Debates of May 29th, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

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

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at nothing but the facts, and I hear the frustration in the member opposite's voice. Clearly, reality is colliding with illusion, and his frustration is building. Let me be clear. With the investments of 1% under the Harper government, they still managed to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, because they had solid, well-founded programs that did not waste money. Right now, we are seeing creative accounting and self-reporting. When the Stockholm Institute reports on actual numbers, we see it is more Liberal illusion, just like their announcements. It is all illusion, and our military is no stronger. In fact, it is weaker under this government's illusion and failure. I am bringing reality.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry to add my contributions and views based on what I am hearing in my community, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, as well as Cornwall and Akwesasne, and bring that to the floor of the House to make sure their voices are heard.

As we discuss this piece of budget implementation legislation, it is important to acknowledge some of the breaking news today. The unfortunate news that we had from Stats Canada confirmed that under the Prime Minister, just 15 months into office, Canada has entered into a recession. We have now had two quarters of negative economic growth. We can look at the last four quarters, as a matter of fact, and we have had three quarters of negative economic growth. That is showing that despite the speeches, the photo ops and the good intentions that are always mentioned by the Liberals, we are seeing that their plan is failing to resonate when it comes to economic growth and creating jobs. We have seen tens of thousands of jobs lost so far in 2026. Sadly and very frustratingly, we are now entering into a recession, as confirmed by the government's own Stats Canada agency.

Conservatives on this side of the House are going to keep advocating for a change in direction and for getting rid of the anti-development laws that are on the books, like Bill C-69, and some of the caps that have been put in that are prohibiting and inhibiting our natural resources from getting built. Let us remember that it was this Prime Minister who promised to move at unimaginable speeds to get things done. Here we are, seeing that it can take, in cases of getting a mine built, upwards of 25 years to get a mine permitted and built in this country.

At the same time, we are seeing the idea or possibility of a pipeline out to the west coast, but we do not know a proponent, a start date, a route or the details. We are years and years away, because the Prime Minister and the Liberal government continue to put those anti-development laws in place. They are trying to weasel through certain exceptions, different side deals and MOUs. At the end of the day, we are seeing, again confirmed, a shrinking economy, not a growing one, despite the vast natural resources we have in this country.

When it comes to a change in course, it is not just those anti-development laws; it is the change in our housing policies. Right across this country, we should be removing the GST on all new home builds and encouraging partnerships with every single province to take the HST off, which could provide significant savings, not just for first-time homebuyers but for all new home builds in this country. We need to invigorate and pump-start our housing economy.

Again, the rhetoric was that the Liberal government was going to double house building in this country, to about half a million homes per year, which is what its own stats say is needed just to keep up with affordability and demand in the coming years. We are only at half that. As opposed to seeing new housing starts accelerate, we are seeing them, in many cases and over many months, decelerate, not grow. Our Conservative plan will continue to be on the table. We will continue to pressure the government in that regard.

When it comes to the high price of gas, what we need to do is go further to provide inflationary and financial relief for Canadians. The Liberals are removing only one-third of the federal taxes for one-third of the year. What we are proposing is to remove all federal taxes, not just the federal excise tax but the seven-cents-a-litre fuel standard, which under the Liberals will be going from seven cents, currently, to 17¢ a litre in the coming years, and also to get rid of the GST that is charged on the price of gas. That could provide real relief of 25¢ a litre for the entire year, allowing Canadians to keep more money in their pockets to help with the rising cost of living. This is yet another contrast and another change the Liberals could make to combat the Liberal recession that we are now in.

Of course, it is about the out-of-control spending. I hear, repeatedly, in Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry and other parts of eastern Ontario, particularly Prescott and Russell, where we have a lot of correspondence from, the frustration and the opposition to the $90-billion boondoggle that is Alto high-speed rail. The Liberal government spends $20 billion each and every year on consultants, many of them Liberal insiders who get repeated sole-sourced contracts, at a time when our federal public service has ballooned to higher levels than we had just 10 years ago.

