Debates of June 15th, 2026

Income Tax Act

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

moved that Bill C‑269, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (heat recovery tax credit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me acknowledge the help I have received in the conception, analysis and presentation of this bill. Janice Tran, the CEO of Kanin Energy in Calgary, provided me with the inspiration, and numerous alternative energy experts have provided their input to this bill since it was first introduced in the House. I thank them all, and I note the importance of having a channel to bring forth great ideas from Canadians for consideration in Parliament for how we help grow our country and help it prosper.

The best way to start this speech about this private member's bill, entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act, heat recovery tax credit, is to first say what the bill is intended to do. To illustrate that effectively, some context is required. First off, for the sake of those who have little background in tax incentives with which we attempt to motivate business investment in this country, let us illustrate how an investment tax credit works. A non-refundable income tax credit allows a company to deduct the amount of the credit from the taxes it has payable to the federal government in any year.

Let me give an example. Let us say that a company earned pre‑tax profits of $10 million in one taxation year. Assuming an effective federal tax rate of 15% on those earnings, that would mean the company would owe the government $1.5 million for that taxation year. Their after‑tax profit, in that case, would be $8.5 million before other taxes payable to other jurisdictions. If we look at an investment tax credit of 30%, and we assume an investment in that equipment equal to $10 million, then the 30% tax credit would mean that the company could take a credit against its taxes equal to $3 million. Note that in this case, this amount would be more than the amount payable in the year's taxes, so a portion of the credit would still be available for credit against future years' taxes payable. For the company's sake, when management makes decisions about how it would invest, it would effectively reduce the capital cost by that 30%, predicated upon the fact that the company would be taxable, and any amount due in tax credits in future years would also be time‑valued. The result is that the cost of the $10‑million equipment, in the company's estimation, would be reduced by 30% or thereabouts, so the investment could meet an “investment cost of capital” analysis. The company could take actual cash flow from the taxes it would have otherwise paid to justify why it would be spending $10 million up front. There are other complications, such as the half‑year rule, that I will not address here, but I hope this illustrates the case.

The reason governments allow investment tax credits for selective purposes is because they are trying to motivate investment in sectors or uses that, all other things being equal, would not occur. In the illustration I presented, the government will not be collecting $1.5 million in taxes that year and a similar amount the following year.

Governments cannot do that always and everywhere because it would then not have corporate income tax collection as part of its revenues. That tax collection line in 2025 amounted to about $97 billion, 19% of all the revenue the Government of Canada collected. Therefore, we need to be selective about how we apply investment tax credits in order to have a functioning taxation system and in order not to worsen our escalating deficits and unsustainable debt situation that Canadians are facing.

That should lead listeners to the next question: Why should we apply an investment tax credit to waste heat recovery? Put differently, what is the problem we need to solve and how does this approach fit the solution? Let me provide some background. In Canada, the industrial sector amounted to 54% of Canada's end‑use energy demand in 2021. The main use of energy in the industrial sector is heat production, which is used in various industrial processes. By application, the sectors with the greatest opportunity are chemicals and primary metals, followed by cement and glass production and pulp and paper. In these industrial processes, approximately 30% to 50% of heat is lost. That is from a study undertaken by Polytechnique Montréal in 2021. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the equipment available today would capture 13% to 18% of the unused heat resources. The equipment exists to turn waste heat into power. The economics alone are still slightly challenging; however, with a 30% investment tax credit, it would drive the levelized cost of electricity, which is the power derived from the waste heat, down to levels competitive with wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal, most of which receive generous tax incentives to add to our energy supply. In the end, what we are aiming for is energy efficiency.

First, Canada needs more electricity. Last month, the Prime Minister announced a national electricity strategy to double electricity production by 2050, which included financial incentives of various sorts. The irony is that electricity production is a provincial jurisdiction and the policy‑makers who are trying to wedge the federal government into Canada's electricity markets are the same people who made an absolute mess of Ontario's electricity system over a decade ago. The problem energy consumers face is that they do not know what their electricity costs, between the various levels of government that are subsidizing power production in many non‑obvious ways. However, what the ratepayer does not see on their electricity bill, they see on their tax bill, or it is added to the fiscal deficits we are passing on to the next generation to pay. Let us accept that, in the modern construct, producing new electricity production facilities is time consuming and expensive. Therefore, getting electricity from power sources that are producing waste heat may be the most efficient source of new electricity.

Second, Canada needs to further reduce emissions. The lower our emissions profile per unit of output, the better the outcomes for the environment and society. New electricity would have an emissions profile. Some of that profile would be in the capital equipment and some would be in the consumable portion of the equation. We cannot ignore the carbon embedded in the capital equipment and just count the emissions from the variable inputs. That ignores the full carbon costing, which is one of the reasons the world's efforts to reduce carbon emissions are failing.

Similarly, there is a footprint to the production of the equipment that would be required to produce power from waste heat. We must recognize that this equipment is an add‑on to an existing system, so its footprint per amount produced is less than any new build. In the case of capturing waste heat and producing electricity from that heat, the new variable emission amounts to zero, so the power profile has a near zero carbon footprint. This policy serves a great environmental purpose, one that gets results with respect to flatlining emissions and produces power with no new emissions. As we need power, the most environmentally friendly power would be that with zero net new emissions.

Let us address the competitive landscape, because Canada is not the first country to undertake this exercise. The United States, in particular, instituted a similar 30% investment tax credit for waste heat‑to‑power investment in 2022. By 2023, 63 manufacturers across various industries had installed equipment resulting in the production capacity of 812 megawatts of power. For comparison, Canada's most recently completed hydro dam, Site C, in northern British Columbia, has a capacity of 1,100 megawatts. That dam cost $16 billion and took 11 years to build. If we scale back the U.S. experience by a factor of 10 roughly, therein lies the outcome we can target in Canada: about 80 megawatts of new electricity per year with no new emissions. I will note the importance of timeliness in our approach, because Canada is now a net importer of electricity, so speed matters, execution matters and cost‑effectiveness matters.

What is missing in Canada's set of tools is a credit for waste heat‑to‑power, which is available and being deployed effectively in other jurisdictions. This seems like low‑hanging fruit with its cost savings, new electricity production and no new variable emissions profile for that electricity. It is probably the most cost‑effective and feasible way of accomplishing our goals, which is to produce more electricity with a lower emissions profile. Why have we avoided it? I am certain federal officials have seen this approach. The answer is in the mindset of the embedded decision‑makers.

In Canada, our energy production system counts on three well‑built and necessary infrastructures. There is the electricity grid, for which various input sources make electricity. There is our natural gas distribution system, which is not just for heating homes, but used for many industrial processes as it is the most efficient source for generating heat, and many industrial processes will always require heat. There is also our mode of fuel distribution network, primarily fossil fuels. Think of each of these distribution systems as representing about a third, give or take, of Canada's power production and consumption. Think of the combination of the three representing an infrastructure asset base that has served as the envy of developing countries.

Generations of Canadians have built an infrastructure on which we all depend. Doing away with any of these three power distribution infrastructures would weaken our power profile and increase the risk of an overall system failure.

When I mention the embedded decision-makers, I am appealing to the new representatives on the government side of the House to overrule the entrenched ideology that has put our country in the box we are in. The ideological attempt to penalize Canada's hydrocarbon energy systems is misguided. That includes our natural gas distribution system, an essential tool for our continued economic advancement. Perhaps if we approached the most easily accessible solutions, we would get better outcomes.

The Liberal government has represented itself to Canadians as having changed from the painful, divisive ideology that defined the former prime minister. Unfortunately, we see that the rot the government brought to our energy systems in Canada runs deeper than just the elected representatives. It is now entrenched in what seems like the actual decision-makers in the government, the embedded ideologues who are still driving the government's aimless policies.

Five years ago, the Liberals voted down my last private member's bill to provide an investment tax credit for enhanced oil recovery. This spring, the Liberal government decided to put a form of that credit into the budget. However, the credit it has put forth is uncompetitive with our peers and it has caused confusion as to its stringency requirements. A policy that still leaves Canada as the least competitive among our peers in our approach to this technology is one that will continue to see capital allocated elsewhere.

No data is more consistent than that which has shown the great egress of capital from investment opportunities in our country. In that sense, the Prime Minister is accomplishing his objectives. What one cannot get one way, one gets another way, in this case, pretending one has a credit, making a big announcement and ensuring it is functionally unviable. I sense the same approach with the investment tax credits for greener power production.

For the ideologues, the perfect is the enemy of the good. The approach I am proposing in the bill would be very good for Canada. Let me appeal to those voices on the Liberal side of the House with whom I have worked to build goodwill in our approach to Canada's energy system. As was our mantra when I embarked on hearings across Canada for the Conservatives' economic growth council, I say to my Liberal friends to take our ideas, please. These are better for the country.

In summary, the bill would provide an incentive, an investment tax credit, to motivate industrial power users to invest in equipment that would increase Canada's electricity production with no new emissions. That means more power without more emissions, energy efficiency improvements, productivity enhancements and lower business costs, making Canadian manufacturers more competitive. Let me appeal to all parliamentarians to see the obvious good in all of this.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very sensitive to the need. As the Prime Minister has clearly indicated, we want to be able to increase electricity production here in Canada. We recognize that. I think that we have a number of measures that are within the budget. Many discussions are ongoing between the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers and different levels of government. Working in collaboration is really important.

I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts in regard to how careful we need to be when we talk about anywhere from, let us say, $80 billion to $100 billion, which is collected annually through corporate taxes. We have to be very delicate in the way that we use tax breaks in general, with respect to that level.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think, in my speech, I addressed that very clearly, but I will give another data point for the hon. member.

All of the government's investment tax credits for clean energy production amount to the expected spending of $103 billion, between when it started a handful of years ago and 2035. In fact, because it is a misguided approach, only $22 million of that money has been spent, That is because it is misallocated. We have to go for the low-hanging fruit here first of all. The low-hanging fruit is the waste heat that is already being produced, which we can cost-effectively get into our electricity system.

I hope my colleague looks at this from a cost-effective perspective. I have, and I think it is our best approach going forward.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill. I will have an opportunity to talk about it a little later.

I have a question about oil and gas companies, which already receive tons of investment tax credits. Does my colleague believe that these companies would also be included and that they would also be able to benefit from the tax credit he is proposing in his bill?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important to clarify that this is not a credit for oil and gas production. It is a credit for manufacturers that use mainly natural gas, but also other types of fuels and sources that can produce heat. They are the ones who would benefit from this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, as my colleague described, waste heat to power is a well‑established technology that captures excess heat from industrial processes and converts it into reliable baseload electricity, while producing no additional emissions or fuel use.

Can my hon. colleague explain how this pan‑Canadian opportunity would be especially beneficial to the forestry sector and other resource sectors in western Canada, and particularly in British Columbia?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the thing about this tax credit is that it is manufacturing. It is across Canada. I mentioned some of the industries across this country that would benefit enormously from this as it would reduce their costs and give them an electricity source they can actually gain some revenue from. Every tax credit should have a benefit as well, at the end of the day. With this benefit, there would be more power for the country and more revenue for the companies that use this tax credit, it would lower costs all across the country and it would make us more productive as an economy.

Of the industries involved, pulp and paper is one that produces a lot of waste heat to power. Using this credit would give the companies more electricity to use on site, and they could potentially put it back into the grid if they use some other equipment.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could clarify what the actual cost would be. We have heard the government talk about billions of dollars, whereas he countered that it would be quite a bit less.

What would the cost to the taxpayer be if these credits were enacted in Canada?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a complex question, but I appreciate it, because we have to model this somehow. We talked about the credits that exist. The government expected $103 billion for its investment tax credits. Of that, only $22 million has been allocated so far. This one would bring about 83 megawatts of power into the grid. The production of extra power for this would probably offset the credit that the government would have to take out of its revenue.

[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)]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate on private member's bill, Bill C‑269. I thank the member for Calgary Centre for putting it forward. I appreciate all members' private member's bills. They are an opportunity for us to work on projects and ideas and bring things forward. I appreciate the hard work that goes into that.

As we know, the bill proposes a set of amendments to the Income Tax Act to establish a new, permanent 30% non‑refundable investment tax credit for certain heat recovery equipment, which would be available as of January 1, 2026. In short, the intent of the bill is to support the adoption of certain heat recovery equipment, including waste heat-to-power technology.

I should make it clear from the outset that this is an objective that our government considers very worthy. For example, waste heat-to-power technologies capture heat that is typically lost during industrial processes and converts it into electricity. Common applications include energy‑intensive industries such as oil and gas refineries, steel mills, cement kilns and many others. By utilizing energy that would otherwise be wasted, this process can improve energy efficiency while also helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are, indeed, the sorts of objectives our government supports, and these are the sorts of technologies we would like to see adopted to help achieve these objectives. That is why we already have measures in place to support the adoption of energy‑efficient technologies, which are helping us meet our goals of improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Let me clarify. With budget 2025's productivity superdeduction, for example, we have reinstated the accelerated investment incentive, as well as immediate expensing for manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment for clean energy generation, energy conservation equipment and zero‑emission vehicles. The productivity superdeduction also provides for immediate expensing for productivity‑enhancing assets and capital expenditures for scientific research and experimental development. It introduces immediate expensing for manufacturing or processing buildings and it includes the reinstatement of the accelerated capital cost allowances for liquefied natural gas facilities, but only for those that are low‑carbon liquefied natural gas.

Together, these measures that form the productivity superdeduction would lower costs, spur investment and reduce Canada's marginal effective tax rate to 13%, reinforcing Canada as the most tax‑competitive country for new business investment in the G7 and supporting the adoption of cleaner and more efficient technologies.

I would add that we see numbers going up for investments in this area. Business investment has gone up by over 10% for new machinery and equipment. It has also gone up about 13% in IP protection, which is also included in the immediate expensing measures we put in budget 2025. These measures are already starting to take some effect in the economy, and we are seeing business investment where we have not seen it in past years.

Of course, a cornerstone of our new economic plan is an exceptional and unprecedented suite of clean economy investment tax credits, which will help attract investment from here in Canada and from around the world through tens of billions of dollars in incentives. These clean economy investment tax credits are providing businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build in Canada. They are already attracting major job‑creating projects, ensuring that we remain globally competitive, from new carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry to new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses. These new clean economy ITCs would put Canada on track to achieve a net‑zero economy by 2050.

I appreciate that one of the intentions of this private member's bill, Bill C‑269, is to address a perceived gap in the design of those clean economy investment tax credits. However, as I have already noted, certain energy-efficient equipment generally already benefit from the immediate expensing measures that are part of the productivity superdeduction. Therefore, Bill C‑269 is aimed at a target that is already being hit by some of these other measures.

Moreover, in the way the bill is currently structured, it would hit more than just the intended target. That is because the eligibility under the proposed tax credit is defined very broadly and could include not only waste heat‑to‑power technology, but also a much wider range of equipment used in industrial heat recovery and energy generation processes. While a narrowly focused tax credit for waste heat‑to‑power technology could cost roughly $70 million per year ongoing, the proposed tax credit would be available to other types of heat recovery and energy generation equipment, and its fiscal impact is expected to be significantly higher. Opening the door to energy‑efficient technology could create a significant new precedent in this regard.

The proposed new tax credit in the bill also has several inconsistent features that would introduce significant new policy precedents and irregularities into the investment tax credit regime. The proposed tax credit would be permanent, for example, while existing clean economy investment tax credits are time‑limited to encourage investment in the short and medium term. The proposed credit also lacks certain integrity rules that apply to many of the other clean economy ITCs. For example, eligible capital costs under the proposed credit would be reduced by other government assistance received or unpaid amounts, as is generally the case with the clean economy investment tax credits. It is also the case that Bill C‑269 proposes a non‑refundable tax credit, while all of the other ITCs are refundable, which is another inconsistency that I would point out. This would result in the lack of a tax refund and it would be used only to deduct from taxes owed, which is a significant inconsistency with the other ITCs that we have offered.

These are all important facts that should be taken into account when considering Bill C‑269. Having done so, our government cannot support the bill in its currently structured form. Changes to tax laws are ideally considered as part of the budget process so that all relevant facts can be taken into consideration. The budget process also ensures due consideration of the potential fiscal costs of proposed tax measures to ensure that they are consistent with the fiscal framework and overall coherence of the tax system.

I believe we have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to maintain these standards outside of the budget process. I also believe Bill C‑269 does not meet these standards for the reasons I have outlined today. While the bill is laudable in its intent, and I give the member opposite credit for including the technology he is proposing to support, which I believe in, I believe it is duplicative in that there are existing tax supports for investments in certain heat recovery equipment, it is not appropriately targeted and it may have costly, unfair and unintended consequences.

To conclude, I would accordingly urge that Bill C‑269, unfortunately, not be given the support of the House. I appreciate the opportunity to make this case today.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-269 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

First of all, as a proud resident of the north shore, I would like to thank the people back home who work in the energy sector. My riding is the second-largest producer of hydroelectricity in Quebec and in Canada. Obviously, energy is a big part of our identity. I mentioned hydroelectricity, of course, but I am also thinking about projects such as the one in Pessamit, where there are plans to build wind turbines. We want that, too. I am very interested in that work.

I also feel a sense of pride because the north shore, like Quebec, built this hydroelectric network on its own, without financial assistance from the government. It is a source of pride for me. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the workers in the industry, particularly those at Hydro-Québec. There are privately owned dams, but there are also Hydro-Québec dams. In fact, Hydro-Québec suffered a major power outage back home this morning, and they are still working on it. I wanted to mention that. It is affecting a lot of people in our region, and I want to thank them. They support Quebec's entire economy and industry. I just wanted to express my thanks. It has to be done, and it has to be done properly.

As for the bill, considering what I just said, I cannot object to my colleague's bill, which proposes offering a tax credit. The bill is relatively simple: It amends the Income Tax Act to grant a heat recovery tax credit.

It is as simple as that. The details may be more complicated, but overall, the bill is straightforward. The Bloc Québécois supports studying this tax credit, which goes hand in hand with the other existing credits. Despite having done so a number of times in the House, we would like to remind members of what the term “heat recovery” means. Obviously, we must agree on a definition before we can move forward. Heat recovery is “the principle of reclaiming heat which would otherwise be lost from a system and, instead, capturing and using it elsewhere to reduce energy consumption”.

We hear a lot about reducing energy consumption, but some would argue that it is a matter of optimization. This is definitely about heat that would be lost. This is not about producing more energy, but rather recovering energy and putting it to good use. We hear a lot about productivity, which is something we care about. Why not make use of the energy that already exists?

I will digress briefly to talk about hydroelectricity. These days, with climate change, we are facing a number of challenges that we have seen on the horizon for a while, but they are becoming even more apparent now, particularly with regard to water levels, which are going down. Some folks are wondering whether new dams should be built. Do we need more? These discussions have been on the back burner for a while, but we have been thinking about it. If energy usage could be optimized, there would be less demand on the system. Of course we encourage that.

In Quebec, Hydro‑Québec already offers financial support programs to encourage businesses to install heat recovery technologies in buildings. Depending on the type of system, up to 85% of the heat energy can be recovered. There are different options, including water loops, cooler heat recovery systems, and plate, cassette-style or thermal wheel heat exchangers. It depends on the system that is used, but the recovery rate can reach 85%. For some methods, it is 20%. It varies, but this is still an opportunity to recover a significant amount of energy and convert it into added value.

There are several projects across Quebec. Some have already been launched and are under construction. There is one right near here, in Gatineau. The Zibi complex is working with Kruger to reuse the plant's waste water in winter to meet the community's heating needs. It is right next door, so why not take advantage of that opportunity?

There are also several greenhouses, in Drummondville, for example, or Île d'Orléans, where energy is being used. This is happening in many different places and across different sectors. I just mentioned the food industry and greenhouses, but there is also the whole issue of residential heating. These are other possibilities.

That said, we agree. Through the government‑owned utility Hydro‑Québec, the Government of Quebec is already helping businesses and manufacturers modify their systems for energy recovery. What we actually want to know is which companies will be eligible for the tax credit. Not all businesses have started working on improving their greenhouse gas emissions. We want to know which ones will be targeted, which ones will be eligible.

Again, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill introduced by my colleague from Calgary Centre. That said, we have concerns about the measure's effectiveness. Since there are other measures to support energy efficiency, we wonder whether this one is as good, whether it is better, or whether it is ultimately worth our while to adopt it. What we would like is for the bill to be sent to committee so that we can discuss it, debate it, and, of course, draw on the expertise of experts and scientists in various fields.

For example, Environment Canada itself could shed some light on this by telling us the cost of such a measure, which might be difficult to estimate. The tax credit does not exist right now, but we know that it is not mandatory, so we do not know who will use it or on what scale it could be used. At the same time, there is the whole issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we want to generate power using this recovered energy, but we need to look at what the benefits will be, because we also want to see results. We see that the government has begun dragging its feet in the fight against climate change, so we would really like to know what additional benefits this would produce.

As I said earlier in a question to my colleague, this bill is very broad, and we are being told that the entire industry will benefit from it. However, the way we see it, even though the oil and gas sector accounts for 4% to 6% of Canada's GDP, it is responsible for 30% or 31% of the air pollution. We see an imbalance there. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we are also talking about one of the most heavily subsidized industries, which already receives billions of dollars in investment tax credits.

We wonder if this will be added as well, because this industry already has everything it needs to make changes and start recovering heat energy, for example, in order to contribute more to the fight against climate change and to improve its carbon footprint. That is what we are wondering. If this is intended to help oil and gas companies, we would like to know that because we do not think that this is the best way to do it. They already have the ability to do this. That is the main issue and the reason why we want the bill to be referred to committee. We are really acting in good faith, so that we can study this objectively and responsibly.

I would remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill and that we will support it so that it goes to committee, where we can discuss it and learn more about all the sectors that could benefit from the technology. We also want to hear from all the stakeholders in those industries that wish to apply for this investment tax credit to improve their productivity and to reduce their carbon footprint. That is why I hope that we can study this bill in committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269, which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre.

One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019. He has an MBA, he has a strong grasp of numbers, and he knows the energy sector inside out. This bill addresses precisely these very important issues, namely energy and taxation, as well as their economic and environmental dimensions.

Before I continue, I want to acknowledge my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, who mentioned earlier that there was a power outage on the north shore. Things are bad when the Manic-5 generating station is down. Needless to say, the people at Hydro-Québec will be sorting this out.

Bill C‑269 targets several extremely important objectives. Its first objective concerns the environment. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and take a much more environmentally friendly approach. We all agree on that, but the way to win people over is definitely not by imposing or forcing things on them. Like I say all the time: Pulling on a flower will not make it grow faster. What we need are positive incentives based on good old common sense. That is exactly what this bill has.

It is also important from a taxation perspective, because we want to let people and companies hold on to more of their money so that they can invest in much more economical and environmentally friendly approaches.

We also have to find ways to use the energy that is currently going to waste. This bill will incentivize entrepreneurs to find new, much smarter ways to harness the energy that their business is generating.

Essentially, here is what this bill proposes. Businesses generate a tremendous amount of heat as a result of the operations taking place in their facilities, but this heat is wasted. Up to 30% of this waste heat could be used efficiently and intelligently. That is smart because it is nothing new. The energy is already there. It is simply a matter of capturing it, storing it and using it in a meaningful way.

When I was preparing the speech I am delivering today, I learned that this involves generating electricity from waste heat. I will not hide the fact that when I saw “waste heat”, I found it somewhat odd, bordering on the absurd, or even a little suspicious. As a result, I would rather talk about recovery, because waste heat is heat that escapes and is lost into the atmosphere, whereas it could be used through recovery.

This brings to mind a fundamental principle in economics and ecology, namely that the best energy is the energy we do not consume, or rather, the energy we use because it already exists. That is precisely the objective of this bill. Some will say that the member for Calgary Centre did not invent the principle behind this bill. Of course not.

For decades now, if not longer, some companies have been harnessing, capturing, storing and making smart use of the heat generated by their operations. The difference is that there is no incentive for that in the federal plan.

We believe that this approach, using or recovering waste heat, should be treated the same as solar and wind energy. It is just common sense. Wind energy has potential, but it is not the answer to everything. Solar energy also has potential, but it is not the answer to everything, either. These come with both challenges and benefits. The same is true of heat recovery. This approach is pragmatic, effective, environmentally friendly and economical. In short, it is a conservative approach.

That is why I urge everyone, including my colleagues in the House, to support this bill, because it addresses precisely what brings us all together. Above all, it is meant to be efficient and cost-effective for everyone.

In fact, this could affect nearly every industry sector. I am going to have to put on my glasses, because there are so many that I have no choice but to read them. We are talking specifically about heavy industry material handling, cement plants, glass manufacturing, chemicals, paper and forestry, as well as mining, energy, and utilities. In short, it affects just about every sector of the manufacturing industry. Thousands of companies would be able to recover this heat through a tax incentive, and that is what the bill proposes.

