Debates of Oct. 8th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Affordability Crisis

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will with pleasure.

My hon. colleague is someone with a lot of experience in the economy and someone who worked at the OECD prior to joining politics. In fact, she was our ambassador and proudly served Canada.

Today's announcement by the Prime Minister was about trying to support 800,000 homes across the country. It will allow anyone who is below the provincial median income to be eligible for up to a $10,000 grant to install a heat pump. Anyone who is above the provincial median income will be eligible for a $2,000 grant.

This is investment in Canada. It will support manufacturing at home, but it will also lower energy bills for beneficiaries. I think of a lot of my own constituents who do not have the ability to make this happen. We have seen it happen in the Atlantic. This is a great national program that I know will make a difference in the members' riding, in my riding and indeed across the country.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Red Deer.

I am pleased to rise on behalf of my price-conscious constituents of the fall foliage-filled riding of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

The motion before us today simply asks that we recognize reality. Reality is that the Liberals have been in power 11 years. Reality indicates that we have an affordability crisis. Our Liberal colleagues would prefer we ignore reality. They prefer the fantasy world in which they are now a new government. They prefer that Canadians forget that higher prices are the official policy of the Liberal Party. The Liberals want to send the Trudeau years down the memory hole, but Canadians are living with the consequences of 11 years of bad Liberal policy.

When it comes to affordability, there are four bad Liberal policies that truly stand out. The first is the industrial carbon tax, the second is the new fuel standard, the third is the plastic packaging ban for food and the fourth is the Liberal electricity regulations. Liberals will insist that, taken in isolation, each policy is done with the best of Liberal intentions. The road to higher prices is paved with Liberal intentions.

The Liberals will claim that the purpose of the industrial carbon tax is to reduce emissions. What they do not tell us is that the consequence of the carbon tax is higher prices. Canadians understand that carbon taxes increase prices. Every Canadian saw first-hand the impact that eliminating the consumer carbon tax had on gas prices. The only difference between the consumer carbon tax and the industrial carbon tax is visibility. Most Canadians do not pay for the industrial carbon tax directly. It is paid indirectly, and the costs are absorbed first by employers. Companies have to pass those costs along to consumers if they can.

Some companies will not be able to raise prices, because of foreign competition. That is why the Liberal Prime Minister even promised carbon tariffs. As all Canadians know, tariffs increase the price of everything. The point of the Prime Minister's promised carbon tariff is to allow those companies paying the industrial carbon tax and facing foreign competition to raise prices. Before my Liberal colleagues start howling in outrage, I want to be clear: The Prime Minister has not imposed his promised carbon tariffs yet, and I have never met a Liberal prime minister who has not been prepared to break a promise in the face of poor polling.

Canadians should note that the Liberals' favourite defence of the industrial carbon tax is to claim that if we do not penalize our companies with a carbon tax, our European allies will violate our trade agreements and impose carbon tariffs on our exports. Given Europe's current energy crisis and growing debt concerns, our European friends are in no position to impose carbon tariffs, yet the Liberals will continue to repeat that carbon tax talking point. They will say with a straight face that Europe will tariff us. At the same time, they claim to be expanding free trade with Europe because we can trust it not to tariff us.

The deeper irony is that the industrial carbon tax has the same impact on our exports as the U.S. tariffs do. Tariffs and taxes increase prices. It is the same as the other bad Liberal policy I mentioned, the Liberal fuel standard. Just as with the carbon tax, the Liberals claim that the intention behind the fuel regulations is to reduce emissions. The impact, though, is to increase prices on fuels.

Yesterday, the Liberals voted against our emergency fuel relief plan. It is part of a pattern with the Liberals. They vote to increase prices at every turn but then vote against any action to reduce costs for Canadians. They even had the audacity to call their legislation that hikes gas taxes in the middle of winter a fuel affordability bill. The only thing more cynical than that piece of gaslighting is the Liberals' rebranding the GST credit as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.

