Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that Bill C‑31 fails to address many of the most urgent needs identified by the Bloc Québécois. One really important measure would be to lock in a 6% health transfer escalator, which would amount to $14 billion over five years. We will see if that is in the next budget.

At present, the government has set the escalator at 5%, but if the annual increase is not prescribed, it will drop back to 3%. That would be catastrophic for the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces. We know that, over the decades, the federal share of funding has fallen from 50% to 22%. We want it to be restored to 35%.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a budget coming up at 4 o'clock this Thursday, and there will be a lot of very exciting and much-needed investments that will be outlined through the budget process, so I encourage my colleague to look forward to Thursday at 4 p.m. to hear what our Minister of Finance and our Prime Minister deliver in that budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could get my colleague's reflections or thoughts in regard to the fact that Canada has the lowest net debt to GDP in the G7. We have great fiscal capacity, and by using that fiscal capacity, we are able to build a stronger and healthier Canada, a Canada that works for all. I am wondering if the member could provide her perspective on why it is so important that we continue to work diligently on building that stronger economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is never absent for finding the words that need to be said in the House.

I think the fact that we have that fiscal capacity is the reason we are able to invest so much money into, as an example, Farm Credit Canada. I met with the Canadian organic group this morning, and we are helping all these different businesses to be able to expand and grow. Organics take up only 25% of the market, yet there is a need for them to grow. Investments that I hope are going to be in Thursday's budget would invest more into increasing the growth of more organics right here in Canada so we do not have to reach outside our domestic portfolio to receive the good organic food we want.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this week is very exciting because of the fact that there will be a budget coming out. Does the member have any reflections on why it is so important that we continue on in the same stream we have been taking since the last election, when we elected a new Prime Minister?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are investing in Canadians. We are helping businesses throughout Canada to expand and to diversify, for Canada to truly come to a level of maturity with the leadership that is being shown now through our Prime Minister, our Minister of Finance and all members of the House who are working to make Canada strong and to build strong.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a word about fog. Storms can be dangerous at sea, but fog can be just as deadly, and sometimes even worse. In a fog, one cannot see the shore and other ships. Let us explore Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, specifically division 16. At more than 330 pages, a bill this size is its own fog bank. Lost inside it is division 16, which would create the Defence Investment Agency and would rewrite the Defence Production Act.

I navigated warships for many years, so let me help guide us through this fog. I speak for the sailors of CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax, two ports that I am very familiar with. I speak for the veterans on Vancouver Island, for the workers who build and repair our ships, for the families of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and for all Canadians whose tax dollars pay for the defence of Canada. I want every ship to get home safely, and I want Canada's defence procurement to be efficient and effective and meet the operational requirements Canada now faces.

I served this country, and the defence of Canada matters to me as much as it does to every Canadian. Procurement is how that defence gets built. A ship that gets home safely depends on a system that gets the right equipment. I do not believe this bill would make that happen. I am worried that a bill like this is much like a ship lost in the fog without a radar, so let me describe that fog.

Division 16 would put the Defence Investment Agency into law. It is the government's second design for the agency, and while this bill has not yet passed, there is already a third design before this House, Bill C-40. There are two bills, one agency and three versions. In fog, the danger is not only the rocks but other ships. When too many vessels are in the same water, none of them is sure where the others are. There are two bills in this fog and three different designs of the same agency, all in less than a year. The government will say it is building on what came before, but it is not. These designs do not build on each other. They collide with each other.

Under Bill C-31, the agency would stand alone and answer to a minister, with the secretary of state somewhere in the chain. Under Bill C-40, it would become a Crown corporation with a new associate minister on top, and who they answer to is unclear. Bill C-31 would keep Treasury Board rules and report to Parliament, and under Bill C-40, it would be exempt from many of those rules. Under Bill C-31, the minister could take over a company's board. Under Bill C-40, the language would change, adding power and stripping accountability. Bill C-40 is bearing down on Bill C-31, and Bill C-31 has barely been afloat. Already, division 16 is obsolete.

