Debates of June 11th, 2026

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 seven petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

While I am on my feet, I move:

That the House do now proceed to orders of the day.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #152

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C-26

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, Bill C-26, An Act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of improving housing supply, be disposed of as follows:

(a) the bill be ordered for consideration at the second reading stage immediately after the adoption of this order;

(b) when the House begins debate at the second reading stage of the bill, one member of each recognized party, a member of the New Democratic Party, and the member of the Green Party, may each speak at the said stage for not more than 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments, provided that members may be permitted to split their time with another member;

(c) at the conclusion of the time provided for the debate at the second reading stage or when no member wishes to speak, whichever is earlier, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put without further debate or amendment;

(d) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall be deemed referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage, and deemed read a third time and passed; and

(e) during consideration of the bill,

(i) after 8:30 p.m., no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair,

(ii) the House shall not adjourn, except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the Crown,

(iii) no motion to adjourn the debate may be moved except by a minister of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to open the debate on Government Business No. 11 and to highlight the importance of Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply.

The motion would allow for the quick passage of Bill C-26, putting our government in a position to make payments to the provinces and territories, up to a total of $1.7 billion, to support efforts that improve the housing supply across Canada. It is a targeted measure designed to get funding quickly to the provinces and territories for measures that get homes built, including reducing development fees or levies on new home construction and making incremental investments in provincial and territorial programming already in place to spur housing developments.

Far too many Canadians are struggling to find an affordable place to live. I believe every member of the House agrees that Canada is in a housing crisis. Solving that crisis requires a multitude of different tools and it requires immediate action. We need to bring down the costs, cut red tape, improve productivity and build more quickly. To meet the current and future housing needs of Canadians, we need to ensure that housing supply can keep pace with demand and that homes can be delivered at prices that are affordable for Canadians.

I want to speak to the urgency of the motion and the need to move quickly on the motion and the legislation. We need to move quickly to solve Canada's housing challenges by bringing down the costs, as I said, cutting red tape and building homes at a faster pace.

Bill C-26 has been designed to unlock housing supply across the country. The legislation would deliver a $1.7-billion federal investment to the provinces and territories to support measures that increase housing supply. These funds could, for example, help lower development fees or levies on new home construction, which are particularly significant in my home province of B.C. and in Ontario. They can also strengthen existing provincial and territorial programs that are already focused on building more homes through targeted, incremental investments.

In addition, the federal investment can provide support for provincial and territorial efforts to streamline regulations and boost productivity across the home construction sector. Ontario's recent announcement of an HST rebate on new homes is a key example of how these transfers would improve supply.

As part of tax relief efforts, the Ontario government, thanks to federal support tied to the bill, plans to rebate the full 13% harmonized sales tax in Ontario on new homes valued up to a million dollars, which would save buyers up to $130,000 on a new home at that $1-million price.

It is clear that strong partnerships with the provinces, territories and local governments are essential to building more homes and improving housing affordability for Canadians. Proceeding swiftly with Bill C-26 through this motion would get get these funds to the provinces, and all of the work could continue across the country at pace.

Last week, I spoke at the annual conference of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, where I shared my own experience as a mayor. I remember asking the federal government for the investments and support my community needed. I remember the years spent trying to get Stephen Harper's Conservative government to recognize this growing problem. I remember their many refusals to even sit at the table, let alone collaborate on finding and implementing solutions.

Today, things are different. Canada has a new government that is resolutely committed to taking action. Thanks to our government's investments, we are supporting the community infrastructure that people depend on every day, from community centres and recreational facilities to parks and cultural spaces. This includes new builds, expansions, renovations, retrofits, climate adaptations and project replacements.

Simply put, it is impossible to build housing without the road and water infrastructure needed to support it. Rather than let our municipal partners shoulder these responsibilities alone or pass on the cost of this infrastructure to homebuyers, we are making essential investments through the Canada housing infrastructure fund and now through our historic new build communities strong fund.