When Mulroney brought the GST to tackle the first Trudeau deficit, his government established the GST credit and made sure not to apply the GST on most groceries and essentials. Stealing Conservative policies has become stock and trade with the Liberals, and if they actually adopted our policies faithfully, I would sing their praises, but they never do. They always have to put their own Liberal spin on it. With the GST credit, they increased the payment by 25%. That increases demand, and given the name change to the credit, the Liberals want increased demand to go toward groceries, and that means even more grocery inflation.

At the same time, the Liberals are pursuing their policy to ban 90% of plastic packages in the grocery store. Switching from plastic bottles to glass bottles would increase prices and reduce supply. A truck filled with glass jars of peanut butter will carry less peanut butter than if it were in plastic jars. Maybe our economist Prime Minister should explain to Canadians what happens when he increases demand and reduces supply.

The Liberal intention behind their plastic packaging ban is to reduce plastic pollution. The road to higher prices is paved with Liberal intentions. Bad Liberal policies are raising the prices of industrial goods, diesel, gasoline, everything that is made or shipped, and, worst of all, the price of food. Of course we need to give an honourable mention to the Liberal plan to increase the price of electricity with the constitutionally dubious clean electricity regulations.

It will not surprise me if my Liberal colleagues try to defend these policies individually. Their first impulse will be to deny and deflect. They will claim that the policy is not raising prices, and then they will point to $10-a-day day care, which is not $10 and is not available to many of our most marginalized families. The problem for the Liberals is something called the Canada Gazette. That is where they must publish their regulations and, most importantly, tell Canadians the truth. That is where Canadians can see in black and white that the Liberal regulations increase prices.

Most important, even if they reveal the impact of higher Liberal prices, it is not shared equally among Canadians. Lower-income Canadians are hit hardest. Rural Canadians and seniors are hit hard. For lower-income seniors in rural communities, its hits compound. The upper-income urban progressives can afford the luxury of paying for Liberal intentions. What the Liberals should not be doing is passing the higher cost onto those who can least afford it. Of course, if they do not deny and deflect, they will try to diminish the impact. Today they might claim the Liberal fuel standard has increased the price of gasoline by only five cents a litre, and they will ignore the PBO report that proves the cost will reach 17¢ per litre by 2030.

Whether it is for gasoline, diesel or electricity, every extra penny of the cost of energy cascades through the economy. Five cents a litre might not sound like much. It might not sound economically crippling for the average urban commuter, but what about the lakers, those ships on the Great Lakes that take iron from northern Ontario to be smelted into steel in southern Ontario? The lakers carry well over 500,000 litres of marine diesel. The Liberal fuel standards means they are paying over $34,000 more to fill up that ship.

They pass those costs on to the steel plant. The steel plant passes those costs and their own extra costs onto the primary parts makers. The parts makers pass those costs on plus their extra costs to the appliance manufacturer. Those appliances are loaded onto trucks powered by diesel and shipped to the retailer. Sitting at the bottom of that cascade is every single consumer.

Only Conservatives are proposing positive policies to reduce energy prices. We are fighting for the cascade of lower prices. We want policies to increase supply, not demand. We need policies that will increase competition, not more protectionism. We need broad-based tax reform, not gimmicky megadeductions. Most of all, we need every Liberal member to follow the advice of their leader, to look inside themselves. They need to ask if their intentions are aligned with the impact they will have on Canadians.

Higher prices are the official policy of the Liberal Party, and Canadians can see the results after 11 years of Liberal rule. Housing, energy and food have become more expensive. Bad Liberal policies and out-of-control spending have led us to this affordability crisis. The road to recovery starts with the Liberals' admitting they have a problem, by supporting our Conservative motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly straightforward question for my friend across the way in regard to what the government has actually accomplished over the last 18 months. I will give an example. Is there anything from the last 18 months that the member opposite likes? For example, personally, I like the health infrastructure fund. It is a $5-billion program over three years. For me, it gives hope to the residents I represent in Winnipeg North that we will be able to get the Seven Oaks General Hospital emergency department restored, or that it will at least put pressure on the provincial government.

