Debates of June 1st, 2026

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that 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.

Offender Rehabilitation Act

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured that my colleague from Kitchener Centre asked me to speak on her legislation, Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act.

Before I begin, I would like to congratulate her hometown team, the Kitchener Rangers, on winning the Memorial Cup last night. Well done, lads.

The hon. member's opening speech on the legislation is worth watching for anyone but especially for someone struggling with addiction right now. I commend her for her courage in telling her own personal story of recovery. The fact that she is in this place is a testament to her as a person but also highlights what can be achieved in recovery.

Bill C-240 starts with a common-sense idea that I think all Canadians can rally behind. Prison should protect the public, and prisons should hold offenders accountable. Prisons should also require that people do the work needed to change before they are released back into our communities.

Canadians can see the problem quite plainly. The person who broke the law gets endless second chances while the victims in the community are left paying the price. Repeat offenders cycle through the system, with trauma not healed, addictions getting worse and too many people leaving prison no better prepared for life outside than the day they entered. That helps no one, not the victim, not the community and especially not the offender. A serious justice system tells the offender the truth. They caused harm. They are responsible and now they must do the work to change. To the victim, it has to say something just as clearly: that what happened to them matters and that their safety should come before the offender's convenience.

The legislation would give judges a new tool. When a judge sentences an offender, they would be able to order that offender to take rehabilitative measures during their time in jail. That could mean job training. It could mean apprenticeship or technical skills. It could mean education and, most importantly, it could mean treatment for drugs and alcohol addiction. Right now, too often, prison is treated like a waiting room. The offender serves their time and waits out the clock. They then return to the same streets, the same addiction, the same lack of skills, the same broken life and the same risk to public safety.

Too many Canadians are tired of this revolving-door justice system. When someone is released from jail, they move into a neighbourhood full of people who have every right to expect that our justice system has done more than simply count down the days on a calendar. The bill would help change that.

It says that if a judge orders an offender to take training, education or treatment, that order should not just be forgotten once the offender actually enters jail. The order should be sent to Correctional Services Canada. It should be reflected in the correctional plan. When parole is being considered, the parole board should be able to look at whether there was progress made. The bill does not pretend that every offender will change. It does not punish someone because the program is full, unavailable or delayed. It does say that if help is offered, if training is available, if there is a path to a better life, the offender has a responsibility to take it. If someone wants early release, Canadians are entitled to ask what they have done with the time they were given. Did they learn a trade? Did they put in work to overcome their addiction? Did they show any sign that they are any safer today than when they entered prison?

Release should be earned through progress and should not be automatic. It should not be detached from behaviour, effort or rehabilitation.

I come at this from a Manitoban perspective. In my province, these problems are very real. Families in Portage la Prairie, Winkler, Morden, Altona, Carman and communities right across our great province know what repeat crime looks like and what it does. They see the addiction, the stolen trucks, the break-ins, the violence and the heartbreak that follows.

In 2024, Manitoba's crime severity index was far above the national average. People do not need a chart telling them that something has gone badly wrong. They feel it when they check two or three times whether the garage is closed or the car is locked. They feel it when a business owner replaces a broken window yet again. They feel it when parents wonder whether their community is safe for their kids. They especially feel it when police are arresting the same person over and over again.

Manitobans are now being told that the answer to addiction is a drug consumption site in Winnipeg. It is absolutely not. Let us be honest about what many families and businesses fear. They worry that it will become another drug den, another place where government manages decline instead of enabling recovery. They worry that the neighbourhood will be asked to carry the cost. Local concerns will be brushed aside by people who call themselves compassionate, while ignoring the fear of the grandmother, the shop owner, the student, the young family and the police officer dealing with the fallout. They base this on what we have already seen take place across the country where this experiment has been tried.

The answer to addiction is not to build a system around permanent dependency, but recovery through treatment, because we know it can work, the kind of treatment that helps those suffering with addiction find purpose and meaning in life. They need treatment that helps them deal with trauma and understand what they are trying to escape and why. They need treatment to recognize, through whatever modality that works, that they have a problem, that it can be solved and that recovery is possible.

The answer is a justice system that separates the addicted person who needs help from the fentanyl trafficker who profits from death and misery, and that deals firmly with both problems. Bill C-240 does just that. It says that people struggling with addiction should be directed toward treatment and rehabilitation. It also says that those who are trafficking fentanyl on a large scale deserve tougher sentencing consequences. That distinction is necessary. The person trapped in addiction needs a path out. The person selling poison on our streets needs consequences. That is why this bill is both tough and humane. It is tough because it refuses to accept a justice system that releases people without asking whether they have actually changed in any way. It is humane because prisons should not just hold people for a while and then send them back out broken, addicted and dangerous.

Many offenders enter custody without the basic education or skills needed to find and keep stable work. Many have never had the discipline, support and structure needed to build an honest life. None of that excuses crime in any way, but if we ignore those facts we guarantee more crime. Someone who cannot read well, cannot hold a job, cannot manage their addiction with coping skills and has spent their sentence learning absolutely nothing about recovery is not safer nor rehabilitated because a date arrived on a calendar. They need to put in the work while incarcerated. The public deserves more than a release date. The public deserves evidence of effort. Some will say that this is too hard on offenders. I say it is more cruel to leave people trapped in the same spiral that they are in and call it mercy. Nobody wants to be addicted to drugs or alcohol. Let us make sure they have a way out. Some will say that we need more programs before judges can order participation. Then let us expand the programs. Let us fix prison education and make sure training matches real labour market needs.

In Manitoba, we understand the trades. We understand work. We understand the dignity in people showing up and earning their way. If somebody in custody can learn and go through addiction recovery, then that should not be treated as an optional extra but as the goal. It should be part of the sentence when the judge says that it is needed. We should want people leaving custody with clear eyes, a plan and a reason to not go back; to have hit rock bottom and started the work to claw their way up to a life filled with meaning, purpose and service.

The bill sends a message to offenders that their time in custody must not be wasted. It sends a message to Correctional Service Canada that rehabilitation must be planned, tracked and taken seriously. It sends a message to parole boards that progress matters. It sends a message to fentanyl traffickers that if they profit from addiction and death they will face real consequences, as they should. Most importantly, it sends a message to victims and communities that their safety and peace of mind matters. The justice system exists for the protection of the public, not for the convenience of the offender. We need a justice system that is serious enough to punish crime and honest enough to say that rehabilitation only matters when it is real.

Some offenders absolutely can change, but they should not be rewarded for just saying the right things. They should be expected to do the very hard work that change requires. Bill C-240 is not the final word on earned release, public safety or recovery, but it is a serious step in the right direction. It follows the offender from courtroom, to custody, to parole and asks a fair question at every stage: Are they doing the work necessary? The bill forces the justice system to take rehabilitation seriously. If we are going to release people back into our communities, then it is fair to ask what they have done with the time they were given on the inside.

Canadians want a justice system that remembers the victims, protects the public and expects and enables more from the offender than simply waiting for the calendar to run out. That is why I will be supporting this important piece of legislation. I urge every member of this House to do the same.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act. I want to begin by recognizing the underlying objectives of this bill: to strengthen rehabilitation, reinforce accountability and ultimately improve public safety in Canada. These are goals I believe we all share.

Ensuring that our justice system not only responds to crime, but also reduces the likelihood of reoffending is essential to safer communities. This bill would amend three key statutes: the Criminal Code, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, with a view to more explicitly integrating rehabilitation into sentencing, tying progress and rehabilitation to parole decisions, and addressing serious drug trafficking, including fentanyl.

First, Bill C-240 would give courts the authority to require specific rehabilitative measures as part of an offender's sentence. In addition to imposing the term of imprisonment, Bill C-240 would give courts the ability to require an offender to participate in educational programs, job training or, where appropriate, with the offender's consent, treatment programs.

The intent here is clear: to ensure that sentencing not only reflects accountability, but also establishes a pathway to address the underlying factors that contributed to the offence. It appears that this change is intended to ensure that when individuals are taken into custody, the criminal justice and correctional system would work together to create a clear path for how the underlying factors that contributed to their offence would be addressed, including substance use, lack of skills or other challenges.

There is merit in considering this approach. Recognizing and addressing the challenges that contribute to criminality is an important part of breaking cycles of offending. It should also be noted that, at least at the federal level, there are already tools and processes in place to support offender rehabilitation and treatment, including the use of empirically based assessment tools to identify programming needs. At the same time, the impacts of these provisions, including how such orders would be implemented and the consequences of not complying, are important questions that would benefit from careful study at committee.

Second, the bill intends to ensure that these court-ordered measures would be incorporated into an offender's correctional plan. By extension, an offender is held accountable for their progress on these measures and it would become a consideration in conditional release decisions. In other words, if an offender makes reasonable efforts to complete the ordered training, education or treatment, that progress would form part of their assessment, including for key decisions such as for parole. If they do not, that too would be taken into consideration.

It will be important to examine how these proposed amendments would function in practice. Key considerations include the availability of programs, including in the jurisdiction or community where the sentence is to be served; how assessed needs align with access to appropriate services; and the criteria that apply in release decisions. Research shows that offering programs to low-risk offenders can in fact increase their risk. As such, if the courts are too prescriptive in their requirements, there are risks. The correctional system has the empirical tools and the expertise to determine the program and the treatment needs tailored to each individual offender.

It will also be important to ensure that, should the bill pass, any conditions that form part of a sentence are realistic and capable of being complied with. Offenders should not be unfairly prejudiced by barriers outside of their control, including differences in service availability, depending on where a sentence is served. Ensuring fairness, consistency and transparency in these processes will be key.

Third, the bill aims to address a significant public safety challenge facing our country, the opioid crisis, and, in particular, the role of fentanyl. Bill C-240 would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to require that courts treat large-scale fentanyl trafficking as an aggravating factor in sentencing. This means that when individuals are convicted of trafficking in quantities that indicate large-scale operations, judges would be encouraged to impose more severe sentences.

The intent here is clear and it is very important. The harm caused by fentanyl in communities across Canada is profound, and measures that seek to hold accountable those who profit from that harm deserve serious consideration. At the same time, we must consider how these provisions would operate in practice, including how large-scale activity would be interpreted and whether this approach would serve to address current trends in organized crime or reflect the constant evolution of dangerous substances.

It is also important to consider the broader societal context in which the bill would operate. Individuals who enter the correctional system often face multiple barriers long before their offence occurs, including limited access to education, unstable employment, mental health challenges and substance use disorders. Addressing those factors is essential if we are to reduce reoffending and improve long-term public safety.

Bill C-240 recognizes this reality by proposing to make rehabilitation a more explicit and structured part of sentencing. It also aims to create another layer of accountability for an offender to meaningfully engage in that process. That said, it would be important to assess how these measures could be implemented effectively, including how they would align with the empirically derived risks-and-needs principles applied in the correctional system, as well as program availability across jurisdictions and consistency of delivery.

We should also recognize the economic dimension of this issue. When people reoffend, the costs are borne not only by the victims but also by the justice system itself, through policing, the courts and correctional services. Investments in effective rehabilitation could reduce those pressures over time by lowering rates of re-entry into the system. Ensuring that the proposed approach would achieve those outcomes in a measurable and sustainable way would be an important part of the study of Bill C-240 at committee.

The objective of the bill also appears to aim to provide greater clarity and transparency by allowing courts to set expectations, and requiring those expectations to be tracked through an offender's sentence. This is a positive principle. The broader approach outlined in Bill C-240, focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration, reflects principles that many practitioners support. The question for committee would be how best to translate those principles into workable and effective processes within the existing system.

Ultimately, our communities want a justice system that enhances public safety, reduces reoffending and supports successful reintegration. Bill C-240 speaks to those broad objectives. The task before us is to ensure that the mechanisms it proposes are sound, effective and achievable. By embedding rehabilitation into sentencing, strengthening follow-through during incarceration and linking progress to parole decisions, the bill sets out a direction that many people would agree is worth exploring.

Likewise, its focus on responding to the harms associated with fentanyl reflects a serious and pressing concern. As the bill moves forward, committee study would be critical and would provide an opportunity to examine its provisions in greater detail. That process would help to determine what refinements or amendments may be necessary to ensure that the legislation would achieve its intended goals and avoid unintended consequences.

For these reasons, I support sending Bill C-240 to committee for further study so we could work collectively to strengthen the PMB and ensure that it would deliver meaningful results for communities across this country.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-240, the offender rehabilitation act, at second reading. I would like to begin by reminding members that the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-240, which was introduced by the member for Kitchener Centre, and we look forward to discussing it in committee. The bill essentially seeks to allow the courts to prescribe measures that offenders must take, such as participating in educational, training or treatment programs. It also addresses addiction to drugs and other substances, and finally, the bill seeks to ensure that the objectives of these programs are met, which could affect eligibility for parole. As I was saying, we support this bill.

The bill seeks to amend three acts. First, it would amend the Criminal Code itself so that courts can “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.” It would also amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act because, in order to meet the program objectives, offenders must be required to undergo training during the custodial period of their sentence and such training must be included in the correctional plan developed by the head of the correctional facility. Assessments conducted by the parole board must also take into account these programs when determining whether to grant parole. Finally, the bill would amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act so that, when a person is convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, the court can consider large-scale trafficking as an aggravating sentencing factor.

That, in a nutshell, is what passing this bill would mean. We will see later what will happen when, I hope, the bill is considered and debated in committee. I hope it gets that far. It is one thing to say that we agree on passing a bill. Obviously, the rehabilitation of offenders is the very foundation of the justice system. The Bloc Québécois believes in that. However, the government must always ensure it has the means to match its ambitions. Let me explain.

In terms of rehabilitation, we can look at the annual report tabled in 2019 or 2020 by the Correctional Investigator of Canada, Ivan Zinger. That report specifically criticized the academic and vocational training provided by Correctional Service Canada. For example, in 2020, 54% of inmates had not completed grade 10, and most inmates did not have access to education. At the same time, other reports have noted the impact of training on rehabilitation. According to Correctional Service Canada, someone who completes at least one level of an education program shows a 75% reduction in the rate of conditional release failure for a new crime, compared to offenders who had educational needs but did not participate in an education program.

The impact of these programs is significant; their very availability is significant. The federal, provincial, and Quebec governments have conducted several studies on this. The numbers are compelling and they say this has a major impact. Later in my remarks, I will address the way Correctional Service Canada calculates this positive impact, but, generally speaking, we can agree that it is a positive impact. The annual report also noted that although training was being offered, inmates considered it outdated. The same observation was made about prison work.

One of the examples in the report was quite striking. It mentions inmates who have access to computers that are often completely outdated. I am not talking about computers from five years ago, but computers that still use floppy disks. I cannot remember if I have ever used floppy disks from the 1980s. I do not think so. They have enough capacity to hold a single modern photo. These are the tools the correctional service is using to teach the inmates in the penitentiaries. While it is often said that these training programs have a positive impact, we must ensure that resources are available to offer training that is not merely symbolic, but that can have a real impact on inmates' lives and on their rehabilitation once they have served their sentences and are released.

In fact, the correctional investigator concluded that the training was so ill-suited to the job market that it would not help them find work upon release. Obviously, in light of the floppy disk example that I gave, I do not believe that people would be able to find work with such training.

That is just one example. The training is much broader, but it all points in the same direction. For example, as I said, no real skills are being developed. People cannot find a job if they have not developed any skills. Post-secondary training is almost completely overlooked. The books are outdated, and that applies to e-books as well. In short, all the textbooks that talk about knowledge and training are out of date. The government is failing to give prisoners the tools they need to reintegrate into society.

I will provide a summary, which speaks volumes, from Canada's correctional investigator, Dr. Zinger:

The investigation into learning behind bars looked at access to education and skills training in the federal correctional system. What is important to note from this study is that Canada is falling further and further behind the rest of the industrialized world in terms of digital learning and skills training behind bars. There are increasing signs of decline, given that little action has been taken to implement dozens of my office's previous recommendations in this area.

These are the words of the correctional investigator. I will not list all the findings, but a few are equally meaningful and compelling. The report mentions that 6% of the incarcerated population is engaged in a prison industry through the CORCAN program. It also says that the work does not always lead to the acquisition of skills. It is bad enough that only 6% participate, but worse still that no skills are being learned. Furthermore, enormous waiting lists create a bottleneck for those wishing to participate in a training program. They have to wait a very long time.

Clearly, not enough is being done to provide appropriate training that will, in fact, have the desired positive impact. Of course we fully support this bill. The Bloc Québécois does support it, but we want something else, too. The government decided to cut Correctional Service Canada's budget by 15% this year.

I should mention that my riding is home to a federal penitentiary. Port-Cartier Institution is located on the north shore, in my riding. I know the management team very well, and I know the union representatives very well, too. I am aware of the difficulties and challenges they are currently facing, especially since the government is not supporting them. The government is cutting the budget by 15% right now. This means that not only are the inmates not getting the support they need, but workers in this sector are also not being properly supported. In my view, that is dangerous. Urgent action is needed. It is dangerous for the inmates, for the employees and, of course, for the public, because the sector does not have the resources needed to meet its objectives.

I welcome the bill tabled by my colleague from Kitchener Centre, and I hope the government will listen. I hope it will show courage in its budgets. I believe we need to be forward-thinking and commit to looking after the public. Security is definitely an issue. I hope the government will support all prison staff, management, the officers working there, plus the people in our community. I hope we can move this bill forward.

A CIRANO study also noted that Quebec is a world leader thanks to the training program being introduced in its prisons.

I look forward to seeing how this bill progresses.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to 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, more simply known as the offender rehabilitation act. It is hard to say this early on a Monday morning.

I am struggling with what to do for the next 10 minutes. Do I read the prepared speech that my staff worked tirelessly to put together and did a great job of, or do I talk about our colleague and the importance of the bill she has brought forward?

This bill is important. It looks specifically at three areas. One is in-custody treatment and rehabilitation programs.

Another is earned release. The offenders, those who are in jail, would have to demonstrate that they are actually taking the measures they need to, with the responsibility on them, so that they earn their release. They would not, as my colleague mentioned earlier, just be waiting out the clock.

The final area is harsher sentences for fentanyl traffickers. Very plainly, I truly believe that if somebody is producing fentanyl and selling it on the streets, the harshest penalties we have should be levied against these people. This is because, very simply, they are killing Canadians. Over 50,000 Canadians have died through our opioid crisis since 2016, and we do not have an answer.

I talked about a senior constituent in my riding who was run over. He returned home to find his house being ransacked and robbed by a group of people who were addicted. They were looking to find ways to get that next fix. When he tried to stop them, they ran him over. They dragged him down a rural road and left him for dead. They were caught later that same day and released within hours. Just this past week, we were informed that the charges had been dropped.

We are failing Canadians. We are not making communities safer.

I want to talk about our colleague from Kitchener Centre. This is not an issue that attracts headlines. It is not sexy to talk about accountability, rehabilitation, public safety, addiction and criminal justice all at the same time. However, people who are in the gallery and the 12 or 13 people who are watching online or on TV should know the incredible story of our colleague. I met her just weeks after the last election, when she was a newly elected MP. She asked to meet with me. She wanted to talk to me about what she wanted to do during her time here in Parliament.

We have a unique platform to be able to really make a difference, regardless of whether we are in government or on the opposition side. We have worked for the last 11 years to try to make a difference to the mental health of Canadians, whether it was through our Bill C-211, making Canada the first country in the world to adopt a piece of legislation to combat post-traumatic stress disorder, or in launching 988, making Canada a country that now has a three-digit suicide hotline 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Those are things that we did on this side of the House to try to make a difference.

The member for Kitchener Centre's story is incredible. Here is a member of Parliament who at one time was struggling with addiction herself and lived homeless on the streets for a number of years. She pulled herself out of addiction, put herself through school and is now a sitting member of Parliament, representing the very place where she was homeless.

What an incredible story that is. It should be celebrated. What she wants to do in her time here is leave a legacy of change to help those who mirror her life as a youth, addicted and on the streets. It is incredible.

The reality is that our current justice system is not producing the results Canadians deserve. Across the country, communities are dealing with the consequences of repeat offenders, addiction-fuelled crime and an overdose crisis that continues to take lives each and every day. Canadians are frustrated because they see individuals cycling repeatedly through the justice system without change. They see offenders arrested, released, rearrested, released again and often returning to the same destructive behaviours the very same day. At the same time, they see families devastated by addiction and communities struggling with the consequences of fentanyl trafficking and organized criminal activity.

I was talking about our colleague. The strength and courage it took for her to share her story is incredible. I have probably cried more times than I would like to count here in Parliament as we recounted our own stories or talked about other colleagues. I have also shared that my family has been impacted by the overdose crisis. My brother-in-law died by overdose. My brother is gripped with addiction and lives on the streets. We just cannot seem to get him off the streets. We have struggled since the nineties. We say a cat has nine lives. I do not know how many lives my brother has. He has had so many overdoses, he has been in and out of the jail system and he was shot with a double-barrelled shotgun recently, and he still survives. The grip of that addiction still pulls him back onto the streets.

When people are arrested and go into the jail system, there is not a lot of incentive for them to get better. As a matter of fact, they probably become better criminals and just bide their time until they get out. They can get the drugs in prison, as well, but through Bill C-240, it would become mandatory that those who are incarcerated and addicted take the measures and take on the responsibility necessary to get themselves better. That is why Bill C-240 is so important.

Regarding in-custody treatment, we talk about how there are not enough beds in our country to get people well. We should be investing in recovery, not investing in perpetuating people's addictions, which is what we have been doing over the last 10 years. We need in-custody treatment. That could include addiction treatment. It could include educational programs. It could include jobs training and skills development.

I spent an awful lot of time talking about our colleague, but I honestly do not think we have shared her story enough. She works every day, representing her constituents of Kitchener Centre, being a better MP, being a better representative and ensuring that she leaves a legacy of change. I am so honoured to count her as one of our colleagues. I am proud of her, as everyone can tell.

Bill C-240 looks at three distinct areas in this piece of legislation. One is in-custody treatment and rehabilitation programs. Another is earned release, so the responsibility would be on the incarcerated person to demonstrate that they deserve parole. They would not just get it. The last is harsher sentences for fentanyl traffickers, because if we do not start doing something about our opioid crisis, we will continue going down the same path we are on, and more Canadians will die.

I support Bill C-240 and humbly ask that our colleagues do as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ability to speak today on Bill C-240. This touches my heart, because I would imagine that for all MPs sitting in this room, no matter where they are sitting today, their lives have changed and their communities have changed. I know all Canadian cities have changed, including all communities in the Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay riding.

I want to speak a bit about the city I live in. Penticton is a beautiful city. It is a place where people have always wanted to come to vacation, and possibly even retire, if they reach that point in their lives and have saved up enough money, because, of course, our housing is expensive, like it is in many communities.

Unfortunately, our city, like so many, is filled with chaos right now. I hope everyone here knows they can go and enjoy the city and enjoy the area, but there is chaos because crime rates are skyrocketing. In fact, it was announced last week by our first responders that overdose rates in Penticton increased by nearly 500% in the first quarter of 2026 compared to the first quarter of 2025. This was reported by our fire department.

Imagine what being a first responder in Penticton is like right now, when all they are doing is constantly going out to calls and trying to bring people back to life. Imagine how difficult it would be for them psychologically to not fight fires, like they were trained to. We do not have a lot of fires anymore, except for quite a few that are caused by people who are homeless and on the streets. Instead, our first responders are constantly going out and injecting people with some type of drug to try to bring them back to life. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not.

It has ruined our community and our most vulnerable people, who are those are on drugs and living on our streets. It has also ruined our community for many vulnerable people, as we have a very large senior community.

Going back to Bill C-240, the bill aims to amend the Criminal Code to empower judges to prescribe structured rehabilitation programs for individuals whose offences stem from circumstances that can be addressed through skills development, education and recovery as part of a holistic healing process.

It is important to know that in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, which is a very big riding in the B.C. interior, there is not one detox bed available. In fact, as a city councillor, a couple of years ago, I was given a presentation by leaders in the community who were addressing this issue. I asked them a question. If someone were to come into our city council meeting right then and say, “I am a drug addict. I want help. I want to go back to my family”, how long would it take for that person to get into a detox bed or a rehab bed? By the way, this was in public. Members can look this up from the City of Penticton's council meeting two years ago. They told the city council that it would take two years for that person to be given any type of detox bed or any type of rehabilitation. They also said it would not be in our huge riding. They would have to leave the community in two years and go to another community to get help.

We all know what would happen in those two years. I am sure I will get letters saying, “No, it's not two years.” Maybe it has gotten better, and hopefully it has, but it would still be at least half that time.

We need to give people the ability to go back to their families, and we also need to keep people behind bars who are not safe for our communities. Some of the residents I represent are afraid of even going to the grocery store anymore to shop because there are erratic people walking down the aisles. There has been a huge issue, obviously, since the pilot project to decriminalize drugs in B.C. That was a great experiment put together by the Liberal government and the NDP provincial government. I would like to ask everyone in this great room today, would they like to try that decriminalization project? Let us just see what might happen.

British Columbia has the most deaths from fentanyl in the world now. The genie is out of the bottle now. Sure, the decriminalization project has been declared over, but we have not found out the complete chaos that was caused by it; the numbers are not out yet. That will happen, and we will bring them, hopefully, before the Standing Committee on Health, which I sit on, and get the complete numbers, but do we really need them? We all know that thousands and thousands of people have died in British Columbia from that project. I do not see anyone representing any other province wanting to come forward and try it for their communities.

I want to thank MP DeRidder, who—

[An hon. member]

You cannot use the name.

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

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I thank the MP for bringing forward this bill, and I want to quote her. She said Bill C-240 “would empower courts to prescribe structured rehabilitation measures, including education, skills training and treatment programs, to be undertaken during custody. These are not soft-on-crime measures. They are smart-on-recovery interventions.”

We have to give people the opportunity to go back to their families.

I was given a tour, as a city councillor a couple of years ago, of the penitentiary in my riding, the Okanagan Correctional Centre. At that time, the warden told us city councillors that it was 25% full. We have one of the highest crime rates, in Penticton and area, in all of B.C., per capita, and our correctional centre is only 25% full. The leaders in the community, the mayors of all the cities in the valley, have sent a letter to the province asking to use that correctional centre for exactly what the MP for Kitchener Centre is asking for: to provide rehabilitation measures, education, skills training and treatment, to give these people a chance to go back out in the world and back to their families, if they are able. If they cannot, if they are dangerous people, as we know there are, then they should not be released as they have been.

This bill would also allow court-ordered rehabilitation measures for offenders. I believe everyone in this great hall knows that people get to a point in their drug use where there is no going back.

I want to thank, again, the MP for bringing this forward, and I hope everyone here votes to support it.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly such an honour to be here today to speak to this spectacular bill. I want to sincerely thank my friend, my colleague, the member for Kitchener Centre for being willing to be vulnerable, for being willing to share her story with each and every one of us and to use the pain, the struggle that she went through as she was dealing with addiction early in her life, and how she turned that into a spectacular life. I have had the opportunity of meeting her daughter and seeing the accomplishments she made in her professional life before she came to Parliament. To find out that years prior she had been homeless and sleeping on park benches in the community that she now gets to represent in Parliament, I think, is a huge testament to the fact that recovery is possible.

What stops so many people from going after recovery is not having the tools to get there, the off-ramps. This is one of the pieces that Conservatives have been consistent in sharing. We need to meet people where they are at, but we cannot just leave them there. We need to give them the tools so they can get into detox and then, from that space, from detox into treatment. In my province of Alberta, the fact that people can do that without having to mortgage a house or wait six years on a wait-list has made the difference as to whether people stay sick or get better. I want to see more support for recovery because people truly can and do get better.

Here is the piece: When people are in jail, and the root cause of some of their criminality is addiction, we really owe it to ourselves to make sure we are treating that root cause of the addiction.

For every single person I have met who is now in recovery from addiction, the single hardest thing they have had to do in their life is getting sober and staying sober, confronting the demons of some of the actions and activities they did that were not in line with their values and confronting some of the really tough things they did when they were trying to just survive and get by. We should be offering tools while people are incarcerated so they can get better, and not just offering those tools but allowing that to be in consideration for parole and giving incentives so people can do that.

Right now, if someone is seeking out treatment in incarceration in Canada, the steps they have to go through in most provinces are quite hard. Most people cannot even get into an NA or AA meeting if they are in jail. That is a failure of our system. It costs effectively nothing, yet in so many jurisdictions, it is hard to even get that for people who are struggling with addiction. This bill would take the huge step of not just telling people that addiction is a health condition and needs to be treated as such but clearly stating that we have hope, that we believe they can get better and that we know recovery is possible.

That is the single most inspiring piece we can do. This is the most important piece. If people want to get started on that hard and long path toward recovery, it starts one step at a time, to do the next right thing, and this is the next right thing.

I would encourage every single member in this chamber to put aside partisanship, to realize that this, what we are talking about right now, can make a huge difference in the lives of so many Canadians. I would urge every single member to unreservedly support the member for Kitchener Centre's private member's bill, Bill C-240, and make a very clear statement that recovery is possible.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I offer the member for Kitchener Centre her right of reply.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start today with great big huge thanks to all of my colleagues who wanted to speak to and debate Bill C-240 today. I thank my colleagues who are part of the Conservative caucus and also colleagues across the floor, so much, for speaking to this bill today. I thank the Bloc Québécois members as well, so very much, for speaking to this bill and showing their support for it.

I think the most important thing that we need to do at this point in time is reverse course in Canada. We need to start focusing on recovery and rehabilitation because people can and do recover. There is an encampment in Kitchener where we are quite literally killing people with kindness right now. In this encampment, five people have died from overdose, and it is time now that all levels of government came together and jointly worked together to fix this crisis in Canada. It is time to reverse course.

Bill C-240 is the first step, introducing rehabilitation into incarceration. At least when someone has to be accountable for their actions, they would have a path forward when they are serving their time, to change their life, break cycles and turn their life around. We need to do this in Canada before incarceration, as well, so I am standing here today to thank members for their support in the House for Bill C-240 but also to declare that this is a pivotal moment in Canada.

It is time now to concentrate on recovery and rehabilitation because on the other side of recovery is a happy, beautiful, healed and healthy life. Every single person who is struggling with addiction deserves that life, and it is time we helped them get there.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 11:58 a.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Accordingly, the question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent to have it go to committee.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Sitting Suspended

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:59 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12:01 p.m.)

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

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

Order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period.

Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some government members. Members should keep their interventions to approximately one minute, and they may speak more than once.

I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in the House or to use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in this question period.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has the floor.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have to say I am quite disappointed that here we are again with the Liberals' shutting down parliamentary debate on such an important bill. Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, is a giant omnibus bill, over 330 pages long, with some proposed major changes to the way government operates.

Under division 16 in the budget implementation act is the new defence investment agency act, and that act would open up a door of potential abuse and unethical behaviour by the government. In the section that actually talks about having competition, the Liberals list over 20 different different exemptions from competition, and it would make the minister responsible for the Defence Investment Agency immune from any criticism and give them a get-out-of-jail-free card for why any particular project or competitor is disqualified from that competition.