We are talking about tax incentives. I have to say I am a car enthusiast. People in the automotive industry say it: the greenest cars, aside from100% electric vehicles, of course, are used cars. I say this to make people fully aware and understand that manufacturing a car, whether electric or traditional, has a significant environmental cost, not to mention an environmental impact. Someone who buys a 100% electric used car creates double the benefit, in other words, the environmental impact is lower because it is a used car, and using an electric car certainly produces fewer emissions. It is a win-win situation.

We made an announcement over the weekend. Our leader was there, as was our colleague from Ontario, who earlier announced the private member's bill to eliminate the GST on used cars. A vehicle that has already been manufactured and taxed should not be taxed a second, third or fourth time because people want to buy that used vehicle. The GST has already been paid once. It does not need to be paid repeatedly, especially since, from an environmental standpoint, it is always better to buy a used car than a brand new car. All environmentalists say so.

This is an environmentally friendly Conservative measure. Yes, we Conservatives are environmentalists because we are taking a pragmatic approach. We are prioritizing people's pocketbooks. A consumer who buys a used car may not necessarily have the means to buy a new one. However, this measure benefits both the consumer buying the car and the environment because a used car is much greener than a brand new one. Any environmentalist will tell us that. They may not say that this is a Conservative approach, but it is. I am saying it.

This bill is a step in the right direction. It takes a pragmatic approach. It is meant to put more money in people's pockets and give businesses more funds to reinvest in their operations in order to make them greener, more efficient and more profitable, while ensuring strong environmental protection and sound economic stewardship when it comes to energy management.

As I mentioned earlier, this is nothing new. Incentives are already in place in France, and the results are quite promising. As stated in a press release from CEA Liten, “Lower process water consumption (either direct for steam or indirect, such as for wet cooling towers) is an added benefit.” This makes it a win-win situation.

Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving. However, the government still needs to view it as a green approach, just as it does with wind turbines and solar energy.

That is why I urge the Liberals to support this bill. If, for some reason, they have any doubts, they should recall that three years ago I introduced Bill C-375. The idea behind that bill was one project, one review. It was common sense. People voted against it, but guess what? A year ago, in the Speech from the Throne, the King acknowledged that it was a good thing. He himself said that the government would implement a law ensuring that there is a single environmental assessment for each project. If the Liberals are recycling my idea for Bill C-375, I invite them to do so immediately for the bill—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Madam Speaker, at the get-go, I want to recognize the member's objectives. What he is trying to accomplish with the legislation is fairly admirable, but I have a number of concerns with respect to the legislation as proposed, which I can maybe break down into two or three areas.

The first, and I made reference to this in my comments, has to do with the overall revenue that comes to the Government of Canada, even if we break it down in terms of percentages, and how that budgetary process actually works. In a situation like the one being proposed in Bill C-269, I would feel far more comfortable if it had been incorporated as a part of the overall budget, part of the budget planning.

It is important to recognize that a great deal of pre-budget effort is put into where and how best to implement tax credits, in whatever form. Looking at corporate taxes, I believe the member made reference to about $90 billion. I believe it is somewhere in that ballpark, let us say $85 billion to $100 billion. A lot depends on the overall performance of the economy, economic conditions, growth and so forth, and budgetary policies. All of these are factors. Cumulatively, we are looking into millions of dollars that could be used to provide incentive, and that is the essence of what often takes place.

When a government wants to encourage investment, what we try to do is use taxation policy as a way to encourage that. In the last federal budget, there were a number of policy initiatives or tax breaks to encourage and promote capital investment. That is something that governments in the past have done. Something that this Prime Minister and government are very much focused on is how we can use taxation policy to enhance job opportunities for Canadians and, in this particular case, to look at ways we can not only enhance job opportunities but also improve our environment. That is how I see the specific bill being brought forward.

I can recall, for years, driving by the community of Regina and seeing those gigantic flames coming from the refineries. The member made reference to cement plants and other industries, where we have actually seen significant improvements over the years. Technological advancements have enabled industries with a lot of heat generation that would have escaped and could be used in other forms of energy the mechanisms to capture that and convert it into another energy source. We have seen a great deal of technology being used over the past number of years to improve the conditions, but is there more? The short answer to that is yes, there is more out there.

I believe that with the right type of capital investment, when looking at Canadian technology we will in fact see more energy efficiency. We will see more capturing of heat then being put into a place where it generates energy. There is a role for the government to play in that. When we look to the last national budget produced by the government, we see there are a couple of initiatives in there that promote and encourage the use of technology, its expansion and the investing in capital to make things more energy efficient. Those are the types of things that can really make a difference. That is why, in part, the private member's bill that the member has put before the House today needs to look at the bigger picture.

Most politicians inside the House of Commons today will recognize the importance of dealing with gas emissions, the greenhouse impact, and how, as policy-makers, we can have a favourable response in comparison with other countries in the world while at the same time looking at attracting investment and building on Canada's energy. Both are very much deliverable, so that when we talk about the year 2050 and having zero emissions, we take the issue of greenhouse gas seriously. One way we can do that is by looking at ways we can modernize, using technology, and promote and encourage capital investment in industries, particularly industries that really contribute to the greenhouse effect. That is how I am going to read the legislation that has been brought forward.

However, as a government, it is difficult for us to support the legislation for the simple reason that within the budget, there are already initiatives that no doubt would address, at least in part, what the member is bringing forward, which then risks duplication in areas where we do not necessarily intend to move. Canadians have expectations in regard to the whole issue of taxation, the $500 billion plus in revenue, of which $85 billion or $90 billion is in corporate tax. The government has the right to have different forms of revenue, but there is an expectation that there is a sense of fairness and that some goals or objectives are established and put into place so that when we start spending the money that we raise, it is spent in a transparent and accountable fashion, and the revenues we generate are also perceived as being fair.

This is why I always find it interesting that some members of some political parties will say that we are subsidizing certain industries excessively. Well, there are also certain industries that contribute to the tax base excessively. There needs to be a balanced approach to dealing with things. That is why when I look at the issue before us today, I think of the accelerated capital cost allowance, as an example. The government has talked about the productivity superdeduction, which is an accelerated investment. These funds include, in part, clean energy generation and also, in part, energy conservation equipment.

The bottom line is that as much as the member's objectives are admirable, I would suggest that many of the concerns that the member has brought forward are actually dealt with in the national budget. In part of those budgetary processes, there are many different stakeholders, in particular within our energy sector, that we have been working very closely with. The Prime Minister has been very clear. We want to make Canada a superpower on energy. In doing that, we have to make sure we have the proper taxation laws to support that.

In essence, Canada is, arguably, the most competitive country for new business investment in the G7 today. We need to have a balanced approach, and that is something on which our Minister of Finance and Prime Minister are working with not only the national caucus but the many different stakeholders, including reviewing legislation such as what the member has brought forward.

The bottom line is that, I believe, what we currently have in place would meet the needs of where we are today.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre.

It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away. It is interesting to hear them complain about costs. This is, of course, from the same Liberal government that funded, through its green energy accelerator fund, companies that used that funding to go abroad and actually fund ISIS. Yes, a company that was convicted in France and in the U.S. of using that funding to actually fund ISIS, this Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars to. Under the same fund, it gave tens of millions of dollars to an overseas Chinese EV company that was named as a war sponsor supporting Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Yet, when the Liberals have a chance to support a common-sense bill that would help Canadians, encourage investment in Canada and reduce greenhouse gases, we hear government members stand up and speak against it.

Bill C-269 is a very simple, common-sense bill. It would introduce a non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it into electricity.

I am afraid that is all the time I have at this moment. I look forward to speaking more on it after the votes.

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

The hon. member will have time once the bill comes back.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 12, I move:

That the debate be not further adjourned.

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

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 members from the government side. 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 or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269.

However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate? Canadians sent us here to debate the issues, not have the government shut down debate. To the hon. member opposite, why is he doing this again?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I do respect the member opposite, despite the many differences we have. However, we are here to deliver for Canadians. We are here to move our agenda forward, fighting to build our economy for Canadians.

In the finance committee, there has been an almost 30-hour filibuster over the last week. We need to move on. We need to move forward for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I suppose I will echo the comments of my friend from the Conservative benches, the member for Edmonton West, a moment ago.

The programming motions, the time allocations, are becoming routine. They used to be rare exceptions. I am honoured to have been serving here for the last 15 years, so saying something as simple as “I have never seen anything like it” might mean something.

The spring economic statement did not, in any way, foretell what would be in Bill C-30. A budget implementation bill is supposed to be about implementing what one reads in the economic statement. This one did not make anything of it. There is one line where we were going to include that regulatory agencies get to consider food security and food prices. It did not say that we plan to deregulate pesticides so that we can use them when they are too dangerous.

I am wondering if the hon. member would explain why it is that we do not have adequate time to study bills in this place under the new administration.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is two for two. I respect the member very much, too. She was my seatmate in the last Parliament.

The spring economic update contains many great things for Canadians: billions of dollars for trade unions, the sovereign wealth fund and money for small craft harbours. We have an agenda, and we need to deliver for Canadians. We need to rebuild, restructure and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of being at the finance committee over the last week or so for a number of the hours the member is speaking about, and I can say that it has not been about filibustering. It has been about asking questions in the only venue that has been made available to us to examine this bill. I have received many emails, phone calls and comments from constituents who are concerned about some of the things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about, such as the pesticide clauses and other changes that are happening to a wide variety of bills. For a bill that would touch so many acts, 30 hours is not enough. We need to be able to examine this bill properly.

I am wondering why the government is determined to ram things through without adequate consultation and risk unintended consequences of bills, as we have seen with Bill C-30.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting on committees for almost a decade, and we know when we are moving government committee business forward and when we are not. I know many Conservatives have admitted that the filibuster is not really even about Bill C-30 but about another issue.

Again, we were elected on an agenda to provide leadership and affordability to Canadians and to build and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago. Now I am experiencing a majority government for the first time in my elected career.

Is this what I am to expect, time allocation, closure and cutting off debate? Is this how the government intends to reflect the minority mandate, quite frankly, that the Canadian people gave it?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, as I said before, I had the privilege of being on committees for over a decade in this place, and so much important work is done by committees. It is vital to our democracy. However, when the committee had over 30 hours of a filibuster last week, that is not productive.

The member opposite also talked about the calls, emails and visits to constituency offices. I had some time in my constituency office late Friday afternoon. Canadians want us to move forward. Canadians want us to build our economy strong, and we are going to do just that.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his responses to many of the questions being asked of him today. This is an important question, because Canadians have seen over the last number of years, and increasingly so, the limits of debate in this House in terms of how we address government bills. When Canadians elect a Parliament, they elect a government, with the most seats, and they elect an opposition. The tools of the opposition, of course, are to make sure the government is held accountable for what it is doing, and it brings those things forward through a process that has been well understood for a long time. If the government thinks that our role as the opposition is just to roll over and not perform our role as His Majesty's loyal opposition, then it is mistaken.

We need to continue to look at what the government is proposing. I have a number of issues with the bill at hand, including why we have allocated less than half the credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage in enhanced oil recovery than in any other of the environmental approaches. It is the most accessible way we can reduce CO2 emissions in this bill, and yet it is not going to be debated at committee. These are the types of things that have to be brought forth, and we have to respect the fact that Canadians need to see democracy being performed in the House where they elect people to represent them.

Can my colleague please tell us where he thinks Canadians will get a view of how we are getting things done here in a democratic forum when his leader is using it less and less?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, we are here to deliver for Canadians. Again, I have sat on committees. We know when committees are productive and functioning well. Yes, the opposition has a role to play for sure. We should be challenged.

I will say that I have been here through the elections of 2015, 2019, 2021 and 2025. We have been in government and are now into our 11th year. Canadians have spoken again. Canadians want real leadership. The members opposite at times wonder why they sit on that side. Some of them have been over there for 11 years or longer. It is because they are not offering viable solutions, a viable government for Canadians. Canadians have spoken.

[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)]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the hypocrisy that we are hearing today from members opposite, who complain about debate being contracted here in the House when they wasted almost 30 hours of time in committee, filibustering with eight subamendments just on lowering CPP contributions. That kind of behaviour is a waste of time, taxpayer money and the resources of this House, which are valuable in committee and could have been used to debate this legislation.

Here we are in the House, having to move closure. Why? It is because Conservatives are not serious about getting legislation done, and when they have the opportunity, they waste it.

Could my colleague speak to the hypocrisy that we experience here in the House?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for his tremendous leadership in this House and on the finance committee. He is absolutely correct. I would ask Canadians to tune in to ParlVU or CPAC to watch the filibuster that occurred last week, where opposition members were talking about elephants and everything else under the sun. That is not a serious government. That is not serious opposition.

We are here to deliver. Our spring economic update contains things that are vital to grow our Canadian economy: billions of dollars for trade unions, a sovereign wealth fund and $1 billion for small craft harbours. The Conservatives are getting in the way. We are here to produce for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of the trades. In 2006, Stephen Harper brought in grants for trades workers. In 2009, the same Conservative government brought in completion grants. One of the first acts of this Prime Minister was to cancel grants for trades workers and completion grants. The government also pulled student grants for students studying at vocational institutions. Now, after a lot of advocacy from Conservatives, as well as from unions, we were pleased to see the partial restoration of grants to trades workers. This is something we and unions had advocated for.

I want to ask the minister, number one, why did the Liberals cancel these grants in the first place? Second, why are they still denying student grants to those studying at vocational institutions?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, that member and I both came to this House in 2015 and have advocated for Canadians since then. However, that member is sadly mistaken when it comes to trade unions and their support for their government. If we look at Canadian Building Trades Unions and the IBEW, and the list goes on and on, they are standing with our government. We announced billions of dollars for trades and retraining. Trade unions stand with our government. The trade unions want to build Canada. Trade unions are totally impressed with the major projects that we are announcing, the projects that we are going to build from coast to coast to coast.

If members of the opposition party want to stand up and say they are the party of unions, I think they are sadly mistaken. Unions will speak volumes about that.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier a member of the opposition talked about the fact that they were not filibustering, yet she was the one who actually told the story about an elephant in a discussion of Bill C-30, where there is money that has to go out to people who need more housing in a faster way.

Could the minister talk about the fact that while opposition members continue to say we are stopping debate, they are talking about elephants in a debate about money that needs to go out for the construction of housing?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, the opposition has a role to play in our democracy and in our government. That party has been in opposition going into its 11th straight year now.

There comes a point in time when debate has to stop, such as, for example, when members are talking about elephants or when there has been 30 hours of filibuster. We are here to move forward. We are here to build our economy. The spring economic update contains so many things that Canadians want and need. When trade unions call my office and I talk to them about 30 hours of filibuster resulting in programs that cannot move forward, they are upset. They want us to build Canada strong.

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

Madam Speaker, when we sit in a committee with members opposite and officials who are unwilling to answer questions, we make whatever analogies we can to try to convince them to answer those questions.

What we were talking about in committee, which was very important and very serious, was how we explain to Canadians what we are doing with CPP. That is very important to those in this country. Following the supposed filibuster that they are talking about, which was really questions about CPP, I got a phone call from a very senior finance executive who has worked for not one but two of the maple eight pension funds, telling me how important the work we are doing in finance committee is and saying how important it is to produce reports that explain, in plain English, what we are doing in the House to Canadians' pensions.

If the members opposite do not understand how important it is to make sure that there are no unintended consequences through the drafting of bills that affect Canadians' pensions, then I do not know what to do. Perhaps the member could explain why he does not think Canadians should be able to get a full explanation about what the government is doing to Canadians' pensions?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I also met with the maple eight pension funds. The maple eight pension funds want us to get going to build our economy. They want to invest in Canada.

Capital follows its easiest path, and right now, we are building major projects, investing in defence, investing in aerospace, investing in housing and investing in infrastructure. We are here to build an economy that is strong for all Canadians. It is time for that member, and that party, to stop the filibuster. Let us get to work. Let us build Canada.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find some of the comments from the official opposition interesting, especially when comments are made that 30 hours of debate is not enough.

I agree that we want to raise different perspectives. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo have a diversity of perspectives. They want to hear us having meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Commons, as well as in committee, but they also remind me that we are not just here to talk things out and to debate. We need to make decisions. Canadians made a decision to send the Liberal government to Ottawa to govern the country and respond to the challenges we are facing.

Can the secretary of state just reaffirm the importance of making decisions and calling the question on votes so we can be productive?

The opposition has the ability to ensure that members can be heard, but they refuse to share how many members want to speak because they are derailing the conversation rather than staying focused. Why is it that these tools constantly need to be used?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, we were elected just over a year ago with the mandate to restructure, rebuild, refocus, diversify, build new trading relationships and strengthen our economy to move from reliance to resilience. We have a job to do. Canadians are watching.

Again, I ask Canadians from coast to coast to watch the filibuster from last week and to tell me if it is productive or a great use of committee time. It is not. We have a job to do. We have things in the spring economic update, such as billions for unions, the sovereign wealth fund and small craft harbours. The list goes on and on.

We are going to focus on Canadians. We are going to focus on delivering affordability, rebuilding and retooling our economy. That is what we are elected to do.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that this is fascinating.

I too am a member of the opposition in the House and have been for 11 years. As my colleague said earlier, the Conservatives have been in opposition for 11 years. The Bloc Québécois will always be in opposition. The opposition is necessary. The opposition stops the government from becoming a dictatorship, although it has been acting like a dictator in committee ever since it secured its majority and got to set the agenda. We are also seeing dictatorial behaviour in the House, where the government wants to cut our debates short.

I think that there is a fundamental problem in the House, and I have been experiencing it for 11 years: The government has a hard time managing its legislative agenda. If it were more organized, we would not be forced to rush through business at the end of every session under the threat of not being able to go home.

I think that this is disrespectful to the public. They do not expect us to rush through our work. They expect us to manage our time properly.

Take today, for example. If we had simply started with Bill C-9 this morning and debated Motion No. 12 after question period, we would have saved two hours. That would have given the government two extra hours for its legislative agenda.

In my opinion, the government is having a hard time being efficient. We were discussing heat recovery earlier. If only we had a time recovery system, we could be more productive not only for all members of the House, but also for the public. That would be nice. I offer that as food for thought for my colleague across the aisle.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe that we are in our 11th year in this great place advocating on behalf of Canadians.

We remember the last Parliament. We remember how it was bogged down and obstructed. We could not move forward for Canadians. We could not move forward with legislation.

I come from the private sector. I believe good leadership needs to be challenged. There is no question about that, but there comes a point when, after 30 hours of filibuster, somebody has to call it and say we need to move forward, because if we did not have the opportunity to move forward, the Conservatives would absolutely obstruct this legislation and we would not be able to pass the spring economic update, Bill C-30, to deliver for unions, small craft harbours and Canadians.

Our Prime Minister was elected over a year ago. He is a world-class diplomat. He is a world-class economic and business leader. He was elected, and we were elected, to build our economy, diversify our economy and deliver for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, we are seeing here a heavy-handed Liberal government that has decided that, because it is unable to manage the time of the House and because it is unable to bring forward legislation in a timely manner, it is going to use the hammer to curtail debate.

We have seen an hour of debate on this particular bill in the chamber, and the Liberals' answer is to speed this through so we cannot have an adequate debate on the bill. They are trying to use every excuse in the book, but the reality is that, when we started sitting, we had effectively no bills for a very long period of time, and that is on the Liberals. They cannot get bills out for us to have time to debate them. It is not on the opposition for holding them accountable and saying that we deserve to have debate. This is a lot of money being spent.

Does the minister not believe that Canadians deserve to have actual conversations and debate on bills in this chamber, specifically when we are spending billions of dollars for Canadians, yes or no?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her advocacy on behalf of Canadians, although I do not agree.

We are here with an agenda to deliver for Canadians. We are here to rebuild, refocus, diversify our trading partners and build new trade relationships. We are here to deliver affordability for Canadians. We are here to build our economy from coast to coast to coast. We are here for east-west trade, not north-south trade.

Maybe it is because of my business background from before I was in this great place, but I think there is a point when we can listen to opposition. Good leadership needs to be challenged, absolutely, but there is also a point when it is not productive any longer. The Conservatives know that. We have had 30 hours of filibuster talking about elephants and everything under the sun.

Conservatives know it. Canadians know it. We know it. It is time to move on, and we are going to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, over the course of this debate, I have heard a number of things said that need to be referenced. As my hon. friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake pointed out, we have actually had one hour, or maybe a bit more by now, for the programming motion we are debating right now, and now we have closure on that programming motion, which is all about speeding things up.

The hon. member says that the government was elected and “we were elected”. I remember the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie pointing out that climate change was mentioned 28 times in what the government was elected to do. Pipelines were not mentioned once. I will remind the hon. member that, in the spring economic statement, there is no reference at all to deciding that, if a pesticide is considered too dangerous for use, that decision can be overturned for economic reasons. That is now buried in an omnibus budget bill that only got studied at the finance committee and, even there, very briefly. That is not due to the Conservative filibuster, but to the priority of the whole committee in what witnesses got called.

Therefore, I beg of the government to not push this through without taking the time necessary, to not push through those buried bits in the omnibus budget bill without any real discussion or debate.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, number one, we were elected to do a job for Canadians. Number two, we want to focus on moving our agenda forward; that is important. Number three, what has happened over the last week with respect to the finance committee and the 30 hours of filibuster is not productive. Again, I ask Canadians to tune in to watch it if they can suffer through the filibuster like the members on our side have had to. There comes a point when we have to show leadership, make tough decisions and do what needs to be done for Canadians.

We are going to build our economy. We are going to cut taxes. We are going to invest in Canadians. We are going to build major projects. We are going to invest in infrastructure, outer space and defence; you name it. We are going to retool this economy. We are going to restructure this economy, one step and one day at a time, and we are going to build Canada strong.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is great to see you back in the chair today. It is a sight for sore eyes.

In my colleague's comments, he was talking about trade, not just north and south but east and west, even though our trading partner to the south of us is the most important trading partner for our economy, and the Liberals are turning their backs on it.

Regarding the east-west comment, the member knows that food transportation was exempt from the Liberals Canadian free trade agreement. We are talking about food affordability and food production and the importance of that issue. We have not had an opportunity to even talk about that and why it is exempt from their Canadian free trade agreement, when they are closing down seven critical research centres and experimental farms, which again will impact food affordability and food production here in Canada.

The Prime Minister himself spoke of food sovereignty and how a country that is unable to feed itself has few options. Well, we have hardly been able to scratch the surface of the impact that the decisions in this budget bill would have on food production and food affordability in Canada. Would the member not agree that food affordability is a top priority for all Canadians, and worth some time to discuss?

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, that member too came into this great place in 2015.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

No? Was it 2014?

[An hon. member]

The last remaining member.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Well, I stand corrected. You have been over there for 12 years now.

Madam Speaker, I would agree with him that food affordability—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to take a moment to remind the parliamentary secretary to address his comments through the Chair and not directly to his colleague.

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

I did not notice.

Yes, the hon. secretary of state has to direct comments to the Chair.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, of course we are concerned about food affordability. Canadians are concerned with food affordability. For the first time in a long time, world food prices started to drop last month. There has been an affordability issue around the world, and we are stepping up for Canadians at a time when they need it the most. We just launched and announced our groceries and essentials benefit. About a week and a half ago, I was in Halifax to announce the one-time 50% top-up.

On this side of the House, we are not about blaming everybody else and throwing our hands up with no concrete solutions. We are here to deliver. We are here to deliver affordability for Canadians, and we are going to do just that.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure there is any point in asking my colleague a question. He is just going to stand like he did before and say that the government has a job to do for Canadians and that it is going to do that job, whether it was elected to do it or not.

I would like to remind him that we debated another time allocation motion not so long ago. At the time, I was asking questions of the minister responsible for Canadian heritage, who was defending that time allocation motion. I explained to him that, ever since the Liberals got a majority, they have been using it to hold in camera meetings at the expense of Driver Inc. victims and to quash investigations into the conflicts of interest of the Minister of Finance and his wife.

Do members know what the Minister of Canadian Heritage said to me at the time? He asked me whether I thought he wanted to be here, because he had been forced to come and defend something that is indefensible.

I will conclude my comments by saying that I serve on the Standing Committee on Finance and that I participated in the study of Bill C-30. As soon as the Conservative Party presented its first amendment, the Liberals clearly indicated that they were going to oppose any and all amendments because they have a majority. They did not even wait an hour to make that clear. They said it in the very first minute of the meeting.

The Liberals were asking for a special report on specific changes to the Canada pension plan. I tried to negotiate a solution myself. Officials told us it was doable, but the Liberals refused.

The reality is that the government is trying to curtail debate, whether it is a minority or a majority. Circumstances do not matter, and this government has decided that it will make all the decisions. According to the government, in a democracy, the opposition serves no function.

I will say it again: I think Parliament is better than what the Liberals are doing with it.

[Wayne Long, Liberal, Saint John—Kennebecasis, NB]

Madam Speaker, I come from the private sector. This type of filibuster, 30 hours of basically producing nothing for Canadians, is not acceptable. Canadians see it. Canadians know it. I know that here in the Ottawa bubble, people think that it is okay and that Canadians accept it. They do not accept it. They want us to move forward. They want us to build Canada strong.

