Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the rose scholarship, a scholarship put on by a good friend of mine, Andrew Addorisio, and his wife, Sarah Addorisio. It was inspired by his mother, Rosella Addorisio. This scholarship aims to help underprivileged youth that face barriers to education and the things they are trying to achieve. I want to congratulate them on establishing this scholarship.

It is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of Vaughan—Woodbridge to speak to Bill C-31. Before the government asks Canadians to believe another budget promise, I should explain why so many people can no longer afford to eat.

Today, the Salvation Army reported that one in three Canadians surveyed had skipped meals or reduced their size because they could not afford groceries. Among young adults, that number was 41%. These are young Canadians who are trying to establish themselves, build careers and start families. They are being robbed of a Canadian promise, falling behind on what is the most basic of necessities.

The Daily Bread Food Bank also released its latest report today. One in eight Toronto children now lives in a household that relies on a food bank, nearly double the rate in 2022. Toronto recorded 4.1 million food bank visits for the second consecutive year. After housing costs, clients now have a median of just eight dollars a day left for food and other essentials. Can members imagine that? Eight dollars is not even enough to grab a meal at Tim Hortons. Let us think about people trying to get to work, feed themselves and replace a child's worn-out shoes when all they have left is that amount.

I am sure we will hear the Prime Minister deliver another speech about the strength of the economy, another talking point in the House that will be dressed down if spoken to the average Canadian. As we have heard, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” After all, if we listened to the government very closely, we would get the impression that Canadians have never had it so good, but I would ask Canadians watching at home if that resonates with them. Are they better off today than they were yesterday? Are they better off from anything that the Liberal government has done? Parents, when they open their fridge when they get home, know the truth. That is exactly the reality against which we will judge Bill C-31, the second act implementing last year's budget and, of course, the budget the government is preparing to introduce later this week.

Canadians deserve to know whether any of this will leave them in a better position to pay their bills. The government cannot keep raising the cost of doing business and expecting the consequences to stop before they reach the customer. The Prime Minister, over the past decade and a half, has doubled the deficit, with the biggest deficit outside of the pandemic estimated to be the highest spending as a share of GDP this century.

There are serious threats, of course, from outside of our borders. American tariffs are hurting Canadian employers and workers. This makes it even more urgent to address the costs the government can control. Canadians should be able to count on their own government to make it easier for them to earn a living here. Instead, the government's finances are moving further away from the discipline that it promised when it was first elected.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer now projects a $63.3-billion deficit this fiscal year. Federal debt as a share of the economy is projected to rise every year over the forecast. The government is also projected to miss its fiscal anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. It is the Liberals themselves who chose that very commitment, and Canadians are certainly entitled to expect them to keep it.

Earlier today at the finance committee, I asked the Bank of Canada governor what his thoughts were on the importance of fiscal anchors from the perspective of the market and what the signal of missing a fiscal anchor might do. Of course, his response was predictable: These are plans, and they give confidence to the market.

The government ignores its fiscal anchors, and it has been doing this for the last 10 or 11 years. We might remember a time when Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin, when he was finance minister, got us back on track with our fiscal anchors and balanced budgets. Of course, since then, we know about Justin Trudeau's time here. How many of us would love to forget how the Liberals ran deficits year after year, blowing our deficit to smithereens? Worse than that, they set numerous fiscal targets and ran through every single one of them. Now the Prime Minister has set fiscal anchors, and it appears he will already be blowing through at least one of them.

When a family cannot make its payments, it cannot solve its problem by inventing a new description for its bills. A small business can not reassure its bank by moving the goalposts whenever it misses a target. The Prime Minister should face the same basic demand to have an honest plan, one that he is able to stick to and that breathes confidence into the Canadian economy.

The PBO projects interest on the federal debt will cost over $59 billion this year, rising to $83 billion in the next five years. Canadians will end up paying that through taxes while trying to manage their own debt. Imagine that. We now live in a time when we are going to be spending more on debt interest than we do on health care transfers.

