Debates of May 1st, 2026

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Delta, BC]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair today. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, I have the honour and privilege of beginning debate on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026.

Earlier this week, the Minister of Finance delivered a riveting 2026 spring economic update, which builds upon the momentum of budget 2025 by announcing the next steps in our ambitious plan to build Canada strong for all. The spring economic update provided a clear update on the strength of Canada's economy, giving Canadians confidence in our plan. Through it, and through the legislation, we are offering targeted relief to make life more affordable, support workers and accelerate the construction of homes and major infrastructure across the country.

We are strengthening Canada’s competitiveness and economic growth, while investing in strong, safe communities across the country. We are doing all this at a time when Canadians are navigating a rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented world, one that is more complex, more volatile and, for many people, more costly and unpredictable.

Every day, we seem to awaken to news of trade conflicts and wars that would have seemed unthinkable just a few years ago. These are developments that Canada had no role in precipitating, yet they are developments from which we are not immune. Today's highly integrated global economy is built on tight supply chains and just-in-time deliveries. While these arrangements have created tremendous benefits and efficiencies over the years, they also come with vulnerabilities.

This means that when the system is disrupted anywhere, people are affected everywhere. That includes here in Canada. In response, Canada's new government continues to focus on what we can control here at home: building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our trade partners abroad, delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses, with a boost today and a bridge to tomorrow.

With the spring economic update 2026, “Canada Strong for All”, we are proposing the next steps in this plan. It advances our progress of building more affordable homes and the major infrastructure that transforms and connects our economy, while bringing down costs to help Canadians get ahead. It also provides a clear and transparent account of how Canada's economy is performing in an increasingly uncertain world. This transparency is critical in order to lift the fog of uncertainty, help businesses seize new opportunities and give families the confidence to plan for their future.

With our plan, we are building a Canada that is not just strong but good, and not just prosperous but fair, a Canada that is not just for some people most of the time but for all people at all times. It is a plan to build Canada strong for all, and with Bill C-30, we are moving forward with that plan. We have a plan to help grow a strong and resilient economy, but it is Canadian workers who are ultimately going to help build the strongest economy in the G7—

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The interpreter is saying that a phone is ringing or vibrating near the microphones, which is very dangerous for the interpreters' hearing.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind members not to have their phone near their microphone.

The hon. member.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, with our plan, we would build a Canada that is not just strong but good, and not just prosperous but fair, a Canada that is not just for some people most of the time but for all people at all times. It is a plan to build Canada strong for all, and with Bill C-30, we are moving forward with that plan ambitiously.

We know that workers are at the centre of that plan. They are the ones who will help us build the strongest economy in the G7. That is why the spring economic update is making historic investments in the Canadian workforce. In order to create new opportunities for young Canadians, we would launch the team Canada strong initiative to recruit, train and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers by 2030-31, aligned to Canada's housing, infrastructure and defence needs. We are expanding training capacity to deliver results at scale, modernizing apprenticeship grants to meet the needs of the current labour force market while working with labourers, employers and provincial and territorial partners to shorten timelines and improve labour outcomes.

We are also moving forward with something that is close to my heart: employee ownership trusts. Because Canadian workers are going to help build a strong and resilient Canadian economy, purpose-built for the 21st century, they should share in the success of the businesses they are helping to build. That is why we are making the employee ownership trust tax exemption permanent. Building and buying Canadian is a core mission of our government, and employee ownerships trusts empower Canadian workers to buy into the businesses they help create and build.

With generational wealth transfers set to occur over the coming decades, EOTs, employee ownership trusts, would enable workers to participate directly and to benefit from the companies they make stronger. That is exciting news for workers all across this country. We have seen examples in the U.K. and the U.S. of true success with employee ownership trusts' exhibiting a collective ownership model that truly shows how successful those businesses can be.

Our government is also enhancing the labour mobility deduction, which recognizes that investing in transportation infrastructure is vital to the success of Canada's economy. Among other things, it allows our workers to go where the work is, because we recognize that some workers in the construction trades incur high expenses to travel for temporary jobs. To recognize these costs, the labour mobility deduction for tradespeople currently provides tax recognition on up to $4,000 per year in eligible temporary relocation expenses for tradespeople and apprentices who relocate to temporary lodging that is at least 150 kilometres closer to a job site where they are performing construction activities.

To recognize additional costs, the spring economic update proposes to increase the annual limit on expenses that can be deducted, from $4,000 to $10,000, indexed annually to inflation, and to modify the minimum distance threshold for relocations, from 150 kilometres to 120 kilometres. Those changes would be effective for 2026 and subsequent taxation years. I am pleased to say that Bill C-30 would make this increased support for Canadian workers a reality, making it more economical for them to bring their skills to where the work is and to build Canada strong.

However, helping workers move to where the jobs are is just one way through which Bill C-30 would support Canadian workers. We know, for example, that many sectors in Canada, including agriculture, the fishing industry, forestry and tourism, rely heavily on seasonal workers due to weather, natural cycles and fluctuating demand. Employment insurance currently provides temporary income to support these workers during off-season periods, when their seasonal work is unavailable, helping them maintain financial stability and remain in their community.

This support also benefits employers and regional economies by ensuring that experienced workers return each season, which helps industries operate efficiently and supports economic activity in many rural and coastal regions across Canada. To better address gaps in EI support between seasons in specific regions, temporary rules were introduced in 2018 to provide up to five additional weeks of EI regular benefits, for a maximum of 45 weeks, to eligible seasonal workers in 13 economic regions.

While this support was set to expire in October 2026, the spring update announced our government's intention to extend this support in the 13 targeted regions until October 2028. Bill C-30 would make this extension a reality, delivering an estimated additional $356 million in support for seasonal workers over the next five years.

We also would be extending the RRSP homebuyers' plan in Bill C-30. To further support workers and their families, the legislation before us would also deliver cash flow support to make it more manageable for Canadians to finance home ownership. The homebuyers' plan would allow first-time homebuyers to withdraw up to $60,000 from their registered retirement savings plan to buy or build a qualifying home, or $120,000 per couple. Under the plan, withdrawals would not be included in income when withdrawn. Instead, they must be repaid to the RRSP over a period of no more than 15 years, starting in the second year following the year in which the withdrawal was made. I know that sounds complicated, but this is good news for anybody who is able to take money out of their RRSP to help purchase a first home.

The spring economic update 2026 proposes to extend the grace period during which homeowners are not required to start repaying their withdrawals, from two years to five years for participants making a first withdrawal between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2028. This would build on the extended grace period that already applies to withdrawals made between 2022 and 2025, providing cash flow relief of up to $4,000 per individual per year for the three years over which they are not required to repay the amount into their RRSP. Once again, Bill C-30 would make this support a reality.

Our government also recognizes that supporting Canadian workers means protecting them from the economic impacts of an uncertain world. Military conflicts are disrupting global energy supply, pushing up prices worldwide and leaving Canadians and consumers around the world facing higher prices at the gas pump, creating uncertainty and pressure on household finances. That is why our government recently announced that it is taking action to help Canadians through these challenges by suspending the full amount of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel and aviation fuels from April 20 until Labour Day, which is September 7.

By legislating this change, Bill C-30 would reduce pressure on prices at the pump and lower Canadians' bills at the gas station, with expected savings of up to $5.75 on a tank of gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a roughly 50‑litre tank of fuel. All told, it is estimated this would provide over $2.4 billion in total tax relief that would ease the pressure of higher fuel prices on Canadians in 2026, and once again, Bill C-30 would transform this relief into law.

At the same time, this is not the only excise tax relief that Bill C-30 would deliver to bring down costs and support our economy through current challenges. It would also implement a two-year extension of the alcohol excise duty relief to protect brewers, distillers and winemakers during this period of global uncertainty. We know, for example, that Canada's small craft brewers are not only among the finest in the world, which I truly appreciate, but are also important contributors to a growing economy, creating jobs in communities across the country.

There is quite a number of craft brewers that I am quite proud of in my community of Whitby, and I want to see those craft brewers continue to thrive. The Canadian Craft Brewers Association estimates that there are currently nearly 1,200 small and independent craft breweries and brew pubs across Canada, and they are not just making world‑class products. They are the backbone of many communities, supporting thousands of jobs across the country and contributing significantly to local economies.

What makes Canada's craft brewers so great, and popular, is the care and pride they take in producing their fine products and their understanding of the ingredients needed to make a product truly exceptional. In past years, we saw the cost of those ingredients, like hops, barley and other grains, rise significantly due to global inflationary pressures stemming largely from COVID-19 supply chain disruptions, and this presented a real challenge for our brewers in Canada.

That is why our government acted, back in March 2024, to extend budget 2023's 2% cap on the inflation adjustment for beer, spirits and wine excise duties. At the same time, we announced that we were cutting in half the excise duty rate on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada for two years, providing a craft brewery with up to $86,952 in additional tax relief in that tax year. It was the right thing to do then, and there was tremendous support from the industry for this relief, which helped the sector weather a period of elevated inflation as economic conditions started to normalize.

As we all know, the world is once again changing rapidly and unpredictably, bringing with it a new round of challenges for many industries, this industry included. Long-standing and fruitful trade relationships that countries have relied on for decades are being fundamentally reshaped by these global changes, leaving economies, businesses and workers under a cloud of uncertainty. Unfortunately, Canada is no exception in this regard, and that includes our craft brewing sector.

We know, for example, that small brewers are particularly exposed to trade-related swings in commodity prices, as they do not enjoy the economies of scale that major industrial brewers enjoy. We know the industry is concerned about these developments, which is why we recently announced that Canada's new government will continue to support Canadian breweries by maintaining for an additional two years the 2% cap on excise duties for beer, spirits and wine.

We similarly announced that we will also maintain for an additional two years the halving of the excise duty rates on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada. For a craft brewery, this second measure means up to about $90,000 in tax relief for the coming year. That is not small potatoes. That is significant support.

Combined, these two support measures are expected to provide over $30 million in relief to the sector through 2028. Bill C-30 would make this extended support a reality. By extending this relief, Bill C-30 would be providing stability at a critical moment, helping small and medium-sized businesses focus on what matters most: growing their operations, supporting local workers and keeping our economy strong and resilient.

I would also note that the bill would take action on the tax front to lower the cost of food production at this time of global uncertainty by implementing our government's commitment to introducing immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings. This means agricultural producers would be allowed to fully write off investments in greenhouses that were acquired on or after November 4, 2025, and that become available for use before 2030. Supporting Bill C-30 also means supporting increased domestic supply and investment in food production over the medium term, which is a major focus for our government in the spring economic update.

In conclusion, I hope I have conveyed, in my allotted time, that Bill C-30 means more than just supporting affordable food and fuel. It means helping key sectors of the economy through an ongoing challenge, or set of challenges, so they can thrive and grow, supporting the communities that depend on them. It means supporting Canadian workers, making it more economical for them to go where the jobs are and making it easier for them to manage the financing of home ownership. It also means advancing our mission to build Canada strong for all.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to look at our government's plan in detail. I would similarly encourage them to carefully consider the measures in Bill C-30 and how they will advance our plan to build a stronger Canada. I encourage them, and I think this goes without saying, to join the government in advancing this plan. We will always welcome their support. It is never too late to have a change of heart.

I know the opposition has to do its job and hold the government to account, but I think we can all agree that there are substantive, significant measures within this bill that would advance a plan for Canada that truly supports Canadians right across the country.

I look forward to the support of my hon. colleagues and welcome any questions.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spent a fair bit of time in his speech on the excise section. He said the government is halving the rate of excise. I am pretty sure what he meant is that the government is halving the increase on the excise. I would like him to clarify this, so that we do not leave Canadians with the impression that the government is actually reducing the tax on excise. The government is reducing the rate at which it is increasing the excise.

Perhaps the member could comment, then, on whether or not that would bring the excise rate down to the level it was in 2017, before the government started automatically increasing it every year.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member opposite's question, I think, just to clarify, what I said was that “we were cutting in half the excise duty rate on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada for two years,” so this is an extension of a previous measure, which does change the escalator.

There are two different portions of this. The portion I am mentioning is geared toward craft brewers, but in general, we have decreased the escalator to 2%, or capped it at 2%. That is good news because what we have heard from our major brewers in Canada is that they budget for 2% excise duty, so it is exactly what they would expect and what they have asked for.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about the measures that have been announced, particularly regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA. When it comes to pesticides and herbicides, the government has made it very clear that economic considerations will now be given just as much weight as health considerations.

My colleague served with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for a long time and so he is somewhat familiar with the issue. I would like him to reassure me in this regard. Of course, we did a lot of work on this in committee. We have voiced our concerns about how inefficient an agency like the PMRA can be when it comes to requests for emergency registration. The PMRA can ask for extensions, fall behind schedule and end up approving the product only after the crisis is already over for the produce grower.

This is much more about efficiency than about economic considerations. Of course, we are not opposed to considering that, but we feel that this is a very slippery slope when it comes to public health. I would like my colleague to reassure me in that regard.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I must say, Madam Speaker, I wish my French was better so I could answer en français. I appreciate the member opposite's question. I enjoyed the time we spent on the agriculture and agri-food standing committee together. The agriculture industry is very important to me.

What I can do is commit to speaking with the hon. member about his concerns and look into the very details of what he has brought forward today. I would be happy to do that with him after the session.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday the member had some time to talk about the sovereign wealth fund. That is a major aspect of the spring budget update. I think it makes a very powerful message to Canadians that the government and the Prime Minister are committed to get the funds that are necessary to build Canada strong, which is great for all Canadians.

I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts, upon reflection on the discussions in the chamber yesterday, where the Conservatives and the Bloc came together in opposition to the sovereign wealth fund, as to why they might want to reconsider that position.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak to this a little more.

In my view right now, Canadians across the country believe in our country and in the strength of our country. They are resilient, but they want to help build the strongest economy in the G7. They are aligned with that vision, and I think people want to participate meaningfully in that. The sovereign wealth fund would give them an opportunity, a retail opportunity, to invest small amounts of money that are highly protected from any downside risk and that will get high returns, based on investments across Canada in major pieces of infrastructure that I know many of us are very proud to see are starting to get built.

In my area, at the Darlington new nuclear facility, four small modular reactors are getting built, with 21,700 jobs. It is exciting. It is going to add $38 billion to Canada's GDP over time. This is a good example of a project that will be highly revenue-generating and that many pension plans in Canada and around the world, such as the Canada Growth Fund, have invested in.

The idea here is to make sure the Canadian public can also benefit from the prosperity and wealth that we are building together. That is exciting, and Canadians want to participate.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to specifically drill into what we can expect in an omnibus budget bill in relation to the Pest Control Products Act. The parliamentary secretary referenced that earlier. Will that section of the bill be carved out so that potential health threats through reducing the regulatory process of registering new pesticides, which I am assuming this may be about, will go to the health committee and not just the finance committee?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would have to look into that matter further and get back to the member because I am not aware of whether this particular section would be carved out of Bill C-30. I think the proposition now is that the bill is packaged into one piece, but I would be happy to look into it and get back to the member.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, last year, was elected, in part, on a promise of being a strong fiscal manager. Fast-forward a year to this economic statement and we see, in reality, more spending, higher debt and a budget deficit of over $65 billion, double that of Justin Trudeau, if anyone can believe that.

It is interesting to hear the Liberals talking about their strong fiscal position when, in reality, they are bringing forward a reckless fiscal plan. I want to know how the member can explain this reckless policy at a time when Canadians are struggling to get by and facing a cost of living crisis.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the way the hon. member positions and contorts reality. When we look at what the government had projected in the previous budget, the spring economic update shows that we have $11.5 billion less of a deficit. That is due to the Canadian economy being more resilient.

I do not know why the opposition is so triggered by this stuff. The International Monetary Fund would, arguably, be the world's expert at analyzing the global economy and nations' economies. It has said very specifically that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. I do not know how opposition members come into this House every day and talk down the Canadian economy. We have seen many signs of progress with foreign direct investment being at an 18-year high and wages doubling the rate of inflation. There is a lot of progress in our economy.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, our government is making responsible choices to support the economy. That is a fact, even though the opposition members seem to be the only ones oblivious to it.

Can my colleague give me concrete examples of how these measures are strengthening prosperity in Quebec and supporting families, businesses and, above all, our young people?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the government is making responsible decisions, whether it is investing in small craft harbours or sports from playground to podium. We are making it easier to access the disability tax credit. We are building a stronger Canada.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said there are four ways to spend money, and the worst way is spending somebody else's money on others because it is the least efficient and one is least careful with it. We have seen the Liberal government put $200 million into a concrete slab spaceport in Nova Scotia. When we are talking about a sovereign debt fund of $25 billion, that is the government spending taxpayers' money.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he is borrowing money right now to invest in things like spaceports.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we know, many Canadians borrow money in order to buy a home and build equity and financial stability for their future. The member should understand that there are ways we can build generational wealth in Canada and give Canadians the opportunity to participate in that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I ask for unanimous consent from the House to split my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us make no mistake, this is another Liberal costly credit card budget. This budget has record debt, record debt service charges and record spending. This is just more of the same failed approach we have seen for the last 10 and a half years since the government came into power and inherited a balanced budget. This is a failed approach that is continuing to fail.

We have a deficit now on this budget of $67 billion. That is double the budget that was projected in the last Trudeau budget for this year. Does everybody remember what happened then? That was when the Liberals were going to table a budget of $30 billion for the deficit for this year, and that deficit then was considered so big and so bad that Chrystia Freeland resigned rather than table it. Do members remember that day?

I was in the lock-up that day. It was pure chaos. Nobody even knew whether the budget was going to be tabled or not. Nobody would sign it. When it was dropped, it had no signature. There was no minister, and nobody was willing to take responsibility for even a $30‑billion deficit projected in this year. It precipitated the eventual resignation of Trudeau.

Here we are a year and a half later, and the Liberals are tabling a budget that is twice as bad as that one, which was so bad it brought down a finance minister and a prime minister. They turned to the guy who was supposed to be the adult, who was supposed to have the credentials and be the experienced person who knew that money did not grow on trees, that we could not borrow our way to prosperity and that money borrowed eventually had to be repaid. Everybody thought that was the guy they had gone to.

Here we are at $67 billion. That is double the deficit that was so bad a year and a half ago that it brought down a prime minister. This budget is going to begin to squeeze out other spending. The fastest-growing item in this budget and in the projections is debt service. The current expenditure on debt service is $57.8 billion. This is money that is not being spent on health transfers, on old age security and on building, buying and procuring submarines, which is something the Liberals have not done yet. It is the fastest-growing part, and it is going to go to $80 billion in the short-term horizon that this budget covers.

We also see debt growing through accounting trickery, because the Liberals are going to borrow $25 billion to fund this so-called wealth fund. It is right there, buried in an appendix at the back. They are going to borrow this money, which is a charge against the consolidated revenue of Canada. It has to be paid, but they offset it and pay it as an offsetting asset, which will not be generating money to repay the debt, and certainly not anytime soon, if ever. The debt is actually getting worse than even the deficit number would state because of this wealth fund that the Liberals have created, so let us talk about an exercise in announce-ology.

We heard the previous speaker talk about building Canada. Yes, we need to build in Canada. There are so many things that need to be built in this country. We need a strong Canada. Everybody in the House wants a strong Canada. Every Canadian wants their country to be strong, secure, prosperous, stable and peaceful. These are all the things we want, that all Canadians want, but we are not going to get there by just simply borrowing money and declaring that we have a sovereign wealth fund when there is no wealth backing it. That is not going to get us where we need to go. Think of where we were 10 years ago. The Liberals had a balanced budget. The northern gateway pipeline was approved.

