Debates of May 6th, 2026

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

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the spring economic update, or as I call it, the spring deficit update. The Liberals, on their introduction of the bill, put out a good 250-page program called “Canada Strong for All.” I think it should be “Canada Deficits for All.” It reminds me of a famous Internet meme from Toy Story of Woody and Buzz Lightyear, where Buzz is pointing out saying, “as far as the eye can see.” That is what this economic update is. It is deficits as far as the eye can see.

Do members remember, not too long ago, in the Trudeau days, when Trudeau said that balanced budgets from the Liberal government was a commitment set in stone? He said it was “very” cast in stone. Now, 75% of the current Liberal bench, and about half the cabinet, is made up of people who were here under the Trudeau government, yet somehow this cast-in-stone commitment to balance the budget has disappeared.

Instead of a balanced budget, what do we get? We get deficits as far as the eye can see. It was $67 billion last year, which is well up from the worst of the Trudeau days; $65 billion this year; $63 billion next year; $58 billion in 2028; a $56-billion deficit in 2029; and $53 billion in 2030. That is $362 billion of added debt in just over six years.

Do members remember the government's saying it was going to spend less and invest more? Over the same period, this spending less is going to get us $406 billion in interest on the Liberal debt. There is money for bankers, with $406 billion for banker friends of the Prime Minister, not for Canadians, not for more doctors, not for more nurses, not for more schools or hospitals, not for lower taxes, heaven forbid, and not for defence or more infrastructure. That is $406 billion over a six-year period for the Liberal debt.

Do members remember, which was repeated ad nauseam by the government, by the ministers, that they were going to cut spending? Again, they said that they were going to spend less so they could invest more.

The President of the Treasury Board was at the operations committee yesterday, the mighty OGGO. I have to mention that. He stated that there was $60 billion less in spending, but what does the spring deficit update actually bring us? It brings more spending and program spending that actually outpaces the rate of inflation over the next six years. Somehow spend less equals more program spending. This is from the Liberals' own documents.

What about the public service? The government says it is going to cut 35,000 jobs, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has put out a report noting that spending on the public service is actually increasing 6%; from $71 billion, it is going up to $76 billion. In committee, we asked about this, and the Treasury Board told us that it is not actually reducing public servants or spending but just re-profiling, shifting things around.

What does all this extra spending get us? For 10 years, the government has been excusing its deficits by saying that spending is needed because it is going to add growth, is going to do this and is going to do that. What did we get? It is not a lot of growth, with a 1.7% average growth over the next six years. An added deficit of $362 billion equals 1.7% growth.

What is interesting is that the Bank of Canada put out its monetary policy report at about the same time that the spring deficit update came out from the government, and the Bank of Canada's number for growth is 16% lower in 2027 than what the government is saying, with a 10% lower prediction in GDP growth the following year.

How is it that the Bank of Canada has different numbers than the government does? We actually asked and were told that the Bank of Canada is using proper numbers. Who has the real numbers? How much higher is the deficit going to be if we are to believe the Bank of Canada over the government? It is about an extra $2 billion to $3 billion of deficit added per year.

That is certainly not adding to any productivity or growth. According to the Bank of Canada report on the contributions to real GDP growth over the coming years, in 2026, the year we are in now, the vast majority of growth in our GDP is government spending. Almost as much growth is from consumption. It is not from added exports, and it is not from growth in productivity. I think GDP growth is 1.2% this year, and almost all of it is government spending.

In 2027, 44% of the GDP growth that we are going to see in this country, according to the Bank of Canada, will not be from pipelines, from building more cars, from more industry or from more exports. It will be from government spending. In 2028, 27% of the projected growth, according to the Bank of Canada, is going to be government spending.

What should we do to increase growth? It is simple: Unleash our oil and gas industry. We can start by repealing Bill C-48, which bans tankers off British Columbia's north coast and stops Alberta oil from being exported. We could get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. We could end the destructive oil production cap that the government still has not repealed. We could actually get to building pipelines and increasing revenue and wealth for this country.