Who is in command? Bill C-40 would create a new associate minister, and the agency would do as the minister directs. Above that sits two ministers in the Prime Minister's Office, and who reports to whom is lost in the fog. There would be too much power in one person's hand over too much money, with almost no accountability beyond a single annual report. A government that keeps redesigning its own agencies has lost its rudder and is chasing its own tail.

By trade, I was a navigating officer, so let me use a phrase every sailor knows: “standing into danger”. That is exactly what is happening here. The greater threat is not this bill but Bill C-40, which would offer even less accountability, and here is why. When the government makes a major procurement, it normally comes from a competition. Companies bid, and the best offer that meets operational requirements should win. That protects the taxpayer and fairness, and it provides the best equipment for Canada.

A sole-source contract is the exception. There are times when a sole-source contract is required. Operational needs call for it, and I do not argue otherwise, but the sole-source decision must be answerable to Parliament. This bill would provide little accountability back to Parliament, and Bill C-40 would provide almost none. Bill C-40 would give the minister 13 grounds for sole-sourcing and no duty to report on any individual contract, with only one annual report for billions of dollars. Our allies do not do it this way. In the United Kingdom, an independent regulator oversees the pricing of single-source contracts. In the United States, a sole-source contract must be justified in writing and made public. Bill C-40 would ask Canadians to accept less.

Both bills would let the minister exclude a company from competing on national security grounds without explaining why. Under Bill C-40, the agency would have to do as the new associate minister directs. It is “must”, not “may”. Both would allow up to $1 billion from the consolidated revenue fund, with nothing in either bill noting how often, by whom or what conditions. Normally, Parliament approves how that money is spent. That approval is how the people of Canada keep their hand on the wheel.

These powers are without precedent and without meaningful accountability over some of the most expensive projects in Canada's history. Lost in the fog without accountability and oversight, this ship will soon run aground.

For procurement, it means an announcement that never becomes a contract. To be fair, some contracts have been signed by the DIA. Some of them were already under way before the agency existed and the agency has claimed them, and a few are the agency's own. However, too often, a victory lap comes at only an announcement.

Let us take the Canadian patrol submarine project as an example. In July, to much fanfare, the Prime Minister announced a preferred supplier, but quickly stated that if that did not work out, there was another preferred supplier on standby. This is an announcement lost in the fog, not a signed contract, not a decision and not a delivery.

Take GlobalEye. In May, the government announced a preferred supplier for up to six aircraft. Saab confirmed that no contract has been signed. There is not a contract and not a commitment to buy. The government itself has stated that this aircraft does not meet the air force's operational requirements. This is an announcement standing where a signed contract should be.

Even the F-35 program is lost in a fog, paused twice by the Liberals. Now, 18 months into a six-month review, two aircraft have been delivered while political posturing causes delays, putting the defence of Canada at risk. This is unacceptable.

The Liberals can announce an agency. They can name a chief executive. They can create a board, but until ink touches paper, nothing has been bought. Our members in uniform do not need another redesign of the Defence Investment Agency. They need a decision, a contract and a delivery date.

I do not stand here only to criticize. Let me offer a way forward.

One, the Liberals should remove division 16 from this bill. It is being replaced within months, and no sailor worth his salt would sail this way. They should put effort into the new bill and get that one right.

Two, they should keep sole-sourcing for genuine operational needs, with written reasons published, and when they are classified, they should show them to members who are cleared to see them.

Three, they should report to Parliament on every ministerial direction, and account for what Canada receives for every $1-billion draw.

Four, they should put conflict of interest rules in the bill. All who advise or decide on these purchases must disclose their interests and step aside to avoid conflict.

Five, they should publish the decision process, with who decides the criteria and the scores each bid receives, and set real timelines.

Last, they should put the defence of Canada first. Industry and jobs are important, but when it comes to the defence and sovereignty of Canada, operational requirements must take priority. A government patting itself on the back and waving around announcements with no contract signed does nothing for the defence of Canada, putting our sovereignty at risk.