The Liberals came in here with an approved pipeline and a balanced budget. Enbridge could have built that pipeline, and today it would be pumping out half a million barrels a day into world markets, creating $50 million a day at today's prices in revenue, so $20 billion a year. Think of how much in taxes and provincial royalty we could have, and all of these public goods that would have gone toward building schools, hospitals and public services that Canadians rely on, but they cancelled it. It was literally the first thing they did.

Now here they are, having this out-of-body experience, wondering why things have not been built in Canada over the last 10 years and why we have this deficit in infrastructure. They ran in 2015, promising to borrow in the short term in order to build infrastructure that would allow the budget to balance itself, but it did not happen. The deficits happened, and they continue to spiral upward to what we have today, a $67-billion deficit. The opportunity lost and squandered over the last 10 years is devastating, and it has accelerated in the last year and a half since they changed leaders on the other side.

The deficit and productivity crisis are getting worse. In fact, we are coming up on the second anniversary of when the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada declared productivity to be a break-glass emergency. We are at the bottom of our peer countries in investment, plants, equipment and intellectual property. These are the things that improve the productivity of our economy and lead to higher wages, so that people can afford the increased cost of living. The Liberals ignored this productivity emergency. They are not building productivity-enhancing infrastructure; they just talk. They create new Crown corporations, funds and bureaucratic structures, but we do not see real, tangible infrastructure investment.

The last thing, which they are still talking about, was the Alto project. They say it will cost around $90 billion, but an average cost overrun would take that to about $135 billion, and 12 million people a year, according to McGill University, would ride the thing. Doing the math, it would be probably around $500 a ticket just to service the debt that it would cost to build this thing. That is not nation building, it is pet-project annouce-ology, announcing something that people will feel good about, but has no basis in fact.

Why do the Liberals not take that money and twin and build a proper Trans Canada highway? We have seriously dangerous portions of the highway where people are killed regularly. The accidents in northern Ontario are horrific. I come from western Canada, where there are some horrific portions of that highway in B.C.

Think of the productivity drag. We have ports that are ranked among the very worst in the world. Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Montreal all need billions of dollars in improvement. These are the kinds of things that would improve the productivity of our country.

They announced a wealth fund with the same model as the Infrastructure Bank, which was called a failed industrial policy by the Montreal Economic Institute on Monday. Representatives from the Montreal Economic Institute came to committee and said that the Liberals are doing the same thing.

It did not work with the Infrastructure Bank, but instead of winding up the Infrastructure Bank and moving on, they are doubling down and creating a new thing where people who are seeking regulatory relief and self-enrichment or subsidies would lobby the government, and those with the best connections would be chosen by the government. This fund would be politically controlled. Its board would be PMO buddies who would approve the projects that the Prime Minister wants to have approved.

The Prime Minister said as much. The Liberals have talked about, “We can give regulatory relief or subsidies to some of these guys, but we are going to want a piece of the action, too”. Think of the kind of language that they are using.

Why not use a common-sense approach? Let us repeal all of the bad laws the Liberals have passed over the last 10 years that have been chasing investment out of the country and we will see building and construction of a strong, resilient, sovereign Canadian economy. That is the approach Canadians need, not the approach that benefits rent-seekers and insiders rather than the people of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, talk about being completely out of touch with reality and with what is happening around the world and a lack of understanding.

The member even made reference to the port of Montreal, that we need to invest in Montreal. Of all the major projects, maybe that one escaped him. The government is investing in expanding the port of Montreal. We have expansion and growth taking place in every region of the country.

I do not know where the Conservative Party of Canada is today. The Conservatives have demonstrated that they do not care about developing and promoting and building a strong Canada. Their approach is one line, to get out of the way. Tell me another nation that has adopted the far-right position that the Conservative Party of Canada has. Name a country. Give me a country in the G20 that the member actually supports and whose government he believes is doing a good job. I advise the member to also take into consideration the debt-to-GDP financing. Let us make sure it is apples to apples.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the debt-to-GDP, I did not even have time to get to that slippery bit of accounting that these guys talk about. I heard, yesterday in debate, when they talked about a 10% debt-to-GDP ratio. That is if we are pretending that we have the ability, if we wish, to use the entire assets of the Canada pension plan to pay off Canada's debts. That is accounting trickery.

He talked about the port of Montreal. The Liberals have been in office for almost 11 years and they have done nothing to build this infrastructure. It would be one thing if they had just come into power and were looking at this. They have been here for 11 years and they have not done what they promised to do in 2015.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the economic update does not take the current tariff crisis into account. It ignores the fact that President Trump's imposition of new 25% tariffs on all products containing steel and aluminum will create major challenges for many businesses in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I only had 10 minutes. I am glad I got that question. The hon. member raised the tariffs. This is a terrible moment in which we find ourselves with respect to the tariffs.

Again, this is the government that said it had the answers. It promised and ran in an election campaign promising a deal by last July. The deal has not happened. There is no visible evidence of progress toward a deal. I do not know what the Liberals' plan is. They just seem to think that their own slogans or walking around saying “elbows up” will solve the problem.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I just have one short question.

How does the hon. member explain the fact that, despite all of the doom and gloom, that Canada is broken, we still have a AAA credit rating?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a credit to past prime ministers, who bequeathed this government a balanced budget in 2015. He may note that it gives me no joy to point out that we are at the bottom of the OECD for per capita GDP and that the standard of living in the country has not improved over the tenure of the government. Yes, they are clinging to that one, but we have seen how they discharge all of their anchors and all of their measurements, all of the bars to which they measure themselves, when necessary.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government, for 11 years, has been the worst investor of any government in Canadian history. There is a litany of projects, but I just want to talk about one today. Moltex Energy Canada was purporting to make molten-salt nuclear reactors in New Brunswick. The Liberal government poured $55 million, taxpayer dollars, into this boondoggle. It just went into insolvency and has been sold off for $11 million.

Can the member for Calgary Crowfoot talk about the government's poor record of investment? It loves spending taxpayer dollars on its schemes, but taxpayers rarely ever get their money back.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is the natural, expected outcome of an economic management system based on rent-seeking and favour-seeking from government.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Every Canadian household will pay $3,400 this year for the interest on the federal debt. That is $3,400 per household gone, just to service what the government has borrowed. That number is only going to rise in the foreseeable future. That one number tells Canadians everything they need to know about the Liberal government’s 2026 budget.

The finance minister stood in this place just three days ago and told Canadians, “the dream of Canada is alive and well. Young people, increasingly, see themselves in building Canada strong, and we will be there with them.” I would invite the minister to put down the prepared remarks and speak to the young people I represent.

About 47% of Canadian home builders are laying off workers. In Ontario, that figure climbs up to 65%. More Canadians are starting businesses in the United States than in Canada. Half a trillion dollars in net investment has fled south of the border. How does the minister call this a dream? For too many young Canadians trying to afford a home, find a job or start a business in this country, it is a nightmare from which they cannot awake.

The minister went further and told this House, “Generations will look back at the Prime Minister, the government and the current Parliament and say that we were there for them. We are building long-term wealth and growth.” Indeed, generations will look back at this. They will look back at $80 billion a year in interest payments. They will look back at a government that called debt an investment and mortgaged their future. The government is not building long-term wealth. It is building long-term debt and calling it long-term wealth.

It gets much worse than that. The Prime Minister himself straight up misled Canadians when he claimed, just a few weeks ago, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” Every Canadian I have spoken to, regardless of who they are, knows this is false.

Let us consider what Conservatives asked for in this update. We asked for the deficit to be capped at $31 billion, the figure Justin Trudeau projected in his last fiscal update, a figure that brought down a finance minister and a prime minister. It is the very deficit that almost toppled a federal government. Under this Prime Minister, the Liberals have more than doubled that number: $66.9 billion this year. That is six straight years of deficits above $53 billion and 11 straight years of deficits from the Liberals.

What is amazing is that the Liberals celebrate their $67-billion deficit as if they are being fiscally responsible and stewards of economic management. Imagine this. The Liberals put forward a budget and have a projected deficit of around $80 billion. They then put out a spring economic statement and say, “Look how amazing we are. The deficit is only $67 billion, still more than double what was projected the year Trudeau was prime minister, but less than what we projected a few short months ago. How great are we?” We do not have to imagine that, because that is exactly what the Liberal Prime Minister has done.

Outside of the pandemic, this is the largest deficit in Canadian history, and spending as a share of our economy is the highest it has been since 1996. The government calls this fiscal discipline. This is not discipline. This is a windfall. There was $60.3 billion in new revenue that walked through the finance minister's door, the product of higher personal and corporate taxes, which hurt our competitiveness, and higher oil prices. What did the Prime Minister do with this extra money? He spent it. The government spent two-thirds of a gift it did not earn and asked Canadians to applaud the restraint.

The trajectory is actually worse than the headline. Public debt charges are rising 50%, from $54 billion today to almost $81 billion five years from now, more than the government spends on health care transfers and more than it collects from every Canadian who pays GST. While interest climbs, growth falls. Real GDP growth has averaged 2.1% over the last 25 years. It is projected to be 1.7% this decade, and 1.5% for decades to come. The government is borrowing more, growing less and spending the difference on interest. It is mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren.

Then, there is the sovereign wealth fund. The key word in “sovereign wealth fund” is “wealth”. Norway has surpluses. Saudi Arabia has surpluses. Singapore has surpluses. Canada has a $66-billion deficit and $1.3 trillion in debt. The $25 billion seeding the fund is borrowed. That is not a sovereign wealth fund; it is a sovereign debt fund. Members do not have to take my word for it; they can take the word of independent voices.

Build Canada, a non-partisan civic movement that supports founders and innovators in this country, calls the Canada Strong fund a “war bond”, where Canadians are being asked to “buy equity in the projects” that the government cannot get off the ground by its own merits. The Montreal Economic Institute put it plainly: “We don't need a Canada Infrastructure Bank 2.0”.

The Infrastructure Bank is a cautionary tale. Of 108 projects, only 11 have been completed. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the bank will fall $20.1 billion short of its disbursement target. Sixty-seven per cent of its partner funding came from the public sector. The very private capital it was supposed to attract, it is not attracting. The transport committee of this House recommended abolishing it. The government's response was to raise its spending limit by another $10 billion.

Canadian pension funds hold $1.33 trillion in foreign assets, 51% of their total holdings. Let us think about that: 51% of their total holdings not invested in Canada.

Capital is not missing in this country; confidence is.

The spring economic statement mentions artificial intelligence six times across its entire length. There are six mentions and six pillars of the strategy that does not yet exist. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence set his own deadline to deliver the framework. He missed it. His office now tells Canadians the framework is coming soon, but with no specific timeline. Witnesses appearing before the industry committee on this very subject have called the government's consultation process rushed and too corporate-heavy. They have noted the absence of unions, civil society, researchers studying AI work, governance experts, privacy experts and human rights experts. A list of pillar names is not a strategy.

While Canada drafts press releases, our competitors are building the technology that will define the next century of economic growth.

Debt will cost $3,400 per household this year and $80 billion a year in interest by the end of the decade. We have a sovereign wealth fund with no wealth, a strategy with no plan, a finance minister who calls this a dream and a Prime Minister creating an illusion.

Conservatives reject this credit card budget. We would build a paycheque economy where hard work brings home a powerful paycheque, where families can afford groceries and can afford their homes, and where neighbourhoods are safe and opportunity in this country is real. That is the promise of Canada, and that is the promise we will keep.

That is why I move this amendment, seconded by the member for Parkland:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, since the Bill reflects the Prime Minister's approach to credit-card budgeting by:

(a) adding $37.5 billion in inflationary, net new spending;

(b) running a deficit more than double the $31 billion last projected when Justin Trudeau was prime minister;

(c) continuing to drive inflation up through the creation of more bureaucracies, rather than taking meaningful action to confront the affordability challenges facing Canadians by axing the taxes on groceries, eliminating the fuel standard and industrial carbon tax, scrapping the food packaging tax to make life affordable again; and

(d) failing to cut inflationary spending, currently being racked up on the country's credit card, such as the Alto rail project, the Liberal gun grab, excessive use of external consultants, foreign aid, corporate welfare, and taxpayer-funded handouts for fake asylum claimants.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has adopted a new-found “Get out of the way; I do not care” attitude. I reference the member's opening comments, when he was talking about young people and doing things for youth.

Within the spring update, there is a serious commitment to increase skilled trades Red Seal holders by between 80,000 and 100,000 over the next five years. The Conservative Party is actually voting against that particular project. I wonder how the member can justify it. Given his opening remarks regarding being there and supporting youth, why would the Conservative Party oppose a federal initiative to deal with Red Seal workers?

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

Madam Speaker, $81 billion is the amount of money the Liberal government under the Liberal Prime Minister wants to mortgage away for our young people's future. The Liberal Party and the Liberal government had a chance to demonstrate that they were different. The Liberals had a year to say that they are a different government now and are going to reject the incompetent and fiscally irresponsible ways of the Justin Trudeau Liberal government, but they did not. The mask came off. It is the same Liberal, costly government it always has been.

In response to the hon. member, I would ask this: Where are the young people going to work? The Liberals have driven investment out of this country. Companies do not want to open businesses here. People do not want to stay here. There is a trillion-dollar gap between FDI and capital flight in this country. Where are the young people going to work? The Liberals should start acting fiscally responsibly and stop talking and pretending as if they were.

Thomas Kieley

[Paul Connors, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour the life and legacy of a remarkable community leader, Mr. Thomas Kieley.

Tom was a deeply respected member of our community. He dedicated his life to his community. His commitment touched every aspect of our town, from organizing the minor hockey associations to being a member of the Kiwanis Club and of the Knights of Columbus as grand knight, to name a few. Tom brought his leadership to municipal government as well. He served eight years as a councillor, including two as deputy mayor.

Tom's contributions were formally recognized when he was inducted as a builder in the Conception Bay South Sports Hall of Fame. He was also awarded the King Charles III Coronation Medal, honouring a lifetime of service.

Tom Kieley's leadership, integrity and unwavering dedication left a lasting mark on the town he loved.

Côte‑du‑Sud—Rivière‑du‑Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today marks 12 years since I have had the privilege of becoming the member of Parliament for my constituency, now known as Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata. I was first elected in 2009 and, although I lost by nine votes during the “orange wave” a year and a half later, that gave me the determination to return in 2015 to continue my work.

The greatest satisfaction as an MP is helping people resolve the issues that worry them. There is nothing more rewarding than helping to improve people's lives.

Throughout all these years, I have been fortunate to be able to count on an exceptional person: Annie Francoeur. She has guided and supported me every step of the way, and she managed four of my six election campaigns. I would be remiss if I did not mention the incredible work of the rest of my team: Denise, An, Annie, Lauriane and Marianne, who give their all, every day, for my constituents.

Being an MP is an immense privilege. It also comes with great responsibility, and I hope to live up to the expectations of the people of my riding, both here in Ottawa and in the most beautiful riding in Canada.

I would like to thank all of my constituents.

Retirement Congratulations

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize the remarkable career of Scott Oake, a proud Winnipegger and one of Canada's most trusted voices in sports.

For decades on Hockey Night in Canada, Scott brought Canadians together, not merely through highlights and interviews but also through his storytelling that captured the people behind our game. Scott has the rare ability to connect, to listen and to let others shine. He reflected the best of who we are back to the nation.

Beyond broadcasting, his impact runs even deeper. Through the Bruce Oake Recovery Centre, founded in memory of his son, Scott and his late wife Anne helped transform lives and brought hope to families facing addiction.

As Scott steps away from the broadcast booth, Canadians, especially Winnipeggers, thank him for a career defined by excellence, compassion and leadership. I congratulate Scott on an extraordinary career, and I thank him for everything he has given to our country. We look forward to having him back among his people in Winnipeg.

Justice

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this week I introduced Bill C-275, Melanie's law, named after Melanie from Red Deer, a woman who suffered a truly devastating violation. In a past relationship, she was drugged and sexually assaulted, and the assault was secretly filmed and shared online, all without her knowledge. The betrayal and trauma she endured is heartbreaking.

Tragically, Melanie is not alone. An investigation uncovered a disturbing network of abusers who commit these vile crimes and spread the material around the world. When Melanie's story was shared with me, I was horrified.

As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect vulnerable Canadians and deliver justice for victims. Bill C-275 would make it a criminal offence to create, distribute or possess sexual assault material. The safety of Canadians is non-partisan, and justice for victims is not political. I urge all members of the House to learn about Melanie's law and to come together to support Melanie.

Farmers

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is planting time in P.E.I., so I give a big shout-out to farmers who are once again heading to their fields, beginning the important work of seeding new crops. Farming families rise early and work long hours, all while facing the uncertainties of climate change, input costs and global disruptions, yet they continue to deliver with determination and pride. They are the ultimate optimists.

Agriculture is at the heart of our communities, from potatoes to grains and livestock to horticulture. It all plays a vital role in supporting jobs and local economies across Canada, and especially in P.E.I., Canada's food island. I want to wish all farmers on the island and across this country, especially those closest to my heart, a safe and successful growing season. I thank them for their hard work, their stewardship of the land and their unwavering dedication to keeping food on our tables.

Birthday Congratulations

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Saturday was a special day of celebration of an amazing woman, mentor and friend. Mrs. Pauline Robinet was my grade 5 teacher at St. John de Brebeuf school in Kingsville. She has been instrumental in my life journey. Stern but fair, passionate and compassionate, she strived to create best outcomes for her students. After I got a perfect report card, I wrote Mrs. Robinet a letter stating that if I did not become a priest, I wanted to marry her.

I have the great honour of speaking to grade 5 and grade 10 civics classes across Essex. Our teachers today are equally special and want the very best for their students.

I thank Sister Mary Denise, Mrs. Robinet, for all she has done and continues to do, and I wish a happy 85th birthday to her, Mrs. R. Our world is a better place because of her.

Canada Strong for All

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, in the 2026 spring economic update, we celebrate a vision of a more inclusive future. Our “Canada Strong for All” plan reflects sound fiscal management while making responsible investments in Canadian families.

Let me highlight just a few features members may have missed.

The playground to podium initiative invests over $700 million in sports development and infrastructure so our youth can thrive.

We are building for the long term with the new Canada Strong fund, ensuring our technological and energy sovereignty.

Team Canada strong will empower 100,000 new Red Seal workers to build the housing and infrastructure our country needs.

We are simplifying the disability tax credit to ensure that Canadians can access their benefits with efficiency and dignity.

Canada strong for all delivers growth people can count on.

Together, we are building a resilient, ambitious and truly strong nation for all.

Physical Activity

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in the life of a nation when we realize we are at a turning point. On Tuesday, we experienced that here. For the first time in history, an economic update has demonstrated that sports and physical activity are an important pillar of a healthy nation. This is not a Liberal or Conservative position. It is a Canadian position, and it was high time we adopted it.

A nation that invests in sports and physical activity is, above all, a nation that invests in its future. It invests in two ways: in the pride of seeing Olympic athletes bring home medals, but also in every young person who discovers sports and physical activity, and in the citizens who will remain active for the rest of their lives.

Indeed, we received some good news on Tuesday. When that happens, it is worth acknowledging. Now we need to deliver results. Canadians have heard a lot of announcements in recent years. In the end, history will remember the results. A strong country is not built on intentions, but on projects that are completed.

Let us move forward together, as Quebeckers and Canadians, proud and united in the conviction that physical activity is not only an important solution, but a fundamental pillar of the future of our country.