There is the $742-million gun grab, which is an absolute waste of law-abiding Canadians' resources and time. It is costing taxpayers money, and it is not going after the root cause of gun violence in this country, which is illegal and smuggled guns. Taking a law-abiding firearm owner's firearms away from them when they go up to the Cornwall Handgun Club, for example, is not going to tackle the crisis. The Minister of Public Safety has even admitted in leaked audio that their plan does not work, but there is $742 million that has gone down the drain in wasteful Liberal spending.

It continues with the PrescribeIT program, which was $300 million spent on a software program. That was done by Health Canada, and it was supposed to digitize records. After pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the program, the Liberals decided that nobody wanted it and nobody used it. They had to shut it down, all while paying the CEO of that organization over $800,000 per year in an executive salary and bonuses. It is absolutely absurd, and it was a waste of taxpayers' money, once again.

If that is not enough, Conservatives are digging up more wasteful spending by the Liberal government. No wonder we have such a high deficit and debt in this country. The Liberals are spending $200 million over the next 10 years on a gravel pit and concrete pad in rural Nova Scotia for a rocket launch service. The company was nearly bankrupt and almost shut down. It then got an injection of $20 million with a backdated contract retroactive to last year. This infusion of $20 million saw its key investors suddenly cash out with millions of dollars, and we have a gravel pad with a concrete pad on top of it that is costing $20 million per year. The lease of that land, just for the record, was about $15,000 per year. Where is the other $19.99 million a year going? Canadians have a right to know.

When we talk about waste and about ways to lower our deficit, there are several key ways.There are the billions of dollars we Conservatives have been mentioning. That would be a common-sense way to get our finances under control.

We see the massive deficits that the Liberals have included in their budget documents this year, and they are ongoing for the next few years. The Liberals have no plans to balance the budget. I looked at the numbers and did some rough math. They are looking to add $330 billion more to our national debt in the next five or six years alone. That is on top of the $1.3 trillion or $1.4 trillion already on the debt. These Liberals have added more to our national debt than every other government combined before it. That is how bad it is.

I have said this repeatedly in my tenure in public life, and it bears repeating: The easiest thing for government to do in public life is to tell Canadians what it is going to spend money on. That is the easy part. The part that Canadians need to pay attention to, and where we are with this Liberal government, is how it is going to pay for it all. This is what we call a costly credit card budget, because that is exactly what it is doing. It is adding tens of billions of dollars each and every year. In this case, there is $67 billion in the spring statement that was just proposed and, like I said, $330 billion in new debt in the coming year.

The thing we need to remember is that, when that goes on the credit card, there are public debt charges, which is the interest to service that debt. As a matter of fact, we spent $54 billion this year just to pay the interest on our national debt. That is not paying it down. It is just paying the interest on that proverbial credit card, and that interest is expected to go up to $59 billion next year. It will then go to $65 billion the year after that, and then on to $71 billion and $76 billion. Finally, in 2030, we will be spending $81 billion per year servicing our national debt.

That is not sustainable and not the right way. Canadian households do not do that with their credit card and their home budgets. They expect, as Canadian taxpayers, government to do the same thing.

It is ridiculous to see that the new Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. Whether it is the budget implementation act or the Liberals' efforts here on defence, we are seeing more bureaucracy, more taxes and more ineffective measures. Now that we are in a recession, under the Liberal Prime Minister, it is time to smarten up and change course.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no surprise at the approach the Conservative Party of Canada is taking. It does not necessarily believe in investing in Canada's infrastructure. The information that the member talks about focuses on taxes and tax breaks. The government has provided tax breaks for the issue of affordability in several different ways. I will get into that in my comments.

I would like to understand why the Conservatives say two things. The first thing they constantly say is that Canada is broken, and the second, which is their default or natural fallback, is to tell us to just get out of the way.

Why do the Conservatives not believe in investing in Canadians and investing in Canada?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about our economy, I am saying that it is the Liberal government that is broken. Let us make it very clear: We are now in a recession. We have seen negative growth for two quarters in a row, and over the course of the last year, three of those four quarters have seen negative growth. That is the Liberal record. That is the reason we are criticizing the Liberal government and its record. It is clearly not working.