We saw a note from a very famous economist, Ms. Exner-Pirot. She stated that just in the two months of the war in Iran and the issues with the Strait of Hormuz, if we had built the northern gateway pipeline, we would be looking at an extra $3 billion in revenue for this country, just from the added oil from the last two months. The government is running a massive deficit. Instead, we could actually be making more.

I am going to talk about northern gateway and the lost revenue caused by the government when it cancelled the project. The government has still not set up the regulatory regime to allow a pipeline to the coast. Total government revenue between 2019 and 2048, if we had built northern gateway, would be $131.5 billion: $72 billion for the federal government and about $59 billion for the provincial governments. On an annual basis, in revenue by region, provinces will have lost out on $2.1 billion per year because the Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway project, with $1.7 billion lost for the federal government.

With respect to jobs, we just heard the member for Winnipeg North go on and on about, in the spring deficit update, money for trades. We do not have a lot of trades jobs available in Canada right now. It is wonderful that there is finally, after 10 years, recognition by the Liberal government that the people who build things have value, but where are the jobs going to be for them? The jobs could have been in helping build northern gateway. For that period, 773,000 jobs, on an FTE basis, are lost because the government threw up barriers and cancelled northern gateway.

The government will say that we need to have a carbon tax in order to sell our oil. We saw the president of Cenovus today state quite bluntly that we would be the only country in the world handicapping our oil and gas industry in such a way. He states that under Liberal policies, the government is producing high-paying jobs in Saudi Arabia, Russia and America instead of here in Canada. Canada's oil production is the most ethical, and we have an industry that is providing more jobs for indigenous people and more wealth than any other industry in Canada, but the government is trying to wreck it.

The government needs to get out of the way and recognize that the oil and gas industry has produced wealth for this country and for the world. It needs to get out of the way to allow us to build, and it needs to stop its inflationary practices and stop destroying this country with its deficit spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have adopted this policy of “just get out of the way”, and it is unfortunate. The government has been able to achieve a great deal over the last year.

Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. This new Prime Minister made a commitment to build Canada strong by looking at things such as major projects, which means working with premiers and others. In fact, in Alberta, the member's home province, there is a memorandum of understanding that is going to see more natural resources getting to the west coast. There are all sorts of opportunities in which the government is a major player. The Calgary office has been set up.

I wonder if the member could give his thoughts on whether there is anyone within the Conservative Party who supports the major projects—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North overlooks the fact that this government has not repealed Bill C-48, which ensures no pipeline will get built to the B.C. coast. He overlooks that this government has still not repealed Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill. This government has still not repealed the oil and gas production cap. Who is going to invest in this country when we cannot get our oil to market, and when the government is punishing the oil and gas industries with a carbon tax that does not apply to similar industries in other countries?

The Major Projects Office is like everything else the Liberals offer: It is an illusion.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a somewhat technical question.

The bill impacts several laws, including the Bank Act. If I understand correctly, the government is making it easier for foreign entities to take control of Canadian banks. The government was elected on a promise to protect the public from President Trump, yet it now appears to be facilitating the takeover of Canadian banks by various entities, particularly American ones.

Could this be because Brookfield is now registered in the United States so that it can continue to use tax havens, or is this really just kowtowing to the American president?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought up a great point. He has actually brought up two great points.

When the same old, corrupt, tired Liberal government was elected, the Liberals stated they would no longer do omnibus bills, and that is what this is. I think there are 11 different pieces of legislation, including the act the member mentioned.

On the direct question about helping foreign entities come in and take over our banking system, I honestly wonder what he expects from the Prime Minister when one of his last acts in the private sector was moving his company out of Canada into the States, and then denying he actually did it.

The Prime Minister is not dedicated to our country. I think he is dedicated to his business interests.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member missed in his speech that I think needs to be brought here very clearly, and I know the member will be able to address this, is the extra $3 billion put forward by this government, in a horrendously overstretched deficit, for international climate initiatives around the world.

