Debates of Oct. 8th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Affordability Crisis

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a bit daunting to rise after my colleague from Joliette, not only because he always does his research, but because people often mix us up. Could it be because of the names Joliette and Jonquière? I do not know. Maybe it is the beard. In any case, there is one easy trick for telling us apart: The member for Joliette has long hair and he is a communist, which I am not.

The Conservative opposition day concerns the affordability crisis. As I was looking over the motion this morning, I thought it would be worthwhile to revisit the notion of crisis. As members know, my former passion was philosophy. More specifically, Hannah Arendt's Crisis in Culture and Edmund Husserl's The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology come to mind. Both of them came up with a fairly exhaustive definition of the notion of crisis, which I believe could assist our discussion today.

If one wanted to give a very simple definition of the notion of a crisis, one might talk about a decisive moment or a turning point. Anyone who has a heart attack knows full well that that is a decisive moment and a turning point. The same is true in the case of appendicitis, because at least it can lead to a diagnosis. That is often how it is presented in the social sciences and philosophy. It means getting a diagnosis, but it also means discovering all the flaws that exist, whether in a social system, a political system, an economic system, a religious system or a scientific system. That is what the notion of a crisis allows us to do.

If one wanted to diagnose the crisis we are currently experiencing, a fairly straightforward conclusion would appear pretty quickly. What is causing runaway inflation today is a combination of geopolitical conflicts, which are putting pressure on energy prices, as well as the trade dispute with the United States. I think everyone would agree on that diagnosis today. However, let us take a closer look at the federal government's diagnosis.

Take, for example, the tariff crisis, which has had a significant impact on inflation. As we know, two sectors have been particularly hard hit by the tariff crisis: the aluminum and forestry industries, which are facing tariffs of 50% and 45% respectively. These industries have still not received any support. Together with forestry industry representatives, we proposed to the government a program to offset countervailing and anti-dumping duties. Everyone would have been happy if the government had put that program in place, but the government turned a deaf ear. It is the same thing with aluminum.

Until just recently, the forestry industry was asking the government to help forestry companies, which are really struggling. They have yet to see a single penny from the programs that have been put in place. The government agreed to lower the threshold to $1 million, but these hard-working people have still not seen a penny from the federal government's support program. It is the same thing with the aluminum industry.

What would have helped in these extremely difficult circumstances? Negotiations with the United States. We have made compromises, such as the concessions we made in the area of culture, but we have not gotten anything in return.

Until very recently, I kept hearing many people in government say that we need to use more Quebec aluminum. I would tell them that it was a great idea, but that we were missing a crucial piece of equipment: a rolling mill. Eventually, the penny dropped and they realized the problem was more complicated than they originally thought. Aluminum ingots cannot be used in their raw form. They must undergo initial processing in a rolling mill. However, Canada does not currently have one. We rely on facilities in the United States. We are at their mercy. The government is starting to look into this.

I find the government's diagnosis of the tariff crisis highly problematic, and I will explain why. What has the government done in response to the tariff crisis? It has rolled out the red carpet for the oil and gas sector. Just look at all the tax breaks announced in recent budgets. There is a lot of talk about projects of national interest. There is the new pipeline that the government wants to promote as a project of national interest. Who does it actually serve? It is important to get the diagnosis right when we are in a crisis.

I want to remind the House that, unlike the aluminum and forestry sectors, the oil industry is one of the few sectors that has not been affected by the tariffs. For a sector with no tariffs in place, the government's diagnosis is that it could use another pipeline. Does the government think that building another pipeline will generate more wealth that will improve housing accessibility, grocery affordability or seniors' benefits? I am not really sure.

When we take a closer look, it is clear that this approach makes no sense. It makes no sense because the government's stated rationale for building a new pipeline is to reduce its dependency on the United States and develop new markets. Let me ask a fairly simple question: Where do our energy exports go? Fully 91% of our crude oil exports go to the United States. Last year, 91% of our exports went to the United States.