We have this motion, instead of proper debate in the House right now that would allow Parliament to actually explore all the problems within division 16 of the budget implementation act, and instead of actually talking about how defence procurement could be used and abused by the government in power. Why not have the debate? Why do the Liberals always resort to shutting down parliamentary processes, in the name of cover-ups and Liberal largesse?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite, for years, has been championing investment in the defence industry. Now, when he gets this singular moment to support it, he gets up and rants about—

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Oh, oh!

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member has talked a lot. I think I will try to talk a little less.

The member now starts ranting on about our not wanting to debate it, but it is very obvious that there has been sufficient and complete debate on this budget, which is important for getting money back into Canadians' hands and reinvesting into the economy.

To the member opposite's point, it is important to invest in an industry that has been underinvested in for a long time, and to make sure Canadians are safe and protected by our military, the servicemen and servicewomen who serve this country and who are prepared to lay down their lives for it.

As I have heard the member opposite for the last 10 years talk about the military, it is interesting that he gets one chance to support it but starts coming up with a whole bunch of theories about why we should not continue or why we should not accelerate and get it into the hands of the people best equipped to protect us. It is very odd, to say the least. If there is any any proof of that behaviour, it is in the amendment that the Conservatives suggested, which just wants to shut down the bill in the first place.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question about the forestry industry.

This is one of the Bloc Québécois's demands. The industry back home is being hit hard. Many people have lost their jobs and a lot of families are being impacted.

We proposed a number of measures. One of them was for the government to refund 50% of the monthly antidumping and countervailing duties paid by forestry producers to the U.S. to give them immediate liquidity. This measure would be cost-neutral.

I would like to know why the government did not consider it.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for this relevant question.

Overall, I think that today's debate should stick to what is in the budget.

Some highly complex discussions are certainly under way with the United States, but I think it would be irresponsible to discuss them in the House of Commons. However, I want the member to know that we are still there to defend the forestry industry in Quebec and across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a 330-page bill that is divided into 16 divisions, plus the defence investment agency act, as the minister pointed out. It would amend things as diverse as the Bank Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, and the Pest Control Products Act, a wide variety of acts that also includes the Territorial Lands Act and the Red Tape Reduction Act.

It is a bill that has had very few hours of debate. In fact, if every one of these things had been brought forward, as I think they should have been, as their own bills, we would have had more time to debate each of those bills in its presentation than we will have to debate the entire act. It really feels as if the government's failure to plan is something it is turning into an emergency for all of us. I do not think it is reasonable. I think that with bills such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-22, the rush and the sloppy drafting have put Canadians' rights at risk.

I would like to know why the member is not going to allow either legislators or the public sufficient time to really think through what would be happening in this very consequential bill.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know why the members opposite do not want to reach our NATO spending targets, which they have been saying for years we need to reach. They have said time and time again they want to accelerate things.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

You have had your chance to talk. Why don't you stand up and ask a question?

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to talk, they should stand up and ask a question.

Members opposite have been saying for years that we need to accelerate investing in Canada homes, delivering a clean electricity investment tax, introducing a productivity superdeduction and accelerating the path in constructing Alto high-speed rail. Now we give them the opportunity to put this through in a budgetary implementation act that is consistent with other budget implementation acts, and they are starting to balk.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, can the member speak to the guardrails in this bill in regard to making loans, advance payments, government guarantees, loan and credit insurance and grants? Are there any?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill covers a lot of ground and has been debated for only about three hours. If the member thinks that is sufficient, does he believe that the House is a debating chamber where legislators debate relevant legislation with an aim to improve it, or does he believe that the chamber is merely an audience for people to clap and cheer for those things that are put before it by the current government?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, the members opposite have been clapping like seals for the last 10 years, so I think they have demonstrated what they believe the chamber should do. Indeed, they shut it down for an entire year, completely preventing legislation from getting through.

Again—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. The hon. minister was trying to answer a question.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

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

Madam Speaker, we are debating the second implementation bill of the 2025 budget, which includes an investment of more than half a billion dollars in Canadian creators and the cultural economy.

This investment demonstrates that arts and culture are a priority for us. We talk about building Canada strong, and arts and culture, along with the entire cultural sector, are a cornerstone of what building Canada strong means to us.

I want to ask the minister how the cultural community has responded to this investment and why it is important to make such an investment at this time.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has presented the reality of the situation just as well as the minister responsible for this file.

I would say that, yes, cultural communities, creators and those who shape the vision of who we are as a country have welcomed this investment, especially knowing that this budget was meant to be prudent, particularly with regard to cost-cutting.

Under the Prime Minister's leadership, we are investing up to $750 million in Canadian arts and culture, because it is important, at this stage in our evolution as a country, to make significant investments, whether in CBC/Radio-Canada or in small communities like the one represented by the member that have things like theatre groups, and to ensure that the federal government is there to showcase all the talent that exists across the country.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. More than 112,000 Canadians have lost their job in just a few months. Food banks are reaching record levels of usage. Families are struggling to pay their mortgage, their rent and even their grocery bill.

At a time like this, Canadians would expect members of Parliament to be debating solutions. They would expect their elected representatives to be examining every line of this massive omnibus bill and asking hard questions about it. Instead, the Liberals have decided to shut down debate after only three hours of debate on billions of dollars. If the government's plan is working, why are Canadians falling behind, and if the government is so confident in its plan, why is it so afraid of letting Parliament debate it?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, again the Conservatives' actions speak louder than their words. They would not have put forward the amendment they are proposing if they wanted to continue debate on the budget.

The Conservatives do not believe what we have to say, so let me quote Bloomberg as to what its people thought about the budget: “Canada’s government is taking aim at competition in the financial sector, pledging to tackle fees, make it easier for consumers to switch banks and reduce regulatory burdens for smaller lenders.”

The Council of Canadian Innovators said, “Today’s budget represents an important step toward building trust with Canada’s innovators and the broader business community. For the first time, we’re seeing the federal government embrace a serious conversation about economic sovereignty—and that shift in focus is both welcome and overdue.”

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

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member for Madawaska—Restigouche is asking the minister how this was received by the industry, because we know that Air Canada was getting ready to implement section 17 of the bill before members of Parliament had even seen the text of the bill.

Today we are discussing democracy and time allocation. We are wondering, first of all, whether the privileges of parliamentarians have been respected. I am not saying that everything in the bill is bad. However, the bill under consideration is 300 pages long. We want to do our parliamentary work. We requested a briefing from Department of Finance officials on this bill. This is standard practice, as the minister will agree. How long did it take to get the briefing? Three weeks went by without a response. The briefing finally took place at the end of last week, while committees were in session and most of the party critics could not even attend.

I understand that some governments have used time allocation in the past. I understand that it has happened. I understand that no one has a monopoly on this. Everyone accuses others of it when they are in the opposition. I understand that.

Now we are being slapped with a time allocation motion, when we only just got a briefing after the government ignored us for three weeks. What does that say about how arrogant the Liberals have gotten since they obtained a majority?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do not wish to be disrespectful towards the hon. member. I note, and we all should note, that the Bloc Québécois is offering some support for the budget.

However, what he says is a little odd. Members have had several weeks to read the bill, yet the member said they were waiting for the briefing. I realize that the briefing could have been given earlier, but even though I am sometimes surprised to see proof to the contrary, I was under the impression that MPs could read.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, does the minister believe that increased bureaucracy will ensure that our brave men and women in uniform get the equipment they need faster?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

No, Madam Speaker.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting to hear the comments that are being made in the House.

I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to talk to regional mayors in southwestern Ontario and other leaders in our community who are seized with our economic development and the things that we need to do to continue to grow our region. The one answer that we have heard is that the government is responding fast, given the challenges that we are already facing. Maybe the minister can comment on the fact that we are in a situation we have never been in before. We need to move fast, and we need to work with everyone, including Parliament of course.

Why are the Conservatives so stuck on continuing to drag on debate when people are asking us to move fast so our economy can continue to grow? The mayors of southwestern Ontario are asking for us to move with speed. Can the minister comment on that?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are the ones who shut down Parliament for well over a year, about a year ago.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, again, they want to hear answers, but all they do is heckle. They have been asking us to move faster and faster, but when it comes time to move fast, they start squealing. It makes no sense.

One of the members talked about food banks. We have an initiative to make the school food plan permanent. The Conservatives have had no comment on that. They want to put money here and there, but where is not entirely clear. However, then they stand up and complain that we should be going slower. What is it: faster or slower?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, although we are legislators, it is our responsibility as members of Parliament to carry out our fiduciary duties and responsibilities to the taxpayers of Canada and to properly vet all of the legislation and spending of the government. This bill opens up a huge abyss of extra spending. We are not against spending on national defence. I know the minister tried to say that I am trying to stop it. I want to make sure that we are spending money wisely and respecting the Canadian taxpayer.

In this bill, which establishes the Defence Investment Agency act and makes changes to the Defence Production Act, the Liberals are adding in an exclusion that the minister can exclude companies and reduce the way companies can compete. It gives the minister an out so that he does not have to give reasons why any corporation is excluded. This is where it gets really interesting. It is giving the power to the minister, through an order in council, to “procure the incorporation of any one or more corporations for the purpose of undertaking or carrying out any acts or things” in the act. It also gives the power to the minister to “remove any members, directors or officers of a corporation”.

Would the minister agree with me that this is overreach by the government, that it stinks of far-left policies, and that it is the nationalization of some of our industries here in Canada, which we witnessed under Pierre Elliott Trudeau?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

I do not know which Trudeau the Conservatives are more obsessed with, Madam Speaker. Maybe it is a tie.

What is clear here is that the member opposite seemed to suggest that he supported investments in the defence industry, yet his leader stands up consistently and talks about the deficit related to the spending in our defence policy. Which is it? Is it more money into the defence industry that does not come from the government? That does not make sense, because Canadians expect us to invest in our defence. People pay taxes just so we can invest in our armed forces, which we are going to do. The Conservatives have spent weeks complaining about a deficit the vast majority of which is invested in our armed forces and to hit our NATO targets, which they have been asking us to do for 10 years. I would think the least the member could do is stand up and thank us.

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that members want to debate the content of Bill C‑31, but I want to remind everyone that we are in fact debating a time allocation motion on this bill and the decision to allocate a specific amount of time for debate on it.

I have a question for the minister. Why did we have to spend more than three weeks asking officials from the Department of Finance for a technical briefing on a 300-page bill of which certain divisions, like division 17 on air passengers, have nothing to do with budgetary policy? Can the minister please explain why, for three weeks, we were unable to ask officials questions in order to do our parliamentary homework? There was radio silence.

The minister's response was essentially that we should just read the bill ourselves, since we are a bunch of lazy bums. That level of arrogance is typical of this government.

Personally, I am acting in good faith. I do read the budget document. We spend a ton of time on it. It is highly technical and legislative. We did receive a briefing from officials, but we only received it a few hours before the government imposed time allocation.

I am therefore asking the minister whether he considers it acceptable that it took three weeks before we received a response to our request for a briefing and that his government imposed time allocation right after that.

I am also asking him whether, for future bills, he thinks it would be appropriate to provide the opposition with a timely response so that it can perform its work constructively and properly debate all the legislative issues involved in bills.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that the answer is generally yes, but everyone has to be prepared for the briefing. All I was saying is that people can read. Honestly, three weeks to read 300 pages is not asking too much.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am starting to understand why the Premier of Quebec called the minister a disgrace to all Quebeckers. A day after he was made the Minister of Culture, he said he was fed up with language debate. It is clear the minister is fed up with all debate, based on his answers in this session this afternoon.

The member for Red Deer asked a question about guardrails. He asked if there are “guardrails in this bill in regard to making loans, advance payments, government guarantees, loan and credit insurance and grants”. The minister said yes. Therefore, I would ask him to please list those guardrails.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I made very clear when I was appointed to this position is that I was fed up with the politicization of the language debate. It is true. The reality is that politicizing this debate makes it impossible to get to the heart of the matter to ensure that the common language in Quebec is and remains French.

As a government, we support minority languages both outside and within Quebec. We do so with a clear-eyed perspective, without seeking to gain political capital at the expense of indigenous peoples, immigrants, English-speaking minority communities, and French-speaking minority communities outside Quebec. That was the point. I think this is a very important point to make, because right now, the member is going off in all sorts of directions to raise a very ridiculous point about today's debate.

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

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, sometimes very smart people, like the minister, say things that are far below their level of intelligence. The minister's answer to my last question falls into that category. I will explain why.

The minister is telling us that three weeks is not much time to read 300 pages and that we were short on time. He is wondering why the government would give us a technical briefing when three weeks is not much time to read 300 pages. Now, he is rising in the House to move a motion to reduce the time allotted for debate so that we cannot debate this bill. We will have just a few hours to debate it. He thinks that three weeks is not enough time for the opposition to read the bill properly, and yet he thinks we can debate it properly in just a few hours.

I would like to know whether the minister realizes that he is contradicting himself. Does he realize that his government's decision to wait three weeks to give a technical briefing and then impose time allocation is indefensible? Is he aware of how arrogant his government is, the government on whose behalf he is speaking today in the House of Commons?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not arrogant to point out that this is the third time he has asked me the same question. If he is interested in the bill, now is the time for him to ask me questions about it. He will also be able to ask me questions in the coming hours.

I agreed with him that, yes, as a member of Parliament—and this applies to all members—he must be able to receive a proper briefing. I also told him that he had had three weeks to read the bill, but that I would be surprised if all members had taken that much time to read it.

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

Madam Speaker, when I was first elected, I could not speak one full sentence in French. I spent time learning French so that I could treat my francophone colleagues with respect.

We have pointed out that the government does not want to debate the bill. Not only does this minister not want to debate this bill, but he also does not want to get into what he calls an identity-based debate about Quebec. For that reason, Quebec's premier called him a disgrace to all Quebeckers.

Can the minister explain why, having alienated Quebec, he now wishes to alienate all Canadians by terminating debate on a 330-page bill after only a few hours?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member opposite on the quality of her French and the efforts she has made to learn the language. I believe she is setting an example for many unilingual English speakers in this place and across Canada who are making the effort to learn French. I want to take this brief moment to congratulate her.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister is responsible for heritage in Canada, and I want to recognize that June 1 is day one of Filipino Heritage Month. Winnipeg North is the centre of the heart of the Filipino community in Canada. It does not matter where. From coast to coast to coast, we will witness all forms of celebration of Filipino heritage.

Given that the minister represents heritage, I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on how important it is to recognize Canada's diversity, from the perspective of the budget. I would ask him to share his thoughts on the importance of recognizing our diversity.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to wish a great Filipino Heritage Month to everyone celebrating and to all Canadians, whether they are Filipino or not. This is a community that has grown, I think, to well over a million strong over the last few years: a million and one, if we count the member for Winnipeg North, who appears to be an honorary member of the Filipino community and certainly behaves as such. He has been a fierce defender of their rights and has magnified their struggle to be in Canada and to thrive as Canadian citizens. I wish all of those celebrating a great Filipino Heritage Month as we celebrate this month of June, recognizing their contributions to Canada, present and future.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, governments that are confident in their ideas welcome debate. Governments that are uncertain of their ideas shut it down. Canada is now the only G7 country in recession. Jobs are disappearing, investment is leaving and families are falling behind, yet instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine a budget that would affect every Canadian, the Liberals are once again shutting down debate. The government tells Canadians to trust its plan. Trust is earned through openness, accountability and debate, not by cutting debate short.

Why are the Liberals so determined to prevent Parliament from giving it the scrutiny Canadians deserve?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, not that this is an example for anyone, but I would remind the Conservatives that they shut down Parliament from 2024 to 2025.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, last time I checked, I was the guy standing. Members opposite would like to talk about the current economy, but I would note that—

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

The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, members cannot mislead the House. The Conservatives never shut down Parliament. We do not have the ability to shut down Parliament. The only party that shut down Parliament was the Liberal Party when it prorogued Parliament.

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

That is a matter of debate.

The hon. minister can conclude his answer or we can move to another question.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to answer it. I would note for members opposite that when they are talking about one of the strongest economies in the G7, and it is a good point what they are saying, I would ask them to look at the issue they talked about for years, which is GDP per capita, and they will note that it has jumped in the last quarter.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the media industry is going through a crisis right now. The government had introduced a levy in July but ultimately did not go forward with it. The government believed that would put it in a better position to negotiate tariffs with the Americans. That plan failed.

Later on, the economic update failed to include anything to support local and regional French-language news outlets. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, TVA Group has seen its staff at the station shrink from 30 to eight in the space of two years. Local and regional news coverage is being eroded, yet the latest economic update contains nothing to support these news outlets.

Can the minister tell us what he is planning to do right now? The crisis is only getting worse.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is not true.

I would encourage the member opposite to look at the journalism tax credit proposals that are going to be examined and applied in the audiovisual sector. They represent a significant investment in audiovisual newsrooms. He should just ask the news group he mentioned. They will tell him that this news has been extremely well received.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are debating the time allocation the government has given, which is basically shortening the debate on 332 pages of law. It gave us only three hours before, so for each 100 pages, we have only one hour of debate. Members can imagine the shortcoming of Canadians not being able to understand what is going on with these bills and not being able to understand the consequences of what the government is providing.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, if the member opposite thought he needed more time, why would he put forward an amendment to kill it?

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

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

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

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #128

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on May 25, 2026, by the member for Mirabel concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.

In the member's view, part 4, division 17 of the bill should be the subject of a separate vote at second reading and be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for study, as it lacks a sufficiently close connection to the rest of the bill and could stand as a distinct legislative proposal. In support of this position, the member argued that these provisions, which introduce amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, relate primarily to the handling of air travel complaints and were not announced in the budget. Citing my predecessor's ruling of January 30, 2024, the member maintained that the inclusion of measures in a budget implementation bill does not automatically constitute a sufficient and common theme and that Standing Order 69.1 exists to protect members' right to vote separately on distinct legislative matters.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons also intervened on the matter, contending that provisions contained in part 4, division 17, were in fact announced in the 2025 budget, even if the connection was not immediately obvious, and that the provisions should therefore be voted on together with the rest of the bill. Citing a ruling delivered by Speaker Regan on November 6, 2018, the parliamentary secretary argued that broad and sometimes vague policy commitments in a budget document may become detailed and lengthy legislative proposals. He referred to two passages in the 2025 budget document in support of his position: first, to references concerning proposed investments in airports and ports; and second, to a proposed review of administrative monetary penalties and fines, including related to passenger rights. Additionally, the parliamentary secretary noted that Standing Order 69.1 does not apply to dividing bills for referral to committee.

Standing Order 69.1(1) gives the Speaker the authority to divide, for voting purposes, the questions at second and third reading of a government bill if that bill touches on more than one act and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions. There is, however, an exception for budget implementation acts. Standing Order 69.1(2) reads as follows:

The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

Therefore, the Chair must first determine whether these measures were announced in the November 2025 budget presentation or in the documents tabled with it. If they were not, the exception in Standing Order 69.1(2) does not apply, and the Chair may then consider whether the question should be divided for voting purposes. In this case, the Chair is satisfied that Bill C‑31 has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget.

The Chair has reviewed the passages in the 2025 budget document brought to the House's attention by the parliamentary secretary. Page 100 of the 2025 budget indicates the government's plan to stimulate investment in airports and ports. While investment in airports may well have some effect on air travel complaints, the Chair is of the view that an air travel complaints regime, as proposed in part 4, division 17, is a new matter unrelated to this section of the budget document.

Page 218 of the document describes administrative monetary penalties and fines for violations of certain legislation or regulations and mentions air passenger rights as one such example. In effect, part 4, division 17, of Bill C-31, in clauses 351 to 353, amends sections of the Canada Transportation Act that appear under the heading “administrative monetary penalties”. The Chair agrees with the parliamentary secretary that there is, to this extent, a connection between the budget document and some clauses in this division of the bill.

The Chair has two reservations about considering this a sufficient connection, however. First, the policy announcement on page 218 of the budget document concerns the review of fines and penalties, the result of which is to be announced in budget 2026. Second, and more significant, in the Chair's view, part 4, division 17, is broader in substance, introducing new mechanisms for the management of air travel complaints and changes to the related regulatory regime not substantially related to the contents of the budget document. Moreover, as the parliamentary secretary noted, these more detailed proposals were subsequently announced in the 2026 spring economic update.

As my predecessor observed in a ruling on January 30, 2024, at pages 20323 and 20324 of the Debates, the budget presentation and economic statements are related but distinct concepts. The exception in Standard Order 69.1(2) is limited to budget implementation bills where the provisions were announced in the budget presentation and related documents. The exception, therefore, does not apply to measures newly announced in an economic statement.

Accordingly, the absence of these measures from the budget presentation or its related documents allows the Chair to now consider whether the question can be divided for the purpose of voting. In analyzing the relevant parts of the bill, the Chair finds that the provisions of Bill C‑31 amending the Canada Transportation Act do indeed constitute a distinct legislative proposal. However, while the Standing Orders authorize the Chair to divide the question for voting purposes, they do not authorize the Chair to refer different parts of the bill to different standing committees, as the member for Mirabel requested.

Consequently, as a reasoned amendment has been moved, three votes will be held at second reading for Bill C-31. The first will deal with the reasoned amendment. If it is negatived, a second vote will deal with part 4, division 17 or clauses 339 to 364, and a third vote will deal with all remaining provisions of the bill. The adopted measures will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance unless the House orders otherwise.

I thank all members for their attention.

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

I wish to inform the House that, because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, Government Orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from May 29 consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite asked about the Red Seal program, which, I would note, was brought in by a Conservative prime minister, John Diefenbaker, who brought the provinces together to recognize credentials across Canada, which is, of course, something that the Liberal government is currently having some trouble with around being able to ship wine across provincial borders.

Frankly, we had proposed expanding the Red Seal program to include a blue seal program so we could get medical personnel and health care workers out of taxis and into positions where they could serve Canadians. I would say that, of course, we support the expansion of the Red Seal program to also include a blue seal program.

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

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that within the budget, we actually have an allocation to support Canada's Red Seal program. We are talking about anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal workers and skilled jobs, good quality jobs.

The Conservative Party has not been clear on whether or not they will even support it. They appear to be in opposition even to that measure. I am wondering if the member can be precise and indicate that she will support that program by supporting the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, of course, we support the Red Seal program. The issue is that it is one thing buried in a 330‑page bill that we have only had three and a half hours to debate, and which this government has just tried to shut down further debate on.

The challenge is that we have already seen bills come through with sloppy drafting that infringe on the rights of Canadians. Unfortunately, we have to take the bill as a whole. I would also note that while the bill has provisions for a Red Seal program, it is not expanded to a blue seal program that would allow professionals to get into positions where they could practise their professions in Canada.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, if there is only a minute left, I wanted the member to have the time, if she has something further to add to the previous intervention or anything that was missed so far.

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

Madam Speaker, the big challenge is that we have had three and a half hours to debate 330 pages. Especially at this time when Canadians are struggling, it is obligatory upon us to give them the time that they deserve.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on the budget bill today. It is also a pleasure for me that my second daughter, Lilly, is on the Hill today. It is great to have her here with us, and having my kids with me always reminds me how blessed I am. My kids really are the perfect combination. They have my wife's beauty, my wife's intelligence and my wife's personality. That is the ideal combination, and I am sure members would agree.

However, it is also when thinking about my children that I think about the future of this country and the kind of future we are building for them as they grow up, as they think about the jobs and opportunities they have and as they think about what they will be able to pass on materially, as well as the kind of quality of life they will be able to have more broadly. I think for many members, providing a better life for our children is a powerful motivator of the work that we do.

Taking that perspective, it is very troubling to regularly hear about the challenges young people are facing in this country, such as the fact that we continue to have this youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment is at 14.3%. Young people are frustrated by their inability to find jobs, their struggles to find jobs in their fields and the lack of action by the government. The government has no plan to address the youth unemployment crisis. We hear its members re-announcing existing programs that have already existed for a long time, but there is no plan to meet the new challenges, which in so many ways are the results of their policies.

Last fall, Conservatives put forward a constructive plan to address the youth unemployment crisis with very simple, specific interventions that aligned very much with what young people are asking for, what the business community is asking for and with what our country needs. Our plan is to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are.

Unleashing the economy means addressing the fact that so much unemployment for young people is a result of businesses struggling to start, to grow and to expand. When businesses are optimistic about the future, they hire more young people because they are planning for growth. When businesses are more pessimistic about the future, young people are more likely to be let go, because it tends to be last in and first out when it comes to young people on the work site. If someone is worried about the future of their company, they are not going to fire the long-tenured employees first; it is going to be those newer hires who are going to be let go.

Also, when small businesses are under pressure, it is harder for them to invest in training and supports. Of course, when giving someone their first job, a lot of businesses want to be able to help young people adjust to the workforce, but training, investment and costs are associated with that. When a business is so close to the margin, it is very hard to do that. As such, we need to create a climate in this country where small businesses in particular can start and grow and, therefore, be able to hire young people. That is what unleashing the economy is about.

Number two is fixing immigration. A poorly designed immigration system under the Liberal government has led to intensified competition for entry-level positions. Newcomers who have not had their credentials recognized are competing against young people who are just starting out. We should have an immigration system that is aligned with the needs and interests of Canada and that identifies specific skill gaps while we, at the same time, try to train Canadian workers to fill those skill gaps to where the numbers are proportionate to what our country can actually handle. That is unleashing the economy and fixing immigration.

Number three is fixing training. There has been a significant problem in this country with a misalignment between the training young people receive and what the labour market is actually looking for. A big part of that is our push to recognize the value of vocational training and the value of trade skills. University is a great path for some people, but it is not the path for everyone. There are many folks in this country who have pursued a vocational or trade path, have been extremely successful with that and are actually earning more and enjoying a higher standard of living than those who have pursued university degrees.

We proposed this pillar of fixing training as part of our youth jobs plan, where we said that we should offer relatively more generous grants to those pursuing in-demand skills. The Liberals went in the opposite direction. In their last budget, they removed funding for students at private vocational institutions. For them, I think it was sort of an ideological thing about wanting to go after students who are seeking grants at private institutions, but really, it is not about private versus public; it is just about the fact that this is where these skills are offered.

There are certain kinds of skills that, if people want to acquire that specific vocational skill, they cannot do it at a university or are much less likely to find a program of study at a university. There are many kinds of skills, with the way our post-secondary system is structured, that are learned at a private institution, yet, the government is going after and defunding the students who are studying at those kinds of institutions.

Our proposal is to unleash the economy, fix immigration and training, and build homes where the jobs are. We need to do more to support those young people, people of all ages, who are looking to relocate to find employment, because we have regions in this country of very high unemployment and regions of very low unemployment. One thing we proposed to help young people and others relocate to find those opportunities is to offer an accelerated capital cost writeoff for employers who are investing in workforce housing to try to remove a barrier that exists that maybe makes it more difficult for young people and others to relocate for those job opportunities.

It is a very simple plan that we put forward last fall to unleash the economy, fix immigration and training, and build homes where the jobs are. We put this forward wanting the government to implement it, yet in some areas that I have identified, the government is moving in the opposite direction. We continue to see no plan to address the youth unemployment crisis as part of this budget.

What are the effects of high youth unemployment? We have pressure on young people to get more credentials that may or may not align with the needs of the labour market. We have high youth unemployment. We have high housing costs. All of these things make it so much more difficult for young people to launch themselves into the world.

When it becomes harder for young people to launch themselves into adulthood, to find a job and to afford a home to finish their schooling, then they will potentially start hitting those key personal milestones later and later. This is a big contributing factor to the fact that, statistically, we now know that young people are having far fewer children than they tell pollsters they want to be having. In polls, on average, people say they want about 2.2 or 2.3 children, yet the real fertility rate is about 1.25, which means there is a major gap between the number of children people want to have and the number of children they are having.

I think a big part of this is just the challenges in getting started in life, in being able to hit those key personal milestones as early as they might want to, because it is so hard to afford a home and get a job. This has long-term effects on people's desires for a family not being realized. It also impacts the fact that we have an aging population with not as many workers contributing to the system to provide for the benefits our seniors, who have worked so hard and would like to see available to them. There are consequences down the line with respect to these problems impacting the challenges young people have launching themselves into adulthood.

We have also put forward constructive plans to not only make it easier for young people to get into the workforce earlier, but also make it easier for young families to achieve their goals with respect to the number of children they want to have. We have proposed significant reforms to parental leave to make it easier for people who are working to balance work and family life. We have proposed, for instance, more flexible parental leave to allow people to pause and then resume parental leave. We have proposed allowing more learning on leave, so that a person who is on parental leave could always study and take university, trades or other kinds of courses while they are on parental leave. We have also proposed an exception to clawbacks to allow parents to earn income for caregiving while they are off watching their own children. These changes would make it easier for young families to achieve the goals they want and find a good balance between work and family life.

As I have demonstrated, Conservatives are laser-focused on trying to make life better, especially for those who are starting out, for young people and those who are trying to start families and are struggling to hit those initial milestones that would allow them to launch themselves well into their dreams, both with respect to work and family life. We are proposing constructive proposals to try to address these challenges and would really like to see the government adopt some of those constructive proposals that we have put on the table. We would like to see it take ideas from our Conservative youth jobs plan. We would like to see it take some of the ideas from our proposal on parental leave reform, making it easier to balance work and family life. We have asked the government to implement these proposals.

On Friday, in question period, I asked the government whether it would consider implementing some of our proposals for parental leave reform. We did not get an answer. The government simply came back with partisan insults. I would encourage its members to have a look at the constructive proposals we are putting forward and include them in our budget. Maybe if it did not shut down debate after three and a half hours, we would have more time to get through these constructive suggestions and put forward more of these ideas to make our country better.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. He is asking us to consider the Conservatives' proposal. I have a question for him.

Budget 2025 includes measures such as increased defence spending, a greater focus on reducing emissions through incentives for the private sector, and a cap on federal government operating expenditures, measures that Conservative politicians have long claimed to support.

I would like my colleague opposite to tell me whether he will support the budget implementation bill, which will help support the defence industry and economic development here in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, that question did not relate to the specific budgetary policies that I discussed in my speech at all. I will just say in response that government members are eager to congratulate themselves at every turn.

Canada is in a recession right now. We are the only G7 country in a recession. I would like to see a little more humility from government members and their taking stock of the fact that their policies have led us here and of the challenges young people are experiencing.

I think we need a stronger national defence. I think we need control in our budget policy. I will believe the results when we see the results. Right now, what we are seeing is recession and continuing challenges, especially for those who are just starting out, young people and young families, who are trying to get ahead.

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

Madam Speaker, the member spoke to one aspect of the 330‑page bill, which has 16 divisions plus the Defence Investment Agency. He was just asked a question about a different part, presumably, of the bill.

Could my colleague speak to the difficulty for members of the House to be able to address the bill in a meaningful way when we have only had three and a half hours of debate, and the government is trying to shut down debate on it, given the complexity and the length of the bill?