International Workers' Day

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

Mr. Speaker, today, May 1, I rise to pay tribute to the folks who are the backbone of Quebec society: workers.

On this international day of struggle to assert their rights, and our rights, it is essential that we remember the labour movement's many victories. Let us keep in mind that none of these have come easily, and that goes for more recent gains, like increasing the minimum wage, or what may seem like a basic right, like an eight-hour workday.

These have all been hard-fought battles led by the working class. We must never forget this, because now all the battles have to be fought once again in this rapidly changing digital and AI-based economy.

As the gap between the rich and the poor grows ever wider and shows no signs of narrowing, as the cost of living skyrockets, social justice erodes, and the line between work and personal life continues to blur, let us stand together and remain resilient.

Youth in Sydney-Glace Bay

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Sydney—Glace Bay, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an incredible group of young Cape Bretoners.

In February, the Get Up & Get Organized Youth Summit brought together nearly 50 youth and community members in Sydney to tackle real issues: food security, housing, climate change and active transportation. Co-developed and led by youth aged 15 to 24, the summit gave young people a space to be heard, to lead and to build hope for our communities.

I had the privilege of meeting with the youth planning committee on April 1. Its message was clear: Young people care deeply about Cape Breton's future and want decision-makers to listen. I want to recognize the youth leaders, Isaac, Lily, Jordyn and Claire, along with Nova Scotia Health, the Ecology Action Centre and every partner organization that made this possible.

The voices of Cape Breton's youth matter, and we are listening.

Fuel Taxes

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, across Canada, Canadians are working hard, but too many are falling behind and far too many know about the devastating experience of trying to fill a grocery cart for their family each week. For Canadians who are just trying to fill the gas tank to get to the office or the job site, the pain at the pump is not only too much to bear, but also more than they can afford.

The Libera-ls have said that they understand the affordability crisis Canadians are facing, but their measures for relief on gas do not go far enough for long enough. That is why Conservatives are proposing a 25¢‑per‑litre break at the pumps for the year, which would put $1,200 back in the pockets of Canadian families. The Liberals have the opportunity to work with Canadians to provide real relief for the families and workers who are building this country.

Spring in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 67 years and one month ago, Toru-Hagiwara, the Japanese ambassador to Canada, presented 2,000 Somei Yoshino sakura to the citizens of Toronto for their support of Japanese Canadian refugees after the Second World War. Tomorrow, we will reap the fruits of that gift and other gifts, which are a living testament to the friendship between our two nations and a reminder of one of the many hidden benefits of being a Canada that welcomes refugees.

High Park, the beating heart of our riding, will wake up. The flora and fauna will shake off winter, and High Park little league baseball will hold its opening day at Ernie Keith Field. The sakura cherry blossoms will be in full bloom, thanks to the hard-working public workers who help keep High Park safe and moving, as well as organizations, such as the High Park Nature Centre and the Bloor by the Park Business Improvement Area, that get our community excited about the sakura.

I ask people to join us in High Park this weekend and to bring their families, their friends and their cameras. They will join thousands of people in the renewal that spring brings and bask in the beauty of the sakura cherry blossoms.

Fuel Tax

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are being forced to choose between a full tank of gas and a full grocery cart. After 10 years of rising costs, the government's plan only offered limited, short-term relief that has not actually lowered prices at the pump.

Conservatives have a plan for a full tank, which is to scrap all federal gas and diesel taxes for the rest of 2026, saving Canadians up to 25¢ per litre and over $1,200 for a family, because when we lower the cost of fuel, we lower the cost of everything. That matters because every truck driver delivering the goods, every small business needing those goods and every commuter that goes to work will feel this cost-savings in their wallets.

Canadians do not need another announcement. They need relief. It is time to deliver relief for Canadians that they can actually feel.

Disability Tax Credit

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are focused on making life better for Canadians.

One of the many measures in the spring economic update is the changes to the disability tax credit, which would make it easier for Canadians living with disabilities to be approved for the financial relief they deserve. These changes will streamline the application process by immediately certifying anyone who has their disability certified by a medical practitioner and expanding the list of medical practitioners who can certify the disabilities.

I want to thank the Parkdale Food Centre in my community of Ottawa Centre, the Canadian Medical Association and the College of Family Physicians of Canada for their advocacy on the importance of these changes. These measures are just some of the many ways that our government is building Canada strong for all.

Affordability

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. Canadians are out of money. The latest data from Dalhousie University shows a heartbreaking reality. Affordability is now the only thing driving food choices. For it, nutrition is being sacrificed and quality is being killed.

One in three Canadians is now borrowing money just to afford groceries. Families are scaling back, yet they are still spending more on food every single year. The government House leader is complaining that this is all he hears, but the pressure is rising.

The Prime Minister has doubled the Trudeau deficit and Canadians are the ones being crushed. Nothing has changed. This costly credit card budget means more debt, more costs, more spending and more taxes. It is more of the same. The Liberals are spending more and Canadians are getting less.

Families in Bow River and across the country deserve fairness. They deserve common sense, but most of all, they deserve to be able to afford their dinner.

Youth Employment

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of good news in the spring economic update, which is something we should all be talking a lot about. One of the biggest initiatives the Conservative Party is really offside about, and talk about being insensitive, concerns the young people of Canada, the youth who want to get the jobs of the future.

Within the spring economic budget, we are building up the Red Seal program. Members can think of those who want to be a welder, plumber, machinist or pipefitter. There are so many professions out there to support our young people through the Red Seal program.

The government is supporting the Red Seal program. The Conservatives, on the other hand, say, “No, get out of the way.” They do not care about the young people of Canada. The Conservatives need to flip-flop their position, get onside and support our young people.

Finance

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, after a decade of costly spending, life has never been more expensive for Canadians. Families in this country pay more for gas, groceries and housing. These are costs that they can barely afford. The Prime Minister's costly budget is just more of the same Liberal policies that have driven millions of Canadians to the food banks, with more government spending, more debt and more taxes.

When will the Prime Minister finally end his costly borrowing so that Canadians can afford to live?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, the member said, “more taxes.” From my count, our government has put in place over 19 tax cuts. We are singularly focused on bringing down costs for Canadians.

We have paused the excise tax on fuel and cut the consumer carbon tax. We have cut income tax. We have cut GST on new homes. We have cut tax for mineral and critical mineral exploration. We have cut tax for businesses that invest in R and D, new machinery, equipment, IP protection and IT networks. We cut taxes for tradespeople who have to travel for work and for those who invest in clean tech—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals are just creating new packaging to hide the same old spending and record deficits. Now, they want to borrow $25 billion to create another bureaucracy that Canadians never asked for. Their so-called wealth fund has no wealth. It is borrowed money, built on the same failed Infrastructure Bank policies that lost money and rewarded only Liberal insiders.

Why will the Liberals not admit that they are simply hiding their reckless spending with more deficit—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, I had run out of time because there are so many tax cuts that our government has put in place that I just could not fit them in, so let me continue.

We cut taxes for those who invest in clean technology, clean hydrogen and clean electricity, as well as for those who invest in carbon capture, utilization and storage. We cut taxes for employers who sell their small business to their employees. We cancelled the capital gains tax increase. We made it easier to access the disability tax credit.

Canada has the most competitive tax rate in all of the G7, and we have made it easier for Canadians to file their taxes so they can take advantage of both tax deductions and federal—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Long Range Mountains.

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

Madam Speaker, the latest Statistics Canada data is heartbreaking for our country. Nearly 10 million Canadians, including 2.4 million children, are now living in food-insecure households. At home, this means parents in Cow Head and Mainland are skipping meals so their kids can eat. It means seniors are choosing between heat and meat, yet this week's budget shows the Liberals are still addicted to credit card spending, which drives up the cost of everything.

The Prime Minister has doubled Trudeau's deficit. How many more children in Newfoundland and Labrador have to go hungry before the Liberal Prime Minister stops his costly credit card spending and makes food affordable?

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

Madam Speaker, let us take a look at the record of those across the aisle and of all the programs that the Conservatives continue to vote against. They are voting against a national school food program. They are voting against dental care for Canadians. They are voting against the groceries and essentials benefit that, in five weeks' time, on June 5, is going to be putting dollars into the pockets of families right across Canada.

These Conservatives vote against affordable child care. They vote against the Canada child benefit. If the member wants to stand up to talk about making life more affordable for Canadians, she should come over here, get on board and vote for the programs that are supporting Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, before the Liberals took power, children and families did not need school food programs to feed their families.

Canada now has the highest food inflation in the G7. A new report from Dalhousie University confirms that one in three Canadians is now forced to borrow money just to buy groceries. Canadian families are being crushed by a decade of Liberal credit card budgeting. The Liberals keep spending more while Canadians get less.

Why has the Liberal Prime Minister doubled the deficit? When will he stop his costly credit card spending so families can actually afford to eat?

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

Madam Speaker, fighting for Canadians means delivering a responsible economic plan, which is exactly what we did on Tuesday by delivering a copy to every member in the House.

Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We have the lowest debt burden. We have the second-strongest GDP growth right now. We have the highest labour force participation in the G7. We have the highest per capita investment in the G7, more than double what is happening in the United States.

Why does this matter for Canadian families? When we grow our economy, we create prosperity and we create jobs that are going to support Canadians now and into the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, this week's economic update proves that the Liberal reflex is the same as ever: a credit card budget, more costs, more debt, more spending and more taxes. Nothing much has changed. We have a new Liberal big spender for a Prime Minister who has not only doubled this year's deficit, but plans to keep doing the same thing for the next five years, putting us $55 billion in the hole year after year. In the meantime, Canadians are paying sky-high prices at the grocery store, and one in four is experiencing food insecurity.

When is the Prime Minister going to rein in his spending so that Quebeckers can make ends meet?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, I know that members on the other side of the House have trouble with the facts, but I am going to remind them of a few.

Canada's fiscal position is the best in the G7. We are leading the G7 in investments. We have the second-strongest growth of the G7. On this side of the House, we are responding and adapting to a changing world. We are capable of imagining the future and making the necessary decisions. Our way of governing is responsible and ambitious, and most of all, we continue to be there for Canadians in need, with tax cuts, a dental plan, food assistance, a training program and the sovereign wealth fund. That is what building Canada strong for all Canadians means.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to talk facts. According to several recent studies, including a Dalhousie University report, Quebeckers and Canadians are now choosing their food not based on what they need, but on what they can afford. Demand at food banks is skyrocketing and families are struggling. In Montmorency—Charlevoix, families are tightening their belts while watching the Liberals spend their hard-earned money.

How long will it take for the Liberal government to realize that Quebeckers and Canadians are not bottomless pits of money? When will the Liberals govern in a way that gives families some breathing room?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, economic turmoil is making life more expensive for Canadians. That is why we can count on a Prime Minister who understands the gravity of the situation and is taking decisive action. In my constituency, as in my colleague's, many children go to school on an empty stomach. However, thanks to our school food program, school children in my riding and in my colleague's riding will be able to have a lunch. That is how we build a strong Canada, with both our heads and our hearts.

The Economy

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, we just lost 300 jobs in only four days in the Chaudière-Appalaches region. Following the announcement by South Shore Furniture, Bestar announced yesterday that it would have to declare bankruptcy. We are talking about companies that have been in business for 86 and 75 years, respectively. In both cases, the U.S. tariffs, lack of liquidity and the dumping caused by the trade war are to blame. There are a number of things that should be done. The first is a wage subsidy to save our jobs. We have been proposing that for a long time.

When will the government finally take action?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we are here for Canadians. We understand that things are tough. That is why we lowered taxes, implemented the school food program and provided training for workers. We are here for Canadians.

I want to ask my colleague, where would he cut? Would he cut the infrastructure agreements that we signed with Quebec? We gave them $1 billion. Would he make cuts to the 855 units we just announced a few months ago in Joliette, in his riding, and in the Laurentides? Would he make cuts to infrastructure projects, the expansion of the port in Contrecoeur—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, we, the Bloc Québécois, are in favour of scrapping oil and gas subsidies. Our wage subsidy proposal to protect jobs during the tariff crisis involves taking action before layoffs occur, not after.

This week, 300 jobs were lost at two furniture manufacturing plants. This follows on the heels of 300 layoffs at Paccar, in Sainte‑Thérèse. A lot of other companies are crying out for help, including Liard Industries in Joliette, Cyrell AMP in Beloeil, ADF in Terrebonne, Max Atlas in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu, M.L. Pro‑tech in St-Boniface or Acier Hason in Lanoraie, and the list goes on.

We are going to work with the government. Our hand is outstretched. However, does the government realize the urgency involved?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, yes, of course we realize the seriousness of the situation. I also gladly accept my colleague's offer to collaborate.

Naturally, this situation results from the unjustified and unjustifiable U.S. tariffs, but also from products manufactured in Asia and dumped on our markets. Investigations are in progress and announcements will follow very soon.

Small Business

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

Madam Speaker, the new U.S. tariffs announced on April 6 specifically target Quebec's SMEs. The economic update should have included protection for Quebec against these tariffs, but it is completely absent from the document. The economic update needs an update, and it needs it now.

Quebec lost 300 jobs this week. How many more Quebeckers will face the same fate before the government finally introduces a wage subsidy?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, yes, the situation is serious. Our neighbours continue to change the rules of the game arbitrarily. Although they are still our neighbours, they are completely unreliable. First, it is important to identify the source of the problem. It stems from our neighbours' completely senseless actions.

We are putting the necessary programs in place to help our businesses get through this very difficult time. Announcements are coming soon. We need to remain flexible in how we provide support. We will be making announcements on this very soon.

Finance

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is racking up billions of dollars on the national credit card. Canadians thought they were getting a different approach with the new Prime Minister, but it turns out he is just another costly Liberal. The more he grows the deficit, the more expensive things get. New data out this week proves that. Statistics Canada confirms nearly 10 million Canadians, or almost one in four, are living in food-insecure households. One in three Canadians are now borrowing money just to afford groceries. Life did not used to be like this in Canada.

Instead of delivering a deficit even bigger than Justin Trudeau's, why does the Liberal Prime Minister not end the credit card budgeting so that Canadians can afford to live?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have never met a fact they could not deny. The spring economic update shows $11 billion less of a deficit and strong fiscal guardrails.

The International Monetary Fund recently stated that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. There is not only that: Headlines last night said that we have recently seen the largest monthly growth in the manufacturing industry in three years. Statistics Canada is projecting that Canada's annualized GDP growth for the first quarter in 2026 is 1.7%, which is beyond expectations. Even the Bank of Canada governor said he is encouraged by the direction the federal government is taking.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, the last Justin Trudeau budget projected the deficit this year to be $31 billion. The deficit is $66 billion. That is more than double what was projected, not lower.

The Liberals are spending more and Canadians are getting less, and now hard-working Canadians cannot even afford groceries. Here are some facts for the government. Food bank use has exploded to 2.2 million visits every month, up 100% since 2019. A third of those relying on food banks are children. Everything the Liberals brag about doing, they have tried before over the last 11 years themselves. Instead of driving up prices—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, it is very hard to take the member opposite seriously when he mentions children being hungry, as he voted time and time again in this House, with his entire party, against a national school food program that would take 400,000 children out of food bank lineups. That is shameful. That is absolutely shameful that they would stand here and lecture us on feeding children across Canada.

We have offered a Canada child benefit that puts hundreds of tax-free dollars into Canadians' pockets. We reduced the cost of child care and we have offered free lunches at school, and the members opposite opposed all of it.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, all week, the Liberals have said they are going to spend less and invest more, except they define what spending is and what investing is. It is almost like they got their accounting advice from Bernie Madoff.

What we know is that the Liberals are now spending another $65 billion on Canada's credit card. They doubled the national debt, so we now spend more on interest servicing the debt than we do on health care.

Are the Liberals proud of this record?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, let us get acquainted with the facts. I know it is very hard for the Conservatives to accept. The deficit is $11 billion lower than projected. Operational spending has gone from an average annual increase of 8% to 2%. We are on a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio over the planning horizon. Inflation in Canada has been within the Bank of Canada's target range for almost three years. We have a AAA credit rating, the highest credit rating of any country rating in the world. We have a higher per capita rate of job creation than the U.S., three times—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, they really did learn how to manipulate numbers from Bernie Madoff. They say that the deficit is down. They projected a terrible deficit. They just made up a number. It is actually double what it was under Justin Trudeau. That is up, not down. I hate to break it to these guys.

Canadians now have the highest household debt in the G7. Why? They are borrowing money to pay for their daily and weekly costs, including groceries. Everything has gotten worse under the Liberals, including debt.

Why do they keep racking up the debt on Canada's credit card so that we spend more on just the interest portion of servicing the debt than we do on health care?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, we are building big projects across the country to create new opportunities and new jobs through the new build communities strong fund.

We announced a $64-million federal investment to build the largest community centre in Brampton, the Embleton Community Centre, with 175,000 square feet of pool, gym and child care facilities. This is what citizens of Canada expect. They expect us to build Canada strong, with major projects to create jobs and opportunities across the country.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, remember when Justin Trudeau's projected deficit was so bad, Chrystia Freeland refused to table it and resigned, and then Trudeau resigned? They had to get another random Liberal to table it.

The update is so bad. It is another credit card budget, with double the deficit that forced the then-finance minister and, eventually, the prime minister to resign.

Will the Prime Minister admit that after 10 years of reckless Liberal taxing, borrowing and spending, nothing has changed?

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, to grow our economy and make Canada more resilient, we must diversify our exports. That is why our trade diversification strategy aims to double exports to countries other than the U.S. within 10 years. Canada's energy sector, including Alberta, has a significant role to play. The percentage of oil shipped via the Trans Mountain pipeline destined for Asia increased from 39% to 62%.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the reviews on this costly budget are in and they are not good.

Even Andrew Coyne, that pillar of Laurentian consensus, said that this new government has no interest in “arresting our economic decline.” Even Andrew Coyne says we are in economic decline, and the Liberals are not interested in doing anything about it.

Will the Liberals finally end their credit card budgeting, yes or no?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, on this side of the House, we believe that now is the time to invest in and build our communities. My colleague is from Alberta.

Can he explain to Albertans which projects he would like to cut?

Is it water infrastructure to support the community of St. Albert? Is it the new Japanese community centre in Calgary? Is it 355 affordable homes in Edmonton, made possible by Build Canada Homes? What is it he wants to cancel?

We want to invest.

[Chris Lewis, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise again to share what a resident in Essex wrote to me: “Just want to express my deep concerns with...the direction that Canada is heading. I did not think it could get worse than Trudeau”.

My response is this. This costly credit card budget means more debt. The Liberal Prime Minister doubled Trudeau's deficit. There is more spending and there are more taxes. He is just another Liberal.

When will the government end its costly spending so Canadians can afford to live?

[David Myles, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Nature)]

Madam Speaker, I have to ask myself what the opposition considers inflationary spending. For instance, yesterday, I heard a member opposite refer to our defence investments as if they were not important, as if they were all inflationary spending.

I will tell members that when I am in Oromocto, when I am in Fredericton, at Base Gagetown, they do not see these as inflationary spending. They see these as important investments in the people who serve our country and protect our sovereignty. I applaud it. They applaud it. Unfortunately, the opposition votes against—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Jonquière.

Public Services and Procurement

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, the first thing the Liberals did with their new majority was refuse to release the documents on the Cúram software cost overruns. While costs have risen to nearly $7 billion, the Liberals are using their majority to hide the truth from the opposition and the public.