The result of these investments is real projects that will improve people's lives. Last April, we announced $25.9 million for water infrastructure in Regina, Saskatoon and Moose Jaw, enabling the construction of more than 29,000 homes. Last December, we announced $8.6 million for Charlottetown, P.E.I., to build the infrastructure needed to build up to 525 housing units. Just over a week ago, we announced our comprehensive partnership with the Government of Quebec on community, health and transportation infrastructure. Historic action is being taken to build stronger communities, with good neighbourhoods and homes people can afford.

These investments are complemented further by the important work of Build Canada Homes. Since launching in September, Build Canada Homes has already advanced six direct-build projects in Dartmouth, Longueuil, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton, and secured six major partnerships with the City of Ottawa and the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and B.C., and a tripartite agreement with the Nunavut Housing Corporation and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

As a dedicated agency with a mandate to build affordable housing, Build Canada Homes is already doing important work to move thousands of new homes forward. We announced 1,100 new homes, including 700 supportive and transitional homes, to be built within the next 12 months, in B.C. just this last February. Build Canada Homes will build up to 750 homes across Nunavut in partnership with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Through the partnership with New Brunswick, we will accelerate the delivery of up to 1,200 shovel‑ready affordable homes, with the potential to scale up to 1,500 new homes in New Brunswick. A few weeks ago, we brought together both the build communities strong fund and Build Canada Homes by delivering approximately $350 million in housing and infrastructure investments in the Yukon.

These are just a few examples of the partnerships and progress Build Canada Homes has accomplished in less than a year.

Yesterday, this House passed Bill C‑20, the Build Canada Homes act, at third reading, taking us one step closer to turning Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation, with even more tools to get more homes built. Whether it is through the build communities strong fund, Build Canada Homes or any of our other programs, now is the time to work together. Now is the time for all levels of government to get to the table and identify our priorities so that we can get building.

We are in uncertain times, but when we work together, we can give ourselves more than anyone can take away. That is why our government is taking action on these different fronts across the housing spectrum, reducing barriers, investing in housing-enabled infrastructure and catalyzing a more productive homebuilding sector. Bill C‑26 is an important tool within this broader effort.

The reality is that housing needs differ from region to region, and our response must be just as nuanced and targeted. The barriers faced in a fast-growing urban centre, like my home city of Vancouver, are very different from those in smaller or more remote communities. What Vancouver needs versus what Iqaluit, Chicoutimi or rural Canada needs generally differs significantly. Bill C‑26 reflects this reality by giving the provinces and territories the flexibility to find solutions that are best suited to the regional challenges that may impede housing supply and would best meet the housing needs of those jurisdictions. By empowering the provinces and territories to direct funding where it can be most impactful in addressing the housing supply barriers, we can help ensure that these federal investments align with the on-the-ground realities. This federal funding would be transferred to provinces and territories with the understanding that it will be used exclusively for measures that increase housing supply.

For instance, this could include but is not limited to reducing development fees or levies on new home construction. The funding could be used on new home construction. The funding could also be used to make incremental investments in provincial or territorial programming already in place to spur housing developments. Ontario's HST announcement on March 25 of this year is an example of how these transfers could help home supply in Ontario.

The key element here is partnership, which is also central to our broader housing approach. Strong collaboration among all levels of government, with indigenous partners and with non-profit organizations and private industry is needed to address the housing challenges that we face across Canada. Provinces and territories are well placed to determine how federal support can augment their provincial and territorial efforts to unlock additional supply across different regions, and Bill C‑26 would help enable that effort.

We are already seeing the effectiveness of partnerships. On March 23, the Prime Minister announced a partnership with Ontario to reduce development charges and support new housing supply, demonstrating how that collaboration can directly lower costs and accelerate building. As I outlined earlier, the federal government is also working with provinces, territories and indigenous partners to deliver more homes, affordable homes, through Build Canada Homes and the build communities strong fund.

These examples show what is possible when the Government of Canada works together with provinces, territories, local governments, indigenous groups and other key partners. Bill C‑26's approach complements the broader work that is already under way to increase housing supply across Canada. We are bringing partners together, aligning these efforts and ensuring that every dollar contributes to faster, more effective housing delivery.