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

Madam Speaker, I would have been happy to speak for three and a half hours on the bill myself, there is so much in it. I am sure members across the way would have enjoyed that opportunity.

The government is using its majority in pernicious ways right now, and we have seen it. The previous reality of a minority Parliament was forced negotiation among parties, and we got a lot done under minority conditions. There were many cases in which Conservatives agreed to expedite certain ideas. We saw a lot of productive action at committees as well as in the House, but it required some back-and-forth. Then the government took its majority through admittedly unscrupulous means, twisting the arms of various people to get them to completely abandon all of their previous convictions. Now the Liberals are using this majority to shut down debate. They are using this majority to gut the good work done at committee.

For instance, the Liberals' first action as a majority was to undo good work done at committee on protecting victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military. Great work was done across parties at committee, and then the government immediately undid all of that work to make things less safe for those victims. It failed to respond to what they asked for. Now we have this massive budget implementation act where, again, the government is bringing down its fist of a majority to undermine the good, collaborative work that could have happened, which used to happen in this place.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about youth. When we take a look, back in 2012, youth unemployment was at 14.3%, which is the same percentage it is at today. If we do the comparison, we are actually investing, whether it is in the summer youth program or the Red Seal program. Back then, the Conservatives did nothing.

I am wondering why the Conservatives did nothing when they had to face the same youth unemployment rate that we are facing today. Why should we listen to them today when they were such a disaster when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting around the cabinet table back then?

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

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does not know what he is talking about, which is often true, but it is especially true in this case.

Just to pick one example, the member says that Conservatives did nothing on the trades program and to look at the Liberals because they brought in these completion grants. However, the Conservatives brought in completion grants for the trades in 2009. We introduced, in our first budget in 2006, grants for trades workers. The Liberals cancelled those grants, but then reannounced that they were going to bring them back. It is pretty rich for them to say that the Conservatives did nothing when all the Liberals have done is announce the return of a program they—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles has the floor.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the spring 2026 economic update. At a time when many families are still feeling the strain of the cost of living, it is essential that our government continue to act in a responsible, practical and compassionate manner.

In Rosemère, Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Deux-Montagnes, the people I represent are very clear about their concerns. They talk to us about grocery prices. They talk to us about housing. They tell us about their children. They also tell us about their aging parents. They tell us about their small businesses, their jobs, their retirement and their ability to make ends meet. These concerns are real, and they must guide our work here in the House of Commons.

The spring economic update proposes measures designed specifically to address these realities. It proposes measures to make life more affordable, support housing construction, help workers and strengthen our economy. It also recognizes the importance of investing in communities, families, seniors, women and young people. I do not believe that an economic update should just be a series of numbers.

Behind every policy, there are people. A family in Boisbriand is looking for a bigger home. A young couple in Deux-Montagnes wants to buy their first home. A senior in Rosemère wants to continue living with dignity in their community, and a business owner in Saint-Eustache wants to keep their employees and grow their business.

These are the people we all need to work for.

I want to begin by talking about the cost of living. Families across the country are facing tough choices. Prices have gone up, budgets are tight and people want to know that their government is there for them. Support measures for groceries and essentials are important because they provide direct support to the people who need it most. This support may appear modest to some, but for a family that has to watch every penny, for a single person, a single mother or a senior on a fixed income, it can make all the difference. Affordability must remain a top priority.

Housing is a major issue. My riding is home to some beautiful communities. As I said earlier, Rosemère, Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Deux-Montagnes are places where people want to live, work, raise their children and age in place near their loved ones. For that to remain possible, we need more housing. We need housing that is accessible to everyone: young families, seniors and single people.

We also need to work with the Government of Quebec, the municipalities, organizations and the private sector. The federal government cannot do it all on its own. It is by working with the municipalities, provinces and territories that we can build a stronger Canada. However, the federal government has an important role to play in speeding up construction, supporting partners and contributing to practical solutions. We must build more housing, but we have to be smart about it and build it close to services and public transit.

Take, for example, the two stations located at either end of the Réseau express métropolitain, or REM. It is important that we build housing near this transit system. I believe it is open in Montreal's west end as well. We need to build housing while respecting the quality of life in our neighbourhoods. We need to build housing that meets current and future needs.

I also want to highlight the importance of supporting workers and businesses. SMEs play a vital role in Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. They create jobs, support families, contribute to our cities' vitality, sponsor our local events and bring our commercial streets to life.

However, they also face challenges: Operating costs are high, labour can sometimes be hard to find and investments are expensive. Entrepreneurs need stability and predictability. As my colleague for Lévis—Lotbinière would say, predictability in financial matters is important. Entrepreneurs also need measures that allow them to keep moving forward.

The economic update supports growth, productivity, training and investments. These are important priorities for Canada and for our local businesses. When a business in Boisbriand invests in new equipment, it is good for the local economy. When an SME in Saint-Eustache hires a young worker, it is good for the future. When a business in Rosemère makes it through a tough time, the entire community benefits.

I also want to talk about Quebec. Quebec has a strong, diversified and innovative economy. We have dynamic SMEs and qualified workers. We have strategic sectors, including clean technology, critical minerals, energy, construction and aerospace. They are found mainly in the Lower Laurentians, but also throughout the metropolitan area. The agri-food and agri-food processing industries are strongly represented in my riding, and the same is true of the AI industry in the Montreal area.

The economic update recognizes the importance of supporting major projects, training and supply chains. That represents significant opportunities for Quebec. However, economic development must always be carried out responsibly. We must respect communities and the environment. We must include indigenous people and create sustainable, high-quality jobs. That is how we will build an economy that is both strong and fair.

As chair of the women's caucus, where we have achieved 41% gender parity, I would also like to point out that economic decisions have very real impacts on women. When we talk about the cost of living, we are talking about women. When we talk about housing, we are talking about women. When we talk about food security, we are talking about women. When we talk about violence, health, safe sport, community services and support for families, we are also talking about women.

Women are at the heart of our economy. They are workers, entrepreneurs, caregivers, heads of households, students and volunteers. They are leaders in our communities. We must therefore ensure that our economic policies reflect their reality. A single mother looking for affordable housing, an elderly woman living alone, an entrepreneur wanting to grow her business, a young girl wanting to play sports in a safe environment, or a woman leaving a violent situation who needs a safe place: all these realities must be taken into account. It is a collective responsibility.

As members know, I am proud to represent Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I am proud to represent Rosemère, Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Deux-Montagnes in the House of Commons. These are strong, close-knit, and deeply compassionate communities with families that are community oriented, seniors who built our towns, young people eager to contribute, extraordinary community organizations, volunteers willing to give their time freely, and entrepreneurs creating jobs and local wealth. These people deserve a government that listens to them. They deserve a government that takes things seriously. They deserve a government that understands that the economy is not just about growth. The economy is about dignity, security, the ability to find housing, feed one's family, and have access to a good job. It is also about aging in good health and within one's community. It is the hope of building something better for our children.

I would like to add a point about international trade. I also have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on International Trade. Recently, we visited Brazil and Argentina. Even there, our Prime Minister's leadership resonates. People are still talking about his speech in Davos: “If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.” Just imagine, people in Latin America are still talking about it. Now I will be happy to answer my colleagues' friendly questions.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a few friendly questions for my colleague regarding what she said about women. The Bloc Québécois proposed several measures to help women, including the EI reform we have been waiting for for several—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Things seem to have quieted down now. The hon. member may continue her question.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a friendly question I would like to ask about women, and more specifically about EI reform, benefits for workers in seasonal industries and ending discrimination against seniors of all ages. We know that women, especially senior women, are more likely to find themselves in a precarious situation. There is also the whole issue of health transfers. We know that many women work in health care and that the government has decided to continue cutting health transfers.

Why were these constructive proposals on areas that fall under the federal government's jurisdiction not taken into account in the drafting of the budget or even in the recent economic update?

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that certainly is a friendly question. When we talk about women, we are talking about more than half of Canada's population. On this side of the House, we are particularly mindful of that. Together, we are working very hard to advance the women's agenda alongside our male allies and ensure that women are considered in all decisions.

We have a plan to invest money in housing to ensure that women can escape unsafe homes where gender-based violence occurs. We are making sure that women are included everywhere. When we talk about the cost of groceries, women are generally the ones who handle the food budget. I used to be a grocer. My dad and I used to have a few grocery stores. It is mainly women who do the grocery shopping, and they are the ones who are affected first. Senior women often live longer than men, and they end up alone and facing more difficulties. The help we will be giving to pay for groceries will help these people, especially those living alone.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There will be about two and a half minutes remaining for questions and comments later on.

We must now move on to Statements by Members.

Pride Month

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, happy Pride Month. This month, we celebrate the joy, courage and resilience of queer, trans and two-spirited communities across Canada.

Pride is a celebration, but it is also a protest. It was born from people standing up and demanding dignity, equality and freedom to live openly as themselves. That is why I am especially proud to congratulate Pride Corner in my constituency. For five years, Pride Corner has rejected hate and brought people together in community and joy.

To every queer, trans and two-spirited person in this country, they are loved, they belong and they are not alone. Happy Pride Month. Be proud, be loud and let us keep fighting for a better future for all.

World Milk Day

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is June 1, World Milk Day.

It is an opportunity to recognize the work of dairy farmers who feed our families and sustain our regions. In the Eastern Townships and across Canada, the dairy industry is at the heart of the regional economy.

Behind every glass of milk, there are families who work seven days a week, innovate and contribute to our food security.

Our dairy producers also play an important role in making sure that Canadians have access to a stable, high-quality local food supply.

Today, I invite all of my colleagues to raise a glass of milk in recognition of the farmers, workers and families behind this important industry.

I want to say thank you to all those who contribute to this vital industry and wish them a happy World Milk Day.

Seniors

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the beginning of Seniors Month in Ontario, as well as the beginning of Seniors' Week in Alberta and British Columbia.

As the Conservative shadow minister for seniors, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the seniors who built this country. They are seniors who worked hard, paid their dues, raised families and helped shape the communities we all rely on today.

As we commemorate this month of recognition, rising costs continue to surpass seniors with limited incomes. Many seniors are worried about the cost of housing, groceries and being able to live independently in their own home. Seniors deserve real action that restores affordability and respect for the contributions they have made.

I also want to acknowledge the caregivers, volunteers and community organizations across the country that continue to step up.

To the seniors from coast to coast to coast, we honour and thank them for all of their contributions to our country.

East Coast Music Awards

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the Cape Breton artists who took home honours at the 38th East Coast Music Awards last week in Sydney, Cape Breton.

Goldie Boutilier, of Reserve Mines, had a historic week, winning album of the year, breakthrough artist of the year and rock/alternative release of the year. Morgan Toney, from We’koqma’q, won both the indigenous artist of the year and the fusion release of the year, and Elyse Aeryn of Glace Bay, my hometown, claimed release of the year.

The Barra MacNeils received the Dr. Helen Creighton Lifetime Achievement Award. Emily Dingwall received the musician's achievement award. Nik MacDonald received artist management of the year. Joseph Parris received the Bucky Adams Memorial Award. Donnie MacNeil received the technical excellence award. The Celtic Colours International Festival won event of the year. The late Laura Mercer received the Stompin’ Tom Award.

Cape Breton was not just the host for the ECMAs. We are its heart.

Shomrim Toronto

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize an extraordinary demonstration of community strength right here in Canada.

When a young girl went missing in north Toronto, Shomrim Toronto, a volunteer community safety and security organization, mobilized immediately. Shomrim coordinated its members alongside local law enforcement, community organizations and thousands of residents who answered the call without hesitation. They were strangers who dropped everything to help. The young girl was found safe, and we send our deepest thanks to everyone who helped.

What unfolded over those first critical hours, days and weeks is a testament to their professionalism and compassion. They are ordinary people working around the clock for days and weeks. That is a testament to their professionalism. It is not just a supplement to public safety, but an essential pillar of it, and we should recognize that.

Shomrim Toronto deserves the full recognition of the House. This year, it will receive a community heroes award. Those who know Shomrim's value understand it is as sacred as the life and universe it helped save this time and every time before it.

Housing in Whitby

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for 46 families in Whitby, the hope of owning an affordable home is becoming a reality. That dream is being realized thanks to the work of Habitat for Humanity GTA. I was honoured to be there to break ground on Hickory Street in downtown Whitby for a project that will provide families a safe and stable place to grow and put down roots in the community they love.

This milestone proves what is possible when governments, community leaders, local partners, volunteers and future homeowners all pull in the same direction. Through the housing accelerator fund, as well as the new HST relief on new home purchases across Ontario, our new government is helping Whitby unlock land, cut red tape and build more homes for families in need.

We believe everyone deserves more than a roof over their head. They deserve a place to truly call home, and that is exactly what we are delivering with this project.

Prime Minister of Canada

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals on the ethics committee are blocking transparency around the Prime Minister's ethics screen. The screen was mandated by the Ethics Commissioner because of the Prime Minister's vast conflicts. Canadians deserve to know how the screen is working, including instances in which potential conflicts are flagged but the Prime Minister's advisers decide against activating the screen.

It is precisely those records that the Liberals are hiding from Canadians. The question is why. Is it because those records would show that the Prime Minister is involved in making decisions on matters in which he has a conflict of interest?

Enough of the stonewalling. The Prime Minister needs to come clean, and he needs to come clean today by releasing all records related to the application of his ethics screen.

Writer from South Shore—St. Margarets

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable achievement by a talented writer in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. Darcy Rhyno from Little Harbour has been honoured in the Canadian chapter of the Society of American Travel Writers awards, earning three distinctions for his outstanding storytelling.

First, he received bronze for the best service story for his piece highlighting a geocaching project that brings African Canadian history to life in Shelburne County. He earned silver for the best Canadian story for his exploration of Anticosti Island. Finally, he won a bronze for the best international story for his travel feature on cycling around Lake Constance in Europe.

These awards are a testament not only to Darcy's talents, but to his ability to share meaningful stories. His work helps shine a light on history, culture and place, and it also reflects the creativity and excellence found in our region.

Golden Wedding Anniversary

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in March 1974, a 16-year-old girl from a Polish immigrant family went on a school trip to Greece. She was an adventurer with no fear. On that trip, she met a 19-year-old Dutch boy, also from an immigrant family. Back home, he asked her out on their first date and took her to the boys' athletic club, of which he was the president.

Even though he taught her how to drive a motorcycle, her parents approved of the nice Dutch boy. She graduated high school in June 1976 and two weeks later, on July 10, they were married. From starting out farming Dutch sets together and losing their entire crop to later farming with her family, they built a produce farm that became the first farm in Canada to market many potatoes. They raised three children on their own and then welcomed a fourth when he was 14. They volunteer in churches and are an example of putting faith first in all they do.

This incredible couple, Diane and Theo Rood, are celebrating 50 years of marriage on July 10. It is a milestone we seldom see. I am incredibly proud to call them Mom and Dad.

I thank them for their support and for always being an example of faith, family and love. Jeremy, Anna and I love them.

Congratulations, and happy 50th anniversary, Mom and Dad.

World Milk Day

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us all raise a glass today in honour of World Milk Day.

Today is a reminder of how important dairy farmers and processors are. Lucky for us, we have dairy farmers in almost every region of Quebec. The dairy sector is a major driver of rural development, employment and the vitality of our regions and local economies. Consequently, continuing to protect supply management is essential to ensuring stable incomes, supporting the next generation of farmers, preserving family farms and offering high-quality products that are among the best in the world. On this World Milk Day, I want to sincerely thank those who feed us with passion and make us proud.

As I conclude, I want to point out that we need to think about Alto. We need to consider how it will impact agricultural land and the fact that it is putting nearly 1,700 properties at risk of expropriation. We are talking about 50 farms, many of which are dairy farms. This must be taken seriously if we want to protect our production capacity, our food security and the mental health of our farmers.

Canadian Victoria Cross

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on April 15, I had the honour of presenting petition e-6661 to the House of Commons. Since then, nearly 65,000 letters of support have been received, adding to the tremendous backing reflected in the petition.

In addition, unanimous motions of support have been adopted by the provincial governments of Alberta and New Brunswick, joining similar motions previously passed in Saskatchewan, Ontario and Nova Scotia. Together, these provinces represent nearly 60% of Canada's population.

I would like to thank all those who have expressed their support, including the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Senate of Canada. In this context, it was encouraging to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence state on Friday that the government supports “the establishment of an independent military honours review board”. This board will re-examine the files of deserving Afghanistan veterans when new evidence suggests they meet the criteria for the Victoria Cross.

I would like to thank everyone who supported this petition.

The Economy

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is in a recession. It is a distinction no other G7 nation shares. Despite facing the same international pressures as our allies, including American tariffs and global energy constraints, Canada stands alone in this regard. The government needs to take a hard look at why.

In fact, the Liberal government routinely claims that Canada has the best tariff deal in the world with the U.S. Just last week, appearing before a committee, the Minister of Finance stated that Canada has one of the lowest tariff rates overall, so why is Canada in a recession?

Poor domestic policy has driven a $20-billion loss in net investment over the past year, the loss of more than 100,000 jobs in the last three months alone and inflationary spending that continues to drive up the cost of living. I urge the Liberal government to recognize the gravity of the situation and take the necessary steps to pull Canada back from the brink of economic calamity.

Claude Lemieux

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with heavy hearts we learned of the sudden passing of Claude Lemieux at age 60.

Born in Buckingham, my riding, Mr. Lemieux's talent, determination and immense love of competition left a mark on hockey in Quebec, Canada and around the world. Drafted by the Montreal Canadiens, he helped his team achieve a Stanley Cup victory in 1986. I was there. He stood out as one of the greatest playoff competitors of his generation. Over the course of his brilliant career, he won four Stanley Cups. He gained a reputation as a player who could rise to the occasion in the toughest moments and turn games around.

Quebec has lost one of its greatest sports ambassadors, a man who inspired generations of young hockey fans with his dedication and perseverance. On behalf of all Quebeckers and Canadians, and on behalf of the constituents of Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, I offer my sincerest condolences to Claude Lemieux's family and loved ones, and to his extended family of Montreal Canadiens.

The Economy

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians he had a plan, but he did not say his plan was to plunge Canada into a recession.

Every G7 country is facing global instability, economic headwinds and tariffs, but Canada stands alone as the only G7 country in a recession. Canada stands alone as the only G7 country whose economy has contracted in three of the last four quarters. Canada stands alone in a recession because of Liberal policies that have stalled our economic engines, like natural resources, agriculture and manufacturing.

There are consequences, as more than 100,000 Canadians have lost their jobs over just the last few months. Canadians have already suffered through the lost Liberal decade. They do not need any more economic mismanagement, deficit spending and high taxes. Canadians want answers, not photo ops. That is why Conservatives are asking the Prime Minister to hold an emergency debate on this economic crisis, which his government has caused.

World Milk Day

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate World Milk Day today, on June 1, I rise to recognize the hard-working dairy farmers who have helped feed our country and strengthen our communities. Having spent most of my life as a dairy farmer in Little Pond, Prince Edward Island, this day holds special meaning to me.

Canada's dairy sector includes more than 9,000 farms and supports over 270,000 jobs in communities across our country. Our supply-managed dairy sector helps provide something no other country can give us: the ability to feed ourselves. At a time of increased global uncertainty, our food sovereignty has never been more important, so today, I invite all Canadians to raise a glass to our dairy farmers and thank them for the important role they play in our communities and our economy.

I am proud to be a Canadian dairy farmer, the son of a dairy farmer and the father of another.

The Economy

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has entered a recession, the only country in the G7 to do so. Our economy has shrunk three out of the past four quarters, but what does this mean?

This means jobs are at risk, paycheques do not go as far, housing is out of reach and one in four Canadians are now food-insecure. We have neighbours who are saying that they are leaving our country in search of better opportunities elsewhere, yet, this Liberal Prime Minister says that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. I hate to break it to him, but Canadians do not get to blow $200,000 worth of inflight catering on the taxpayer credit card like he does. Canadians deserve fiscal responsibility today, where every tax dollar taken from them is respected.

Conservatives are committed to cutting taxes, removing red tape and ending wasteful spending to finally get Canada building, hiring and growing.

Jean Augustine

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a true mother of Confederation, the Hon. Jean Augustine.

Jean is in Ottawa today to receive the Pearson Laureate Award, its highest honour, joining such past honourees whose leadership has helped make Canada a better country, including Jean Chrétien, Joe Clark and Irwin Cotler.

Born in Grenada, she emigrated to Canada in 1960 under the West Indian domestic scheme, the same scheme under which my mother came to Canada. She worked in education, and later served on the founding committee to organize Caribana, now known as the Toronto Caribbean Carnival.

Jean Augustine was the first Black woman elected to the House of Commons in 1993, and became the first Black woman to serve in a federal cabinet. She introduced the motion to recognize February as Black History Month. She also introduced a motion to have the Famous Five monument erected on Parliament Hill.

On behalf of the entire House, I would like to salute Jean Augustine for her life of public service, and thank her for helping make Canada the modern and inclusive country we enjoy today. I hope all members will join us this evening—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, G7 countries are all facing tariffs and global economic impacts. However, Japan is not in recession. The United States is not in recession. The United Kingdom is not in recession. France, Italy and Germany are not in recession.

Why is Canada, under the Liberal Prime Minister, the only country in recession?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, we are currently managing a tariff war, with an economy that is much more integrated with that of the United States, and my colleague across the way knows that very well.

One thing is clear, though: We are creating jobs in the meantime. We have also been able to attract jobs in a number of sectors in our economy. I will give some examples: 3,000 jobs thanks to the agreement with Saab and Bombardier to develop a surveillance aircraft; 350 new jobs at the Kruger plant, in Trois‑Rivières; and 250 new jobs at MDS Coating Technologies, in Prince Edward Island.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Mexico also shares a border with the United States and is also facing a trade war but it is not in a recession. In North America, only Canada is in recession.

That is not all. Mortgage delinquencies are up a third compared to last year and are at a 17‑year high. In addition, Canadian households are the most indebted in the G7. Today, Food Banks Canada published a report in which it gave Canada a failing grade, stating that a quarter of Canadians are food insecure.

Why is Canada the only country in a recession?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague just said, we are facing a tariff situation that is unfair and unjustified in light of our free trade agreement with the United States.

We have another opportunity this week to discuss this agreement with U.S. representatives. However, at the same time, we are not sitting idly by. We are protecting Canadian workers, we are protecting Canadian industries and we are working with the provinces to ensure that we can support these industries in a positive way. In the meantime, we are building Canada.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the group of seven industrialized nations all face tariffs and global economic forces. However, Japan is not in recession. The United States is not in recession. The United Kingdom is not in recession. France is not in recession. Germany is not in recession. Italy is not in recession. The only G7 country in recession is Canada.

Why is it that Canada, under this Liberal Prime Minister, is the only G7 country in a recession today?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should do his economic homework. He should understand that Canada is the country most integrated with the United States in the world. The United States has declared a trade war on us. This side of the House understands that. We will control what we can control.

That is why we are building four new mines at Red Chris. That is why we are building new pipelines under Sunrise. That is why we are building four new mines in Saskatchewan, including a uranium mine, a potash mine and a copper mine.

The Conservatives should start to understand economics and try to help build this country instead of tearing it down.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Mexico shares a border with the United States and is as integrated with the U.S. as we are and Mexico is not in a recession. In all of North America, only Canada is in a recession.

Not only that, but since this Liberal Prime Minister took office, he has lost 46,000 jobs, 112,000 in the last three months alone. We have the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, a third higher than the rate in the U.S. The economy has contracted three of the last four quarters. Over $20 billion of net investment has fled the country. There have been five consecutive quarters of investment dropping. Mortgage delinquencies are up a third at a 17‑year high.

Why are we the only country in a recession?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition should take note of some of the facts. For example, 3,500 jobs annually are being created with our joint support ships contract; 2,300 jobs to produce our AOP ships; 1,800 jobs for our fixed-wing search and rescue; 700 jobs for our remotely piloted aircraft system; and 5,300 direct jobs for our River class destroyers. The list is very long.

The Leader of the Opposition should stop running down Canada and join us in our efforts.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Liberal Prime Minister who is running down our economy and then running away from accountability for it. Where is he, anyway? It has been four days since Statistics Canada reported that Canada is the only G7 country in a recession, and the Prime Minister has not answered one question, not in the House, not from the media, not from anyone. This is the guy who said to hire him in a crisis. Well, now he has made a crisis. He has created the only G7 economy that is in a recession.

Instead of running away from accountability, why does the Prime Minister not run in here and do his job?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

That, I think, broke a rule. We are implying that somebody is not in the House when they could be. I would warn members against doing that because at some point I might have to dock questions.

The Minister of Jobs and Families has the floor.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, when the global winds of uncertainty were blowing, what did this government do? We took immediate action to put things into place to protect workers if their jobs were threatened, if their economies were threatened or if their sector was threatened. Every time we take action to protect workers, these guys vote against it. Just recently, $6 billion to skilled trades workers, including apprentices in the pipeline right now, to help make sure they can complete their training and get those fantastic-paying jobs. These guys are ignoring the—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, with Canada being the only G7 country in a recession, there are very real human costs. Today those came to light as Food Banks Canada published a report giving the government a failing grade, indicating that one quarter of all Canadians now live in food insecurity. A quarter of food banks have actually run out of food in the last year.

What is a single mother who cannot afford groceries supposed to do when she gets to an empty food bank? How is she supposed to feed her kids?

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, yet again I think the Leader of the Opposition should read the entire report, because although people are of course struggling, in fact, what the national food bank said was that it is seeing some reasons for optimism because of the very things they have called for, like automatic tax filing, the introduction of the groceries and essentials benefits, expanded dental care and investments in child care, things they know are positive and bringing down the cost of living for Canadians. I will point out that the Conservatives voted against all those measures.

The Environment

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Liberals keep backtracking on environmental issues time and again. Their backtracking even led the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign.

Despite all this backtracking, the Liberals keep repeating that they will meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets. We are wondering how. That is why, last Thursday, the Bloc Québécois demanded to see the figures the Liberals are using as the basis for their claim that emissions will fall despite all the measures they have sacrificed. The minister did not have that data.

Now does she have the figures on the impact of the backtracking announced this year?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois likes to talk about backtracking, but perhaps we could focus more on the progress we have made.

What progress is that? I could talk about the tightening of methane regulations: That alone will reduce emissions by 400 megatonnes. I could talk about what we have done on the electricity front. In fact, we gave Hydro-Québec exactly what it asked for in order to have a stronger and more resilient electricity grid.

We are getting the job done and reducing emissions at the same time.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the minister still does not have the figures.

We want figures for this year, because this is the year the Liberals announced a new pipeline and new LNG projects, cut Alberta's industrial carbon price, scrapped the oil and gas emissions cap, suspended the clean electricity regulations, cancelled the carbon tax, and the list goes on.

Today, even though they do not have any figures measuring the impact of this backtracking, the Liberals keep insisting that they are going to meet their climate targets. How are we supposed to believe that?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to talk about lists, since apparently Bloc members like lists: I talked about strengthening methane regulations; I talked about working on the electrical grid. I could talk about what we are doing internationally: We are leaders in international climate finance.

If my colleague wants to talk about other things, we could talk about what we are doing for electric vehicles here in Canada. We are doing a lot of work. We are in favour of investments in clean technology. We are fighting climate change and we will keep on fighting.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's list did not even include the backtracking on environmental assessments, the protection of endangered species, and so on.

The Canadian Climate Institute says the government will not meet its climate targets. The Pembina Institute says the same thing. The former environment minister who resigned says the same thing, too. All we are asking the government is to provide evidence when it says it will meet its targets despite its backtracking.

It cannot.

Are the Liberals are not telling the truth? That is the only possible conclusion.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, if the Bloc Québécois wants to talk numbers, then let us talk numbers.

Thirty per cent of our lands and waters will be protected by 2030. We are investing $3.8 billion in the 2030 nature strategy. The clean energy tax credits requested by Hydro-Québec will benefit Quebec. We are providing up to $90 billion to electrify our grid, to benefit Hydro-Québec, and to build the future with Quebec.

Shall we talk numbers? The enhanced methane regulations will enable us to reduce methane emissions by 75% by 2030.

That is what climate action and environmental action are all about.

The Economy

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the grand illusionist, the Liberal Prime Minister, is the only leader in the entire G7 who has driven their economy into a recession. Liberals and their paid media want Canadians to believe this full-blown Liberal recession is just a technical one, but there is nothing technical about the single mom who is putting back groceries who just lost her job.

In fact, the Prime Minister lost 112,000 jobs in the first three months of this year and gave Canada the second-worst unemployment in the entire G7. If this truly is about global problems, why is Canada the only country in the entire G7 in a recession?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, although the Conservatives seem to want to celebrate it, we are in a trade war. We do face some headwinds.

Let us look at some economic facts. We have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7. Non-U.S. exports are on track to double over the next decade, foreign direct investment is at twice the rate of our nearest G7 peer, and we now rank as the most attractive country in the world for infrastructure investment.

On this side of the House, we are focused on building a strong economy for Canadians. The Conservatives are full of bluster, rhetoric and press conferences.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of the incompetent Liberal government, there is nothing left to celebrate. The single mom who lost her job has nothing to celebrate. The 2.2 million Canadians going to a food bank have nothing to celebrate. In five straight quarters, business investment has declined. In three out of the last four quarters, the economy has shrunk. Twenty billion dollars of investment has fled to the U.S. because of the incompetent Prime Minister since he took power.

Instead of trying to make America great again, why does he not tell us why Canada is the only G7 country in a recession today?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians had a choice. They elected a Prime Minister with world-class economic and business credentials.

We are going to build the strongest, most resilient economy in the G7. At home, we are investing. We are investing in infrastructure, defence and housing. We are cutting taxes. We are going to build a strong, resilient economy.

On that side of the House, it is nothing but empty parking lot press conferences, props, bluster and rhetoric.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. In Newfoundland and Labrador, parents are watching their children pack their bags to leave the province because the Liberal government is driving up the cost of living, killing opportunities and local jobs.

This is a full-blown Liberal recession. Statistics Canada has confirmed that in my province, one in 10 workers are unemployed. Nationally, insolvencies are at their highest level since 2009 and household debt is the worst in the G7.

If Canada's recession is just about global energy and tariffs, why is it that no other G7 countries are in a recession?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague across the aisle once again gets up and reads the same notes, I want to remind her that in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador, announcements made by this government are resonating. There is almost $1 billion for small craft harbours. Not only does this support the fishing sector, but it also creates jobs.

There was an announcement last week of $15 million, $5 million a year, for ghost gear retrieval. The call is out for communities in our province to also participate in this.

These programs are building economies, getting people working and growing Canada strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister can quote all the empty good-news Liberal promises she wants, but the real data has already arrived in Newfoundland and Labrador. The facts are already in, and they prove that we have the worst economy in the G7. While other nations grow, our economy is shrinking, and our young people are paying the price.