Is there anything within the budget that the member likes?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like the budget if it came from Conservatives, because then there would not be the drawbacks and the little hidden costs that every consumer pays every time the Liberals put forth a program that is supposedly going to save them money.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to try this again. We know that the people feeling the cost of living crisis more than anyone are those on fixed incomes, such as people living with disabilities. I spoke to my colleague earlier about this. Right now, the disability benefit is a meagre $200 a month. I believe that people living with a disability should be getting a universal basic income so they are living above the poverty line. Instead, they need to apply for the disability tax credit to access the disability benefit. They have to get a health professional to approve it. It consumes about 250,000 patient visits a year for doctors, and a bunch of CRA time.

Does my colleague agree to get rid of this red tape and make it easier for people living with disabilities? The government should not make people prove twice that they have a disability in their home province or territory. If it has already been deemed that they have a disability, they should automatically qualify.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians living with disabilities are often the most hard hit by any consumer prices. However, I do not believe in a universal basic income in addition to what we already have.

With respect to the disability tax credit application, there are 30,000 people in my riding who do not have a doctor. It is even hard to get a nurse practitioner and people are on a waiting list. Therefore, it is very difficult to get that form filled out in the first place. What I agree with is this: If somebody qualifies for the disability tax credit, they should not have to go through all the motions to obtain the disability benefit as well.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the affordability crisis, if there is one segment of the population that has been affected by the never-ending increases in the cost of living since 2020, it is seniors. However, the government decided to increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors aged 75 and over, but not for those aged 65 to 74. It is discriminating between seniors. These people are being discriminated against.

The bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois, Bill C‑261, which we have introduced several times and which the government keeps rejecting, has two parts. First, it seeks to increase the guaranteed income supplement to stop this discrimination. Second, it would allow seniors who wish to continue working to do so without having their guaranteed income supplement reduced.

Does the member agree with these measures, and will she vote in favour of Bill C‑261?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that seniors are the hardest hit. Seniors living in rural communities are even harder hit because they have to drive even to get groceries. Seniors who do not have a vehicle, if they have to take a car to the grocery store or to the doctor's office, or for anything that has to be done outside their home, have to take a taxi as we do not have buses. In our community, that sometimes costs $40 just to go to the bank and another $40 to get back. The cost of fuel keeps going up for taxi drivers, so every trip costs more because of the increasing price of fuel due to the carbon taxes and all the other taxes the Liberals keep on increasing.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a taxpayer gets up in the morning, goes to work, pays taxes, pays the mortgage and pays insurance, and then gets a lecture from Ottawa as to how grateful they should be when they get a rebate cheque. Have we completely lost the plot? Is this how we show respect to our taxpayers?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the typical giving with one hand and taking with the other. However, in this case, with the Liberals, it is take, take, take. They take money off the paycheques, they take money when we buy something and they take it no matter what we do. It is very difficult to save. Even on the money we are saving, they tax us.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address our Conservative motion calling on this House to recognize that Canada is in an affordability crisis.

For workers whose paycheques are barely covering their monthly expenses, families worrying about whether they will be able to provide nutritious food for their kids or even put them in extracurricular activities, low-income seniors whose pensions are dwindling by the day and young people who cannot even dream of ever owning a home, let alone starting a family, this affordability crisis is clear to them. However, unfortunately, to the Liberal government, it seems unclear.

For 11 years, the Liberals have been in power, controlling the levers of government spending and implementing policies that have negatively impacted the economy and social fabric of this nation, yet there is always someone or something else to blame but themselves. True leadership means taking responsibility, not passing the buck. After 11 years, the bank is dry. There are no more bucks to be passed.

Canadians are living through it every day at the grocery store. “Canada's Food Price Report 2026“ estimated that a family of four would spend an average of $17,500 on food. That is up nearly $1,000 from the year before. One-quarter of Canadian households are food insecure. That is 2.75 million households, or nearly 10 million people. In Canada, a G7 country, that is a shocking number. In Red Deer, the food bank distributed more than 1.6 million pounds of food in 2025 and helped more than 30,500 families across the region.