Let us be very clear: We are the only G7 country now in a recession. All the other G7 countries are facing the same headwinds with tariffs, gas prices and oil prices. They are facing the exact same circumstances and headwinds, yet they are not in a recession. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. That is the Liberal Prime Minister's record.

When we criticize, we are criticizing the Liberal government's record, because as Statistics Canada is showing today, we are going into a recession. Clearly the government's plan is not working.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about where Canada is at economically. I would like him to drill down on that further and its impact on Canadians.

What I mean is that the Liberal government has spent and spent for over a decade, and today we learned that Canada is now in a recession. It is the only G7 country to enter into that. That is due to the current Prime Minister's policies.

That is more than stats on a page. That impacts Canadians. It impacts families. It impacts seniors. It impacts students. It impacts those who are simply trying to make ends meet. I am curious if my colleague would care to expand on that impact.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lethbridge has an insightful question, and I thank her for the opportunity to reflect.

Today, I am thinking, as we look at the struggles, that the data confirms that Canada is the only G7 country going into a recession. Canada is officially in a recession under the Liberal government. Today, I am thinking of the millions of Canadians who are relying on food banks. Under the government, we have seen food prices double over the course of the last 10 years.

We have also seen rent and housing prices double, not just in Cornwall and Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, but in every part of the country. We are seeing the strain when it comes to housing. We are seeing the strain on our immigration system and the chaos there. We are seeing, when it comes to affordability, things getting worse. The Liberals have a big laundry list of all the things they claim to be doing to help with affordability, but affordability has never been more difficult for families to meet.

Whether it is the House of Lazarus in Mountain, the Agapè Centre in Cornwall, or Saint Vincent de Paul in Cornwall or Alexandria, we have many people and organizations stepping up to help thousands of people in need in this country. Our goal, as Conservatives, is to change the trajectory, to get ourselves back out of the recession and have Canadians able to afford rent and food in this country. After 11 years, things have gotten worse, not better, under the Liberal government. That is the fact.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best credit rating in the G7, arguably in the world, with a AAA rating. We have the opportunity to use our financial space in order to build a stronger Canada.

Why does the Conservative Party oppose that?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, deficits and money printing add to inflation, the inflationary fire being set by the Liberal government. We are seeing now our public debt at $1.4 trillion, and it is expected to go to $1.8 trillion by the year 2030. That is using the government's own summary statement of transactions when it comes to budgetary revenues and expenses.

For 11 years, the government has borrowed and spent incredible amounts. We are seeing affordability get worse. We are seeing housing access get worse. We are seeing our immigration and government services getting worse. It leaves a lot—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me give a bit of a sense of this to those who might have been following the debate over the last number of months here in the House of Commons. Let me give a sense of the reality of what has taken place since the last federal election.

I think we do need to take a more holistic approach, because the picture that the Conservatives paint every day, whether inside or outside the House, is one that leads to an opinion, which the Conservative leader says all the time, that Canada is broken, when actually nothing could be further from the truth.

Looking at the lead-up to the last federal election just over a year ago, we can ask what was on the minds of Canadians back then. People were concerned about Trump, the tariffs, trade and the issue of crime. Those were the top four issues that were raised with me constantly. Health care was also something that was raised. I would like to be able to attempt to deal with those.

The issue of affordability really started to gel and come to the surface just prior to the election, when the Prime Minister made the commitment to get rid of the carbon tax. Members will recall that it was the very first initiative that our Prime Minister took.

Then we went into an election where, by far, the issue was, as I say, the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. We made a commitment back then to Canadians that, as a government, we would build one Canadian economy. We would look at diversification of our trade. We would look at how we could attract more investment into Canada.

Canadians had the opportunity to take a look at the Prime Minister's background and what it was that the leader of the Liberal Party was proposing during the last federal election. They understood that he had been the Governor of the Bank of Canada, a Stephen Harper appointee. He was not a Liberal appointee. It was Stephen Harper who appointed him to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He then went on to be the Governor of the Bank of England.