These are six steps and none is partisan. These are the standards we should expect, regardless of who holds government.

When I navigated warships, we transitioned from paper charts to electronic ones. The tools changed completely, but the principles never did: keep the ship safe and defend it from the enemy. With Bill C-31's division 16 soon to be overtaken by Bill C-40, it is not only the tools that are changing, but the principles of accountability.

The safe passage through the fog is not this bill, and it is not Bill C-40, which would offer even less accountability. The defence and sovereignty of Canada are a pillar of this country and the first duty of any government. Today, that pillar is lost in the fog, rudderless, and the government has shown no way out.

If the government cannot find its way out of the fog, we stand ready to do the work. Our sailors, soldiers and aviators defend the sovereignty of Canada every day, and they deserve a government that does the same.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's speech used the sailing analogy very well, I find, but the only fog that I see in the House is the Conservative plan, because there is no plan. Our plan is clear. We are going to build this country. We are going to invest in our industries, and we are going to make sure that our sailors and army people have what they need.

The member across the way likes to talk about shipping. I would like his comments on two huge projects, one that is under way and one soon to be under way. Contrecoeur, along the port of Montreal, is being built as we speak so that shipping is even better, and on the western side of the country, the port of Vancouver is going to be expanded. What does he think of those investments?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Montreal and Vancouver are not part of the Defence Investment Agency. I am not sure what the member is talking about.

As far as the fog goes, the Liberals say they have a plan, but their plan is slogans. I have laid out very clearly that they are failing on the defence and sovereignty of Canada, and I also laid out some steps. I must remind the member opposite that the Liberals are in government. They have a majority. It is their job to do it, and they are presently failing.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑31 contains several measures that open the door to more government power and less transparency, such as limiting who can file complaints with the procurement ombud and which complaints the ombud can review.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an excellent point. As I said in my speech on Bill C-40, it is as if the government is building an oligarchy. There should be accountability. There should be a way to bring forward challenges to the ombudsperson.

Absolutely, I agree with him. This bill, soon to be replaced by Bill C-40, has a complete lack of accountability back to Parliament.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, year after year, the budget deficits grow and Canadians continue to pay higher prices. After a decade of promises from the Liberal government, what do Canadians have to show for them?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent work in this House.

He asks what Canadians have to show for them. Well, there are some projects that are signed, and some are going to be completed and delivered, but they are few and far between. While I remain loyal to this country, it is my job to ask challenging questions. I know it is uncomfortable for the members opposite, because they like to revert to slogans, but I offer challenging questions to point out that for the amount of money being spent, the majority of what we are getting is announcements. As I said very clearly, this is putting the defence of Canada's sovereignty at risk, as we see that aircraft are not replacing ones that are soon to be expired, and that is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, I genuinely believe that the member is wrong on a number of assessments in regard to the Canadian Forces. Since Canadians elected the new Prime Minister, there have been substantial investments in the Canadian military, virtually all aspects of it.

The member is also wrong in regard to the issue of transparency and accountability with respect to Bill C-40. Having a Crown corporation has proven to be very effective. Provinces, municipalities and the federal government have ample examples of that. Why does the Conservative Party not understand that Crown corporations can ensure a better procurement process for our military?

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, fortunately, I am not really concerned about what the member opposite thinks is right or wrong. I suggest that he read the bill closely with a lens of accountability. He will find that there is a lack of accountability there.

Despite what spin the member decides to put on the bill, I have read it closely. I understand the industry and understand defence procurement, and this bill, as well as the follow-on replacement bill, Bill C-40, is clearly failing Canada. It is failing our defence procurement and ultimately the sovereignty of our country, something that should be as important to the member opposite as it is to me.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate at the third reading of Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2.

Budget 2025 set out our detailed plan to build Canada strong at a time of great uncertainty. We all see it every day: The global economy is undergoing a profound transformation. After decades of growth driven by globalization and free trade, a fundamental change is under way, shaped by economic nationalism, geopolitical uncertainty and fast-paced technological advances.