[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 #156

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from June 12 consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on BillC‑30

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

Mr. Speaker, before speaking to Bill C-30, I would like to take a moment to talk about a colleague.

As we know, politics is not always easy on the politician's loved ones. It is not always easy on their family. No matter what party they belong to, a life in politics comes with a heavy personal toll. Last Monday, we learned that the MNA for Mirabel, Sylvie D'Amours, who is not part of my political family, was leaving politics after three terms.

I want to take a minute to pay tribute to her. For 12 years, she has made many sacrifices to serve her constituents. I have gotten to know her family—her husband and some of her children—and I know that, in her own way, she has always cared deeply about her community—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member. There is a lot of noise in the antechamber.

Could we please have some quiet? There is a lot of commotion.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a shame that I was interrupted. I was saying that she cares about her community. She is a wonderful person. I hope she enjoys a rest, and I wish her every success in her future endeavours. I think that it is well deserved. I think that we should take time to acknowledge the work of elected officials from all parties who are close to their communities. It is very important to me to do this today, especially since this may be the last time that I speak in the House before we adjourn.

Now that that is done, we are discussing closure. Madam Speaker, I should say that I would like to share my time with the member for Rimouski—La Matapédia.

Closure is being imposed. Today, we are once again faced with a government that has decided to shut down debate and impose its agenda. This is the second time in a very short period that closure has come up, along with super closure. Last time, I said that the government had bought itself a majority. Since getting that majority, it has used it to go against the interests of taxpayers and the public in many respects.

For one thing, it used it to impose closure on the Driver Inc. issue. This was at a time when the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was attending events organized by the very people at the centre of this scandal, which has cost lives.

The government used its majority to halt debate on an ethical issue involving the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, whose wife is Alto's vice-president. I am not saying that anything inappropriate happened, only that the matter deserves some discussion.

Closure has been imposed on several bills by a government that is having trouble managing its agenda. That is what has happened here, with Bill C‑30. The Liberals are going to keep saying that Parliament is at a standstill and that the opposition parties are to blame. The government was a minority during the 44th and 45th Parliaments, and back then, the Liberals kept saying that the opposition parties were using their majority to paralyze the work of the House.

Now we are dealing with a majority government that constantly chooses to shut down debate and impose its agenda.

I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. I attended the debate on Bill C‑30. Did things get out of hand? Was there filibustering? Of course there was, as there often is. However, when the Liberals say that there were 30 hours of debate and that the opposition filibustered for 30 hours, some clarification is in order.

Starting from the very first amendment, the very first minute and even the very first second of the committee meeting, the Liberal Party decided to block everything. The Liberals made this very, very clear to the committee: No amendments would be allowed, and the bill would not be discussed. This was clearly stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the member for Whitby.

If I recall correctly, the first amendment was intended to obtain more detailed data on the Canada pension plan. Since I am from Quebec, my public pension plan is with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, so none of this concerned me personally. However, I thought it was reasonable. Officials were at the meeting in person. They told us it was possible to make a change to make it entirely feasible, but the government said the data would never be available.

That is when we realized that the government was going to hold this up until the very end and that it did not want to debate the matter.

The Green Party member, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, attended the full 30 hours of committee meetings. She was waiting for the opportunity to debate the issue of pesticides. The fact is that the government is using an omnibus bill to grant itself the power to authorize any pesticide. The Green Party member stayed until she was completely exhausted and, after seeing the government's behaviour, she realized that she would not have the opportunity to debate this.

Why, then, is this being blocked? It is being blocked because the government does not want Bill C-30 to be debated.

My colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia is going to talk about pesticides. We have known for years that the process for approving new pesticide formulations needs to be expedited. The scientific analyses need to be conducted more quickly. The process needs to be more efficient. That is what the industry is calling for. It is asking for things to move faster. However, no farmer has ever asked the government to approve any old pesticide behind closed doors without any scientific analysis. The agricultural industry has never asked for that.

To avoid debating the subject, the government decided to block its own bill, like it did when it had a minority.

When it comes to air passenger complaints, what the government is doing under division 17 is serious. From now on, air passenger complaints will no longer be dealt with by a public entity. If the Minister of Transport, who is not known for his transparency, so decides, air passenger complaints could be dealt with by private companies chosen by the minister himself, perhaps after a phone call from the airlines, rather than through a more transparent system.

The government is cutting public service jobs. We understand that the it wants to reduce day-to-day government spending, but what good does that do if it ends up costing the government even more to have private companies do this work and there is a complete lack of transparency? The Liberals are blocking their own bill because they do not want to discuss this.

The same goes for its “sovereign wealth fund”, which is a misnomer. According to La Presse, it is a wealth fund with no wealth. The government is giving itself the authority to conduct all sorts of studies and analyses with a view to possibly privatizing our airports, some of which have serious governance issues. Perhaps it wants to privatize them to fill this fund with money. Is that the case or not? It is hard to say, because today we are going to pass a bill without debate, without a proper clause-by-clause review, without parliamentary scrutiny, without expert testimony, without witnesses, and without sufficient parliamentary time. People need to understand that when there are tax measures in an economic or budget update, they take effect when the notice of ways and means is tabled in the House. That means there is no rush.

We are dealing with a government that has made up its mind. The parliamentary secretary told us earlier that the government had a job to do, that Canadians had elected it to do that job, and that it would run roughshod over us if necessary to get it done. Some members rightly asked where, in the election platform, it was stated that a public servant could approve any pesticide or that complaints from airline passengers would be outsourced to the private sector. We hear that Air Canada was already ready to implement this law before members of Parliament had even seen it. Where in the Liberal election platform was there any mention of the possibility of privatizing airports? Nowhere.

I said this last week and earlier today when I asked a question. I get the impression that the Prime Minister thinks of himself as the CEO of Canada. He sometimes forgets that he is the Prime Minister. I wonder if he knows where Parliament is on a map. It is a fair question, and I am asking it. No one knows. I know that Parliament deserves better than what the Liberals are currently doing.

I would like to repeat that, when the government was in a minority, it kept justifying its constant need to limit debate by claiming that the majority opposition was preventing business from moving forward. Now the Liberals have a majority. Members of the committee can attest to the fact that Bill C-30 is being blocked by the Liberal Party, which clearly told us that no amendments would be allowed.

That is a very disturbing approach to democracy.

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

Madam Speaker, ignoring the reality of where we are today does not do justice to many of the comments that members have put on the record.

There have been numerous hours of discussion and debate. There is an extension of sitting hours in order to accommodate more debate. I have now sat through debates that have collapsed, even within the five-hour allotment. There is exaggeration. Yes, there are some topics that it would have been nice to have more debate on, but equally, there have been topics on which there has been an excessive amount of debate.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on that.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a question of dynamics. When the government arrives at committee saying that it has a majority, that it has a bill, that it is not going to accept everything, but that it is willing to discuss certain issues, things start moving again. When it starts a committee meeting by telling everyone else that all their amendments have been thrown in the garbage, that the government has the power to say no, and that the other members are free to carry on and filibuster because, ultimately, the government has time allocation on its side, that creates a certain dynamic.

Is it true that the Conservatives debated amendments—not all of which were particularly sensible—for some 30 hours? That is absolutely true. I will give the parliamentary secretary that much. However, could things have been handled differently from the outset?

Personally, I tried. My colleague is referring to comments that were made on the record. Everyone can watch the videos where I said that a compromise needed to be reached, that civil servants were telling us it was possible and that we could move on. If the government had listened, it might have avoided seeing several amendments to the amendments tabled, not all of which were very useful, but which were tabled out of frustration. I believe that the government definitely shares responsibility for that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my colleague from Mirabel for his speech. He began by acknowledging Sylvie D'Amours, who, after three terms as an MNA, will not be running again. I would also like to acknowledge Ms. D'Amours, as well as my provincial colleagues. I would like to acknowledge Éric Caire, who is leaving politics after 19 years, Mario Asselin, who is leaving politics after eight years as an MNA, and Sylvain Lévesque, who is leaving politics after ten years as an MNA.

My colleague touched briefly on a point, and I would like him to elaborate on it. He said that Air Canada staff were already prepared to apply certain rules that had not yet been tabled in Parliament, let alone debated or even adopted.

Can the member tell us more about this?

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

Madam Speaker, this is indeed a situation that concerns us. A closer look shows that all of this plays right into the hands of the airlines. A commissioner who receives complaints needs to be given the necessary tools to make progress and process complaints. The government should not take away or withhold resources from the commissioner, only to finally say that the system is not working and that the work needs to be outsourced. Complaints must be handled with full transparency.

Air passengers are families and individuals who pay to go on vacation and to travel and who are victims of injustice under the law and the regulations. They have a right to timely compensation, but they also have a right to be assured that the process is fair and transparent. That is a far cry from what is in place now. Can such assurance be provided? It might be possible. Would a parliamentary debate have perhaps provided that assurance? The answer is yes.

However, the reality is that by the time the study of Bill C‑30 is complete, there will not be time for us to ask the right questions and get to the bottom of things for the benefit of the public. Today, we are under a guillotine. The bill will be shoved down Parliament's throat, and all these questions will remain unanswered.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the member for Mirabel, for pointing out in his speech that I was also present at the Standing Committee on Finance during the 30 hours when the committee was effectively deadlocked. It is not the fault of the committee members.

Does my colleague agree that the root of the problem is that we are seized with an omnibus budget bill containing a hidden clause that applies to an entirely separate matter, namely pesticides?

That is why we are angry now about the idea of another closure.

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

Madam Speaker, we made sure that the House recognized that the air passenger complaints issue had nothing to do with budgetary policy. The same goes for pesticides: They have nothing to do with budgetary policy. There should be a separate vote.

In the face of all of these obstructionist tactics, we need to take the high road during debate and stick to the facts. I abstained from voting on all these dilatory motions. I abstained from voting because I thought that they were ridiculous, and it is true that it was a waste of time.

Now, I think that the member from the Green Party has some valid points to present to the committee. I think that she has the right to speak and that her concerns align with ours in many respects. I hope that she will have an opportunity to speak to this during the time we have left for debate under the closure motion.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that June 15, 2026, marks the 35th anniversary of the founding of the Bloc Québécois. In Sorel, on June 15, 1991, in the wake of the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and members from Quebec from various backgrounds chose to come together to give Quebec its own voice in Ottawa.

Lucien Bouchard put it very clearly, in a way that has stood the test of time: “The Bloc Québécois is the only way for us to do away with the harms of dual legitimacy. The truth is that there are two peoples, two loyalties and two visions of the country. There is a country missing in this country. Quebec is missing.”

Thirty-five years later, this observation still resonates. Every time that Ottawa forgets about Quebec's priorities, every time that the regions are treated as an afterthought, every time that Quebec has to remind the government that it is a nation, the entire reason for the Bloc Québécois's existence is confirmed. Today, Bill C‑30 is another example of that.

Not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We are not voting against it because it is entirely bad. Some of the measures are a step in the right direction. However, a budget implementation bill must be judged as a whole and, taken as a whole, Bill C-30 fails to address the most pressing needs of Quebec and our regions.

For regions like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence, this economic update is notable primarily for what it does not contain. While Quebeckers are fighting for survival, and while the aluminum, steel, timber and processing sectors are suffering the repercussions of new trade barriers, the government is tabling an economic update that does not rise to the challenge.

In eastern Quebec, this directly affects our forestry businesses, our manufacturers and the workers who sustain our communities. There are no support programs for the affected sectors and no real plan to protect jobs, as if this crisis can simply wait, yet the Bloc Québécois has proposed concrete measures to support the sectors affected by American tariffs, to help the elderly, to protect our regional media and to finally reform EI. None of these proposals were retained.

We also called for correcting the injustice created between seniors 65 to 74 and those 75 and older. In a region like the Lower St. Lawrence, this issue has a real impact. At 74, groceries cost the same as they do at 75. Housing costs the same. Heating costs the same, and yet, Ottawa continues to treat these seniors differently. The Bloc Québécois believes there should not be two categories of seniors. Our seniors have worked their entire lives. They have built our communities. They deserve to be treated fairly.

We also called for meaningful support for regional and French-language media. In eastern Quebec, we have seen regional news coverage lose ground. When regional newscasts are no longer broadcast from within our region, it is a wake-up call. The government has chosen to concede to the web giants and forgo revenue that could have been used to support local news, culture and French-language media. This economic update includes no concrete measures to further support regional media or protect local news. Once again, it is the regions that are left holding the bag.

In a region where agriculture plays an important role in the local economy, we are also concerned about the proposed changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to the Pest Control Products Act. The government wants to weigh economic considerations against public health and environmental protection. For the Bloc Québécois, health care decisions must not be driven by politics. They must be based on science. Public health must never become an economic adjustment variable.

I now want to talk about employment insurance. The government is extending certain provisions for seasonal workers until 2028. That is better than nothing. However, it still falls short of the comprehensive reform that regions have been seeking for decades. Seasonality is not a temporary phenomenon in the Lower St. Lawrence. It is part of our economic reality. In 2028, our forestry, agriculture, tourism and marine industries will still need workers. The conditions that justify these provisions will still be there.

Why then are temporary solutions still being applied to a permanent problem? Why is uncertainty allowed to persist year after year? Why are these protections not being permanently enshrined in law? The Bloc Québécois is calling for real EI reform, permanent reform, systemic reform, reform that will finally eliminate the spring gap for thousands of workers. Seasonal workers are not a temporary problem. They are at the heart of our regions' economies.

Ultimately, this bill does not address the priorities of regions like ours. It does not address the challenges raised by U.S. tariffs, the expectations of seasonal workers, the pressing needs of seniors or the difficulties facing our regional media. It also raises serious concerns about public health and environmental protection.

People back home are not asking us for the moon. They are asking us to listen to them, to take their reality into account and to come up with practical answers to the challenges they face in their daily lives. Unfortunately, this bill provides them with no such answers.

For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C‑30.

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

Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that the Bloc is making the decision to vote against the budget and the supplementary legislation required to implement it. At the end of the day, this is a budget that would, in fact, serve all Canadians in many different ways.

The member made reference to the issue of 65 to 75 with respect to seniors. What he did not highlight is the fact that there is a difference generally between the ages of 65 and 75 regarding medical requirements, employment capabilities and other types of expenses at age 75. This is not to mention the fact that there was an election platform back in the day that said we were going to do just that.

The member is very selective. All regions of the country are supported within this budget in a very real and tangible way, including my home province and his home province, and we all feel very passionate about our home provinces.

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

Madam Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary just said is extremely insulting.

He now says he is offering it to everyone, but the measure he is offering to seniors is temporary. The purchasing power of seniors is a permanent problem, however. If he does not understand that after all these years as a member of Parliament, I wonder what he is doing here.

I invite my colleague to go out into the community to meet with seniors, and I invite him to ask them if they have to make agonizing choices today between paying their rent, buying medication, groceries or clothes. Then he will come back and tell us things like he just did.

I think he is going to be in for a big surprise, as we say in Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary.

Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him. Last August, Lucien Bouchard stated that he was not in favour of holding a referendum right away. He said the following:

I trust in Mr. Plamondon's [the leader of the Parti Québécois] sound judgment to reconsider the matter and make a decision that is in the public interest...

I'm not look to cause him any trouble, but I think Mr. Plamondon should think very carefully before sticking to his commitment to hold a referendum...

Does my colleague agree with Lucien Bouchard?

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

Madam Speaker, it comes as no surprise that the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk will be voting “no” in the next referendum. I, on the other hand, will be voting “yes” in case anyone was wondering where my political interests lie.

That said, what is even more ridiculous is that my colleague is asking me these types of questions when he knows full well that this is not a matter for debate in the House of Commons.

However, I hope that my clear and straightforward answers have helped to reassure him.

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

I can confirm that this debate has nothing to do with government business.

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South has the floor.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We disagree on many things, but he was right to point out that the Liberals have a tendency to impose their own solutions on the provinces and on Canadians.

As for Bill C‑30, the Liberals cut the debate short. They refused to give important witnesses the opportunity to appear before the committee and they tried to push through ideas that they did not campaign on.

What does the member think that says about the Liberals' commitment to accountability?

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his French.

It is fairly easy to understand. The Liberals have rigged a majority. That is not insignificant. It is a historical first. Does anyone know what else is a historical first? The government has run the biggest deficit in history, totalling $78 billion. That said, they have done such outstanding work that that deficit will be $10 billion less.

This government is currently doing the exact opposite of what it promised during the first election, which took place in April 2025. The main problem is that the government said it would resolve the crisis with the Americans. However, at present, nothing has been resolved. Concession after concession is being made, mainly at Quebec's expense. Our economy is the hardest hit compared to the rest of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, a riding with a name even longer than mine.

Today, we are discussing our economic update, which is an important step in our plan to build a strong Canada. Over the next few minutes, I will explain what we mean by a strong Canada. When we talk about building a strong Canadian economy, we are talking about an economy that works for everyone. That is why we are continuing our investments in social programs that help people deal with the cost of living.

I am thinking in particular of the Canada child benefit. This is a monthly tax-free payment that helps families provide for their children. Since its introduction in 2016, it has become a cornerstone of Canada's social safety net. Each year, it keeps nearly 600,000 children above the poverty line. In my province, New Brunswick, more than 80,000 families receive nearly $640 million a year. This money goes directly into the pockets of New Brunswick families to help them provide for their children.

In July of this year, monthly payments will increase again to account for inflation. This is a good example of what we mean when we talk about building a strong Canadian economy that works for everyone.

When we talk about our plan to build a stronger Canada, we are also talking about investments in nation-building projects, in infrastructure and housing, and in the projects carried out on the ground by our community organizations.

In particular, I want to highlight the importance of the New Horizons for Seniors program, which provides financial support for projects that have a positive impact on the lives of seniors in their communities.

Every year, many projects get built, including in my riding. They provide a wide range of activities that have a positive impact on seniors and the facilities they use. These projects help combat social isolation, promote volunteering among seniors and strengthen the communities in which they operate.

This year, the call for proposals is open. Projects can receive up to $50,000 in funding and interested organizations have until July 14 to submit their application.

I would like to illustrate the importance of these investments with a few examples from my riding, because these are projects that genuinely improve the lives of the people I represent here. I am thinking in particular of the investments made in various seniors clubs in Saint‑François‑de‑Madawaska, where renovations were carried out on the community kitchen. I am also thinking of a whole range of activities and workshops offered in Kedgwick for seniors, as well as the purchase of equipment for outdoor activities in Saint‑Quentin and the renovations at the Campbellton seniors club. I am also thinking of other types of organizations, such as the Jodin Residences in Edmundston, where I was able to attend the opening of a community garden; the Acanthus Gallery in Grand Falls, which offers pottery classes; the multi-generational activities offered in Vallée‑des‑Rivières; or the improvement work for Les aventuriers de Charlo. This is a range of activities. The amounts are not always huge, but it is money well spent to improve the lives of seniors and of those within our communities.

When talking about building Canada strong, we must also look at which sectors of the economy need to be strengthened and developed. This brings to mind the work that we are doing to establish Canada's sovereign space launch capabilities.

Right now, Canada is the only G7 country that has no sovereign space launch capabilities. To fix this situation, we recently introduced a Canadian space launch act that is going to make a huge difference by developing the framework needed to create Canada's sovereign space launch capabilities. This comes on top of our investments in supporting the development of spaceports, including Maritime Launch Services in Nova Scotia.

These investments are important. They equip us with sovereign capabilities to meet our defence needs, serve our strategic interests and more. They will also create major economic benefits and address the needs of a wide range of sectors, like the telecommunications sector.

We know that the new, rapidly emerging satellite technologies have the potential to change the cellular connectivity landscape in our regions. I know something on that score as the representative for Madawaska—Restigouche. I hear about cellular connectivity problems from constituents all the time. When I travel from one end of the riding to another, from Saint-Basile in Madawaska to Sainte-Anne-de-Madawaska in Restigouche, or along Highway 17, to name just a few, I run into lots of dead zones with no cell coverage.

This is both a safety issue and an economic one, and since it affects the appeal of our communities, it is a top priority for the people I represent. Certainly, as a member of Parliament, I am very interested in the potential of satellites that, with certain technologies, could substantially expand cellular coverage in our regions that are currently underserved. By building our own space launch capabilities and supporting the development of a spaceport, we are ensuring that Canada does not miss the boat and that we have the capacity to support this sector of the future. We know that things are evolving and that this technology is developing. We are therefore preparing and investing to get this telecommunications sector ready, especially since we recognize its great potential for cellular connectivity. That is one example.

Building Canada strong also means protecting nature. Last spring, we launched “A Force of Nature: Canada's Strategy to Protect Nature”, backed by a $3.8-billion investment, which will focus on measurable outcomes and actions that can be implemented by 2030. Our strategy is built on three pillars aimed at aligning nature conservation with economic growth. These three pillars are “Protecting Nature in Canada”, “Building Canada Well” and “Valuing Nature and Mobilizing Capital”.

Among the various measures included in our strategy to better protect nature, I would like to talk about our five-year investment of $81.7 million as part of Canada's national strategy to ensure the future of Atlantic salmon 2024-2036. This funding will make an essential contribution to stabilizing and restoring wild Atlantic salmon habitats. As we know, this species has been in decline since the 1980s, but the rate of decline has accelerated in recent years and is having a real impact on our communities. It is therefore important to invest in the conservation of this species, particularly to protect our natural ecosystems, but also because of its strong cultural and identity-related value.

In my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, salmon fishing is rooted in traditions that date back several generations, as well as in fishing knowledge and practices that have been passed down from one generation to the next. The decline in the wild salmon population also represents a loss of our living heritage in my riding. It is therefore at the heart of our identity and our culture. It also has significant economic consequences because hundreds of jobs depend on it in the fishing camps that practise salmon fishing, particularly along the Restigouche River. Most of these camps are located in my riding. This has significant economic benefits for our communities.

In short, preserving wild Atlantic salmon and investing in our strategy to protect nature means simultaneously protecting nature, supporting our local economy and keeping our heritage alive.

To build Canada strong, we must also maintain a strong arts and culture sector. I am very pleased that budget 2025 includes an investment of more than $750 million to support arts and culture. Supporting arts and culture not only strengthens our identity and culture, but also brings significant economic benefits to our communities. There is also a wide range of projects in our ridings, including festivals, that can be supported through this funding.

Summer is just around the corner, and a wide range of activities take place during the summer months. Local artists are often featured at festivals in our communities. In fact, back home in Madawaska—Restigouche, we have a packed lineup of events. Dedicated volunteers care deeply about our communities and want us to enjoy a lively and dynamic summer season. To that end, the federal government is supporting art exhibits, including by local artists, through various Department of Canadian Heritage programs. These programs can also be used to support programming put on by our cultural organizations and arts centres. This represents a whole range of funding that recognizes the importance of the arts and culture sector in building Canada strong.

I see that I am running out of time. I would be happy to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑30 contains measures that allow cabinet to grant exemptions to certain rules on food and agriculture for up to three years with a possible extension.

Does my colleague agree that such powers should be debated rigorously and thoroughly rather than being rushed through in committee?

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad we are talking about the issue of food, because it is important to strengthen Canada's food sovereignty. In fact, last week, we laid the groundwork for our food security strategy.

That means investing in our local farmers and providing support for greenhouses. We will also look at where the challenges are and how we can increase production in Canada. To ensure our food security, we want to see more Canadian food on our plates.

That is what we want to do as part of the strategy we announced in the past few weeks.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to sit with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We share certain rural boundaries and we have an awareness of some of our mutual realities.

I would like to talk to him about the EI issue. The Liberals, who were in power back then, have been promising a reform since 2015. The Trudeau government said so in 2015. Then, during the 2019 campaign, it said it again. In 2021, the budget even promised that the reform would get done. Here we are, in 2026, and we are still waiting. The government is offering temporary solutions to a permanent problem.

Does my colleague truly believe that he is building Canada strong by proposing temporary solutions to a permanent problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, in 2016, as soon as the Liberals returned to power, the most controversial EI reforms introduced by the Stephen Harper Conservative government were abolished. Many of these measures did nothing to address the realities of our rural regions. We therefore scrapped the measures that had been introduced by the Conservatives.

In 2018, a pilot project was launched in 13 economic regions across Canada where seasonal work is common, allowing for up to five additional weeks of EI. This pilot project helps seasonal workers, as well as the employers and the local economies of all these regions, because it allows people to stay in their communities while they wait for the next season.

I am very pleased to say that we extended the funding for this measure in the economic update. This pilot project actually covers my entire riding. I believe this is a step in the right direction to support our workers with a view to building Canada strong.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There will be one and a half minutes left for questions and comments after question period.

Brain Injury

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

Mr. Speaker, June is Brain Injury Awareness Month, a time to recognize survivors, families, caregivers and first responders whose lives are forever changed by brain injury.

In Courtenay—Alberni, Amelia Hayden, a retired RCMP officer, knows this impact deeply. She was on duty the day Constable Gerry Breeze was injured, and she remained a source of support to his family throughout his recovery and after his passing. Their story reminds us why Canada needs a national brain injury strategy. It is why I introduced Bill C-206.