The Prime Minister's economic credentials are not questionable. He is someone who has been looked at as a source, in many different ways, of providing economic advice, not just here in Canada. Canadians contrasted him to, as I have said before, the leader of the Conservative Party, who is, much like myself to a certain degree, a career politician. That is not to take anything away from career politicians, but I do believe that, at a time when Canadians were looking for someone to take care and provide that sense of security and understanding of the economy, they chose, I would argue, the right person. Never before had the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as it did in the last national election. I attribute that in good part to the background of Canada's Prime Minister.

We should take a look at some of the things that have taken place since we first formed government. I already made reference to getting rid of the carbon tax. The government, shortly after the election, brought forward legislation, in particular, Bill C-5, and a commitment to Canadians to reduce the middle-class tax rate, and 22 million Canadians benefited from that tax break. Our population, by the way, is just over 40 million people.

We also brought in legislation to bring forward a one Canadian economy. I remember, shortly after the election, how busy the government was in terms of reaching out to and consulting and working with premiers, indigenous leaders, business leaders and union leaders, in whole or in part, to really amplify how important it was that we work collectively, in a collaborative fashion, to build a stronger and healthier Canada that is there for all Canadians, in every way, whether it was of an economic nature, a health care nature or a crime nature.

In order to be able to achieve that, we have to have a sense of co-operation. There needs to be collaboration. Many of the responsibilities that I just listed off are joint responsibilities. When we talk about building a one Canadian economy, that means taking down the barriers that would allow for more trade, whether it is merchandise or labour, among the federation. We actually did that. We took down the national barriers. We also continue to encourage, where we can, like-minded provinces and territories to do likewise. We have seen significant progress in that area. There have been significant initiatives taken by provincial jurisdictions in Canada to build upon the principle of a one Canadian economy. I hope that we continue to see barriers being taken down.

The Prime Minister also made a commitment to build a stronger Canada by investing in infrastructure and in major projects, again, looking to the different stakeholders in particular provinces and territories, indigenous leaders and others, to identify what those major projects should be.

The office is located Alberta, which is one of the driving economic forces in the nation. I was pleased at the decision to locate the Major Projects Office there.

When we take a look at the amount of investment that is projected to go through that office, we are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150 billion. Those are investments that are going to be throughout our nation. Every region of Canada will invest because we have a Prime Minister who understands the federal system and understands the benefits of working collaboratively with others to ensure that we have the right projects and that all regions of our nation are going to benefit.

We talk about, and we will put into place, Canada being an energy superpower in the world. Members can take a look at the major projects that we are talking about from coast to coast and will see the potential of things like energy and wind power in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about nuclear power in Ontario. We can talk about fossil fuels in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Prairies, where I am from. I have lived many years in all three provinces. I have a personal thing that I love about our Prairies. In B.C., we have LNG. The opportunities are there. They are real. They are tangible.

The Prime Minister, the cabinet and all Liberal members of Parliament understand why it is so important that we do not do what the Conservative Party is saying and just get out of the way. To me that would be silly. We recognize that the government has a role, and we have seen that in a very tangible way with these major projects. They are just some of the things that I talk about with regard to energy.

We can talk about our resources and mining opportunities in northern Canada. In Saskatchewan, there is potash and copper. In B.C., there is copper. We have a forest industry that we are supporting in whatever way we can today, because we want it to be there for future generations. We understand the true value of the resources that Canada has and the ways we can work through consultation, in particular with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories. When I talk about the idea of building bigger and better, we can do it at the same time as protecting our environment; expanding, where we can, our national parks; and protecting our waterways, all of which are very important to this government. We will do the work that is necessary to ensure that there is sustainable development, because we recognize that is the expectation that Canadians have.