In committee, I asked representatives from international trade and deputy ministers if there was a plan, if there was any intention to bring that percentage down and if the pipeline would be used to develop new markets in Europe or Asia. They had no idea. Their plan is to build a new pipeline that will primarily serve U.S. interests. When we look at where our exports go, it quickly becomes clear that most of them go to the United States.

The government's response was to say that it will build a pipeline for a tariff-free product to help the Americans while we are in the midst of a tariff crisis. This raises another fairly simple question: Who owns the oil companies? Who stands to profit from this? It turns out that 80% of the major oil companies are foreign-owned and 60% of those are American-owned. In other words, 60% of the big companies that want us to pay for pipeline infrastructure are owned by Americans. They do not want to pay for it themselves. The federal government's response is to build a pipeline that will support American energy security and benefit Americans.

The numbers are alarming. I feel like I am always saying the same thing, but I will say it anyway. From 2021 to 2024, we are talking about $131 billion in profits for the oil sector. Of that $131 billion, $80 billion went to major shareholders in the oil and gas sector as dividends. That amounts to $12.5 billion leaving Canada every year, with most of it going to the United States.

What is the message here? The government is saying that even in the midst of a tariff crisis, we should help the greedy oil and gas industry. That way, maybe they will be able to make even more money. Let me remind members that the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project cost $34 billion, and now they want to build a new pipeline that will cost $43 billion. It is absolutely outrageous.

What is the smart thing for the federal government to do? In times of crisis, the public interest demands that we support the most vulnerable, not the greedy oil and gas industry, but the most vulnerable. Earlier, my colleague from Joliette—Manawan spoke about seniors. The public interest would require that we invest in the social safety net as well as in health care and education.

The Quebec government's share of health care funding is now 42% of its budget. The federal government would rather invest in the oil and gas sector than transfer money to the provinces to support the health sector. Supporting the health sector also means supporting mental health, which could even help tackle the difficult issue of the homelessness crisis. That is obviously not what the federal government is choosing to do.

What did the federal government decide to do in response to the crisis? It decided to invest in gas and oil. I really want my colleagues to think carefully about this. If all that money were used to invest in transfers to the provinces, to increase old age security, to invest in education and to support our most vulnerable, I think we would be much better off. We would be able to build homes and meet people's needs instead of meeting the needs of the greedy oil and gas sector.

I am out of time, so I cannot even get into the fiscal imbalance. I will sit down before I lose my temper.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that Bloc members are really opposed to any sort of oil pipeline development. However, I want to speak about the province of Manitoba, because the member made reference to health care and oil.

Manitoba is a have-not province, meaning that it receives equalization payments. Without receiving those equalization payments, the quality of the health care system in Manitoba would be nowhere near what it is today, unless we were prepared to put in much more of a tax load on the residents of Manitoba. Contrast that to the province of Alberta. Alberta has contributed billions of dollars every year. That helps finance Manitoba's health care.

If we can get things right such that we are protecting the environment and developing our natural resources, all of Canada benefits. Does the member agree with that principle?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what good does it do the provinces to spend $34 billion on a pipeline and now to invest another $43 billion in a new pipeline? Does it generate such fabulous revenues that the provinces end up swimming in economic benefits? Definitely not.

The people raking in the profits today are the oil and gas companies. Why are they unwilling to pay for their own infrastructure? The one fundamental principle of capitalism is that a capitalist stakes their own money. They are the ones taking the risk. Now, the federal government is taking the risk on behalf of an industry, the oil and gas industry, that is destined to disappear within the next 30 years, using Quebeckers' and Canadians' money. Worse still, the biggest unions recently appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and said they are seeing an increase in production in the oil and gas sector, but a decrease in jobs. The gall of these people, to be willing to invest in automating their processes so they can get by with fewer employees, but unwilling to pay one damn penny for their infrastructure. If the member for Winnipeg North is fine with that, I think we have a serious problem.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that he was trying not to lose his temper. I would like him to know that anger is never a good adviser. I can share a few things I have learned in my 18 years in politics.