With one in 10 workers unemployed at home, skyrocketing consumer insolvencies across the country and increasing mortgage delinquencies, when will the Liberal Prime Minister stop quoting out-of-touch Liberal projections, face the facts of economic failure and fix the mess that he has created?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, here we go again with the feigned indignation. In actual fact, in our province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the apprenticeship program is investing in young people with Red Seal certifications and getting them to work on projects like Bay du Nord. Again, there is almost $1 billion for small craft harbours and getting people to work in rural communities.

Instead of reading tired notes, I encourage the member to actually speak to people in our province and find out how important these jobs are.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the last several months, the Liberals have repeatedly gaslit Canadians by repeating the PMO talking point that we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but the reality is we have the only shrinking economy in the G7. The Liberal Prime Minister was touted as some kind of an economic genius, but all he has delivered is a shrinking economy and 112,000 Canadians who have lost their full-time jobs this year.

If this is truly about global events, as the Liberals keep saying, why is Canada the only G7 country that is now in a recession?

[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)]

Mr. Speaker, we are learning in this House that just because Conservatives say things over and again with righteous indignation, it does not make it any more true.

Canada's economy is facing the headwinds that every other economy around the world is facing. The Bank of Canada governor came to the public accounts committee today and cautioned the Conservatives about taking one indicator over another and prioritizing it too much.

In reality, our economy is strong. It is projected to have the second-fastest growth. Our non-U.S. exports are up, foreign direct investment is at its highest point in almost 20 years, and wages have—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The member for Dufferin—Caledon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can say this. No Conservative will ever apologize for getting up and fighting against this bad Liberal government.

Let us talk about some numbers that the member says we are making up. According to Statistics Canada, 112,000 Canadians have lost their jobs this year. According to Food Banks Canada, 25% of Canadians are now food insecure. These are not fake numbers. The member should know that. These are real people who are suffering as a result of the Liberal government.

If it is all about external events, as the Liberals keep saying, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession? How about a real answer?

[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)]

Mr. Speaker, let me give the member a real answer. Canada's economy is strong and becoming more resilient under this government.

We will never apologize, on this side of the House, for being optimistic about the future we are building in this country, together with all Canadians, with generational investments in housing, infrastructure, defence, innovation and productivity. We are seeing the highest level of foreign direct investments in nearly two decades. That is good news. Canadians know it. We will continue building a stronger—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. People vote with their feet when they have no other way to vote, and investors vote with their dollars every single day. Right now they are voting against Canada. More than 112,000 jobs have disappeared in just three months. Behind every one of those jobs is a Canadian wondering how to pay the rent, buy groceries and keep the lights on.

If the Liberals insist this is all because of global conditions, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession? When will the Prime Minister admit that his policies have driven investment and jobs elsewhere?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, last year Canadian exports to non-U.S. markets grew by over 17%. Canada is expected to have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 this year and next, and in the first four months of this year alone, we landed over $10 billion in commercial deals. Over the past year, Canada has secured more than 20 economic and defence agreements across five continents.

Countries are choosing Canada. We are ranked the world's most attractive place for investment, and we will build—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals announced on Thursday that they were eliminating the Canadian consumer protection initiative.

That is a fund that supported research into things like the cost of living and competition. It would have gotten $7 million between 2025 and 2027. That is peanuts to a government that is handing out tens of billions of dollars to oil companies. However, losing that funding reduces our organizations' ability to work.

When it comes to consumer protection, why is the minister standing up for big business instead of Canadians?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, we are going to present a new vision for competition in Canada. Of course we believe in the importance of civil society for improving consumer protection. We are going to work with the organizations to ensure that they have access to funding, because their work is extremely important.

At the same time, we are going to work with the provinces and territories because we know that they are largely responsible for everything to do with consumer protection. In short, we will find a solution to this problem. I look forward to working on this issue with my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that is the case, because eliminating the Canadian consumer protection initiative will have no impact on public finances. It is a drop in the bucket.

Then again, eliminating it is quite a gift for large corporations that cut corners. The Liberals are preventing consumer protection agencies from investigating things like shrinkflation in grocery stores, contracts in the telecommunications and banking sectors, airline pricing practices, and the list goes on. They are literally helping large companies protect themselves from consumers who are well informed about their rights.

How can the minister justify that?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, of course we want consumers to be well informed about their rights. We also believe that we need to do more to encourage competition in the grocery sector, particularly in grocery stores and among all the big chains, as well as in the telecommunications sector, where we know that monopolies or oligopolies sometimes exist, which is problematic.

That is why we are going to take an extremely clear and aggressive approach to competition, while protecting organizations like Option consommateurs, which are also important to Quebeckers and Canadians.

The Economy

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession.

However, just a few days ago, the Prime Minister was bragging that Canada is the second-strongest economy in the G7. It is clear that he misled Canadians. Meanwhile, 112,300 jobs have been lost since the beginning of the year. Canada now has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. Other countries are facing the same tariffs and the same international crises.

Why is the Prime Minister the only G7 leader to have led his country into a Liberal recession?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues clearly explained, our government is working to protect the industries and workers who are facing unjustified tariffs from the United States. We are, of course, doing this with our partners in the provinces and territories.

In last year's election, Canadians gave us a mandate to build a more resilient economy and to pursue major projects for Canada's economic future. That is exactly what we are doing across the country. Canadians are proud of the Prime Minister's work.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right: The Liberals received a mandate, but they are not fulfilling their mandate.

The proof is that we are currently in a recession. Furthermore, the Prime Minister swore he was the only one capable of resolving the problem with Donald Trump. A year and a half later, absolutely nothing has been resolved. Meanwhile, 87,000 jobs were lost in Quebec during the first four months of 2026. Nearly half of those were lost in the construction and manufacturing sectors.

The Conservatives are requesting an emergency debate because we want to know what the plan is. Instead of listening to all sorts of nonsense, can we have an emergency debate to find out what the government's plan really is and see if we can help?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade]

Mr. Speaker, every parliamentarian can help the government and Canadians support industries and workers and come together to counter the tariffs imposed by the U.S. government. We are always looking for positive contributions from members of Parliament across the House of Commons and at the other place.

We are always happy to work with the member who asked this question, as well as with all of his colleagues in the opposition, because we are here to support Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the sad reality for Canadians is that Canada is in a recession.

Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Canada has the worst food inflation in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. That is the reality. That is the result of Canada's Liberal Prime Minister, who was supposed to be an economic magician. In the end, it is not working.

Why is the Liberal Prime Minister's Canada in a recession when the other G7 countries are not?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians know why. They are well aware that Canada's economy is one of the most highly integrated with the American economy and that we are facing headwinds and disruptions because of the illegal and unjustified tariffs imposed by the Americans.

That being said, the reason Canadians chose this government is because a lot of things remain within our control. For example, we can build one Canadian economy. That could potentially add $215 billion to the GDP. That is what we are doing. We can build major projects. Examples that come to mind include high-speed rail between Quebec City and Toronto, expanded port infrastructure and market diversification. That is exactly what we are doing to support Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is all well and good, but the problem is that it is not working.

One in three families is struggling to pay their mortgage every month. That is what the Liberal government has done to Canadians. Some 2.2 million Canadians are going to food banks every month. That is the way things are under the Liberal government and the economist turned Prime Minister. Some 112,000 jobs have been lost.

Every country in the world is facing economic crises and threats from Mr. Trump, so why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my previous response, the Canadian economy is far more integrated with that of the United States.

However, here is what I have noted when looking at the past year. As a result of government initiatives and efforts made by Canadians, we have increased our non‑U.S. exports by nearly 40% over the past year. That is a major shift. It is because we are signing trade agreements, security agreements and agreements on critical minerals around the world.

That is what Canadians expect. That is exactly what we are doing.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession.

The Liberal recession is not just a graph. It is parents standing silently in front of an empty fridge when the children ask what is for dinner. It is watching children go to school on an empty stomach when our food banks can no longer provide.

If the crisis is global, as the Liberal government claims, why are our communities the only ones suffering, unlike all the other ones in the G7?

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, “it is not working”. We hear that every day: “It is not working”.

However, in La Presse a few weeks ago, journalist Marie‑Eve Fournier quoted a research chair who said that it is working. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit is working. Food Banks Canada says that it is working.

We are working to help Canadians in their everyday lives. We are working to create jobs. That is true in my hon. colleague's riding. We are attracting investors. It is working. Just because other members say that it is not working does not mean that, in reality, Canadians are not behind us. They are there, and they support us.

Canadian Identity and Culture

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, known worldwide for its talent and creativity, Canada's cultural industry supports hundreds of thousands of jobs nationally and drives economic growth.

In 2023, China was Canada's fourth-largest creative export market. During the Prime Minister's visit to Beijing in January, Canada and China committed to advancing further opportunities for cultural exchanges and partnerships.

Can the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages please update the House about his recent trip to China?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, last week I was in Shanghai and Beijing to speak with my counterpart, the Minister of Culture and Tourism, notably to discuss the importance of our creative industries and our cultural exports. Together, we agreed to increase our exchange of cultural exports, specifically in the creative industries. I will be following that up in the fall with a proper trade mission focusing specifically on those important drivers of economic growth, our cultural industry, as well as the creative industry. This is really important as we diversify our economy.

The Economy

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession. The Prime Minister spent the last year creating new bureaucracies, racking up debt and refusing to repeal job-killing regulations. Food insecurity is up. Job losses are up. Income insecurity is up. Insolvencies are up, and housing remains unaffordable.

The rest of the world faces the same outside factors that this government is blaming for its failures. Why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

[Heath MacDonald, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes it would be a good question to ask some of the CEOs of these companies that are making massive investments in Canada, like Kraft Heinz investing $250 million in Montreal and Bayer investing $45 million in canola research in Winnipeg. A couple of weeks ago, I was at K+S Potash in Saskatchewan, which is investing $3 billion over 10 years. Cargill in Saskatchewan is investing $350 million in a new crushing plant, and Imperial Oil in Strathcona is investing in biofuels.

Are all these CEOs of these major international and national companies making a major mistake, or do they actually believe in Canadians like we do?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in Canadians. They can talk to CEOs. We are talking to Canadians.

This Canada-only recession means that there are three unemployed Canadians for every vacant job. It means that taxes, food, housing and other essentials now account for more than 100% of an average family's income.

Will this Liberal government admit today that its long-term, ongoing failure to build up Canada's economic resilience has driven Canada into the only G7 recession, apologize and implement the Conservative plan to unlock our resource wealth and make life affordable?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, our government has delivered real affordability measures, including cutting the gas excise tax, all while ensuring that we are reducing our projected deficit by more than $11 billion.

Our trade agreements have opened up preferential access to 1.5 billion consumers across 16 trade agreements, 51 countries and roughly two-thirds of global GDP. Those are the facts. Maybe opposition members could recognize truth when they see it.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. After two straight quarters of economic decline, the consequences are everywhere. One in four Canadians is food-insecure. Millions of people are struggling to put food on the table. Canadians are cutting back and lining up at food banks, yet reports of the Prime Minister's lavish catering and elite events continue to pile up. The Prime Minister spent more money on airplane food for three flights than the average family would spend on food for an entire decade.

How can the Prime Minister justify spending so lavishly while Canadian families are struggling to afford the basics?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake rose to ask the question. It is important for her to remind her constituents that we are investing between $3 billion and $4 billion in her riding. We are making massive investments in the base there. She knows so.

We also announced a very progressive move to procure the GlobalEye plane with Saab last week, with 3,000 new jobs in Canadian aerospace and defence and 22,000 jobs in Canadian multi-mission aircraft. The list goes on and on.

I know the Conservatives do not want to hear it. They are too busy running down this beautiful country.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Prime Minister continues to spend lavishly while Canadians struggle to put food on the table. After more than a decade of Liberal inflationary spending, Canadians are being stuck with the bill while government racks up debt and pays for luxury perks. Food Banks Canada's newest poverty report card warns that too many Canadians have incomes not meeting the cost of living and having a job is no longer a reliable path to stability. Let that sink in. Working Canadians now make up one in five food bank clients.

The Prime Minister says this recession is a result of global economic crisis and tariff problems. If that is true, why is there no other country in G7—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Secretary of State for Labour.

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Secretary of State (Labour)]

Mr. Speaker, we have Canada's first European LNG agreement, more than $30 billion in investments secured; the Nouveau Monde Graphite mine project in Quebec, over 1,000 new jobs, shovels in the ground; the Darlington new nuclear project, 18,000 construction jobs; the Contrecoeur port expansion, shovels in the ground; and 150 Airbus A220s, the largest order of Canadian-built aircraft in Canadian history.

As the Conservatives know, Canada is facing a trade war. We have a plan, and we are building.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Instead, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession: not a technical recession, a full-blown recession with two consecutive quarters of contraction. Since this Prime Minister took office, Canada has had three out of four quarters of contraction. While 2.2 million Canadians are at the food bank, this Prime Minister spends almost $200,000 on inflight catering on three flights. That $200,000 could feed 10 Canadian families for a whole year.

Will the Prime Minister own his economic failure, get a trade deal, build a pipeline and stop spending like a Liberal?

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

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has been clear: It is time to invest to build Canada strong.

I will point out that in that member's riding, that includes the Black Creek sanitary sewer, which will expand waste-water servicing capacity to the Black Creek watershed. This is just one of the many projects that we have under way to build Canada strong. We are investing in infrastructure, and we are investing in housing. We are making these important investments in communities across Ontario so that we can create jobs and economic prosperity for all Canadians.

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, lights are out on the north side of the House, no more excuses. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Where is the fastest-growing economy? Instead, we have the highest household debt in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment, and insolvencies are at the highest level since 2009. All these metrics got worse under this Prime Minister, but he continues to choke Canadian energy with his net-zero fantasy.

Will the Prime Minister take our advice, repeal his anti-pipeline laws, axe the industrial carbon tax and bring back Canada's economy?

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

Mr. Speaker, in every corner of this country, from coast to coast to coast, we are seeing work on incredible projects that strengthen our economy while creating good jobs: the expansion of the Port of Montreal, the Darlington nuclear facility, the Mersey River wind farm project in Nova Scotia, the Scarborough subway extension, the Hamilton LRT and the upgrade of the Cambie Street Bridge in Vancouver. We are investing in Canada to build Canada strong.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. Imagine hiring someone for a job and in the interview they said that they would give the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but they actually delivered the only economy in the G7 in a recession. It is the exact opposite result to the promise. What would be the consequence? I think accountability would be a good start.

Instead of taking accountability, though, the Liberals are blaming the tariffs. If this were true, then why is Canada the only country in the G7, with all facing tariffs, in a recession?

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to remind everyone that we are in a trade war with the United States. This does present unique challenges for our economy, which is why this government has taken action to help Canadians with affordability.

Notably, on Friday, 12 million Canadians will receive the groceries and essentials benefit. This is a $950 benefit for a single Canadian, over $1,200 for a couple and upwards of $1,800 for a vulnerable family of four. This will make a real difference for Canadians, and we are proud to support these commitments.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if these measures actually did anything for affordability, we would not have the lineups at the food banks that we are seeing. This exact program is going to reach fewer than half of Canadians out there who are working at jobs.

I am going to repeat the question. France is facing tariffs, Germany is facing tariffs, Italy is facing tariffs. Japan is facing tariffs. Why is Canada the only country in the G7 with our economy in a recession?

[Anna Gainey, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are working hard and this government is working hard for Canadians. We have taken real action on affordability. This includes making the national school food program permanent, which represents savings of up to $800 for a family with children in school. We have made investments in child care and dental care and continue to invest in the Canada child benefit.

We are there to support Canadians as they face affordability challenges and as we face this tariff war with the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is now the only G7 country in a homegrown made-by-Liberal recession. This must be the new world order the Liberal Prime Minister keeps bragging about. There have been two back-to-back quarters of negative growth and three contractions in the last four quarters. Food bank use has exploded nationwide and has doubled in just seven years. One in 10 in the GTA now relies on food banks, with a record 4.1 million visits just last year, more than quadrupling since 2019, and lower-income families spend over 100% of their income on essentials.

If this recession is really caused by tariffs and global energy problems, then why is no other G7 country in a recession?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, instead of cherry-picking data, maybe the member should listen to the Bank of Canada governor who said we should look at key indicators. We have the best net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 and the strongest fiscal position in the G7. The list goes on and on.

On this side, we are going to focus on building a strong economy. On that side, they continue with the rhetoric.

Indigenous Affairs

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, last month, a group of us met Joe, a long-haul truck driver in Kavvilihiktuuq, also known as Hope Bay. We learned that he and his family have been stewards of the land for generations. Inuinnait in the area continue to manage the area. They have determined and will continue to help govern decisions regarding economic potential.

The recent announcement of a new Inuit-led wind project at the Hope Bay mine shows what can be achieved through partnerships with Inuit organizations. Would the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources share how our government—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Nunavut for her important advocacy in the riding. Conservatives should start to listen to her a little more.

The Hope Bay project shows what we can accomplish when Inuit partners are at the table from the start. This $2‑billion investment will create jobs, generate economic opportunity and support long-term prosperity in Nunavut. Our—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There is some commotion. I do not know where it is coming from, but it is definitely in that corner.

We are going to have to start over, but we will wait until things settle down.

From the top, the hon. Minister of Energy.

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Hope Bay project shows what we can accomplish when Inuit are at the table from the start. This $2‑billion investment will create jobs, generate economic opportunity and support long-term prosperity for Nunavut. Our government's $25‑million investment in the Inuit-owned Hope Bay wind project will help reduce diesel use and improve energy security in the Arctic.

That is how we build Canada strong for all.

Justice

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant South—Six Nations, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the ugly face of Liberal weak-on-crime policy rears its head again. This time, a Toronto carjacker stole a $1‑million Ferrari at knifepoint, but, thanks to Liberal laws, he will serve the sentence in the comfort of his own home. This is the legacy of 11 years of Liberal weak-on-crime laws. The Prime Minister claims to be tough on crime, but Bill C-16 would undermine mandatory minimums with a get-out-of-jail-free card.

When will the Liberals get serious, take the crime crisis head-on and ensure that jail means jail for violent offenders?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, we have made more changes to the Criminal Code of Canada than any other government by strengthening bail provisions and lengthening sentences, and guess what, auto theft is down across this country due to the efforts we have made in resourcing, law enforcement, making sure our borders are stronger and catching criminals. I hope the other place will pass the bail and sentencing bill as soon as possible. We are also reinstating minimum sentences.

[Dalwinder Gill, Conservative, Calgary McKnight, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after 11 years of the Liberal government, violent crime is up 55%, gun crime is up 130% and extortion is up 330%. Weak-on-crime Liberal laws continue releasing violent repeat offenders back onto our streets, and families across our country are paying the price. In Calgary, families are being threatened with extortion and having their homes shot at almost every week.

When will the Liberal government get serious, take the crime crisis head-on and lock up repeat violent offenders and criminals?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, we have taken action and are seeing the results. Just recently, Peel Regional Police arrested over 17 individuals linked to extortion cases. That investigation took about eight months. We have brought lawful access legislation forward in the House. If the Conservatives had been on board and had helped us pass the legislation, that investigation would have only taken a month and we could have decreased the number of victims that the Conservatives are creating in this country.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my community is living in fear. Sadly, the Prime Minister is just another weak-on-crime Liberal. Every day extortion calls are coming in and houses and businesses are being shot at, and gangs are sending letters to the police bragging about having thousands of extortionists ready to commit crimes. Last week, the Liberals tried to boast that the Peel police busted 17 members of an extortion ring targeting businesses in Brampton, but half are already on Liberal bail.

When will the Liberal government get serious and ensure that violent repeat offenders are in jail?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, that is false. Half of those individuals are not on bail. We have changed provisions. We have made it so that people can be easily removed from this country. Many of those individuals are being removed and others are being charged and trials will be held. We have seen trials across this country in extortion cases, and people have received hefty sentences, but if our bail and sentencing bill is to pass, then the sentences will be even stiffer.

The Environment

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the newly announced Mia-yaltwa Ha’lidzogm hoon National Marine Conservation Area Reserve is a major step forward for marine conservation, indigenous stewardship and coastal communities in British Columbia.

Can the Minister of the Environment tell the House how this initiative will help protect our oceans while creating benefits for local and indigenous communities?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, last week, I was able to go to Klemtu in British Columbia's beautiful central coast, along with the MP for Vancouver Quadra, where we established Mia-yaltwa. It is a new marine conservation area reserve, the first under our nature strategy. It was established in partnership with six first nations and the Province of British Columbia, along with the federal government, and it is going to be conserving the sister to the Great Bear rainforest in the Great Bear Sea. It is larger than the island of Prince Edward Island. It is a beautiful place where we protect biodiversity, create economic opportunity and advance recognition.

The Economy

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. No matter how the Liberals spin it, this is a full-blown Liberal recession. Investment is leaving, jobs are disappearing and the economy has shrunk for two straight quarters. They can blame tariffs and global conflict, but every G7 country faces those pressures. In London, this comes as no surprise. London has been the canary in the coal mine. With unemployment at 9.2%, the worst in the country, Londoners saw the warning signs first. The Prime Minister can quote projections, but Londoners are living the reality.

Will the Prime Minister stop denying this recession and reverse the Liberal policies that caused it?

[Tim Hodgson, Liberal, Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, while they continue to run down Canada, what we are doing is building. We are building in Quebec with Nouveau Monde Graphite. We are building new nuclear right here in Ontario. We are building new mines in Thompson, Manitoba. We are building four new mines in Saskatchewan. We are building new pipelines in British Columbia and Alberta. We are building new mines and LNG in British Columbia. Maybe the Conservatives should start trying to help build this country instead of tearing it down.

Foreign Affairs

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada signed a police co-operation agreement with China behind closed doors. The RCMP reportedly revealed that Canada cannot publicly disclose details of the MOU without Beijing's approval. The foreign affairs minister said she spoke frankly with the Chinese foreign affairs minister about human rights abuses, foreign interference and transnational repression activities last week.

China has a history of weaponizing shared intelligence such as Operation Fox Hunt. Will the minister be frank with Canadians and tell us whether she asked China's permission to release the MOU, yes or no?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, let me be frank with this House and with Canadians: Canada has entered into MOUs with China with respect to combatting crime in various forms since 2010 and, as has historically been the case with this agreement, the advice of Canada's intelligence agencies is always followed.

I had a productive exchange with China's minister of foreign affairs regarding areas of mutual interest. I raised issues relating to transnational repression, human rights and security domestically. I will always stand up for Canadian values.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Jagrup Brar, Minister of Mining and Critical Minerals for the Province of British Columbia.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Motion

The House resumed from May 28 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Elimination of the Streaming Tax

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:13 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Lethbridge relating to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The question is as follows.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #129

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion defeated.

I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by another 12 minutes, for a total of 42 minutes.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 55 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the report later this day.

Justice and Human Rights

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would be honoured to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C-231, an act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent, I move that the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this day, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Iran

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions that I would like to present today.

The first petition is e-7157. It has been signed by 1,443 Canadians. These Canadians are alarmed by the fact that the Iranian regime is carrying out executions of political prisoners, protesters and Iranians who are exercising their fundamental freedoms. Detainees face imminent risk of execution after unfair trials, and petitioners are calling on Canadian members of Parliament to politically sponsor individuals imprisoned in Iran who face risk of execution.

Petitioners are urging the Government of Canada to recognize and back political sponsorship efforts, to establish a framework for political sponsoring of individuals facing execution or several human rights violations abroad, and to take immediate diplomatic and international action to pressure the Iranian regime to release political prisoners on behalf of the petitioners.

Palestine

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also present petition e-6834 signed by 1,444 Canadians. These Canadians are concerned by the anti-Palestinian racism they see on clear display with the Liberal government.

The petitioners note that since the beginning of the ongoing genocide in Palestine, over 21,000 Palestinian children have become disabled, since October 7, 2023. They are calling on the government to create a special program to issue emergency temporary resident permits for wounded children and their parents and siblings. They urge the government to change impossible biometrics requirements, making them more in line with other emergency programs. Finally, they ask that the government work with NGOs and health care facilities to coordinate care.

Animal Cruelty

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of rising in the House to table petition e-7108, signed by over 15,000 Canadians, including 14,000 Quebeckers, who condemn the fact that the Liberals still do not understand that state and religion are separate matters and that they should not provide financial support for kosher and halal ritual slaughter practices.

The petitioners point out that section 141 of the safe food for Canadians regulations requires that all animals be rendered unconscious so that they are unconscious at the time of bleeding. However, the ritual slaughter methods in question require the animal to be conscious at the time of bleeding, which causes unnecessary suffering and violates the obligation to ensure the humane treatment of animals.

These citizens criticize the government for providing financial assistance to slaughterhouses wishing to bring their operations into line with kosher and halal standards, and point out that favouring companies on religious grounds constitutes discrimination and violates the principle of the separation of religion and state and the principle of state secularism.

The petitioners are asking the Government of Canada to stop financially incentivizing halal and kosher practices; to maintain the requirement to stun animals before bleeding them, with no exceptions; and until this is done, to require meat from animals that were slaughtered without being stunned or according to religious norms to be labelled with the method of slaughter.

Fisheries

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a certified electronic petition signed by over 1,080 Canadians. The petitioners are calling on the government, specifically the Minister of Fisheries, to halt the proposed closure of the Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility.

The petitioners note that this facility plays a critical role in preserving endangered wild Atlantic salmon populations and supporting local ecosystems. Therefore, they request that the Minister of Fisheries keep the Mactaquac Biodiversity Facility's programs operational and consult with the Wolastoqey Nation in New Brunswick, several of whose chiefs are here in the nation's capital this week, regarding the future of the biodiversity facility. Petitioners want the government to reaffirm Canada's commitment to Atlantic salmon conservation and ensure that all salmon at the facility are released.

Access to Information

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to present e-petition 7284. This petition, which was signed by 1,160 concerned Canadians, calls upon the president of the Treasury Board to remove proposals in the legislative review of the Access to Information Act that seek to dampen transparency and accountability, such as those altering the definition of “official record” to exclude emails and text messages. The petition also calls on the president to wholly and transparently seek input from the independent Information Commissioner of Canada regarding any proposed amendments in the act.

Pacific Salmon

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to table several petitions.

Notably, on the salmon allocation policy in British Columbia, British Columbians are fearful that the Minister of Fisheries is going to take their cultural rights away through amending the Pacific salmon allocation policy and removing recreational access for coho and chinook salmon specifically. Therefore, petitioners are calling on the Minister of Fisheries to leave the current salmon allocation policy alone and uphold the cultural rights of all British Columbians to this common property resource.

Human Trafficking

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of concerned Canadians who are worried about the state of human trafficking in Canada.

Human trafficking continues to rise, and too many people are being victimized as a result of our weak laws on this subject. Therefore, petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to strengthen the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act to address these shortcomings and put an end to human trafficking in Canada.

Agriculture

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, finally, the third petition I would like to present today is on behalf of Canadian organic growers. They are specifically concerned about the policies of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the closing of the research program at the Swift Current Research and Development Centre. If the Government of Canada truly wants to double its exports abroad, attacking the organic agricultural sector will not get it there.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in support of Conservative bill, Bill C-218, also known as the right to recover act.

Canadians are rightly concerned about the Liberal government's plans to expand euthanasia to people whose only medical condition is a mental illness. With this petition, they are urging the government to change course, to not expand euthanasia to even more people and, instead, turn to offering more services and more accessible health care.

Canada Post Corporation

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 27 signatories in London—Fanshawe concerning the reduction in Canada Post services.

Whereas Canada Post and the Liberals are taking an axe to long-treasured postal services, eliminating good jobs, eliminating door-to-door deliveries, lowering mail delivery standards and possibly closing post offices, and whereas Canada Post offers a public service that needs to be protected, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to stop and reverse decisions on the cuts to the postal service.

Climate Change

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

Mr. Speaker, in the petition I am honoured to present today, petitioners note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has pointed out that the impacts of climate change disproportionately hit those portions of the world that have contributed least to the problem in the global south. Particularly, the petitioners point out that the damage that will be done will also reverberate to Canada and that climate impacts through extreme weather events and loss of food production will contribute to 100 million more people living in poverty globally by 2030.

The petitioners ask that the Government of Canada ensure that the limited amount of global finances should be expanded so that we can do more as an industrialized country that has contributed to the problem. They ask that the Government of Canada focus on adaptation measures, at least equally with other measures, to reduce emissions.

Agriculture

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table this petition today, which is signed by residents of Parksville, British Columbia, and created by Jasmine Tomczyk of Parksville.

The petitioners highlight that healthy soil, clean water and biodiversity are essential to food security, climate resilience, national sovereignty and the long-term sustainability of Canadian agriculture; that regenerative and agro-ecological farming practices can rebuild soil health, increase biodiversity, recharge aquifers, reduce erosion, capture carbon and prevent pollution from entering rivers, lakes and oceans; that regenerative food systems strengthen farmer livelihoods, support community well-being, enhance climate resilience and improve individual and public health; and that many farmers want to adopt regenerative practices but face financial, technical and transitional barriers without adequate public support.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to develop and fund a national regenerative agriculture strategy that prioritizes soil health, biodiversity, water protection and climate resilience; that provides long-term funding, incentives and technical assistance to support farmers transitioning to regenerative and agro-ecological practices; that integrates soil health, water protection and biodiversity outcomes into federal agricultural programs and climate policy; that expands farmer-led research, extension services and knowledge sharing on the regenerative practices suited to diverse regions of Canada; that strengthens policies to reduce soil erosion, pesticide use, agricultural runoff, nutrient pollution and plastic waste affecting freshwater and marine ecosystems; and that supports resilient and democratic local and regional food systems that improve food security, rural economies and community well-being.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if a revised response to question No. 943, originally tabled on April 27, 2026, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1071 and 1072 could be made for orders for return, these returns would be tabled in electronic format immediately.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The Economy

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to inform the House that I have received notice of a request for an emergency debate. I invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition to rise and make a brief intervention.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I am requesting an emergency parliamentary debate in response to the Statistics Canada report published on Friday, which shows that the Liberal Prime Minister is the only leader of a G7 nation steering his country into a recession. We have learned that Canada's economy has contracted over two consecutive quarters. That is the official definition of a recession.

However, that is not all. Canada has lost 112,000 jobs this year, 45,000 of them since this Prime Minister entered office. We have the second-worst unemployment rate in the G7, one-third higher than unemployment in the United States. The number of people missing mortgage payments has increased by a third in one year. That is the highest level in the world. Furthermore, Canada has the highest household debt of any G7 country.

If this were only a result of global factors, Canada would not be the only G7 country and the only North American country in a recession. These are Liberal effects because this is a Liberal recession. It is an emergency for ordinary Canadians. For the single mother who has to return items as she goes to pay at the grocery checkout because she has no more money left, it is an emergency. It is an even bigger emergency if she drives to a food bank that has run out of food for clients. What about the father who has to go home to tell his kids he has lost his job and has to sell the home? It is an emergency for young couples who cannot buy a home and build a family. Those are the human consequences of this Liberal recession.