MNP's latest consumer debt index found that 54% of Canadians say they “do not have enough savings to support themselves or their family for six months” if they were to lose their job, and 44% of Canadians report “being $200 or less away from financial insolvency each month.” These are not just numbers in reports. There are real Canadians and real people behind these unfortunate statistics, and things are not getting better.

Let us talk about housing. Habitat for Humanity reported that 56% of Canadian non-homeowners do not expect to ever own a home. That is the highest number among the 22 countries surveyed. The Liberals have spent 11 years announcing housing plans, but their own agencies keep confirming that nothing is getting built. For young people in Canada, it is even worse. Almost two-thirds are saying housing costs are making it difficult to start a family.

The family unit is the backbone of a cohesive and flourishing society. No matter what kind of NGO or special interest group tries to change that, it will always be true. When families are not treated as the base formation of our society pyramid, everything begins to crumble. As more and more young Canadians are struggling to start a family, our social fabric unravels. Canada is then stuck in a feedback loop of endless waves of unaffordability, unemployment and immigration. Rinse and repeat. Affordability, taxes and the cost of living are some of the primary determinants of how many Canadians start a family. It is incumbent on the government to make life more affordable, not less.

How does the government make money? Of course, there is no such thing as government money. The answer is taxes. The government collects taxes from Canadians and in turn provides services and protection. That is the basis of the social contract, but the social contract that Canadians are obligated to agree to has been ripped up by the Liberals. Their services are not serving and Canadians do not feel safe. Why is that?

Why, after over a decade of the Liberal government, has Canada gone from being the envy of the world to having that reputation reversed? Of course, as Carville famously said, “It's the economy”. For over a decade, the Liberal government has blocked, stalled, delayed and denied nation-building, enriching and unifying projects. Liberal politics of division and pitting one region against another to score political points have sacrificed Canadian unity and economic prosperity for election results.

Canada should have some of the most affordable energy on the planet. We have the resources, we have the workers and we have the know-how. Recently, the Liberals found something else to blame: foreign wars. Here is the truth. Foreign wars and conflicts outside of our borders should not dictate whether Canada could be a self-sustaining energy superpower. It should already have been done. Record fuel costs did not magically appear. They are a result of a government that treats the Canadian energy and natural resource industry as a problem to be managed rather than the advantage it is.

The Conservatives would provide emergency prepermitting and tax relief for the construction of refineries, pipelines, rail and storage; eliminate all federal taxes on diesel consumption until at least Canada Day 2027; permanently eliminate taxes on diesel production; and increase production to one million barrels per day so that Canadians are never again dependent on foreign oil.

Speaking of buying foreign products, how about buying Canadian? Just yesterday at the health committee, the Liberals made a decision to decimate another Canadian industry. It was the quiet killing of small businesses in a sector millions of Canadians rely on every day. I am speaking of the natural health products industry. For decades, NHPs like vitamins, minerals, probiotics, herbal remedies and traditional Chinese medicines have been regulated and approved by Health Canada. The system worked as intended and the natural health products industry thrived across Canada. It was thriving so much that 80% of Canadians use NHPs. Canadian-owned small businesses like health food stores were growing and thriving.

However, in 2023, the Liberal government decided to seize more bureaucratic power and regulate natural health products in the same way as therapeutic drugs manufactured by big pharma and multinationals. That meant more regulations for small businesses, including new labelling, new fees and new penalties. A system that had been functioning properly for decades changed overnight. Canadian products were now required to go through more government, while any product could be purchased over the Internet and shipped into our country with no safety standards or approval. Products are disappearing from Canadian shelves. Customers are ordering from the United States. Jobs are leaving and businesses are closing.

The Conservative private member's bill, Bill C-224, would have reversed the Liberal big government decision and brought NHPs back to the way they were regulated before 2023, when they were working just fine. However, just yesterday, the Liberals unashamedly stripped this bill word by word and will now return a blank piece of paper to this House. Millions of Canadians who rely on natural health products have just been told by the Liberal government, “Too bad”.