Does the member really think that Canadians can afford an extra $3 billion, and what does this signal as far as the government's commitment to actually get things done properly with Canadian taxpayers' money?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Calgary Centre for his continued advocacy for Alberta's oil and gas industry.

It is ridiculous. This government continues its virtue-signalling tour around the world, spending Canadian money on wasteful projects, I believe, overseas, when we have 2.2 million people every month at food banks in Canada. We have seniors and we have parents who cannot feed their children.

This government should be focused on growing our wealth, not spending our wealth abroad so the Liberals can have photo ops.

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

Mr. Speaker, we frequently hear said in this place that the previous government under Stephen Harper was ready to move ahead with northern gateway and that it was the Liberals who struck it down. However, I am certain many people forgot, but I did not forget, that the Conservative platform in 2011 was specifically against exporting bitumen to Asia. Specifically, Stephen Harper's platform said that we should not ship Canadian fossil fuels to refineries in countries that have weaker environmental standards than we did. The Conservatives were explicitly against pipelines across British Columbia to export to Asia. As for northern gateway, it was struck down by the Federal Court of Appeal, and due to actions by the previous government, not the Liberals.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I disagree with the member from the Green Party. We probably disagree on everything. I think she needs to leave the past behind and, like Marty McFly, go back to the future and understand that Canada is in a different spot right now.

We need to get the pipelines built. We need to build in Canada, to serve Canadians.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for University—Rosedale.

We are living through a period of real global uncertainty. Trade tensions are rising. Conflicts around the world are disrupting supply chains and prices are being pushed up by forces that no single country controls. That is the reality Canadians are living with, but Canadians are not asking for analysis. They are asking for relief. They are asking for it in a way they can feel in their daily lives.

In Winnipeg West, people are not focused on global markets. I recently spoke with seniors in Winnipeg West who told me that grocery trips have become like a budget exercise, because they have to make sure that the basics last until the end of the month.

This is what people are dealing with. They are focused on whether their paycheque will last the month. They are focused on what gets bought, what gets delayed and what simply cannot wait. I hear it in grocery stores. I hear it from families and from young people trying to get started. The message is consistent. Things are getting harder, not easier. That is where responsibility matters.

We cannot control global instability. We are responsible for how it is felt here at home. We are responsible for whether support arrives when it is needed. We are responsible for whether opportunity is within reach or out of reach. We are responsible for whether life becomes more manageable or less so. If it does not show up in people's lives, it does not count.

Nowhere is that clearer than in affordability. Families in Winnipeg West are making difficult choices every time they go to the grocery store. They are stretching budgets that are already stretched thin. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit will support approximately 475,000 Manitobans, including over 36,000 people in Winnipeg West. For a family of four, up to $1,890 this year is not symbolic; it is groceries on the table, it is bills paid and it is breathing room where there was none. With a top-up arriving as early as June 5, that support arrives when pressure is being felt, not after it has passed. Affordability support only works if it is timely.

We are also making it easier for Canadians with disabilities to access the support they are entitled to. By streamlining the disability tax credit application process, expanding who can certify eligibility and reducing barriers for those with long-lasting medical conditions, more Canadians will be able to access the disability tax credit and the supports connected to it, including the Canada disability benefit. Affordability is not one-size-fits-all and support has to reach the people who need it most.

Gasoline is another point of concern. In Winnipeg West, people depend on their vehicles for work, school and daily life. When gasoline prices rise, there is no buffer. The impact is immediate. That is why reducing prices by about 10¢ per litre until Labour Day matters. It is not the full answer, by any means, but it is real relief every time someone fills their tank.

Right now, stability matters. Housing pressure is building, rents are rising, vacancy is tightening and ownership is becoming harder to reach.

This update responds with scale: more than $7 billion to accelerate rental housing and another $1.7 billion to remove barriers slowing construction. This means stalled projects move forward, more housing gets built in Winnipeg and more people get options instead of uncertainty. Without new supply, affordability does not stabilize; it erodes. However, housing does not get built on policy. It gets built by people.