The Prime Minister has been silent since Friday when this news became public. This is the man who is supposedly a banker, an economic genius, yet he has nothing to say about the fact that he led the country into a recession.

I therefore call on him to be here in the House of Commons so that we can have a genuine debate on how to reverse this Liberal recession.

I am rising today to ask the Speaker to declare an emergency debate on Friday's Statistics Canada report that shows that the Liberal Prime Minister is the only G7 leader to take his country into recession. The agency revealed that Canada's economy has now shrunk for two quarters in a row. That is only true of Canada.

It is not just the one data point, though. The economy has shrunk three of the last four quarters that the Prime Minister has been in power. Investment has dropped five quarters in a row. We have lost 112,000 jobs in the first three months of this year alone, and we have had 45,000 net job losses since the Liberal Prime Minister took office promising to create jobs. We have a one-third increase in mortgage delinquencies, the highest level in 17 years, as Canada's households are, by far, the most indebted in the G7, and three million Canadians will have to renew at higher mortgage rates over the next two years.

We cannot blame global effects when it is only Canada that is in recession among G7 nations, nor can we say that we are in an especially difficult position vis-à-vis the Americans because we are in North America since our friends in Mexico are also not in a recession. It is only this country, under the Prime Minister, that faces this Liberal recession.

One might say the economists should be concerned about the word “recession” and ask if it really is an emergency in the lives of Canadians. For that single mother who has to return items as she goes to pay at the grocery checkout because she has no more money left in her bank account, it is an emergency. It is an even bigger emergency if, later that day, she drives to one of the one in four food banks in Canada that has run out of food. What does she do then? Does she start calling friends and family and asking if they have any surplus food in their fridges? What about the father who has to home tonight to tell his kids he has lost his job and has to sell the home? For him, just like for that mother, this is an emergency.

The Prime Minister could not be bothered to say a single thing about this emergency since he learned of it on Friday morning. He has been in hiding. He refuses to take a single question from the media or in the House of Commons, and today, once again, he is banning the media from asking him questions, expecting they will just cover photo ops of him wandering around a construction site. That is not good enough. This is an emergency in the lives of people who have empty fridges, empty stomachs and empty bank accounts, and they expect the Prime Minister, who promised that he was a great economic genius, to get in here and explain how he managed to be the only leader in the G7 to cause a recession.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Leader of the Opposition knows, because he has been here a long time and I have mentioned it many times, that we cannot suggest that any member of this House may not be here. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he was not meaning to do that. He may continue.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister's duty to stand up, look Canadians in the eye, explain how he managed to become the only G7 leader to take his country into a recession and tell us how he is going to reverse the Liberal policies that put us into this mess. We as Conservatives are here to be collaborative and to provide solutions: to repeal the antidevelopment laws that have suppressed our energy sector, to take all taxes off homebuilding so our young people can afford to buy a home and to cut taxes on energy, including the tax on gas for the rest of the year, to save Canadians 25¢ a litre, $20 a fill-up and $1,200 by Christmas.

These are real solutions that we could be using in order to rescue people from the Liberal recession, but it is going to take an emergency debate to wake up the Liberal Prime Minister from his slumber and get him to do his job.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his intervention. However, I am not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.

Remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a question of privilege regarding the misleading remarks made on Friday, during question period, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin.

Friday morning, the government's statistics agency, Statistics Canada, released data on the gross domestic product, or GDP, for the first quarter of 2026, confirming that Canada's GDP had declined by 0.1%. That decrease follows a 1% contraction of economic output over the fourth quarter of 2025.

The definition that economists generally accept is that there is a recession when there is negative GDP growth, that is, the economy has shrunk for two consecutive quarters. In reality, this is the third of the past four quarters to show such a contraction for the Canadian economy. I will put it simply: Canada is in a recession.

This topic naturally raised concerns during question period on Friday. It will no doubt continue to do so in the coming days and weeks as we, the Conservatives, continue to put pressure on the Liberal government to submit a plan to get Canada out of this recession, which it is responsible for.

In response to my questions about this recession, the parliamentary secretary replied, “Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: Canada is not in a recession.”

To be honest, I was bewildered by the parliamentary secretary's refusal to acknowledge this reality and I asked him about this specific point. The Liberal parliamentary secretary maintained his position, replying, “Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Canada is not in a recession.”

The parliamentary secretary did not stop there. In fact, he added insult to injury by saying, “Statistics Canada has never said that we are in a recession.”

I would respectfully submit that the parliamentary secretary has deliberately misled the House with his comments.

To mislead the House intentionally is a well-recognized ground for contempt of Parliament. Our authorities, including paragraph 3.16 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, lay out a three-part test for establishing when a prima facie case of privilege can be found in such cases.

First, the statement must, in fact, be misleading. As I just discussed, the Statistics Canada data quite clearly satisfy the consensus definition of when a country's economy has entered into recession. Of course, there is nothing technical about seniors who have to visit the food bank, unemployed Canadians fretting over how to make their next mortgage payments or hard-working parents worrying about how they will feed their kids next week.

As for the second part of the three-part test, that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect, I think we should recognize that the individual making the statement was not just some parliamentary secretary who happened to be in town on Friday and was available during question period to read a note prepared by someone else, who knows nothing.

The parliamentary secretary, the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, is a highly respected economist. He served as finance minister for the Couillard government in Quebec and he balanced the budget. He is a serious guy.

To be frank, that is why I was personally very disappointed and even surprised and saddened to see that this man of great experience unfortunately failed to recognize the facts.

Before being elected as the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, the parliamentary secretary worked as the chief economist and chief strategist at Laurentian Bank Securities. He served as the Quebec finance minister and was appointed to the board of directors of the Bank of Canada by Prime Minister Trudeau and Minister Freeland.

In other words, this parliamentary secretary knew very well that two consecutive quarters of GDP contraction is the very definition of a recession. I believe that he was fully aware that he was not providing correct information when he denied that we are in a recession.

In fact, as a leading economist at a bank, he was used to frequently commenting on economic trends.

For example, in an October 29, 2009, La Presses article about how 71% of Quebeckers are living in the past, the parliamentary secretary acknowledged that a recession is indeed defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. He said, “It is a definition that is primarily used in the financial sector”.

Turning to the third part of the test, that the member must have intent to mislead the House in making the statement, one must look at the context of the exchange. The parliamentary secretary was rising in question period to stickhandle questions about that very day's economic headline, obviously an embarrassing story for the Liberals, whose very premise of forming the government was anchored in the supposed promise offered by the Prime Minister's résumé.

The parliamentary secretary was doing his best to defuse a political crisis for the Liberal Party leader.

Beyond that, I think it is also important to look at the additional exchange I had with the Liberal parliamentary secretary, in which I insisted on this point: “Is my colleague familiar with Statistics Canada? It just so happens that it is part of the Government of Canada. Statistics Canada states that Canada is in a recession”.

Even if, in a world where anything is possible, the parliamentary secretary genuinely misspoke in his first response, the issue was clearly and specifically brought to his attention. Still, he responded by doubling down.

It is clear that the parliamentary secretary knew full well what he was doing when he made such a calculated statement in the House of Commons, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

To sum up, the Liberal denial that Canada is in a recession was misleading, the parliamentary secretary making the claim was well positioned to know it was misleading, and his objective in making the comment was clearly to mislead the House in order to protect his fellow economist the Prime Minister. As such, I believe there is a prima facie case of privilege here. Should you agree, I am prepared to propose a motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee for its deliberation.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join the debate today on Bill C-31, part of the budget implementation act.

This budget is from November 4, 2025, so it seems a bit weird talking about a budget when we are in a different year already. Nevertheless, there are some comments I would like to get on the record about the budget.

Obviously, we cannot talk about the budget implementation act without discussing the current economic situation we have in Canada. Canada is the only G7 nation that is in a full-fledged, Liberal-led recession. How did we get here? Over the last 10 years, and I have been in the House since 2019, time and again I have seen the Liberal government bring in legislation and regulations that curtail growth and development in our energy sector. Whether it was Bill C-69 or the shipping ban off the west coast, all of these have led to less investment and development in our country. This is the actual end result of an anti-growth, antidevelopment Liberal agenda.

We see that our country has shed 112,000 jobs in the first three months of this year. That is 112,000 people who had to go home to their families and talk about how they were going to pay the bills that month. These are not just numbers but Canadians' lives we are talking about. The Liberals have an obsession with not admitting there is a problem. The first step to addressing any crisis or issue is to admit there is an issue. That has not happened with the Liberal government. It tries to keep the grand illusion time and again.

The Liberal Prime Minister is just another Liberal. He is an illusionist. It is all an illusion about what the economy looks like to him and how he wants to continue to make it appear to Canadians. As he said himself a couple of weeks ago, affordability has never been better in Canada. I have not heard from one single constituent of mine in Regina—Lewvan over the last couple of years that affordability is on the right track. The Prime Minister keeps trying to mislead Canadians by saying that.

When we go to the grocery store, which I know the Prime Minister does not, we see people grabbing things off the shelf, looking at the price and then putting them back. We see people rolling their shopping cart past the meat counters, looking at the price of meat and not buying it because they cannot afford it. That is a literal everyday occurrence for people who are trying to get by in Regina—Lewvan right now.

I want to talk about some things that are not in this budget implementation act that we now see the Liberals bringing forward. The new streaming tax was not in this budget. They did not tell Canadians they were going to tax their streaming services in the budget of November 4, 2025.

Also, the sovereign debt fund was not in the budget we are talking about. I do not know where the Liberals are going to find the billions and billions of dollars to put into the debt fund, which would put Canadians even more in debt, with larger deficits, which would then cause inflation to be even worse, especially food inflation.

Selling airports was also not in the budget last year. There was a conversation around selling off airports across Canada to keep giving out more money. I do not know who would want to purchase the airports, but I bet it is probably someone the Prime Minister knows, maybe even a company he knows quite well, possibly Brookfield. Are Brookfield airports all across Canada a possibility that the Liberals did not talk about in the budget last year?

One thing that is very close to our hearts in Saskatchewan that was definitely not in this budget is that the Snowbirds are going to be grounded. The fact that the Liberals had someone from Saskatchewan at the cabinet table who did not fight to keep the Snowbirds in the air is absolutely appalling.

They are an iconic symbol to this country and have been around for 60 years, but under the Liberals, the Snowbirds are going to be grounded until, they say, 2030. The government has never met a deadline, so I am very scared as to how long the Snowbirds will be grounded. That is something that each and every member should listen to their constituents about. I know people are reaching out and saying that this is something that should never be done. Our Snowbirds should be in the air, flying, because they are a national symbol of hope and an iconic symbol. I hope this wrong-headed decision will be reversed and we will keep our Snowbirds in the air.

I am going on to some of the other things that we have seen in the last couple of days. I just saw this, a new food bank report. After 11 years of the Prime Minister's Liberals, life has become completely unaffordable. Food Banks Canada released its latest poverty report card, warning that “Something fundamental has shifted in Canada”, after finding that one quarter of Canadians are food-insecure. Can members believe that in our country, with all of our farmland and all of our agriculture, 25% of Canadians are food-insecure?

We have the Liberals standing up here in question period. I would submit that question period is probably my most frustrating hour of the day, every day. We sit here and we ask questions about how Canadians are going to be able to afford their next meal, how Canadians are going to be able to pay for rent. Some people are employed, yet they spend 120% of their income on food and rent. Day after day, we sit here and ask questions on behalf of Canadians, and the Liberals get up and tell Canadians they have never had it so good. That is actually what they say every day.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, a Liberal is heckling across the way, but they do say that. They think that having a grocery benefit is a good thing, but it means they are failing. It means the economy is going down the dumpster, because they have to give food stamps to Canadians. The fact that they have to give out food stamps is not a measure of success. Those guys should wake up over there. It is actually a sign of how badly they have governed this country over the last 10 years.

Another report came out, on child care. This is one of our Liberal friends' favourite comments, about child care. Do members know that a child care report came out about child care spaces in Saskatchewan? Ninety-two per cent of people say it is hard to find child care in Saskatchewan since these Liberals brought in their day care program. They promised to make 255,000 day care spaces. They have missed that. They have done only 65% of that.

In the GTA, there are fewer child care spaces now than in 2019, and there are a lot more people. That is going backwards. Before this program, there was a 5% to 7% increase in child care spaces a year in the GTA. Now, for some years, it has actually gone backwards and there are fewer child care spaces. That is what happens when they make promises they cannot commit to fulfilling.

Saskatchewan was actually called a “child care desert” because there are so few spaces right now. Saskatoon and Regina are bad, but if we go out to rural Canada, rural Saskatchewan or Alberta, there are hardly any child care spaces for anyone, especially the ones that are government-run, because they have very strict hours. The people who need child care the most, the people who work shift work, sometimes cannot find a day care because the government ones have kicked out all the private day cares that were open before and worked different hours. Now, even if people got on the list and waited two years to get into the child care program, it does not work the hours that people need it to work anyway. That is what happens when the government takes over where there are actual private sector solutions.

Just to go back to our frustration on this side, I find it very funny that the Liberals always bring up day care in their answers in question period. They talk about programs. Parents would prefer to actually feed their own kids, if they were not taxed to death and could make enough money to feed their own kids, instead of having a government program do it. They talk about the grocery benefit. They brag about giving people food stamps.

We should cut government waste, decrease taxes and let more economic engines run in this country in the energy sector. We lost $60 billion in investments in the energy sector this year.

That is why this Prime Minister is an illusion. The fact is that he is the only leader in the G7 who has led his country into a recession. He cannot blame anyone but himself. If he wants to know what the problem is with Canada right now, why we cannot get anything done and why we cannot grow, he should look in the mirror.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely shocking and very disappointing to hear the member opposite disparage our government's $10-a-day child care program. This is such an important program for families and for women to be involved in the workforce. Hearing Conservatives talk about private options being preferable just shows how out of touch they are.

The American president caused a global war against Iran, which is at risk of causing a global recession with the highest increase in oil prices ever. Will the member opposite criticize the American administration on the record?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe this is the House of Commons in Canada.

However, I want to go back to the member's comments about day care. The member should be ashamed of himself for his day care program, because it has created very few spots. The Liberals have actually misled Canadians, which they do all the time. We brought forward solutions at committee, actually, to make the day care program better, where people could use a voucher and pay for private sector day care or government sector day care if it works. We believe in giving people choices and not forcing them into one thing. I would love for him to go to Hamilton and see how many people are actually looking for day care spaces and cannot get them because the Liberals' program caused private ones to shut down.

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

Madam Speaker, the budget implementation bill fails to meet a number of urgent needs in Quebec, as well as elsewhere. In particular, there is the fact that the implementation did not take into account Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs on all aluminum- and steel-based products. That affects 25% of products and accounts for a significant proportion of Quebec's exports. We are proposing a wage subsidy for the most heavily affected sectors.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that and what the Conservatives would do in such a case.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have a steel mill in Regina as well, InterPro Pipe and Steel. It employs a lot of people, so steel is very important to us.

The Prime Minister should have kept his word. He was the one who could deal with Donald Trump. He promised to get a deal done by July 1, 2025. He misled Canadians, and he cannot get the deal done, because he is all talk and no action. The biggest disappointment I have with the Liberal government is the fact that the Prime Minister misled Canadians. He said he would get a deal done with Donald Trump. He said he could handle him. He did not get any of that done.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, recently, there were 112,300 job losses in the first three months of this year alone, with 485,000 more Canadians unemployed since the member for Nepean became the Prime Minister. What is the economic impact of a Prime Minister who does not take our job losses seriously in Canada?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that speaks for itself. The fact is that the Prime Minister is so out of touch that he refuses to recognize that there has been a recession in Canada. To the point, the Prime Minister has not talked to anyone about a recession since Friday. He has been in hiding. He is in the witness protection program. He will not let the media ask questions. They can take some pictures of him in some meetings, but that is about it.

As I said at the outset of my comments, the first step to fixing a problem is recognizing that there is one. This Prime Minister is trying to bury his head in the sand and does not realize that he has taken Canada down the road to a recession. Among all G7 countries, Canada is the only country that is in an official recession now. The Prime Minister should open his eyes and realize that there is a problem in this country and that he has to get to work to fix the economy.

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

Madam Speaker, when we want to hear something discouraging, we listen to a Conservative.

Since the Prime Minister was elected, just over a year ago, a great deal has been accomplished, and a great deal will continue to be accomplished. Whether the Conservatives want to recognize that is up to them. At the end of the day, we will continue to work for Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the biggest issue we have is that the Prime Minister is so out of touch. The fact that Brookfield can make 19% growth in its portfolio but Canada cannot grow its GDP shows whom he is really here for. He is here for Brookfield—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel.

Before I begin, BC School Sports hosted the high schools' rugby championships in Abbotsford last week. There were thousands of young boys and girls from across the province who competed in sevens and 15s. Our very own in Abbotsford, the Yale Lions senior girls rugby team, won the provincial championships, and the Robert Bateman Timberwolves senior boys team came in second in the province. The WJ Mouat girls, the Yale boys, and the Abbotsford senior boys all did phenomenally well.

We are blessed to have the infrastructure to host such an event in Abbotsford. It truly does lift up the profile of our local economy, and the ability to host major sporting events creates lasting memories for so many young athletes. As the member of Parliament for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, I give special congratulations to all the phenomenal athletes on the Yale girls team in particular. They ran an amazing game of running rugby and totally dominated their opposition. It was just a joy to watch.

My plug is to the Secretary of State for Sport, who has $700 million to hand out to sporting organizations. On a per capita basis, Abbotsford produces more Olympic athletes in the sport of rugby and more national team players than any other community in this country. I hope to see some of those infrastructure dollars there to improve our aging recreational infrastructure.

Now to Bill C-31, a Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association report found that in the first quarter of 2026, Canadian venture capital investing dropped to its lowest level in nearly a decade. Venture capital investment fell nearly 77% quarter over quarter. For every dollar of foreign direct investment coming into Canada, two dollars have left, the largest capital exodus in Canadian history.

Since the Liberals came to power, Canada has lost $1 trillion of investment, largely into the arms of our American friends. It is very unusual for Canadian businesses to go through this significant a period of negative growth as we are experiencing right now.

As we reflect on Bill C-31, why not take some actions to protect small businesses? I believe small businesses have largely been ignored by this government. Many business organizations across Canada are calling for some changes to the tax code, like the small business deduction threshold, which has been set at $500,000 since 2009. The threshold has not kept pace with inflation, rising input costs or higher interest rates. This creates a cliff effect, where growing businesses are pushed into a higher tax bracket, discouraging investment and expansion.

Business organizations have requested that the government increase the small business deduction threshold to $700,000 and index it to the CPI year after year. This would allow our truly small businesses in Canada to take advantage of the 9% tax rate and really make a difference in our economy. Let us support our small businesses.

Second, another thing the government could have done in the last year, which would have made a huge difference in the lives of our entrepreneurs, is that it could have addressed the small business GST threshold. This was created in 1991, and it is currently set at $30,000. It was originally designed to limit GST collection to large businesses. Over two decades later, the threshold value has been eroded by inflation, and more businesses are now required to register, collect and remit GST than originally intended.

I believe the government, in the last year, could have changed its policy and increased the threshold to $60,000 to reduce red tape for truly small businesses, the ones where people go to work every day and pay lots of taxes in Canada. Including these measures in Bill C-31, along with other GST/HST adjustments, would have provided SMEs with real financial relief, yet nothing has changed in the last year.

The Liberals are still looking for big headline wins, while forgetting that most people in our private sector do in fact work for small firms. They are forgetting about small businesses that do not have lawyers who can apply for complex programs. They just do not have the time to do this, because they are actually running a business. Let me give an example: the tariff rebate programs.

At a time when Canadian small businesses have faced real economic pressure because of American tariffs, the government has not come forward with meaningful support to help them. It promised that the tariff revenues would be reinvested to help the sectors hit the hardest, but that promise has simply not been met. The regional tariff response initiative was supposed to be the vehicle for that support. Instead it has become a case study in poor execution.

The Secretary of State for Small Business has consistently framed the program as accessible and supportive, but in reality it has created more red tape, cutting out local small businesses. In January this year, the National Post reported that 80% of businesses were not even aware that this program existed, and only 8% said they intended to apply. In British Columbia, seven out of 10 businesses were not even eligible for the program itself, despite paying those tariffs. CFIB president, Dan Kelly, called the regional tariff response initiative totally useless.

The challenges facing small businesses are not unique. I heard many of the concerns from business leaders across the Fraser Valley earlier this month at the Fraser Valley Economic Summit 2026 in Abbotsford, when more than 200 leaders from business, local government, indigenous communities, educational institutions and industry came together to discuss the future of our regional economy. Throughout the summit, speakers and participants spoke about the need for transportation corridors, trade-enabling infrastructure, industrial land, workforce development, housing and energy systems. They asked how Canada can improve productivity if businesses cannot access those infrastructure dollars.

The Fraser Valley is one of Canada's most important economic regions. The region is expected to grow by nearly 47% by 2050, bringing new opportunities for investment, job creation and agricultural exports in particular. Realizing that potential will require governments to focus on the practical conditions that allow communities to grow and succeed. We see this reflected across multiple sectors of the economy, including financial services.

Canada benefits from having some of the largest and most stable banks in the world. However, there remains a significant gap between the country's largest financial institutions and smaller local providers. A local example is Tru Cooperative Bank, formerly First West Credit Union, which began its federal continuance process in 2018 but did not receive final approval until 2026.

If Canada wants greater competition in financial services, we need to create the conditions for strong, Canadian-owned, mid-sized institutions to grow and to compete nationally. This is in line with the policies of every political party in Canada: free trade between our provinces, more economic exchange between Canadians. It took eight years to get federal approval for one of the most established cooperatives in British Columbia. That is not acceptable. If Canada wants greater competition in financial services, it needs to look at reducing red tape and prioritizing the private enterprises that are willing to take the risk and put up the capital to expand and offer better services to Canada.

We could say the same thing about open banking right now as well, and the same policies apply to infrastructure. The government announced, in the budget last year, the build communities strong fund as a major investment in those fields. The program does allocate $6 billion directly for regionally significant projects, including climate adaptation and flood protection infrastructure.

I implore the House of Commons not to forget Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley when they think of the allocation of that money. In my riding in the Fraser Valley, the Trans Mountain pipeline sends 37% of its oil across the flood zone into the United States. That is billions of dollars into the coffers every single year to the Government of Canada.

The recent Enbridge pipeline expansion goes right through the flood zone as well. We have a major border crossing, we have an international airport, and we have a Southern Railway line that brings billions of dollars of Canadian goods into America every year, benefiting our country, yet since the floods in 2021, we have not received any infrastructure dollars to protect one of the most important economic regions in all of Canada. Again, I ask the government to not forget about the Fraser Valley. The government needs it to accomplish its goals. Canada needs our region to build up better.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talks about more trade between provinces, and he expresses some frustration. Literally within a couple of months of the Prime Minister's coming to office, the newly elected government, just over a year ago, was able to take down the national barriers; has met with the premiers and with territorial and indigenous leaders; and continues to encourage provincial jurisdictions to be able to take down provincial barriers that are in place.

I think that is something the member needs to recognize. In a federalist system, we need collaboration and co-operation. I am wondering if the member recognizes that, in that federal system, the federal government has to work with other jurisdictions. From a federal perspective, the Prime Minister has taken down those barriers. We did it in legislation just prior to last summer.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, the Conservatives voted in favour of removing all federal regulations on interprovincial trade, but the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister promised there would be free trade amongst the provinces in Canada. What we needed in that moment was federal leadership, for the Prime Minister to say to the provinces and territories that if they do not remove their barriers in professional services, financial services and transportation, there will be consequences.

The Prime Minister was not willing to expend the necessary political capital to remove the provincially related barriers to interprovincial trade in Canada. That is a failure of his leadership, and a promise broken that he made.

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

Madam Speaker, typically, we used to be able to count on the Conservatives to champion decentralization and the protection of provincial jurisdictions, sometimes even at the cost of cutting transfers to the provinces.

I just heard what my colleague said. He literally said that, in areas of jurisdiction that fall exclusively under the provinces and Quebec, like professional associations, showing leadership at the federal level means making threats to the provinces, imposing conditions on them and ultimately telling them that if they do not do what the Prime Minister wants on a Tuesday morning, their funding will be cut.

Has the Conservative DNA changed over the past few weeks?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Mirabel needs to ask his constituents why it is easier for a small and medium-sized enterprise in his province to trade with the northeast United States. Why is it easier for a Quebec company to do business with America than with a company in British Columbia?

I believe in a federation where it is easier to do trade among Canadian provinces first, before doing it with a foreign country. If the Bloc Québécois continues taking that position, it is going to minimize its economic impact and the ability of its province's enterprises to grow accordingly.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech outlining some of the significant concerns that we have about the bill: number one, about the Liberals' budget, and number two, about the expedited process by which the government is trying to ram this through with its new-found majority government. We have concerns, and I think Canadians have concerns, about the economic outlook of this country. We have concerns about the approaches that the government is taking by not only using time allocation here in the House but also shutting down committees.

I wonder if the member has a bit more to say about the concerns that his constituents are relaying to him about the heavy-handedness of this brand new, manufactured Liberal majority government.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that my constituents are very apprehensive right now. They have heard a lot of mixed messages from the Prime Minister. On one hand, he says that we are at economic war with the United States and will take heavy-handed language here in Canada. The next day, he goes down to America and says we need to “make America great again.” They really do not know what to make of the rhetoric. What all the businesses in my region talk about is maintaining our market access to their American partners.

Canadians across this country have long-established business relationships with their American customers and partners. We need to secure that while also looking at opportunities abroad. That is a good thing, but make no mistake; we cannot replace the American relationship, and the Prime Minister needs to be clear on that point, because it is causing concern by the many Canadian businesses that are reliant on their American partners. We have to maintain that market access first and foremost, which is going to require more political leadership and the government's being transparent about what type of deals it is cutting with the American administration and whether that serves Canada's interests well.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems we are doomed to disagree with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford today, not least because we appreciate the sound of the voice of the Assistant Deputy Speaker, who sat in the chair just before you. Beyond that, I would ask you, if possible—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I agree that there is too much noise in the House. I would ask that the noise stop.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a Conservative colleague who has come right out and asked us here in the House why it is easier for a company in southern Quebec to do business with New York state than with British Columbia. I think there is a reason why geography must remain a compulsory course for high school students. It is very important. The answer is that there is a continent separating Quebec and B.C. and, when it comes to interprovincial barriers to trade, some members of my colleague's party have described bilingual signage and French-language signage as barriers to interprovincial trade.

When I hear the Conservatives saying that the Prime Minister should threaten the provinces, that he should tell them to get rid of anything that people in western Canada see as a barrier or else the provinces will face the Prime Minister's wrath, I think we have heard better arguments in the House.

Members can see that the lights are out behind me, and there is a reason for that. It is because this is a dark afternoon for Parliament, because we are seized with Bill C-31, a very technical 300‑page bill with many amendments that are questionable or that need to be clearly debated in the House.

However, the government is asking for carte blanche. It is telling us that it is going to impose time allocation and rush through this debate. Why is the government doing that? It is because this government has become arrogant. It secured a majority with 50% plus one, because that is enough for the Liberals here. This government is imposing closure motion after closure motion. It is shutting down committee work and ordering in camera proceedings on the Driver Inc. issue, when the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has been attending events put on by some of the organizations behind this scandal. What the Liberals are choosing to do is to put an end to debate.

In addition, in terms of what happened with Bill C‑31, I consider it to be an injustice to parliamentarians. We had requested a technical briefing on this 300‑page bill. It is a lot of work for the party critics, because it is a bill that discusses everything and nothing, not only the budget, as the Speaker confirmed in his ruling on the point of order I had raised regarding division 17.

We asked for a technical briefing. We did not get a response. A week went by. Two weeks went by. Three weeks went by. We finally got an answer last Thursday, with a technical briefing organized at the last minute, when a number of critics could not even participate because their committees were sitting. Today, we are told that we are going to rush through debating this bill, even though parliamentarians have not been given the tools they need to study it.

When we were debating time allocation earlier, the heritage minister was here. He was the one doing the government's dirty work for today. The heritage minister is the one discussing the budget today. That seems to be the arrangement. The heritage minister told us that we did not need a technical briefing. People can go look at the blues. They will be outraged that this is happening in the House of Commons. He told us that we did not need a technical briefing, that 300 pages is a long read and that three weeks is not enough time to read it. Today, he comes back and tells us that the government is going to impose time allocation, that we are going to debate all of this within a few hours and that that is plenty of time for us. I know that the heritage minister is smarter than some of the things he says in the House make him seem, but that does not mean he is entitled to treat us like idiots. That is a problem.

What is the problem with this bill? We could spend hours discussing that. This bill expands subsidies to the oil industry and allows hydrogen produced from methane to be classified as clean hydrogen, whereas in Quebec, for example, hydrogen must be produced from renewable resources to be classified as clean. We recently had industry experts in to testify during the pre-budget consultations, and they clearly explained to us that—from a scientific perspective, as accepted by the industry—hydrogen produced from methane does not qualify as clean.

Why is the government hiding this in a 300‑page document that will see virtually zero debate in the House? It is because it is in cahoots with the oil companies and is subsidizing them. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie just quit over this, and now here it is in Bill C-31. It deserves some debate, at the very least, especially because we know this bill is going to pass now that the Liberals have a majority. All we are asking for is a debate to share the views of those who elected us and who disagree with this, but we are being denied that debate in a democracy.

Some measures are designed to give the government more power and allow for less transparency. Some measures limit who can file complaints with the procurement ombudsman and restrict the complaints that can be reviewed, at a time when spending, particularly military spending, is set to reach record levels and procurement will play a greater role than ever before.

What does that mean? It means that the government does not care about protecting citizens, which is the whole point of having an ombudsman. For the government, an ombudsman is a problem. Obviously, the Liberals are not going to abolish the position, but it is like they are plucking every feather from a duck's wings and telling it that it should still try to fly. That is what they are doing. That is exactly what they are doing. That is a problem, and it deserves to be debated.

Division 17 will be voted on separately and has nothing to do with the budget. It was not in the budget speech. It was not in any document. To reduce the backlog of air passenger complaints, the Liberals are allowing the minister to have complaints handled by private companies that could potentially be chosen by the airlines. There may be an issue of parliamentary privilege here, because we hear that Air Canada was getting ready to select companies before we parliamentarians even saw the bill.

The issue here is no longer just about moving closure, cutting off debate or bypassing committees. The issue is that airlines may have seen a bill before we, the elected members, did.

I understand the seriousness of what I am saying, but that is what we suspect.

Here is the context: President Trump increased tariffs based on a new formula in early April. They now stand at 25% on a wide range of goods, and 25% of Quebec's exports are affected. Quebec is the hardest-hit province. However, when the Liberals tabled the budget update, they failed to take that into account. They used the wrong figures and calculations.