Earlier, my colleague raised a point about what we in the Conservative Party call “corporate welfare”, in other words, government favouritism. Taxpayers' money must be used for the benefit of taxpayers. When there is clearly a profit to be made, it is up to the private sector to step up. That is what our leader said in response to the very pertinent question from the member for Jonquière—Hébertville—Pays-des-Bleuets.

Would he agree that there are so many regulations and so many hoops to jump through that, for this project as for any other, the process ought to be much more efficient?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was actually saying that I am coming around on the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that the Conservatives are opposed to developing the oil and gas sector; far from it. However, they must be clear-eyed enough to see that it is not right for us, collectively, to take on infrastructure risks when the oil and gas companies are making record profits.

In July, Cenovus posted profits four times higher than in 2025. These people are making record profits, yet our project of national interest is supposed to help them make even more profits at a time when regular folks are struggling to find housing and seniors sometimes have to choose between medication and food. I think that is completely despicable.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech and the many points he made.

I would him to tell me more about the forestry industry and the problems it faces. At the northern end of my riding, the St‑Michel sawmill has been closed since August, not of this year, but last year. It is currently in court, trying to find a solution.

What can the government do to help the forestry industry?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government is so out of touch. When we look at the number of jobs in each economic sector, the forestry sector ranks first. There are more jobs in Canada's forestry sector than in the energy sector and the auto sector.

What is the government doing to support this sector? Absolutely nothing. Some of the forestry companies in my riding are still waiting for the federal government to provide any assistance at all. That, too, is outrageous.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Toronto—St. Paul's.

Every day, Canadians across the country wake up, work hard and do their best to provide for their families, yet despite all of their efforts, far too many are finding it harder than ever to make ends meet. Whether it is the cost of groceries, housing, fuel or everyday essentials, families and seniors are feeling the pressure in every corner of the country.

I am hearing from constituents daily about the cost of living crisis. One constituent, Tracy, wrote to me recently, saying, “the cost of living has become extremely concerning. The costs of daily necessities leave so little to save, that the once realistic milestone of owning a home feels increasingly out of reach for young working Canadians.” She went on to say, “this is not the Canada I remember growing up in, and it is heartbreaking to watch the country I have always called home struggle in this way.”

Members have heard Conservatives say similar sentiments before, and this is exactly why: We go out and listen to our constituents and echo the things they tell us. There was a time in the country when the Canadian dream felt within reach for everyone who worked hard, when opportunity and the ability to build oneself a better life were not privileges for the few but realities available to all. Today, after a decade of Liberal spending, taxation, and over-regulation, many Canadians are finding that dream harder and harder to achieve.

Another constituent, Cory, told me that he has a good job but his wages have not been rising fast enough to keep up with inflation, and he has had to make major cuts in his budget just to stay afloat. His grocery budget for the week keeps getting squeezed, as the cart is not as full as it used to be. He told me that items he once bought without a second thought have become occasional luxuries. Fresh meat, healthy snacks for his children and other everyday staples are now carefully weighed against the cost of everything else. He finds himself comparing prices, waiting for sales and putting items back on the shelf simply because the math no longer works. He told me that the stress is mounting for him, and he is not sure what to do.

According to the government's own data, financial challenges are the number one leading source of stress, more than work, personal health and relationships, with nearly half of Canadians surveyed saying they have lost sleep because of financial worries. That statistic should concern every member of the House.

When Canadians are lying awake at night wondering how they will pay the next month's rent, afford groceries or cover an unexpected expense, the consequences extend far beyond the bank account. Financial stress affects mental health, family relationships, workplace productivity and, of course, the overall quality of life. When nearly half of Canadians are losing sleep over money, we are no longer talking about isolated hardships. We are talking about an affordability crisis that is affecting the well-being, security and peace of mind of families and individuals across the country.

I know that there are countless others in my riding and across the country with stories just like Tracy's and Cory's, because they have told me face to face. They do not want government handouts. They want the government to stop making life harder and more expensive and to let them live the Canadian dream that they were once promised. They work hard. They save where they can. They make smart financial decisions just to find themselves unable to get ahead and are even falling behind through no fault of their own.