In the last Parliament, former MP Alistair MacGregor's bill passed unanimously at every stage to report stage but died because of prorogation. The call to action is non-partisan, and on Wednesday, June 17, as Canadians take part in a national pause for brain injury, we hope all parties will support a call for a national brain injury strategy in this fall's budget.

Burnaby Hospice Society

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this year, the Burnaby Hospice Society celebrates 40 years of caring for Burnaby. For me, this anniversary is deeply personal. My mom battled cervical cancer for three years. In the final months of her life, she received hospice care. It gave her comfort and peace. It also gave our family the strength to face the unimaginable. “Be a blessing to others” were my mom's final words before she passed away. They led me to a life of service and to the House.

Having witnessed the impact of hospice care first-hand, I know that hospice workers and volunteers cannot change what lies ahead, but they can ensure that no one walks their final journey alone.

I thank every staff member, volunteer, donor and supporter of the Burnaby Hospice Society. In the moments when a hand is held for the last time and a final goodbye is whispered, they are there. They remind us that the soul of a community is not how it celebrates life but how it cares for one another when life is drawing to a close.

Fire in Saskatoon West

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to speak about a devastating fire in Hampton Village in Saskatoon West. In a matter of moments, four homes were destroyed, and 20 properties were damaged. Families lost the places where they had built their lives, raised their children and made their memories. One family also suffered the heartbreaking loss of their beloved dog Mocha.

These are the kinds of tragedies that shake an entire community, but in the midst of this sadness, we have also seen the very best of Saskatoon West. Neighbours, friends, local businesses and complete strangers have stepped up to help those who lost so much. Businesses such as Da India Curry House and Sweets For My Sweets have held fundraisers to support the victims, showing what community compassion looks like in action.

To the families affected, I say that Saskatoon stands with them. They are not alone. I thank everyone who has donated, volunteered, prayed or offered support. I thank them for reminding us that, even after great loss, hope, kindness and community spirit can be stronger than ever.

National Indigenous History Month

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, with June being National Indigenous History Month, I remind all Canadians to celebrate the stories, culture, strengths and brilliance of indigenous peoples across Canada.

As a proud Inuk, I highlight the strength both of Canadian Inuit from across Inuit Nunangat and of Inuit from across Inuit Tapiriit Nunarjuarmi, the circumpolar Arctic.

Ancient Inuit world view is embedded in our current society. I see it in Inuit remaining as hunters, seamstresses and knowledge holders. I hear it through Inuit decision-makers having influence in domestic politics and abroad. I have watched it shape legislation strengthening indigenous languages and rights, including in UNDRIP.

We still have much to learn from Inuit and indigenous peoples. Let us work together for the betterment of our collective future.

Centre Block

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that all colleagues have reviewed the seating plan that has been proposed for our return to Centre Block.

Faced with a growing number of MPs in a fixed space, the government's solution is, number one, to expand by about 30% the size of the desks assigned to cabinet so the Prime Minister will feel like he is back home on his favourite luxury jet, and number two, having thereby caused an artificial space shortage for everyone else, to shove 300 MPs into four rows of bleachers, so tightly packed that MPs will no longer have a usable workspace and will have to tread on each other's toes to get to their seat.

A better idea would be to use the Quebec legislature's new seating plan as our model. We could have five rows, with each row containing 36 members, connected by four aisles. This would result in wider seats, retention of desks instead of bleachers, and enough room for members to circulate behind each other's seat rather than over each other's feet.

All we need for this to happen is to acknowledge the ancient principle that all MPs are treated and seated equally. Let us do that.

Jeunesse Idem

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

Mr. Speaker, as Pride season kicks off, I am pleased to stand up and celebrate the 30th anniversary of Jeunesse Idem.

For 30 years, young people in the Outaouais 2SLGBTQIA+ community have had a place where they are respected, affirmed and loved. For 30 years, queer youth in the Outaouais have had a place to thrive, grow, and find a community. It is a place to find oneself. For 30 years, Jeunesse Idem has been visiting schools in the Outaouais to teach our youth about loving others and loving themselves. As we see a rise in homophobia, transphobia and violence against queer people, the work that Jeunesse Idem does, day in and day out, remains as important and relevant as ever.

On behalf of myself and the people of Hull—Aylmer, I thank and commend Jeunesse Idem for 30 years of dedicated service.

Alberta Culture

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, last year, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said this, referring to Alberta: “I am not certain that oil and gas qualifies” to define a culture. A leftist Canadian podcaster recently claimed, “Alberta has ZERO culture. None. Unless you count oil patch hillbillies getting blackout wasted ‘culture’.”

Here is a wake-up call for anyone who shares that paternalistic view. Alberta's culture is what drives Canada. Alberta's culture of risk-taking that drove the development of the Leduc No. 1 has fuelled the entire Canadian economy. The same culture of resiliency and self-sufficiency that pushes our farmers and ranchers to feed the world builds hospitals for Ontario and Quebec. Our culture of perseverance, swagger and love of wild beauty is in our art, our music and our festivals.

The people who try hard to beat the culture of self-determinism out of my province do so to their own detriment and to the detriment of the entire country. A stronger Alberta in a united Canada means acknowledging and giving thanks for Alberta's culture, and praying hard that Alberta will be lucky enough to get more of it. I say, “giddy-up”.

Filipino Heritage Month

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, June is Filipino Heritage Month in Canada, a time to recognize and celebrate the rich history, culture and contributions of Filipino Canadians to communities across the country. Since the arrival of the first Filipino immigrants, generations have helped shape Canada's social, economic, cultural and political landscape through their hard work, resilience and commitment to service.

Filipino Heritage Month provides an opportunity to honour the vibrant traditions, languages, arts and values that form an important part of Canada's multicultural identity. It is also a chance to reflect on the achievements of Filipino Canadians in every field, while acknowledging the challenges many have overcome in building new lives and stronger communities here in Canada.

As we celebrate this month, let us recognize the enduring contributions of Filipino Canadians and reaffirm our commitment to inclusion, diversity and mutual understanding. Mabuhay, Canada. Mabuhay, Philippines.

Car Accident in Mapleton

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, words can barely describe the tragedy that took place in Mapleton on Friday evening, when five young lives were taken in the blink of an eye. Five children, ages four, six, eight, 10 and 12 years old, were killed in a horrible collision, and five other family members were seriously injured. Today our thoughts and prayers are with the family and their community of Elmira as they grieve this unthinkable loss.

I want to thank the first responders, paramedics, police, and members of Mapleton fire department and neighbouring departments for the professionalism and compassion they displayed. Our hearts are with each of them as they process what they witnessed. I thank the neighbours and good Samaritans who rushed in to help. Today our community is grieving, praying about, remembering and honouring five beautiful young lives taken far too soon.

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. At a time when fraud targeting seniors is gaining attention, let us remember the importance of staying vigilant and taking action against the various types of abuse, including financial abuse.

Seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 face age discrimination, since they do not receive the same pension amount as seniors aged 75 and above. This is ageism, another form of abuse. However, rising inflation and housing problems directly impact people living on a fixed income.

While there is also growing concern about isolation among seniors, the new requirements of the New Horizons program are making it harder for volunteers to organize activities to help them break out of their isolation. Let us stop ignoring the needs of seniors so that they can age with care, compassion and dignity.

ALS Awareness Month

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, more than 4,000 Canadians live with ALS, and June is ALS Awareness Month. ALS has been called a rare disease, but that does not take away from the very real impacts it has on people who are living with it. ALS attacks the nerve cells that are responsible for movement; therefore, basic human functions such as walking, speaking, breathing and much more are impacted. While the effects are gradual, they are absolutely devastating.

For the month of June, when we reflect on ALS and what it means for those living with it, we also celebrate the resilience of those who have this terrible disease. We also think of their family, their friends, their health care workers and of course the researchers. The researchers are doing so much, not only to bring awareness to ALS but also to provide hope. “Research”, of course, is another word for hope. I thank them.

I thank the ALS Society of Canada and ALS Action Canada, two incredible advocacy organizations doing so much as well. We will continue this fight together.

Bobbie Sparrow

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour the life of Bobbie Sparrow, who passed away in February at the age of 90. Bobbie earned respect through a lifetime of service and of unwavering fidelity to her principles. From her years as a surgical nurse at Holy Cross Hospital to her leadership in the energy sector, she embodied the resilience of her generation.

She gave herself fully to Calgary and its charities, institutions and civic life. As the member for Calgary Southwest, she brought that same duty to Ottawa, fighting fiercely against the national energy program, inflation and relentless tax hikes. She served with grace, competence and fierce determination. She was a fighter right until the very end.

I thank her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren for sharing her with our community and our country. May her example inspire us to defend the Confederation she fought for, our resources, our promise for an ordered liberty, and a nation defined by strength and ambition. I will miss my friend. May she rest in peace.

Canadian Folk Culture

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it was 47 years ago that The Log Driver's Waltz was first screened and won a best animated film award at an international film festival in France.

The Log Driver's Waltz is a Canadian folk song originally written by Wade Hemsworth and performed by The Mountain City Four. Most of us will instantly associate the tune with the iconic vignette of the timeless tale of a young girl, who, to please both her parents, had to give way and dance with the doctors and merchants and lawyers as the log driver “goes birling down and down white water”.

Directed by John Weldon, the film celebrates the lads as they work on the river and has captured the imagination of generations of Canadians and generations to come, I am sure, because “That's where the log driver learns to step lightly”.

Health

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians are writing to the health committee demanding an investigation into the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. However, Liberals MPs are silencing their voices and blocking an investigation.

On April 28, the Liberal MP for Don Valley North turned off the committee cameras during an emergency meeting, and then she refused to say why. On May 5, the Liberal MP for Winnipeg West voted to shut down the committee to block the health minister from testifying. He was then caught telling his constituents online that he supports an investigation, while voting to shut it down. On June 1, the Liberal health minister refused to come to the health committee. On June 11, the Liberal chair abruptly adjourned the meeting and literally ran out the door to kill any investigation.

Canadians believe in accountability, but the Liberals believe in cover-ups. Conservatives will not stop until Canadians know the full truth of the $300-million PrescribeIT failure and until the people responsible are held accountable.

Ottawa-Gatineau

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, recently Canada was selected to host the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank following negotiations among allied countries.

This decision reflects the confidence of our allies and will lead to the creation of a defence-funding institution, providing affordable loans and facilitating strategic investments.

As Canada's national capital region, Ottawa-Gatineau is uniquely positioned to host the DSRB. Home to more than 130 missions, it is a recognized defence and security innovation hub with world-class research institutions, cutting-edge laboratories and a rare ecosystem where government, industry, academia and the security sector work together.

Ottawa and Gatineau have the largest pool of specialized defence talent in the country, supported by a highly bilingual workforce.

I join my NCR colleagues and the mayors of Ottawa and Gatineau in strongly supporting Ottawa-Gatineau as the ideal home for the DSRB.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 as the only leader who has driven his country into a recession.

While families struggle through this full-blown recession, the Liberals continue to offer announcements instead of results. On Thursday, the Liberals brought yet another food affordability strategy, but grocery bills remain sky-high. Canadians are making impossible choices just to survive. In New Brunswick, one man was forced to postpone open-heart surgery because he simply could not afford to stop working and recover. Meanwhile in Moncton, there were over 300 opioid overdoses in just two weeks. Things are getting desperate.

While families struggle to buy groceries, the Prime Minister is leaving on a jet plane and is not sure when he will be back again. He has spent nearly $1 million on luxury inflight catering over 14 trips so far.

When two in five Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, they are right to ask why the Liberals are funding luxury while their families are struggling to just get by.

Indo-Caribbean Multicultural Event

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Indo-Caribbean Organization of Ottawa is celebrating the 25th anniversary of its annual multicultural event. This special occasion is a celebration of the culture, heritage and identity of the Indo-Caribbean community. It is an opportunity to recognize the many valuable contributions the Indo-Caribbean community has made to Canada, particularly in the national capital region.

I want to congratulate my friend Peter Maharaj, who is here on the Hill, for his hard work and dedication in organizing this wonderful event over the years. I send much gratitude to all of the volunteers in our community for assisting in the success of this multicultural event year after year.

Congratulations. Here is to 25 more years of celebrating Canada's Indo-Caribbean community.

The Economy

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 as the only leader who has driven his own country into a recession. While he flies around the world in style with nearly $1 million in luxury inflight catering, Canadians are being driven out of their homes and into food banks. Two in five Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, and many families are skipping meals, living in RVs and losing sleep over how they will pay their bills.

Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly Liberal policies that have caused this crisis so that Canadians can afford to live and have hope again?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, every time we propose something to help the very people the member speaks of, she rises on her leader's orders and votes against it, such as the groceries and essentials benefit, the Canada child benefit, aid for seniors and aid for dental care.

We will not apologize for the Prime Minister's going to other countries, signing trade deals, bringing back billions in investment and creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are seeing through the illusions. The Liberals keep rolling out more programs and calling them progress. If we need more government supports just to get by, that is not success. It is an admission of failure.

All of the G7 countries face the same global pressures, yet only one has managed to turn these shared challenges into a recession at home. That is our Canada under the Liberal Prime Minister. Since the same global pressures are affecting everyone, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession, while others have managed to avoid it?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member and her entire bench what success looks like. Success looks like creating twice as many jobs per capita as the United States. Success looks like diversifying our trade. Success looks like Contrecœur. Success looks like high‑speed rail in Ontario and Quebec, which her party is against. Success looks like an MOU with the Province of Alberta. Success looks like economic development from one coast to another.

We are going to keep getting success, notwithstanding the opposition of these guys.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we talk to anyone on the street or to businesses suffering from 11 years of failed Liberal policies, they will tell us that Canada is in a recession, no matter how the Liberals or the media try to spin it, and that things are not getting any better. Families, seniors and young people are anxious about their finances and their future. The worst of all scenarios have crept into the minds of Canadian business: doubt and uncertainty.

The Liberal Prime Minister has the distinction of walking into the G7 meetings as the only leader to push their country into recession. Will he rethink his costly policies, which have caused this recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, while the opposition talks Canada down, we are building. We are building with $8 billion in Goose Bay. We are building new wind farms in Nova Scotia. We are building new nuclear plants in Ontario. We are building new pipelines in British Columbia and Alberta.

All they do is talk us down. We are building.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's decline did not start last April. It was catalyzed six years ago, when the current Prime Minister was Trudeau's economic adviser. The Prime Minister's fingerprints are all over the failed policies that have caused Canada to be the only G7 country in a recession. While well‑connected Liberals and corporate buddies are doing well, the crumbs the Liberals feed to families, seniors and young people cannot mask the fact that 60% of Canadians feel anxious about their finances, 40% are losing sleep, 38% have food insecurity and 2.2 million Canadians visited food banks last year.

Does that sound like everything is working well?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know they want to go back six years and re-fight an election from six years ago. Unfortunately, it is today, which is good for Canada.

What we hear is the Premier of Alberta saying she has never been as optimistic about the country. We hear that from all of the premiers. They want to build with the government.

Instead of talking us down, why do the Conservatives not get on board and help build this country?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister will attend the G7 summit today as the only leader to have led his country into a recession.

Full-time workers are living in RVs because they can no longer afford housing. According to United Way, 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, and 38% are food insecure, yet the Liberal Prime Minister finds a way to spend $1 million on luxury inflight meals.

Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally put an end to the inflationary spending, bureaucracy and policies that created this Canadian cost-of-living crisis?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the economy, forecasts indicate that Canada will have the second-fastest growth among G7 countries.

Wages have been rising faster than inflation for 38 months, but we recognize that challenges remain. That is why, on this side of the House, we are working tirelessly to deliver major projects, create jobs and generate wealth across the country. However, when I see the Conservatives come in every day, hand on heart, with all the empathy in the world, when they voted against measures that have helped millions of Canadians—whether it is the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the Canadian dental care plan, or the Canada child benefit—I want to urge them to take a step back and start walking the talk.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, they want us to applaud them for putting a bandage over a wound they created. That is the issue.

I have a message for the Prime Minister, who is at the G7. I also have a message for this minister. Rogelio Rigor, a Quebec father working two jobs, told La Presse, “I was just barely surviving.” He had to file a consumer proposal.

This is the Liberal Prime Minister's real economic record. Instead of spending nearly $1 million on luxury meals while travelling, is the Liberal Prime Minister prepared to give up his smoked salmon, considering that Rogelio has sacrificed everything as a result of Liberal inflation?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have their names, but there are 13,586 families in his riding who are getting their share of the $101 million from the Canada child benefit, which he voted against. I do not have their names, but there are 13,500 families who depend on it.

I do not have their names, but there are 39,000 people in his riding who benefit from the Canadian dental care plan.

I do not have their names, but tens of thousands of his constituents are benefiting from the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit.

I urge him to stop making grand speeches in the House and start voting for his people.

Government Priorities

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks a good game. After Davos, where he called for middle powers to stand together, on Saturday he said at the G7 that the strands of a new world order could be woven together. The problem is that it is all talk.

In real life, the Prime Minister is breaking with Europe by scrapping the digital services tax. He is distancing himself from the European Union by scrapping the levies on online broadcasters. He is leaving the climate fight to the Europeans so his government can build pipelines to benefit the Americans who own the oil companies.

Why is he spending his time abandoning the middle powers just to please Donald Trump?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Europe has something else that is trendy: high-speed rail. It has been adopted by just about every country in Europe, and now by the Kingdom of Morocco as well.

Canada wants to develop this technology. It is an environmentally responsible solution, a transportation revolution and a piece of infrastructure capable of moving millions of Quebeckers and Canadians every year and making a difference in how we get around.

Why has the Bloc Québécois changed its mind on high-speed rail?

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not even mention the Keystone XL pipeline, which is good for the U.S. but bad for all the countries working to fight climate change.

I did not even mention Bill C‑30, which would allow previously banned pesticides to be approved. That will be good for the U.S. factories that manufacture Monsanto products, but it will be bad for our trade relations with Europe, which operates by stricter standards.

The Prime Minister talks a good game, but his actions are moving him further away from our European allies and closer to Donald Trump. He writes fine speeches, but why do his actions always contradict his words?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, why is the Bloc Québécois attacking the Quebec factories, Quebec SMEs and Quebec workers that would be involved in building this vast infrastructure project, the high-speed train? I am talking about SMEs in Louiseville, workshops in Old Montreal, businesses in Gatineau and marketing companies in Quebec City.

This is a revolutionary project that will create 51,000 jobs and add $35 billion to our GDP. It is a transportation revolution. Why is the Bloc Québécois, led by the member for Repentigny, giving up?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is zero for two. Let us give him another chance.

The Prime Minister keeps saying that Canada needs to partner with middle powers to stand up to the United States. However, he is breaking with the 17 European countries and Australia, which impose digital services taxes on tech giants. He is breaking with the European Union, which imposes levies on streaming services such as Netflix.

The fight for the diversity of cultural expression will be waged and perhaps won by middle powers. Canada is pulling out. It is weakening the global consensus and threatening the future of Quebec culture. Is selling one's soul not a rather high price to pay just to please Donald Trump?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, that party is talking about threats to Quebec culture, but when it came time to make budget requests, it did not say a word about Quebec culture. When it came time to vote on the last budget, which contained $700 million for culture, including Quebec culture, not a single Bloc Québécois member voted for it.

It is astounding to hear them talk and falsely accuse others about threats to culture. Now the Bloc members are talking about closer ties with Europe. No one, apart from the Bloc Québécois, believes that Canada is not rapidly becoming closer to Europe.

The Economy

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in just 14 trips, the Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on inflight catering at taxpayers' expense. Meanwhile, two in five Canadians struggle to put food on the table and a record 2.2 million Canadians rely on the food bank in a single month.

Liberal inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment policies are driving up costs and weakening our economy. It is always Canadians who are left paying for Liberal waste. Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies that caused this crisis, so Canadians can afford to live again?

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I am uncertain where that member has been over the last number of years, but I want to give them one good example of how this government stood up for Saskatchewan when 14 of them sat on their hands for 10 long years. I am talking to the Saskatchewan Conservative MP caucus.

Why did you not defend this canola deal? Why did you not stand up—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am not involved in the canola deal.

Again, a reminder to go through the Chair. The member may continue.

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, why did they not stand up for Saskatchewan and the canola deal that brought billions to Saskatchewan producers? Again, they sat on their hands doing nothing.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, food affordability is so terrible that there is scurvy in that member's riding.

We cannot forget that this Prime Minister is the one who said affordability is the best that it has been in over a decade. He is showing up at the G7 as the only leader who has caused a recession in his own country. That is his Liberal government's record: inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment policies that are driving up costs. It is not global factors; it is the Liberal choices that Canadians cannot afford.

When will this government stop making life more expensive for Canadians?

[Buckley Belanger, Liberal, Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, it would be really nice if I saw one Conservative visit northern Saskatchewan to deal with the issues that we are struggling with.

Now, I would point out that every time we have an opportunity to help my riding, and many other ridings across this country, whether it is on food and essential benefits, the $10-a-day child care or the food program for the schools, every single time we make initiatives, they vote against them.

We will take no lessons on helping any region in Saskatchewan that feels underserved. We will represent all Canadians and stand up for them forever.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate and unpleasant, but we are in a recession, and people are feeling the pinch. Some families have to spend more than 120% of their income just on housing and food. It has reached the point where people are having to borrow money just to put food on the table. The reality is that the Liberals' policies are not working, and the more power the Liberals have, the more it costs Canadians.

Now the Prime Minister is about to attend the G7 summit as the only leader to have led his country into recession. Does he plan to continue dodging the issue by making more grand, inspiring speeches abroad while leaving families in Canada to pay the price?

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

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 5, Canadians received the first instalment of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Millions of Canadians have received help with their grocery bills. We are very aware of the challenges Canadians are facing. Canadians are courageous, and they will work with us to rebuild our self-sustaining, strong and responsible economy.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the programs.

In Quebec, the average salary is $67,000. However, I received a photo of a Canada groceries and essentials benefit payment from a worker who earns exactly $67,000. He received $11.98 to help pay for groceries. Families can no longer afford groceries, rent and gas. The Liberals have plunged the country into a recession.

I urge the Prime Minister to use his time at the G7 to heed the advice of all the other countries that are not in a recession.

I think that could be beneficial to us.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question gives me the opportunity to discuss an announcement made last week.

We are going to invest $1 billion in food infrastructure to make food terminals and hubs more accessible to Canadians. We are also going to improve competition. We are going to do this because it matters.

Canadians need support. We are providing that support, and they support us because they, too, want to rebuild our country in a self-sustaining and responsible manner.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 summit as the one and only leader who has led his country into a recession. This is what that looks like: Two in five Canadians struggle to be able to afford to feed themselves; full-time workers are living in RVs or a Tim Hortons; and food bank use has hit an all-time high. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spends $1 million on luxury inflight catering, which includes things like Normandy butter cups, fine wines and braised beef.

My question is very simple: When will the Prime Minister acknowledge the reality so many Canadians face and reverse his policy so they can afford to live again?

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

Mr. Speaker, that member of Parliament has risen before to ask questions like this, but I would ask her a question: Why does she keep voting against the very people in Alberta who are asking for a hand up? In fact, the national school food program in Alberta feeds 58,000 children, and parents are saving up to $13,700 a year per child. These are all things that member has voted against.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think what that member meant to highlight was the fact that under the Liberal government, child poverty rates have increased year after year after year for the last three. This dramatically impacts the people of my riding in Lethbridge, Alberta. It means that seniors in this country are living at Tim Hortons. It means that full-time workers are living out of their RVs.

Why does the government turn a blind eye to the reality of Canadians while it is living high on the horse? Why does it not reverse its policy so Canadians can finally afford to live again?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we check Hansard, we will find that member on record saying that parents do not want help. In fact, what I hear from Canadians, including Albertans, who write to me as the minister of jobs and families, is that we should stand up for each other, that we should make sure not one kid goes hungry, no matter if their parent is out of work, no matter if their family is struggling, because circumstances are unfortunate for families. What is most Canadian is the value of helping each other.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will remind that member that today the Prime Minister is at the G7 summit as the only leader in the G20 who has caused a recession in his own country, technical or otherwise. He says the data can be uneven. What is not uneven is the pain. Food bank use is at record levels, while two in five Canadians struggle to eat and full-time workers live in people's driveways because a paycheque no longer buys a home. This is all while the Prime Minister's inflight catering bill for just 14 trips could feed a family for 55 years.

When will this Prime Minister reverse his costly policies and make good on his announcements so Canadians can afford to live again?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I just want to remind members that even if certain things are in the news, we should not mention the presence or absence of members.

The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is attending the G7 summit today—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am trying very hard to apply the rules, but the members are making it very difficult. We do not need to talk about location.

The hon. minister, please.

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is represented at the G7 summit today as a country that has hit its 2% NATO target this year, as a country that has attracted foreign direct investment at twice the rate of our nearest G7 countries, and as a country that has secured 20 economic and defence agreements over four continents. British Columbians like to see this growth. This is Canada.

Climate Change

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources warned on Thursday that wildfire activity will increase throughout the summer. With hot temperatures expected, 300 mayors are calling on the federal government to abandon its plans for new pipelines, stating in their declaration that more communities are likely to burn to the ground this summer as we double down on fossil fuel expansion.