We are also building for the long term.

In Manitoba, the talent is there. The barrier is access. That is why a $400 weekly apprenticeship benefit matters, along with supports for employers to take on apprentices. It removes the financial gap that keeps people out of the trades. That means more apprentices on job sites across Winnipeg, more projects completed and more stable, well-paying careers that stay in our communities. That is because opportunity only matters if people can actually take it.

The Canada Strong fund is about keeping investment in Canada: building here, hiring here and growing here. Growth only matters if Canadians feel it. In Winnipeg, we can already see how that works. At 17 Wing, and across our aerospace sector, defence is not abstract. It is work, skills and opportunity. Canada has now reached the 2% NATO target, strengthening both our alliances and our economy. Through the defence industrial strategy, more than 125,000 jobs will be supported across the country, and Winnipeg is part of that. That means aerospace work today, and opportunity for the next generation.

Strong communities also require safety. In Winnipeg West, people are concerned about fraud, scams and financial crime targeting vulnerable residents. This update includes $75 million for the Canada community security program, along with stronger action against fraud. That means better protection, and it means consequences for those who target people's savings and security. When people do not feel safe, nothing else works the way it should.

Strong communities are built through connection, through recreation, through sport and through shared spaces. With $755 million in sport funding, more young people in Winnipeg West will have access to programs that build confidence, discipline and belonging. For many families, that is not secondary; it is foundational. Communities are not built on announcements. They are built one person, one family and one neighbourhood at a time.

All of this is being done while maintaining fiscal discipline. We are reducing spending by $60 billion over five years and lowering the deficit. Canadians expect support in difficult times, but they also expect responsibility. We are expected to deliver both.

The people in Winnipeg West understand that the world is uncertain. They are not asking us to control it. They are asking us to respond to it, to make life more affordable, to make opportunity more accessible, to make communities safer and stronger, and to ensure that what is decided in this place is felt in their daily lives. In Winnipeg West, if it is not felt, it does not count.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg West; we share the “west” part of our ridings.

I appreciate the member's speech and I honestly believe that he means well, he cares for people and he is not out here pushing the government's slogans. One of the issues he brought up was the grocery rebate. The way it is formulated, if we have a husband and wife, a mother and father, or two adults with up to four kids earning pennies above minimum wage in Manitoba, they would be earning too much and would not receive the grocery rebate. The way the government has it set up pushes most of the rebate into the hands of single earners, single families without children.

Can my colleague comment on that being the government's priority, not helping low-income families, which is the way the program is set up?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. This benefit is meant to give maximum relief to the lowest-income Canadians, and that is what it does. It is not a one-size-fits-all answer, but it is targeted toward the lowest-income Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government likes to brag a lot about the economic update, saying from the get-go that it addresses the cost-of-living issue and that it will solve the current problem of inflation. However, there is not much in this economic statement that actually helps people, particularly those most affected by inflation, such as people on fixed incomes, like seniors. Nothing was announced for them. That was something that the Bloc Québécois had asked for. There is an unfairness among seniors. This government created two classes of seniors and it is still unable to solve this problem, even though it has economic consequences.

Why did my colleague and his government not use this economic update to ensure that all seniors receive the same pension amoun, starting at age 65?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that, as we have said, we are bringing relief to the lowest-income Canadians. This includes seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that particular note, I have two quick points. I wonder if I could get the member to provide his thoughts on the national food program that was instituted and made permanent by our government. It is going to be there well into the future. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on that.

Within the budget we talk a lot about building capital infrastructure. There is a hospital designation. I know that the member has a passion for our health care system. For me, personally, I would love to see an emergency room re-established at the Seven Oaks General Hospital. I have to give that plug. I am hoping that the province will see the value of that.

I am wondering if the member would like to highlight anything, whether it is the Grace Hospital or, in particular, the national school food program.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I spent eight years working in Seven Oaks hospital. That particular place is near and dear to my heart. I thought that the provincial government's closing its emergency room was a terrible mistake.