If we recall, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge once had a proposal for keeping debt servicing costs below 10% of government revenue, or roughly 10¢ for every dollar. According to the PBO, we are already around 10.5¢ for every dollar, and that is expected to rise over the next five years to just under 14¢. Borrowing certainly has a cost. The larger that cost becomes, the harder it is to fund essential services and provide lasting tax relief for Canadians.

We should be focusing on metrics that will help the structural issues of our economy and get it moving again. Often, we see from the government that its measure of success is how much money it spent. What we need to do is signal to the economy that we are ready and open for business and want to attract investment. We would like to see some regulatory and tax reform, which is much needed in this country. This is why Canadians are asking for a budget that saves them money.

In this budget, we would love to see the Liberals cut wasteful spending, reduce their reliance on expensive consultants, cut unnecessary bureaucracy and corporate handouts, and cancel the $150-billion Alto project rather than committing taxpayers to another enormous project while families struggle. I find that interesting. When we were discussing Bill C-31 at the finance committee, I asked the transport minister what the ceiling was on this project, and he would not commit to a ceiling.

There are certain projects that some people try to argue, the way the government has, are in the national interest. That does not mean there is a blank cheque awarded to government for these projects. We have a project that is already demonstrating that the cost will be exponentially higher than first considered. Oftentimes, when projects are put on the books and a costing plan is looked at, there is a large buffer in the plan when dealing with bigger projects. There seems to be no end in sight to the amount of money that this project is going to cost taxpayers.

Let us think about the GST on fuel for a second. Conservatives are calling for the elimination of federal diesel taxes until Canada Day, the suspension of the GST on fuel until summer and the permanent repeal of the fuel standard tax. That is exactly what it is: a tax on Canadians and a tax on the trucks that carry groceries to the store, materials to a construction site and products from Canadian factories to their customers. Reducing fuel taxes would lower transportation costs and give families direct relief at the pump.

We also need more good jobs and stronger paycheques. That requires businesses willing to invest in this country and to expand and hire in Canada. Ottawa needs to speed up approvals, remove unnecessary regulatory barriers and make it easier to build homes, develop our resources and manufacture Canadian products.

The responsibility to protect taxpayers also needs to apply to defence procurement. Division 16 of Bill C-31 would establish the Defence Investment Agency in legislation. One thing we are constantly questioning is why, with every new agency developed, there seems to be less and less accountability from the government.

I thank members for their time. I stand here on behalf of Canadians fighting for a more affordable Canada.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-220, an act to designate the month of March as Hellenic heritage month.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, when I take a look at the debt-to-GDP ratio, Canada is doing relatively well in comparison to all the G7 countries. When we look at Canada's AAA credit rating, Canada is doing exceptionally well. When we compare that to G7 countries, only Germany has the same rating.

The question I have is a principle question. If a government has fiscal capabilities, as we do, would the member not agree that, if we were to invest in Canada, work with provinces, indigenous communities and so forth, that we could build our infrastructure, which would help the economy, not only in the short term, but also in the long term?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a theme that we have heard over and over again. Time and time again, we have heard the Liberals say they are going to be investing in the economy and they are going to be investing to grow, but we have seen the deficit climb higher and higher, and our public debt climb higher and higher.

It is interesting that, on the debt-to-GDP ratio, we often hear the government cite net debt. Of course, that calculation considers the Canadian pension plan. I am sure Canadians would be alarmed if they understood that the government was considering their pension as potential debt repayment. I do not think people would appreciate that very much.

The government has these fiscal anchors. It has these fiscal anchors that it needs to achieve, and it seems as though it is blowing through them. If we want to maintain our credibility, and maintain our credibility in markets, we have to make sure we make a plan and we actually stick to it.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

I thank my colleague for his speech. Like me, he is also from a family of Italian background, as are many other members of the House, although I cannot point to who is or is not here in referencing any particular member. One of the things I am so proud of is the hard work I saw from my family. They instilled that work ethic in me. I sense that the member has many hard-working people in his riding who are struggling to get by.