As another wildfire season approaches, will the Liberals finally drop their obsession with oil?

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Our government continues to fight climate change, and we are getting the job done. We have strengthened methane regulations, and we are a global leader in this effort. People are looking to us and asking how they can do the same. When we talk about what we are doing when it comes to climate change and international financing, again, we are a leader.

However, every time we make these changes and do this work, the Bloc Québécois does not support us.

If the Bloc members want to do the work, they should help us with electricity and our efforts.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources announced on Thursday that we are facing another bad summer for wildfires. However, that is not apparent from listening to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Two days earlier, he was at an energy trade show in Calgary, calling the oil sands one of the great industrial achievements in Canadian history.

He was boasting about speeding up oil and gas exports at the very same time as his own department was warning that our regions are going to burn.

Do the Liberals not think that the safety of forested regions should come before oil sands profits?

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

Mr. Speaker, climate change is a reality. We are fully cognizant of that, and we are working on it. With Canada's 2030 nature strategy, we plan to protect 30% of our lands and waters, which will help us fight climate change.

My colleague mentioned strengthening methane regulations and all the things we are going to do for renewable electricity, renewable energy. These things will help us fight climate change. That is how we will make progress and become economically self-sufficient.

Seniors

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

Mr. Speaker, community organizations are warning that the rush changes to the New Horizons for Seniors program are putting hundreds of projects at risk. Many volunteers are seniors who already struggle with technology. With only weeks to register for a CRA business number and navigate a complex online portal, these changes are overwhelming and many fear they will be disqualified.

Will the Liberals fix these unnecessary barriers or will they have to create another program to help seniors apply for a current one?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly proud of this program. Last year alone, it supported over 2,600 projects right across Canada, helping seniors stay active and engaged and fight isolation. This year, we are increasing the value of the grants and we are making some changes to strengthen the integrity of the program.

Service Canada is there to assist any organization with questions on how to apply and we are going to make sure that this program remains accessible for seniors and organizations, and meets the standards of integrity that Canadians expect.

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

Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state claims that registering for a CRA business number and using the online portal is simple, but senior organizations are telling a different story. In my community of King—Vaughan, where 18 senior groups have been supporting over 6,000 senior volunteers, organizations have been frantically calling my office, scared of missing out on critical funding. These changes will leave the most vulnerable organizations behind.

Why are the Liberals trying to bury seniors in even more red tape?

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. We have worked hand in hand with organizations to ensure that these changes to this program are welcomed. We know that this program delivers important services for seniors in every single riding of every member in this House. That is something that we are going to continue.

We will take no lessons from the Conservatives in our support for seniors, while they continue to vote against programs like the dental care plan and the groceries and essentials benefit that benefit single seniors right across the country.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we mark World Elder Abuse Awareness Day today, the Liberal government is standing in the way of organizations that support seniors.

The new rules for the New Horizons for Seniors program are forcing volunteer groups to get a business number from the Canada Revenue Agency. This process can take months and also requires them to navigate an online application system. These organizations want to help seniors, not fight Ottawa's bureaucracy.

Is the government going to back down on these bureaucratic reforms? Yes, we know the people in our ridings.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to ensuring that the New Horizons for Seniors program reaches community organizations led by seniors who are improving Canadians' quality of life. These changes are important to keep the program accessible while also complying with the standards of integrity that Canadians expect.

We are working with the Canada Revenue Agency and with the department to help organizations that need assistance managing this number. The forms are ready. The deadline is July 14, and the department is ready to help anyone who needs help.

Access to Information

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are totally out of touch, but I want to raise a different topic. Last week, the President of the Treasury Board was unable to answer a simple question from my colleague. That embarrassed his government and, according to La Presse, angered his fellow Liberal MPs. He has had all weekend to recover and find the right page in his briefing book.

Does he believe he still has the Prime Minister's confidence? I will give him a few seconds to find the answer in his briefing book.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the question was, but as the President of the Treasury Board—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Clearly, members do not want an answer. We are going to start over.

The hon. President of the Treasury Board.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made a statement, but there was no question in that statement.

As the President of the Treasury Board, I strongly support the government's efforts to improve and modernize the access to information process. Access to information is a fundamental part of ensuring transparency and accountability for Canadians. That is why last March we launched a review of the Access to Information Act. We have provided Library and Archives—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

No. Wait. The minister may take a few seconds to finish here.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have awarded Library and Archives Canada with a permanent funding increase of approximately $20 million per year to support its access to information system.

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

Mr. Speaker, the press reports that Liberal MPs say the President of the Treasury Board is not very present, not very diligent and struggling to master his files. Last week, Canadians watched him stand in this House, unable to answer a very basic question about his own department.

If the Prime Minister demands confidence from his ministers, does he still have confidence in the President of the Treasury Board, yes or no?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government believes in transparency, accountability and fairness. As the President of the Treasury Board, I have been meeting with government agents, including the Information Commissioner. We have launched consultations to modernize the access to information system.

I thank all the government agents, including the Information Commissioner, for their work to hold the government to account.

Artificial Intelligence

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada led the invention of modern artificial intelligence, and now AI is used by millions of Canadians every day. Canadians want AI to strengthen our economy, to enhance job opportunities, to deliver new research and innovation, to protect our communities and our national sovereignty and to always prioritize people.

Can the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation update the House on Canada's new AI strategy?

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I would really like to thank the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas for his incredible advocacy on behalf of his community.

Our new national AI strategy, AI for all, is building trust, creating opportunity and keeping sovereign control. We are creating a national AI literacy program so all Canadians can build a literate and educated workforce. We are creating 90,000 job placements for young Canadians so they can get the job experience they need. We are also investing in Canadian innovators, small and medium-sized businesses, to keep the jobs, the innovation and the business—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for York—Durham.

The Economy

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the G7 gets under way, the Prime Minister remains the only leader of a G7 or G20 economy that is in recession. The Prime Minister should travel, but Canadians expect results from that. When he was back home in Ireland this weekend, investment was leaving Canada. On Saturday, Open Text's Waterloo-based AI company announced a $140-million investment in Ireland. That is 400 new jobs for Ireland. Ireland has lower taxes, less regulation and a better business environment.

Why did this investment not get made in Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, no one can understand the economy if they have never worked a day in it, like the Conservative leader. Maybe he should listen to actual economists in Canada, like BMO's chief economist, who said adding 88,000 jobs should silence the critics. What about RBC's Frances Donald, who said that it is the wrong diagnosis, “neither accurate nor helpful”. The head of C.D. Howe gave his thoughts on the economy. I could go on and on.

On this side of the House, we are going to build Canada strong. The Conservative leader can continue with empty parking lot press conferences, props and slogans.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government's props and slogans are cold comfort to the young generation of Canadians, who are feeling its failures most acutely. The United Way's report last week confirmed that food insecurity concerns are highest among young Canadians, income declines are most acute among young Canadians and fully 91% of the next generation feel personal financial anxiety. Add on top of that the highest unemployment rate in 35 years.

When will the government stop selling out the next generation?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, there are some very promising signs in the Canadian economy, especially in Ontario and especially for youth. The Ontario unemployment rate is now the lowest in two and a half years. The Toronto unemployment rate is the lowest since November 2023. Full-time jobs are up 154,000, 99,000 of which were for youth.

There are some very promising signs in this economy. We have investment both going to Canada and in—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee has changed seats. I can hear him in a different spot now.

The hon. parliamentary secretary may continue.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have very promising results with incoming investment, the highest investment in over 18 years in foreign direct investment into Canada. It is very good to have very strong Canadian companies that are both exporting their products and finding trading opportunities elsewhere.

I think we should celebrate and talk up these strong Canadian technology companies instead of running them down.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is the only G7 leader and the only G20 leader who has delivered a recession in his own country.

A United Way survey found that 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, 38% face food insecurity and 40% are losing sleep over how to stretch their paycheque. Meanwhile, this Liberal Prime Minister's luxury inflight catering bill has reached nearly $1 million over 14 trips, including $175,000 for food on a single trip, which is enough to feed a family for 55 years.

Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly Liberal policies that put Canada into a recession, so Canadians can afford to live again?

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, instead of tearing down this country, which the Conservatives do, or counting airline miles, they should help build it up.

The May jobs report showed that Canada created 88,000 new net jobs. Do they mention that? No. Our trade surplus is up 55%. Do they mention it? No. Our total exports are at a record high. Do they mention it? No. When we have a groceries and essentials benefit to help Canadians, do they vote for it? No.

Why do they not get on board and help build up Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are not tearing down Canadians. It is Liberals who are keeping down Canadians.

Those Liberal talking points will not help the full-time workers living in RVs and trailers because they cannot afford homes, or the families spending 120% of their income on food and rent alone, or the 22% of Canadians who have personally experienced poverty, or the one in five households that are food insecure. Every dollar wasted on Liberal luxury is a dollar not used to lower taxes, build homes, improve safety or help Canadians make ends meet.

Will the Liberal Prime Minister end the waste, cut the bureaucracy and reverse the Liberal policies that caused this recession?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, when we propose programs like dental care or the groceries and essentials benefit, anything that could help vulnerable Canadians, these Conservatives are against. When our closest ally launches an unjustified trade war, what do Conservatives do? They say we are having a “hissy fit”. When the Prime Minister goes and brings back tens of billions of dollars of jobs and investment to this country and proposes major projects, what do the Conservatives do? They vote against that.

What, for the love of all that is good, are the Conservatives for?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, despite leading Canada into a recession, the Prime Minister continues living in luxury, racking up $1 million in inflight catering alone. Meanwhile, more and more Manitoba families are struggling just to put food on the table.

Last week, Harvest Manitoba shared its Manitoba poverty report card, which says it all, giving the government an F in its poverty rating and advising that of the record-setting 60,000 Manitobans who visit food banks monthly, 30% are employed full-time. What? If full-time workers cannot even afford food, these gimmicks and rebates are not going to cut it.

When is the government going to take serious action to reduce food prices in this country?

[Rebecca Chartrand, Liberal, Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I represent some of the poorest communities in this country, so when the member opposite tries to lecture me on affordability, I have to ask: Why does he vote against every single measure that is supporting Manitobans, including affordable child care, grocery rebates, automatic tax filing and cutting taxes at the pump? He needs to get onside and start voting and working for Manitobans.

Taxation

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know how bad inflation has gotten in Canada. We know grocery prices are through the roof. Fuel prices are skyrocketing, and even the cars that Canadians need to fuel up are becoming more and more unaffordable for the middle class. The prices of used cars have doubled in the last seven years in this country, and the government is still putting the federal sales tax on them each and every time they are sold, sometimes collecting double, triple or quadruple revenue off the backs of Canadians.

Conservatives come armed with solutions. We have Bill C-285, which would take the GST off of used cars and save Canadians thousands. Will the Liberals support it?

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

Mr. Speaker, from day one, we have been focused on delivering affordability measures for Canadians. Let us talk about the removal of the GST for first-time homebuyers. Let us talk about the pause on the federal excise tax. That is 10¢ a litre. Combine that with the removal of the carbon tax, and it is a 28¢-per-litre savings. We just launched the groceries and essentials benefit. We just announced the 50% payment a week and a half ago.

On this side of the House, we will continue to focus on affordability. The Conservatives will focus on rhetoric and bluster.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no rhetoric or bluster here, as the minister does his fancy dance over there.

The price of used cars has more than doubled over the last several years as a result of the government's inflationary policies. Taxing a vehicle twice is wrong. We on this side believe that cars are not a luxury, and for many people, they are a lifeline. On this side of the House, we would zero-rate used vehicles under the Excise Tax Act.

Will the Liberals stop profiting off of inflation and remove GST from the sale of used cars in this country?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have actually had the privilege of running a private business in the economy, unlike the Conservative leader. When an economy or a business is faced with adversity, we have two choices. We can wave our hands around, blame everybody else and offer nothing constructive, or we can actually lead. We can rebuild. We can restructure. We can build new trade relationships. On this side of the House, that is what our Prime Minister and our international trade minister are doing.

We are going to build Canada strong. They are going to continue with the rhetoric.

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

Mr. Speaker, used car prices have doubled over the last seven years. The average price of a used car is now $36,000. That is a lot of money, especially for families in the regions who need a car to get to work and get around. We think only one tax should apply to used cars, but unfortunately, used cars are still also subject to GST. We want to take the GST off used cars.

The Liberals have already axed the carbon tax, as the Conservatives were calling for. Do they agree with us that there should be no GST on used cars?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to remind everyone that we have suspended the excise tax on gasoline for the summer, providing relief for consumers and boosting Canadians' purchasing power.

However, we are not stopping there. The Conservatives claim that affordability is an issue they care about. I urge them to support us on the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the Canadian dental care plan, the tax cut for 22 million Canadians, and our other measures.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we took the tax off all used goods, their talking points would be tax-free. We asked the question four times, and got zero answers.

We came with a solution: a Conservative bill to save Canadians thousands of dollars by taking the GST off used cars, which are taxed two, three and even four times, as many times as the Liberals avoided answering the question.

It is a very simple question: In my part of the country and for MPs across the House, driving is not a luxury but a necessity, so will the Liberals join us and take the GST off used cars?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Conservatives credit. They are now talking about actual measures that could support affordability, but I would ask them where they have been for the last number of months and years.

I have been a member of Parliament for seven years in the House, and it does not matter if it is the Canada child benefit, national child care, the national school food program or the tax measures we have put in place, consistently, the Conservatives vote against these measures.

We appreciate that they are finally talking about affordability, but we would ask them to actually support the measures the government consistently puts at the front to help support Canadians across the board. It is good that they are now talking, but why do they not get on board with some of the initiatives that we have had for years now?

Health

[Matt Jeneroux, Liberal, Edmonton Riverbend, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are facing a men's mental health crisis. Too many men and boys face mental health challenges, and too many simply will not ask for help.

Last week, we once again hosted an annual Father's Day on the Hill event with Movember, where Montreal Canadiens great Guy Carbonneau shared his story and talked about the recent loss of his friend and teammate Claude Lemieux.

As we mark Men's Health Month in June, can the Minister of Health provide an update on the much anticipated men and boys' health strategy?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton Riverbend for his tireless leadership on this issue. I am pleased to report that, thanks to his help and the help of groups such as Movember, more than 5,000 people shared their thoughts and ideas during our consultations for Canada's first-ever men and boys' health strategy. We heard many great ideas about how to create more opportunities for boys and men. I look forward to releasing the strategy in the coming months.

Public Safety

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Foothills families are shaken. A local man was charged with more than 500,000 pieces of child exploitation material, and he was released. Ten-year-old Grace asked me why this man was not in jail. She does not feel safe playing outside with her friends, and that is not right. Okotoks families want to know why a man charged with such a heinous crime was released into the community.

Conservatives offered a solution, jail not bail for serious offences, but the Liberals rejected it. When will the Liberals fix the bail system they broke so Okotoks families can feel safe again?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, these kinds of heinous behaviours have no place in Canada, and the Government of Canada has an opportunity to do something about it.

I am pleased to share that we expect, this week, we will have changes to Canada's Criminal Code. These include changes that will make it impossible for conditional sentencing orders to be tied to charges impacting crimes such as sexual crimes against children. In addition, last week the House voted on the protecting victims act, which would put in place a number of measures designed specifically to combat child sexual exploitation and child sexual exploitation and abuse material. My hope is that these measures will become law expeditiously, so communities benefit from these protections.

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

Mr. Speaker, the criminal charged in the Lambton College shooting, which left one person dead, is not surprisingly out on bail. Only under these weak-on-crime Liberals could a man charged with murder and attempted murder be back on the streets before justice is served. These Liberals have turned our justice system into a joke, a revolving door for violent offenders. Victims get fear; criminals get another chance.

How many more accused killers do these Liberals intend to release before they finally admit that their weak-on-crime laws are a complete and catastrophic failure?

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the political motivation behind the member's question is obvious, based on the way he phrased it, but if he would like some validation, the bail and sentencing reform act we have put forward in the House is supported by those who work on the front lines.

I would invite him to talk to the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I would invite him to talk to the head of the Ontario Provincial Police or of the Police Association of Ontario. The legislation we put forward has been informed by leaders in the police movement. It has been informed by provinces and premiers demanding the expeditious adoption of the bail and sentencing reform act. It has been informed by engagement with cities. We will do everything we can to listen to those expert voices to keep Canadians safe.

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

Mr. Speaker, that minister and the government have had 11 years to get this right.

Last week, Canada suffered a tragic loss when officer Marc Pinizzotto was shot and killed in the line of duty. It has now been revealed that the man responsible for the horrific crime was already out on probation. Then we learned that the U.S. consulate shooter was on bail. Thugs, who are already before the courts, known to police and prohibited from possessing firearms, are now back on the streets. This should have never happened.

How many more tragedies will it take before these Liberals stop treating bail conditions like a joke and start keeping repeat violent offenders behind bars?

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, we are deeply heartbroken that Constable Marc Pinizzotto of the Toronto Police Service and Constable Tarun Bali of the Ontario police service were killed in the line of duty last week. We as a government have been taking decisive action, including strengthening bail and sentencing, with bills that we expect to go through Parliament this week.

We need to work in collaboration to ensure the safety and security of all those who serve on the front lines. We are taking those actions. We invite the party opposite to join us in order to strengthen these systems.

Youth

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

Mr. Speaker, across New Brunswick and Canada, young people are ready to work, learn new skills and contribute to their communities. What many of them need is an opportunity to prove themselves. Every year, the Canada summer jobs program enables thousands of young people to secure their first job with local businesses and organizations.

I would like to ask the minister to explain what our government is doing to strengthen this program so that more young people can have a rewarding work experience this summer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for standing up for young people across New Brunswick and Canada. We know that when young people succeed, our communities succeed. That is why we are investing in the Canada summer jobs program by creating 100,000 jobs this year, including more than 12,300 in the Atlantic provinces. We are ensuring that young people can work, build their future and continue to contribute to their communities.

Public Safety

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

Mr. Speaker, $38 million spent, 1,000 deliberately set fires in just four years and businesses closing and leaving town are the true devastating costs of Liberal catch-and-release and mental health policies in the city of Prince George. Prolific offenders are arrested and released the very same day. Homelessness, addiction and crime have turned our communities into war zones. That is the reality, and that is the Liberal government's legacy.

Members of the Prince George city council are here in Ottawa today. Will the Prime Minister accept their invite to come to Prince George to tell our business owners directly to their faces why he believes they should give his catch-and-release policies another chance?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the business council should also be informed that the Conservative Party of Canada did nothing to assist in our bail and sentencing reform bill. If anything, it has impeded our ability to progress in making changes to the Criminal Code of Canada to make sentences harder and to make sure we give police the tools they need through Bill C-22. They have been blocking it for months now, and they need to help law enforcement so its members can arrest and charge criminals.

Indigenous Affairs

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been one year since the Liberals fast-tracked Bill C-5, gutting environmental protections and indigenous rights, but now with Bill S-2, which would eliminate sexism and racism from the Indian Act, they suddenly hide behind the need to consult.

First Nations everywhere have told the government that there is no need to consult on ending sexism and racism, so will the minister end the spin cycle, stop the excuses and pass Bill S-2 before the summer adjournment?

[Mandy Gull-Masty, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, the process of enfranchisement unjustly stripped thousands of first nations individuals of their status. While the practice was ended 35 years ago, the harmful legacy still remains.

That member knows that this bill is before study at the committee. That member knows that there are witnesses, and we want to respect those first nations witnesses' rights to come to defend and speak for themselves and their communities. I am willing to work with that member to respect those first nations rights, because this is what we are committed to doing.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that, during oral question period earlier today, the Minister of Government Transformation and member for Louis-Hébert misled the House. This is not the first time this has happened, which is why it is important for me to set the record straight. He stated, in his response to my question earlier, that the Bloc Québécois had not submitted any requests as part of the pre-budget consultations.

In order to enable the member for Louis-Hébert to provide answers that meet the standards of rigour and honesty required by his office, I would like to table—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have to interrupt the member because I am having a hard time hearing him. Could he summarize his request a little more concisely?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to present my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert and Minister of Government Transformation, with the document we submitted as part of our pre-budget requests regarding culture. These requests were made—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The member needs to seek unanimous consent to table a document. I am already hearing noes.

House of Commons

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the House of Commons' “Report to Canadians 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 responses to three petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Foreign Affairs

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Amendments to Annex I of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973”, as modified by the Protocol of 1978, relating thereto and adopted by the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization on June 17, 2021.

Accessibility in Canada

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and subsection 39(3) of the Accessible Canada Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Accessibility Commissioner of Canada for the 2025-26 fiscal year.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), the report should be referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, An Act to enact the Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports of the Canadian Branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie, or APF.

The first report concerns its participation in the electoral observation mission in Chisinău, Moldova, from September 22 to 30, 2025.

The second report concerns its participation in the Bureau meeting of the APF and the Working Group on Reforming the APF Constitution held in Podgorica, Montenegro, from January 27 to February 1, 2026.

The third report concerns its participation in the meeting of the APF Young Parliamentarians Network held in Monaco from March 1 to 3, 2026.

The fourth report concerns its participation in the meeting of the APF Parliamentary Affairs Committee held in Port Louis, Mauritius, from April 8 to 10, 2026.

The fifth report concerns its participation in the meeting of the APF Network of Women Parliamentarians held in Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast, from April 22 to 24, 2026.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: the report of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, respecting its participation at the Annual Parliamentary Hearing at the United Nations: Parliaments and the United Nations: Better Together, Delivering for the People, at New York, New York, United States of America, from February 12 to 13, 2026; and the report of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union respecting its participation at the Second Parliamentary Conference on Interfaith Dialogue, at Rome, Italy, from June 19 to 21, 2025.

These reports have been tabled in an electronic format.

Official Languages

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, entitled “Report on the Quota of French-language Vocal Music in Canadian Radio Media”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

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

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to present the supplementary opinion of the Bloc Québécois.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's supplementary opinion seeks to address the issues raised by all of the witnesses and stakeholders who participated in this study. It seeks to resolve the underlying problem behind the current crisis facing Quebec broadcasters, which is driving their calls to reduce the quota. I am talking about the unfair competition from foreign digital platforms, the American web giants that profit from the Canadian and Quebec market and make billions of dollars in profits.

That is why we are recommending that the government reinstate the 3% digital services tax, which would have been a first step toward tax equity. This tax would have generated $7.2 billion over five years, and the government could have allocated that money to a dedicated fund for the cultural sector, particularly the broadcasting industry.

Recently, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, took a step in the right direction by requiring online streaming companies, such as Netflix, Disney+ and Amazon Prime, to invest 15% of the revenues they generated in Canada in Canadian content, with a view to easing the burden on traditional broadcasters. However, the federal government later asked the CRTC to backtrack on that decision. The Bloc Québécois is recommending that the CRTC instead uphold this decision and that the billions of dollars in profits be used to support French‑language music broadcasters.

Veterans Affairs

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, entitled “Removing Barriers to Entrepreneurship Among Veterans”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report. 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #157

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

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

Mr. Speaker, within the legislation, there are many examples of how Canada is building stronger. Ultimately, a stronger, healthier Canada is there for all, no matter the region of the country. We have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on building and being there to have the backs of workers and families. Within the budget, we will find that there are a number of initiatives that are there to support.

In addition to that, in particular, I am thinking of the beautiful province of Quebec, where we have the expansion of the port of Montreal, and the aerospace industry is benefiting. I am wondering if my friend could talk about the DND component and how Quebec will benefit from it.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are things for all of Canada, including Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. I am thinking of the investments in small ports, which is something many of our colleagues have long been calling for. This will benefit British Columbia, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces alike. Fisheries are an important sector of our economy. We are making historic investments. That is just one example among many.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this point of order pertains to footnote 23 of section 22 of the green book, regarding presenting petitions.

I think if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to return to Routine Proceedings for the sole purpose of allowing the presentation of petitions.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country to speak to Bill C-30, the spring economic update implementation act.

At a time of global uncertainty, our government is focused on what we can control here at home: building a stronger, more resilient economy, making life more affordable and creating opportunities for the next generation. This is exactly what Bill C-30 would advance.

Canada is already emerging as one of the world's most attractive destinations for investment. Foreign direct investment reached nearly $97 billion last year, which is the highest level in almost two decades. Surveys of global investors are showing that Canada is the most attractive place for infrastructure investment.

We will need that investment, as our government understands that Canada cannot be overly dependent on one market. For decades, roughly 70% of our exports have gone to the United States. Bill C-30 is part of a broader effort to strengthen Canada's economic sovereignty by diversifying trade, supporting domestic industry and investing in Canadian productivity. Since last year alone, non-U.S. exports have increased by more than 40%, while exports to Europe continue to grow significantly.

Importantly, this legislation recognizes that economic growth matters only if Canadians can actually feel it in their everyday lives. That begins with housing. Across my riding, housing affordability remains one of the defining issues that people raise with me. Young Canadians are wondering whether they will ever be able to buy a house in the communities they grew up in, while families are struggling with rising rents and housing shortages. The spring economic update responds by providing more than $7 billion in low-cost financing through the apartment construction loan program to accelerate the building of thousands of low-cost rental units across the country. Since 2019, this program has already financed over 300 below-market units in the Sea to Sky region alone. I have heard countless stories of how this has changed people's lives, from allowing people to live closer to work to allowing low-income workers to save money for their retirement for the first time.