They announced no measures to help the businesses that would be affected by this new tariff formula. We had to wait weeks, and the Prime Minister actually learned about it from us, during question period. I am not joking. We were the ones who informed the Prime Minister, in April, that the formula had been revised. The first time, he was taken aback. The second time, he told us he would provide a response during the budget statement. There was nothing when the budget statement was tabled, and we had to wait.

There is nothing in any of this about enabling companies that will have to temporarily halt production due to these tariffs to keep their workers on the payroll. These workers will end up relying on employment insurance. Given the fund's actuarial rules, EI cannot withstand two shocks at once.

That is why we are calling for a measure that costs the same amount, namely, wage subsidies, which will ensure that EI can continue to be appropriately managed without raising contributions for businesses that need something other than higher taxes these days. We have been ignored. There is nothing about EI reform. We are just lurching from one temporary measure to the next.

There is nothing for seniors. There is nothing for the forestry industry, nothing about buying back the countervailing duties that are paid to the United States in advance and that will eventually result in a victory for our timber exporters years from now. During those years, our forestry companies have no cash flow. We are asking the government to purchase this asset, which is money tied up in the United States in the form of countervailing duties, to give them some breathing room. It is an asset. It does not even count toward the deficit. It is an asset. There is nothing about this.

There is nothing about Quebec's request for $733 million for the influx of asylum seekers. There is nothing about the $814 million stolen from Quebec. There is only more and more subsidies to oil companies.

What is this bill, then? It is an incomplete and ill-conceived bill with so much potential for controversy that the government wants to avoid debate. There is no clear indication that it will be passed before we leave. This bill could be passed in the fall, so there was no need for a closure motion. We have a government that is being run like a business and that is trying to reduce government accountability and transparency.

I stand with all those who think that Parliament deserves better than what the Liberals are currently doing.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, I introduced a bill in the House to create a school food program. Every Bloc Québécois member voted in favour of the bill. We now have a school food program across Canada.

During consideration of the latest budget, the Bloc Québécois voted against the measure that would make this program permanent. The member mentioned seniors. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit will help some seniors get through these tough times.

Why does the Bloc Québécois sometimes vote in favour of certain measures that benefit families, yet suddenly vote against other such measures when it comes time to help those who need it most?

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

Mr. Speaker, questions like that are a waste of time.

Even a bad 300-page novel will have seven or eight good pages. That does not mean the whole book makes for pleasant reading. That is the government's same old strategy. It throws a few good things in with a bunch of unacceptable things. Backbenchers stand up and cry foul when we vote against the bill as a whole. If they think it is so important that we vote for the bill, let them ask for a separate vote on those items.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing serious economic challenges. Jobs are disappearing, investment is leaving and families are struggling to make ends meet, yet the government has chosen to shut down debate on a massive omnibus budget bill that would affect every region in the country.

I would like to ask my Bloc colleague this. Regardless of our differences on policy, does he believe Canadians are well served when the government limits debate on legislation of this size and importance? What message does it send when a government facing so many economic challenges seems unwilling to allow Parliament the time needed to properly examine its budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we had had more time to debate this bill, we could have discussed the parts that should have been removed. That would have made the member for Acadie—Bathurst happy. We could have discussed the parts that could have been voted on separately. Since the member for Acadie—Bathurst is going to vote in favour of time allocation, we will not be able to do so.

However, all joking aside, time allocation does serve a purpose. The government usually begins by letting things take their course. We have debates, and legislation moves forward, but all of a sudden, a roadblock springs up. Opposition parties sometimes act in bad faith. At some point, since the government has budgetary responsibilities, it will have no choice but to impose time allocation to move the process forward in the face of the opposition parties' bad faith. That is what it is for. That is why this standing order exists.

In this case, however, the government introduced a bill, denied the opposition parties a technical briefing, did not put the bill on the agenda for debate, and then suddenly on a Friday morning, it announced that it was going to limit debate because nothing had been done for three weeks and time was now of the essence.

That is not how time allocation should be used.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question regarding Quebec.

You have built real economic leverage through your sectors like aerospace, batteries and clean energy. I want to know if the member agrees that—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would remind the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets to speak through the Chair.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would agree that scaling back federal investment, like the Conservatives proposed, would weaken that advantage, like I said before, in aerospace, batteries and clean energy and go hand in hand with the next generation of job jurisdictions that actually invest in growth.

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

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy hearing the member talk about aeronautics and aerospace. There have been developments. We are happy to see that.

For years, the federal Liberal government has refused to have an industrial policy on aeronautics and aerospace. We do not have one. There are even members from my region who go around telling unions that people do not want one, that it is pointless and that even the industry does not want one.

However, we heard from the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada at the Standing Committee on Finance last week. They said that they wanted and needed a civil and military strategy, because there was none, and that a procurement process was not enough. On the day the government needs to order aircraft, it is unacceptable to have to decide whether to import them from Sweden, order them from the Americans, or open new factories. That is what happens when there is no strategy.

I think there are some fundamental questions that need to be asked, because we have an electioneering government that goes from announcement to announcement, and there is never any thought about the long term, particularly in the case of the aerospace industry.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

This afternoon, I would like to talk about the Territorial Lands Act, the amendments to the act, economic development and nation building in the north, as vice-chair for the rural caucus.

I am rising to speak to the proposed amendments to the Territorial Lands Act that are contained in Bill C-31. At the outset, I want to be very clear. Changes to this initial act are necessary. They would strengthen Canada's sovereignty, security and economic future, while deepening our partnership with the Inuit and supporting northern and rural communities across the country.

I am speaking as vice-chair of our national rural caucus, and I want to underline something that is very fundamental. Rural, remote and northern Canada is very much a part of the country's nation building and where it is actually happening. We will be there to allow it to continue to happen. Today, we are finally making some of these communities feel like they are finally at the table.

I am going to focus on how these amendments would support indigenous self-determination and responsible economic development, as well as long-term nation building in the north.

In terms of a changing global economy, the global economy, as we know, is rapidly evolving. Countries are competing for secure supply chains of critical minerals, minerals essential to clean energy, advanced manufacturing and national security. Canada, particularly northern and rural Canada, has an enormous opportunity here. With that opportunity comes responsibility. As competition intensifies, Canada must ensure that its natural resources are developed responsibly and strategically, and in a way that aligns with our national interests. That includes making sure that our rules reflect some of today's realities, hence the amendment.

Nunavut and rural Canada are at the centre of nation building. The Arctic is more important than ever to our sovereignty, economic growth and national security. Nunavut is at the heart of our future here up north.

I want to be honest about something. Projects that will define Canada's next century, like our critical minerals, energy corridors, ports in the north, roads and infrastructure, are not being built in downtown cores. They are being built in rural, remote and northern communities.

For far too long, these communities powered our economy without a full voice in shaping that. That, with this amendment, is changing, and it must continue to change.

Mining is already the cornerstone of Nunavut's economy. It creates good-paying jobs, supports local businesses, builds infrastructure and strengthens communities. In 2025, mineral production in Nunavut was projected at $3.74 billion, demonstrating that importance not only to the territory but to Canada as a whole.

For rural and northern Canadians, this is what economic inclusion looks like. It looks like jobs close to home. It looks like infrastructure that lasts generations. It looks like communities that are growing and thriving.

Why do these types of amendments matter? Canada's free entry system remains an important strength. It has supported exploration and investment for decades. Today, there is a gap. The current system does not allow Canada to act when mineral rights could be used in ways that conflict with some of our national interests, whether related to economic security, sovereignty or critical infrastructure.

Bill C-31 would address this gap. It would introduce a targeted national interest safeguard, which would allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, to act in specific cases.

Examples of this include cancelling existing mineral rights when necessary, preventing new rights in sensitive areas and temporarily closing lands to protect some of these strategic priorities. Examples also include ensuring notification and fair consideration of compensation.

This is not about overreach; this is about responsibility.

In terms of strengthening our investments through this amendment, and I want to address this directly, it would not hurt investment, but strengthen it, because a free entry system would remain in place, as it always has. These measures would be targeted, limited and only used in exceptional circumstances where national interests are at stake. In fact, they would also provide something that investors value deeply: certainty. They would make clear that Canada has strong rules, a stable framework and the ability to protect strategic assets. For rural and northern economies, that certainty is essential. It ensures that investment continues, that projects move forward and that communities benefit.

The bill is part of a broader effort to support nation building, especially where it is actually taking place. I would like to remind everybody again that nation building in Canada today is happening in rural, remote and northern regions. It is happening in our energy corridors, our mining developments and our ports and transportation hubs. It is happening with clean energy infrastructure. I have a clean energy project in my riding right now in South Shore—St. Margarets, our Mersey wind project, which is a new direct competitor for Nova Scotia Power. It is a larger-scale clean energy project in our area, which we have not seen before in Nova Scotia.

There are also projects like the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link. There are also projects like the Grays Bay road and port project. This is also about Iqaluit's hydro project. These are transformative projects, and when we look at transformational things, they do not happen overnight. They do not happen within one year. They do not happen within two years. These are transformational projects of which, over the next decade, we are going to really see the benefits and reap the rewards. They connect with communities, and they create jobs. These projects also help strengthen sovereignty and reduce emissions. Importantly, they ensure that rural and indigenous communities are not just participants, but leaders and partners in Canada's economic future.

The amendments to Bill C-31 would also help ensure that mineral tenure does not interfere with these nation-building projects. In terms of indigenous partnerships, like how we were talking before about having indigenous people at the table as leaders, I would like to talk about indigenous partnerships and the devolution processes. The legislation is also grounded in respect for Inuit self-determination, for modern treaties and also for indigenous leadership, so engagement has taken place with the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and indigenous partners alike. These amendments would support a broader path toward Nunavut's devolution: the historic transfer of land and resource decision-making to the Nunavummiut. This is also about ensuring that decisions are made closer to home by the people most affected.

We are forward-thinking, so we are also looking at safeguards for some of these processes. There would also be a forward-thinking measure in this amendment. It would ensure that Canada's resources are developed responsibly, strategic infrastructure can move forward, Inuit priorities are respected, rural and northern communities benefit fully, and our sovereignty and security are protected. This is about preventing risk while also unlocking opportunity.

In conclusion, we are at a turning point. Global demand is rising, competition is intensifying and Canada has what the world needs, but success also depends on getting it right. It depends on recognizing that rural, northern and indigenous communities are not on the margins of our economy, but at the centre.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Before we move on to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, Taxation; the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, Employment.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, and I just want to thank my colleague for her speech. It is wonderful to work with her. She is a new colleague. She is doing great work. I know how good she is. She is representing a rural riding just like me.

In the last spring economic statement, there was $1 billion for small craft harbours, and I know that she was a big part of this investment. She was talking about some of the amendments that are in this bill, and she was talked about mining. I had a lot of mining industry in my region back in the day, but it has closed. There were 2,000 people laid off at a mine in my region back in 2013.

Now with these new amendments that are being putting forward and this new process, we see new mine projects coming into play. Can the member tell us if amendments like that would also help her riding with new projects of this kind?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from Bathurst for that. On Thursday, there will be an announcement. I will be at the AGM for one of the Nova Scotia mining associations.

With regard to what some of the mining associations are saying about our federal budget update, I would like to read into the record the following quote from the Mining Association of Canada:

MAC applauds today’s federal budget, which contains many measures that will enhance the competitiveness of Canadian mining and accelerate investments in critical minerals.

Budget 2025 responds directly to several requests from the Mining Association of Canada and follows through on a number of mining-related commitments—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We have to move on to the next questioner.

The hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the dubious record now of having the worst food affordability amongst all G7 countries. In our communities, we see young people struggling to find a job, and people who cannot afford to buy a home. We see a tremendous backlog in the health care system.

We also see the Liberals stand up and tout their credentials on the economy. Does the member opposite think that it is good public policy to bring in an omnibus bill like this and not allow for enough debate to happen in the House?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let my colleague know that is exactly what we are doing right now, debating this bill in the House.

With regard to my statements on the Territorial Lands Act, the free entry system in that act remains in place. These amendments are a safeguard in some of the exceptional cases involving Canada's economic security, sovereignty and other national interests.

I would also like to talk about Arctic sovereignty and the proposed changes within this amendment, allowing for indigenous economic reconciliation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-31 is 300 pages long. Consultation with the opposition parties has been minimal. There was no actual technical briefing, apart from the one held three weeks after the bill was introduced. It seems quite likely that even before MPs managed to get a briefing, reporters or others outside the House of Commons had received more information than members of Parliament.

The bill addresses some very important issues. It expands subsidies to the oil and gas industry. It also allows the possible use of hydrogen production using methane as a clean energy, which contradicts what Hydro-Québec says. It seems to me that Hydro-Québec knows what it is talking about where clean energy is concerned.

My colleague just told the Conservative member that we are debating Bill C-31 in the House. That is true, but the Liberals are limiting our debate time with this gag order. Does my colleague agree that such important issues as this warrant greater consideration for the opinions of experts and opposition members?

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that measures in this bill are providing temporary and immediate relief, expensing for eligible manufacturing and processing buildings. The opposition members want to talk about debating here in the House today. Instead of complaining about the length of time to debate, they should actually be asking some of these debating questions.

I also want to let him know that these expenses qualify as Canadian exploration expenses. Within the bill that we are debating today, we are also implementing a crypto asset reporting framework.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague from South Shore—St. Margarets for sharing her time with me.

Unfortunately, I disagree with her last comment that we have time to debate the bill now. Given the gag order, enough time to debate the bill is exactly what we do not have.

I want to speak to what is happening here. I am going to throw in Bill C-30, because I was not allowed to speak to it. We rushed through it so fast that I did not get a speech at second reading. For Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, back-to-back omnibus budget bills, both had a reduction of debate. Due to the newly minted majority Liberal government, we were not given the normal amount of time to have debate before moving to the vote at second reading.

I am sure the Speaker recognizes how often I have raised this concern in the House. It has accelerated. It is becoming de rigueur. It is almost with every single bill that we are told we have had enough time to talk about it and we move on.

There are many things that one would focus on with respect to two omnibus bills. What I want to focus on in the time I have is with respect to the one we are debating today, Bill C-31, which is 331 pages long. I lugged it around with me all weekend. There is only one part of it that I want to raise now, but there would be more. When we get to committee perhaps I will get an opportunity to say a word or two.

These are budget implementation acts. Bill C-30 has now passed second reading and Bill C-31 is what we are debating now. One would think there would be a very strong connection to the budget. That is what the point is; these are implementation of the budget. In Bill C-30 and Bill C-31, I want to talk about the significant changes to the Pest Control Products Act. We remember that the 2025 budget was all about build Canada strong. There is one line about the Pest Control Products Act, which is now the subject of changes in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31.

Here is one line from budget 2025, which states, “the government proposes to amend legislation to remove cyclical pesticide re-evaluations to enable modern, risk-based oversight.”

According to Prevent Cancer Now and Ecojustice, one of the country's leading environmental law groups, this is not about modern risk-based oversight, but about reducing the regulation of pesticides, reducing environment and health and safety controls that can actually affect human health, as well as the environment, in ways that I found completely shocking.

Because the debate on Bill C-30 was shut down after three hours, there was not time for every member or even every party to make a speech. I did manage to ask the parliamentary secretary for finance when it was first tabled how it was that there were these provisions to so weaken pesticide oversight and pesticide reviews. I asked if it would be possible to have a section of the bill, division 8, go to a committee on health or the environment to be studied. The hon. parliamentary secretary said he would look into it, but I have heard nothing further and, as far as we know, this is going to the finance committee, not a health and safety committee.

I have not had an opportunity to speak to this in the House, and it does relate to Bill C-31, because it is more of the same.

Bill C-30 says, which is astonishing, that if a minister decides that a pest control product is so dangerous it cannot be used, that usually is the end of the matter. This refers to a pesticide, and this covers herbicides, insecticides, rodenticides and all manner of products that are intended to kill living things, insecticides and herbicides being the most common.

However, now, because of Bill C-30, which as I said was pushed through second reading after three hours of debate, the cabinet can override the Minister of Health or the Minister of Environment if they consider it “necessary to do so to protect national economic security, regional economic security, or national food security.”

Going back to the original budget, we see that they have thrown in this justification here and there. Sometimes, it is referenced as having to make these measures because they want to move to, as I mentioned before, modern oversight. In other places, it is referenced as though we can bring down the cost of groceries if we use more pesticides. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Having worked on pesticides in this country as an environmental lawyer, and before that as an activist, I have worked on pesticide issues in this country since 1975. In any case, no government has ever attempted something as reckless as what Bill C-30 would do in saying that the decision of the minister responsible, when a substance is too dangerous to be used, could be overturned by cabinet, at cabinet's discretion, if it seems that it affects, astonishingly, “national economic security, regional economic security or national food security”.

These are the kinds of cuts to regulations that Margaret Thatcher engaged in that led to mad cow disease. We do not cut corners on health and safety. We do not cut corners on pesticide regulation for national economic concerns, overriding a minister of environment or a minister of health. It is quite surprising.

I was unable to speak to Bill C-30 at second reading debate, and now we have come to Bill C-31. I have to say I was astonished, in reading the 331 pages of Bill C-31, to find that it too takes aim at the Pest Control Products Act. This time it is found in division 13 in changes to the Pest Control Products Act to reduce the mandatory review every 15 years to look at a substance and, if the situation has changed, to have an evaluation. They are routine, but the bill we have before us today would change the review, and this gets murky. As someone who practised law, I know that one of the things we hate to see in new legislation is a change to the definitions because, by the time most legislation has gone around for a couple of years, and this legislation has been around for decades, the meaning of the words is clear, so there is not a lot of room for uncertainty and not knowing what we are dealing with.

In this legislation, we suddenly have the discretionary initiating of an assessment and then, if the minister is convinced that, on the basis of the assessment, the health and safety and the environmental risks of a registered pest control product have increased significantly, then the minister may have a re-evaluation, but the minister may also decide at any time to stop the re-evaluation.

Therefore, there would be no certainty and, certainly from a public health point of view and from an environmental point of view, this would fundamentally weaken the regime within which we use chemicals and products that are, by definition, intended to be toxic. They are intended to kill things. It is not an accident. That is their purpose. Therefore, the notion that we would no longer have cyclical re-evaluations undermines science. That is the bottom line. Ecojustice, one of Canada's pre-eminent environmental law groups, finds that this must be amended, that we must maintain cyclical re-evaluations and uphold science-based decision-making.

Earlier today, one of the members here presented a really important petition, and I am wondering if these things are not connected. Is there a pro-pesticide bias emerging from the current government that connects with cuts at the Swift Current agriculture research station in Swift Current, Saskatchewan? It was the country's pre-eminent research hub for many years in organic agriculture. Does the current government dislike the idea of organic agriculture? Does it want to promote pesticide-based agriculture?

Again, here we are. This bill has had, as far as I can count, about one and a half days of debate. In its first day of debate, most of the debate time was taken up by the farewell speech of the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie. The time is up, but we have to let Canadians know that this is unacceptable.

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

Mr. Speaker, the average number of days that the House will sit is around 130 or 135 days in any given year. Currently, there are 35 or so pieces of government and Senate legislation before the House. We then need to take into consideration the number of opposition days that are given, and then the number of days when we actually have debates.

Surely to goodness, and the leader of the Green Party has been around for a good number of years now, she has seen that time allocation is sometimes a tool that is necessary to pass legislation. Given the performance of the Conservative Party members and their commitment to defeat the legislation, if we did not have time allocation, the bill would never pass. The member knows that. Would the member not at least concede that fact?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not concede it because it is not true. The reality is that the Conservatives have been more than obliging in helping the government pass lots of legislation, including Bill C-5, and including things I found astonishing.

The reality is that now, with the new Liberal majority, we are seeing time allocation when it is not needed and pushing things through before they are properly studied. In the end, and I offer this from my heart as a warning to the majority Liberals, this will come back to bite them.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I shudder to ask this question after the very kind praise from my colleague toward the Conservatives, but I cannot help but recall, in light of her criticism of the budget implementation act, of which there is a great deal to criticize, that she actually supported the Liberal budget based on promises from the Prime Minister on what the government would do.

I do not actually criticize my colleague for this, but I wonder if she might have any cautionary words for others who are similarly being given these grand promises from the Prime Minister and the Liberals and what happens with those when it comes to the actual legislation they put forward.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did vote for it, and I stand here as the only member of the opposition who voted for the Liberal budget, because not only was I given oral promises, but the commitment against putting forward investment tax credits for enhanced oil recovery was also in black and white and printed in the budget. That was reversed within 10 days of that vote, so yes, I would have voted against the budget had I known the Liberals did not intend to keep words that were printed in the budget.

That is quite something. It is a new record. Some governments forget what they said they were going to put in a budget, and two or three years later they have not done it, but I have never seen a promise in a budget reversed. Neither had the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, which is why he is going to be leaving this place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

With all the subsidies being given to the oil industry, including under Bill C‑31, which is expanding these subsidies, I think my colleague will agree that it is becoming impossible for the government to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

On one specific issue, the bill will make it possible to consider producing hydrogen from methane as a form of clean hydrogen, while in Quebec, green hydrogen must be produced using renewable energy. What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague.

It is clear that this is, unfortunately, a real tragedy. I am very disappointed. It is now clear that, with the current policies, the Government of Canada can no longer meet the Paris Agreement targets. That will have a huge impact on Canada's security and the economy, as well as worldwide.

We have a great challenge ahead of us and the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister have decided that they are not interested in the future. I do not understand how it is possible for someone who understands the crisis to make these decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague believe that the Prime Minister understands the crisis and, if so, why is he acting in this way?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has 10 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 10 seconds, all I can say is that it makes no sense. I do not understand it. Someone needs to ask the Prime Minister why he is making these decisions.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to speak on behalf of the people of Saskatoon West. I would like to advise members that I will be splitting my time.

Bill C-31 is the second budget implementation act from the 2025 budget. If members are paying attention, that was passed back in November, so it was seven months ago that we talked about this. The government still has not learned how to get stuff through the House, but here we are.

This budget is huge, technical and packed. Between the two implementation bills, there are well over 500 pages. Clearly, it is an omnibus bill. Clearly, things like this need to be studied. Things like this need to go to committee. They should not be rushed, but I fear that will not happen here. This will be rushed through by the government. I am sure of that.

The question I have to ask when I am looking at this is, does this make life better for residents of Saskatoon West? I think the answer, looking at this, is no. There is not enough here to lower grocery costs, reduce home prices or make our streets safer.

On the subject of balancing the budget, this does not even come close. In fact, if we look at the deficits run by former prime minister Trudeau, this budget has more than double the deficits that were run by the Trudeau government, which is unbelievable considering that, supposedly, our Prime Minister is this economic genius. It is hard to believe.

Of course, everybody understands that more borrowing means more inflation, and the subject of that is in interest costs. Even in this budget, the interest costs paid by the federal government are going to exceed the amount of money we provide for health care in our country, and that is just a very bad thing. This budget has massive spending increases, and Canadians are worse off.

Bill C-31 would bring more bureaucracy, more CRA powers, more complicated tax rules and more Ottawa control, but there are no real fixes for what I hear when I knock on doors. This past week, I was out talking to folks in the riding, and the things I heard about at the doors were lower food prices, affordable homes, safer streets, lower taxes and a government that stops wasting money. These are things I heard about over and over again. The budget, and Bill C-31 before us, would not address any of these things. It would not help the issues of the people in Saskatoon West.

I am going to focus a bit on housing affordability. People need homes they can afford, and Ottawa has numerous failed bureaucratic programs. Bill C-31 tinkers with housing a bit. There was the elimination of the GST for first-time buyers, but members need to keep in mind that they are only 10% of all buyers. It is a very small fraction of homebuyers who would be impacted by that reduction of tax. I do not know why the Liberals did not take our advice and reduce it for all homes under $1.5 million for everybody. That would have actually made a difference.

On the subject of first-time buyers, here is a fun fact: 39% of first-time buyers are over the age of 35, and that component is rising right now. Close to half of first-time buyers are 35 years old. Back in the day, at 35, people already had their family, so this is a very big concern, and that group is growing.

The other thing this budget would do is create a massive new bureaucracy, a $13-billion bureaucracy, for housing. It is the fourth bureaucracy we have in our country for housing, and in my view, it is completely unnecessary. Really, this whole thing misses the point. As the budget tinkers with housing, the real problem is that houses are too expensive to buy and ultimately too expensive to build, because every level of government adds more costs, more delays, more rules, added fees and red tape, and this needs to change.

I was a home builder for 11 years. I believe I built more homes than the Liberals ever did. My customers wanted homes that were safe, durable, efficient and well built. That is what they wanted, and that is what I delivered. Many home builders across the country deliver that all the time. How does this come to be? Well, part of it is building codes. Building codes are part of what drives the way that houses are built.

In our country, we have the National Research Council, which is a federally funded agency that develops building codes. Its employees do research and come up with the different ideas for new changes and things that should be put into the building codes. Then they are offered to the provinces to adopt, because building codes are a provincial issue, but the federal government, through the National Research Council, develops these building codes, and that sounds like a good thing. However, there is a big problem in this, which is the special interest groups that are able to get their pet projects onto the agenda. Often, those end up in the building codes that we see because there is a lack of cost consideration when these codes are developed.

We can have a million good ideas, but every good idea adds cost. In this case, the Canadian Home Builders' Association looked at the latest building codes, which are the 2025 building codes, did some math and tried to figure out the cost impact of these codes. It determined that the changes in the 2025 building codes were going to add $56,000 to the average house in Canada, and that is not all. It gets worse, because there are also energy upgrades that were specified. If we add those in, it adds another $60,000. The total of that is about $114,000 that it estimates. No province has yet adopted these building codes. In fact, the CHBA is suggesting to provinces that they do not adopt these building codes because there is so much confusion, frustration and added cost. The budget does nothing to address this core issue that is driving housing costs. Members can imagine adding $114,000 to the cost of an already expensive house in our country. It makes no sense.

In my view, the problem is a lack of focus on costs in building codes. The government is good at putting what it calls a “lens” on things. Members may have heard the term “climate lens” or “gender lens”. What we are missing is a cost lens. We do not think about cost when we do things like this. Why not have clear cost-benefit information for the building codes, not to weaken building codes, block safety improvements, stop accessibility or tell technical experts how to do things but to simply tell builders to show their work and let the consumer decide? There is currently no explanation of what a change would cost, who would pay for it, what housing types would be affected, what benefits would be expected, what trade-offs there would be or what assumptions would be used. One small change may not seem like much, but many small changes stacked together is how we end up with $114,000 in changes from a building code.

Of course, these costs get passed on to builders, but ultimately, they get passed on to and paid by the buyers and the renters, the people who use the housing. This matters in Saskatoon West. It matters whether it is downtown, in an older inner-city neighbourhood, in a rental-heavy area or in a newer subdivision. Housing challenges are different in each community because older areas face different problems. They might have aging infrastructure, irregular-sized lots, drainage, utilities, infill constraints, things like that.

This budget missed the point on housing. What the budget tried to do was give people a little bit to help them deal with these very expensive costs of housing, but what it should have done is get to the source, the root of the problem, which is to lower housing costs and certainly to prevent these massive increases in costs from affecting the next houses that are built. That is what the budget should have done, and that is not what it did.

I think the National Research Council needs to get serious about cost because every change it makes adds cost of one nature or another. How could we do this? We could have some sort of a housing cost and impact summary that, for every change, would explain what the proposal would do, what problem we are trying to solve, what housing types would be affected, the estimated cost for a typical house, who would be expected to bear that cost, what the benefits and drawbacks of this would be and what the implications would be on timelines of construction, complexity, administrative burden and things like that.

Other information that would also be helpful would be a public registry of proposals showing who pushed for a particular change. It could include clear information about committee roles, members and affiliations, things that could be kept so that people could understand who was pushing this. Was this being pushed by a particular company? Did it have some kind of an agenda? That is very useful and helpful information. This is important because industry lobbyists and special interest groups push their products and desires onto Canadians through this system of building codes, and Canadians need to know that.

We must keep in mind that the federal government does need to stay in its lane. This is a provincial jurisdiction area, so we have to make sure the federal government provides the information but allows the provinces to make those decisions. What did the government do? It tinkered with housing instead of actually solving the problem. It could have tackled the hidden costs and made better and more affordable homes.

Bill C-31 is a missed opportunity for affordability. Conservatives will continue to put forward solutions so that homes can be affordable and built better. We do not necessarily have to add $114,000 of costs. We will continue to push hard for affordable housing in this country. Unfortunately, this budget and this bill missed the mark on that.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a structural engineer, I spent a lot of time with the building code, so it was interesting to hear the member's speech, which focused quite a bit on the building code across Canada, the national code. One of the issues in Canada is that we have individual building codes for each province. There is no standardized code, which really impacts our ability to standardize housing design and to scale modular housing. I would also remind the member that, as he knows full well, building codes are a minimum standard, so it is kind of interesting to be talking about reducing minimum standards even further.

I want to talk about the need for increased energy efficiency in building codes. Yes, that does increase the initial purchase price, but then it has a far better life cycle cost for that house. The member spoke about a cost lens. I wonder if he also thinks that should include the life cycle cost when we include energy efficiency.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question, actually, and there are two things in there I want to talk about. First of all, this is exactly my point. When there is a cost, for whatever reason, whether it is a climate issue or whatever it is, there should be a benefit. It should be easy to understand what the benefit is on a per house basis. This is exactly what I am asking for here. It would be helpful to have that information so we could actually make those decisions.

The other thing the member mentioned was the way that building codes are different across the country. I agree that it is not an ideal situation, but I would also suggest that it is like that because the building codes that are created are so difficult to work with, the provinces choose not to implement them, or they choose to cherry-pick certain things because they do not have the information. They do not have what they need to know, and that is why I think it is important to make sure that information is there, and then provinces can actually use it.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Saskatoon West on his speech. I have a question for him.

I assume this government is pushing its bills through under closure because it is afraid that too much debate would lay bare its failures so far.

This government and this Prime Minister were elected on the promise of standing up to Donald Trump and his tariff and economic threats.

I will give my colleague from Saskatoon West all the time he needs to list all the victories this government has achieved against Donald Trump since it was elected just over a year ago.

I would like to hear them all. He can take all the time he needs.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The member will not speak for the entire allotted time, because we want to leave time for a third question.

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, given the Prime Minister's comments over the last few days, I guess we now have MAGA Liberals in the House.

It is quite interesting that the government is unable to follow the normal process of introducing bills in the House, having them debated, having them go to committee and having them go through the normal process all bills go through. This is where important questions need to be asked, where witnesses can come in and help us understand what is going on. Of course, the government does not want any of that. It wants to be able to shove these bills into the House and then do time allocation, which, for those following at home, just means that it cuts everything off, cuts off debate and forces things to go through the House in a very quick manner without all of the due process they should have. That is a shame, and it is something that is not helpful for processes like this.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that he is knocking on doors and that his constituents are talking about lower grocery costs, making our streets safer, lower taxes and more affordable housing. I am hearing that at the doors also. I am sure all of us are hearing some of the same things, at least.

