Call in the members.
House of Commons Hansard #126 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was recession.
House of Commons Hansard #126 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was recession.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Offender Rehabilitation Act Second reading of Bill C-240. The bill, Bill C-240, seeks to allow courts to mandate rehabilitative measures for offenders during incarceration, tying progress—including treatment and training—to parole eligibility. Proponents, including Conservative members, emphasize that the legislation aims to tackle addiction and address fentanyl trafficking while promoting recovery. The motion for second reading was adopted unanimously by the House and referred to committee. 7500 words, 1 hour.
Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion Members debate a time allocation motion for Bill C-31. Conservative and Bloc MPs criticize the government for limiting debate on a massive omnibus bill, raising concerns about lack of transparency and broad defence procurement authority. Minister Miller defends the measure, arguing the budget is vital for economic investment and cultural funding, while accusing the opposition of obstructing necessary governance. 4700 words, 35 minutes.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that Bill C-31 will be separated into three distinct votes at second reading, acknowledging that provisions regarding air travel complaints were not sufficiently detailed in the 2025 budget documents. 1000 words.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 Second reading of Bill C-31. The bill implements provisions from the November 2025 budget. While Liberals defend it as necessary for [defence procurement] (/debates/2026/6/1/chris-bittle-3/), opposition parties heavily criticize the government for [shutting down debate] (/debates/2026/6/1/tamara-kronis-6/) on the massive legislative package. Conservatives highlight the severe impacts of [housing costs] (/debates/2026/6/1/garnett-genuis-1/), while the Bloc Québécois protests the [lack of consultation] (/debates/2026/6/1/marilene-gill-4/) on key industrial concerns. Additionally, the Green Party raises alarms regarding the bill's [weaker environmental standards] (/debates/2026/6/1/elizabeth-may-2/). 30400 words, 4 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
The Economy Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre requests an emergency debate following a recent Statistics Canada report, arguing that Canada’s economic contraction and high cost of living constitute a national emergency requiring immediate government attention and action. 1000 words.
Remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry Gérard Deltell raises a question of privilege, accusing the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry of deliberately misleading the House by denying that Canada is in a recession despite recent GDP contraction data. 1000 words.
Bill C-31—Time Allocation MotionBudget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2Government Orders
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2Government Orders
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
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.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderGovernment Orders
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.
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 LiberalParliamentary 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 LiberalParliamentary 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.