Could the member comment on where he might shift priorities to in helping those hard-working people?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, my family, the member's family and many families that have come to this country as immigrants share a similar story. They came here, they worked hard and they wanted a better future for their families, for their children and their children's children.

The question now becomes, what exactly should government be focusing on today? There are numerous things. We need to get our debt and deficit under control because, as I said in my speech, we are now at the point where we are spending $83 billion on interest payments alone, which is more than is being spent on health care transfers.

We are overtaxed and over-regulated in this country. What Canadians need and what Canadians expect from government is for the government to address these issues. We need some tax reform and income tax reform. We need reforms that will make businesses grow and thrive so there is more employment and more opportunity for our workers.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when our government talks about building Canada strong and investing, especially with the unjustified tariffs from the U.S., we are having to put a lot of effort into creating jobs in the country.

Would the member not agree that there is a great need for well-paying jobs and that these nation-building projects are part of the solution?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is a principle we often talk about, which is, what is in the government's control that it could address today? My colleague would know this quite well from when she was a member on this side of the House. She would have been a strong advocate for supply-side principles.

This includes things like tax reform, regulatory reform and things that would create the conditions for businesses to prosper and for individuals to keep more of their paycheques in their pocket. They are the things that would inspire businesses and investment to grow here in this country. We need to see more of that and less centralized government control over the way the economy works.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a page out of the book of my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola and say it is a pleasure to rise today on behalf of the good, honest and hard-working people of Ponoka—Didsbury.

Ponoka—Didsbury is in central rural Alberta, just about 45 minutes north of Calgary and 45 minutes south of Edmonton. This is the heart of Alberta, and it is truly a pleasure and an honour for me to rise to speak on their behalf. As an Albertan, it also gives me pleasure to stand here in the House of Commons to talk about the great things Alberta contributes to this great nation of Canada.

I am going to take this opportunity to just mention to everybody listening in the House that, this year, every single man, woman and child in Alberta will contribute $4,000 more to the Government of Canada than it gets back in services. For the constituents of Ponoka—Didsbury, that is about a half a billion dollars, just under $500 million. I know nobody in this place is rushing forward to give thanks, and in 21 years, I have yet to hear many people say it, but just in case they are thinking it, I am going to say that they are welcome, on behalf of my constituents in Alberta, who simply want the government to get out of their way to let them do what they do best.

We know from our industrious spirit and our can-do attitude, particularly in rural Alberta, that we can grow the food, get the resources like oil and natural gas out of the ground and harvest our timber. Like I said, we can grow our food. We can do the industrial and commercial development we need to create prosperity. There are mod yards in the constituency of Ponoka—Didsbury that build massive pieces of infrastructure, which are shipped up the road to places like Fort McMurray, either by truck or by train.

We know that the workers we have in rural and central Alberta, and even in our larger urban centres, have all of the capacity, technological capability, experience, engineering, knowledge and know-how to build out even more of our resource extraction, resource processing and resource shipping machinery. I know a lot of that happens right in my constituency, in Ponoka, Blackfalds and other places, in the industrial yards that we have there. I am looking forward to, someday, those yards being as busy as they used to be about 11 years ago.

The reason I am standing here today is to talk about the government's budget implementation act from the previous budget. Here we are, at just the report stage. We are not even at third reading yet. We are just at report stage on the budget implementation legislation, which is largely housekeeping legislation, on a budgetary policy that was passed last year, and we are two days before the next budget, which is going to be presented this coming Thursday. It is a really interesting piece of legislation.

Let me tell the House how Liberal logic works. It works the same way on a lot of different things, yet here we are. We are talking about division 16 of part 4 of Bill C-31. I am just going to talk about this a bit for the folks back home. Division 16 deals with the creation of the Defence Investment Agency, which was, in the last budget, the government's newfound bureaucracy that was going to somehow do procurement for our men and women in our armed forces.