Why does the member think the Liberals would create this bill that is basically ignoring what Canadians are really asking for?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am sure Liberal MPs are hearing the same thing. They are hearing about food prices, housing costs, safety on the streets, all the same things we hear about. It is pretty uniform across the country. It is a very good question. Why does that not make its way into something like a budget bill? There are tiny little smatterings of it in here, but most of it is about other things, and it is a real shame because what the government is doing is not impacting Canadians, the average Canadian, the way it needs to. Average Canadians are still struggling.

We have heard recently that food bank usage is up, and actually, a quarter of food banks are running out of food. These are real problems faced by real Canadians every day, and none of these things are addressed properly or even close to in any way in this budget. It is a shame, and because we do not have the time to actually go to committee and study this, because we are probably going to get pushed to end this quickly, we will never have a chance to understand that. Canadians will never truly know what is going on in this budget, and it is just something that I think is bad. It is a shame, and it is a shameful way for the government to act.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak to Bill C-31 and the heart of our national security, our economic resilience and our sovereignty as a nation.

Canada has long stood as a proud and reliable partner among the world's leading democracies. Our work within the G7 and our enduring commitment to NATO reflect not only our values but our understanding that collective security and co-operation are essential in an increasingly uncertain world. If Canada is to remain a credible and capable partner abroad, we must ensure that we are equally strong and prepared at home.

For too long, Canada's defence procurement system has been fragmented across multiple departments, slow to engage with industry and overly complex in its execution. The result has been delays that stretch not months but years, sometimes even decades, before critical equipment reaches the Canadian Armed Forces. This is not simply an administrative issue. It is a matter of sovereignty. A nation that cannot equip its armed forces in a timely and effective manner risks undermining its own ability to defend its territory, protect its interests and respond to emerging threats. That is why Bill C-31 is significant.

The creation of the Defence Investment Agency represents a decisive step forward in modernizing Canada's approach to defence procurement. This agency will consolidate procurement processes that are currently spread across government. By removing duplicate approvals and cutting unnecessary red tape, it will accelerate timelines and provide much-needed clarity and predictability to our industry partners. With a centralized process for review and approval, procurements will move forward more efficiently. With specialized expertise housed within a single agency, we will ensure that defence acquisitions are managed with the focus and precision they require.

I would like to take a moment to talk about how this is important in St. Catharines and within southern Ontario. We have seen through the threat of tariffs, the trade war with the United States, the impact on the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario. St. Catharines, and Niagara, relies on the automotive industry. It is something we have relied on for about a century. That threat is there. We have heard it from our American partners. The Prime Minister is right in ensuring that we step up and meet our NATO commitments and using that commitment to build and ensure strength within our manufacturing sector.

I had the opportunity to tour a company in St. Catharines called FBT. FBT is a multi-generational company that has been in business for quite some time. It saw the writing on the wall a few years back, as it primarily did business with the automotive sector, and has switched its processes in-house to focus on defence and nuclear. It still does some automotive. In touring that facility a couple of times, I saw that it is using advanced manufacturing with high precision and is ready to take it to the next level. It is expanding and will be able to meet the needs that Canada is putting forward in our defence sector. It provides a great number of high-paying jobs in St. Catharines and has a lot of long-term employees there, which speaks to the good work it does. A lot of tool and die shops, and other companies within the Niagara region, can learn a lot from this company.

With this type of agency in place, which can see procurement move quickly, a lot of companies can retool. They can be dual-use and work within what we have laid out in the defence industrial strategy.

We do not have to go far from FBT in St. Catharines. Across the street from FBT is Ontario Shipyards. At the moment, it is undergoing a $130-million refit of a Canadian Coast Guard vessel, the Terry Fox. I am sure others in this place may look to a place in southern Ontario and question what I am about to say, but St. Catharines has a strong tradition of shipbuilding. It is one of the industries that it was founded upon. The Welland Canal is older than the railway itself in this country, and St. Catharines was the heart of that. We need to get back to that.

With these changes, with speeding things up, I would like to see more development, more opportunities for a shipyard that has been vacant for far too long. We have seen the benefits in Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, with ships being built there and government contracts. With us getting to our NATO commitments, I would like to see that next step happen in St. Catharines.

Let me come back to the agency, which will align defence procurement more strategically with Canada's economic and industrial objectives. Every dollar invested in defence is an opportunity to create careers, grow Canadian business and drive innovation in sectors such as aerospace, shipbuilding and advanced manufacturing. By leveraging procurement as a tool for economic development, we will strengthen our domestic industrial base, reduce reliance on external supply chains and position Canadian firms to compete on a global stage. We saw that even in southern Ontario, in Kitchener, with the Canadian military ordering a new service rifle to be in line with our European allies. I believe it was the Danes who ordered tens of thousands of these rifles as well.

The opportunity is there. The Prime Minister has worked very hard to build relationships with like-minded allies. To see, even in just one announcement, the benefit to southern Ontario and the supply chains throughout southern Ontario from this defence industrial strategy is a good thing. It is something that I know concerns my colleagues across southern Ontario, with the loss of jobs, especially in the automotive industry.

Our approach includes continued investment in dual-purpose infrastructure, projects that serve both our military and the broader Canadian public, ensuring that our defence spending delivers tangible benefits across society. The Defence Investment Agency will ensure earlier and more meaningful engagement between the Canadian Armed Forces and our defence industry. By bringing industry into the conversation at the outset, we will enable a clearer understanding of operational needs, realistic timelines and available technological solutions. This proactive approach will allow Canada to anticipate future requirements and build capacity at the speeds and scale that modern security demands.

Finally, the agency will strengthen Canada's alignment with key allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia and France, countries that have already established dedicated procurement bodies to streamline their defence investments. This alignment will make our joint procurement initiatives more efficient and enhance our ability to collaborate within NATO. Our commitments to NATO are clear: We must meet the benchmark of 2% of GDP in defence spending, and we must contribute meaningfully to the alliance's long-term objectives, including the 5% investment pledge by 2035.

By reforming the procurement system, we are not only meeting these commitments but also reinforcing Canada's role as a dependable and capable ally. At the same time, this initiative positions Canada to play a leading role in broader multilateral efforts, including Europe's readiness 2030 plan, which seeks to strengthen defence supply chains and industrial co-operation among allied nations.

There is no contradiction between sovereignty and co-operation. On the contrary, in an interconnected world, they are mutually reinforcing. By strengthening our domestic capabilities, we enhance our independence, and by aligning with our allies, we amplify our strength.

Canada must be ready not only to meet the challenges of today but also to anticipate those of tomorrow. This reform is an important step in that direction.

I know that many of my colleagues went to the CANSEC conference in Ottawa to see the business that is happening. I know that the Prime Minister announced a significant investment with Saab that will have some substantial economic benefits, not only within our aerospace industry but beyond, to strengthen those supply chains that have been shocked. Companies concerned that they have no orders on the books will have an opportunity to grow and to meet that new demand, and they will feel safe in the understanding that Canada's government has their back and is willing to move forward and to ensure that industries under attack are protected under the defence industrial strategy.

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

Madam Speaker, in picking up exactly where the member left off, I will say that am quite curious about protecting defence industrial capability.

We heard a lot from the member and from the Prime Minister about Saab and the agreement on surveillance planes. We are all wondering when the government is going to make the decision on our next fighter jet capability. I understand there have been promises from Saab about eastern Canadian jobs but very little about that for western Canada, if the Gripen is to be produced in Canada. Meanwhile, many good jobs in Winnipeg are based at Magellan Aerospace, which makes the entire tail fin component of the F-35.

I am wondering if the member is going to advocate just as strongly for aerospace industry jobs in Manitoba as he is for those in eastern Canada.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we are falling into an old debate in a system where we were not spending enough on defence. We were all concerned about not everyone getting a piece of the pie.

We are in a situation now where if we are at 2%, which we are, going to 3.5%, there is an opportunity for the manufacturing sector, not just in Ontario but also in Manitoba. We have heard announcements across the country. The old saying “A rising tide lifts all boats” applies. This is something we can see right now. Though I cannot speak about and have no insider information on what will happen next with our next fighter purchase, I know that it will benefit not only just one area of the country but from coast to coast to coast.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for discussing the automotive industry for a small portion of his speech.

I know that there is great concern in the county of Simcoe, as host to Honda as well as to Toyota. There are really only the big two now in Canada.

We have a government that wants to buy Canadian and support Canadian. I would like to ask the member where we are at when we are bringing up to 50,000 Chinese EV vehicles into Canada that are not going to be produced here. The battery plant has been cancelled. That was $15 billion in investment. Does the member opposite feel that the government's buy Canadian policy and then, by the same hand, getting Chinese vehicles imported here is going to help manufacturers here in Canada?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, St. Catharines has had a General Motors factory in our city for, I believe, about the last century. It is something I do hear about from constituents. It is something they are concerned about.

Down the road in Niagara, construction is continuing on a battery separator plant. It will open in 2027 and will be transformative. The number of Chinese automobiles the member is talking about is such a small segment of the market. There has been an increase in production at Honda and Toyota. I know they have suspended plans for further expansion, but their production is strong. We look for more of that in the future.

I talked about many of the buy Canada projects. Buy Canada is the Government of Canada's buying. The Government of Canada is not buying the vehicles that the member is talking about. I would be excited to be working with companies like General Motors to build Canada strong.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to respond in terms of Manitoba's aerospace industry. Whether it is Magellan Aerospace, StandardAero, the Winnipeg Airports Authority and the work it is doing, WestJet, or the Canadian Forces air force base, Manitoba is in fact very aggressive in looking at how we can expand that industry, and we have received a very positive response. I would love to do a comparison with what we have done over recent years, in particular ever since we have had the increase.

I would not support the member for Portage—Lisgar or other members of Parliament's trying to discredit what I think is an important opportunity. There is no regional preference. It is something important. We should be supporting federal co-operation and ensuring that there is a sense of equality.

I am just wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to a more collaborative approach in building a stronger, healthier Canada.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing. Everyone woke up when the hon. member asked a question.

We even heard from the minister today, talking about the significant investments that are happening in Cold Lake, Alberta: billions of dollars' worth. We are going to see that across the country. It will not just be with one project, one item of procurement. The bill would help, as I said, raise all boats.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I will be sharing my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Before I begin my speech, I just wanted to send a quick congratulatory note to North of North, which won multiple awards at the Canadian Screen Awards.

Ullukkut. I am happy to speak on behalf of Nunavummiut regarding Bill C-31, and I will be speaking regarding the proposed amendments to the Territorial Lands Act contained in Bill C-31. These amendments are essential. The Territorial Lands Act helps govern how Crown lands are managed in Nunavut, a region that is central to Canada's long-term vision for the north and to the development of a resilient Canadian economy.

The amendments would strengthen Canada's sovereignty to protect our national interests and support sustainable economic development for Nunavummiut. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the north is going through a period of profound change and unprecedented opportunity. The Arctic's vast resources and growing marine access are creating new possibilities for trade, transportation and economic growth.

Meanwhile, the world is becoming more dangerous and divided. Last March, the Prime Minister described the assumptions that shaped decades of Canadian defence and security as shifting rapidly. He said, “Climate change is causing our Arctic region to warm nearly three times faster than the global average, a shift that great powers are actively looking to exploit.” Countries around the world are competing for access to the critical minerals needed for clean energy and advanced technology.

In this time of global uncertainty, Canada must be prepared. We must build strength here at home, bolster our security, build a stronger Canada and take full responsibility for defending our Arctic sovereignty. Canada is moving from reliance to resilience. We will no longer depend on any one nation. We will build a stronger, more independent country. We will take measures to build and keep the north secure.

We are working with territorial and indigenous partners to seize these opportunities and boldly develop the full economic potential of the region. As announced by the Prime Minister, “At the centre of this plan are the 140,000 Northerners and Indigenous peoples who will have stronger, more sustainable, more connected communities, greater opportunities, and a lower cost of living.”

The stakes are high, and we need to act. That is why we are proposing these important amendments to the Territorial Lands Act. If we are going to responsibly develop Canada's critical minerals, clean energy and transportation and trade corridors needed to strengthen our economy, Canada's national interests must guide our decisions. We cannot allow our resources to be taken up or used in ways that undermine our security, sovereignty or economic future.

Let me explain what the amendments would do. The Territorial Lands Act sets the framework for making decisions about land use, mineral exploration and development, and environmental protections on Crown lands in Nunavut. However, the current framework does not provide a clear tool to address solutions where mineral tenure would interfere with Canada's national interests. Bill C-31 would address this gap. If passed, the amendments would allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, to act when it is in the national interest.

This could include stopping mineral claims on certain lands for a period of time, cancelling existing mineral rights, cancelling prospecting licences and, in some cases, preventing specified parties from reapplying for those licences and mineral rights permanently or for a period of time. The proposed amendments would also establish clear processes around notification and compensation. The minister would be required to notify any affected mineral rights holder and determine whether compensation would be warranted, and, if so, how much. The legislation would also allow regulations to support implementation of these measures where needed.

These are targeted measures intended for limited circumstances. As global interest in Canada's resources grows, we must ensure access to those resources is administered in a way that protects Canada's national interests. The goal of these changes is to ensure that mineral rights on federal Crown land in Nunavut are protected, in partnership with Inuit, for the benefit of their communities and to safeguard our country.

Nunavummiut are at the heart of a strong Arctic. Protecting our sovereignty in the north relies on partnership with the people who live there. That is why the amendments to the Territorial Lands Act were informed by engagement with indigenous partners and the Government of Nunavut.

In fact, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. asked the Government of Canada to address these potential risks on federal Crown land in Nunavut, just as they are doing on their lands. That request helped inform these proposed amendments.

Following discussions with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Government of Nunavut, budget 2025 included a commitment to pursue amendments to the Territorial Lands Act. Between December 2025 and March 2026, the government engaged with five indigenous groups with asserted or established rights in Nunavut, as well as with the Government of Nunavut, on the proposed amendments. We have heard clearly that indigenous rights must be respected. We will continue to work so that these amendments align with territorial laws as Nunavut moves forward toward greater decision-making authority, through devolution planned for April 2027.

Our discussions with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Government of Nunavut showed broad support for measures that would help address risk to Canada's national interests. We believe that the proposed amendments strike the right balance between economic opportunity, indigenous partnership and national security. Should these amendments pass, our work will not stop. The comments raised through engagement will continue to inform the work ahead, including Nunavut devolution, implementation of the United Nations declaration action plan and the ongoing review of federal laws across government.

Several provinces and territories are also taking steps to modernize how mineral rights are managed and to address similar security and sovereignty vulnerabilities resulting from Canada's mineral rights free entry system. Nunavut should not be left behind. Canada needs modern tools that reflect today's economic and security realities in partnership with provinces, territories, indigenous partners and rights holders.

The proposed amendments would complement other security-related initiatives being advanced across the federal government, including Public Safety Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Department of National Defence and Global Affairs Canada.

Ultimately, this work is about partnership. It is about working alongside Inuit, indigenous governments, territorial partners, federal partners, industry and communities to build a stronger and more secure north together. It is about protecting the safety and security of everyone in Canada.

Inuit are at the heart of Arctic sovereignty because the north is where they live, work and raise their families. As such, this is about making sure Inuit have the ability to help shape decisions about the future of their lands and resources in ways that create lasting benefits for their communities and future generations.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is going to be adding somewhere between $70 billion and $80 billion in additional debt to its already sky-high deficit with accumulated debt of over $1 trillion. If I take the middle point and apply 4% interest to it, that is $3 billion every year just in additional interest payments on an already very high number.

How does the Liberal government justify adding tens of billions of dollars of debt to the national debt when so many Canadians are already struggling with the cost of living?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, here is how I answer that question. Canada is investing in Canada. Canada is making sure that it can defend itself, and it is doing so with measures that will help make sure that this includes Nunavut and keeping the Arctic secure.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the billions of dollars in subsidies that are given to the oil companies, and the decision to waive several environmental assessments.

Does she think this will be good for the fight against climate change? Does this not ultimately threaten the entire environment, which, I believe, is very important to her?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think that is why it is so important, with this speech specifically, that we continue to highlight that we need to work with indigenous partners. Indigenous partners, we know, have been stewards of these lands for generations, and working closely with them will help to make sure that we have a balanced approach to making sure that we can build Canada strong.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I must applaud the member in terms of her contributions, whether it is to the northern Prairie regional caucus and beyond or the national caucus, in regard to being that powerful advocate for the north. I very much appreciate her many contributions.

The member asked a question earlier today, which amplified the strength and potential of Canada's north. Could she provide further comments on that issue?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am thankful for the wonderful opportunity to share more about the strengths of Nunavut.

I mentioned, in my question, Joe, who is from the Kitikmeot region. He is a long-haul truck driver, but also, as I mentioned, he and his family have been stewards of the land for generations. For him, it is striking a balance between economic opportunities that will help with economic prosperity for Nunavummiut while keeping a balance with protecting the environment and making sure they still have access to caribou and marine mammals. These are great strengths that Inuit, in particular, have in the Arctic that I am sure are replicated in the many first nations and Métis stories, which we need to keep hearing in the House of Commons so that when we are talking about Canada, we are also lifting up indigenous peoples, given that June 1 is the first day of National Indigenous History Month.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île said, a lot of climate policies have been walked back. The government ended the carbon tax and, for all intents and purposes, the industrial carbon tax. It is also allowing hydrogen made from methane to be classified as clean hydrogen, granting new oil subsidies, and so on. Despite all this backtracking, including the funding for new pipelines, the government is telling us that it will be able to fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement as early as this year.

Bloc Québécois members play fair. We criticize, but we ask for figures first. We are asking the government what figures it is basing its claim on. However, there do not seem to be any figures.

I would like my colleague to tell me one thing. She was recently a member of the NDP caucus, and I think she was interested in these figures when she was a New Democrat.

Now that she is a new member on that side of the House, is she pushing for those figures to be made public?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am always going to make sure, when it comes to us doing our work as parliamentarians, that we have transparency, of course. I know, for example, that when I asked my question about protecting the environment, I talked about how important the Inuit-led wind project is in Hope Bay—

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

I am terribly sorry, but I have to cut it there.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the 330-page budget implementation act, no. 2. All I can say is here we go again. This act, which puts in place measures to implement what was announced in the update, is just more of what we have become accustomed to from the Liberal government. The Liberals keep building bureaucracies and spending at speeds never seen before, faster than the previous Trudeau government. Any fiscal room that was generated by higher-than-expected revenues went immediately out the door.

For more than a decade, the Liberals have preached that deficit spending will drive the growth in the economy needed to produce good-paying jobs for Canadians. For a government that is desperately trying to convince Canadians it is different and would achieve the results Canadians have been waiting a decade for, the spring economic update proves very little has changed. Every dollar that comes into the economy is another dollar to subsidize itself.

The Liberals have caused the regulatory burden in Canada to balloon and suppress innovation and growth. Inaction is a choice. A perfect example of this is the sections in this bill that create the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity. The powers it is granting to an unnamed minister are broad and sweeping. The exceptions to competitive procurements are vast and can be used as much as the unknown minister chooses. Exceptions are likely to become the norm.

No one would argue that defence procurement has been in major need of reform. Onerous rules and layers of bureaucratic processes have only grown. The pace that meets the operational needs of the Canadian Armed Forces has been sorely needed. One could expect that over the 11 years the Liberals have been in power, they would have worked to overhaul and reform the systems and rules around procurement. One could expect it, but they would be wrong. The Liberals' solution to the bureaucratic bloat seems to be the exact same as it was a year ago. It was in Bill C-5 this time last year that the Liberals claimed they needed extraordinary powers to bypass regulations and roadblocks that got in the way of major projects. They have yet to use any of those powers to designate a project in the national interest to advance our resource development.

I do not bring up Bill C-5 to talk about the lack of results from the government on resource development; there are more than enough examples to talk about this elsewhere. I bring it up because it was originally drafted in such a way that would have allowed the government to bypass not only certain acts of Parliament to build projects, but virtually any act of Parliament. Allow me to list a few of the acts it sought the ability to bypass before it was amended at committee: the Access to Information Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Investment Canada Act and the Lobbying Act just to name a few.

The only reason this was prevented at the time was because of the minority government that Canadians had elected. A year later, now we have the same story. Procurement has become slow, costly and unable to deliver the lethality and operational readiness our armed forces need. To give members an idea of the state of operational readiness in our armed forces, we can use the Department of National Defence's own annual results from 2024-25. Less than 60% of our maritime fleet is serviceable and ready to go out on operations. Only 51% of our land fleets are sitting at the ready and well maintained so troops can use them. Only 42% of our aircraft in the Canadian Armed Forces are ready to serve and have the proper maintenance. That is years of waiting for the government to deliver while rules and processes grew without any reform.

The solution, according to the Liberals, is not to bring about reform or transformation, but rather to grant an unknown minister near-unlimited power to bypass competitive procurement rules. He or she would be able to bar anyone from being allowed to compete without ever having to provide a reason why.

This unknown minister can draw $1 billion from the consolidated revenue fund, without ever needing to go to the Treasury Board to purchase shares in companies, and fire entire boards. They can use exceptions to competitive procurements to no end, never having to justify or report it to anyone. These powers can be delegated to the CEO, undermining the entire point having a single place for accountability.

A year ago, we had Bill C-5, and the same story, the same solution was presented. In this case, however, the Liberals are seeking the ability to just go around the rules without ever having to explain why to anyone. This is rife for abuse. If power is to be given, the case must be made for how it will be balanced with accountability. This budget implementation act allows the same failed thinking that got us here: no case for reform and no change in approach.

As I said, inaction is a choice. Proud Canadians in my riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek were looking for a signal that something better was on the way. Instead, they see that the Liberals under this Prime Minister have not changed their approach at all. Deficit spending still has not produced the results the Liberals have been promising.

The interest on our debt will total more than $50 billion. Nobody on that side of the aisle seems to be interested in what we could do with our economy with that $50 billion every year. These interest charges will continue to rise and total more than a projected $80 billion by 2030‑31, with no course correction in sight.

Instead, the Liberals continue to announce even new ways to deficit spend: enter the sovereign debt fund. We recently learned that the estimated interest payments to borrow the money for this fund will be three-quarters of a billion dollars annually. They have yet to even tell Canadians what the return on their money might be. Canadians have been waiting. They continue to pay their taxes and play by the rules. They have kept their end of the deal. Saskatchewan and Saskatchewanians have kept their end of the deal. In return, the government is supposed to deliver on the results it promised Canadians. It is avoiding real change.

Instead, after more than a year since the previous election, it has opted to tinker with the margins or make small changes around the edges, and it has not been willing to change the approach it has taken to our economy. Its spending and its Defence Investment Agency all follow the same failed logic of the previous 10 years. Simply allowing the Liberals to have more power and more authority to avoid the bureaucracy they created and accountability is not the solution.

Conservatives will wait to see who will be named as minister, and whether the Liberals will use their manufactured majority to continue a pattern of avoiding accountability at committee when this bill is referred to it.

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

Madam Speaker, just over the last year, after Canadians elected a new prime minister and a new government, our Prime Minister and our government have made it very clear how we want to build a stronger and healthier country. The member made a lot of references to Saskatchewan, understandably so. Coast to coast to coast, we have a government that is committed to building the infrastructure and getting the investments. When I think of the provinces out in the prairies, I think of the LNG and the pipelines. In Saskatchewan, we can talk about the copper, the mines, the potash, the canola, and so forth. We have a government that is really focused on building up western Canada.

I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts in regard to just how important it is that we continue to support the major building projects that are under way.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe that under way are the key words in that phrase, because the first five projects the government announced were well under way. That was more performative than anything. What I would say is that Bill C-31 is proof that in year 11, the Liberals continue to put forward legislation that keeps the same failed logic we have come to expect. Believing that an 11th try using deficits to fund jobs will bear the fruit they desire is wishful thinking. I heard someone else say the issues are real and the consequences of bad policy-making are being felt across the country by Canadians. It truly is time the government holds up its end of the deal and changes course from the reckless deficit spending it has become known for.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I know that her province of Saskatchewan obviously has very significant trade ties with our neighbour to the south, the United States. I also know that Saskatchewan was quite pleased to see that an agreement had been reached with China on canola.

The fact remains that, historically speaking, our number one economic partner has been the United States. Right now, this government is doing nothing to solve the problem, or should I say problems, that we are experiencing because of President Trump's extremely hostile economic policies.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. This government behaves as though it were the saviour of the Canadian economy in the face of Donald Trump, but there is nothing in its track record over the past year to suggest that we are on the right track.

I would like to know whether this is as much of a concern in Saskatchewan as it is for us.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, that could be a very short answer if I wanted it to be. The answer is absolutely I am worried. I am worried about the fact that we have a government in power that has created the mess in our economy and then wants all Canadians to believe it has come up with the solutions and is the saviour to the problems it has created.

Yes, I am worried because the government continues to introduce the same failed policies that got us to this place after 11 years. I do not see it changing, and that is deeply concerning.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, every dollar spent on interest is a dollar that cannot be spent on the future. Canadians will pay more than $50 billion this year simply to pay the interest charges on federal debt. That money produces nothing. It creates no jobs, builds no infrastructure and improves no public services.

Could my colleague share her thoughts on the long-term consequences of forcing Canadian families and future generations to carry the cost of today's reckless deficits?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are already seeing what the devastating effects are for Canadians today. Without a change in policy, without a change in the government continuing to implement its deficit spending and believe that somehow things are going to get better for Canadians, that is concerning. It is just going to continue to repeat itself long into the future if the Liberals do not get control of the deficit and their deficit spending.

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

Madam Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to get up today and put a few words on the record about the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves with the government moving time allocation on Bill C-31.

Some of my colleagues today have covered the challenges pretty well. This is a habit we see from the Liberal government relatively frequently. We have members opposite making comments that this is a new Liberal government. Of course, it is not. The vast majority of members of the government benches on that side are certainly people who have been in cabinet and parliamentary secretary roles for a very long time, so the argument that this is a new government in any way, shape or form is a bit fictitious. Nonetheless, the government continues to perpetuate this myth to the Canadian public, which we find very unfortunate.

Similarly unfortunate is the Liberals' inability to control their own spending. The Liberals go on and on about how they are going to create more jobs and how everybody in Canada is going to do better with just one more deficit. One more is going to do it. “I promise,” say the Liberals, that one more deficit will be the one that is going to get Canadians ahead this time and we are going to make it. We have yet to see that reap any real benefits for Canadians after 11 long, tired years of this failed economic strategy.

In fact, more Canadians now are lined up at food banks than at any point in recorded history. That is a shockingly bad statistic and one that these members fail to take accountability for. It is a bit alarming that they seem to think that the few programs they have put forward, some of which are tweaked with this budget implementation act, are going to make any substantial dent in those enormously long lines at every single food bank across the country, many of which are actually running out of food.

We are a bit shocked that the Liberals cannot eat a little slice of humble pie. They cannot find that at a food bank because they are out of food, but if they could make one for themselves and take a little bite, it might be good for the Canadian public to see that for the first time from the tired 11-year-old Liberal government. They might actually come to appreciate the efforts they are undertaking maybe slightly more, because right now they seem to hear from the government that life has never been better. I do not know any constituents in Brandon—Souris who believe that is true.

On top of that, then the Liberals go and blow another $60-billion deficit, or whatever they managed to pitch that down to with the spring economic update. It is shockingly high for a government that committed in the last election to spend less to invest more. What happened to that? I have no idea where that slogan went to die, somewhere in the Liberal backbench. Perhaps the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie took that with him when he walked out with the environmental caucus. I am not sure where that is going, but nonetheless, we are concerned about the spending the government continues to perpetuate.

If that was not bad enough, now we have government members who do not even want to debate their spending or answer questions regarding their spending. The Prime Minister failed to stand up and answer any questions in question period today. It is fair game to question why exactly that is. He also failed to take any questions from the media all weekend long, including today, and particularly on Friday, when it was announced that this country has in fact dived into what is unquestionably meeting the definition of a recession.

The parliamentary secretary to the finance minister often stands up and loudly proclaims the Prime Minister's economic credentials. If he is such an expert, why does he not want to answer questions about the economy? He does not want to answer them from us. If he does not respect Parliament and does not want to answer questions in question period more than once a week because it is too much of a bother for him, okay, but he should answer questions from the media then. The Liberals always profess to have a greater respect for the national press gallery than Conservatives, they claim, and yet it is our leader time and time again taking questions from the media.

I was with him today when he offered a press conference, offering not just critiques of the government, but also our party's proposed path forward to deliver a better economic path for this country that might get us back out of this recession. There was nothing from the Prime Minister, nothing at all. What a shame. There was nothing from the finance minister either. Where is the finance minister? Why is he not answering these questions for the media, if not for the House of Commons?

I would add that I am splitting my time with the esteemed member for Airdrie—Cochrane.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North knows better than that. I know that he does not like what I have to say, because he is a member of that tired, exhausted, spent Liberal team that has been in the front couple of benches for the last 11 years. The Liberals have no new ideas. They have no vision on how to spend smarter to actually get this country into a proper economic footprint.

We are the only country in the G7 that has slipped into a recession. That is not a proud legacy for the member for Winnipeg North, and I feel bad for him, except for the fact that he cannot admit it. None of them can over there. They cannot admit their mistake, and that is unfortunate for Winnipeggers, unfortunate for Manitobans and definitely unfortunate for the country of Canada.

Perhaps it is time for some fresh blood from Winnipeg. We have the member for Elmwood Transcona, who is fresh blood as a Winnipegger in the House. What an excellent member of Parliament he is, and I cannot wait to see all the contributions he is going to make to this Parliament over the course of its duration.

However, to get back on track here, we are talking about finances, and it is terribly concerning what that member and the entire Liberal cabinet have done to the finances of this country over the course of the last long 11 years. The Liberals said that budgets balance themselves. Do members remember that one? That was a good one. What happened to the minister of middle-class prosperity? I loved that one, before I got elected to this place. There is still no definition from Liberal members as to what the heck that means. There is no concept. What has happened to the middle class since they appointed that ministry? Well, the ministry got abolished pretty shortly thereafter, because it was such a tire fire. Unfortunately, now all the middle class is at the food banks, and they ran out of food. That pretty much sums up the Liberal record on middle-class prosperity. It has been an abject failure, and now they do not want to even take questions on it.

The Liberals have moved time allocation on this bill so that they have only three hours of debate on a bill that, as my colleagues have mentioned, is over 300 pages long. They are going to ram through votes so that they can go off for the summer and spend like Liberals often do.

I guess we will see. Maybe the eleventh time is the charm. I doubt it. I really doubt it, but perhaps this time the significant deficit put forward by the government, the minister and that failed front bench will have better luck than “budgets balance themselves”, better luck than “spend less to invest more” and better luck, hopefully, I am praying, than the former minister of middle-class prosperity.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that it was interesting listening to the member opposite's statements. At the end of the day, he has not really recognized the true value that is before the House today.

What we are talking about is a budget implementation bill that is a reflection of what I believe Canadians want to see. For example, we can talk about the groceries and essentials rebate. We can talk about the excise tax benefit, which is a suspension of 10¢ a litre until September. There are all sorts of wonderful things. There are small items, but also big items. There are big items that Manitoba is benefiting from for the first time in generations.