However, this spring update is in addition to the many initiatives over the last 10 years that have helped lower-income Canadians, such as the Canada child benefit and the school nutrition program, which is feeding 400,000 children across the country. We are simply adding to the supports for lower-income Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have known my colleague for a long time. I have a lot of respect for him.

The spring economic update states that the government is “assessing opportunities to unlock the...value of airports in support of investments in Canada's long-term growth, including through alternative models of ownership.” The Liberal government is looking at privatizing airports. This is not something that even Conservatives would do.

Rod Sims, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, highlighted that “the travelling public loses big time, over time” when they tried this experiment.

Will my colleague stand in the House and tell the Canadian public that they will not privatize Canada's airports?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the statement read by the hon. member, for whom I have tremendous respect, is simply an exploration of options and nothing more.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, across the country today, the most important conversations about health are not happening in doctors' offices. They are happening at kitchen tables, in workplaces and between neighbours on the sidewalk. They are conversations about making rent, about the cost of groceries, about finding work and about whether everything is going to be okay this week, this month or in this lifetime. These are, fundamentally, conversations about health. We often think about those conversations as conversations about the economy, as if those two things were not, in fact, one and the same.

I have spent 20 years as a family doctor in my riding. I have had very important conversations with my patients in my examination room, yet I am certain that the most important conversation about my patients' health, my constituents' health and the health of every single Canadian is not any conversation I have had before. It is the one that we are having today and that we will be having tomorrow. It is one that will be ongoing in the House. It is the one that I came here to be a part of.

I rise today as the new member of Parliament for University—Rosedale on the day that the House debates the spring economic update. I rise with my eyes wide open to the work that we have before us and the responsibility that we have all been given. I also take my seat with a clear sense of who has sat in the House before me.

Physicians have been elected to our Parliament since well before Confederation. The very first physician elected to Parliament kept his medical bag under his seat in the House.

I left my medical bag in Toronto, but my impulse to support the health of Canadians is the same as if I had brought it with me. I have joined this team because the health of the country is a bigger challenge than any one doctor can try to fix. The bigger medicine is right here, and I am filled with gratitude for the opportunity to participate in that work.

I thank the voters of University—Rosedale. They have entrusted me to be their voice, and I fully intend to continue to earn that trust every single day.

I thank my partner and my daughter for their inspiration, encouragement and patience. There are also my parents. My mom is a francophone immigrant from Egypt who landed in Montreal, and my dad is an anglophone boy born into a Hamilton family that stretches back many generations. I thank them teaching me that there is no one way to be Canadian. Actually, I thank them for teaching me that the fact that there is no one way to be Canadian is precisely the thing that makes our country great.

University—Rosedale is located in the heart of downtown Toronto. While I would never claim that it is the centre of the universe, in a very real sense, it reflects much of this country in 14 square kilometres. Yes, it is an urban riding in our biggest city, but 40% of my neighbours were born in another country. Many more come from another province. We have the largest university campus in Canada. We have one of the densest concentrations of hospitals on the continent.

Our community is filled with the energy of Kensington Market, the Annex, Koreatown, Chinatown, Trinity-Bellwoods, Yorkville, Little Italy, Rosedale and so many more distinct neighbourhoods. We have a vibrant urban indigenous community doing incredible work at places like the Native Canadian Centre at 16 Spadina Road. That street name, I would like to mention, is an anglicization of the Anishinabe word ishspadina.

University—Rosedale is a riding that contains Canada's past, its present and its future.

The document before the House is the spring economic update. Economic health is health, period. Of course, part of a country's health is determined by what happens inside hospitals and doctors' offices, but more is determined elsewhere, by whether we can access an education, whether our child has eaten breakfast, whether the air we breathe is clean, whether the streets we walk are safe, whether there is a job in our future and whether there is a future in our job. Therefore, housing policy is health policy. The Canada child benefit is health policy. Access to food is health policy. Apprenticeship training, community safety, innovation and investments in infrastructure are all health policies.