We have seen things in this budget and in the budget implementation bill that I would have thought every member of the House would have been in support of. I was disappointed in the collective opposition parties, in terms of their not seeing the benefit of a sovereign wealth fund. They come up with excuses to try to justify their position on it, but they do not realize there are many nations that have sovereign wealth funds. It has been demonstrated that they can work and that they can be effective. This is a wonderful opportunity for the government to allow Canadians to invest. It is a wonderful opportunity for us to see the types of investments that we are going to need in order to get many of the major projects not only off the ground, but completed.

This government and this Prime Minister have a very high objective. The bar has been set at a trillion dollars over five years, and we are committed to achieving that and to making sure that we continue to strive to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, and we are prepared to do the necessary work.

We need to realize what has taken place south of our border. It has had an impact; let there be no doubt about it. That is the reason we have the tariff issues. We have supports in place to protect some of our most valuable industries. We will continue to have the backs of the workers who are being most affected by some of the decisions that are being made in the United States today.

However, having said that, as the Prime Minister indicated in the last election, we are committed to diversifying our trading opportunities far beyond the Canada-U.S. border.

That means taking a look at export opportunities in areas where we have seen trade agreements brought to the floor of the House. There were two, one with Indonesia and one with Northern Ireland and the U.K. That is legislation we have already passed through the House, not to mention the dozen other trade agreements that were signed.

We are talking with two great nations that I am a very big fan of, India and the Philippines. The Prime Minister has had communications directly with both the President and the Prime Minister. I am very optimistic that Canada will have trade agreements with the Philippines and India in 2026.

Canada is the only nation to have trade arrangements and agreements with all G7 countries. Canada is a trading nation. We make up 0.5% of the population, yet we contribute 2.5% to world trade. We understand the importance of trade and we have been very successful at reaching out. If we talk to the Prime Minister or other ministers, like the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of International Trade, what we hear when they come back is that everyone wants to do business with Canada. We need to set the stage to allow that to happen. That is why we have a Prime Minister and a government committed to being in Toronto this September, where we are going to have investment, ideas, thoughts and billions in potential out there that we need to secure to help build Canada strong.

I can tell members that there is a very strong social component to this government. We are committed to the Canada Health Act. We are committed to supporting people through our social net. Whether it be for seniors, young people or people with disabilities, we are providing those core services that are absolutely essential. We are continuing to support programs such as the OAS, the GIS and the New Horizons program, all of which are for seniors. With respect to health care, whether it is dealing with things such as mental health, home care or providing that financial support, we continue to support it financially in a very big way. No government has given more money toward health care than the current government, and there were no cuts made there. At the end of the day, we need to focus our attention on the way we can continue to see that growth.

At the tail end of his speech, the last Conservative speaker talked about the military. I indicated that it is truly amazing that the Conservatives spent at one point just under 1% of the GDP on the military and the Canadian Armed Forces. This government, under this Prime Minister's leadership, has already hit 2% of the GDP. However, that is not good enough. We are also looking at ways to modernize, generate and support a military industry. Canada already contributes worldwide in that industry area, but there is so much more that we can do. Just earlier this week we had a good example of that. By working collaboratively with our international allies, there is so much more potential. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, we will not neglect that area because we see the potential. Equally, we have legislation before us that will enable us to grow.

Yes, there will be some bumps as we go forward, but let there be no doubt that every single Liberal member of Parliament is committed to building Canada strong, a Canada that is there for every Canadian, and we will have their backs.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member has well understood the debate about the sovereign wealth fund. I will explain it simply by analogy. If I open a savings account to save my money, that is a good idea. If I have no money, so I open a savings account then take money off the credit card and put it in the savings account, that does not make a lot of sense. The issue is not the existence of the account but whether or not we have something to put into it.

The principle of having a sovereign wealth fund is great, but when the government is running massive deficits, its proposal is not for a sovereign wealth fund. It is for a sovereign debt fund. It would be taking out even more money we do not have and then requiring the additional costs and capacity around a fund that would invest borrowed money. There is also a lack of the protections from political interference, and all kinds of other problems.