Let me be absolutely clear that the people of Ponoka—Didsbury 100% stand behind the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. Many of the people in my constituency, like it is for anybody else in the House, have served in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are very, very proud of the men and women who stand on guard for us each and every day, but we have a procurement problem in Canada. We cannot get things done on time. We have lots of red tape and lots of bureaucracy.

This budget implementation act is just at report stage. It is not even at third reading two days before the next budget is to be tabled. Division 16 in Bill C-31 would establish the Defence Investment Agency as a body with its own minister, which is, by the way, yet to be named. This piece of legislation would actually to be replaced by another bureaucracy in Bill C-40, which is also currently before the House. We have a bill to create a bureaucracy that is so late coming to this place that the new bureaucracy to replace this bureaucracy is being stood up in another piece of legislation currently before the House. We cannot even make this stuff up.

If there was a gold star for building government, every grade 5 teacher in Canada would be asked to surrender their gold stars to the Liberal government in Ottawa for all of the gold stars it would get for creating more bureaucracy. We have never had more government than we do right now. The Liberals are so busy making government here that they do not even have time to ratify legislation that creates one bureaucracy before they get around to ratifying another piece of legislation to replace that bureaucracy. That is how fast they are growing government here.

Our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces need the tools, technology and equipment to defend us, but really, all we are doing right here in Parliament is creating one bureaucracy after another bureaucracy. Like I said, they get gold stars for creating bureaucracy, but that is not the bigger point I want to make in my comments today.

I think Canadians would be shocked to find out just how in debt Canada actually is. I am not just talking about our federal debt, which is massive. It is more than double what it was in 2015. I think we are at $1.5 trillion in national debt, which is up from just over $620 billion. Every government and every prime minister in Canada, up until 2015, in 150-some years of the existence of our country, managed to amass a grand total of about $620 billion in debt. Since Justin Trudeau and this new Liberal Prime Minister have been to office, that has more than doubled, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer has projected that, in the next five years, it is going to go up another $700 billion to well over $2 trillion.

That is just the federal debt, and the interest on that debt is now becoming one of the highest budget line items we have, to the point where we are getting up to $6,000 for every family. All the taxes they pay to the Government of Canada are just going to pay the interest, not the principal. It is like just paying the interest on the credit card without ever paying down the principal or the amount that is owing. Right now, we are at $6,000 per family before any service is paid, before any doctors are paid, before any teachers are paid, before any schools are built, before anything is done, before any police officer is paid, before any Crown prosecutor is paid, before anybody at our corrections services or anybody at our border trying to protect our country is paid, and before our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces are paid. Before any of that gets paid, we are dealing with $6,000 just in interest.

We also have all the sub-sovereign debt from all of our provinces and then all of the business debt. I am not even talking about what our financial institutions are on the hook for when it comes to lending. I am just talking about business debt, such as businesses that take out a line of credit, a farm that has a loan with Farm Credit Canada, or something like that. This debt is now added on to the personal debt of every Canadian, and we are looking at 385% debt-to-GDP.

I am not even talking about the money financial institutions have lent out that they owe. I am just talking about personal debt, credit card debt, business and commercial debt and government debt. The entirety of our economy has to service all of that debt, and we are not getting the economic questions in this country right.

We have a Prime Minister who gets up every time he speaks and has a doomsday scenario for Canada, yet one simple little request we had was to remove the tanker ban off the west coast. If we are on a war footing economically, we could be shipping another 250,000 barrels a day by rail to Prince Rupert to give to our friends and allies.

I just got back from a trip to Japan with several Liberal colleagues, not the ones who are smirking at me on the other side right now, and Japan would take every drop of oil, natural gas and propane we have, but we will not get out of the way. We will not remove a tanker ban to allow a simple little thing to grow our economy so that, hopefully, we could pay some of this debt. I shudder to think why this is. It makes no sense.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to address a couple of comments from the member's intervention. First, on behalf of the residents of Winnipeg North, I do thank the residents of Alberta and the Province of Alberta for their contributions through equalization. I like to think it is one of the things that makes Canada great. Some provinces are not blessed with the same sorts of resources and so forth. Having a balance of social services is really important for all of Canada.