This is what I have learned in my 20 years treating Canadians: The best medicine, the one that does the most good for most people, is not medicine at all. It is a stable address; a meal at school every day; a good job with a good salary; and the social programs that this country has built and must have the courage to protect.

That is what 24,000 of my constituents using the Canadian dental care plan are asking for. That is what 50,000 of them benefiting from our GST credit are asking for. That is what every person under 35 in my riding who rents instead of owns, because for them the dream of home ownership is exactly that, just a dream, is asking for.

The Prime Minister said that this government's goal is to build Canada strong. A stronger Canada is a healthier Canada. That is what I see in the spring economic update: the expansion of the national school food program, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, GST relief for first-time homebuyers and investments in community safety. Each of these measures is a brick. Together, we will build a strong wall that will protect the promise of a strong and healthy Canada.

Speaking of building with bricks, I want to spend a moment on affordable housing, because it is among the most powerful upstream health interventions any government can make. Since their peak, home prices in this country are down 20%. Rents are down 9%.

Those numbers are not abstractions in University—Rosedale. They represent a multi-generational family that gets to keep its duplex in Little Portugal, a graduate student who can afford their first apartment in the Annex or a new Canadian who does not have to leave the downtown core to raise their children. Still, there is much more work to be done. We are just getting started.

The late Senator Hugh Segal, one of the most thoughtful Canadians of his generation, used to speak of what he called the two essential freedoms: “freedom from fear and freedom from want.” He believed that any country worth its name owed both of them to its people. He was right.

That is what the word “progressive” means to me. It is a commitment to equitable and decent public services and a growing and fair economy. It is values and value in the same breath, at the same time, every single time.

This spring economic update is both a “freedom from fear” and a “freedom from want” document. It speaks to diversifying our trade partners and building the supply chains we will need when the next external shock arrives, and there will be one. As the Prime Minister has said, “we [must] take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” That is not only economic insurance; it is ensuring the strength and health of a country that intends to be around for a very long time.

The purpose of growing and protecting our economy is not so that it looks good on paper. The purpose of our economy is people, supporting them and creating the conditions for them to achieve their fullest potential. It is taking the world as it is, yes, and also working to move it closer to the world we want it to be. To me, that is what we mean when we speak of a Canada strong for all.

To my new colleagues on every side of the House, I will bring to this work the skills of every good family physician, which I have learned in two decades of medicine and leadership. They are listening and building relationships while holding the unshakable conviction that the purpose of any institution, whether it is a hospital or Parliament, is to show up for real people in the hardest moments of their lives. Members can count me in for that for the spring economic update and all the work ahead.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member has a lengthy history of supporting Bernie Sanders. A quick Google search revealed that he has many photos of press releases from events where she is seen sitting next to Bernie Sanders or supporting and applauding him down in the United States.

What U.S.-style politics and policy from Bernie Sanders is she going to import into Canada?

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member opposite and every member of the House.

As we know, this is a party that attracts people from all across the political spectrum and, in fact, from all sides of the aisle. There are lots of good ideas that we can take from all kinds of countries as we consider our options going forward.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the newly elected member and congratulate her on her excellent speech. I believe this is her first speech. Large parts of it were delivered in impeccable French. It is heartwarming to hear that.

I was very moved by my colleague's concern for health care. That is the top priority for people in Quebec. People often speak to me about it. Unfortunately, our health care system is under strain. This is often due to a lack of funding.

One demand the Bloc Québécois has been making of the government for years is to increase funding for the health care system. Health transfers are increasing by about 3% a year, but the costs of the system are rising by 6% a year. We are therefore in the same situation as we were during the Harper years.

Will my hon. colleague put pressure on the government to increase health care funding?

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. As I see it, the economic statement we are discussing today is all about health care from start to finish. The investments our government is making in the determinants of health are truly significant. Negotiations between the federal government and the provinces and territories regarding health care will always require a lot of work.