Will the parliamentary secretary recognize the real problem and understand that the Liberals should not have a sovereign debt fund that would land on future generations?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, part of what the member said might actually have been a little encouraging, because he seems to imply that, in principle, he would support a sovereign wealth fund. Well, I can tell the member opposite that there are many countries that actually have a sovereign wealth fund for which borrowed money was used.

If the member genuinely supports the principle of a sovereign wealth fund, I would suggest that he flip his position and actually support it. The Conservative Party should change its position and support the sovereign wealth fund, a Canada Strong fund in which Canadians will ultimately be able to invest. I think that there might be some hope for some members of the Conservative caucus.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we hear the phrase “Government should get out of the way.” Whenever I hear that phrase, I think that someone has been reading a little too much Ayn Rand.

I would like to ask the hon. member this: In the face of the punishing tariffs from the United States, what would be happening to Canadian businesses if government got out of the way?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister, the government, or any member of the Liberal caucus, that is something we will not do, because we understand the significance of the Canada-U.S.A. relationship. Billions of dollars cross our borders every day. The relationship between Canada and the United States is well rooted, but there is something that is really important for us to recognize: Canada is a sovereign nation.

We are not going to capitulate, as the Conservatives were proposing yesterday, on our arts programs in Canada. We are going to continue to recognize that if it is going to take time, we are prepared not only to take the time but also to put the resources and energy into ensuring that Canada gets the best deal possible. On Trump version one, what we found was there was an abandonment by the Conservative Party. We are not going to do that. We are going to persist at getting that deal.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill would allow ministers to hand out sole-source contracts to insider friends without competition. I am wondering if the member agrees that if there is no clear mechanism to hold ministers accountable when decisions go wrong, this is effectively granting immunity from consequences.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of the things that really have not changed since the last election. In fact, this has been there for a long time. Even when I was in opposition, the Conservative twist always seems to be to attack the personalities through personal character assassinations. We often hear that today and have heard it in the past. It is a consistent issue for the Conservative Party.

I say to my friends opposite that, as much as they like to attack the character of individuals such as the people who sit on the government benches, our benches will continue to focus on Canadians and on building Canada strong.

[Bruce Fanjoy, Liberal, Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, building Canada strong for all creates an extraordinary opportunity in the trades. Can the hon. member please inform the House of the opportunities that exist for young people in the trades?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really welcome that question. Unfortunately, because of time constraints, I was not able to bring that into my comments.

We have a fabulous program for the Red Seals. The Red Seal program is literally dozens of skilled trades that are recognized across our nation, and we have made a commitment to support Red Seal certificates. It is about $5,000 for people who actually complete the program. We are talking about anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled workers. That is tangible. It is real. That is what is going to help build Canada well into the future. It is investing in young people. It is investing in the skills of the future that we need in order to continue that building.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, our friend does not get enough time to talk in the chamber, so I have arranged for a literal “choose your own adventure” question, remarking both on his speech and also on his previous answers.

On affordability, I know for a fact how much dental care, child care and the national school food program have helped constituents in my riding of Burnaby North—Seymour. On defence, the member talked about how we went from less than 1% in the Harper days to more than 2%, but he did not talk about how the economy has grown, so it sounds like we doubled the spending, but we more than doubled it. With regard to the Conservatives' saying that we are antidevelopment, we are actually at a stage where there is record bitumen production in Alberta, record royalties and record corporate profit.

On any of those three areas that the member would like to talk about, I would like to hear his ideas.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and friend has actually articulated exceptionally well, within a very short time allocation, some very important issues.

If there is something I would like to just re-amplify, something I am very passionate about, it is Canada's national health program. I believe it is a part of our identity. It helps identify who we are as Canadians. I am very proud of the fact that this is an area in which we continue to work and to look at ways we could potentially not only preserve but grow. I want to be a part of a government that sees the value of a national health care system.

At the end of the day, it is about working with provinces, trying to get a higher sense of co-operation so we have a universal health care system based on the five fundamental principles of health care, enacted here in Ottawa. So that it does not matter where people choose to live in Canada, and I believe in the mobility of Canadians to go wherever they like in Canada, it is important that we have a health care system that is similar in all regions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the situation of the economy, one thing I often hear from young people is about how difficult it is right now for young people to start out in life.