Young Canadians are delaying major life milestones because home ownership seems unattainable, a dream that can no longer be reached. Parents are struggling to keep up with rising household costs. Seniors living on fixed incomes are being forced to stretch every dollar further just to afford the absolute bare necessities of life.

People are not asking for some sort of special treatment. They are just asking for the fair shot that they rightfully deserve. They want a government that understands their challenges, respects the value of their hard-earned money and creates the conditions for economic growth and opportunity.

We know that we can turn it around, because before the Liberal government, Canada had the wealthiest middle class in the world by median disposable income. However, the lost Liberal decade of poor fiscal responsibility and antidevelopment policies have sent businesses packing, stifled our resources and suppressed our wages. The Prime Minister likes to make lots of speeches and fancy announcements that sound like progress, but the Liberal playbook remains the same: tax, regulate, control, redistribute, borrow and spend and spend. The Liberals spend money they do not have out of the pockets of Canadians with not enough to give, saddling future generations of taxpayers with the burden of paying the interest on the debt that they are accruing today.

My daughter Morgan turns one tomorrow. I do not know if I have the heart to tell her, but she, like every other Canadian, is saddled with over $30,000 in federal debt that she is responsible for, thanks to the reckless spending of the Liberal government. The only reason I might have the heart to tell her is because she is not going to yet understand, but every Canadian that can should be outraged. After 11 years, the results of these policies are plain to see. Canadians are paying more and getting less. They pay more for groceries, more for housing, more for energy, more for transportation, more in taxes and more for virtually every essential part of daily life.

When governments run up deficits, driving up borrowing and putting obstacles in the way of investment and development, the consequences do not remain confined to this House. In fact, they are very rarely felt by those ultimately responsible. They are felt at kitchen tables across this country. They are felt by families. They are felt by the business owners struggling to keep the lights on, pay staff and not lay people off because they are friends and neighbours. Canadians understand the simple truth. Governments cannot spend their way to prosperity. Wealth must first be created by workers, entrepreneurs, innovators, farmers, tradespeople and resource producers, not by more bureaucracy and more bailouts.

Canada should be the most prosperous country in the world. We are blessed with abundant natural resources, a highly educated workforce, strong institutions and some of the most innovative people anywhere on this planet, yet instead of unleashing our potential, Liberal policies have stood in the way of it. The solution is not more government spending. The solution is economic growth. The solution is creating an environment where businesses can invest and profit, workers can thrive with increasingly good and better wages, and families can keep more of what they earn. Unleash our entrepreneurs and workers and let us watch the wealth that can be created for this country.

That means pursuing responsible fiscal policy and bringing government spending under control. It means lowering the tax burden on hard-working Canadians and job creators. It means removing barriers that prevent housing from being built and ensuring that homes can be constructed faster and more affordably. It means streamlining approvals for major projects, attracting investment back to Canada and allowing our resource sector to responsibly develop the natural wealth that has long been a source of prosperity for communities right across this country.

We should be building things once again in this country. We should be building homes. We should be building energy infrastructure. We should be building mines, factories, ports, roads and projects that create good, high-paying jobs and generate economic activity. Every stalled project, every delayed approval and every business that leaves Canada represents lost opportunity for Canadian workers and families.

We should also recognize that affordability and productivity go hand in hand. A country cannot sustainably improve living standards if it is not creating wealth. We cannot distribute prosperity that does not first exist. The path to higher wages, stronger communities and better public services begins with a stronger economy. Above all, we should be restoring the principle that if somebody works hard, plays by the rules, contributes to their community and gives back, they should be able to build a good life for themselves and their families.

Canada's best days do not have to be behind us. We can build a country where home ownership is attainable again, where hard work is rewarded, where investment is welcomed and where future generations can look forward to a better quality of life than the generation before them once again. That is the promise of Canada. It is the promise that Tracy, Cory and so many people across my riding and across this country feel is slipping away. I firmly believe that it is not too late to right our course and get back to the strong middle class that we once had. The work starts here. It starts with us.