Tens of thousands of seniors are struggling to get their old age pension, but the Liberals refuse to let us address the root of the problem.

Is that what we can expect from the next three years of a Liberal majority government?

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

Madam Speaker, we have been very open and clear about this project.

I will be clear.

On a total budget of $4.8 billion, $1.8 billion has been invested. In fact, the modernization of old age security was delivered under budget. Of the $674 million allocated for this phase, only $633 million was required, reflecting strong project oversight and effective cost management.

As the project evolves, so does the budget, reflecting the scale and complexity of modernizing a 60‑year‑old, obsolete system. This has been transparently communicated—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I just heard. The Liberals know there are problems with Cúram, because they added $451 million for Cúram and the CRA in the economic update. It is absurd for them to claim that there are no cost overruns when they added $451 million in cost overruns in the update.

Meanwhile, they are using their majority in committee to hide information. Yesterday, the minister repeated that Cúram is on budget.

Do the Liberals understand that having a majority does not absolve them from being accountable to Quebeckers?

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

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, this system administers our main benefit programs, namely OAS, EI and the CPP. The first phase of the project is proceeding as planned. The project's other phases are still to come. This is a necessary and ongoing project.

Finance

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

Madam Speaker, there is nothing more important than having enough to eat. After 10 years of Liberal governance, the situation here in Canada is terrible.

One in three Canadians has to borrow money to put food on the table. Some 2.2 million Canadians are visiting food banks every month. What is really heartbreaking is that one in three children has to go to a food bank. That does not make any sense.

Now, the Prime Minister has just tabled a $67‑billion deficit.

Will he admit that he is yet another costly Liberal and that Canadians are now paying the price for that?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, of course, issues related to the cost of food are very important. We are all saddened by the fact that some Canadian families have to turn to food banks to put food on the table.

That is why we are making significant investments in social programs that help families, including the Canada child benefit. Thousands of families in every riding are getting thousands of dollars to help them get through these tough times. Social programs are important and they are what sets Canada apart—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary knows very well that I have a great deal of respect for him because, when he was a member of the provincial government, he ran a zero deficit. However, he is currently a member of a government that has run up a $67‑billion deficit.

The problem is that these Liberals have launched all kinds of programs over the past 10 years, all with zero results. Some 2.2 million Canadians are going to food banks.

Is the parliamentary secretary proud of how poorly his colleagues are handling things, considering how well he managed Quebec's affairs?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to be part of a government that is investing heavily in our families. We have social programs. We have programs that our American neighbours do not have. We are proud to be able to preserve, maintain and build upon these programs. That is what sets Canada apart. It is what makes Canada Canada. We support one another. It is not every person for themselves. It is not survival of the fittest. We know that by working together, we will go further.

The Economy

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, how can a G7 country brag when families are cutting back on groceries and skipping meals just to make ends meet?

The Dalhousie University report states in no uncertain terms that Canadians are buying what they can afford, not what they need to eat. It is always the same old story with the Liberals, the same old tune on repeat. They pull out the credit card and spend without a second thought, and the bill always ends up on Canadians' plates.

How are the Liberals going to make life more affordable for Canadians?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have always been very clear about their austerity agenda, but we are still waiting to find out which projects they intend to cut and in which communities.

Would you make cuts in your constituency, which I visited a few weeks ago for the opening of affordable housing projects for seniors and students? Would you cut the infrastructure agreement with the Government of Quebec, involving an investment of nearly $1 billion? Would you cut the 865 units we announced with Quebec three weeks ago for affordable housing, transitional housing and vulnerable people?

What are you going to cut? Please, tell us.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, The Assistant Deputy Speaker]

The hon. parliamentary secretary knows that I am not going to do anything.

The hon. member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, she is taking us for fools. I hope I do not look like a puppet. Canadians are not stupid. Everything the Liberals are doing is going on the credit card.

The reality on the ground is clear. Groceries are getting more and more expensive, household debt is rising and food banks across the country are overwhelmed.

How can the Liberal government claim that everything is fine when more and more people are having to cut back on food and turn to food banks to put food on the table?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, as we know, economic turmoil is making life more expensive for Canadians and Quebeckers.

In the economic update, we are investing to develop a very important manufacturing sector in Canada. I am talking about the agri-food system. Following the superdeductions we announced in the last budget, we are now announcing a strategic Canada Strong fund that will allow us to invest in our agri-food system to produce more goods here in Canada and lower grocery prices.

That is what building Canada is about.

Industry

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, Windsor workers and manufacturers are already feeling the pressure from the section 232 tariffs, and 150,000 Windsor families are worried about what comes next. They think that the Prime Minister is just another costly Liberal. He has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit, while Canadians continue to face an affordability crisis alone. If the Prime Minister likes to gamble, he can come visit a casino in Windsor but leave the Canadians' credit card at home.

There is no targeted relief and no meaningful support for the workers and businesses that carry this country—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, when the Conservative Party was in power in the 1990s, Canada was a fiscal basket case, with a debt-to-revenue ratio of over 30%.

By contrast, we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have the second-best growth rate in the G7. We are responding, but when it comes to tariffs, we know that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and that manufacturing needs some help.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry have been very clear that help is on the way.

The Economy

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, economic growth is truly transformational only when everyone has the chance to participate in and benefit from it.

The spring economic update will empower workers through the historic team Canada strong program, Canada's largest-ever investment in workers, by making education more affordable and by advancing the labour mobility deduction. Our government has also made permanent the employee ownership trust tax exemption. The former MP for Guelph, Lloyd Longfield, and I are huge advocates.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance please explain how this strengthens the economy for all?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her advocacy.

Making the employee ownership trust tax exemption permanent will help more workers share in the success of the businesses they help build. This change allows employers long-term certainty when succession planning, and it allows employees the opportunity to access wealth-building opportunities through collective ownership.

We will continue to build a stronger economy and protect our sovereignty. Making this tax exemption permanent will allow more workers to directly participate in the strength and prosperity that we are building across Canada.

Finance

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals' costly credit card budget plans a deficit of over $65 billion. That is more debt, more costs, more spending and more of the same.

I would say that the Prime Minister is just like the last one, but he is twice as bad. He doubled Trudeau's deficit. The debt costs each Canadian $33,000 a year. Who can afford it? Debt interest charges alone are over $55 billion, more than transfers for health care to all the provinces combined.

While young Canadians face a jobs crisis and food bank use skyrockets, how can the PM tell Canadians they should foot his costly credit card bill?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague knows well that we have a smaller-than-projected deficit because we are managing the nation's fiscal capacity with responsibility. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. The member will know that we have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7.

The path ahead for Canada, despite the challenges we face, is bright. We are launching major projects and investing in the skilled trades to add 100,000 new workers to the economy. We are making massive investments in the Canadian Armed Forces in the defence industrial strategy, which is going to create jobs in every part of this country.

We need to invest in Canada and invest in Canadians to grow this economy.

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, here is the Liberal record: spending up, food inflation up, debt up and photo ops way up, but investments down, no trade deal with the U.S., and zero Major Projects Office approvals.

The Liberals landlocked Canada with costly red tape and shifting rules. That is why Canada now has the most unaffordable housing and the lowest investment in the G7. Canada is rich in natural and human resources. No business should be driven out. No family on fixed income should choose between heating and eating.

Why will the PM double Trudeau's deficit, double down on costly credit card budgets and force Canadians to pay more for gas, groceries and homes?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, Oscar Wilde once described a “cynic” as someone who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. Do the Conservatives not see the value in investing in making sure families have money to support the cost of living through the Canada child benefit and the groceries and essentials benefit? Do they not see value in investing in the national school food program? Do they not see value in advancing major projects to put people to work in this country, and do they not see value in giving a raise to the men and women who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces?

We are building an economy that can stand on its own two feet, diversifying our trading relationships and using our fiscal capacities to support people in need. If that makes me just another Liberal, I am damn proud to be one.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Madam Speaker, there is nothing worse than going to the post office and looking forward to a friendly letter but getting nothing but a dreaded credit card bill. That is exactly how the federal budget went. Canadians thought they were going to get a responsible budget from a new government. Instead, they were hit with a costly credit card bill. The only thing new was that they doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. Canadians do not want a double-double deficit. They want to be able to afford a double-double coffee.

When will the Liberals get spending under control?

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, last week the minister was pleased to publish the “What We Heard” report from the food fishery survey. This was the largest survey done by DFO, with over 9,500 participants. We want to thank everyone who responded to the survey in order to allow us to work better for the people of the member across the aisle's statement.

Our government knows how important the food fishery is in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We need to get this—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Madam Speaker, I was talking about deficits, not fish, but spend, spend, spend is all the Liberals want to do. They cannot spend their way out of inflation. We would think the Prime Minister would have learned that when he wrongfully predicted that COVID spending would actually lead to deflation, but reports are showing that households are still spending more, year over year, on food. Rent is going up year over year. Everything in this country has doubled in the costly Liberal decade.

How many more reports do the Liberals need to see before they realize they cannot build a country, an affordable economy, on credit card debt?

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, it is very rich to hear this debate today. The Conservatives are still refusing to come clean with Canadians about where it is they plan to cut.

The member is from Newfoundland and Labrador. Will he say what project the Conservatives are going to pull the plug on and tell workers to go home? Is it the Marina Redmond Centre in Corner Brook? Is it the Build Canada Homes announcement of 130 secure, affordable units for seniors in St. John's, the water infrastructure through the western coast, or the Tors Cove Hall that our government is providing funding for? Please, can they just tell us? We have been asking.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, after 11 years of the Liberals, they continue to spend like drunken sailors, with a deficit of $65 billion, debt servicing at $59 billion and the total debt a staggering $1.7 trillion. The costly credit card budget means more debt, more costs, more spending, more taxes and more of the same.

Why have the Liberals doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit and doubled down on costly credit card budgeting, forcing Canadians to pay more for gas, groceries and housing?

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

Madam Speaker, how depressing it must be to be a Conservative member of Parliament.

Let me give members some good advice. Canada is not broken. There are a lot of good things that are taking place. All they need to do is open their eyes and open their mind. If we believe in Canada, we need to invest in Canada. That means building on infrastructure. It means investing in Canadians.

The Conservatives have a choice. They can either get on board and be part of a team Canada approach to build a stronger Canada, or continue to be a depressed group of people.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Does the concept of politeness resonate with the members? When someone is speaking, someone else should be listening.

The hon. member for Regina—Wascana.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is depressing to have to line up at a food bank when 10 years ago someone used to be able to afford groceries, but Canadians are starting to see that the Liberal promises are just an illusion. To quote an editorial in The Globe and Mail, “In the upside-down land of the Liberals, a spending spree is a spending cut, blowing a windfall of billions of dollars is prudent and failing to prepare for a fiscal storm is, well, just good management.”

When will the Prime Minister end his costly credit card budgeting so Canadians can afford to live?

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

Madam Speaker, do you know who had something positive to say about the spring economic statement? It was Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe, the premier of the province of that member. When he was talking about the sovereign wealth fund, he said, “We would say this is a good initiative for our nation. I think it really speaks to what we need to do in this nation, and working together at all levels of government to ensure that we can aspire to achieve what the Prime Minister said... [about Canada] being the strongest economy in the G7 and Canada becoming an energy superpower.”

Canadians want to be part of building this country. Why do the Conservatives not?

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

Madam Speaker, the verdict on the costly budget is in, and it is unforgiving. The Globe and Mail reports that for every $100 in revenue, the Liberal government spends $97. The Globe and Mail said, “Even Justin Trudeau would have difficulties in matching that performance.” Federal net debt now exceeds 40% of GDP, and it is rising. Long-term growth is projected to be a measly 1.7%.

When will the Prime Minister stop borrowing against a future Canadians can no longer afford?

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

Madam Speaker, here are a few facts for my colleague across the way. The deficit is down. GDP growth is up. Non-U.S. exports are up by almost a whopping 40%. Investment is at a 20-year high. Wage growth is up and two times stronger in Canada than in the United States. Home prices are coming down. Rents are down. We have a plan to put 100,000 apprentices to work. Those are going to be the steamfitters, the electricians, the carpenters and the mechanics in my colleague's riding and mine. That is a plan to build Canada strong.

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

Madam Speaker, the deficit is now going to be $67 billion. That is up from $31 billion, not down, and the member can recite her talking points all afternoon from the Prime Minister's Office, but the truth is that for months the Prime Minister tried to convince Canadians that he was something different. He wanted them to believe that he was a break from the past. I guess the masks sure fell off this week. The deficit is doubled, spending is accelerated and growth is abandoned. This is not a new government making hard choices; it is the same irresponsible Liberal government making reckless decisions.

When will they—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, when Conservatives talk about spending, they ignore the fact that these are investments that build communities and the infrastructure that we need. The member opposite is from Ontario. I would like to know what projects he would like to cancel. Is it our commitment to GO 2.0? Is it the Scarborough subway extension? Is it the Hamilton LRT? Is it the Darlington nuclear project? Is it the critical minerals strategy for northern Ontario?

If the Conservatives do not believe now is the time to build and invest, they can get out of the way. We are ready to invest in Ontario.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, Loaves & Fishes serves more than 15,000 in more than 44 communities on the island. They are vital, and they are growing, with a new 24,000-square-foot warehouse set to open this month. Some 80% of Canadians say food prices have increased more than any other expense. Groceries, without meat or cheese, regularly cost $100 a bag on the island, yet the Liberal government continues to tell Canadians they have never had it so good.

Every measure we propose, they oppose. How many food bank expansions do the Liberals need to see before they stop their costly credit card spending and actually bring food costs down for Canadians?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague opposite. Coming from British Columbia, we know that British Columbians want to see measures that are going to support them. That is why things like the groceries and essentials benefit are helping Canadians. It is going to be in their bank accounts on June 5. They want to see measures like the reduction in the fuel tax, which is saving 10¢ a litre, and that is keeping money in their pockets between now and Labour Day. They want to see the steps that we are taking. British Columbia can see that we are doing the work to support Canadians.

Sport

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

Madam Speaker, this week, the people of Les Pays-d'en-Haut received good news: $755 million to support our skiers, our cyclists, our soccer players and our female hockey players.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Sport tell the House how the economic update will support sports across the country?

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague the member for Les Pays-d'en-Haut for that excellent question.

An investment of $755 million is great news for sport.

Why do we need to invest in sport? First, it is to support our athletes. Second, it is to keep our young people off the streets and help them benefit from and find joy in playing together. Third, it is to help our seniors break their isolation and be active for life. Fourth, it is to ensure that we are there to build Canada strong together.

Let us celebrate this investment in sport.

Health

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, all week at the health committee, Liberals tried to block and silence Conservatives from getting answers on the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. They have no problems shutting down debate, covering up and protecting Liberal insiders who got rich off the backs of Canadians. I guess this is the new normal that Liberals always wanted, but Conservatives will never stop asking these Liberals the tough questions they want to hide from.

Canadians deserve to know: Where did the $300 million go and who got rich?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, PrescribeIT was launched by the previous government in 2017 following consultations with provinces and territories. The program was always intended to be self-funded over time. When it became clear that it did not have the expected uptake and there was no path toward financial sustainability, Canada's new government made the responsible decision to end federal funding for the program and refocus resources to where they will deliver the greatest benefits to patients and our health system.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canadians do not want Liberal spin. They want to know where and why their money was wasted.

Take Michael Green, the disgraced former CEO of Canada Health Infoway. He was paid over $800,000 a year for more than a decade to run that failed program. These Liberals are now shielding him from committee for the scandal.

Conservatives will not be silenced. We will not stop demanding answers on why $300 million in tax dollars was abused by this government.

Michael Green was the first to take the fall for these Liberals, so my question is, who is next?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, Canada's new government was elected with a clear mandate to ensure programs and policies deliver smarter, faster and more effectively for all Canadians. We are refocusing our spending and Canada Health Infoway's mandate so we can support the development of national health data standards while allowing our health sector partners to develop solutions that work for all patients.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, at a recent health committee, Conservatives moved a motion calling for a full investigation into the Liberals' wasteful, $300-million PrescribeIT boondoggle. The Liberals immediately responded by moving that meeting behind closed doors. As a result, under House rules, I am forbidden from telling Canadians what happened in that meeting for the next 30 years.

Does silencing MPs on committee work for 30 years show transparency from this majority Liberal government?

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

Madam Speaker, our standing committees of Parliament play a very important role. I think it is important that we encourage collaboration as much as we can. Many would argue that what happens in standing committees is very beneficial for the entire House.

Let us look forward to seeing more collaboration at standing committees.

Climate Change

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, climate change is the reason I first joined the world of politics. It is one of the defining challenges of our time and hits the world's most vulnerable the hardest. As the global economy transitions to low-carbon pathways to respond, developing countries are seeking partnerships to reduce emissions, build resilience and drive sustainable growth.

Could the parliamentary secretary for international development tell the House how Canada's international climate finance is finding solutions and delivering results for those most affected by climate change?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Madam Speaker, climate change is a global challenge that calls on all countries to act. It also presents opportunities for those willing to invest in the future. In our spring economic update, we renewed Canada's international climate finance to help scale up investments in sustainable solutions across the developing world. It means crowding in private capital, including through FinDev Canada, to maximize the impact of every dollar and it means creating opportunities for Canadian clean tech, expertise and innovation to scale solutions around the world.

Finance

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has made many promises, but the results of those promises are left to the imagination. One of those promises was to spend less than Trudeau. Well, no imagination is needed here. The result is a doubling of spending in less than a year. Families cannot pay for food with these failed imaginary promises. They need results.

Will the Prime Minister apologize for promising to cut spending while at the same time delivering the highest deficit in Canadian history? Just an apology please.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, we will not apologize for building a stronger Canada. That is exactly what this government was elected to do, and that is exactly the plan we are implementing.

The spring economic update showed that there is $11 billion less of a deficit. We are sticking to the fiscal guardrails and ensuring that we manage the resources of the federal government and the Canadian taxpayer responsibly.

We have also cut the excise tax on fuel, which will help with groceries around the country and transportation costs. We have brought in an immediate expensing for greenhouses. The strategic response fund was given $500 million for agri-food businesses. We have offered a—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

Labour

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, today is International Workers' Day. It is a day when we honour workers' struggles for economic justice and human rights. Yet, the Liberals repeatedly use section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to trample over the right to strike. They cave to CEOs and their corporate buddies and undermine fair and collective bargaining.

Will the government finally respect workers, defend their rights and pass Bill C-247 to repeal section 107 of the Canada Labour Code?

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

Madam Speaker, we believe firmly that section 107 is used only in extreme cases when other options have been exhausted. Just last year, for example, a federal mediator supported over 200 collective bargaining negotiations, and 97% of labour disputes are resolved without a major work stoppage.

We have a consultation right now on the future of the federal Labour Code. I would invite the member, her colleagues and her constituents to please go online and participate in that as we look ahead down the road.

Climate Change

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, alarm bells are ringing of imminent global collapse of key climate systems, but the alarms are being drowned out by the cheering of Liberals and Conservatives for new and more climate-killing projects. Key experts say that there is a fifty-fifty chance of the collapse of the massive and complex Atlantic Ocean current system with devastating and catastrophic results.

When will the government stop shutting off the alarms and try to act before we pass the tipping points?

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, I want to say that Canada continues to be a global climate leader, and we are making our voice heard on the world stage. In fact, just last week, at the G7, the Minister of the Environment, Climate Change presented our ambitious new nature strategy.