Second, I would note that the member talked a great deal about getting oil to the west coast. The demand that the member is referring to has been there for many years. When he was in government with Stephen Harper, the Conservatives did not build an inch of pipeline going to the west coast. Not only did our previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, do that, but we have a strong indication that the current government will do likewise. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on that issue.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, do members know how many oil pipelines to tidewater the Harper government inherited from the Chrétien and Martin governments? It inherited zero. We had four and a half years of a majority government to change the legislation in the country in order to create a streamlined application process.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, they are laughing on the other side of the House. They think it is funny, but I was here. I lived through all of it.

How many LNG projects did we inherit? We inherited four. They were import terminals. The Liberals of the day wanted to import liquefied natural gas into Canada, not actually export it. When Justin Trudeau became the prime minister, he inherited northern gateway, the Trans Mountain expansion, energy east and Keystone XL. He chased away all the private sector financing available for that and put on a $40-billion price tag on it for the taxpayers of Canada to pay.

The Liberals are now going to do the same thing again. They have regulated our economy to a standstill, and the only people who get to do anything are their buddies, to whom they give a bunch of taxpayer money, rather than fixing our roads and paying for hospitals that everybody gets to enjoy.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, tens of thousands of air passengers whose rights have been violated have filed complaints and are waiting for them to be processed. The government's response is to outsource the process to entities that will be selected according to criteria that are nowhere to be found in the legislation. When an airline owes compensation following the resolution of a complaint and interest has accrued on that amount, passengers may face significant challenges in recovering the money owed to them. Furthermore, the companies that handle those complaints may ultimately be chosen, directly or indirectly, by the airlines themselves.

The Bloc Québécois tabled amendments to correct these shortcomings in the bill, but the government rejected them all in committee.

In my colleague's opinion, what are the government's reasons for relentlessly targeting air passengers this way?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as somebody who spends an inordinate amount of time in airports and dealing with our Canadian airlines, I can understand and appreciate the frustration. I am sure all my colleagues of the House generally have those same levels of frustration. The government has announced that it is going to be privatizing some of our airports. That is an interesting concept and an interesting idea. I do not know where this is going to go. I have some ideas about whether or not it is a good idea.

The reality is that Transport Canada has huge bills. Canadians have some of the highest rates of landing fees and taxes to pay in order to move goods and services around this country. We have one of the largest geopolitical land masses. We need to reduce costs and red tape wherever possible and make it so that airlines can operate in a true free market environment and give the best solutions possible to the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did talk about the west coast opportunity that we have on our horizon to get our oil to our allies very quickly and to customers around the world that are demanding Canadian resources. I would like him to explain the pipeline that was already planned and approved, to get to the pipeline, and what held that pipeline up from getting approval and actually getting built and in the ground.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Calgary Centre knows this issue inside and out. Anybody who is involved in the industry and in the business, right from the suits down to the boots on the ground, understands that it is just regulations and red tape that have held everything up, and it is the decisions that the government has made, picking the winners and losers, and getting involved and actually spending taxpayers' dollars on this.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to create an environment where people feel safe to invest in this country. They do not need millions and millions of taxpayer dollars. When I collect tax dollars on behalf—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber on behalf of constituents of Simcoe North. I understand that we are running late on debate, so my comments will be brief this evening in order to provide opportunity for other colleagues to make an intervention.

I would just like to point out that Bill C-31 is 338 pages long. It was first introduced in the chamber in May. We are not even at third reading. This is report stage. Nothing screams that we are at war like a bill's taking multiple months to get through the chamber on something that is supposed to be as important to the government as its financial plan. When a government creates a bill this big, it makes it quite difficult for parliamentarians to get answers to very specific questions, and there are some things in the bill that I think deserve some further scrutiny.