We can clearly see that these changes are generating a lot of concern in our communities. I must say that I see it in my riding. We cannot simply stand idly by while these changes happen. We must respond to them with meaningful measures. Above all, we must rely on our strengths to ensure that Canada not only withstands the global upheaval, but also makes the most of any opportunities it creates.

Canada has everything the world wants. We are a superpower in both green and conventional energy, and we are among the world's top five producers of many critical minerals. Canada is also a leader in AI and quantum computing. We have a highly educated workforce, and we can attract the best international talent. By investing in our strengths, particularly through projects of national interest, our government will stimulate the growth of these industries and help businesses thrive in today's economy.

Since this budget was tabled, our government has acted quickly to build the major infrastructure, homes and industries that drive Canada's economic growth and create lasting prosperity. In doing so, we are giving Canadians what they need to succeed with more rewarding careers and a more affordable life. We are also protecting our communities, our borders and our way of life.

Through Bill C‑31, we are implementing several of these important measures from budget 2025. As we all know, we live in a rapidly changing world, and the global economy is in a state of high uncertainty. Now more than ever, it is vital that we adapt and take steps accordingly here at home. It is also vital that our government invests in Canada so that we can build our industrial production capacity and enable all of our workers and industries to compete on the world stage. There are many measures in Bill C-31 that will help with that. These truly are measures to build Canada strong.

One of the measures in Bill C‑31 provides for immediate expensing for manufacturing and processing businesses. Simply put, this means that these businesses will be able to write off 100% of their investment in the first year. Through this measure and the productivity mega deduction, our government is encouraging capital investment and long-term economic growth by allowing businesses to immediately write off more of the costs of their new investments. This measure will make it easier for businesses to invest and grow from now on.

Another noteworthy measure in Bill C-31 is the expansion of the eligibility criteria for the clean hydrogen investment tax credit to include methane pyrolysis. As members know, Canada aims to build a future based on clean energy, and hydrogen is part of that equation. I would like to note that this expansion of the tax credit will be available retroactively as of December 16, 2024.

Our government fully understands that a competitive labour market fosters innovation and productivity. However, the use of non-compete agreements that prevent workers from moving to rivals or starting a competing business reduces competition and undermines the efficiency of the labour market. That is why Bill C-31 amends the Canada Labour Code to restrict the use of non-compete agreements in employment contracts for federally regulated businesses. That way, we will protect workers' rights, promote labour mobility, strengthen competition, and empower workers to move to a higher-paying job or start their own business.

This is an important measure to support all our workers and to give them more freedom to act in their own best interests.

Finally, the government is aware that millions of lower-income Canadians do not file their taxes, either because they do not have the resources to do so or because they think their income is too low to owe taxes. This means that people who most need benefits often do not receive them, causing some Canadians to miss out on the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the Canada child benefit, the Canada workers benefit, and more benefits they are entitled to.

That is why Bill C-31 proposes to allow the CRA to file a tax return on behalf of certain eligible individuals with lower incomes in simple tax situations who do not owe tax and do not file themselves. This measure ensures that help gets to the people who need it most.

When Canadians keep more of the money they earn, they are better able to provide for their families, invest in their communities and build the future they want.

We live in a rapidly changing and uncertain world. Now more than ever, we need to adapt to improve make our great country more competitive. Our government proposed several measures to enhance competitiveness in budget 2025, and Bill C‑31 will implement many of them. With these measures, we are helping our businesses, our industries and our workers be even more competitive on the world stage. In this uncertain world, our government is acting quickly and decisively. That is how we are going to build Canada strong.

In conclusion, Bill C‑31 includes many measures that will help make our economy even stronger, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made reference to housing and housing affordability. In fact, the Prime Minister has told Canadians that housing affordability has improved every single month since his government has been in office. I am just wondering how the member opposite squares that with a recent report released by Statistics Canada. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there has been a 9% increase in the average rent cost in our province.

What is the member's response to that and to the Prime Minister's claim that affordability has gotten better every single month?