Pay more or buy American is not pro-Canada, but after 11 years, this is the pattern of the Liberal government. A common-sense bill that would have supported small businesses and consumer choices has been killed by the Liberals. Another main street employer has been told to absorb more cost, making the affordability crisis worse.

That is why the Conservatives brought forward this motion today. It is time for the Liberal government members to tell the truth. After 11 years of the Liberal government, Canada is in an affordability crisis.

The Conservatives will always fight to save Canadians money. We have an economic action plan to save Canadians money and jobs. We would green-light the 500 projects waiting for approval, take the GST off Canadian-made autos, have zero capital gains on reinvestment in Canada, end the industrial carbon tax and repeal job-killing bills, Bill C-48 and Bill C-69.

The Conservatives will fight for common-sense policies that would improve Canadian lives with stronger paycheques, lower food costs, homes Canadians can afford and an economy that rewards hard work. The Liberals must acknowledge the crisis of their making and vote for this Conservative motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, less than 18 months ago, Canadians went to the polls and chose a new Prime Minister and a new government. There are 70-plus new Liberal MPs sitting in the government benches today.

Virtually from day one, the Prime Minister has been talking about the issue of affordability, along with building a stronger and healthier Canadian economy and society. We have taken many measures. I have had a chance to list off many of the different affordability measures the government has actually taken, yet the Conservative Party continuously votes against them.

On the one hand, the Conservatives talk about doing something for affordability, but when we do, they vote against it. Why?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been in power for 18 months and yesterday, he said he just got here. For the first time, I heard his parliamentary secretary say we are in an affordability crisis.

Every time we talk about these programs, they are band-aids. We need solutions. The Conservatives have put forward a list of things that would make a difference to Canadians, not just a cheque in the mail that is a band-aid.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.

I was particularly interested in the part of his speech that addressed natural health products.

It is true that this is part of the economy. I have met with people from the sector on a few occasions. My colleague, the member for Montcalm, worked on the bill in the Standing Committee on Health. Unfortunately, the Liberals seem reluctant to engage fully on this issue. Although the Minister of Health has met with the pharmaceutical industry, she does not appear to have made the same effort to understand the challenges facing the natural health products sector. She has not even attempted to meet with representatives from this sector to gain a full appreciation of the complexity of the issue.

What does my colleague make of the Liberals' closed-minded attitude toward this association?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important question. Bill C-224 was shut down yesterday at the health committee and stripped line by line. I felt like we had been misled by the Liberal health committee members.

This is truly going to hurt all of the natural health products people. The 80% of Canadians who use these products are going to be forced to either purchase them from the United States at a cheaper rate or pay more to have Canadian labelling and the bureaucracy of Health Canada.

I am still reeling from it, but I can assure members that the Conservatives will continue to fight for natural health products, and we will hear more about it in the House when this blank piece of paper that has been worked on since 2023 is presented in the House.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, how would life be different for Canadians had the pipeline to the Pacific that was approved by the Harper government been allowed to proceed? How long is the minimum it would take for that pipeline to be built?

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot to say about that. The first thing I would like to say is we would be an energy superpower. We would have a stockpile. We would be able to control our fuel prices. Farmers would not be facing twice the price in fuel costs from year to year.

The actual building of a pipeline, if the bureaucracy of the Liberal government was not in the way, could be accomplished in a couple of years. The problem is that the Liberals continue to not consult with the provinces and they leave it to the last minute, and the next thing we know, the project is stalled or cancelled.

We cannot build pipelines with government money. It needs to be the private sector building these projects, because they will then get done in a reasonable time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, The Economy; the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Finance; and the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Finance.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish.

I often say what an honour it is to rise in the House to debate a motion. I actually cannot say that today, because this is one of the most nonsensical motions I have ever seen before the House of Commons. Normally, when we propose a motion, we have a solution; we have a proposal. We say, “This is my idea. I would like the House of Commons to debate it.” Today, there are zero ideas in this motion. It makes two statements, both of which are actually true, but have no causal link to each other, necessarily.