Let the people who want to build this country up get to work and get government out of the way. It starts by recognizing that we are, in fact, thanks to the Liberal government's reckless spending and awful policies, in an affordability crisis right now. It is time for this place to do better for the Canadians we represent.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have had the honour of working with my colleague from Portage—Lisgar for the last year and a half on the environment committee, and we are currently studying affordability and energy efficiency measures. Our government introduced a national electricity strategy, and there is support for up to one million Canadians on energy efficiency measures.

Does the member agree with providing support to Tracy and Cory with energy efficiency measures to save money on their energy bills?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I must admit I am a big fan of my colleague from across the way. I appreciate working with him on the environment committee.

He mentioned yet another big, grand announcement the government has made and that somehow we are supposed to believe it is going to lead to some sort of outcome sometime in the future. However, the reality is that the affordability crisis is striking at the hearts of family homes right now.

Interestingly, from that committee testimony we learned some interesting facts about those home energy retrofits that the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on. In fact, they are not leading to homes being retrofit. Also, the outcomes of those retrofits are a lot less than it had promised.

To ensure Canadians have the money to pay their bills, government needs to get out of the way and not spend more money it does not have.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I understand that my colleague's roots are in the farm fields of Portage—Lisgar, just as mine are from those in Chatham-Kent—Leamington. We both share professional experience in ag organizations prior to our parliamentary life here. Where we diverge, however, is that his daughter is younger than both of my granddaughters, but that is not for debate today.

On Tuesday, we debated our opposition day motion on diesel pricing in the House. I talked to my brother who had been harvesting tomatoes and soybeans yesterday, as well as today. His diesel costs are up 84%.

With my colleague's knowledge of how our food chain value works, could he share how 84% higher diesel prices from a year ago are impacting the lives of his constituents every day?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the kind words.

It is a huge challenge, because people do not understand farming at scale. If we are running a combine right now, and have a particularly late harvest in parts of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we are running at $250 an hour in diesel running all day with multiple combines. That is our profit at the end of the year going up in smoke. This is not something that can be eaten, particularly by grain producers. The price is the price and it is stubbornly low. Inputs for fertilizer and every other input throughout the value chain in creating that crop has been very high in the lead-up to that harvest. This is a real dagger in the profitability of our family farms.

We must remember we are a family farming nation. Of all the farms in Canada, 97% are family farms. It turns out that anybody who lives in a rural area knows that when our farmers have a good year our communities have a good year because of the donations and purchases made across our community. That is evident when our farmers are having a good year, and that is why it is so vital.

It is a shame the government did not support our important motion on diesel yesterday to try to lower costs not just for farmers, but for all of the truckers who are transporting that food and every other processed good to grocery store shelves for Canadians across this country.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I just listened to my colleague's response. I wonder if he is aware that the Auditor General released a report on the excise tax today. In it, she pointed out what everyone understands: The wealthy benefit the most. I realize, as he correctly pointed out, that we need targeted measures for farmers and truckers. Their livelihoods must not be jeopardized by the rising cost of diesel and gas.

That said, we realize that a one-size-fits-all approach ends up helping the wealthiest while leaving behind those who are genuinely in need.

Should we not find a more coherent approach to reducing fossil fuel taxes?

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will reject elements of that because I can watch the supply chain work. Let us take a chicken barn producing chickens. It takes diesel to transport them to the processor and the grocery store at very high prices. People are then putting that chicken back on the shelf because they cannot afford it and are trying to make tough decisions about what healthy food to put on their children's plates. It is directly impacting everybody across Canada, at any income level. Those with the lowest incomes who are facing high food prices are making difficult choices for their children.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today on a topic that I think is important to so many Canadians and their families, to talk about the plan that this government has brought forward. It is a plan to grow our economy, to strengthen our country and to invest in families and people who help power our nation. In speaking to the House today, I wanted to start by talking a bit about families and our government's plan to support families at a time when we know that there have been challenges. These challenges have stemmed from economic conditions around the world, from global conflict and from a tariff war not of our choosing, one that is unjustified and that we continue to rally against. However, at heart, families are at the core of Canada.