Youth unemployment is extremely high, at 14.3%, and we have very low workforce participation as well. Homes are extremely expensive. All these challenges make it more difficult for young people to start out, to start a family and to start to have children. We see this showing up in the numbers. People are having far fewer kids than they tell pollsters they want to have, because of these pressures.

Meanwhile, the Liberal government is cutting funding for students attending vocational programs. Will the government reverse its removal of grants to students studying in vocational programs?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the youth unemployment rate is at around 14.3% today. In 2012, when I was in opposition, it was at 14.3%. Therefore, it is roughly the same, if not the same.

What I will tell the member is that we are not going to cut summer youth jobs programs, because that is one of the ways young people are gaining expertise, contacts and so much more, so they will in fact have better opportunities for employment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The Prime Minister has spent much of the last year arguing that Canada faces a more dangerous, more competitive and less forgiving world. He is absolutely right. Trade relationships are more fragile, supply chains have become matters of national security, and energy, minerals, data, defence production and industrial capacity are no longer simply economic assets but have become instruments of sovereignty. Few serious observers would deny that Canada faces a more demanding world than the one we recognized a decade ago.

The question before Parliament, however, is whether Bill C-31 reflects the seriousness of that diagnosis. A serious country must be able to build. It must be able to defend itself, educate and train its people, approve projects, mobilize capital, protect consumers and make decisions that endure beyond a single news cycle. The Prime Minister has framed this moment as one that requires ambition, discipline and state capacity. I agree with that premise. What I question is whether Bill C-31 would advance it.

If the challenge is state capacity, the answer cannot simply be layers of state complexity. If the goal is economic sovereignty, the answer cannot be legislation that gestures in many directions while avoiding difficult choices. Bill C-31 is more than 330 pages long. It would amend tax law, financial law, labour law, transportation law and defence procurement law. It would touch housing finance, automatic benefit delivery, crypto asset reporting, the clean hydrogen tax credit, non-compete clauses, air passenger complaints and a defence investment agency, to name just some of the topics.

Some of the measures may be worthwhile. Some deserve support. Others deserve amendment. The problem is that Parliament is being asked to evaluate them all at once. The government will argue that time is short, and it is going to pressure us to pass the bill before the summer recess. A lack of planning on its part should not be and should not necessitate an emergency for all of us.

Major reforms to defence procurement deserve their own legislation and committee study, as so many of my colleagues have explained today. Lord knows, air passenger rights deserve their own scrutiny. Significant tax reforms need to be thought through. Instead, they are being bundled together in an omnibus bill that makes serious examination more difficult.

We have already seen how sloppy Liberal drafting has unintended consequences through a number of other bills that have come before the House and that, we have learned, have significantly impinged upon Canadian freedom. Parliamentary scrutiny is one of the institutions that makes good government possible. A government confident in its reforms should welcome rigorous examination rather than continuously dilute it.

The most revealing aspect of Bill C-31 may be what it does not contain. On April 27, the Prime Minister announced the Canada Strong fund, describing it as Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund. It was presented as a cornerstone of economic sovereignty and nation building. Canadians were told it would help mobilize capital for strategic projects that are so desperately needed and give future generations a stake in national prosperity. A sovereign wealth fund can be a powerful instrument of public policy. It can also become an expensive political investment vehicle if its governance is weak. The difference lies in the design, and the devil, as they say, is in the details.

There is no statutory framework in Bill C-31 for the Canada Strong fund, no explanation of how it will operate or how Parliament will oversee it. More than a month after its announcement, all we have is a short government backgrounder promising yet another office with yet another CEO and consultations to determine, over the next several months, what the fund will eventually become. That omission matters because it reveals a broader disconnect between the government's rhetoric and announcements and its implementation.

The same pattern applies to its skills training. The government has repeatedly argued that Canada's future prosperity depends on building the most skilled workforce in the world, and it does.