The first statement we are debating is that the Liberals have been in power for 11 years. Well, yes, that is a true statement. I know that because I was first elected 11 years ago, and I have always sat on this side of the House, and my Conservative colleagues who proposed the motion have always sat on that side of the House. This is because Canadians, for four consecutive elections, have chosen a Liberal government. Let me read the results of those elections. In 2015, there were 184 Liberals elected to 99 Conservatives. In 2019, there were 157 Liberals elected to 121 Conservatives. In 2021, there were 160 Liberals elected to 119 Conservatives.

In the 2025 election, with our new Prime Minister and our new government, we had 169 Liberals elected to 144 Conservatives. We all know what has happened since that election. We have had many members of the Conservative Party cross the floor to become Liberals. The Liberal Party has won six consecutive by-elections to have new Liberal members. Today, we are at 173 Liberal members, plus there are six vacancies. It is true.

Canadians from across the country—from Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and even Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan—elected Liberal MPs in the last election, and we now have a majority government. It is true. Will debating this motion actually achieve anything for Canadians?

The answer is no, but if that is what the Conservatives want to talk about, then sure.

The second statement is that Canada is in an affordability crisis. Well, sure, there is an affordability crisis in western democracies. There is an affordability crisis across the world because there are wars going on in Russia and Ukraine. There is a war going on constantly around Iran, and that has led to the rise in prices of things like fuel and wheat and other things, which has caused inflation to go up across the western world, and food in particular has been affected.

Canada actually, as a country, has one of the lower inflation rates in the G7. Since the pandemic, inflation has been rampant, and Canadians are suffering as a result, just like Americans are suffering, British people are suffering and people are suffering in many other countries. They are suffering because they have to worry about how they are going to afford to pay their grocery bills. This is why this government has put forward numerous initiatives to try to deal with that question. Somehow, in some way, the Conservatives today have tried to argue that inflation and affordability are issues only in Canada, which is certainly not the case. They are an issue everywhere, whether the government is a right-wing government or a left-wing government or a centrist government.

This government has actually dealt with the problem. We have put forward, in the last year and a half, numerous solutions that I can detail. Let us talk about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will increase support for Canadian families by 25% over five years starting in July. In fact, the latest payment happened just a few days ago, which will allow Canadians to have more money to put towards their groceries and essentials. There is the first act that this government did, which was cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians by lowering the first marginal tax rate from 15% to 14%. It provided tax relief of $420 in the first half of the year. This year, it will be $840 a year for two-income families. This is a meaningful act to put more money in Canadians' pockets. We are eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers and cancelling the federal consumer carbon tax, effective April 1, 2025, which was an idea the Conservatives supported.

I know it is disappointing to be sitting in opposition for 11 years. I understand the frustration. However, the Conservatives themselves chose to make mention of that in the motion. It was not me who chose to talk about the fact that the Liberals have been in power and have been chosen by Canadians over and over again. It was them, so maybe they should celebrate that.

Then there is the national school food program, We made that permanent, but the Conservatives voted against that. That program lets kids get food at school. It allows families to know their children are able to have a warm, good lunch at school.

There are automatic federal benefits, where people who are lower income are automatically receiving benefits they qualify for.

There are lowering costs and strengthening competition in essential services, pro-competition measures in the telecom sector and the financial sector to reduce prices.

As well, there is the expanding and entrenching of the Canada child benefit. The Canada child benefit is something that millions of Canadians benefit from and is putting much more money into the pockets of parents of children until the age of 17.

There is the lowering costs for child care and kid essentials. Lowering the cost of child care across this country, creating more spots and making sure that day care is affordable has not only allowed women to go back in the workforce in many places to make sure we have a much more equal workforce, but also allowed families to know they do not have to pay extraordinary amounts to do that.

I am very proud that our province of Quebec was the first place in Canada, and perhaps one of the first in the world, to have affordable child care.