In the spring economic statement, we renewed Canada's international climate finance to support sustainable solutions across the world, especially in vulnerable places. As the Prime Minister has said in the House of Commons, we will respect our Paris commitments for climate change, and we are determined to achieve them.

Our government will continue to take decisive climate action and engage in global conversations and action supporting a stronger, cleaner and safer world.

Bill C-11—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Stephen Fuhr, Liberal, Secretary of State (Defence Procurement)]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-11, an act to amend the National Defence Act and other acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of the proceedings at the respective stages of said bill.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, did you call private members' bills?

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

Yes, I did. If the member has a private member's bill to present, the Table was not notified.

Official Development Assistance

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of citizens and residents of Canada concerning the global debt crisis and its impact on development and climate action. The petitioners note that many lower-income countries are spending more on debt repayments than on a number of other priorities.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to review and cancel unsustainable bilateral debts, to advocate for global financial reform and a United Nations framework on sovereign debt, and to increase the grants-based portion of Canada's climate finance, particularly for adaptation, loss and damage.

Animal Welfare

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

It is nice to see you in the chair, Mr. Speaker. I am presenting a petition that I cannot say I am happy to present. I was hoping this issue would have been resolved. I know I am not to speak to my own opinion.

To summarize, Canadians are outraged that live horses continue to be exported for slaughter for sushi in Japan. The slaughter and the movement of wild horses by air are in cruel and inhumane conditions. These petitioners ask the government to please amend the Health of Animals Regulations to ban the export of live horses and to do so as quickly as possible.

I will not quote Jann Arden because it is not parliamentary language.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, in addition to his speech, my colleague has moved a great amendment to what is a disastrous fiscal update from the government. It seems to be unable, despite labelling itself as a “new” Liberal government, to break itself of the habit of continuing to rob the piggy bank of young Canadians and future generations to blow the credit card budget on Liberal fat-cat projects.

I wonder if my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge has a few more comments to put on the record about what a disaster this fiscal update is for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we would think, given all the turmoil and the disastrous record of the Liberal government over the last 10 years, this “new” government, as Liberals like to label themselves, would have easily been able to divorce itself from the disastrous track record and trajectory of the Liberal government. Instead, as we learned this week, it has decided to double the deficit and increase the interest payment on the debt to $80 billion, money that could be used for health care transfers, to lower taxes or for housing. Instead, it is being used to rob a generation of growth and opportunity.

We thought the current Prime Minister would be different. Instead, we realize he is just another Liberal.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in its economic update, the government announced a half measure for improving EI eligibility. It is extending the existing measure, but only until 2028. In our opinion, the spring gap is a perennial issue that demands a permanent solution. We are advocating for a comprehensive EI reform.

I would like to know my colleague's thoughts.

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

Mr. Speaker, like many things in this budget, there are no solutions. This budget is full of empty promises. It is full of nothing more than a bunch of announcements that do nothing for people other than to serve the purpose of adding debt and robbing opportunity from a future generation.

Unfortunately, jobs are fleeing this country. Young people are going to have less and less opportunity. We have seen that over $1 trillion of capital flight has occurred here in Canada, with the difference between foreign direct investment and capital flight accelerating. More and more people are going to require employment insurance if this keeps up because, really, the government is not providing the conditions for any future opportunity in this country.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with my highly respected colleague from Jonquière.

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

Does the member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will be sharing my time with this wonderful colleague, which means I will have to step up my game. After all, there needs to be some balance in these 10-minute speeches.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the exemplary, extraordinary and remarkable work of the interpreters who interpret our questions every day. They are essential to ensuring the right of French speakers to work in their language. I would like to offer them my sincerest apologies and tell them that I am truly sorry about the phone that apparently vibrated a moment ago. It was not in the right place. Let me assure them that the other phone is well out of the way. The one with the timer running is properly positioned on my desk. This proves that even members who try to be careful every day can make mistakes. I would like to remind my colleagues in the House to always be mindful of this. I appreciate the interpreters.

It will come as no surprise when I say that the Bloc Québécois was very disappointed with this economic update. To sum up what I am about to say, this economic update is in serious need of an update itself. The Liberals need to go back to the drawing board.

For one thing, we were very surprised that there is still nothing about the new 25% tariffs imposed on goods from Quebec and elsewhere that use steel or aluminum. It is important to note that the Americans have decided to impose a 25% tariff on the total price of the product even if steel or aluminum makes up only a tiny percentage of the final product. That comes with very serious repercussions.

We asked the government some questions before the economic update was tabled. We were told that the answers would be in the economic update. Now we have it, but there are no answers in there. We are asking questions, and we are being asked what we want to eliminate. We want to eliminate oil and gas subsidies; that is what I answered earlier.

We are not happy, but we are here to work as an intelligent and constructive opposition. I know that the parliamentary secretary is pleased to hear this, since he is listening carefully to my speech. I think he might be willing to accept our olive branch. Still, there is much to do and we have our work cut out for us. This is a serious matter. We are disappointed with the Liberal majority's arrogant new approach of negotiating behind closed doors, which meant that we were not invited for any discussions before the economic update was tabled. It is easy to say that the opposition complains all the time, but if the government would talk to us a little, if it would take our proposals into consideration, perhaps the opposition would complain less.

Speaking of proposals, as we have said many times, the Bloc Québécois did its homework. This reminds me of the last election campaign, when journalists all said that the Bloc Québécois platform was the one that looked most like a government's election platform. That is rather ironic. The 11 proposals we made are serious, reasonable proposals. We are surprised that they were not taken into account. As an opposition, we do not expect our proposals to be accepted in full all the time, but at the very least, we expect them to be considered. In this case, they were not considered at all.

We are concerned about a number of measures in the economic update. First, there is the elimination of the excise tax, which we have talked a lot about. As we have said from the beginning, lowering taxes on gasoline is not a solution. I know that many members here support that approach and want to remove even more taxes, but just look at the price of gas in Quebec and Canada this morning. It is clear that the oil companies have an insatiable appetite. They have no limits. They will take whatever they can get. The government cut the excise tax by 10¢, and the oil companies are already making up the difference. They seize every opportunity to take more. They suck up everything they can get and put it in their pockets. This needs to stop.

That does not mean that the government should not help people. Obviously, it is difficult to be against a proposal like eliminating the excise tax. Members think that they are giving people some breathing room, but look at the result. Gas is up to nearly $2 a litre in Montreal this morning. This is not working.

What we need is direct support. The government could have shown some intelligence and creativity by proposing, for example, a partial reimbursement of fuel costs for business owners and people who use gas and diesel for work.

Targeted measures could have been used to help low-income individuals by compensating them without giving that money to the oil companies. As for the excise tax, we are seeing the results this morning. It is sad to say, but my I see that the money that was supposed to go into people's pockets ended up in the pockets of oil companies. I am not even talking about the scandal of the oil and gas subsidies. These subsidies are a tradition. They are part of Canada's DNA. We can denounce them all we want and ask the government to abolish them, but it will never do that. The lobbies are far too powerful, and there are people making money from this somewhere. We find this deeply deplorable.

We could be saving $26 billion over five years and using that money to invest in social housing and to provide a decent retirement pension for people aged 65 and older, because retirees aged 65 to 74 are currently being discriminated against. That money could be invested in many other areas, including EI reform. The government could do that instead of taking the EI surplus and putting it into its own coffers. It is a bad habit that tends to happen far too often. That money belongs to workers.

The EI system pays out benefits to only 60% of those who contribute. That is both ironic and embarrassing. I do not know anyone in my circle who would agree to pay for home insurance if the insurance company told them they only had a 60% chance of receiving a payout if their house burned down. Anyone would think about it for 30 seconds and then look for another company. Our workers' hands are tied. They are stuck dealing with the federal government, which is administering an EI system that it should not even be administering, since that responsibility should be returned to the provinces and Quebec. I think Quebec would do a much better job running an EI system. We have solutions to help people.

Measures for the workforce were announced. That is all well and good, the intention is noble, and we cannot oppose that. However, what we would say to the Liberals is that there has been an agreement with Quebec since 1997. It seemed like we were telling them something new when they read their economic update. They are supposed to know this better than we do, since they are in government. They should have had prior discussions with the Quebec government. However, judging by the reactions of the new Premier, the finance minister and the people in Quebec City, I think they have not talked much. That is concerning to us. We will be keeping a close eye on this.

Another thing that really concerns us is the increased health and safety risks when it comes to food. The government is changing the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and, if I understood correctly, it is going to change the Pest Management Regulatory Agency's regulations to include consideration of economic issues, not just public health and safety issues. We need to be careful about how we do that.

As everyone knows, I am not acting in bad faith. I was very proud to work on the agriculture and agri-food file here for many years, right up until January. We talked a lot about this issue, and it is true that the inefficiency of these agencies was causing problems. Our issue was with the lack of efficiency. We did not see a need to change the mandate. We are concerned about the fact that the government wants to change the mandate because this is a slippery slope. This will have to be studied very seriously in committee. I hope that the government will give us the time we need to do that and that it will not start holding all the meetings in camera to silence the opposition, because we have serious concerns about public health.

The pesticide and herbicide lobbies are extremely powerful. Members will recall what happened with the so-called tiger team. That was really serious, but unfortunately, it did not get much media coverage. That shows just how much power these people have. I am concerned.

That said, I would like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to be more effective and efficient in responding to on-farm emergencies. When someone requests an emergency approval but receives no authorization, their crops can be ravaged by insects, disease or some other problem. Sometimes the authorization arrives after the damage is done. That does not mean that human safety was compromised; the product was approved. However, the processing is not being done fast enough. Agency staff should do some overtime now and then to keep up with demand. That was the issue. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food's request was about efficiency, not a change in mandate.

My time is running out; sadly, this happens to me a lot here.

Once again, the government is giving the minister the authority to suspend the application of a number of laws. That still worries me. What is this bad habit? It seems that every time I rise in the House, it is to complain about the government trying to suspend the application of laws. Three-year orders are very worrisome. We have serious proposals, such as a wage subsidy to help businesses out and give them some breathing room. We are prepared to work with the government, but it has to be willing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the member is extending his hand in collaboration. I think some standing committees can be very effective. I find that a lot depends on the different personalities and subject matters.

The member raised the issue of agri-food. It was not that long ago I was in the Philippines. We were talking about an expansion where an office could be established to look at dozens of countries and how we could expand. How we can enhance our agri-food system is a wonderful topic to talk about.

I look forward to the member's contributions at the standing committee level, and I hope there will be a higher sense of collaboration going forward.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the parliamentary secretary clearly does not often attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I would like to inform him that, in my humble opinion, it is the most outstanding House of Commons committee. Unfortunately, I have not served on it since January, but I do want to point out that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who took over for me, is doing a great job and that he is up to the task. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work co-operatively.

Of course, when it comes to exports to the Asia-Pacific region, there are a lot of people to feed there. The concerns that I raised have to do with the mandate changes at the CFIA and the PMRA. I would ask the government to be vigilant in that regard. We would be pleased to work together to conduct a serious study in committee so as not to compromise public health.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned several cases where the government failed to consult properly and where it lacked transparency. He talked about a worrisome trend that we have seen this week now that the Liberals have a majority in committee. They have been holding committee meetings in camera and preventing Canadians and other parliamentarians from having access to important information and participating in debates.

Can my colleague tell us more about his concerns?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must first commend my colleague on the quality of her French. It is exemplary. She seems very nice.

The government's authoritarian tendencies are worrisome indeed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is paying close attention and will perhaps take the opportunity to reassure us on that score. Now that I am my party's whip, I oversee all the committees. Having read our member's reports, I know that the government is quick to convene in camera and clean house. The government is in the process of taking back control of the order of precedence. I hope that this feverish activity is temporary, the result of having recently secured a majority through backroom deals, and that the Liberals will become reasonable again. Asking that an open hand be extended comes off well in public, but accepting that hand is another matter.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague pointed out that no negotiations have taken place between the Bloc Québécois and the government to determine what might make this economic statement acceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Some things are quite obvious, such as the fact that the federal government has never reimbursed Quebec for services provided to asylum seekers or for the carbon tax.

I would like my colleague to talk about these two glaring inequities by the federal government.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, “inequities” is putting it mildly. I would say it amounts to outright theft. In the case of the carbon tax refund for money people had not yet paid, we are talking about $14 million owed to Quebec. This is a grave injustice. We even held an opposition day on this issue, yet the government never even considered it. It is the same with asylum seekers. Quebec is owed over $700 million.

The Bloc Québécois does not wish to harm Canada. What we want is to protect our people in Quebec and get what is rightfully ours. We are, of course, working to build the country of Quebec in the meantime, and we are more than eager to do so. When we see such blatant theft, it just makes us even more eager for the next referendum.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that comes as a surprise to no one. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé made it very clear that the Bloc Québécois is disappointed in the budget statement, as did my colleague from Mirabel in his response to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. I think that his answer was very well put and it showed all the shortcomings of the economic update.

This week, in response to oral questions, I heard my Liberal colleagues say many times that they want to build Canada. The update document does talk about building Canada. However, I would like to finish the sentence, because I think that, in reality, they are building Canada while ignoring Quebec. That is what the document should have been called, and I will explain why.

I have a little tip for my colleagues. When we want to understand the intent of a government document or proposal, like a budget or an update, there is usually a fairly simple trick. All anyone has to do is search how many times certain words appear in the document. My colleagues will see where I am going with this.

Just for fun, I checked to see how many times the word “forest” or “forestry” appears in the economic update. Those words appear six times. Then, I checked to see how many times the word “aluminum” appears in the economic update. We see that word 12 times, which is a bit better. I also checked to see how often the term “climate change” was used, and the answer is five times.

When I searched for the word “gas”, I hit the jackpot at 43 times, but the real winner was the word “oil”, which is used 153 times in the economic update.

Why am I talking about this? We immediately see where the government's priorities lie. Given what is happening right now, the economic update should have responded to the tariff crisis to help the industries in Canada that are currently facing the highest tariffs.

Which two industries in Canada are facing the highest tariffs? First, there is the aluminum industry. As we know, primary aluminum producers are managing to get by without too many problems, but this is catastrophic for aluminum processors. The 50% tariffs are catastrophic for them. Many are operating on credit and struggling to stay afloat right now. There will be consolidations unless the government takes action. That is for the aluminum industry, which is mentioned only 12 times in the economic update.

The other sector facing the highest tariffs, and the one most severely impacted by U.S. policies, is the forestry sector. It is subject to 45% tariffs. This figure is the sum of a 10% tariff, countervailing duties, and anti-dumping duties. This means that every time a forestry producer ships $100 worth of products to the United States, $45 is taken from them, stolen. Not many companies can survive with margins cut by 45%.

There is another key factor that has emerged in recent weeks. In fact, we were the ones who sounded the alarm for the government, pointing out that, under a new decree, 25% of the total value of aluminum products will now be subject to tariffs, which is destroying Quebec's industrial base.

Is this addressed in the economic update? No, at no point does it offer a solution to the problems facing the aluminum and forestry sectors. This makes me think that the goal is to build Canada while ignoring Quebec.

I will return to the many repeated proposals we have made. I can talk about that right now. Time and again, we have proposed solutions to the government for addressing the tariff crisis surrounding softwood lumber. The government has always turned a deaf ear to them. What we see in the economic update when the word “forest” appears is a rehashing of what was announced back in August and subsequently expanded. Nothing is new under the sun. We are still in the same position with a liquidity program ill-suited to the needs of people in the industry.

We have made concrete proposals to the government with people involved in the forestry sector. We proposed that the government buy back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month.

The government would not necessarily have to pay out this money, since the anti-dumping duties that are currently being held in the United States will eventually be recovered. The government could therefore recoup its costs. We proposed this solution, but the government never wanted to talk to the Bloc Québécois to try to implement it. The same goes for aluminum.

If the economic update is about building Canada while ignoring Quebec, what does this economic update actually contain? In my view, the government's primary intention is to build infrastructure to export energy. The fact that the word “gas” appears 43 times and the word “oil” appears 153 times clearly reflects the government's intention to build oil and gas infrastructure in order to export more oil and gas.

We had this discussion at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We heard from Hydro-Québec. Sometimes I like to be a bit mischievous. I asked Hydro‑Québec, which has built two major lines allowing Quebec to export energy to the United States, one to New York and the other to Massachusetts, how much financial support it had received from the federal government to do so. The answer was zero. The federal government did not offer Hydro-Québec a single penny in financial support to develop this energy export infrastructure. We are talking about clean energy, about hydroelectricity. It is a different story when it comes to the oil and gas sector.

What does the economic update contain? It includes an increase in the carbon capture and storage tax credit. That information is not coming from me. The former environment minister has stated on numerous occasions that more money has been invested in promoting carbon capture and storage than in certain carbon capture and storage projects themselves. It is a bottomless pit, and it is completely illogical to try to produce clean oil, but notwithstanding that, we know that Export Development Canada, or EDC, put $102 million into the carbon capture and storage sector in 2023. In 2022, $464 million was poured into this sector, which in no way serves the interests of Quebeckers. I will come back to EDC. When we look at the overall support for the gas and oil sector, we see that it is completely outrageous.

The federal government is trying to respond to a tariff crisis by supporting the Canadian energy sector. The question that troubles me is this: Who benefits from the Canadian energy sector? People looking for an answer to that question will find something quite shocking. When looking at the ownership structure of the major oil companies, it becomes clear that 80% of these major oil companies are owned by foreign interests. I repeat, 80% of the ownership structure of the major players in the oil sector belongs to foreign interests. Furthermore, 60% of the ownership structure belongs to American interests. What does this mean? It means that the energy lobby, which aims to boost the Canadian economy, is working to the benefit of American interests.

Here is a hair-raising fact. From 2021 to 2024, these people made $131 billion in profits. Did they invest in their infrastructure? No. They asked the federal government to take on the risk for the infrastructure while they raked in the profits. I have never seen a model like that. Capitalism is based on people assuming risks with their own money and then reaping the profits. That is not what the oil companies want. For the oil companies, it means having the government assume the risk so they can reap the profits. They produce 12.3 billion dollars' worth of capital flight.

The federal government left Quebec out of its economic update. Instead, it is trying to help the big oil and gas companies that send their money to the United States. That is completely outrageous.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I must admit that I am rather surprised. He seems to believe that Quebec was overlooked in this economic update. However, what I see, when I read the update, is a historic investment for small craft harbour infrastructure that coastal communities have been waiting for for a long time. There are many such communities in the Atlantic provinces, but also in Quebec. This is a historic, long-awaited investment.

We are also investing in sports to expand access to sport for young people. That will benefit all of Canada, including Quebec. There is also the update on the housing strategy. In January, Quebec and Ottawa signed an agreement to speed up the construction of housing and the infrastructure needed to support housing construction. There are projects of national interest. I am thinking about the Contrecoeur port. Does my colleague agree that these are important investments for Quebec?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the entire document. The whole problem is that the major investments are being made not in Quebec, but in the oil and gas sector. The accelerated capital cost allowance in the economic update applies only to the gas sector. It does not apply to other sectors that are specific to Quebec.

There is nothing for our economic sectors. There is only money for the oil and gas sector. The goal of this economic update is to give even more support to Canada's energy sector using taxpayer dollars. This is being done at Quebec's expense, just as Quebec is dealing with one of its worst tariff crises ever thanks to the United States.

If my colleague does not find that outrageous, I can draw him a picture.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his thoughtful remarks.

As he can see from my exchanges with him and his colleagues in French, I want to understand the needs of all Canadians, including those in Quebec.