This bill is tailor-made to meet those needs, but I also want to take a moment to talk about other important programs.

As I noted, our government is taking action to support building across the housing spectrum. The work of Build Canada Homes to scale up the supply of affordable housing nationwide is in full swing now. Other measures like targeted tax relief, such as removing the 5% GST on new purpose‑built rental construction, are lowering upfront costs and helping move projects forward.

Programs like the apartment construction loan program and the CMHC mortgage loan insurance products, MLI select being a great example, help builders secure financing. These programs are very significant across Canada. They are more on the market side of housing, but they are certainly enabling historic levels of rental housing to be built right across the country.

The apartment construction loan program is making needed capital available to make more apartment projects financially viable and get shovels in the ground. That is the key piece, particularly in these uncertain times. Recently, in the spring economic update, we announced that we would be kicking this program into even higher gear, accelerating over $7 billion in low‑cost financing to speed up rental home construction even further.

The housing accelerator fund is also a program that helps unlock supply, reducing barriers, reducing red tape and speeding up approvals at the local level. We have 241 housing accelerator fund agreements that were signed with local governments, and they are delivering tens of thousands of homes on pace that would not have been seen otherwise.

To conclude, right now there is momentum like never before to deliver on the housing issue, but we cannot do it alone. Our success relies on working together to tackle the housing crisis from every angle and deliver results for Canadians. By enabling targeted, flexible funding and reinforcing collaboration across provinces and territories, Bill C‑26 would help to ensure that we are not just investing more but investing smarter, together. This is how we will deliver the homes that Canadians need. This is how we will create more prosperous, resilient communities. This is how we will build Canada strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister covered a lot of ground, but ultimately Bill C‑26 is a sham of a process. Why? It is because the minister and the government already have the ability to come to provincial agreements. He could go to the NDP government in our home province of British Columbia and do a deal, and then go to the Minister of Finance and have it funded through the estimates process.

To be wasting time in this chamber is, in my belief, more to address the minister's shortfalls when it comes to being seen as politically competent and when it comes to supplying housing, a priority that was made out in the last election.

Will the minister not just admit today that Bill C‑26 is a fig leaf for his government's lack of action and a waste of the time of this House?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, we are in an affordable housing crisis across Canada. Canadians expect us to take action and deliver in every way possible.

For the last two days, Conservatives have been moving motions to shut down this House early and to send us home for the summer, with hours of work left to do and hours of debate left on important legislation like this that would deliver affordable housing for Canadians. If the Conservatives are interested in a longer process, more time for debate and circuitous routes that take forever to deliver for Canadians, that will not be supported by this side of the House.

We want to see action taken. We want to see partnerships advanced with provinces and territories, and investment in new affordable housing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit ironic that they are having to impose a super closure motion on Bill C‑26 when it could have been passed much more quickly if the government had been more transparent.

The government refused to hold a briefing at the outset. We were not sure if the federal government was going to do what it usually does and impose a whole bunch of conditions that would delay and complicate the transfer of the funds. When the bill was introduced, we found out that the money would be transferred directly to Quebec so that it could use it as it sees fit for housing. That solved a lot of problems.

Why was the government not transparent from the start? The process would have gone much quicker.

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been very transparent in all of our housing funding allocations and our partnerships. In particular with Quebec, we have an unprecedented partnership on housing through Build Canada Homes. We are contributing funding from the federal level in partnership and at a collaboration table with Quebec to get affordable housing built, including supportive and transitional housing, which is a big priority for many communities and for the province of Quebec, to help solve homelessness. This would be an additional investment that could be made to provinces and territories, obviously including Quebec, to get them funding to take next levels of action.

As I mentioned, there are many tools that we need to bring forward. This is one that needs to be expedited.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member has been at the municipal level before, and we know that we cannot build homes without cities and without partnerships with the provinces and municipalities. My city of London has been a great example of how those partnerships have yielded a lot of funding from the housing accelerator fund, yet we have seen the opposition take jabs at mayors.