From day one, this government has invested in the types of supports to make life a little easier. Our very first act on taking office was a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. We followed that up by introducing a new groceries and essentials benefit, a payment that actually puts money back into the pockets of Canadian families, upwards of $1,800 a year at present.

We have also taken the time to reinvest in early learning and child care. This is a critical support, a new program over the last few years in this country, stretching from coast to coast to coast, that I often describe, when I meet with people in my community, as a triple threat. It is a triple threat, because it is the type of program that gives our kids the very best start in life by offering them access to early learning, but it also helps save costs for families. In Ontario, it has reduced the cost of child care by, on average, over $10,000 for a family with a child in care. It has also helped our economy by allowing parents, but predominantly women, to move back into the workforce at the time of their choosing. This has been a significant policy, in terms of how it has actually helped families reduce their annual costs, and it has helped over 900,000 children coast to coast get that best start in life.

We also continue to support and grow our dental care program. Over five million Canadians have access to dental care in a way that they did not a few short years ago. I have had seniors in my riding call this program a game-changer and say that they are getting dental care that they have put off for years as a result of the high cost of getting oral health care.

These supports are intended to make a difference in the lives of Canadians in many different ways, but they do not stop there. We are also very much focused on investing in young people and youth. I can turn to something like the national school food program, a new program. Canada was the last G7 country to introduce a national school food program. Just this spring, our government made it permanent. That school food program puts upwards of $800 back into the pockets of families, who save on groceries that they would be purchasing for their children each day, and it ensures that all kids are going to school with food in their tummies, able and ready to learn. It is a program that makes a difference in every community. Over 80% of public schools across the country now take part in the national school food program. That is an incredible achievement and one that benefits families in their pocketbooks but also in ensuring that our kids have the very best and are able to make the most of their time at school.

However, if we go a little farther in life, I think about some of the work that our government has been doing to support young people in their education, and in post-secondary education in particular. We have extended Canada student grants, so that now over 570,000 students across the country have access to grants of $4,200 per year to support their studies. These are grants that they do not have to repay. At a time when we know that there are governments in this country, provincial governments, that are cutting back on financial assistance for students, we are actually investing in students and investing in the supports that will help them be successful in post-secondary, at a time when we also know that they have high costs associated with taking time to go through that education.

We have also made a generational investment in pathways into the skilled trades. For students looking to build a career of their choice, there are incredible opportunities available right now in the skilled trades. It is why we have set out new supports to help apprentices who are going through training, with an additional $400 a week to support them while they are in their studies. There is also a $5,000-completion bonus to help them get through to the end of their program. There are also supports for employers to create incentives to hire first-year apprentices.

We know that these are the opportunities of the future. They are great jobs with benefits and with highly skilled and dynamic careers associated with them. We are really putting our focus on helping young people see the skilled trades in a new light and recognize them for what they are today: highly skilled jobs where they would work on some of the biggest projects and on major infrastructure across the country, and with a requirement of deep technical knowledge and skills. They would have a long future ahead of them in terms of a great career they can build going into the skilled trades.

I also want to touch on an area that is of particular importance to me personally. Our government is working on assisting the many Canadians who have a disability, to ensure that they have access to employment and financial supports in their day-to-day life. We know right now that about 27% of Canadians over the age of 15 identify as having a disability. That is about eight million people. Our government has been active in supporting bringing down barriers for persons with disabilities in every aspect of their daily life, whether it is ensuring that we have more accessible buildings and standards, providing financial supports such the new Canada disability benefit or bringing down barriers to employment, which we know exist.

Right now, the employment rate for persons with disabilities in Canada is only 67%, versus about 83% for the general Canadian population. That gap between 67% and 83% represents about a million people in Canada today whose potential could be unlocked if we could find ways to reduce barriers to employment. This is a labour force of people who are waiting to be included.