We share concerns about forestry and the government's lack of attention to major challenges facing our communities. What struck me was the absence of the term “substance abuse”. The government eliminated the position of minister of mental health and addictions and does not seem to care about the crisis plaguing my community.

To what extent could Quebec be affected by this as well?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent French, even though she has not been speaking it for very long. Everyone in the Bloc Québécois agrees that she is remarkable.

In my view, issues relating to substance abuse and health fall under the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. I am not trying to avoid her question.

I would, however, like to point out that I have rarely agreed with the leader of the official opposition, but I do agree with him on one thing. He has pointed out on numerous occasions that the major oil and gas companies are acting like corporate welfare claimants by asking the federal government for money. I know the Conservatives are in favour of defending the energy sector tooth and nail, but they would not stoop so low as to take money from Canadians and hand it over to the greedy oil and gas sector, which is making record profits and sending them back to the United States.

On that point, I congratulate the leader of the official opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

As we have seen and as we know, the U.S. President has increased tariffs on aluminum- and steel-based products. This will have a major impact on Quebec SMEs. The Bloc Québécois spoke about this often prior to the economic update. The economic update came, but had not a word to say about it.

Can my colleague tell us more about that?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were all astonished, especially since the leader of the Bloc Québécois seems to have told the Prime Minister about the situation. The following day, after the Prime Minister was made aware of the problem, he told us that we would get an answer in the economic update.

Then, lo and behold, the economic update arrived with absolutely nothing. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that it was on the way and that we would get an answer. Can we take him at his word? The next few days will tell whether the government walks the talk, but this is deeply concerning.

Ministerial Compliance with Order in Council

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on April 29 by the member for Peace River—Westlock respecting the tabling of annual reports pursuant to an order in council.

I submit that this matter is a question of statutory law upon which the Speaker is not empowered to make determinations. In the ruling referenced by my colleague, I would like to draw the attention of members to parts of that ruling that were not addressed in the member's submission to the House.

On February 5, 1992, in the Speaker's ruling respecting the tabling of a document pursuant to an act of Parliament, he stated:

The first point that the Chair wishes to highlight is that Speakers do not interpret or enforce matters of statutory law. There are many precedents to this effect.

On June 19, 1978, a question of privilege was raised respecting the late tabling of the Postmaster General’s annual report. In rejecting claims that the failure to respect the law constituted a breach of privilege, Speaker Jerome warned the House that the authority of the Chair did not extend to the determination of questions of law.

On two occasions—March 27, 1981 and February 10, 1983—Speaker Sauvé confirmed this principle in denying claims for the Chair to intervene in cases similar to the one raised by the honourable Member for Scarborough—Rouge River. In each of these situations, the Government had failed to live up to its statutory responsibility to table documents within a specific period of time. In response, Madam Speaker ruled that the Chair had neither the responsibility to interpret the law nor the authority to compel the Government to obey it.

There are two important distinctions between the case of the ruling of February 1992 and the case currently before the House. In the situation facing the House in 1992, there was a statutory requirement found in the Customs Tariff, an act adopted by Parliament, to table an order made pursuant to that act respecting the elimination of tariffs on certain plywood and related products under a free trade agreement that required the Minister of Finance to table in the House no later than April 2l, 1989.

The case before the House is not analogous. The tabling of the report in question is not done pursuant to a statutory obligation but rather a legal instrument made by an order in council by the executive branch of government. The order in council referenced by the member, unlike the situation in 1992, does not provide a requirement to table the document by a certain date. Both of these points diverge distinctively from the situation facing the House in 1992.

More substantively, the case of a statutory obligation requiring that an order in council be tabled in the House respecting the alleviation of a tax or the elimination of a tax on certain products would be of legislative concern to members of the House. The question currently before the House is not a legislative requirement and has no direct impact on any legislative matter currently before the House.

Moreover, the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking is not an official standing, legislative or special committee of the House. There is no mention in the Standing Orders of the powers, mandate and functions of such parliamentary working groups. These unofficial forums are not official creatures of the House and, therefore, are not subject to the provisions of Standing Order 108, which set out the powers and mandates of official committees of the House.

I submit that the matter raised by the member for Peace River—Westlock is a question of law, which is outside the purview of the Speaker. Secondly, the legal instrument referred to was not a requirement of an act of Parliament. Finally, the absence of a requirement for a time frame to be complied with brings into question whether the government has not exercised, or will not exercise, the obligation under that order in council.

I therefore submit that this is not a procedural question, nor can a determination be made that the government has not complied with its own exercise of authority under the order in council.

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

I thank the member. The Chair will take that under advisement and come back to the House as necessary.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by informing you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

For over a year now, I have had the pleasure of serving as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, and since day one, our government has remained focused on what we can control: building a stronger Canadian economy, diversifying our international trade partners, managing the budget rigorously and responsibly and supporting Canadians who are struggling because of the cost of living. We are on the right track. We have more work to do, but over the past year, we have been on track, and our 2026 spring economic update is the next step in our plan to build a stronger Canada for everyone.

Building Canada strong and meeting our housing, infrastructure and defence needs will require workers who are already qualified. Our workers are the engine of our economy in Canada. That is why, with the economic update, we are launching our plan to recruit and train workers, and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers over the next five years. That is important because we want to build big, but we need the manpower to do it. We will modernize the Red Seal program to reduce certification delays and improve national consistency. We will introduce online exams and digital logbooks and create a single national registered apprenticeship number. All of this will help to simplify the process.

We will also introduce financial incentives. As part of their Red Seal certification training, apprentices have to accumulate a certain number of hours of on-the-job training, which is essential to their apprenticeship. To help employers hire, train and retain apprentices, we will put in place wage subsidies of up to $10,000 for their first-year salary. This is a financial incentive to support employers who give our apprentices on-the-job training opportunities.

Of course, there is also the classroom training component. We will be providing apprentices with an additional $40 week in income while they are completing their mandatory classroom training. This amount will be in addition to measures already in place, such as employment insurance benefits for eligible apprentices and the student loan and grant program. We will also introduce a new $5,000 success bonus upon obtaining Red Seal certification. By comparison, the previous version of this bonus was approximately $2,000, so this is a substantial increase. Why is this being introduced now? It is because we want to provide apprentices currently in their training program with an incentive to complete their training and obtain the Red Seal.

When we talk about training the next generation, it is also important to offer meaningful employment experiences. That is why I am very pleased that the economic update reiterates our government's decision to increase funding for the Canada summer jobs program. We are already seeing real results. In my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, this represents an investment of more than $1.5 million for the summer of 2026, which will support more than 400 jobs for young people in my region. This includes jobs in a variety of sectors, such as summer camps, tourist sites, care homes, day cares and the cultural community, to name a few. In addition to giving young people a great job experience, it also supports our community organizations, our small and medium-sized businesses and our municipalities because it allows them to hire summer workers who are essential to their activities. That in itself is great news.

I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact that Canada covers a vast area and its economic realities vary across the country. Many sectors, including agriculture, fishing, forestry and tourism, especially in rural areas, rely heavily on seasonal workers. As we know, these industries have to cope with weather and seasonal constraints, as well as variations related to fluctuating demand. For that reason, EI provides temporary income support to these workers during the off-season, while they wait for a new season of employment to begin. It gives them some financial stability and lets them remain in their community.

Supporting seasonal workers through EI this way also benefits employers in the sectors I mentioned earlier, as well as our regional economies, by allowing employers to retain skilled workers and to ensure they remain on hand for the coming season.

A program consisting of five additional weeks of EI was created in 2018 to support seasonal workers. It was active in 13 of the country's economic regions where seasonal work employs a significant portion of the labour market, as it does in Madawaska—Charlotte and Restigouche-Albert, which make up the entirety of my riding.

These measures enable seasonal workers to receive five additional weeks of benefits. This is essential because it allows them to bridge the gap between one working season and the next, thereby avoiding what is commonly referred to as the spring gap. These support measures were initially intended to be temporary and were due to expire in October 2026. My colleagues from the affected regions and I have held discussions with our colleagues, and I am very pleased to say that the economic update has announced additional funding to extend the five‑week measure, so that seasonal workers in our regions can continue to receive benefits during what is known as the spring gap.

The economic update also extends some of the temporary measures we put in place in response to the tariff dispute. For example, the one-week waiting period for receiving EI benefits has been temporarily removed. Initially, this was intended to last for six months. We have extended this period until the fall and will reassess the situation at that time. This is good news for workers.

In the economic update, we also announced that we will make it easier to access the disability tax credit. The disability tax credit provides significant tax relief to persons with disabilities and their supporting family members. As members know, eligibility for the credit serves as a key requirement for other federal supports, including the Canada disability benefit. It is important for us, as a government, to ensure that people who need help are able to access all the assistance to which they are entitled.

We realized that certain bureaucratic procedures could sometimes make it extra challenging to access the disability tax credit. For example, health care professionals are required to certify a person's disability and its impact on their daily activities by filling out a form that can sometimes be time-consuming. Our experience over the past few years has shown us that, for certain medical conditions, it would be possible to streamline the process and reduce paperwork to simplify the process for health care professionals. That is why we announced in the economic update that we will implement a simplified application process for individuals with a formal diagnosis of certain long-lasting medical conditions. It is important to note that the eligibility criteria are not changing, but based on our experience, we have observed that people with certain illnesses do, in fact, meet the criteria, so they will no longer be required to fill out the entire form.

I will give a concrete example. If a health care professional certifies on the form that their patient has Alzheimer's disease, they will not need to answer all the questions about how the disease is affecting their daily life, because that information has already been documented, and we will consider the person with the disease eligible for the tax credit. This will apply to more than 40 medical conditions, such as stage three or higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cystic fibrosis and schizophrenia. A whole series of other medical conditions are listed, and this will simplify the process for people living with those conditions.

We will also expand the list of health care professionals who can certify eligibility for the tax credit in order to ease the burden on health care workers. Podiatrists, physiotherapists, speech therapists and occupational therapists will all be able to certify certain conditions related to their areas of expertise. These are just some of the various measures we are putting in place to ensure that people who need help actually get the support they need.

This economic update brings more good news for the Atlantic provinces. As we know, investments in small craft harbour infrastructure were long overdue. This was a long-standing request from coastal communities. I am pleased to say that, in this budget, the Atlantic provinces have been heard, and we will see historic investments in this harbour infrastructure, which plays a vital role in the economies of rural and coastal communities.

I look forward to hearing questions from my colleagues, and I hope we can work together to pass this economic update. I hope that my colleagues in the opposition will support us, because I believe this update contains good news for all Canadians.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech on the spring economic statement. I know that he comes from a riding in New Brunswick where salmon are paramount in Restigouche.

The Minister of Fisheries announced $82 million towards making Atlantic salmon as they once were, in a great healthy state. At the same time that she made that announcement, she cut two biodiversity centres, which were long established, one in New Brunswick, the member's home province, and one in Nova Scotia.

In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, she has not even laid out contracts for river guardians this year. If we do not protect spawners, then there will be no spawn, and salmon will be finished.

Will the member question the minister to make sure she puts her money where her mouth is?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my colleague mention the $3.8-billion nature strategy, which includes an investment of $82 million to protect Atlantic salmon. The Restigouche River is internationally recognized for its waters, where salmon are plentiful. It is in my riding and I am very proud of that.

I have actually been having ongoing discussions with the Minister of Fisheries regarding this investment. I look forward to seeing how these investments will translate into real measures to better protect salmon habitat in the Restigouche River and other salmon-rich rivers in Atlantic Canada. In fact, we are also investing in other projects to protect salmon habitat in our river.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by saying that he is pleased that Atlantic Canada was heard in the economic update. I can tell him that I am sad that Quebec was not heard.

Quebec is grappling with the worst of the tariff crisis. The two sectors with the highest tariffs are softwood lumber and aluminum, and there is absolutely nothing for these sectors in the economic update, even though it was supposed to respond to the crisis we are currently facing.

Does my colleague think that is acceptable?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not share my colleague's interpretation. When we look at the economic update, we can see that there are positive benefits for the whole of Canada, whether in Atlantic Canada, Quebec or elsewhere in the country.

I would like to again mention small craft harbour infrastructure. I know this is important for Quebec. Then there are the EI measures we announced in relation to the spring gap. That was a Bloc Québécois request. I am also thinking of the investments being made in Quebec in several major infrastructure projects of national interest, which the Bloc Québécois has often spoken to us about in the House. I am thinking of the update we are making regarding housing. Quebec and Ottawa signed an agreement as recently as January to speed up housing construction in Quebec.

When my colleague says there is nothing for his province in the economic update, I would invite him to take another look and see that there are in fact a number of positive benefits for the whole country.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member across said that he is very proud of the government's investments. I wonder if he would tell this House if he is proud of the government's $50-million investment in the molten salt nuclear reactor scam in his very own province by Moltex. The company has now gone into insolvency. It is being sold off for $11 million; 55 million taxpayer dollars down the drain.

Is that member proud of that investment?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, we are investing in several projects of national interest.

This includes projects related to various types of energy, such as clean energy. I am thinking in particular of our investments in offshore wind energy off the coast of Nova Scotia.

I am also thinking of all the mining projects currently in development, including one in New Brunswick that is under discussion with the federal government.

There are also small and medium-sized projects that will have a transformative impact on our communities.

We are making many investments that will support the energy sector both in Atlantic Canada and across the country.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to ask questions relative to Labrador. I will speed it up a little bit, but I am also happy that my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador are here because it gives me an opportunity through my question to talk about the great things our government is doing in Labrador.

We have heard about the announcement for—

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

We need time for a response. The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has 10 seconds.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the economic update confirms that we have reached the defence spending target of 2% of GDP. This is excellent news, and it translates into investments across the country, including in my colleague's riding of Labrador.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Winnipeg South Centre.

The spring economic update, much like the budget, is a wonderful exercise in the democratic process. It is not only an opportunity for the prime minister and the minister of finance to report back to Canadians and indicate the direction of the government. It is also an opportunity, through a variety of different iterations, for grassroots Canadians, constituents, to convey their needs, their wants and the opportunities that exist in our country back to the people who represent them, such as me, here in Ottawa.

I try to create time every week, whether I am in Ottawa or in Winnipeg, to sit down with people I represent in order to have a conversation, whether through email correspondence, a phone call, in-person meetings or at events. It is an opportunity for them to connect with me and help me understand what they want said on their behalf on the floor of the House of Commons.

My speech today will be framed around one question: What builds a strong community? For me and for many people I represent, it is about connection of people and places. More specifically, I want to talk about opportunity, belonging and stability. I am going to start with sport.

I was extremely privileged and blessed, as a young person growing up in Winnipeg South Centre, to have been raised in a community filled with people who wanted to give back. I am thinking of my coaches in baseball, John Matas and Ray Ali, and my coaches in football, Jon Romu and Gerry Urbanovich, who gave so much back to my teammates and I. They taught us about the importance of teamwork, leadership and perseverance. Sport brings us together and creates a sense of belonging. Like the arts, it is a practice of expression. It is a reflection of us back to others.

In addition to creating a deep sense of belonging, sport is also critically important from the perspective of both our physical and mental health. I can remember having the privilege of being the head coach of the Kelvin Clippers football team, where I had been a player in high school, and working with a number of students who came from difficult situations, whether that was conflict in the home, a lack of success in what we would have traditionally deemed as such in the confines of a classroom, or just looking for something to belong to. Sport, particularly team sport, was an avenue for them to grow, develop and be a part of something bigger than themselves and to do so in a way that contributed positively to their mental and physical health.

The spring economic update's announcement of an investment of $755 million, a monumental and generational investment not only in Canadian athletes but also in participants in sport across the country, is going to be a game changer that brings about a healthier sense of belonging in our communities.

I want to now turn to opportunity. I recently met with Fred Meier, who is the president of Red River College Polytech in my hometown of Winnipeg. Alongside Fred, I had the opportunity to chat with a number of members of the faculty associations. One of the things they raised is the existence, unfortunately still, of a stigma that exists in our country around the trades.

There is a belief among some people that the only path to prosperity through higher education can come through traditional programming at universities. This could not be farther from the truth. Not only are the trades and skilled workers who occupy the positions within that domain working valuable jobs in terms of being able to people prosper economically and financially, but they are also critical to the growth of our country. What young people in this country need right now, vis-à-vis the trades, is opportunity. The government's growth agenda is going to help them realize that.

As we build a strong Canada, we need to allow for the development of a strong workforce that will help support many of the major projects and critical infrastructure developments we are catalyzing right now.

In the context of the spring economic update specifically, there were a number of measures I was very pleased to see that I think are going to make a significant difference for folks on the ground in Winnipeg, throughout Manitoba and beyond, across the country. Included in those are up to $16,000 over the course of about four years for somebody who is in training to become a skilled worker in the trades. This financial incentive is critical for folks who are trying to balance their education with the financial responsibilities they have in their life. This type of incentive is going to ensure that we retain people throughout that educational process.

In addition to that, one of the things we see in this particular part of the spring economic update statement regarding the skilled trades are supports for small and medium-sized businesses to allow for apprentices to have opportunities. I was very proud a number of years ago to be the principal of the Maples Met high school. One of the things that was amazing about this school was that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays the kids would be in class doing project-based learning, but on Tuesdays and Thursdays they would go out into the community to do internships. Often these internships would take place with the leaders of small and medium-sized businesses, who would help them understand what the pathway was toward a profession in the trades.

We are going to be creating an agency government-wide that is going to help facilitate that process, whereby business owners, educational institutions and people who are wanting to join a profession are going to be able to work collaboratively to advance those opportunities. Inclusive as well of the opportunity in trades is a $5,000 incentive upon the completion of a Red Seal certification.

One thing I would like us to move on is some conversations between the federal government and provincial governments in order to make sure we are aligned on helping to create that opportunity for young people. It is often as early as grades 8, 9 and 10 that people know they want to begin to explore the spaces around the skilled trades, and the more closely we can be aligned across the country to create those pathways, the stronger I believe we are going to be.

I also want to talk about the importance of stability in building a strong community. In my hometown of Winnipeg, there is a significant crisis ongoing in relation to mental health, addiction and homelessness. We have announced a continuation of a $125-million investment in unsheltered homelessness and encampment initiatives. Just last week in my office here in Ottawa, I sat down with some executives from the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Manitoba chapter, who talked to me about how critically important the investments in this fund have been to providing, particularly, wraparound services.

When we talk about dealing with the mental health and addictions crisis and about people who are currently unsheltered or living on the streets, we have to focus not just on creating housing but also on creating stable housing that is supported by a variety of different resources, whether that be addiction treatment options, social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists, or peers who are going through similar situations who can build strong bonds within the community to help people through these very difficult aspects of their journey.

The $125 million is a significant investment, but in addition to that, it builds on top of the $5-billion health infrastructure announcement we made in the last budget. I am working very closely with my colleagues on the ground in Winnipeg and other stakeholders to make sure these funds go towards building the types of wraparound services that will comprehensively and collaboratively create the type of supports people in Winnipeg need right now.

I started this speech by talking about the importance of connection between people and places. Connection to our natural environment is critical, and the last thing I will say is that I am very proud to have seen reflected in the spring economic update the insights, feedback and guidance that the people I represent in Winnipeg South Centre had given me, inclusive of input on the environment. It is investments like the $75 million in the Seal River Watershed in Northern Manitoba that speak very much to that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague will agree that the crime rates in this country are far too high, and that is why I think Canadians were very hopeful when the government announced that it would be hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers.