Can you talk about the importance of partnerships with mayors and provinces to make sure that we can build the homes that are needed across Canada fast?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I will just remind the hon. member to address her questions through the Chair and not directly to the minister.

The hon. minister.

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, having served for a decade at the local government level in both the city of Vancouver and the metro Vancouver regional government, I am obviously very familiar with the challenges faced not only on the housing front, but also in the relationships with the provinces and territories and the federal government. Historically, it has been very difficult for cities to work with other levels of government. That is why we are in the predicament we are in with housing.

Cities have a critical role to play, but in years past, certainly in my years as mayor, there was not direct support. A program like the housing accelerator fund did not exist, nor were there transfers or investments that enabled the cities to take action and build, nor were there adequate programs through the provinces and territories. In this case, we are working with all of these partners, collaborating and investing at historic levels, and we want to make sure that collaboration creates affordable housing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am struggling with Bill C-20. I voted against it last evening. I am looking at Bill C-26. I am hoping the hon. Minister of Housing can explain to me why the good work done since September by Build Canada Homes, as a special operating agency, seems disconnected from the new Crown corporation. For Bill C-20, we do not even know who the responsible minister would be, because that hat could change based on what cabinet decides at any given time.

Can the hon. minister explain to me why we have put so much effort into transferring a special operating agency into a Crown corporation, with nothing new in Bill C-20 and work already under way?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to see the member and members on the other side of the House oppose the Build Canada Homes act at third reading yesterday. This is an agency that will be 100% focused on delivering affordable housing in Canada. We have never had that before.

With respect to the rationale, as the housing minister, I will be responsible for the Crown corporation, as I am for the special operating agency currently. The special operating agency has very limited tools to do financing and land acquisition and to expedite bringing on human resources to get more housing built. The Crown corporation structure will get more housing built in the long run, and that is the goal overall. It is accountable to Parliament through the minister, so I see it as a very significant advancement for getting affordable housing built.

In this case, with Bill C-26, funding would also go to provinces and territories to enable and expedite the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Edmonton Manning.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is promising 500,000 homes every year. According to CMHC, Canada's housing starts are projected to fall to as low as 212,000 homes. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, even though houses will be built, the new Liberal agency Build Canada Homes will add only 5,000 homes per year. That is 1% of the half a million homes promised.

How can the minister explain to Canadians that his plan is the right plan and the one that is going to deliver homes to Canadians?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify to the member opposite that the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report related to Build Canada Homes was very much focused on Build Canada Homes, not on all of the tools that government has to get housing built, most of which reside within the national housing strategy and related programs. Build Canada Homes is at far beyond the number stated, with probably triple that right now in the pipeline for the construction of affordable housing.

There are many other programs. This initiative with Bill C-26 would get additional funding to provinces and territories and would expedite it to make sure they will have more tools and more opportunities, as Ontario has done, as an example, to bring down its HST and make it more affordable for homebuyers to buy homes of up to $1 million. It is helping Canadians get into their first homes. For first-time homebuyers, it is another opportunity.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Mississauga—Erin Mills has a massive housing problem. We have over a 10-year waiting period for subsidized housing, and women fleeing violence have a difficult time finding housing.

Can the minister please help us understand how this bill will support those people in my riding of Mississauga—Erin Mills?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for those concerns.

We have to get more supportive and transitional housing built, in particular for our most vulnerable Canadians. That is a big focus of Build Canada Homes. We want to see this funding expedite housing like that, and we need to not only do what Ontario is doing with the HST, but focus on the most affordable housing, first and foremost. We will be doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to outline that the City of Abbotsford is launching its consultations this June on the Sumas River watershed flood mitigation plan. Earlier this month, the cities of Princeton, Merritt, Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford launched the west coast corridor resiliency partnership.

Excuse my skepticism today, but with the bill before us, Bill C‑26, and the corresponding programming motion, we would essentially be granting, without any parliamentary oversight, $1.7 billion to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to fund certain projects at their discretion without any parliamentary oversight. That is what we are debating today. I would encourage the minister to consider Abbotsford and the 2021 floods we had. When a minister takes action like this, I know that we can do the same for a region of British Columbia that is essential for the government to meet its own export and infrastructure goals.