Let us talk about the Canada dental plan. For way too long in this country, Canadians have been able to get medical care, but not dental care. This means people know their bodies are healthy, except for their teeth and gums, but the teeth and gums are some of the most vital parts of the body that can bring infection to someone's entire body. For some reason, in Canada, we had never guaranteed that lower-income people would be able to pay for their dentist. These types of preventive measures are necessary to keep people healthy. If a person's family income is $90,000 or less per year, they are able to qualify for dental care if they do not have other insurance provided by their employer. That is huge.

There is the $500 Canada housing benefit top-up and the tax-free first home savings account that over 750,000 Canadians enrolled in. As well, there is the Canada disability benefit, where our government is delivering up to $200 a month, which is helping 600,000 Canadians.

I can go on and on and on about all the affordability measures we are taking.

Yes, Canadians are hurting. Yes, affordability is a huge issue. It is one of the most important issues facing this country, and we need to do everything we can to make sure that Canadians can afford to live their lives, buy their groceries, have housing and have the most important essentials.

This motion today, as I return to it, proposes nothing. There is not one idea in the motion, not one.

There is not a single idea in the motion. It merely makes two statements. There are no proposals. If they can waste time debating this in the House of Commons simply to acknowledge two facts and propose nothing, I fail to even see the purpose of the House of Commons.

The House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada, is here to listen to ideas, propose ideas and debate those ideas, not to simply put two different facts together that have no causality one to the other and say that it is a motion.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member, at the beginning and at the end of his speech, denied a connection between the first part and second part of the motion. He says that the motion could have proposed concrete solutions. We have proposed other concrete solutions, including earlier this week, that they voted against.

The first thing toward having a solution is to admit there is a problem. In this motion, we are asking the government to admit that after its 11 years, it has produced an affordability crisis. The member wants to blame external factors as if to say that over the last 11 years, when the government cancelled major projects, and now we need major projects, or imposed a carbon tax and then took it away, the government has not given us the present affordability crisis.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it must be very sad to be sitting in the opposition and have nothing as a solution to propose for affordability and to create a motion that basically does not propose anything at all.

Affordability is a very important issue. Affordability is a problem throughout western democracies. Affordability needs to be tackled. This government is tackling it, and the opposition has zero solutions to propose in today's motion.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too wanted to tell the member for Mount Royal that I came to the House at the same time as he did. I dare say that, in December 2024, when the Liberals were facing the prospect of being reduced to just 25 seats, he was not nearly as enthusiastic as he was at the beginning of his speech today. I would therefore encourage him to demonstrate a little more humility in his speeches because he is bound to find himself on this side of the House someday.

The fact remains that, over the past 11 years, the Bloc Québécois has stood up for affordability, particularly for seniors, while his government has stubbornly refused to end the discrimination against seniors aged 65 to 74. These seniors are grappling with this affordability crisis, but the government is doing nothing to end that discrimination.

Will he vote in favour of Bill C‑261?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, affordability is very important. Seniors' issues are also very important. We want all seniors to be able to live with dignity. That is why, in 2015, our government reversed the Conservatives' decision to raise the retirement age from 65 to 67. Discussions will be held on this private member's bill.

I recognize that there are real challenges facing seniors aged 75 and over. In addition, many seniors aged 65 to 75 continue to work. That said, I am certainly always open to hear my colleague's arguments.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague. However, the Liberals have been in government for 11 years. There are 65,000 people who are homeless on any given night across this country. In 11 years in government, they have yet to present a plan on how they are going to address homelessness, and it is growing. We are at 3.3% non-market housing.

The Liberals talk about their major projects list. When is ending homelessness going to make it to the major projects list?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on whether the projects list would include ending homelessness, I am not quite sure that is what the project list works for. However, ending homelessness is a very important issue. Making sure that people have a roof over their head is incredibly important. Whatever government programs deal with that and continue to deal with that certainly are priorities for all of us in this House.

I have a lot of respect for my colleague, and I am sure he would have preferred that, in the motion before us, there was a solution to the homelessness crisis. A motion could have proposed to debate how we could make housing more affordable versus the nothing motion that was put forward today.

I am happy to talk to the member about the homelessness issue.