However, we have recently learned that of the 1,000 RCMP officers the government claimed it was hiring, only 750 of them are actually going to be frontline officers; 250 of them are going to be civilian support employees. It gets better. The government, under its early retirement incentive, laid off over 300 civilian employees from the RCMP. The government says it is hiring 250 more employees, but it has let go 300 employees and is bringing in only 750 frontline officers.

This is an investment illusion under the government. Why is it failing to protect our streets, by underinvesting in police?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I met with police officers from the Winnipeg police union a couple of days ago in Ottawa. I can say that their view was very different, as was that of police chiefs from across the country. For example, Bill C-14, which would bring in tougher penalties for repeat offenders, particularly those who are using weapons and violence in the crimes they are committing, is being welcomed across the board in this country.

In addition to that, I want to go back to a component of my speech that talked about the importance of investing in supports for mental health and addictions, and homelessness. Lots of crime is born out of poverty and out of very difficult conditions that people find themselves in, so by making investments in people through social services, we help to reduce crime rates in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, currently, the government has set the increase in health transfers at 5%, which is clearly insufficient because system costs are rising, due to population aging, at a rate closer to 6%. The government has not locked in the increase in health transfers, which means that, by 2027-28, it could drop to 2% or 3%, even though the health care systems in Quebec and other provinces are already struggling.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are allocating nearly $220 million for infrastructure and health care in Manitoba. What does that mean for the people of Winnipeg and Manitoba? It means that we can continue to provide the necessary services. As I just mentioned in my response to the previous question, there is a crisis happening right now on the streets of Winnipeg. These investments will make a big difference.

I cannot speak to what is happening in Quebec specifically, but I can say that, in Manitoba, these investments are making a big difference for the people of my province.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague mentioned that he had visited schools and spoke about the importance of supporting our youth.

I would like him to say a few words about our historic investment in sport and its impact on our young people. Why is it important to support sport, including for the younger generation?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, these are exceptionally significant investments. It is not just important for physical and mental health. It is something we need for building strong communities. Participation in sport improves the lives of parents and children alike, across all communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out some financial indicators we have right now, particularly as they pertain to small business. The CFIB has said that for six quarters in a row, we have had more small businesses closing down than are starting up. It has described us as being in an “entrepreneurial drought”. About 55% of entrepreneurs are saying they do not suggesting opening a business.

How do the Liberals square that with their economic update?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, how we square that is by giving $10,000 to small and medium-sized businesses to help attract entrepreneurs and apprentices who are going to create and build this country. That is how we do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

It is always an honour to rise in the House, and I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, on the spring economic update. Unfortunately, the legislation confirms what Canadians already feel in their daily lives: that after years of costly Liberal fiscal policy, life is becoming more expensive, less predictable and harder to manage.

Before I dive into the details, I would like to set the stage by looking at how the nation is actually receiving this update. If we want to know how far the Liberal rhetoric is from the Canadian reality, we only have to look at the headlines from The Globe and Mail and the National Post this week: “Canada Strong is still Canada deep in debt”, the Liberals’ “upside-down [fiscal] world”, and “[Canada’s] 'New Government' has no interest in arresting our economic decline”.

To summarize the content of these headlines, if someone has been wondering what meaning to attach to that irritating phrase the Liberals are so fond of, “Canada’s new government”, they should wonder no longer, as the spring economic update makes abundantly clear that it means nothing. There is no use in being disappointed; we should all be managing our own expectations. The new government is no more interested in arresting our economic decline than the old one was.

It is clear the Liberals have no intention of changing their high-spending, high-taxing ways. Economists have sounded the alarm. Without aggressive measures to boost productivity, our country will continue to slide, yet in the bill, we see no commitment to deep deregulation, no effort at broad tax reform and no plan for growth. This is not progress. This is just more of the same, wrapped in a new coat of paint.

As always, I want to speak specifically about how this impacts the wonderful people of Long Range Mountains. When they look at this, they do not see a plan for growth. They see a document written for a boardroom full of Liberal elites. It bears no resemblance to the reality of life in Newfoundland and Labrador. At a time when hard-working Canadians are looking for relief, this offers something very different. It offers a costly credit card approach that doubles down on spending, increases the deficit and risks driving inflation even higher.

The Liberal Prime Minister has now doubled the deficit left by his predecessor, from $31 billion to $65 billion, and the consequences of that decision will be borne not by the government but by hard-working Canadians. The Liberals certainly do not consider the unique challenges that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador face, especially the challenges of the island portion of our province, where most of our fresh produce and everyday essentials must be shipped in. Building materials have to be brought across on the ferry. In Long Range Mountains, fuel is not a luxury but a lifeline. We do not have subways; we have vast highways with no cellphone service and unpredictable coastal weather conditions. The bill doubles down on fuel taxes that act as a geographic penalty on rural, remote and coastal Canadians.

Across the country, families are already stretched thin. The rising cost of food, housing and basic necessities is forcing difficult choices at kitchen tables across the country. Seniors are being squeezed by fixed incomes that no longer go as far as they once did. Young Canadians are postponing major life decisions because the cost of home ownership feels out of reach. They are losing hope in their future in this country.

When a father in Deer Lake fills up his truck to go to work, he is paying a premium for the Liberal government’s ideology. When a senior in Burgeo looks at the cost of home heating fuel, she is being squeezed by a Liberal plan that makes her life harder every single day. In that context, one would expect the legislation to show restraint and focus on affordability, but instead, it introduces $37 billion in new Liberal spending, on top of tens of billions already committed. It proposes the creation of a sovereign wealth fund that has no wealth behind it, relying instead on borrowed money. It would allocate billions more to international climate finance, millions for conferences and billions in subsidies that would do little to address the immediate pressures facing hard-working Canadians.

This is not a targeted plan to help families. It is an expansion of government at a time when Canadians need the exact opposite.

Liberals brag about $37 billion in spending, yet if we talk to any small business owner or walk into any grocery store and ask how they are managing to navigate in this environment, they do not want to hear about billions of dollars for international climate conferences. They want to know when prices are going to start to go down so they can manage to drive their kids to the activities they love and, at the same time, keep food on their tables. Seniors still living in their homes on a fixed income want to know when their money will once again be enough to live off.

Entrepreneurs want to have confidence that they can grow their business and hire more staff instead of constantly facing more costs that create uncertainty and stress. They want to innovate and work on their business instead of constantly wondering how they are going to make payroll. They want to continue to contribute to their communities instead of having to cut back because of constantly higher costs.

At a time when we should be focused on bringing costs down for hard-working Canadians, the bill proposes a sovereign wealth fund with no actual wealth behind it, only borrowed money. Meanwhile, the cost of servicing the national debt continues to climb. This year alone, debt interest payments will reach $59 billion, which is more than the federal government transfers to provinces for health care and more than it collects in GST revenue. This translates to roughly $3,400 per Canadian family just to cover the cost of Liberal borrowing. This is money that could otherwise be invested in Canadians' priorities, but instead it is consumed by the growing weight of Liberal debt.

Even more concerning is that the government's own projections show slow economic growth and rising inflation. In other words, despite unprecedented levels of Liberal spending, the fundamentals of the economy are weakening. Canada now faces some of the most challenging economic indicators in the G7, including high household debt, unaffordable housing, weak productivity and declining investment. These are not short-term fluctuations. They reflect deeper structural issues that this bill fails to address.

We hear a lot about team Canada, but there is a massive gap between Liberal rhetoric and the reality being felt by hard-working Canadians. We have young people in the trades who want to build their lives at home. We have resource potential that could make us a global energy superpower, but we are held back by a Liberal wall of regulatory bottlenecks. Whether it is the punishing industrial carbon price or red tape preventing us from developing our own resources, the Liberal government is standing in the way of Newfoundland and Labrador's economic prosperity.

Conservatives—

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Offender Rehabilitation Act

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

moved that Bill C-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code, to make related amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to rise for the first hour of debate on the second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-240.

Canada is facing a crisis, one that is often described as silent. It is silent in our national conversations, perhaps, but deafening in our homes, in our communities and in our daily lives. It is a crisis heard in worried phone calls, in empty chairs at the family table and in the quiet grief carried by parents, friends and loved ones. This is not an abstract policy debate. It is this drug crisis, and it is affecting Canadians everywhere.

There are 343 seats in the House, and every single one of them has been impacted in some way. No region, no riding and no community has been spared. For some, it is a 15-year-old girl's grandmother asking for help to save her from this crisis, or a conversation with a police officer when one can literally see the mental anguish on his face because of the human-trafficking aspect of this crisis and the toll it is taking because it feels endless. For others, it is a friend, a neighbour, a colleague or a family member who is struggling right now. This crisis has a face in every corner of our country.

We have lost more than 50,000 Canadians to this drug crisis in the past 10 years. This is more lives than we lost in the Second World War. If this level of loss were caused by any other threat, the House would be united in urgency, relentless in its response and clear in its resolve, yet despite the scale of this tragedy, the drug crisis too often remains hidden, spoken about quietly, not fully addressed or avoided altogether. Too often stigma replaces understanding, discomfort replaces honesty, and political talking points replace action.

We hesitate to talk openly about addiction because it is complex, because it is painful and because it forces us to confront the difficult truths about mental health, trauma, housing, crime and care, but silence has never saved a life. Avoidance has never led to recovery. If we are serious about protecting Canadians, then we must be serious about acknowledging the reality that is in front of us. We must start talking about this crisis openly and honestly. We must move from debate to action, and we must work together across federal, provincial and municipal governments and alongside our communities on the ground, because recovery is possible. People can and do recover. People can come home happy, healthy, healed and drug-free.

Recovery must be at the centre of any serious response to this drug crisis. If we truly want to help people who are suffering from addiction, we have to focus on getting them well, not enabling and not just cycling them through systems that never really address the root cause. Addiction is not a moral failure, and recovery is possible when people are given the right supports.

In my community, I see what works. I see organizations that are changing lives every single day by focusing on rehabilitation and recovery. Groups like Frontline Recovery, HART Hub at the House of Friendship, Celebrate Recovery, Porchlight, Key Metrix and Crow Shield Lodge, along with many others, are doing the hard, often unseen work of helping people rebuild their lives. These frontline organizations understand addiction not as a headline but as a human reality. They prove that recovery works when properly supported.

Our stories are different, but at the core of addiction there is trauma. It drives substance use and keeps people trapped in cycles they cannot escape on their own. If we do not heal the trauma, we do not break the cycle. If we do not break the cycle, we are not offering real recovery but only enabling addiction. That belief is what led me to bring forward Bill C-240. It is a bill about breaking cycles and putting recovery at the centre of our justice system's response to addiction-driven crime.

Bill C-240 would introduce rehabilitation directly into incarceration. It would allow a judge to prescribe rehabilitation, mental health supports, education and training. It would give the individual the opportunity to participate in that treatment, and it would allow a parole board to consider whether that treatment plan has been completed.

What makes this different from what exists today is accountability. Right now, programs may exist, but there is no real accountability to ensure that they are delivered as intended or that the individual receives the full support required to complete them. When rehabilitation is judge-prescribed, accountability exists on both sides: on the correctional facility to provide meaningful programming and on the individual to engage in treatment. That accountability is what turns intention into outcome.

Bill C-240 also sends a very clear and necessary message to those who profit from addiction. It treats the trafficking of fentanyl as an aggravating factor, allowing for harsher penalties for dealers who knowingly make money off human suffering. Recovery must be paired with the consequences for those who exploit vulnerability for profit.

The goal of this bill is simple and focused: to heal and break cycles for those afflicted by addiction and to punish those who knowingly fuel it. If we want safer communities, fewer victims and fewer lives lost, recovery must be the path forward and accountability must be a part of that path.

This last part may be difficult for me to get through, but it matters that I say it.

There are many faces, backgrounds, stories, people, different walks of life and reasons for addiction. I know this because I am one of those faces. I am one of those walks of life. I am a recovered addict.

I fell into addiction in high school. It starts as fun, an escape from reality and good times with friends. Then it turns into something very different. It becomes one's life. It steals from people, who then burn bridges and make choices that trap them in a life of continued trauma.

No one talks about the dark side of addiction: those choices, the self-harm, the trap houses, the abusers of vulnerability and the realities of the life of addiction. I was young. I was vulnerable. I had my own trauma. Then one day, while I was in one of those trap houses, I was looking around and thought to myself, “What am I doing? What is this life? What is my future? What is next, death?"

That is when I decided to change. When I was in addiction, my mom showed me tough love. While I was in active addiction, I was not allowed at home. However, she always checked in on me. She always knew where I was, and she would make me go for coffee or Sunday dinner at nana and grandpa's house. Every time she checked in on me, she would always plant a seed, asking, “When are you going to school?”

The very first thing I did when I got through detox was march up to my mom's office. She worked for the Waterloo region her entire career, and at the time she was at 99 Regina Street South. I went into her office and said, “Mom, I need a Conestoga College book.” I applied for early childhood education, radio broadcasting and television, and mechanical engineering, specializing in robotics and automation. I literally had no idea what I wanted to do next. I just knew I wanted to do something different. The only thing I was accepted into right away was the engineering program, so that became my path.

I have been told, often by people who do not know me, that I need to be trauma-informed or that I need to listen more closely to the research, the data or the intellectuals who study this issue. While research matters, I want to say this very clearly: We will never solve this crisis if we do not listen to the people with lived experience, especially those who have healed. Recovery is not theoretical. It is lived, one day at a time.

I wear the scars, but I also wear the success of defeating the demon of addiction. I always wanted to go into politics, but I delayed running because of my past. The weight held me back. I asked myself, “What if I win? What if my past comes out? What if I am judged or shamed or dismissed because of who I once was rather than who I am today?” That fear is not unique to me. It is the stigma many recovered people carry with them, even after they have built their lives.

I decided I would no longer carry that stigma in silence. I am ending it by telling my story.

Under our party's leader, I knew I would be supported, not only because of who our leader is as a person but because of the message that he continually shares. During the last election, he spoke about recovered addicts as having a kind of strength others may never fully understand, because recovery means climbing a mountain that most people will never see. He spoke about the need for rehabilitation beds across this country and for real pathways to recovery.

That message mattered to me. It told me I would not only be accepted as a member of Parliament, but also be supported. We need more leaders like this. That support has given me the strength and the courage to stand here in the House of Commons and share my own personal story.

However, there is one thing I would like to add to that message. Yes, recovered people climb a mountain, but at the very beginning of recovery, all a person can see is that mountain in front of them. It feels impossible. It feels endless. It feels lonely, but if they take one day at a time, one step at a time, they will reach the top, and that is where their life truly begins.

There is a big, beautiful, happy, healed life on the other side of addiction. If members have ever seen the view from the top of a mountain, they know that the world opens up, possibilities expand and our future becomes something we can finally imagine.

I was an addict sleeping in Victoria Park in Kitchener, Ontario. I slept in the streets and at the women's shelter on Frederick Street, Mary's Place, and now I am a member of Parliament representing that very same area.

The very same area and community I was homeless in, I now represent as a member of Parliament. If someone hears this who is struggling or feels trapped at the base of that mountain, I want them to know this: They should take that step, start the healing journey and give themself the life they deserve.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have been in the House coming up to three years now, and that is probably the most powerful and moving speech I have heard a member give. I want to thank my colleague opposite for having the courage to stand up and share her story.

It is very personal for me as well. I have several immediate family members who continue to suffer from addiction crises. My mother serves as one of the leading addiction specialists in Manitoba, and I see the work she does working with people every day.

I actually do not have a question for the colleague opposite other than to perhaps provide her with another opportunity to share more about what she hopes the House will take into consideration.

Again, I want to thank her for having the courage and tenacity to stand up and elevate the voices of those who often do not have one in this place.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the most beautiful part about continually sharing my story is that it allows people the opportunity to share their own. The more we do that, the more we end the stigma around addiction.

I thank the member opposite for sharing his personal ties to addiction. I also want to thank him very much for recognizing what it means to stand in the House and share our own stories.

I hope, moving forward, we can work together and ensure that we can help create paths to recovery in this country, starting with supporting my private member's bill and introducing rehabilitation into incarceration.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her moving speech. I believe that rehabilitation is very important. It is the very foundation of our justice system, but it takes resources to provide programs, apprenticeships and rehabilitation initiatives. We need to ensure that correctional facilities and other institutions have the necessary resources to achieve these goals.

What does my colleague think?

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree completely. We have to make sure that the resources are there to provide the supports. That is partly what Bill C-240 is doing. When rehabilitation becomes judge-prescribed, it puts the responsibility on the institution to ensure that they are providing the prescribed rehabilitation for that particular inmate.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has done a tremendous service to our country today. Not only has she helped those who struggle with addiction, trauma and insecure housing to see themselves here in this place, she has also blazed a path for some of them to get here with her bill, which I will be proud to stand up and second in a moment.

She inspires me and I just want to provide her with another opportunity to provide any additional advice that she has to share with the people watching at home who might need some of that inspiration as we continue to grapple with our ongoing addictions crisis.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to speak a little further on focusing on taking that first step. One thing that addiction does is it breaks one's relationships. The continued cycle of bad decisions that someone makes is carried with them and it actually stops them from wanting to heal. It is not only that they have their own personal trauma but they have the guilt and they have everything else surrounded in the choices they made while they were in active addiction.

I want people to know that they are loved. Everyone still cares about the person. Everyone still loves the person. All they want the person to do is to get well. All the person has to do is get well. All the person has to do is take that first step.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, earlier today, we had an S.O. 31 about the Bruce Oake Recovery Centre. I have had loved ones attend that wonderful facility. That is where I learned about relapse and how important it is to recognize when the potential of relapse leads to abusing substances or any other addictions. I wonder if she could share any ideas for more positive coping mechanisms to avoid relapse.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is why I do not agree with enabling addiction by providing the drugs to keep people trapped in addiction. I relapsed 13 years after being sober, because it was literally just in front of me. We have to make a conscious choice our entire life to just not be around it. When I was, I relapsed. Luckily, I had enough time and enough healing and enough space that I did not fall back into the cycle of addiction. I think it is really important when people start their journey to not—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the member for Kitchener Centre's private member's bill. We could see around the chamber when the member was speaking that a great deal of attention was given. I do believe the member should be given full credit for having the courage to share her personal story. Over the years as a parliamentarian, what I have found, especially when it comes to social issues, is that when we have members who are prepared to share a personal story, it really does have an impact.

While I was listening and observing what was taking place in the chamber, I was reminded a lot about the MAID debate we had. We could see how the debate influenced the minds of members and how they expressed in their own ways, in different ways, how much they cared about the individual who had shared their experience.

I do commend the member for having the courage to bless this House by sharing her personal story. I think it does make a difference in terms of the tone and the potential carrying of the legislation. In the discussions I have had with respect to her private member's bill, Bill C-240, I think it has been encouraging that the principle of the issue is such an urgent matter that there is an openness to see if, in fact, the legislation could potentially be amended so that we could get a broader sense of support for the legislation. The principle of extending and trying to help is of critical importance. After listening to the member, there is no doubt that having first-hand experience and, as I said, the courage to be able to share it today is second to nothing, virtually, in terms of having the issue elevated.

However, I think there is a great deal that needs to be talked about. When I was in opposition, I can recall discussions that took place in Vancouver a number of years ago in terms of how first responders and many other stakeholders were talking about safe injection sites. I mention that because, at the very tail end of the member's comments, it was interesting to hear her response to a question. I think maybe it is necessary at times to have the ability to be engaged with and hear from different stakeholders. I appreciate what she said, but I do want to get a better sense of what other professionals are saying, some of the others who have gone through that lived experience. It seems to me that we have had provinces, administrations, first responders and some individual survivors who have gone through that experience, and we want to make sure that we take it all into consideration.