Bill C‑26 is two paragraphs long. It basically would grant the minister unfettered spending abilities with $1.7 billion. Forgive my skepticism, but I do not want to authorize and will not support another dollar of taxpayer money's going to a government that has so resoundingly failed on the housing platform, starting in 2016, so with my time today, I am going to share a few remarks about fiscal accountability. I am going to outline some of the most egregious examples of how the government has mismanaged money. I am going to talk about flood infrastructure in the Fraser Valley. If the government can take quick action like this, why can it not take quick action on a project of national interest with clear accountability metrics?

Then I am going to go over the national housing strategy the Liberals launched in 2016, the National Housing Strategy Act, what they said at the time about these bills and what they hoped to accomplish. I look forward to reviewing federal program spending on housing affordability dating back to 2019 with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I will have some other comments tying all those points together. Finally, I might even bring a motion forward to amend the programming motion before us today.

Let us start with fiscal accountability. I want to start by speaking about a cornerstone of our democratic system, parliamentary accountability, specifically how it operates in the context of federal spending legislation in Canada. At its heart, parliamentary accountability ensures that the government, which exercises the power to tax and spend, remains answerable to the elected representatives of the people of the House. That duty goes to the very heart of our parliamentary system and why we are here.

The power of the purse is one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of Westminster democracy. It was hard fought over for centuries, from the struggles between Parliament and the Crown in the United Kingdom to the evolution of responsible government here in Canada. The principle is simple: Governments may propose spending, but only Parliament can authorize it, and that authorization must be informed, transparent and accountable. This is not a ceremonial role. It is not a rubber stamp. It is a safeguard on behalf of taxpayers.

At first glance, the bill appears straightforward. It would authorize $1.7 billion in payments to provinces and territories to address housing supply, but as parliamentarians, our responsibility does not end with the stated intent of a bill or the comments from one of the ministers responsible, during his remarks in the House. Our duty is to examine how public money is authorized, how it is spent and whether it is subject to meaningful oversight.

In Canada, this principle is embedded in our Constitution and operationalized through the financial procedures of Parliament. The House of Commons plays a central role in reviewing and approving federal expenditures. Standing committees examine departmental estimates and call ministers and officials to testify and justify their spending plans in detail, at least in an ideal world.

However, accountability does not end once funds are approved. In fact, it continues through the fiscal cycle. Mechanisms such as the Public Accounts of Canada and reports from the Auditor General provide retrospective oversight, enabling Parliament to assess whether funds were spent as intended and whether value for money was achieved. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts then reviews these findings, further reinforcing accountability.

Despite this robust framework, obvious challenges remain. One persistent concern is the complexity and timing of financial documents. Parliamentarians are often tasked with reviewing information within a limited time frame and with limited information. This task constrains effective scrutiny and at times shifts the balance of power to the executive branch from the legislative branch. We have seen the consequences of that in recent years, and it is only heightened now through the fabricated majority of the Prime Minister.

The current government has overseen a significant expansion in federal spending, accompanied by rising deficits and growing public debt. While some of that spending occurred during extraordinary circumstances, the pattern has continued well beyond those moments. Nowhere is that more evident than in housing. The government has announced and re‑announced billions of dollars in housing initiatives over the past decade.

Despite these commitments, housing affordability has deteriorated. The cost of buying a home has risen dramatically, rents have increased and supply has not kept pace with demand. If Parliament had been provided with clear metrics, stronger oversight tools and more transparent reporting, we might better understand where these programs fell short. Instead we are left with repeated announcements, escalating costs and performative motions such as the one before us today on more money.

A culture of accountability must be maintained and strengthened in the House. This is not solely about rules and procedures; it is also about a shared commitment to transparency, responsibility and respect for Parliament's role. Parliamentary accountability in federal spending is not an abstract concept. It is a living practice that underpins public trust in our institutions, which is diminishing. Each vote on estimates, each committee hearing and each audit contributes to ensuring that all Canadians have trust in the process, which right now they do not.