For example, division 7, part 4, says that the government would increase the total borrowing capacity of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the CMHC, that is, in effect, to increase the liabilities the taxpayer has to backstop or to support the activities of the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation.

Of course, we are in a housing crisis in this country. However, I would say the government has preferenced its support of the sector that suggests it would further subsidize rental units as opposed to single family dwellings or other different forms of ownership of homes that are not apartments but actual owned homes. The construction of owned homes, owned units, is way down, but the construction of apartments is way up. I happen to be an all-of-the-above conservative, and I think the government should be making sure it is creating equity in the housing market by not preferencing one style of housing over others.

There is also an overbuild of apartments right now because rents are falling across the country. That is a good thing. More supply means lower rents, but what about the other forms of home ownership, such as of single-family dwellings, townhouses or condominiums, in which the owner occupies the residence?

I also would like to point out that in the bill, there would be a further consolidation of power from the bureaucracy into an individual minister. I am referring to the power of the minister to get more involved and take power from the Canadian Transportation Agency into the minister's office with respect to consumer complaints. If we like the current Minister of Transport, as many people do, and I have nothing bad to say about him, there is no problem if he gets more power, I suppose. However, what would happen when the minister is a dud? We would have just given them more power.

This is yet another example of how, time after time, the government has further consolidated power within its own ministerial offices, giving it more discretion and more power, and taking it away from unelected individuals who may exercise that power in a more judicious manner. That is a risk I would like to highlight.

I think my previous colleague hit the nail on the head very well when he talked about challenges with debt service costs. It is the fastest-growing line item in the budget. It is unclear to me whether the government even cares about this. It will retort that we should be thankful and appreciative that it has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

However, Canadians would be surprised to learn that the calculation includes the assets of the CPP and not any of the liabilities, which I do not think is the impression the government is trying to give. I do not think it is saying that it could take money from the CPP to pay the government debts, but we could be forgiven for making that mistake, given the number of times the government refers to that stat in the House.

Frankly, given the recent announcement by the government to invest in a private AI corporation called Cohere, I would like to highlight the risk of the government's turning the Prime Minister's Office and the government into an investment bank, not into an appropriate policy shop, such that the only things that get done in this country are those that get a permission slip from the Prime Minister's Office and are those that require significant sums of taxpayer money to be contributed.

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

Mr. Speaker, CMHC actually does an incredible job at enabling people to own a home. I suspect that many members of the House would not have had their opportunity at one point in time if it were not for CMHC. The increase to $1 trillion is something that is necessary. I do not know the actual number, but I suspect 50% of that allocation is already there in terms of being secure. Stephen Harper increased it by a couple of hundred billion dollars.

I am wondering if the member would agree that it is good for the housing industry as a whole to enable CMHC to provide housing for Canadians and support that.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the challenge I have is that most, if not the vast majority, of the increase of the liabilities of CPP that the government is now backstopping are related solely to the apartment sector. I think it is clear where the government's priorities are. It is preferencing apartment building rentals, in terms of increasing supply, at the expense of other forms of home ownership, and that is the risk I would like to highlight. Frankly, when the sector is being overbuilt, as it is now, this actually increases the risk to taxpayers, who may be on the hook if some of these projects cannot be completed.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy that my friend and colleague mentioned the Conservatives' approach to housing and solving the housing crisis in this country, and the Liberals' approach. He talked about home ownership, and I very much share that perspective. I wonder if he would also like to expand on how home ownership can really help a young person build their assets, build their equity and really have a start on their life as they are having a family and building wealth around them. Why is it so important that we keep this at the forefront of our conversations around housing affordability?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made valuable contributions in a very short time in the chamber. We need to give young people hope in this country. They need to think that home ownership is attainable. It should not be the case that young Canadians wake up every day thinking that this dream is out of reach for them. The biggest number of young people possible should believe it is possible to own their own home. It provides retirement security. It builds equity. Unlike as a renter, it means they are not paying someone else's mortgage but paying themselves first.