There is work we are doing. We have an annual investment of about $100 million for the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities, which helps Canadians find and keep jobs by funding community organizations to deliver skills training, wage subsidies and job placement. We also have an enabling accessibility fund, which has supported over 8,000 projects since 2015 to help thousands of Canadians with disabilities gain access to programs, services and employment opportunities.

I have spoken a lot with organizations, such as the Canadian Council on Rehabilitation and Work, Easter Seals, the CNIB and Spectrum Works. These are community organizations, national organizations in scope, that work with the disability community and work to create employment opportunities. They are very much partners with the work we are trying to achieve as a government to bring down barriers and unlock the potential of persons with disabilities who are seeking to join the workforce.

All the investments we are making constitute an investment in our social fabric and our social infrastructure as a country. They are foundational supports that go hand in hand with building a strong economy. A strong economy depends on people who can be included in the workforce, who have the education and the skills needed to have those jobs of tomorrow and who are going to help us in so many ways to build the projects and build the economy, as we are embarking on right now as we invest in major projects, infrastructure, housing and a building agenda that involves building communities strong from coast to coast to coast.

For that reason, I would urge the members opposite to consider the plan the government has put forward, and I thank them for the opportunity to debate this motion today.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague on her speech.

I would like to know what the government intends to do to support seniors' purchasing power. Seniors are facing challenges when it comes to affordability. Since the 2000s, the poverty rate among seniors has been rising, mainly because they live on a fixed income that is not sufficiently indexed to inflation. That is particularly true for old age security benefits. The Trudeau government increased the OAS for seniors aged 75 and up, but it failed to do the same for seniors between the ages of 65 and 74, and this created two classes of seniors.

One of my Bloc Québécois colleagues has introduced a bill seeking to index and increase the OAS for younger retirees between the ages of 65 and 74.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a government, we have supported seniors every step of the way, including, as the member mentioned, by increasing OAS payments for seniors over the age of 75. That is very much a policy that is guided by the evidence we have, that as they age past 75, our oldest senior adults among actually us incur greater costs of care and of health care. That was the motivation behind ensuring that the seniors who face those highest costs have a bit of of additional support.

We have also increased the GIS, benefiting over a million seniors, and have expanded the earnings exemption over time. We continue to support seniors every way we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, politicians can talk a glass eye to sleep, but I have a simple question. We like to hear yes-or-no answers. Most of the time, and there are three clocks in here, the Liberals would not even tell us what time it is. However, I have a simple question for the member: Does she believe there is an affordability crisis in Canada, yes or no?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the actions of our government over the past year and a half demonstrate that we are very concerned about the costs that are facing Canadians, and we have done many things in our power to reduce those costs.

I wold urge my colleague and friend across the way to get on board and support things such as child care in our home province, which is saving families right now over $10,000 a year for a child in care.

[Chi Nguyen, Liberal, Spadina—Harbourfront, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a fantastic speech by my colleague. We are both representatives of the incredible city of Toronto. One of the pain points in Toronto in terms of affordability is around child care. I am wondering if the member could speak to how and what we are doing as a government to ensure that families have access to such important economic infrastructure.

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, just last week, the Minister of Jobs and Families, along with her counterpart in Ontario, announced a four-year extension of the early learning and child care program in Ontario. That is going to create stability in terms of the fees for families in the coming months, ensuring that the average cost of daily child care is about $19. It is also going to help us work towards the creation of additional spaces in Ontario, because we know there are so many families still looking to make sure they have access to a spot.

The demand is there, the need is there and we are there to support this program. We are urging the province to be as active and supportive as it can be as well.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government proudly announces hundred of millions of dollars for affordability, while the family at the kitchen table keeps cutting groceries.