In 2017, the government unveiled Canada's national housing strategy. The initial investment was $40 billion over 10 years to tackle homelessness and housing supply through redesigned and expanded federal programs. At the time, former minister of fisheries, and member, Bernadette Jordan said that through these investments, “we will reduce chronic homelessness by 50%.” In 2017, the estimated number of chronically homeless shelter users was 28,900, according to Statistics Canada. In 2024, that number rose to an estimated 36,058 people experiencing chronic homelessness. The government made a promise to learn from the past, act with foresight and deliver real solutions, but nearly a decade later, the results tell a different story.

In October, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that an average home costs 34% more than what an average-income household can afford. CMHC's latest outlook projects that homebuilding could drop by as much as 18.1% over the next three years and forecasts that housing starts will be 55% below CMHC's own target to restore affordability. The federal housing advocate, and this is wild, reported that it would take more than 1,000 years to restore housing affordability under the current plan.

This is a systemic failure. One of the clearest constraints that do not get enough attention in the House is infrastructure. While the minister did outline a few projects about improving infrastructure for housing supply, the scale of the problem is much greater than the one-off announcements he has made. More than 11% of Canada's water infrastructure and waste-water infrastructure is in poor condition, with an estimated more than $100 billion in upgrades needed, according to Statistics Canada. Mike Moffatt, founding director of the Missing Middle Initiative, said, “communities simply don't open land for development at all because they know infrastructure cannot support it.”

While Canadians are told more housing is coming, the foundation required to build it is missing. Either it is outdated, or current systems and approaches cannot accommodate it. The government cannot deliver housing, partly because it cannot deliver infrastructure. Its track record proves it cannot manage large-scale investments at all.

Let us look at some examples. In the last Parliament, Conservatives were upheld in a Speaker's ruling on Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie held a beneficial interest in Cycle Capital, a Quebec-based venture capital firm that received tens of millions of dollars in SDTC grants without any checks and balances. A recording of a senior civil servant slammed the outright incompetence of the Trudeau government, which had inappropriately given 123 million dollars' worth of contracts to companies such as Cycle Capital. It was so bad, so egregious, that the former speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer, essentially shut parliamentary procedures down for almost a year.

The Auditor General found the SDTC fund did not follow conflict of interest policies in 90 cases. It spent nearly $76 million on projects connected to Liberal friends and appointees to run SDTC. It spent $59 million on projects that were not allowed to have been awarded any money. It spent $12 million on projects that were both in a conflict of interest and ineligible for funding. In one instance, Trudeau's hand-picked SDTC chair, Annette Verschuren, syphoned off $217,000 to her own company.

The Liberal government has a history of very poor decision-making. Other members of the House and members of the public have described it as corruption. The former speaker shut down Parliament for almost a year because the government at the time refused to comply with basic financial transparency and then tried to make the superfluous argument that it was a charter violation for the Conservatives to refer this information to the RCMP. What did the Liberals do? They prorogued Parliament, and Justin Trudeau is no longer prime minister.

The second example is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. With great fanfare, in 2017, the CIB was given $35 billion in federal financing intended to attract private sector investment into infrastructure. The government plan indicated that the Canada Infrastructure Bank would be responsible for delivering the capital over an 11-year period. Global News reported in 2021 that the CIB had committed over $4 billion for projects, but none involved funding from private investors, which was the original intent of the fund: public-private partnerships using federal dollars to scale private sector investment. It just was not happening. In July 2025, the PBO reported that the Infrastructure Bank was not on track to spend its sector-specific funding amounts by 2027-28. In other words, it was projecting complete failure.

A third example is electric batteries. This one really grinds my gears. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, the total cost of government support for EV investments in Canada was earmarked at $52.5 billion between October 2020 and April 2024, including the strategic innovation fund and special production subsidies for Stellantis, Volkswagen, Honda and Northvolt. Despite funding commitments, many federally backed auto sector projects have been delayed or have fallen apart altogether. Stellantis shifted Jeep Compass production from Brampton, Ontario, to Illinois; Honda's $15-billion EV supply chain project in Alliston is delayed; Volkswagen has deferred its production schedule in St. Thomas; Northvolt is slower than expected in its rollout in Quebec; and General Motors' termination of BrightDrop EV van production has taken place in Ingersoll.