The homes and the infrastructure Canada needs do not build themselves. If Canada wants to build the housing, infrastructure, transportation and clean energy projects we talk about so often, we need skilled workers, and many more of them. This is why one of the most important components of the spring economic update is the investment in skilled trades and apprenticeships. The government is launching a nationwide effort to recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers by 2031 through the team Canada strong program. This creates a direct pathway for young Canadians into rewarding, well-paying careers while helping address labour shortages that are delaying projects across the country. This will support Canadians through the entire process, from discovering the trades to apprenticeship opportunities, completing the technical training and ultimately achieving Red Seal certification. It is also about reducing barriers by simplifying and accelerating the certification pathway so more Canadians can enter this workforce faster.

Bill C-30 would also improve labour mobility for tradespeople by increasing the labour mobility deduction from $4,000 to $10,000, lowering the threshold to access it and making it easier for workers to go where their skills are needed most. For workers who spend weeks away from home helping build critical infrastructure and housing, this matters.

This legislation also contains targeted affordability measures that would make a meaningful difference for Canadians. Between mortgage payments, rising living costs and uncertainty about the future, many young Canadians are feeling stretched thin even after reaching the major milestone of buying a new home. Measures in Bill C-30 like extending the repayment grace period under the homebuyers' plan would provide relief to homeowners to ease pressure during those early critical years of home ownership. Bill C-30 would also reduce the CPP contribution rates beginning next year, helping workers and businesses keep more money in their pockets.

While individually these changes may seem modest, in combination with recent measures like cutting Canadian income taxes, cutting the GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers and the groceries and essentials benefit, together they would help lower the pressure on Canadians who are already facing high costs.

This legislation would also expand support for volunteer tax clinics that help vulnerable Canadians access the benefits they are entitled to. I want to give a special shout-out to Louis and the volunteers behind the local tax clinic on the Sunshine Coast, whose work helps over 3,000 residents each year access benefits and support they might otherwise miss. Their work is a powerful example of community service in action and demonstrates how local volunteers can make a difference in people's lives.

At a time when global instability has contributed to rising fuel prices, Bill C-30 temporarily removes the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until Labour Day. This is already saving Canadian drivers about 10¢ a litre and providing direct relief at the pump for the families and businesses already dealing with many pressures. In places like Sea to Sky and the Sunshine Coast, residents continue to face inexplicably high gas prices. At all times, but especially right now, the Competition Bureau should be keeping a very close eye on anti-competitive behaviour and potential price manipulation in regional fuel markets like this one, because Canadians deserve fairness, transparency and confidence that they are not paying artificially high fuel prices.

Bill C-30 would support Canadian brewers by extending the 50% reduction on excise duty rates for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada. That is an amount that covers the full production for over 94% of breweries in our country. For small brewers in my riding, like Coast Mountain Brewing, the Persephone Brewing Company and Backcountry Brewing, this provides meaningful savings that can be reinvested into local jobs, equipment, expansion and community events.

This legislation recognizes the importance of investing in coastal communities and marine infrastructure. Our government is investing nearly $1 billion in small craft harbours and critical infrastructure that supports fisheries, transportation, tourism and local economies. I have heard first-hand from many harbours, including the Gibsons Landing Harbour Authority, about the growing pressures facing them and the need for upgrades to support increased commercial fish harvesting and future transportation demands. At Gibsons Landing, this includes the planned electric passenger ferry service that could help provide much-needed relief for Sunshine Coast residents.

At the same time, economic development must go hand in hand with environmental stewardship. Bill C-30 includes more than $160 million over five years to continue protecting Canada's whales and marine habitats on all three coasts. This would build on Canada's broader $3.8-billion nature strategy and the commitment to protect biodiversity and marine ecosystems for future generations. Last month's announcement of a new marine protected area in British Columbia the size of Prince Edward Island reinforces the importance of stewardship of our oceans while maintaining access to sustainable fish harvesting and tourism opportunities. My constituents understand that protecting marine ecosystems is not separate from economic prosperity, but essential to it, because healthy oceans support fisheries, tourism, recreation and coastal livelihoods.

Food security is another key priority addressed in this legislation. As the Prime Minister said in Davos, food security is national security and, “A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options.” In an increasingly unstable world, shaped by supply chain disruptions, climate pressures and geopolitical instability, Canada must strengthen its domestic food production capacity. Bill C-30 and measures in the spring economic update would support that goal through supporting food production and distribution networks and, importantly, by providing immediate expensing of new greenhouse infrastructure.

I have already seen how this is making a difference in my riding. The Líl̓wat Nation broke ground on a greenhouse at one end of it. On the Sunshine Coast, projects like Swiya Farms in Sechelt are focused on building large-scale, sustainable local food systems and supporting community-driven agriculture and long-term food resilience, including a large-scale greenhouse that is being planned.

These are measures we are building on with last week's announcement of Canada's national food security strategy, which will increase competition to lower grocery prices, boost domestic production year-round and help local products get onto grocery shelves.

I also want to highlight the investment in sports and recreation in the spring economic update. In my riding, we know first-hand the lasting impact sport can have on communities. The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games left a legacy that extends far beyond infrastructure. They inspired participation, strengthened community pride, supported tourism and created opportunities for young athletes right across the region. We have seen world-class athletes emerge from our communities, including Marielle Thompson and Trinity Ellis, but the true legacy of sports goes beyond medals. It inspires young people to get active, build confidence, develop teamwork and resilience and connect with their communities. That is why the spring economic update has a historic $755-million investment in Canadian sport that would strengthen communities and new sports programs to support national sports organizations and athletes, improve safe sport initiatives and help Canada host major sporting events.

I can see my time is running short, so I will say Bill C-30 is ultimately about building a more resilient, affordable and self-reliant Canada. It would invest in housing, workers, infrastructure, affordability, coastal communities, food security and environmental stewardship.

Together, we can build confidently, deliberately and together.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have spent 10 years telling Canadians that the solution to every problem is more government spending. Canadians now face some of the least affordable housing in the G7, record food bank usage and the highest household debt in the G7, and ours is the only country in the G20 in a recession.

At what point does the government admit that its spending is not solving the affordability crisis, but contributing to it?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes, we hear concerns from members on the other side about government spending. They seem to forget that many of the factors contributing to the affordability challenges in Canada have to do with external factors, like the trade war we are in right now.

I can tell the member that our investments, including the investments in this spring economic update, like the apartment construction loan program, are making a meaningful difference. They are making life more affordable and they are tackling the main issue driving affordability challenges, which is housing.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. The name of his riding brings to mind landscapes, nature and beauty, and I cannot help but believe that my colleague is worried about the environment and climate change. In fact, he mentioned it in his speech, talking specifically about greenhouse gases and the fight against greenhouse gases.

The Bloc Québécois called for an end to the oil subsidies, which would have generated approximately $27 billion in revenue for the government over five years. Instead, the government is maintaining the oil subsidies and, on top of that, it is relaxing the pesticide regulations. These are two measures that actually run counter to what my colleague mentioned earlier. They run counter to the fight against climate change.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he agrees with these measures and how they help the environment.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I did indeed say a great deal about nature. I believe my riding is the most beautiful riding in the country.

I spoke about the significant investments being made to protect whales and about the measures set out in the nature strategy. I know there are other points my colleague raised regarding pesticides, and I hope that, in committee, we will have the opportunity to investigate this properly to see if there are measures that can help mitigate the difficulties.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can provide his thoughts on the important issue of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit program. As a nation, we are building a stronger and healthier country by taking many different initiatives, but we have not lost sight of the important issue of affordability, and the groceries and essentials benefit plays a critical role.

Can the member provide his thoughts about having Canadians' backs on the issue of affordability?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, the groceries and essentials benefit is going to be a major benefit for Canadians. It is up to $1,890 for a family of four. This is going to help with the high price of groceries right now, while we roll out our national food security strategy. This gets to some of the more underlining, foundational things we need to change, like more competition in the sector and giving more resources to the Competition Bureau to allow that, and making sure that we are building up our domestic supply chains to ensure that we can get more local products on the shelves.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague well knows, in Atlantic Canada, they receive about $125 per person in ongoing ferry subsidies for operating costs. In British Columbia, it is about $6 per person. In fact, BC Ferries receives only 3% of overall expenditures in funding from the federal government for operating costs, versus Atlantic Canada's 43%.

My colleague will cite that the Liberals provided funding for COVID relief, which they did for Atlantic Canada, too, or loans that have to be repaid by ferry users that accumulate to about $26 million in savings over 25 years. It is nothing compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to Atlantic Canada.

Does my colleague believe the current agreements are outdated and need to be modernized? He talked about increases in fuel. BC Ferries, just last week, added a 5% surcharge because of fuel.

Is my colleague going to stand up for our coastal communities today?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will always support more funding going to our ferry system in British Columbia, but I think we need to remember that one is an interprovincial system and one is an intraprovincial system. There is federal jurisdiction to go in between provinces, and there have been significant investments in buying new ferries in the last couple of years. That works out to a benefit of over $700 million, which is actually more than Marine Atlantic is getting for its infrastructure.

I think those things need to be kept in mind, but I will always support more money to make sure that we have a better ferry service in British Columbia.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to inform you that I am splitting my time with my good friend from Saskatoon West, who brought me to his riding. I remember it was -40°C. He promised me he would show me an ice rink. I did not know he was talking about the roads in Saskatoon, not an actual ice rink.

The Liberals should call this motion we currently have in front of us “the guillotine”, because they are taking the guillotine to transparency and accountability. They are trying to end all debate at the finance committee because the numbers are catching up to them. After 10 years of reckless spending, deficits and higher taxes for Canadians, all of those numbers are adding up. In fact, the Prime Minister, who said he would be more responsible, has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. It is rising to $72 billion. The Liberals are adding another $68 billion in new spending.

The PBO came out with a scathing report just two weeks ago, saying the Liberal government has a “less than 1 per cent” chance of meeting one of its own fiscal anchors, and debunking the other fiscal anchors the government had put in place. What are all of these numbers going to do?

The PBO might say there is a less than 1% chance of the Liberals meeting their fiscal anchor. I would argue there is also a less than 1% chance of a Liberal answering a question in this place and a less than 1% chance that we will get answers at the finance committee on this very expensive spring economic statement. Of course, whenever the numbers are bad, the Liberal government does what it always does, which is shut down debate and shut down accountability. The opposition's job, which Canadians sent us to this place to do, is to expose the endless, reckless spending by the Prime Minister and the Liberal government.

It is not just us saying things are bad right now. In fact, the Bank of Canada said “the economy is soft”, the PBO said growth will “remain subdued”, TD said the economy is operating “well below capacity” and BMO said there is “no sense sugar-coating this sour result”. Everyone feels it. The fact is that the Prime Minister, who said we would have the fastest‑growing economy in the G7, ended up delivering the fastest‑shrinking economy in the entire G20.

This plays out in the real world for Canadians. This reckless spending and the money that goes to Liberal insiders all adds up. In fact, Canadians are poorer now than they have ever been. We see two million Canadians going to a food bank every single month. We have one in five Canadians who are food insecure. A third of the people who are going to food banks now are children.

Members would think I am talking about some third‑world statistic, but this is what Liberal Canada looks like today because of the reckless spending, taxes and overburdening our industries. All of these have driven out so much of our investment that Canadians now have to suffer the results. We have fewer options and less competition. Costs are going up because of Liberal taxes. At the end of the day, that is why our food inflation is one of the fastest‑growing in the entire G7. We have the highest household debt, the highest housing costs in the G7 and the second‑highest unemployment in the entire G7. This is not to mention that ours is the only country in the entire G20 to be in a recession.

The Conservatives are wholeheartedly against shutting down this motion. I sit on the finance committee. The Liberals cannot stand that we are asking the questions that Canadians are telling us to ask about this incompetent bill they put forward, which would not do anything but make the lives of Canadians more expensive, whether it be through taxes or the inflation the Liberal government is so well known for creating for Canadians.

In fact, we put forward amendment after amendment to make this bill better. That is our role as His Majesty's loyal opposition. For example, the pause on the excise tax the government is bringing forward is a third of the tax for a third of the year. I put an amendment forward to extend it to the rest of the year. The Liberals are ideologically obsessed with the carbon tax. There's the clean fuel standard. We do not want to include the GST on top of that, which would have saved Canadians 25¢ per litre, or $1,200 for a family. I tried putting a common-sense amendment forward at committee that would have extended the pause on the excise tax until the end of the year. That would have made more savings for Canadians.

Once again, the Liberals filibustered that until they decided to vote it down, as they always do. It was a very common-sense solution. This was just one of many amendments and subamendments we were putting forward. There were officials there, but unfortunately the Liberals are so unorganized on this committee that they did not have the right officials there, and sometimes they were not answering the questions properly.

We are putting forward the questions that Canadians deserve answers to, but once again the Liberals, with this motion specifically, are trying to end debate, transparency and any type of accountability for which we are trying to get answers. This is just another tactic for them to delay, which is what we are always against as Conservatives.

Speaking of the inevitable, we are the only G20 country in a recession. The statistics are not looking good for Canada. No matter who is forecasting them, things are not going well right now. In fact, if we look at business investment, we see that in the last five consecutive quarters, business investment has gone down. That is the track record of the government. In fact, it has driven out $1 trillion of good Canadian investment, to the Americans. Those are our jobs and factories or growth that could have happened here, but high Liberal taxes and regulation have driven them away.

The Liberal Prime Minister has driven out, as a net loss, $20 billion of investment outside Canada. He is the guy who said he would fix everything. He is the guy who would deal with President Donald Trump. He still cannot get a deal, and he is driving more investment away and spending more of Canadians' money. He is jet-setting around the world on the taxpayer dime. While he is pushing more Canadians into food bank lines, at the same time, he is making them pay for his extravagant meals on flights. In fact, over the last year, he spent $1 million on inflight catering. On three flights, he spent more on salmon than what a family will spend on groceries for the entire year. In fact, after rising grocery prices, now Canadian families will pay $1,000 more for groceries just this year.

That is the track record of the government. Instead of helping Canadians, it will push them into food bank lines, make them food-insecure and, at the same time, make them pay for lofty meals on the Prime Minister's flights that end up with fake handshakes wherever the Liberals go, fake MOUs and contracts they sign. They cheer themselves on with announcements that never end up materializing to the benefit of Canadians. That is why our economy is as bad and as weak as it is right now.

There was a scathing report by the PBO, but there was also a scathing report by United Way. These are stats that, again, make it seem as though we are in a third world country. Of the Canadians who responded, 38% reported experiencing at least one form of food insecurity in the past six months, and 27% were worried their food would run out before they had money to buy more.

There is a solution to all this. Conservatives are just asking for the Liberal government to get out of the way. Let us bring affordability and safety back to Canada, which the Liberals have driven out since they took over. We can get rid of the industrial carbon tax to bring down the cost of food and fuel for Canadians. Let us put more money back into their pockets. Let us extend the pause on the excise tax to the end of the year and also include the GST and the clean fuel standard. Let us save families $1,200 this year. Let us bring back investment by removing barriers such as the “no new pipelines” bill, Bill C-69, and Bill C-48, the tanker ban.

By doing that, we could signal to the world that we are open for business once again. Let us have more pipelines, mines and dams. Let us get everything going. Let us have more infrastructure built so we can have more jobs and get our economy back on track. We can do these things only once the Liberals get out of the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find unfortunate the general way in which the Conservatives want to approach the government. They seem to want to be focused on the issue of trying to give a false impression, and they love using words such as “corrupt”, “Liberal friends” and so forth, when nothing could be farther from the truth.

The Prime Minister and the government recognize, at the end of the day, that building a stronger and healthier economy means getting Canadians engaged and involved. There are contracts that go out to all political entities inside the chamber, I am sure. There are business opportunities, growth in investments and record amounts of growth coming to Canada. Canada is doing an excellent job in comparison to the rest of the G7.

Would the member provide his thoughts on that?

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

Mr. Speaker, nothing could be farther from the truth. Not only did the Liberals put the only country in the G20 into a recession, but they have driven out $1 trillion of investment. The reason we use words like “corrupt” is that no one has had more ethics scandals and violations in the history of any government than the Liberal government of the last 10 years has had.

It seems as if the only people who benefit in this place from Liberal policies are the Prime Minister's Brookfield buddies, banker buddies and bondholder buddies, and Canadians always get left footing the bill at the end of the day.

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

Mr. Speaker, we know that, in general, the Conservatives do not support subsidies for the private sector.

Would they be willing to eliminate the oil subsidies?

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact the best thing we can do for the oil sector is get the Liberal government out of the way. If we want to create good jobs and a better economy and to get our books back on track, the way to do it is to remove Liberal Bill C-69, which does not let any new pipelines get built; get Liberal Bill C-48 out of the way so we can get our product to the Asian markets; and remove the Liberal industrial carbon tax so we can signal to the world we are open for business and give our youth a future in this country once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians keep hearing announcements about new funds, new agencies, new strategies and new spending programs. Could my colleague explain why, after 10 years of these announcements, Canadians are facing higher housing costs, higher grocery bills and lower affordability, rather than the prosperity they were promised?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. Things get left as announcements. I will give an A+ to the Liberal government for grand announcements, but they get an F when it comes to delivery. They are always showboating about what they are going to do. For example, the current finance minister made a grand show when he said he was going to lower grocery prices by Thanksgiving 2023. That was his promise, but grocery prices have gone up by 40% since then.

The Liberals fail to deliver, and Canadians end up paying for this costly failure.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that Canadians voted for a new Prime Minister and a new government just over a year ago. In that same period of time, 20 different trade and defence agreements have been signed. There have been major projects announced across this nation, totalling well over $100 billion. We have external trade beyond the Canada-U.S. border that has increased dramatically. We have record amounts of foreign investment coming into the country.

Canada is not broken. The new government and new Prime Minister are delivering for Canadians. That is the reality. The Conservatives need to get off the misleading information pot.

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

Mr. Speaker, ever since the Prime Minister became Prime Minister, not only did he drive out $20 billion of net investment from this country, but everything has gotten worse. In fact, food bank lines have doubled, and now more people are food-insecure. We have to remember that the Prime Minister is not new. He was the guy advising Justin Trudeau the whole time. The pain and suffering Canadians are feeling is just a continuation of the failed policies that he advised the Liberals on, and now he is the head of these failed policies.

The Liberals need to just get out of the way. Every time they go somewhere, shake a hand or sign a fake agreement, Canadians end up paying more and get less out of it. The government just needs to stop.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today to this motion and, of course, Bill C-30, which underlies it. This is the spring economic update. There are billions of dollars of spending, there is new taxation and there are significant legislative changes. This programming motion that the Liberals are trying to ram through the House right now in the last week of sitting just demonstrates to me how poorly the government can manage work around here, in Ottawa. It is no surprise that all the disasters and messes are happening in the country, because the current government cannot even manage the House, let alone try to manage the country.

Here we are now in this last-minute panic, and we would essentially eliminate debate. The finance committee would get 30 minutes to debate the bill. That is embarrassing. The committee is where questions get asked. The committee is where witnesses come to explain things. Very good things happen there. Sometimes errors are found. Furthermore, there would not be a report stage debate in the House, and there would be a very restricted third reading. Essentially, the normal operations of the House would be severely restricted in a last-minute attempt to do something the government could have been doing for the last couple of months. It is rather embarrassing. We need to make sure that ministers and officials are held accountable.

We proposed some good amendments to let the committee do its work and to let MPs do their work, but of course they were rejected. A confident government would defend its work, but a weak government does not want to do that. The Liberals do not want to have questions asked; they want to avoid all that. As they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, it appears that they are evading accountability. That is not a good look, and Canadians can see that. The decisions that would be made in this bill would impact Canadians for decades. In fact, they would impact the grandchildren of members of the House. It is very significant.

In the good old days, going back 10 or 15 years, a single-digit deficit was considered a big deal. Fast-forward to where we are now, and the previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, kind of blew that up. Not only were there single-digit deficits and double-digit deficits, but there were triple-digit deficits. Now, deficits are much bigger, and it is very bad for our country. The last Trudeau deficit was $35 billion. The first deficit of the new Prime Minister, who supposedly has all kinds of economic knowledge, was double the Trudeau deficit. It was up at $78 billion, and now this economic update would reduce that slightly to $68 billion, or $65 billion or something like that.

That is kind of like when a piece of furniture that should cost $2,000 is marked up to $5,000, and there is a big sale where it is knocked down to $4,000, and it is as if it were a big deal. However, the buyer is still paying double what they should have before. That is exactly what is happening here. The government cannot stop itself from spending money. Even when there is good news happening, such as when there is extra revenue from high oil prices, which benefits the government bank account, the Liberals still spend it. It is pretty ridiculous. Even by 2030-31, there is still going to be a deficit of over $50 billion, by their own estimate.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an officer appointed by the government, a person whom the government trusts, tells us it is going to be even worse than the government is saying; the government is actually not telling us the truth, there are going to be deficits of over $70 billion, and it is going to continue like that for the foreseeable future. It is structural, permanent deficit spending. The PBO also said that there is a less than 1% chance that the Liberals will meet any of their fiscal anchors.

This is not good for the country, because when governments borrow money, that creates a lot of demand in the system and means that there is less room for tax relief in the future and for additional spending on essential services. The debt charges this year will be just about $60 billion. To put that into perspective, the amount of money the federal government gives to the provinces for health care is $55 billion, so we are actually spending more on interest than what the government gives for health care.

It is not hard to imagine that interest rates will go up a bit. It is also, then, not hard to imagine that the $58 billion in debt charges could increase significantly and very rapidly, which would put major stress on the government's budget and would lead to a circular problem, with more and more deficits and more and more interest. It is kind of like paying one's credit card bill but making only the minimum payment. That is essentially what the government is doing right now, and this adds inflationary pressures and causes high interest rates. Everybody understands how, when the government borrows money, inflation increases and interest rates stay higher. Of course, that impacts people directly with higher mortgage payments, higher rents and extra costs.

Canadians are under severe pressure due to the cost of living. Inflation was up 2.8% in April, and it stays stubbornly high. Food inflation is even higher. It was up 4.4% in March. What that means is that people are eating less meat and fewer fruits and vegetables. Parents are sometimes skipping meals so their children can eat. Seniors may not be getting their prescriptions, and they may be turning off the heat or the air conditioning in the house. Higher interest rates mean that mortgage payments rise, and costs are passed through to customers as well through higher prices because businesses face all of these higher costs as well. Bill C‑30 would make this deficit permanent. There is no future where we can imagine the government eliminating a deficit.

I want to talk for a minute about housing because it is a perfect illustration. Governments need to be thinking about cost. We do not need more announcements. The government is so good at making announcements and talking a big game, but actually delivering is not something that it knows how to do. What people need are homes that they can afford. Every delay, duplicated review and unnecessary requirement is ultimately paid by the buyer.

One of the aspects where we see that is in the building code. Changes are looked at, but they are not actually costed. Particularly when we look at a multitude of changes happening at once and add them all up, it can be very significant. Would it not be nice if the government had to show its work, had to make looking at things from a cost perspective a core objective and had summaries that would tell Canadians what each cost would be? We could actually then decide if it made sense, if the benefit outweighed the cost. This is something very effective and relatively simple that the government could do. Most of this information is available. It is just not being used.

At the same time, we could maintain strong standards of health and safety, and we could advance technology. If we were careful about costs through the building codes, which does not cost the government anything, it would actually help people. It would make housing more affordable, reducing the cost of houses. This would help first-time buyers, renters, small and mid-sized builders, families and new Canadians. It would help everybody. This would not cost the government any money. In fact, there could be less bureaucracy, and it could save money. That is something we could definitely use in our country and would be a simple way for the government to make life more affordable for all Canadians.

I also want to talk about something that my leader talked about on the weekend. What if we were to cut the GST on used cars? Dealers charge GST on used cars. A car could be sold multiple times during its life, two, three, four times, and every single time, GST is charged, and the government makes money on that. We think that is unfair. The government should get the GST at the beginning, and that should be the end of it.

I want to thank my colleague the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South for putting forward the private member's bill to eliminate the GST on used vehicles. It makes a lot of sense, and it could save about $1,800 on a typical vehicle purchase and would eliminate that double taxation.

We have many practical ideas. I just gave two of them. One is the used car GST removal, and the other is on building codes. Of course, the government does not want to hear that, and that is why it is putting forward this motion to end debate. It does not want to hear any of our ideas. It just wants to ram this through and move on.

That is the pattern we have seen for the last 11 years from the Liberal government. It likes to call itself a new government, but it has been around for 11 years. It is mostly the same people, doing the same things that got us into the mess that we are in. The Liberals seem to be ashamed and afraid, and that is why they are putting forward this motion today. I would urge the House not to pass this motion.