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can just say that, in Les Pays-d'en-Haut, there has been some work that was made possible thanks to Build Canada Homes. A co-op in Saint‑Calixte, in my riding, has been able to build 30 housing units for vulnerable people. Construction has begun, and Build Canada Homes is the entity that made it possible. Without Build Canada Homes, the project would never have seen the light of day. There are a lot of projects worth building, and Build Canada Homes is really the vehicle to get them built.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member is aware, there are numerous affordability policies or positions that the government has taken to support Canadians, even though the Conservatives tend to vote against them. One of the ones that should be highlighted is the development of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. That is an ongoing program. Its initial announcement saw substantial increases as we converted the GST rebate.

Can the member provide his thoughts on how that is literally helping millions of Canadians in every region of our country, either that or the tax break—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Les Pays-d'en-Haut.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we see that every day in my riding. People are benefiting from this tax credit and also from the dental program. My mother actually uses the dental program and finds it very useful. I have been speaking with dentists all across my riding. Everybody is on board with this program. Everybody realizes how beneficial it is because dental programs are health programs. If we have dental health, we have general health. I think all the affordability programs the government has put into effect are very beneficial and it shows up for the people of Les Pays-d'en-Haut.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Vallée-du-Haut-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his speech.

As a member from Quebec, he knows that health and social services need some love, some additional resources, because the needs are dire, whether we are talking about homelessness or frontline services. Could Bill C-31 not have included some good news for Quebec's health and social services, by removing the cap on federal transfers to the provinces, for example? After all, services are not really delivered by Ottawa, but by Quebec and the provinces. Unfortunately, across Quebec and in the other provinces, there is a problem with financial resources, because the federal government has cut its transfers.

Does my colleague think that this would have been a good measure to include in Bill C‑31?

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard.

She brought up homelessness. This is indeed a problem that was once unheard of in many rural communities, but we are beginning to see it there as well. As we know, budget 2026 will be tabled on Thursday. In light of the announcements made by Quebec and by the federal government, I believe that it will contain measures to address homelessness across Quebec and throughout Canada.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-31, the second part of the budget implementation act of 2025.

I am sure everyone watching at home would agree that this is a little bit ridiculous, given that budget 2026 is coming out on Thursday. They would agree even more strongly if someone forced them to read Bill C-31, as it is 350 pages of mishmashed measures, many of which do not immediately seem to pertain to the budget at all. For instance, division 13 of the act before us would end automatic, mandatory, periodic re-evaluations of pesticides; division 12 would reduce mandatory review of the Tobacco Act from every five years to every two years; and division 10 would abolish the deputy chief commissioner position at the Human Rights Commission.

It is, of course, a pleasure and a privilege to stand in this House and debate the budget implementation act from last year, two days before the new budget comes out, which does not have much to do with the budget, actually, but gosh, allow me to remark, this is a strange place. This is not what I thought I would be doing when I came here.

I have reviewed the 350 pages of the budget implementation act because I think that is what the people of Kitchener South—Hespeler expect of me, to see if there was anything sneaky or dangerous pertaining to the nation's finance to debate with my colleagues opposite today. Many of my colleagues on the Conservative side have zeroed in on division 16 on defence procurement, which indeed is problematic, but as they have spoken so well on this issue, I would like to focus my remarks on division 7.

Division 7 would increase the guaranteed loan ceiling of the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation to $1 trillion. It is one clause that would increase the ceiling to $1 trillion. That is an eye-popping figure. What does it mean?

The CMHC guarantees mortgages. If I want to buy a home and I do not have a 20% down payment, my bank will not give me a mortgage because it is high risk and I might default. Another word for high risk in the mortgage world is sub-prime. I hope some ears are perking up at that. If I only have 10% for my down payment, CMHC can step in to say that although it knows the bank will not give me a mortgage, the Government of Canada will guarantee the mortgage. That means if I default on my mortgage, the bank will not take the haircut, but the taxpayers of Canada will.

Division 7 of this bill would allow CMHC to put taxpayers on the hook for $1 trillion of relatively high-risk mortgage. This is on the same order as the national debt, which stands at $1.4 trillion. I would ask the Liberal members, is this prudent? Is this the direction Canada's housing policy should go in? Is this the direction they meant to take it in?