To make matters even worse, despite significant promises, hours of debate and promises from the government that it was going to create an EV ecosystem like nothing we have ever seen before in Canada, taking advantage of our critical minerals, the advanced manufacturing in Ontario, new opportunities for mining in the Ring of Fire and new export opportunities, all through these investments that were so necessary, the Prime Minister just recently handed 30% of our electric vehicle market to China without guardrails. This is the very country that he said, just a year ago in the election, was the greatest threat to Canadian democracy. What in the world is this?

Example number four is ArriveCAN, which was originally budgeted at only $80,000 but ballooned to cost Canadians approximately $60 million. A year ago tomorrow, the Auditor General confirmed that GC Strategies, a dodgy IT firm that does not do IT work and is now under RCMP investigation for ArriveCAN, was awarded 106 contracts worth nearly $100 million under the Liberals. Despite the firm already receiving $64.5 million from the government, the Auditor General found that in 46% of cases, there was little or no evidence that work was actually performed. The Auditor General called the government bookkeeping for the project the worst she had ever seen. In an extraordinary, rare step, the contractor was formally censured in Parliament for its conduct, which is something almost never seen in federal procurement, underscoring just how serious and egregious these failures were.

Example five, another one that hits close to home, because I represent a sizable indigenous population, is the indigenous procurement policy. In August 2024, Global News reported that through the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses, the government awarded billions of dollars in contracts earmarked for indigenous enterprises without always requiring bidders to prove they were first nations, Métis or Inuit. Contracts awarded to indigenous businesses skyrocketed from $100 million in 2018 to $1.6 billion, which is 6.3% of all eligible federal spending at the time. Thawennontie Thomas, co-founder of LaFlesche, a plastics manufacturing company near Montreal, “said it's 'commonly known' among Indigenous executives that non-Indigenous businesses [were] taking advantage” of the procurement policies.

Example number six is a recent one, PrescribeIT. The Liberals spent nearly $300 million over a decade on prescribing software. The CEO of Canada Health Infoway was paid nearly $900,000 a year while the program failed across most of Canada. The agency has still not complied with a parliamentary request to provide unredacted documents on its PrescribeIT failure. Nearly $100 million went to Telus Health as the primary technology vendor, with unanswered questions about who owns the taxpayer-funded intellectual property. What a disgrace. We have just learned that the Minister of Health has now cancelled the program in disgrace despite repeated attempts for more transparency by Conservatives at the health committee, which were blocked by the Liberal members.

Example number seven is COVID-19 loans and the Canada emergency business account program. This is a big one. A 2024 Auditor General report estimated that $3.5 billion went to ineligible businesses. The Department of Finance Canada and Global Affairs Canada, according to the Auditor General, did not provide effective oversight to ensure that the CEBA program was managed with due regard for value for money. Export Development Canada notes that the Auditor General failed to exercise basic controls in contract management, such as monitoring that the amounts paid aligned with the work performed. This meant that the value for money was compromised.

Example number eight was a big one in the 2021 election, the WE Charity. It seems like ages ago. In June 2020, the WE Charity was chosen to administer the Canada student service grant, a $912-million program introduced by Justin Trudeau to provide financial relief for students during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a report to Parliament's ethics committee, Trudeau family members were paid more than $217,000 for speaking engagements and reimbursed $210,000, which included flights and hotels—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would just ask the member to pause for a second.

Rising on a point of order, the hon. member for London West.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to see the relevance of my colleague's comments to Bill C-26. We have allowed him to continue for some time now, and it is getting completely out of hand.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member. Just to clarify, we are actually not debating the bill. We are debating Motion No. 11, which provides for a great deal of latitude on relevance, particularly with respect to a government motion on this matter.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford may continue.