The issue of the drug crisis is not being questioned whatsoever. I do believe that we need to recognize that it is a shared responsibility. The member bringing forward the legislation has provided the opportunity for Ottawa to potentially take some tangible action. For that, I do appreciate it. When I think of the shared responsibilities, I think in terms of the departments of health, family services, education and housing, all of which I have personally had the opportunity to be directly involved in. I think of the impact that it has had on our communities, the communities we represent. For many years, I would drive down McPhillips going toward Salter, and down Salter to the Manitoba legislative building. The devastation in our communities is very significant.

There is a great cost. That is why I believe we need to see how the broader community and different levels of government can contribute. Over the last number of years, much like what has taken place in the United States, we have seen a severe increase and too many losses of lives. Fentanyl is a very serious issue. I remember talking about fentanyl when we were debating Bill C-2 and how it could be put into an envelope and mailed anywhere in Canada. There are things we can do to try to minimize the damage that is caused by some of these harsh, addictive drugs.

I look to the community to provide some ideas and thoughts. There are some outstanding groups. I have referred to first responders and the numbers of lives they have saved by responding as quickly as they do and having the proper equipment. I think of the Bear Clan Patrol, which has done an outstanding job in being there in a very real way for many individuals who have drug addictions, some of whom are on the verge of breaking out of that addiction. These addictions are very real, and we need to look at ways to provide the programs and supports so there can be recovery.

At the end of the day, substance abuse involves education. There is a treatment component to it. There is follow-up and a need for support groups. Much like we want to ensure that we take can take corrective actions in a non-partisan way, that has not always been the case. Asserting blame is unfair at times, and we need to look at ways to improve the system.

There is homelessness. Homelessness is a very serious issue for which there is a great deal of effort and government initiatives, and not just federal government initiatives. The federal government works very closely with other jurisdictions, in particular, the provinces, often municipalities and non-profit support groups, such as Main Street Project and Siloam Mission in my home city, that support these organizations, where many individuals have had to deal first-hand on a daily basis with individuals who are trying to overcome their addiction.

The government has taken a number of actions, and it is making a difference. Is it going far enough? There is always room for improvement, and that is one of the reasons I said at the outset of my comments that it is important to look at the legislation. If there are ways it could be amended so it could receive broader support, I believe the government would be open to that.

I do not think it is that some members care more about the issue than others. We see the deaths that occur, the impacts on families and the impacts all around. Having a caring heart and wanting to do the right thing is something that I believe all members on all sides of the House would like to see.

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

Madam Speaker, as someone who worked for over 25 years at a centre for troubled youth and offenders, I have a special interest in Bill C-240 on offender rehabilitation. While the more corrective aspect of stopping the behaviour is important, it is only part of the solution. In order to work, the process requires rehabilitation and reintegration into society, as well as the resources to achieve this.

Bill C-240 proposes amending the Criminal Code to provide that a court may, by order, in addition to any term of imprisonment, prescribe measures that the offender is to take during the custodial period of their sentence, which may include participation in educational, training or treatment programs.

The bill also makes related amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to provide that objectives with regard to programs that the offender may be required to complete during the custodial period of their sentence are to be included in the correctional plan developed by the head of the facility in which the offender is held. It would also provide that parole boards are to take these programs into consideration in their assessments when making a determination regarding the granting of parole.

This is a meaningful change to the sentencing regime, but behind it lies a fundamental question about the real role that incarceration plays in our criminal justice system. There is a punitive or deterrent aspect, and there is the protection of the public, of course, but above all, there is the need to rehabilitate in order to reduce reoffending. Rehabilitation is the foundation of our justice system.

The bill is based on the following observation, which has been well documented: A prison sentence that does not include any structured effort at rehabilitation may have the opposite of the desired effect. An inmate who leaves prison without any training, skills or new tools is much more vulnerable to reoffending, at the cost of public safety and social cohesion. That is a fact.

For example, researchers at CIRANO, the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis of Organizations, found that, in Montreal, the rate of reoffending among inmates who participated in programs was 10%, while it was 50% among those who did not participate in programs over a five-year period.

More specifically, the bill would allow the court to order that the offender participate in training to acquire professional or technical skills relating to prospective employment, subject to program availability and the offender's acceptance into the program. It would also enable the court to order that that the offender participate in a treatment program approved by the province or Quebec and to take any other measures specified in the order. Under the bill, the offender must also make reasonable efforts to comply with these obligations.

In principle, this approach is a step in the right direction. Rehabilitation is not just a humanitarian issue; it is imperative to public safety. Many studies, such as the one I just mentioned or the one conducted by the Office of the Correctional Investigator, clearly show that participation in education and training programs greatly reduces the risk of reoffending. It is with that in mind that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-240.

However, if the bill gives the courts the power to order measures, then those measures must actually exist. They must be accessible and they must match current labour market trends. The Office of the Correctional Investigator Annual Report 2019-2020 is unequivocal. It paints a very worrisome picture of the state of the programs offered in federal prisons: outdated training, obsolete equipment, an almost total lack of e-learning, and extremely limited opportunities for post-secondary education.

Inmates themselves say that the jobs and training they are offered serve primarily to fill the time rather than to acquire real, transferable skills. The tools and working methods used in several employment and employability program workshops no longer meet current standards and do not lead to any recognized certification.

This highlights a fundamental inconsistency. We cannot pass legislation recognizing the importance of training and rehabilitation while maintaining a correctional system that fails to offer credible, modern, adequately funded programs. This inconsistency is all the more worrying given that recent federal budget decisions suggest significant cuts are coming to Correctional Service Canada. Cuts to spending and staff numbers will inevitably have a direct detrimental impact on access to programs, even as Parliament moves to recognize their importance. It really makes no sense.

It should be noted, however, that jurisdiction over the administration of justice and rehabilitation lies largely with Quebec and the provinces. Quebec, in particular, has distinguished itself through more effective approaches to rehabilitation within the provincial prison system. Studies by CIRANO show that these programs contribute to a significant reduction in reoffending.

Bill C-240 therefore needs to be examined very carefully. Yes, the legislative objective is laudable. Yes, the idea of tying the sentence more closely to accountability and rehabilitation deserves our support. However, without concrete investments, accessible programs and respect for the division of powers, this bill could remain largely theoretical and superficial.

Finally, the bill also amends the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to establish trafficking in large quantities of fentanyl as an aggravating factor. This reality reflects the severity of the overdose crisis, which is affecting many communities and calls for firm responses to large-scale trafficking networks. That said, we cannot fight this crisis solely through harsher sentences. We will also need sustained investment in prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, both inside and outside the correctional system.

In short, Bill C-240 raises very important issues and deserves serious consideration in committee. The Bloc Québécois is prepared to examine this bill thoroughly, with an open mind, to try to ensure that the powers granted to the courts are accompanied by real resources and that rehabilitation is not merely a principle enshrined in law, but a real option for people who are incarcerated and for society as a whole. That is why the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-240 at second reading.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I come from a place where we have stunning coastline, innovative businesses, delicious restaurants, talented artists and a mild climate that makes me want to put down whatever I am doing and take the dog for a hike.

We have much to celebrate, but we also have one of the highest death rates from overdose in Canada, fuelled by an addictions crisis that is ruining people's lives, leaving them with traumatic brain injuries and killing far too many. The numbers have been improving but we are still one of Canada's hardest-hit communities with insufficient services, social disorder, and a crime rate and crime severity index that are both well above the national average.

Many people struggle with addiction without ever committing a crime, but when people live on the street without stable support while dealing with a serious addiction, a significant percentage will inevitably have repeated contact with the criminal justice system. It is a cycle that is hard to break. Addiction leads to instability, instability encourages poor choices and those poor choices lead right back into the criminal justice.

We have had porta-potty arson with four set on fire in just one night; a person who roamed a busy downtown mall parking lot with a hypodermic syringe attached to a toy bow and arrow; a city worker stabbed over and over again with syringes in a park washroom; addiction-driven assaults with axes, illegal firearms, knives, bricks, bear spray and human feces; and crime on boats, in coffee shops and in homes. I once had a local fire official tell me that the probability of a fire in certain kinds of buildings was 100%.

These are not organized or rational crimes. They reflect instability and create real fear in our community. The people who commit them often cannot be deterred or treated through the traditional tools of our criminal justice system. That is why I am proud to rise today to second and support Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act, sponsored by my colleague from Kitchener Centre. This bill combines accountability with real rehabilitation, taking a practical, balanced and long-overdue step toward improving both community safety and offender outcomes in my community and across Canada.

Canada is one of the only western countries that automatically releases offenders before the end of their sentence, regardless of behaviour. Canada's current approach does not encourage change, it does not reward effort and it does not give Canadians confidence.

This legislation would allow judges to require offenders to participate in education, training or treatment programs while serving their sentence. It would consider progress in those programs in parole decisions. It would introduce the principle that early release should be earned through demonstrated effort and real change. This comes as recidivism rates in Canada remain too high, with estimates approaching 88% for some populations.

However, if prisons are merely storage facilities, if someone walks out of custody with the same skills, the same habits and the same challenges they had when they went in, we should not be surprised when they reoffend. First-time offenders increasingly lack basic education and job skills. Many do not have a high school diploma. Others struggle with literacy and executive function. We just cannot tell a person struggling with both addiction and ADHD, who lives on the street, to show up Tuesday at 10 a.m. and expect them to be there. Education, skills training and treatment programs in corrections are linked to better employment outcomes and lower rates of reoffending by as much as 30%.

I had the chance to see this in action on a recent visit to the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. The Guthrie program is a separate, provincially funded therapeutic community unit within the Nanaimo Correctional Centre that builds life skills, responsibility and practical tools that offenders need to reintegrate into society. Participants are given the kind of responsibility that builds capacity, that teaches them to lead, and that will help them find work and build stability when they return to their communities.

Being there reminded me that the people who end up in prison for convictions tied to addiction are not just our fathers, sisters and children. They are also our teachers, lawyers and skilled workers. Addiction does not discriminate, and when it takes hold, it can unravel even the most stable lives.

Here is the rub: Programs like Guthrie exist and the expertise exists. What has been missing is a system that consistently and effectively evaluates the people in it for potential rehabilitation, encourages and incentivizes participation, and ties it to outcomes. Also missing are clear incentives and spaces for women, visible minorities and other populations who face systemic and persistent discrimination.

This bill would provide the federal government with reasons to work with the provinces to create and expand programs such as the Guthrie program, both in and out of correctional facilities, by empowering judges to prescribe structured rehabilitation programs for offenders who would benefit from skills development, education and recovery as part of a holistic healing program.

It costs roughly $125,000 a year to incarcerate someone in a men's institution and over $215,000 a year in a women's institution. By contrast, community-based programs that support reintegration cost a fraction of that, often as low as $15,000 per person per year, while delivering better outcomes. While corrections-based programs are more expensive, the investment in programs like the Guthrie program pay off in lower recidivism and better outcomes for everyone.

Bill C-240 is not soft on crime. It is smart on recovery. It would require parole boards to consider an offender's progress in completing court-ordered rehabilitation programs when making parole decisions. It would also enable stricter penalties for fentanyl traffickers by making trafficking fentanyl in large quantities an aggravating factor in sentencing.

This is the work I came to this place to do. I am deeply grateful to my colleague from Kitchener Centre for letting me and, by extension, the people of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, play a role in moving this important legislation forward.

Other jurisdictions have already shown that, when accountability is combined with structured rehabilitation, there are better results. In countries like Norway, the system places a strong emphasis on education, work skills and personal responsibility during incarceration. Release decisions are closely tied to readiness for reintegration. When someone leaves custody, they are better prepared to lead a law-abiding life. The results speak for themselves. Norway has some of the lowest recidivism rates in the world.

We should not copy any one system exactly. Canada has its own context, its own challenges and its own legal framework, but the principle is consistent. If we want safer communities, we have to reduce reoffending, and if we want to reduce reoffending, we need a system that promotes real change, not just the passage of time.

This bill would take an important step in that direction and would provide powerful incentives for the federal government to work with the provinces to expand programs like the Guthrie program across the country. The bill would do its work carefully and responsibly. It would build confidence while improving outcomes. It would be fair and effective, and it would improve public safety.

Victims and their families want a system that takes accountability seriously, but they also want a system that has a measure of mercy and opportunity for change, and they would really like to see a system that actually stops what has happened to them and their loved ones from happening to others.

By strengthening the link between rehabilitation and release, offenders have an opportunity to break the pattern to improve their lives. There is sometimes a tendency to frame these issues as a choice between being tough on crime and supporting rehabilitation. That is the wrong way to look at it, because justice requires both.

I think back to what I saw at the Nanaimo Correctional Centre. I did not see criminals; I saw people. I saw people who, with the right support and the weight of expectations, are taking steps to change their lives. I saw corrections officers committed to that goal, and I saw a program that makes a real difference.

This bill would align with those outcomes. Every time someone leaves custody, they return to a neighbourhood, family, workplace and community. One question we should be asking is: Are they are more or less likely to offend? This legislation would help ensure the answer is the one Canadians want.

For those reasons, I encourage all members of the House to support this bill, and I am proud to second and support it.

[Wade Grant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I want to thank my colleague from Kitchener Centre for standing up and having the tremendous strength she had today to share her story. Far too often in my 47 years, I have had to say goodbye to many family members way too early. They never were able to climb the mountain that she was able to climb, but I am able to share her story now to say that people can climb that mountain and be in this hallowed hall one day. I thank the member again.

I am thankful for this opportunity to speak to the private member's bill, Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act. This bill proposes amendments to the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, CCRA, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. More specifically, the proposed amendments would allow a court to prescribe measures that an offender must undertake during their sentence, such as participation in treatment or employment programs; require that such measures be incorporated into an offender's correctional plan and that progress be considered by the Parole Board of Canada, PBC, when making sentencing decisions; and treat large-scale fentanyl trafficking as an aggravating sentencing factor.

Our primary responsibility as a government is to keep all Canadians safe. This responsibility requires us to carefully review legislation, assess its implications and ensure that it upholds the values that Canadians expect of us. We support the principles of Bill C-240 and recognize that it requires further study at the committee stage to address certain challenges present in its current form. We look forward to working together to rectify these issues and ensure the safety of all Canadians.

With this in mind, I will use my time to talk about how Correctional Service Canada, CSC, helps people in custody achieve their substance use goals, as well as how parole works in Canada.

Substance use is a complex health issue that requires a balanced approach focused on prevention, treatment and harm reduction. Through its national drugs and substances strategy, CSC takes a health-centred approach to substance abuse, recognizing that addressing problematic use is essential to rehabilitation and public safety. CSC provides screening, evidence-based treatment and peer-supported recovery services. This includes substance use treatment delivered by health care professionals, such as opioid agonist treatment for individuals with opioid use disorder.

CSC also implements harm reduction measures to reduce the risk of overdose and the spread of infectious diseases while supporting access to care. CSC further supports recovery through peer-based programs, which use lived experience to promote engagement, recovery and successful reintegration into the community.

The majority of offenders are serving fixed-length sentences. This means that they will eventually be released back into the community once their sentence ends.

Let me, for a moment, explain how parole works in Canada.

Parole contributes to public safety by helping offenders reintegrate into society as law-abiding citizens through a gradual, controlled and supported release with conditions. Parole decisions are made by the Parole Board of Canada, an independent administrative tribunal that operates at arm's length from government and is free from outside influence.

The process can take place through an in-office file review or a face-to-face hearing with the offender and their parole officer. When hearings are held in person, observers may request to attend remotely. Board members consider all relevant and available information in assessing an offender's risk to reoffend. Decisions are based on a thorough risk assessment of all relevant and available information, which includes information from police, courts, Crown attorneys, mental health professionals, correctional authorities, private agencies, indigenous communities and victims of crime.

We must not forget that an offender on parole is not completely free. They continue to be monitored and supported by a parole officer from Correctional Service Canada. The Parole Board of Canada may revoke an offender's release not only if they breach their conditions, but also if their risk is assessed as having become unacceptable.

I want to reassure all Canadians that public safety is the primary consideration in all conditional release decisions.

I would also like to share some information about recidivism. Over the last 10 years, 93% of offenders granted day or full parole by the Parole Board of Canada have not committed a new offence while on parole and 99% of offenders have not committed a new violent offence while on parole.

I would also like to emphasize that victims have a role to play in the parole process as well. They may register to receive information from the Parole Board of Canada and Correctional Service Canada. Victims may also provide information to Correctional Service Canada and/or to the Parole Board of Canada at any time throughout the offender's sentence, for consideration when making decisions related to the offender's security level, evaluations or the offender's programming needs and overall risk to re-offend. This includes by board members when deciding whether the offender should be released and the conditions they impose.

Victims can choose to provide a victim statement describing the impact the crime continues to have on them, express their views about the possible conditional release of the offender and ask Correctional Service Canada to consider their area of residence when making a release plan. Victims can also request special conditions for the Parole Board to consider, for example, preventing the offender from communicating with them or their family and from going to any specified place. Further, victims may attend the offender's parole hearing as observers and can read their written statement to board members, outlining the continuing impact the offence has had on them, as well as any risk or safety concerns the offender may pose.

The national office for victims, through Public Safety Canada, provides an essential resource for victims of federal offenders. It is committed to empowering victims of federal offenders through information. Victims of crime can use this information to understand how authorities determine eligibility dates for different types of release. Through the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights, the Government of Canada also provides the following rights to victims of crime: the right to information, the right to protection, the right to participation and the right to seek restitution. Under the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, victims of crime can receive information on progress made by inmates towards meeting the objectives of their correctional plan.

The government will always take the protection of these rights seriously. We will continue to ensure the safety of all Canadians. As we support sending the bill to committee, we hope to further the progress, efforts and values I discussed today by strengthening this piece of legislation and ensuring a safer Canada for all Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé has three minutes.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a treat. I thought I had only two minutes to speak.

We are talking about crime and rehabilitation. There are different ways to look at prison sentences for criminals, those who have committed a crime. The first is to see them as a way of telling the person that they need to understand the seriousness of what they did, that they are “going to pay”, that they will not have an easy time in jail, and that, afterward, they are going to have to think about what they did so they do not do it again. From that perspective, the individual is not getting any support. It could even be said that there is a desire for the person to suffer. That approach does not work. That approach does not help in rehabilitating offenders.

We in the Bloc Québécois believe in rehabilitation. For anyone who believes in rehabilitation, the constructive approach is to guide the individual toward a more positive life. Awareness and recognition come first, and then the individual's current circumstances must be generally assessed. Where is this person at? What led them to commit the crime? It might be easy to dismiss the individual as just a thief, but there is a family background and socio-economic context to consider. Often, people who commit violent acts were themselves victims of repeated violence as children, and so on. We need to understand, support and empower these folks. Training and rehabilitation programs significantly increase the chances of successful reintegration into society. The research is very clear on this point.

In that sense, the bill we are discussing today seems positive at first glance. Of course, we will vote in favour of the bill in principle at second reading, as my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île said earlier. We are prepared to do serious and rigorous work in committee to ensure that the measures taken are effective and yield positive results. When someone can be rehabilitated, and we can prevent that person from reoffending, it is not just that person who benefits, it is society as a whole.

I think my time is up. It is a pleasure to wrap up our work week. I wish all my colleagues a good weekend.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I thank the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who will have seven minutes to finish his speech when the bill returns before the House.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members’ Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2:30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:30 p.m.)