[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, I wonder if the member could speak to the over 30 hours that the Conservative members of the finance committee spent filibustering Bill C‑30, which offers a number of affordability measures, economic measures that would help Canadians. For example, there is the labour mobility tax deduction, which is being enhanced from $4,000 to $10,000 for a skilled trades worker who would have to travel for work.

Could the member speak to the fact that he is standing here in the House, claiming that we are ramming something through, when his members wasted 30 hours of parliamentary proceedings and resources at the finance committee?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is just like a typical Liberal government to say that standard procedures and things that we do every day in the House are a waste of time. That is right on brand for that party.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to answer the question of why it has taken so long to get this through. Why all of a sudden, on the third- or fourth-last day of Parliament, is there a panic, and it has to be done? There were weeks and months that this could have been done, and it has not been done. I think it is just a testament, as I said, to the inability of the government even to manage its own House, let alone to manage the country.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleague knows full well that Quebeckers and Canadians are struggling financially. Groceries are expensive. Everything is expensive. Even families that were well off not too long ago now have to make sacrifices and choices.

There are solutions at our fingertips that could have been discussed in committee and that could have been discussed more broadly here in the House. For example, eliminating the subsidies to oil companies would generate about $27.5 billion in revenue for the government over five years. That is an estimate from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Would my colleague agree with this type of measure, which would ease the financial burden on Quebeckers and Canadians?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague highlights the value and importance of committee work, wherein questions can be asked, ideas can be brought to the government and the government has to defend these things.

On the specific issue he raises, I think there are a lot of things with the government, like a lot of spending that happens, that is completely wasteful. We talk about consultants, we talk about all kinds of things, and we need to be going through and talking about these things. The government actually needs to be prioritizing spending. A lot of us joke that if we had a chance to get into the books, we could probably save billions and billions of dollars, and we could be using that money much more effectively.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saskatoon West's concerns about this economy, and I also agree with our mutual colleague the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, who put forward a private member's bill to help Canadians with regard to purchasing used vehicles.

With regard to Bill C‑30 and the economic outlook, recently London and the London region have had a high unemployment rate. At one time, it was 9.1%, a high unemployment rate and the highest in Canada. Recently, it was 9.2%, the highest unemployment rate. This is affecting the London region. This is affecting Londoners.

I was just wondering if my colleague from Saskatoon West is experiencing the same issues with the economy in his riding.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, unemployment is a problem in our country, and as the member indicated, in his part of Ontario, it is a really significant problem. To me, this raises an important issue. Why is the government continuing to bring temporary foreign workers into this country? Why do we keep bringing more workers into this country? We have a lot of capacity for jobs. Our youth unemployment rates are even higher than the numbers he mentioned. They are up to close to 15%, yet the government is not putting forward programs to help with that. Instead, it is doing the easy solution, which is bringing in low-cost labour from overseas.

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saskatoon West made the point that there was ample time. I just went back to double-check. First reading on Bill C‑30 was on April 29, and then time allocation, after three hours of debate, was moved a whole month later, basically, on May 25.

Does the member recall, because I am trying to recall, what happened with Bill C‑30 between first reading and when the government decided to bring in time allocation?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point. As I was trying to say, the government introduces things and then gets sidetracked onto other things. Weeks and weeks go by, in this case a month or more, and then all of a sudden somebody wakes up one day and says, “Oh my goodness, we have to get this done or it is going to make us look bad.”

It would make the government look bad, frankly, if we went into the summer recess without actually passing its spring economic statement. It took the government many months to pass its full budget, so I think it is, as I said, an embarrassment for the Liberals. It shows that they cannot manage their own House, let alone this country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I believe there is unanimous consent for me to move a couple of questions on the Order Paper, as we have done in the past.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

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 the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1145, 1146, 1147, 1148, 1149, 1150, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1155, 1156, 1157, 1158, 1159, 1160, 1161, 1162 and 1163 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

[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, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28.

We are debating the government motion today, which is very important. It is unfortunate that we needed a government motion to program committee business to ensure that the bill gets passed, but it is the direct result of Conservatives filibustering. They moved eight subamendments, for example, on one amendment, which was their amendment. It is quite unfortunate, when we think about parliamentary procedure, that the Conservatives had amendments that did not include the subamendments that they then proposed. They then successively filibustered the committee on an aspect of Bill C-30 that they had actually advocated for, to lower CPP contributions, knowing that the pension plan was healthy.

It is very unfortunate that we are here today, but I am also proud to work on behalf of Canadians and get key affordability and economic measures passed in the House before the House rises for the summer. Our government delivered the spring economic update 2026, “Canada Strong for All”, in April, as Canadians felt the too real effects of geopolitical turbulence well beyond the country's borders. That deep uncertainty persists as the world continues to undergo a series of fundamental shifts at a speed, scope and scale not seen in generations.

This fragmented world is more complex, more volatile and, for many, more costly and unpredictable. Our government continues to focus on what we can control, which is building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our trade partners abroad, delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses. Our objective is clear: to build a stronger, more resilient and more affordable country. There is no doubt that Bill C-30 is a big part of this effort.

Allow me to begin with the rising cost of food, which is understandably a concern for Canadians. Our government is focused on bringing down the high food prices that are putting significant pressure on Canadian household budgets. For example, to support those most affected by food costs, in January we announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to help more than 12 million Canadians afford day-to-day essentials. On June 5, the first cheques went out to over 12 million Canadian families to help them with the cost of groceries. That is an average of $1,890 for an average family of four, which is a considerable increase from the GST rebate, which was boosted by 50% this year and 25% for another four years after.

Our plan also includes immediate assistance for food banks via the local food infrastructure fund, which was boosted by our government as well. Bill C-30 is proposing additional measures to help ease the financial pressures of food bills. The passage of Bill C-30 would help growers supercharge domestic food production in Canada with temporary tax changes to allow the immediate expensing of eligible greenhouse buildings. These provisions would allow producers to fully write off the cost of building new greenhouse facilities in the year incurred rather than spreading it over time. This incentive is designed to help expand greenhouse production and strengthen Canada's year-round domestic food supply. The measure is projected to provide $41 million in tax relief over six years.

The bill has so much more in it. Bill C-30 includes a number of other measures. Before I mention those measures, I will also make mention of June 11, when the Prime Minister launched Canada's first-ever national food security strategy. I am quite proud of this as I fed into the process. The national food security strategy will boost domestic food production and break open the market for independent food retailers in Canada. It will support resilience, regional supply chains and infrastructure that those supply chains need to thrive, and it will ultimately build a stronger, more independent, more affordable food system where there can be more competition, which we know is the key to bringing down prices. The strategy is backed by over $3 billion in investments over 10 years.

To help deliver on this important objective, Bill C-30 would amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include the consideration of food security and the costs of food. To implement this change, the government proposes to provide $24 million over four years, and $9 million per year ongoing, to support Health Canada in expanding its economic analysis capacity to optimize the review processes for pest control products. These costs will be fully recovered through annual fees.

The government is also working tirelessly to help address housing affordability concerns. It is clear that the high cost of housing is putting significant pressure on household budgets, especially for younger Canadians. Our government recognizes that many Canadians who have recently purchased their first home, or who are planning to do so, continue to face significant affordability challenges and could benefit from a boost to their cash flow.

That is why Bill C-30 proposes extending the grace period during which homeowners are not required to start repaying their homebuyers' plan withdrawals from their RRSPs. The proposed extension is from two to five years. This extension is designed for homebuyers making a first withdrawal between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2028. This extended grace period already applies to withdrawals made between 2022 and 2025. The bottom line is that this change would provide cash flow 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.

The passage of Bill C-30 would also make an important change to Canada pension plan contributions to ensure Canadians can keep more money that they otherwise would have been compelled to contribute to the Canada pension plan. Indeed, the CPP is foundational to Canada's retirement income system, providing stable, predictable pension income to millions of Canadians. Considering the affordability challenges faced by so many households in Canada, Canada's ministers of finance unanimously agreed in April to reduce the contribution rate for CPP. The change would lower the contribution rate by 40 basis points, from 9.9% to 9.5%, effective January 1, 2027. That reduction to the CPP contribution rate will translate into annual savings of about $133 for an employee earning $70,000 a year, with the equivalent savings for their employer. The change will do this while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the plan.

We listened to Conservatives go on and on in committee for 10 or 11 hours about the health and sustainability of the Canada pension plan, which I recognize is a concern, but when the chief actuary has tabled a report in Parliament and has done the analysis to say that the Canada pension plan is healthy and solvent for the next 75 years, and when Conservatives have actually advocated to decrease Canada pension plan contributions themselves, decreasing it by 40 basis points, leaving a 30-basis point buffer in the plan, is certainly a smart move. It makes sense for Canadians. Considering the fact that finance ministers from our provincial and territorial counterparts across Canada all agreed to this unanimously, agreeing that it just made sense, I cannot see why Conservatives would be kicking up a fuss proposing eight subamendments in the finance committee.

Anyway, tax relief has been supported by our government. We moved forward with many tax measures, including an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians, suspending the fuel excise tax over the summer until Labour Day and offering new benefits such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. We cut the consumer carbon tax. We have done many, many things to support Canadians with many of the costs that they experience.

In Ontario, I am quite proud to say that the HST on new home purchases is being waived with an agreement we signed with the Ontario government. That includes up to almost $200,000 of relief. It is a 50% reduction in development charges and 13% off the purchase of a new home. That is significant support for Canadians. No one can argue otherwise.

Last, I will just say that Bill C-30, as I have cited, would enhance the labour mobility tax deduction for skilled trades workers when they travel for work. As we are boosting the economy, we are seeing more construction jobs, 27,000 of them, in the last labour statistics. We can see that those skilled trades workers can have an enhanced deduction of $6,000 more —

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the government has done everything it can to make food more expensive in Canada. When it comes to the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standards, do they not realize that these taxes add costs to every step of the value chain when it comes to food production?

Are the Liberals not embarrassed that they had to create a program in Canada to help Canadians afford to eat?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the cost of food is definitely something that Canadians are concerned about.

The Conservatives do not seem to understand causation. They do not seem to understand how food prices are affected by global factors such as oil price shock, wars in Europe or a trade war where tariffs are being placed upon Canadian companies.

What is interesting is that, when we step up to offer immediate relief and support, whether it is with the Canada child benefit to lift thousands of kids out of poverty, the national school food program to help feed hungry kids in schools, the groceries and essentials benefit to help ensure that Canadians can get by on a monthly basis or, now, a national food security strategy with $3.2 billion of investments to build a stronger food system, they are still complaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is a combative man, someone who is not afraid to take a stand and argue a point. My question is simple: Did he argue with his government when it came up with the misguided idea of tabling an economic statement that fails to address any of the concerns that might have justified urgently presenting such a statement?

After all, it is not a budget. We could have waited until the fall to adopt most of these measures. That would have been much simpler. The real emergency was Donald Trump and the 25% tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum, but the economic statement does not include any measures to address that.

Did my colleague raise this issue internally and ask why his government did not simply cancel the statement and send everyone an email instead?

That would have been much simpler.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have stepped up time and time again to offer packages of support for tariff-impacted industries, whether it is with liquidity or for companies to pivot, change direction and modify their business models to essentially still thrive in the economy. We have offered support. We have diversified our trade. We are building the infrastructure we need to ensure those industries can survive and thrive in the future. I do not agree with the member opposite. Yes, I am combative sometimes because I have a meter for things that are untrue. I like to call members out when I have the chance, and that is what this place should be about. God help us if we ever lose the pursuit of truth in the House of Commons and in our Parliament.

Our government has stepped up time and time again. We have offered immediate support and been fiscally responsible. We have the strongest balance sheet in the G7, and we are using it to make strategic investments, including our national food security strategy.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about affordability measures and the major ongoing projects. Could he perhaps speak to the government's responsiveness to the tariff threat that faces us in the section 232 tariff response, the aluminum tariff response, etc.?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have my colleague aboard the team asking so many good-faith questions in the House.

As I responded to the previous member's question, our government has stepped up. We do recognize that tariff-impacted industries are where the concentration of job losses has been most persistent. That is why we have stepped up with supports and packages, while we are in ongoing engagement and negotiations with the United States, with the hope that we will eventually have a deal.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are the only G7 country in a recession. Two years ago, we had a $40-billion deficit that was considered outrageous by the Canadian people, and now we have an almost $100-billion deficit. In what way does the Liberal government think that is okay?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative propaganda machine has gone from technical to full-blown almost overnight because the negative economic paradigm that they exist in has them not able to face the truth that there are broad indicators of strength and resilience in the Canadian economy. Every single bank's chief financial and economics adviser has come out—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is often that I find myself here wondering if this place has turned into something not quite like a sports arena, in the style of the Trump White House, with its caged sport for the celebration of 250 years of independence, which is a topic that is not necessarily connected to this at all, but, for sporting spectacles, this place sometimes resembles nothing more than target practice for teams that live in glass houses. It is difficult to watch. I know that I must have a glass house somewhere, but with the Green Party never having been in power, we have less of a record to attack.

I do vividly recall when the Harper administration started using, as a matter of course, very long omnibus budget bills, which the Liberals of the day decried as burying too much in one bill, not properly reflecting or advancing the initial version of the budget and being done routinely.

We then had, of course, the Harper administration bringing in repetitive motions for time allocation. I remember the first time I had started noticing that it had become quite routine. I went back, looked it up and found out that, over a period of 40 years, which is not that far back in our history, it had happened about 10 times. I started adding them up and keeping track, and it became hundreds of times.

Of course, when in opposition, the Liberals pledged that they would never bring in omnibus budget bills containing many different measures in one piece of legislation and that they certainly would not use time allocation to shorten the time we have available to do those things. Again, both of the large parties live in, I must say, very large and well-equipped glass homes, but they are still throwing rocks at the same glass houses in which they live.

They have both moved to omnibus budget bills once in power. The Liberals have done it, first under former prime minister Trudeau and now under the current Prime Minister. They also have continued to use time allocation.

My own plea comes from my own little perch on parliamentary procedure. I know that it is against the rules of this place to have a member stand to deliver a written speech. If we followed that rule, I believe House leaders would be able to come to an agreement more quickly about how many speakers it would take to get a bill through the House.

Listening to debate on the motion so far, I am reminded that, as the parliamentary secretary says to us all, we have to use time allocation or we cannot get this passed. To which I say, again, this is a glass house. It is like a child who has killed both of their parents pleading for mercy because they are an orphan.

Why are we under time pressure? It is because the government of the day decided that we could shorten the amount of time we are sitting in June. Let us eliminate two days and create more pressure, meaning that it has to be passed now. Why is there no discussion about sitting longer? Why is there no discussion about what happened between when Bill C‑30 was first tabled on April 29 and when we next got back to it?

After three hours of debate, the government moved time allocation on Bill C‑30. It is not a massive omnibus budget bill, but it is omnibus enough that I certainly had no indication that I was going to come across division 8, which has the most regressive pieces of the deregulation of pesticide legislation that I have seen.

Believe it or not, as I know I look like a mere slip of a girl, someone who has just barely left law school, I have been working on pesticide issues for 51 years. This is the worst piece of deregulation I have ever seen, and it is inside an omnibus budget bill.

I would be happy to support many of the provisions in the spring economic statement. There are some I would not. That is the nature of an omnibus bill. There are many things affecting many different bills, done all in one vote and all in one go. This time it is with the added factor that we do not have a lot of time.

Who controls the timing? The government controls the timing. Who controls what bills come forward for debate, for Government Orders, for orders of the day? The government side does that.

My hon. friends on the finance committee, I must say, performed the most extraordinary filibuster I have ever seen, in terms of creativity. I sat through all of it because I kept hoping against hope that we would maybe get to clause-by-clause and that my amendments could be discussed and debated.

However, again, the pattern of the House of Commons since forever has been that the parties in opposition will use whatever tools they have at their disposal. It was decades ago that the Conservatives left the bells ringing for days. It takes a while, but the government regroups and finds a new way to get around that particular effort to put a spanner in the works. This is not uncommon, but what is uncommon is the use of programming motions, and I say this to my hon. colleagues on the Liberal benches.

The first extremely offensive programming motion, in my experience as a member of Parliament since 2011, was what happened in June last year with the programming motion on Bill C-5, which saw us take the most extraordinary seizure of power and expansion to the power of the executive cabinet in a bill, Bill C-5, which included provisions I never thought I would see in Canada, and say that, if in passing this law we break other laws we have already passed, that is okay. This is based on a historical and never-used-in-Canada archival bit of trivia. It was Henry VIII who came up with that. If in passing this law, we break other laws we have passed before, that is okay. This extraordinary abuse of power was in Bill C-5, building Canada strong and reducing interprovincial trade barriers in part 1, which went through this place. I will never forget it because I still feel like I was caught under a bulldozer going right over me. It was Monday, June 16, when the programming motion took effect, and second reading took place with limited debate to pass it to committee.

By the way, on the Monday, June 16, we did not even have a committee in place yet to deal with the bill. On Tuesday, June 17 at 3:30 p.m., the committee was put in place, one committee for all these provisions. Then the committee could start hearing witnesses in the afternoon. By Wednesday at noon, all amendments were due and so on until we got through report stage and third reading, both on Friday, June 20. Then we were adjourned for the summer, and we were told it was a monstrous hurry that we have a Major Projects Office. It was very important to able to see projects come through this process, which is why we could not, as I pleaded at the time, stay longer through the summer, discuss this bill, debate this bill, to see whether this extreme sweeping accumulation of powers by the executive was in any way justified. They said we were in a hurry, except it has been a whole year now, and the bill has not been used once to name a project through Bill C-5.

Again, here we are on Motion No. 12 on Bill C-30. I am thankful for the way the unanimous consent motion was structured. I will have a chance to speak at third reading on Bill C-30 on the specifics of the part I most decry. I still hope against hope that the finance committee tomorrow will see fit to accept the amendments I have put forward and deemed to be moved. I have been, as I said, patiently waiting while admiring the artistry of the Conservative filibuster. I must say I have had more fun watching paint dry. It is always more interesting. On the other hand, it was artful. Although I do not agree with why the Conservatives were filibustering, I do sometimes, as a person who is observing glass houses more than living in them, enjoy the karma of the whole thing.

I will vote against Motion No. 12 because it is offensive to democracy to have programming motions that say we must move fast, that we must not debate, that we must not consider. I find over and over again that there has been nothing like the current government for moving fast, and there has been nothing like the current government for treating Parliament with a kind of casual contempt. As a Canadian and someone who deeply believes in Westminster parliamentary democracy, I personally find it offensive. I may be the only one, but I think Canadians want to see this place respected and want to know that every bill has been properly studied. For one, I would be prepared to say that if properly studying bills means we cut into the summer and we are in Ottawa longer to do it, that is the right thing to do.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, although I disagreed with large segments of my colleague's speech, the part she ended on is the most important one in her intervention today, which is the unacceptable nature and the affront to Westminster parliamentary democracy we have seen on display last week and now this week with programming motions being used at whim by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the rest of his administration.

I wonder if that member could elaborate just a little further on the damage that does to public trust in the institution of this Parliament and how it operates on behalf of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply offensive. The point of Parliament is to actually have respectful debate and discussion and make sure bills are adequately studied before they are passed. The track record of programming motions on Bill C-5 and this one on Bill C-30 sets extremely dangerous precedence.

Parliament is not a mere waste of time for a CEO in a hurry. Parliament is essential to Westminster parliamentary democracy, and we are here to represent our constituents. Regardless of party, views need to be heard. Again, if we all could work together better, it would be by not allowing prepared written speeches.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands on her speech.

Obviously, she represents the Green Party, the environmental party. I would like her to tell me a little about this government's backsliding on the environment since this Prime Minister took office last year. For example, think of the pipeline agreements, the rollback of the pesticide regulations, and the continued investment in tax breaks for oil companies.

I would like to know if my colleague is still optimistic about the fight against climate change under that party's leadership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my Bloc Québécois colleague.

It is true that, over the past year, we have lost policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The government has gone in a completely different directions from what the Liberal Party's platform proposed a year ago. We now have a government whose goal is to increase greenhouse gas emissions.

With these policies, it is absolutely impossible to meet the targets we are legally bound by under the Paris Agreement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I tremendously respect the member opposite's experience here, and she said something really interesting. She said that she has never seen anything like the current government for moving fast. A year ago, Canadians elected a serious and pragmatic government in a time of tremendous uncertainty, and I would say that what we were exactly elected to do is to move fast and with purpose.

Would she not agree that is what Canadians expect out of this government?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas respects my experience in this place because I started, our very first days together, sitting in that corner, trying to acquaint him with standing orders about heckling. I do believe that when I say “move fast”, what I mean is ignoring the requirements of democracy that bills be adequately considered before they are passed. I will remind him, as the hon. former minister of the environment has reminded other Liberals, that climate change was mentioned 28 times in the platform of the hon. member and pipelines were not mentioned once.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Richmond Hill South.

I rise today not to engage in petty politics, but to talk about something very simple that everyone in our regions understands well, except the Liberals, of course: respect for hard‑earned money.

Back home in Beauce, money does not grow on trees. People earn their money early in the morning, with both hands in the dirt, behind a counter, at a construction site, or at a factory. When people earn it that way, they learn to respect it. It is with that respect in mind that I will talk about Bill C-30 and the Liberal government's economic snapshot.

The Liberals projected a $38‑billion deficit in budget 2025. For the current fiscal year, the Liberal Prime Minister is now projecting a $67‑billion deficit. Yes, $67 billion. That is a lot of money. That is not just pocket change.

The worst part is that he is projecting even bigger deficits in the years to come. Deficits can happen in a crisis. However, when they become a habit, Canadians have the right to ask a very simple question: Where are the Liberals' results? There are none. The real issue is not just how much money is being spent, but what we are getting in return.

Take housing, for example. While people are struggling to find somewhere to live due to skyrocketing inflation in rents, the Liberals say they are going to create yet another layer of bureaucracy with Build Canada Homes and a budget of $13 billion.

The results are modest. I am not the one saying that; it is the former parliamentary budget officer himself. According to his estimate, Build Canada Homes will help build 26,000 homes over five years. His conclusion is that this is a “modest” contribution. The Liberals are spending $13 billion on a modest contribution; meanwhile, young families are unable to get on the property ladder and young people are desperately searching for affordable housing. Canadians do not want announcements; they want more homes. They want construction. They do not want words; they want action.

Now I will turn to another obscene expenditure that I still cannot wrap my head around: the spaceport in Canso, Nova Scotia. To recap the situation one more time, a company is leasing this plot of land from the province for $13,500 a year. The Liberal government went to this company and offered to sublet the land from it for $20 million a year. It also decided it would be smart to sign a 10-year lease, for a total of $200 million. That is money down the drain. That is insane.

Why? What is on this land that is costing us $200 million? There is a 25-foot-by-35-foot concrete pad, two sea cans and a gravel road. I could build a dozen just like it with pleasure. I could do that, no problem.

The time will come when the Liberals will have to explain themselves to taxpayers. This is insane. We have not received any answers. We have been here for over a year, and we are asking questions, but we are still not getting answers. Nevertheless, there were 13 meetings with the minister's team, during which someone thought it would be a great idea to spend $200 million on a concrete pad.

Now let us talk about an issue that is close to my heart: the gun buyback program. What a waste of money.

According to the former parliamentary budget officer's estimates, the compensation could cost nearly $800 million. That does not even include the program's administrative costs. That is nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars to target law-abiding citizens first and foremost. Meanwhile, too many illegal weapons are crossing our borders and fuelling real crime. That is the real target. It takes courage, but the Liberals do not have it.

The problem is not the hunters in Saint-Georges or the sport shooters in Sainte-Marie, these proud people who obey the law. I have travelled all over Quebec and met with hundreds of hunters and thousands of sport shooters. These families feel they are being unfairly targeted. These are people who play by the rules, who complete the training, who obtain their licences, and who follow every law. Today, this government is treating them as if they are the problem. That is unfair. I can assure members of one thing: I have not finished my tour, and I will never give up on this issue.

As everyone knows, I come from a region built by entrepreneurs, farmers and manufacturers who export all over North America. Beauce is a beautiful region. I own businesses myself. In real life, when a person orders $100,000 worth of goods and only sells $60,000 worth, they lose their credit. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing with our children's credit card. When a government cannot balance the books, it should make adjustments, admit its mistakes, start over and move forward for the people. The government should be there for Canadians, not for its cronies.

A country's wealth comes not from the government, but from businesses. It is businesses that create wealth. They want to grow, hire people and conquer new markets, but they are coming up against endless red tape. The government is approving megaprojects that take years to come to fruition, but these are nothing more than announcements. Businesses have to deal with endless paperwork, which discourages even the best of them. This is a matter of economic survival. If we do not address this now, our children will pay the price and their standard of living will suffer.

The Prime Minister talks about developing new markets. I agree with that. Everyone agrees. It will not pay off for 15 years, but we agree. In the meantime, we must never forget one fundamental reality. I just did an economic tour of Quebec with some of my colleagues. Our number one partner will always be the United States. That is just geography.