It has spoken about the training that workers need to build homes, develop critical minerals, expand advanced manufacturing and strengthen defence production. The diagnosis is correct, yet the legislative response is remarkably thin. Bill C-31 contains measures related to labour mobility and employment. Those may be useful, but they do not amount to a national skills strategy. They do not explain how Canada will train workers at the scale required, accelerate credential recognition, strengthen apprenticeship and completion rates or address the labour shortages already delaying major projects across the country.

The government's language is national. It is big, and it is ambitious. The legislative response is partial. This pattern extends to the economy more broadly. Bill C-31 contains investment incentives, tax changes and reporting requirements. Some may improve the functioning of the tax system, but none constitutes a serious productivity agenda, and productivity is the quiet crisis beneath the politics of affordability.

We learned this morning that Canada has quietly slipped into a recession, with two consecutive quarters of shrinkage. If Canada produces less per worker than its competitors, wages stagnate. When wages stagnate, affordability deteriorates. Governments can soften the consequences through transfers, credits and subsidies. They can send all the cheques they want, but they cannot permanently compensate for weak productivity, and the spending has consequences at the grocery store and everywhere else in our economy as things continue to get more expensive. That is because prosperity must be created before it can be distributed.

The same concern arises with the Defence Investment Agency. Canada unquestionably needs procurement reform. Our armed forces require equipment, readiness and capability. In a more dangerous world, faster procurement is not just a bureaucratic preference but a strategic necessity, yet speed is not competence. National security is not an area for weak accountability. The Defence Investment Agency may prove useful. It may not. Parliament has not yet been given sufficient evidence to determine which outcome is more likely. What is clear is that such significant reform deserves its own legislation and its own committee study. It should be examined by the defence committee with witnesses who understand defence procurement, military readiness, industry and national security. It should not be one division in a big budget bill competing for attention with tax rules, air passenger complaints and labour measures.

The central question here is not whether Canada should move faster. The question is whether this structure will make us faster or merely more complicated. A ship that cannot sail does not defend sovereignty. An aircraft that cannot fly does not secure the Arctic. A procurement system that produces announcements faster than equipment does not serve the Canadian Armed Forces. State capacity is not measured by the number of institutions government creates. It is measured by the ability of its institutions to deliver.

The air passenger rights provisions raise a similar concern. The current system is clearly failing Canadians. Complaint backlogs are unacceptable. Delays are excessive. Compensation is often very difficult to obtain. However, consumer protection is not achieved by announcing rights. It is achieved when ordinary people can enforce those rights without needing a lawyer, a media campaign, an MP or two years of patience. That observation applies far beyond air travel.

Capability is not centralization for its own sake. It is not ministerial discretion without accountability. It is not omnibus legislation without scrutiny, and it is not the appearance of motion while standing still.

The Prime Minister often speaks about resilience, sovereignty and national purpose. At a time when Canadians are carrying the burdens of housing scarcity, weak productivity, affordability pressures and global uncertainty, we should insist on something better. We should insist on competence, accountability and results.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith for standing up in this House on the very important topic of air passenger protection regulations and the government's absolute mess of it.

The member mentioned that we are in a recession and the economy is contracting. What is not contracting? It is the backlog of the CTA. It has around 97,000, perhaps even 100,000 cases in backlog. That means people are waiting three years to have someone hear their case. Instead of the government fixing the system and simplifying the rules, it provided $75 million over three years to make the CTA process faster, and by this particular provision in the bill that she mentions, it shows that it has been a complete disaster.

Could the member please let us know if she thinks that this is the best use of her constituents' money in this bill and by the government?

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

Mr. Speaker, a central problem with tribunal systems, and I have had experience with them, is they are intended to make life simpler for Canadians. They are intended to be a process that is outside the court. However, as anyone who has dealt with any of these tribunals knows, people inevitably need a lawyer and inevitably need to navigate all kinds of complicated case law.

If the government is serious about making life simpler for Canadians, it will clear these backlogs and provide redress in a faster, more efficient way, because the longer these cases sit in tribunal systems, the more paper they accumulate and the more complicated they get.