Can the member opposite explain why over two million people line up at food banks every month, and if we include churches, synagogues and temples, that number climbs to three million people? Why are all these people going to food banks if the government's efforts are so great?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a moment to point out that, in addition to helping families address the costs they face on an individual basis, we have also introduced Canada's first-ever national food security strategy, because part of our addressing the cost of food in this country involves our ensuring that we actually have a more competitive, more affordable and bigger, broader supply of food in this country. That is why we are putting $3 billion towards food terminals and local food hubs and are ensuring that things like greenhouses can be built quickly and with immediate expensing incentives in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Every decade, a new generation of young Canadians has grown up knowing what was expected of it. Over the last 11 years, however, these expectations have gone from standard practice to nearly unattainable or have come with significant strings attached. The deal that Canadians had has been broken. Now, families struggling with home ownership also have to contend with record grocery prices that have sent millions of Canadians to food banks.

Instead of stepping in to help, the Liberal government has tuned out the concerns of Canadians. It wants them to forget the past and pretend they have never had it so good. Those expectations are reinforced in the news we read, the media we consume and the footsteps of family members and peers around us.

Canadians go to school, get an education and gain work experience, all with the goal of finding a good-paying job so they can support themselves. They may not know exactly what they want to do, but they know the direction they are supposed to go in. After years of working, they buy a home and start a family, and thus the cycle begins again. Not everyone gets the same opportunities or follows the same path, but everyone has the opportunity to work towards this overarching goal, or at least they should.

However, since the election of Justin Trudeau, and of many of the Liberals who still sit on the other side of the aisle, by the way, the promise of home ownership for young Canadians has been pushed farther out of reach. Not only are Canadians farther away from home ownership, but millions are now struggling to afford even the basics. The housing and food affordability crisis has left many young Canadians and families feeling hopeless about their futures. To get out of this mess that the Liberals created, young Canadians need a marked departure from the policy practices of the last 11 years. They need a government that will work for them, not one that will tell them that they have never had it so good.

Young Canadians have every right to be frustrated by the hand the Liberal government has dealt them. A new survey by Remax found that the sacrifices Canadians are willing to make just to afford a home, and the numbers, tell an incredibly disappointing story. Sixty-five per cent of Canadians said they would have to make at least one compromise in order to afford a larger home or one that better suits the needs of their family.

Starting a family often requires more space. This is a simple truth, but the survey from Remax shows that to achieve that level of home ownership, Canadians are having to uproot their life and move away from the community and support structures they are part of, just to have their foot in the door. Others are taking a second job or turning to family for financial help in order to sacrifice savings down the road to get into the home that their family needs to get by.

These are difficult choices, and at a time when Canadians are forced to make these types of sacrifices, the Liberals continue to run massive inflationary deficits, piling onto our national debt and the billions of dollars spent every year going to bondholders to service it. This is not just abstract policy. It has consequences for the government's financial and fiscal ability to address the challenges that Canadians are facing.

While Canadians' picture of buying a home has gone from bad to worse, more and more are turning to their parents just to make ends meet. In a September survey by RBC, more than half of parents with adult children said that they had provided financial support to their kids in the last year. Among those providing support, more than half helped with groceries, while nearly a quarter helped with rent. Almost one-third of parents said that their adult children are not financially independent.

The vice-president of client segments at RBC, Lucianna Adragna, pointed to the rising cost of living and the affordability crisis as part of why we are seeing this trend. Her remarks sum up the situation perfectly: “Financial independence used to feel like a finish line where you graduate, get a job, move out and start paying your own bills. For many families, that path is no longer as linear.”

This is the reality that faces young Canadians. Even after finding employment, many are unable to afford a place to live. Those who do move out are increasingly coming back to their aging parents to help cover their bills. These are not people who are not working. These are people who are working one and sometimes two jobs, and they still cannot get ahead.

What is the Liberals' solution? They claimed they would build housing at speeds and scales not seen in generations, but over the last 18 months, what have they actually done? They have built another housing bureaucracy, which is step one in any Liberal problem-solving plan, and then they have recycled announcements that they were using going all the way back to Justin Trudeau's first term.

The Liberals claim to have 19,000 homes under way through this new agency, but the minister recently admitted that only 2,000 are actually under construction.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!