Canadians have been clear for a decade: We need housing. There is a housing crisis. The Liberals promised to build Canada strong, to build at speeds not seen at generations and to get homebuilding starts up to 500,000 units per year. They have failed in each of these promises. Housing starts are down this year from last year. They are going nowhere near 500,000. CMHC, the agency under question, in fact projects that they will continue to go down. Now, having failed all of these promises, their reaction is to raise the mortgage debt ceiling. We wanted houses and they have brought us more housing debt.

The distinction here is between demand-side measures and supply-side measures. Imagine a town where 12 families want to buy a home, but there are only 10 homes available. If the Government of Canada swoops in and provides cheap financing to all 12 families, they will be able to bid more for a home. The price of homes will go up, but two families will still be left out in the cold, frozen out of the Canadian dream. That is a demand-side measure. That is almost entirely what Liberals have been up to with respect to their housing policy for the last 11 years.

The Prime Minister, compared to Justin Trudeau, I will concede, is able to use more sophisticated language to hide the financialization of our housing market that he is perpetrating. He is able to blow more hot air, and hotter air, into the housing balloon, but it is just hot air and not houses that he is generating. The numbers do not lie. Again, I say housing starts are down this year compared to last.

At every turn, the Prime Minister and his housing minister favour bigwig bureaucrats, high-flying bankers and fat-cat condo developers in Vancouver, with giant bailouts and other forms of gravy on the public dime. All of these demand-side measures have the effect of increasing asset prices and inflating investor portfolios, instead of putting dollars into the pockets of construction workers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, electricians, stonemasons, drywallers, roofers, and my friends and neighbours in Kitchener South—Hespeler, and it does not put houses on the streets of our cities and towns.

Our Conservative plan is focused on supply-side measures. I do not have time to review them all in this speech, but our every effort would be focused on building houses so that all 12 families would be able to bid on 12 homes at a fair price and no one would get left out.

I often think of housing policy like the board game Monopoly. That is why the inventors of that board game created it. There are only so many properties on the Monopoly board. Once a group of players has bought up St. James Place, Boardwalk and Park Place, injecting more cash into the system by handing out $200 just because they passed Go allows the four players to bid up the price of each other's homes. If a fifth player joins the game in progress, they will not be able to afford anything. This is the situation Canadians under 40 find themselves in today. The game of Monopoly has been going on too long with no new or sufficient properties being brought to the market. They have been frozen out of a game of Monopoly that has not been fair to new players since the 1990s.

The Conservative supply-side plan is to put another fresh board into play by opening up federal lands to development, reducing taxes and increasing permitting.

The Liberals know that what they are doing has failed. I have searched the Hansards. I think that is why none of them have ever mentioned division 7 in this House. Can members imagine that a clause that increases the ceiling to $1 trillion was snuck into a 350-page document that none of them have had the time to mention? We have been debating this bill for a year. They have not had the good graces to even mention in the people's House this sneaky clause that puts the people on the hook for $1 trillion of high-risk mortgage debt.

As my time is coming to an end, I very much look forward to hearing the Liberals finally speak about this clause. Maybe they could start by explaining to Canadians why they failed to mention it in the first place. Why is it hidden in an omnibus bill? Then perhaps they could explain to Canadians whether this is really prudent. Is $1 trillion of mortgage debt, inflating the cost of our houses, not building any homes and failing on their housing promises the direction they meant to take our housing market in? I am listening.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the member is somewhat misinformed and does not quite understand the housing market. Even Stephen Harper increased it by over $200 billion. This increase, I believe, is less than what Stephen Harper would have done.

Let us look at what the Conservatives are saying today: They do not want CMHC to guarantee mortgages. Do they know how many people rely on CMHC? Chances are, the member's own parents went through CMHC, as literally millions of Canadians do. Why does he want to put restraints on CMHC today when Stephen Harper did not have any problem increasing it by over $200 million?