The member was not even born when the Port of Churchill was first being talked about. For the first time since then, we are talking about the Port of Churchill. I wonder if he supports that particular initiative.

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

Madam Speaker, I was born in a time when Liberals failed to meet their commitments to Manitoba. There is no question about that.

The member mentioned the Port of Churchill. There is no mention of a dollar figure for Churchill. If the Liberals support the Port of Churchill plus project, how much are they spending on it? We do not know, because it is not mentioned in any of these documents. That is the only major project that the Liberal government has come up with for the province of Manitoba.

The Liberals have six Manitoba members. One of them represents northern Manitoba. Is this all they could come up with? There are no budgetary figures for the one project they have got referred to the Major Projects Office. That is a shameful legacy for the Liberal members from Manitoba and a shameful record for the government overall.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the economic update overlooked President Trump's tariff increase. This is a 25% tariff on all products containing aluminum and steel, and it affects 25% of exports from Quebec to the United States. This makes Quebec the location most affected by tariffs.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing wage subsidy measures. Does my colleague acknowledge that? What solution does he propose?

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

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Donald Trump's tariffs on Canadian products are an absolute disaster. Unfortunately, an equal disaster is the Liberal government's failure to live up to its election commitment to negotiate a deal with his administration. The Prime Minister touted himself as the big economic expert who was going to fly in and get a win for Canada. Well, here we are, well over a year into his prime ministership, and there is no deal with America, so my friends from Quebec, as well as those from every other province and from specific industries, are facing the brunt of that because of that failed promise from the Liberals.

The Conservatives do not believe in wage subsidies in particular. We would rather negotiate a deal in which we could continue to have tariff-free access to the American market. Our leader has put forward a plan to boost Canadian natural resources, not just in the oil and gas sector but also in the critical minerals sector, and use that as leverage to negotiate with the Americans for tariff-free access to their market.

That is something we would love for the Liberals to pillage from us. Maybe the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade wants to take that when he is on his next junket down to Washington. We would be glad for him to take it, glad for him to finally get some success on this file and glad to help our friends from Quebec and their industries that have been impacted by Donald Trump's disastrous tariff policy.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member something that is absolutely related to this. We hear this talk about the investments that we have yet to see that the Liberals claim they are going to make in our Armed Forces. They claim that it is going to mean huge increases in recruitment for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we see the way they treat our veterans. We see the massive cuts that have been made.

I know that the member represents many veterans in his area. I wonder whether he would like to comment on what he hears from veterans and whether they would recommend that people get involved in our Armed Forces, based on how our veterans are treated by the government.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important work standing up for the veterans of this country. No higher purpose, as I see it, really exists in this Parliament and in this country than standing up for those who have put on a uniform and put themselves in harm's way for the rest of us.

[An hon. member]

You closed down the office in Brandon. You know that, right?

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

Madam Speaker, to the member for Winnipeg North, I love this question because, yes, the office in Brandon was temporarily closed and moved to Shilo. The Liberals made hay of that when they were in opposition. They have since closed the Brandon office that they reopened. I wonder if the member for Winnipeg North knows that. It closed last year, permanently.

[An hon. member]

No.

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

Madam Speaker, yes, they gave up the lease, and the entire staff has been moved to Canadian Forces Base Shilo.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, before we get too much into that debate, the members over there who are heckling right now should understand that that is exactly what happened. The members over there are taking a very hypocritical action. That is for sure.

I stand today to address Bill C-31 and division 16 of that bill. I cannot help but feel a sense of concern among Canadians about what we are seeing here. It seems that the Liberal government makes announcement after announcement, and plan after plan, but it never actually implements anything. At times, people have been tempted to see some promise in some of the announcements and things that they hear, but Canadians are now starting to realize that once those announcements are made, nothing happens afterwards. The fear here is that this pattern is going to continue.

There is concern around this so-called Defence Investment Agency. The express purpose of this agency is to expedite the process for procuring new materials and new supplies for the Canadian Armed Forces, but the new agency has been announced with no real framework on how it would work. This bill attempts to address the powers of the new minister who would oversee this agency, but it leaves an awful lot to be desired. It leaves many grey areas that have members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and Canadians more generally, very concerned.

To start, there are many grave concerns about accountability. This seems to be a troubling pattern with the Liberal government. There seem to be some real, grave concerns about the accountability of this new agency, and the Liberals refuse to indicate who this new minister would be. There are provisions in the bill that would give this new minister immense power, to, for example, sole-source contracts on a wide variety of things without any oversight. Based on the sheer number of spending scandals that have been tied to the Liberal government over the past more than a decade, how can Canadians feel even remotely comfortable with the Liberals giving their ministers more power to spend without any oversight?

Division 16 would allow the Liberals' new agency the authority to spend on more consultants, despite the record number of bureaucrats they already employ to do the same work. It is well known that Liberals have abused the use of contractors and consultants to pay their own insider friends, and people are left to wonder how this would be any different.

The division also provides extremely loose definitions of what would be counted as defence spending under this new agency. It would allow the minister untold powers to sole-source products and materials, even when they are only just very remotely connected to matters of national defence.

Canadians need to have a clear understanding of what the Liberals are setting up in this agency, especially after they have misused so many taxpayer dollars on so many other occasions. The Liberals use what can sometimes be seen as good causes, and this would certainly be one of those, and they claim they are in the national interest, but then they use them to pay out their friends and to turn projects into slush funds. They did this with things like the green slush fund, the ArriveCAN app, SNC-Lavalin and, most recently, PrescribeIT.

How can Canadians who are eager to see investment in and rebuilding of our Canadian military feel secure that Liberals will establish a new agency and grant the minister of this agency so many powers, to take loans, advance payments, give government financial guarantees, give grants, establish corporations and buy shares, and do this all with no oversight in place? The Liberals have done absolutely nothing that would warrant the trust of Canadians, yet they are marching ahead with new ways to pay themselves and their friends, and they are trying to shroud it as defence spending.

I wonder if the Liberals could give the House even one example of past military procurement projects being held up or drawn out due to transparency in funding. Are they really suggesting that there is too much accountability in spending and that that is what has prevented the government from investing in the military? I doubt they can make that argument.

If that is not their argument, then why introduce these provisions buried in the back of a division in an omnibus budget bill? This reeks of corruption, and Canadians are not satisfied with the answers they are getting.

There are ample examples in the bill of the new agency's being granted the power to bypass procedural fairness in contracting and procurement processes, but to what purpose could that be? How can avoiding open competition for procurement projects and being able to sole-source contracts without explanation possibly result in the best use of taxpayers' funds for our military?

Bill C-31 would grant the new minister of the agency the ability to spend up to $1 billion without any checks and without any reporting mechanisms in place to show Canadians what was purchased for the spending. Clauses in the bill would grant this unnamed minister the ability to purchase shares of corporations using taxpayer funds and to replace members, directors and officers at their own discretion. Once again, this is the government famous for enriching its friends by giving them taxpayers' money and putting them in prestigious positions while the military suffers with outdated equipment and Canadians line up at food banks.

The loss of trust does not end there, though. It also deeply affects veterans in Canada. This is especially troubling because the Liberals are so certain that all these new announcements will attract record numbers of Canadians to join the armed forces. That is what we keep hearing over and over again. While the Liberals assume this will happen, they turn around and treat Canada's veterans like they are just a bother, a hindrance to get rid of, rather than treat them like the heroes they are and give them the help they deserve.

How can the Liberals expect Canadians to line up outside recruiting offices, when they see thousands and thousands of veterans left injured, homeless, changed by their service and not getting the help or resources they need once they are released from the military? I have heard, in my role as shadow minister for Veterans Affairs, from hundreds if not thousands of veterans who say that while they are proud of their service to Canada, they would never recommend the forces to their children or loved ones, because of how poorly the government has treated them since they left. They often say this with a broken heart, because they love the country they served and want our armed forces to be successful. When our veterans are warning Canadians to stay away, we have a much bigger problem.

The Liberal government needs to stop with all the talk and start with some action. The Liberals have been in power a year with the new Prime Minister, and it has been more than a decade that they have been in power in total. The only thing we have to show for it so far is an economic recession.

Most of the provisions in Bill C-31 lay out how the Liberals can spend more money on contracts and consultants, but nothing is mentioned about actual defence procurement. The one area that Canadians do want to see some spending in is our defence and veterans. The Liberals are dragging their heels and are busy trying to bury in legislation ways that would allow them to spend without any oversight rather than really doing the work of building up the military. This same omnibus bill approach, designed to not allow Parliament the proper time to check and analyze the contents, made historic cuts to veterans services just months ago. More than $4 billion was cut from veterans services in this budget.

On one hand, when the Liberals are caught trying to sneak in legislative changes to make it easier for them to enrich their insider friends, they tell Canadians that these provisions are actually going to make things better and make the ranks of the military swell with new recruits. However, on the other hand, they make the largest cuts to Veterans Affairs. This cognitive dissonance is not lost on Canadians or on members of our armed forces.

Through creative accounting, the Liberals are claiming they are spending 2% of our GDP on the military, despite the fact that they are counting things such as infrastructure spending, personnel benefits, the civilian Coast Guard and other things in their calculations to reach this conclusion, and these are all things that NATO will not count toward the 2% criteria. Now the Liberals stand before the House, after slashing support for veterans, after years of numerous scandals and after billions wasted on consultants, and ask Canadians to trust them with these new measures that would make it easier for them to abuse taxpayers' funds. I say that is something of great concern to many Canadians.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, Oxford University Press chose the word of the year in 2025. That word was “rage bait”, and that speech was exhibit A.

When the member claims there has been $4.2 billion cut from the Veterans Affairs budget, he knows better. He knows that the $4.2 billion is an actuarial calculation that simply states the present value of a future obligation for medical cannabis, which is now being reimbursed to veterans at the market rate. There are no cutbacks. The same amount of cannabis is being distributed, only now the price that is being paid is the market rate. That is what is reflected in the $4 billion. Rage baiting is when one takes that and misconstrues it into something they know full well it is not.

Is the member ready now to stand up and acknowledge that is in fact the case and stop the rage baiting?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would be ashamed of myself if I was to stand and ask a question like that. I understand the role that the parliamentary secretary plays to defend a Prime Minister who is indefensible, frankly. However, when he stands up and tries to tell us that $4 billion is for cuts to cannabis, how much cannabis are the Liberals planning on handing out to veterans? That is a heck of a lot of cannabis.

Another thing we are hearing from veterans in long-term care is that they are being shortchanged. We hear from RCMP veterans who are having their pensions reduced. We hear about cuts to the bureau of pension advocates, which is the group that helps veterans get their benefits when they are denied by the government far too often. These are the kinds of impacts. The BPA cuts alone will mean five-year wait times for veterans to finally get the benefits they have worked so hard to deserve.

How can the member stand up and try to pretend that somehow we are manufacturing this? I guess all Canadians, veterans and everyone else who is crying about all of these horrible cuts are all rage baiting too, apparently. However, I will tell members right now that it is the government that is mistaken and it will pay the price for it.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of a federal government's values is how it treats those who served our country. Veterans do not need more announcements. They need timely services, reliable benefits and access to the supports they have earned.

With this budget adding more debt and pushing interest costs above $50 billion a year, could my colleague explain how Canadians can have confidence that veterans will remain a priority when so much of the government's revenue is being consumed simply by paying interest on past spending?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say to that is there is a bit of a premise to the question that I would take disagreement with. The member mentioned the idea of veterans remaining a priority. I would argue that veterans have never been a priority for the government. This budget only further proves that.

I mentioned already some of the things that we have seen cut, but the member, very correctly, raises some of the concerns that we see among Canadians more broadly, like food bank usage and homelessness. These things affect veterans, unfortunately, even more acutely than the general population of Canadians as a whole, so they are feeling those things worse than ever. However, when they go to seek the help they need because of the service they have given to our country and the injury that has caused them, we owe them as a country to make sure we are there for them. We have not been there for them. Under the government, as the member mentions, far too many veterans are homeless, using food banks and cannot get the help they deserve, need and have earned from the government.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel like I am unrecognizable today.

In summary, I have concerns when I look at Bill C‑31, especially the part about public contracts. The bill says that this division amends the financial administration to authorize the government to make regulations with respect to the conditions under which contracts may be entered into, despite any other act of Parliament. Essentially, the main amendment seems to be adding Crown corporations.

Are federal Crown corporations becoming the new way to get around the Financial Administration Act?

We just finished studying this at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Clearly, Crown corporations are like black holes: Accountability is not the same as within a department. Is it still a democracy when the government skirts the law and uses Crown corporations for expenses that the government should be incurring itself?

I would like to ask my colleague that question.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will just say that the member raised a lot of very good questions. They are questions that do not have answers. I think the reason they do not have answers is that the government is deliberately trying to avoid being accountable and being transparent. This is another way, just another way of many, to reward all of its friends, all the Liberal insiders, and it is being done at the expense of Canadians.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Madam Speaker, the world is changing rapidly, profoundly and, in many ways, irreversibly. It is more divided, more volatile and more dangerous than at any point since the end of the Cold War. In this new reality, the assumptions that shaped decades of Canadian defence and security policy no longer apply, and the threats we face are no longer just hypothetical scenarios. At the same time, we are dealing with rapidly changing methods of warfare, driven by the proliferation of drones, artificial intelligence, space-based weapons and new technologies that are still emerging.

The world has changed, and Canada must change with it. That is why our government is strengthening Canada's sovereign capabilities and critical sectors and deepening co-operation with trusted partners. To keep us safe and secure, we are making generational investments to rebuild, rearm, and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces, which will have a profound impact on my home province of Nova Scotia, where 20% of Canadian Armed Forces members are stationed.

With a bold new approach to defence procurement, we are transforming how we make those investments so that our military has what it needs, when it needs it, and so that Canadians benefit economically from those investments. This transformation is firmly anchored in Canada's first-ever defence industrial strategy, which was launched this past February. It is a landmark framework that sets a long-term vision for how we can strengthen our defence capabilities while building a more resilient, innovative and competitive industrial base right here at home.

At the centre of that strategy is the Defence Investment Agency. The agency plays a critical role in modernizing and accelerating defence procurement, ensuring we can deliver the right capabilities to the Canadian Armed Forces when they are needed most. At the same time, it is driving stronger investment, deeper partnerships and more meaningful engagement with the Canadian defence industry, helping to position Canadian companies to grow, innovate and contribute to both national security and economic prosperity.

Let us be honest. In the past, Canada's defence procurement system has been slow, complicated and fragmented, particularly when it comes to decision-making and accountability. We have all seen this movie too many times before, with our most critical defence procurement projects taking decades to complete in some cases. What we have in this country is a procurement system that at times struggles to respond to urgent operational needs, and this has come at a cost to the readiness of our armed forces, as well as our defence industrial base. Of course, this is not due to a lack of commitment or professionalism; rather, it is a reflection of a system that was simply not built for the dangerous environment we face today.

Canadians last year elected a government that would focus on building one strong economy. In doing so, we created Canada's first defence industrial strategy, which establishes a whole-of-government approach to transform Canada's defence industry and procurement system. It rightly prioritizes Canadian suppliers and materials wherever possible. It invests in Canadian innovation, commercialization and export potential, and it provides industry with a more streamlined, predictable and transparent demand outlook. The goal is straightforward: to strengthen Canada's strategic autonomy while building prosperity here at home. This strategy is going to get us there.

Over the next decade, we project that we will see an increase in Canada's defence exports by 50% and that we will raise the share, critically, of defence acquisitions awarded to Canadian firms to 70%, supporting our homegrown businesses and innovators in the defence space. The size, capability and competitiveness of Canada's defence industry as a result will, of course, grow. That means more high-quality and high-paying jobs for Canadians, from aerospace engineers to cyber specialists and from advanced manufacturing to digital technologies.

The Defence Investment Agency is the engine that will turn this strategy into reality. The DIA has a clear and focused mandate to re-equip our military faster and more effectively while leveraging defence investments to strengthen Canada's defence industrial base and attract private capital into the sector. It is designed to accelerate procurement timelines and bring sustained leadership and accountability to the largest defence investments made in generations in this country. The agency in its current form was launched in October 2025 as a special operating agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada.

In a very short time, it has already demonstrated its value, advancing major procurements such as Arctic over-the-horizon radar and the Canadian patrol submarine project, which are foundational to the defence of Canada, which, of course, has the longest coastline in the world. We know that the Defence Investment Agency, to fully deliver on its mandate, must be established as a stand-alone entity with the authorities, governance and agility required to match the scale of our government's ambition. That has always been the plan.

In our spring economic update, our government proposed $103.8 million over five years, starting in this fiscal year, and $22.3 million ongoing, to establish and operate the DIA as a stand-alone organization. Today, we debate a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, which was tabled in Parliament on November 4 of last year, specifically on the defence and national security production and procurement act.

To be clear, the legislation is not about bureaucracy. It is about capability. It is about speed. It is about aligning procurement with strategy, industry with security and investment with outcomes. This includes actively advancing initiatives aimed at reducing red tape and improving efficiency, which would ultimately reduce duplication, increase time savings and streamline processes.

These initiatives would allow us to better align with our G7 and NATO partners, which, as we know, is more important than ever, as today's global challenges, including international peace and security, global economic stability and growth, and the digital transition, require Canadians and allies to work together to find shared solutions. That is why Canada is working with G7 and NATO partners to build a new era of collaboration, one rooted in trusted partnerships, competitive economies and innovation that delivers for people and businesses. This is especially critical when it comes to the defence sector.

This moment in history demands seriousness of purpose and a new approach to defence procurement, which is at the heart of our debate tonight. Since day one, our government has acted, and we are seeing results. Last fiscal year alone, Canada invested more than $63 billion in defence, the largest increase in generations. In March, Canada reached the NATO alliance's benchmark of spending 2% of GDP on defence five years earlier than planned, and we are on a path to meet the 5% NATO target by 2035. That is imperative because when Canada invests in defence, we are investing in Canadians, our workers and our innovators, and all of our future responsibilities.

The changes we propose are necessary, timely and forward-looking. They recognize that Canada's security and economic strength are inseparable and that we must be able to act quickly and decisively in a more dangerous world. By establishing the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity, we are building a procurement system fit for today and for the future. We are backing our armed forces with the tools they need, and we are backing Canadian industry and business with opportunity and certainty, helping to ultimately establish Canada's place in the world as a strong, reliable and capable ally.

For all of these reasons, I urge all members of the House to support the Defence Investment Agency and, as a result, support a stronger, safer and more resilient Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question will be very brief.

I am going to ask my Liberal colleague to list all the major victories the government has scored against Donald Trump, his tariffs and his tariff threats.

If he could just quickly list all the victories, all the gains the government has made against Donald Trump over the past year, that would be great.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's question was very brief; I thank him for that.

As I said in my speech, the defence industry is so important in Nova Scotia that the budget allocates $63 billion to it.

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

It being 6:57 p.m., pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

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

The division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 2, 2026, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

I see the hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 45(8), I request that the recorded division be further deferred to Wednesday, June 3, following the time provided for Oral Questions.

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, is it the will of the House to see the clock at 7:12 p.m.?

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Taxation

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always my great pleasure and honour to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, who, like all Canadians right now, are grappling with an affordability crisis.

The cost of food has gone up. The cost of fuel has gone up. The cost of rent has gone up. The cost of housing has gone up, and yes, the cost of the Liberal government continues to go up. This is not just an abstract national issue; this is something we see particularly in the London economic region, which includes St. Thomas and Elgin. London unemployment is the highest in the country, at over 9%. This is a massive problem for people. We see youth unemployment pushing up against 15%.

When I asked in the House, in question period, whether the government would commit to a very real and tangible measure to make one aspect of life more affordable, to cut all federal taxes on fuel until the end of the year, all I got from the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources was bluster. I believe “hot air” was the comment I may have made in my original attempt at getting a response.

In the opposition, we are about solutions. We continue to hold the government to account and offer ideas for things that will make life more affordable. As our leader has said time and time again, and as I have said, we welcome when the government steals our ideas. We wish it would go further and steal the whole idea, because Canadians need relief.

When we asked the government to take all federal taxes off fuel for the entirety of the year, as a starting point, because it would save Canadians 28¢ a litre at the pumps, what did the Liberals do? They said, “Okay, we will tell you what we can do: We will take a third of the taxes off for a third of the year.” Something is better than nothing, but it is not nearly enough.

I look at the challenges that have been aggravated now that we have learned Canada is in a recession, two quarters of negative growth. We hear, of course, from the defenders of the Liberal government and the media that it is just a little technicality; a technical recession, they call it. I believe a technical recession is what the media calls it when a Liberal government is responsible for it. That is what $2 billion of taxpayer money will buy in terms of coverage.

However, it is not theoretical or merely technical when we talk to Canadians who cannot afford to fill up their gas tank, when we talk to Canadians who are skipping meals, as I have heard of several constituents doing, when we talk to Canadians who are using a food bank now for the first time in their life, or when we talk to people at the food banks who say they are struggling to keep enough food on the shelves.

Canada lost 112,300 jobs just in the last three months. We are seeing a couple of conflicting narratives from the government on this. They say it is just a technicality in numbers, and on the other hand they say the recession we are in right now is the fault of the U.S. That does not explain why we are the only G7 country to be facing this. All countries around the world are dealing with the same global instability, the same tariffs and the same trade threats, but only Canada is in a recession.

Why is the Liberal government not taking seriously measures that it has within its authority to do, at a minimum dropping all federal taxes on fuel for the duration of the year, but far beyond that, stopping the inflationary spending that is driving life more and more unaffordable for Canadians?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South for speaking not only on behalf of his constituents but for all Canadians who are facing an affordability crisis. We are all seized with meeting Canadians where they are through this affordability crisis, while working on building the country up.

Canadians are facing heightened affordability pressures from sources beyond our control, so it is more important that we find opportunities for improvement within our control. We know that Canadians are feeling the pressures of everyday expenses right now, especially when it comes to the cost of fuel. As a northerner, I know how much everything depends on the price of fuel.

Canadians and consumers around the world are facing higher prices at the pump, creating uncertainty and pressure on household finances. That is why, on April 14, the Prime Minister announced a temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuels across Canada. This suspension started April 20 and will remain in effect right up until Labour Day. This is expected to reduce Canadians' bills at the pump by up to 10¢ per litre on gasoline. Combined with our elimination of the consumer carbon tax, that amounts to 28¢ per litre. That is real and tangible, and it is in addition to the other measures we put in place to support Canadians.

We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit to make everyday essentials such groceries more affordable. This measure builds on the GST credit and will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians. It will start with a one-time top-up this Friday, in just four days. Combined with a 25% increase in the benefit for five years as of next month, a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year, and a single person will receive up to $950 in 2026.

We also know that a big part of taking things into our own hands is making life more affordable for Canadians. That is why Bill C-30 is proposing to extend the grace period, during which homeowners are not required to start repaying their homebuyers plan withdrawals from their RRSP, from two years to five years for participants making a first withdrawal between January 1, 2026 and December 31, 2028.

The homebuyers plan helps eligible homebuyers save for a down payment by allowing them to withdraw up to $60,000 from an RRSP to purchase or build their first home or a home for a specified disabled person without having to pay tax on the withdrawal. This extended grace period already applies to withdrawals made between 2022 and 2025, and it provides 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.

Everyone deserves a roof over their head. That is why our government is taking action to put housing and home ownership within reach of Canadians. That is in addition to all the other measures. Just the other week, in the Yukon, I was able to put some of this commitment into action with an announcement with the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure of $100 million toward housing, $82 million into infrastructure and $75 million into health infrastructure. This is about building north and building Canada strong.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate my colleague from the north's acknowledgement of the problem. I did find it a little odd that he touted the government's removal of the consumer carbon price, when in 2024 he actually devoted a member statement, a rare opportunity to rise in the House on any subject of our choosing, to defending the carbon tax. It is funny that he is now getting up to claim credit for dismantling it.

If the Liberal government truly does acknowledge these concerns, truly realizes the affordability crisis facing Canadians, why will it not get rid of all federal taxes on fuel and give Canadians full relief for the entirety of the year?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciate the point of view the member brings up and the recognition that in these highly unusual times and in the midst of an affordability crisis, we have to adjust to meet Canadians where they are.

The measures in the recent spring economic update are part of those next steps in our plan to build a stronger, more independent and resilient Canada for all. It advances our progress of building more affordable homes and the major infrastructure that needs to go with this. It helps businesses seize new opportunities and gives families the confidence to plan for their future. It builds a Canada that is not just strong but good, and not just prosperous but fair.

Employment

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of the great questions facing any nation is whether it trusts its people more than it trusts the government. That question lies at the heart of the economic challenges facing Canada today.

For most of our history, Canada was a country where ordinary people could arrive with little more than a dollar in their pocket, work hard, take risks, build a business, buy a home, raise a family, and leave their children better off than themselves. It was not because government created prosperity. It was because government created the conditions in which prosperity could grow. New Canadians were allowed to freely create their own opportunities without too much government interference.

Today, however, we see the consequence of a very different philosophy. We are told that every problem requires another government program, another regulation and another bureaucracy to oversee it all. Yet, after years of this Liberal central planning approach, Canadians are not becoming more prosperous. They are barely managing to get by. More than 112,000 jobs have disappeared in the first few months of this year. Youth unemployment has climbed above 14%. Business investment continues to flee the country, and household savings have been used up. Families are working harder while falling further behind. This is the disastrous result of a government that cannot keep its hands out of our pockets or their red tape out of our enterprises.

The government seems determined to argue about whether Canada is in a technical recession. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would use that same ridiculous argument while standing beside a mother waiting in a food bank line, a young person sending out résumés with no response or a family losing their home. Canadians do not experience recession through Liberal talking points. They experience it through lost jobs, missed mortgage payments, shrinking savings accounts and the growing fear that despite working hard and playing by the rules, they are falling further behind.

This recession is the logical consequence of Liberal ideology. The Liberals have a governing philosophy that believes prosperity can be designed by Ottawa in a boardroom, rather than created by millions of Canadians making decisions for themselves. When a government makes it harder to build, invest, hire or expand, it should not be a surprise when investments leave and jobs disappear. What is especially troubling is that Canada is not suffering from a lack of talent, resources, innovation or ambition. We possess all of those things in abundance. What we lack is a government that is willing to remove the barriers that prevent Canadians from putting those strengths to work.

Every year it becomes more difficult to build, invest, hire or expand, because government has inserted itself into more and more areas of economic life. The result is a system that satisfies almost no one. Those paying for it feel overburdened, while those depending on it often find that it delivers less than promised. Government grows larger, yet the problems it claims to solve seem only to multiply.

Adam Smith understood that prosperity is created when free people are allowed to pursue opportunity and create value for others. We know that liberty is weakened when power becomes concentrated in government institutions. One truth never changes: A nation becomes stronger when its citizens are empowered, not when they are centrally managed.

After years of rising bureaucracy, rising spending, rising deficits, rising unemployment and now a recession, when will the government acknowledge that prosperity does not come from Ottawa treating citizens like incapable children, but from smart, hard-working Canadians—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I want to, first of all, thank the member for Cloverdale—Langley City for her dedication to workers in her riding. I can assure her that the Government of Canada is dedicated to building a robust and inclusive workforce that supports all Canadians. These are serious and challenging times, and they must be met with a disciplined focus to help our country meet today's challenges.

It is here that I would like to highlight the Government of Canada's labour market development agreements and workforce development agreements. Together, these agreements provide $2.9 billion annually in training and employment assistance services delivered through provincial and territorial employment assistance offices. These will help hundreds of thousands of Canadians upgrade their skills and find employment. In addition, new EI applicants are referred to local employment offices for customized training and employment services. This is informed by career development officers who have real-time labour market information and knowledge of local employment opportunities.

However, more is needed to help Canadian workers who are affected by U.S. tariffs and global market shifts. That is why we are providing a further $570 million to the labour market development agreements to assist steel and softwood lumber workers and workers from other tariff-impacted industries. This support will be delivered through provincial and territorial networks until 2027‑28. For example, we have recently introduced $70.4 million in federal funding in the member opposite's home province under the new Canada-British Columbia workforce tariff response. It is a three-year commitment that is expected to help more than 8,000 people across the province. This is in addition to the nearly $400 million we spend each year supporting employment programs in British Columbia.

Tariffs have created stress and uncertainty for workers, employers and communities across Canada, and that is why we are working closely with governments at all levels to strengthen local economies and protect workers' jobs. I can assure everyone that our elbows are up. Times are tough, but we have a plan, and we are working together to keep our elbows up to continue supporting our economy and building Canada strong. We know that our workers are at the heart of Canada's economic strength. We are investing heavily in our people to develop greater economic resilience in all sectors. It is no secret that tariffs have hit the steel, automotive and softwood lumber sectors the hardest. That is why we are focusing on building an economy that is not reliant on one single partner. We are building a resilient economy that will help create new job opportunities for Canadian workers, an economy that remains focused on improving the outlook for Canadian workers to help them find and keep good jobs here at home.

Helping Canadian workers is our top priority. That is why our spring economic update recently announced $6 billion focused on helping workers and young people gain the skills, experience and support they need to thrive. Canada is building big and bold. We have a plan to build no fewer than 500,000 homes each year, and it is called team Canada strong. It is a cornerstone of our spring economic update. It is a plan to recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal trades workers in the next five years, a plan that will make it easier for apprentices to learn, train and access meaningful careers.

We know there is more work to do to support Canadians, but I can assure everyone that we will always be there to support Canadian employers, workers and families.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, what we are witnessing is not simply a recession. It is the predictable result of a government that believes prosperity can be engineered by Ottawa rather than created by Canadians themselves. For a year, the Prime Minister has promised growth. Instead, the economy has shrunk in three of the last four quarters. More than 112,000 jobs have disappeared. Business investment has fallen. Billions of dollars have left this country. None of this should surprise us. When the government makes it more expensive to build, invest, hire and produce, businesses invest less, entrepreneurs take fewer risks and jobs disappear. Ordinary Canadians are paying the price. Food bank use is at record levels. Household debt is the highest in the G7. Families are working harder and getting less.

When will the Liberals stop driving Canadians' decline and remove the taxes, red tape and barriers forcing jobs and opportunities out of Canada?

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Madam Speaker, Canada's labour market is experiencing unprecedented pressure from tariffs, skill shortages, supply chain disruptions and broader economic shifts, so it has never been more important for government and industry to come together to strengthen our economy. That is why the Government of Canada has created workforce alliances to help Canadian workers weather this tariff storm. They focus on six priority areas: housing and construction, transportation and supply chains, advanced manufacturing, the care economy, mining and minerals, and energy and electricity. Each one is key to ensuring Canada's economic growth. Together, they will keep Canada's workforce strategy grounded in the real needs of the country.

Our workforce alliances are unified by one core mission, and that is to create lasting job opportunities for Canada's workers where they are needed most.

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

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:19 p.m.)