians face in everyday life. While demand for food assistance continues to grow, donations are declining. Simcoe Hall's financial donations are down approximately 33% this year, while community food drives are bringing in only a third of what they would normally expect. More people need help while fewer people can afford to give it.

Canadians should not have to depend on food banks or government grocery rebates simply to put dinner on the table. They should be able to afford groceries with the money they earn. I want to thank Tiffany and everyone at Simcoe Hall for their extraordinary service to Oshawa.

I will remind members that the Prime Minister said affordability is the best it has been in a decade. I encourage Canadians not to believe the gaslighting coming from the Liberal government.

Nowhere is the connection between jobs and affordability clearer than in Oshawa's automotive industry. For generations, our auto workers have helped build Canada's economy, but Oshawa has faced some of the highest unemployment rates among Canada's major urban centres. Whenever I meet with local auto workers and their families, I hear the same message: protect our jobs.

I think about Todd, an Oshawa auto worker. Todd worked for an automotive supplier supporting GM's Oshawa assembly plant, and when job cuts were looming, he faced the possibility of leaving the city where he was born and raised and where his children and grandchildren live. When Canadian auto workers fear losing their livelihoods, they need a government focused on protecting their jobs, not simply managing the consequences of losing them. The Liberal government has spent so much attention on working to manage decline with supports and programs that are simply not working.

The Prime Minister campaigned on his ability to negotiate with the United States, and auto workers were promised a trade deal by July 2025. That deadline came and went without the promised deal. There is that old saying, “underpromise and over-deliver”, but the government consistently does the opposite, making ambitious promises, creating illusions, missing deadlines and asking Canadians to keep waiting.

Recently, I asked the Liberal member for Whitby about Clifford's affordability struggles. In his response to this senior's struggle, he spoke about opportunities for workers who may need to transition away from our auto plants. I found that deeply concerning on two levels. One, the question was about seniors, and two, while Oshawa auto workers are asking the government to protect their jobs, a Liberal member from the Durham region is talking about opportunities to leave those jobs behind. Is that the government's plan for Oshawa? Our auto workers are not asking the government to find them another career. They are asking the government to fight for the careers they already have.

The Prime Minister campaigned on his economic credentials and his ability to deliver change, promising to move at unimaginable speeds and telling Canadians it is time to build now. Well, Canadians are entitled to ask what those promises have delivered. Where are the affordable homes for young Canadians that they can actually move into? Where are the completed projects? Where are the results families can see in their own lives? An announcement is not a completed home. A press conference is not a paycheque, and a promise does not automatically mean results. For the government, it means an illusion and more gaslighting.

Just yesterday, the Prime Minister said in the House, “I just got here.” He did not just get here. He has been the Prime Minister for 19 months. We are coming close to two years now, and before becoming Prime Minister, he was advising Justin Trudeau and the Liberals for five years, yet he refuses to be held accountable.

Of course, international trade disputes and global economic pressures are real, but those challenges do not erase the responsibility of successive Liberal governments for decisions made here at home. The Prime Minister cannot ask Canadians to judge him by his experience when he campaigns but disregard that experience when they question his record. I invite him to come to Oshawa and speak with Clifford, Todd, the families visiting Simcoe Hall, our small business owners and the auto workers worried about their jobs and ask them one simple question: Are they better off today than they were 10 years ago? We know the answer is no. That is the question that matters. It is not how many announcements the government has made, but whether Canadians can afford the necessities of life.

Conservatives have put forward solutions to address these challenges. We believe responsible spending, lower costs and good-paying jobs are essential for restoring affordability, because Canadians deserve more than announcements and promises; they deserve results. They deserve to keep more of what they earn, afford the necessities of life and have the opportunity to build a better future for themselves and their families.

That is why I will be voting, of course, in favour of our Conservative opposition day motion to recognize what Canadians across Oshawa and the country are experiencing. After 11 years of Liberal government, Canada is in an affordability crisis, and it is not the most affordable it has been over the last 10 years.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's intervention, and the member spoke about children needing food, but I will reflect on the fact that she voted against the national school food program. I know that in Kingston, the national school food program funds the Food Sharing Project, which gives food to children in school. In Oshawa, it is Durham's Child Nutrition Project that does the same work.

Why did she vote against that? Before she goes to the default Conservative argument that if we had not created the situation, they would not need it, she should be reminded of the fact that Canada was the last of the G7 countries to adopt a national school food program. Even the United States of America has a national school food program.

I am wondering if she can explain why she voted against it when this project was before the House, given her great concern for children getting access to food.