Our steel and aluminum companies are facing 50% tariffs. Since April 2, as I mentioned here in the House, the metal tariffs were originally set at 25%, but for a garage door, for example, the tariffs are now at 50% on the entire product. Our businesses cannot compete. They are not getting any support from this government. It is that simple.

Let us talk about other problems affecting my riding of Beauce and many regions across Quebec. Our unemployment rate is under 2.8%. We have no workers, no people to work. The government must give us the tools we need to attract workers, produce goods and be competitive.

The one-size-fits-all approach that the Liberals in Ottawa are applying across the country is not working. We need flexibility, smart thinking, tact, and a clear understanding of how to support businesses. When the Liberals spend money without getting results, it is not just numbers on a page. It means lost opportunities for our regions.

Agriculture is not just an important economic sector. It is the cornerstone of food security in our regions. My colleague here in the back could speak to that importance. Our families in rural areas, thousands of producers, get up every morning to feed Canadians. However, there is not much for them in the budget. Our farmers feel abandoned. Production costs are skyrocketing. Just think about fuel, transportation, machinery, fertilizer, energy, and interest on loans. Who can borrow at current interest rates? Meanwhile, consumers are paying the price at the grocery store.

To conclude, I want to say this: When I come here, I think of the families who work so hard every morning. They are struggling to put food on the table. They are struggling to find somewhere to live. I think of our local manufacturers who are watching their profit margins shrink. I think of the entrepreneurs who take risks, create jobs and keep our economy going. These people are not asking for the moon. They are asking for a government that understands them, that respects them, that manages their money as if it were its own. They are asking for a government that can boost productivity, get projects moving and actually deliver on them, not just announce them.

We must defend our workers and our businesses against the U.S. tariffs.

Canadians deserve to have their money managed diligently.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe my friend underestimates how important it is to recognize many of the things that have been occurring. When the member talks about the importance of exports, we now have exports beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border up something like 17% since the last election. There have been significant increases. Trade agreements, which will deal with a wide spectrum of agricultural goods plus many other items, are increasing. We have had legislation passed and agreements signed off on defence.

The province of Quebec, as an example, will do exceptionally well with those expanded trade opportunities. Could the member provide his comments on that issue?

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleague to come to Beauce. He is talking about a 17% increase in exports to other countries. That is 17% of nothing, while 85% of our business is with the United States. That is what we need to focus on. It is indeed important to develop markets, but you just said it yourself. That is a 17% increase on practically nothing.

Do not go telling businesses in Beauce that they are happy with this. We do business with the United States. We have to resolve the issue with the Americans.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we continue, I want to remind the member to address the Chair, not other members directly.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauce for his remarks. He and I have something in common. We both come from former Créditiste regions. That is worth pointing out.

He told us that he was making a non‑partisan appeal. I would like to hear him elaborate. Can he name any good things that came out of the economic statement, particularly in relation to the 25% tariffs that Donald Trump imposed on all products containing steel and aluminum? Can he think of anything that the Liberals have done to help people in the sector? I personally do not see anything. I would like to hear his thoughts.

Is he more optimistic than he was over the last month with his hockey pool? I would also like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, who won the pool.

I am still thinking. It has been 30 seconds since the question and I am trying to think of one good thing the Liberals have done, but unfortunately, they let the steel industry down. That answers the question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I largely share my colleague's view.

I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that the Liberals refuse to acknowledge the economic situation in Canada, that they do not believe Canadians are going through a difficult time, and that they believe everything is fine for the average Canadian.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague. That is what we call “politician speak”. The Liberals know full well that we have had two consecutive quarters of deficit. They know full well that the market is very tough. They know we are in a recession. They know we are the only G7 country in a recession.

The fact is that they are masters of illusion. What is it that you say, Jacques? These are nothing but illusions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must remind the hon. member that members are not to be called by their first names. Even if they are sitting next to us and wish to offer advice, we should instead refer to their riding, such as Lévis—Lotbinière, in this case.

We have time for one more question. The hon. member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington—Tyendinaga has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was very good.

Two weeks ago, we visited several communities in Quebec and we heard the same concern in all of them. Workers and businesses are worried about the tariffs and about the uncertainty surrounding CUSMA.

My question is simple. In your opinion, what impact will this have on Quebec's economy, and what can the government do to reassure people and support Quebec businesses?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must issue a reminder before I turn the floor over to the member for Beauce for his right of reply.

I am going to say this part in English to make sure I am understood. Members have to speak through the Chair. In French, when members use “vous”, it actually means they are speaking directly to the member and not through the Chair. This is just a reminder to be careful when using the third person.

The hon. member for Beauce has 30 seconds to respond.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent work over the past few weeks.

The American tariffs are causing a number of problems right now, especially the section 232 tariffs. Chinese and Asian steel is being dumped here in Canada. We need to protect our industry. The first thing that I would do would be to protect our steel industry.

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

Mr. Speaker, when historians study the fiscal decline of nations, they often note that collapse rarely begins with a dramatic event. It begins with habits: habits of indiscipline, habits of euphemism, habits of pretending that borrowing is prosperity, that inflationary spending is strategy and that accounting definitions can be stretched indefinitely without consequence. This Liberal so-called spring economic update is not merely an illustration of Liberal-managed decline. It is not merely a Liberal rebranding exercise. It is a statement of Liberal governing philosophy, and that philosophy is simple: spend now, explain later, redefine terms when necessary and hope Canadians do not notice the bill until it arrives.

Canadians do not need a Ph.D. in economics to notice that these Liberal habits are costing them. They notice the Liberal money-printing inflationary deficits at the grocery store. They notice the Liberal taxes at the gas pump. They notice when their children conclude that home ownership is no longer a Canadian expectation but a lottery ticket. They notice it when this Liberal Prime Minister is the only G20 leader to deliver his economy a recession. They notice when this Liberal Prime Minister lectures them about making more sacrifices while failing to exercise any restraint when adding billions more to the national credit card.

In public economics, there is a concept known as “government failure”. It is the recognition that governments, especially when they are run by Liberals, are imperfect institutions. Similar to markets, they are subject to distorted incentives, information asymmetries, bureaucratic self-preservation and Liberal political opportunism. Liberal Bill C-30 is government failure bound in legislative form.

This Liberal Prime Minister promised discipline. He promised prudence. He promised to spend less and invest more. Instead, in just over a year, this Liberal Prime Minister managed to nearly double the deficit left behind by the last Liberal Prime Minister. Think about that. After a decade of fiscal excess under one Liberal Prime Minister, another Liberal Prime Minister arrived promising sobriety and immediately ordered another round at the bar. That is not renewal. That is relapse. The Liberals call this investment, but Canadians know it as credit card budgeting.

When a household continually puts ordinary expenses on a credit card, not because of emergency, not because of catastrophe, but because of chronic overspending, that household is not building wealth. It is mortgaging its future. The same principle applies to nations, yet the Liberal government behaves as though fiscal arithmetic has been repealed. In academic public finance, debt sustainability matters because interest compounds, fiscal flexibility narrows and eventually governments lose the ability to respond to genuine crises.

The independent fiscal watchdog, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has once again raised the alarm. The PBO warns that this Liberal abandonment of traditional definitions of capital spending continues to undermine transparency. It is not a trivial accounting disagreement. It goes to the heart of the fiscal integrity of this Liberal government. Capital spending traditionally implies that the creation of productive assets occur, things that generate future economic value, public utility or measurable returns, or things like infrastructure, such as a new road or a new hospital. However, when Liberal accounting definitions become elastic, everything all of a sudden becomes capital. When everything becomes capital, nothing is.

The PBO has explicitly stated that the lack of definitions prevents this Liberal Prime Minister from ensuring that the Liberal government's fiscal anchor remains balanced. In essence, the independent officer charged with scrutinizing public finances cannot determine whether this Liberal government's own numbers mean what the government claims they mean. That should alarm every member of the House.

It is not only the PBO. The International Monetary Fund, the IMF, a global agency that the Liberals love to cite, has now called on Canada to adopt international accounting standards to improve transparency, ensure comparability over time and maintain a clear connection between borrowing and debt. Why? It is because this Liberal government's current fiscal presentation no longer inspires confidence. When both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the International Monetary Fund are warning that our accounting lacks transparency, this is not a partisan talking point. It becomes a credibility crisis, and credibility matters.

In public choice theory, governments, especially like this Liberal government, are not assumed to act as neutral benevolent maximizers of public welfare. Rather, they respond to incentives. Liberal politicians prefer spending money today while shifting costs tomorrow through higher taxes, higher inflation, higher deficits and higher interest costs. Liberal bureaucracies seek budget maximization at the expense of taxpayers, who are often deprived of any input by their Liberal governments. Liberal insider interest groups seek concentrated benefits, siphoning money from public coffers while dispersing costs across everyday Canadians. This Liberal spring fiscal update reflects every one of those pathologies.

The PBO also warned that repeated spending increases beyond previous projections will “erode the credibility of fiscal plans and weaken confidence in the fiscal framework and raise concerns about long-term [debt] sustainability.” That is the exact credibility crisis that this Liberal Prime Minister finds himself in, because a fiscal anchor that moves whenever politically inconvenient is not an anchor at all. It is driftwood. What is the consequence? It is higher costs, higher debt and higher inflation, but maybe that is the new world order that this Liberal Prime Minister wants Canadians to live in.

Canadians are now paying $59 billion annually in debt interest. The PBO projects that this could rise to $80 billion by the decade's end, which is 13% of federal revenues. That is approximately $1,900 per Canadian every year. It is not for hospitals, roads, defence or housing. It is just to service the interest on yesterday's Liberal excess. Every Canadian family is effectively paying thousands of dollars merely to keep the Liberal debt machine running, and the debt interest now exceeds federal health transfers and the revenues collected from the GST. Canadians pay taxes only to watch that money routed not into services but into servicing the debt for prior Liberal overspending. That is not one of the so-called progressive policies the Liberals love to tout. That is intergenerational extraction.

There is another glaring black hole in this update: infrastructure spending. The Liberals have made commitments, but the Liberal spring economic update provides no year-by-year breakdown by department on infrastructure spending. It provides only Liberal press releases about so-called investments and maybe a top-line dollar commitment. That is Liberal rhetoric for, “This could blow a hole in the nation's finances and we have no way of tracking where the money is going.” In the accounting world, this is called deferred disclosure, and it takes me to my next point.

The Liberal Major Projects Office was heralded with great fanfare, but where are the progress reports on the infrastructure? Where are the timelines? Where are the approvals on the projects? The PBO notes the absence of public reporting. The Liberal government has allocated hundreds of millions of tax dollars for so-called project acceleration, yet it has provided zero clarity. It is no wonder that this office has been described as the “mostly photo ops” office. The only thing we know is that this brand new bureaucracy is staffed with Liberal insiders and executives who are collecting salaries as high as $700,000 a year. This reflects a classic principal-agent problem.

Taxpayers are the principals, while Liberal government institutions and their corporate insiders are the agents. When agents face weak accountability, asymmetric information and vague mandates, they optimize for process and motion, rather than outcomes and results. That is what we see with the Liberal mostly photo ops office. We see Liberal bureaucratic expansion without measurable performance, Liberal administrative theatre without delivery and Liberal insiders getting rich off executive salaries that could reach close to $1 million per year in some cases.

The Liberal housing hell is another prime example of this. After 11 years of failure, Canadians might have hoped for some urgency. Instead, even after allocating $13 billion to the so-called Build Canada Homes, the PBO projects that just 5,200 units will be built annually. In an unprecedented national, made-by-Liberal housing crisis, the PBO explicitly stated that this is “insufficient” to meet the previously targeted pace. If we recall, the Liberal Prime Minister promised 500,000 homes per year during the campaign, but his own brand new housing bureaucracy can build only 1% of his stated target. Housing starts continue to lose momentum and there are no specific metrics, no pace targets and no credible plan. We have the most unaffordable housing market in the G7. The Liberal government offers nothing but bureaucracy in place of home building.

Public economics teaches that regulatory barriers distort supply. When governments create friction through permitting delays, duplicative approvals and antidevelopment frameworks, prices rise. The answer is not endless, unconditional taxpayer subsidies layered atop supply constraints. Those merely inflate demand against an artificially limited supply. The answer is to remove those governmental barriers and let builders build, yet the Liberals persist in governance through announcements, rhetoric and blocking, rather than execution.

We arrive at the newest Liberal fantasy, which is the so-called sovereign wealth fund with no wealth. It is an office to prepare for a future press release to eventually borrow money, at the expense of taxpayers, to fund and siphon into politically charged investments. The Liberals already have the Infrastructure Bank, the growth fund and the defence bank. They have agency after agency, fund after fund and office after office, and the result is that Canada still has the worst investment performance in the G7. This is textbook government failure. If a project has a viable business case, capital markets will invest in it. Private investors will fund productive ventures. If a business case does not exist, taxpayers should not be conscripted into subsidizing political vanity.

Instead, we get what public choice theory would call rent-seeking. Politically connected actors position themselves around state capital allocation, all while consultants, advisers, insiders, transition offices, boards and task forces take out their straws and siphon off their share of taxpayer money. The beneficiaries are concentrated and the costs are diffused. That is how inefficient states grow, and Canadians can see it and feel it.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve an affordable government so that they can have an affordable life, honest accounting, discipline, prosperity and a government that understands the basic truth of economics. A nation cannot borrow and block its way into lasting prosperity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that there is a difference between good faith, constructive criticism and whatever it is the member does on a regular basis. Everything is a conspiracy and everything is division, fear, anger and hyperbolic nonsense. Frankly, it is sad and it is embarrassing.

Would the member acknowledge that Canada is not broken and that, in fact, our government is doing exactly what it was elected to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, what is embarrassing is the Liberals' record. What have they done? Let us look at their record. The macroeconomic results are devastating. We have the highest household debt in the G7, the most unaffordable housing in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7, the second-lowest productivity in the G7, the second-highest unemployment in the G7 and the worst food inflation in the G7.

Was that the promise my Liberal colleague made to his constituents in the election campaign?

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is going to change the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to include economic considerations.

Does my colleague think that hazardous pesticides should be approved for economic reasons?

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

Mr. Speaker, when I speak to my constituents, a lot of the concerns they talk about have to do with the affordability crisis and the housing hell the Liberal government has created after 11 years in power. Some Liberals will say that is a conspiracy theory, but the United Way released a recent survey that says 60% of Canadians feel anxiety about their personal finances; 38% face food insecurity, with one in five reporting that all of the food in their home had been eaten and there was no money left to buy more; 40% lose sleep over how they will stretch their paycheque; 34% know someone close to them has experienced poverty; and 22% have personally experienced poverty.

Those are the stats, but some Liberal members will have us believe they are a conspiracy. It is time for the Liberals to get out of the way and adopt Conservative solutions.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned at the beginning of his speech that the Liberals have a bad habit of redefining terms. One of the things they redefined at the beginning of their mandate was the fiscal anchor of “debt to GDP”, which they changed to “deficit-to-GDP ratio”. They then started the sovereign wealth fund, which is based on debt, but that is going to give them more room to borrow more money and not have it affect their deficit-to-GDP ratio.

Could the member explain to us how that is just another example of the Liberals moving the goalposts midway through the game?

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

Mr. Speaker, history is full of governments that believed deficits did not matter, until they suddenly did. History is full of administrations that were convinced they could borrow indefinitely because markets were patient, until they were not.

Canada is not exempt from arithmetic. Debt must be serviced, confidence must be earned and budgets must eventually reconcile aspirations with reality. We need to live in a Canada that does not reward bureaucracy, but rewards hard work. The Liberals like to live in press releases, but Canadians live in reality.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians understand that when a family is struggling financially, the answer is not to keep increasing the limit on the credit card.

Could my colleague explain why he thinks the government believes doubling the deficit and announcing another $48 billion in spending commitments will somehow make life more affordable for Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is just the Liberals living in their own fantasy and illusions, rather than speaking to Canadians about real life. The $90-billion Alto rail boondoggle and the $742-million gun confiscation scheme are just a couple of examples of the Liberals' wasteful spending and a testament to the fact that they are completely detached from reality.

Canadians live in real life and they are suffering. All the Liberals know how to do is print more Liberal press releases.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak, in essence, to Bill C-30 and the motion we have before us. I would argue that it is a motion that is absolutely necessary because of the behaviour we have witnessed from the Conservative Party of Canada since the last election.

The Conservatives like to forget about it, but in the last federal election, just over a year ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. Along with that new Prime Minister, dozens of other members of Parliament were elected. In fact, today, there are 70 new Liberals in the House of Commons. They have been here for just over a year. Whether the Conservatives like it or not, they need to recognize that there is a new government, with a very strong legislative and budgetary agenda.

What we have witnessed from the Conservative Party is constant filibustering and its doing what it can to prevent legislation from passing. It is interesting when the Conservatives stand up. They like to accuse the government of not being able to bring forward legislation or get its legislative agenda through the House.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, they say, “Hear, hear!” across the way.

They need to look in the mirror and do a fair assessment of why it has been somewhat problematic getting legislation passed. It has been a very strong challenge, with 99% of the challenge being the Conservatives' attitude toward the House of Commons and the games that are being played on the floor of the House of Commons today.

All we need to do is take a look at what we have witnessed over the last week. Last week, we had a motion that passed, which the Conservatives actually supported, to see the House of Commons sit until midnight for the remaining balance of the sitting days. This means that tonight, tomorrow night, Wednesday night and Thursday night, we will sit until midnight, dealing with bills, and on Friday, we will sit until 8 o'clock. The same thing was supposed to happen last week. The Conservatives actually voted in favour of the motion. I stood up. I was very grateful, because back in December, I encouraged the Conservatives to agree to sit late to have more sitting days in order to accommodate more speaking.

Shortly after that, the Conservatives moved an adjournment motion. They said they wanted to sit late, but right away, they moved a motion to adjourn. It is not the first time. They will complain and they will say, “We want more time to be able to debate issues.” At the end of the day, the Conservatives actually had the bells ring at the report stage of one of the government's bills, which they supported. It is truly amazing. When we look at the games the Conservatives play with the legislative agenda, which incorporates the budget legislation and the presentation of the budget, let alone a number of other things that I want to go into detail on, we can very easily understand why we have to bring in time allocation.

Let us talk about that legislative agenda. Many members of the Conservative Party have been critical of the government's legislative agenda today. First of all, we should recognize that we have had 26 days of nothing but opposition days. Every one of those days was time-allocated. They are planned, just as Private Members' Business is. There were 26 days. How many days have we actually sat? Was it 130 days? We would have to get a count on it, but 26 of those days were nothing but opposition days. That is not to mention—

[An hon. member]

Agreed to by the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions.

Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda. There is Bill C-3, the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4, the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on.

We have Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13, respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20. Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation.

There is Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22, the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22, and they are still opposing it.

There is Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently.

Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives.

The list goes on. Bill C-28, one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through.

That is not to mention the Senate bills. I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister, has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.

All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation. That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster.

Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive. I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues.

In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members' bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case.

I challenge members opposite to show me what private members' initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate.

Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5, which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister. There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech. The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada's history.

I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow.

All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken. Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces.

By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that. We continue to have dialogue with provinces.

All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy.

All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast. There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects.

In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province.

In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining.

We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister, was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast.

The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made.

There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States.

Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation.

I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations.

The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that the theme for the government should be that someday they will get it done, and that member is certainly no exception to that rule. He is in charge of planning for the government, in terms of the House schedule, as is the House leader he serves. That member has been elected in this House since 2010. There is nothing new on the Liberal benches about that member. In fact, I was 13 years old when that member was first elected to this place, and he has not figured out by now that summer comes every year, midway through June, and that they need to plan accordingly to get their legislative agenda through.

When exactly does that member think he is finally going to get ahead on the planning of the legislative agenda to get the government's legislation finished in this place?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member might have been three or four years old when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting in the House of Commons. It was during those days in opposition that the leader of the Conservative Party actually had a book on how to be a destructive force in the standing committees, and nothing has changed. Today, the leader of the Conservative Party genuinely believes that an effective opposition has nothing more to do than just raise money through gaslighting on issues, character assassination and filibuster after filibuster. Ultimately, they then try to blame the government for the poor actions of the official opposition, and in particular those of the leader of the official opposition's office, and the tactics that they use.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, time seems to stand still when my colleague from Winnipeg North rises to speak. This parliamentary secretary was here during the previous Parliament. He has been here for quite some time.

In the previous Parliament, I remember sharing his point of view on a very important broadcasting bill, Bill C-11. We debated it in the House. The Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP were on the same side back then. We believed that we had to fight for culture.

Today, his government is doing the opposite. His government is turning its back on culture and giving in to American threats by caving on some very important things, including the digital services tax, which was supposed to bring some tax fairness to the system.

We just saw the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, make an important decision, which the government overturned and sent back to the drawing board. The government refused to implement the 15% contribution that the CRTC had just mandated and has instead chosen to have taxpayers foot the bill for the share that streaming services should have paid.

We were equally passionate about Bill C‑11 and the principle that streaming services and U.S. tech giants should pay their fair share. However, his government is going in exactly the opposite direction.

Has my colleague changed his mind? Has he switched sides? Does he think that it is a good idea to let streaming services and tech giants skip out on paying their fair share and contributing to the broadcasting system that they are profiting from immensely?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have always been passionate about our arts and cultural community. The member would likely know full well that I have had opportunities through the years to talk about it on many occasions. I am really glad that we recently made an announcement about how we are going to protect children on the Internet. I think that, in the months and years ahead, we will continue to have dialogue. I think there are certain considerations that have to be taken in the thought process on the CRTC's decision, and the impacts of that particular decision, on an issue with many different fronts. I think it is best that I just leave it at that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I asked a Liberal colleague earlier today about ferry funding. I was explaining that the federal government contributes 43% of operating costs for Atlantic ferries. In British Columbia, they contribute 3%. The government contributes $6 per capita to the average British Columbian for operating costs for ferries, but on the east coast, it is $125. The Liberals say it is because of constitutional agreements and because those ferries are travelling province to province.

Does my colleague think that Vancouver Island and coastal B.C. need to become a province just to get funding when it comes to operational costs for ferries?

Living in a coastal community, ferries are essential transportation. I stood in the House, and I heard a Liberal parliamentary secretary agree that it is essential transportation. This is about fairness. People on Vancouver Island pay the same amount in taxes as people in Atlantic Canada. We do not even have a senator on Vancouver Island. We have not had one in 55 years. They have 10 senators in New Brunswick. They have six in Nova Scotia. They have 10 between P.E.I. and Newfoundland. P.E.I. and Newfoundland do not even have the same population as Vancouver Island. Neither does New Brunswick. In Nova Scotia, it is the same.

We are not asking to reopen the Constitution. We are just asking the government to do something that is fair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the member was going to be regarding whether the member wants us to reopen the Constitution. I will forgo that question. At the end of the day, Canada is a vast country. There are regional differences, economically and otherwise. We can call them different types of boundaries, provincial boundaries and so forth. I do not know all of the circumstances.

For example, the Province of B.C. might be contributing to BC Ferries. I suspect that it probably is. They might be in a better position to be able to do so. I do not know the details about how both ferry systems function. The member would have to maybe give a bit more detail. I would like to believe that we work collaboratively with governments to make sure that there is a sense of fairness in Canada on policies in general.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much that I could unpack on this member's 20-minute speech in the House, starting with a few things. He kept saying that they talk about this and they talk about that and they talk about this, and he is right. They do an awful lot of talking on that side of the House.

It makes a lot of announcements but it is not very much a government of action. The hon. member also called it a so-called new government, and yet he is here giving his 20-minute speech.

I looked it up. I believe that there are about 60 to 70 new Liberal members who were elected in 2025, compared to about 45 new Conservative members who were elected in 2025. The comparison is crazy. When I think about the number of times that those new members have gotten up to speak in the House, compared to this member, who has been here since 2010, it is shocking to me. He talks about filibustering.

Why is he getting up and giving a 20-minute speech when he has 60 to 70 new members who were elected in 2025 and who could get up and talk about this as well?

I would like to know why he is always doing all of the talking and does not let other people do it. He is the king of filibustering.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time Conservatives have felt uneasy. One often gets the sense that they do not want me to speak. In fact, the other day, we might recall, one of my colleagues wanted to ask for unanimous consent to share time with me and was initially told no because of a violent reaction from the Conservatives. I am not that bad a guy, really and truly. When I stand up to speak, I speak the truth. I like to hold the opposition accountable. There is some responsibility for the opposition to be accountable.

Trust me, there is a huge gap there. I take the duty of being the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader very seriously. I try to get the legislative agenda pushed forward. I try to ensure that the members opposite are held accountable for the comments that they make. I like to think that there is, maybe, a bit of continuity.

I do not mean to offend the member opposite for being a strong advocate for the people I represent. I can assure her that, at the end of the day, this is a government in which every Liberal member of Parliament plays a vital role, whether it is on the floor of the House of Commons, in our standing committees, in our national caucus or in the communities that they represent. I am but one of 170-plus. I try to do the best job I can.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

The government has asked us today to accelerate consideration of the spring economic update because we are told time is short. What the government neglects to mention is that much of the time pressure is entirely of its own making.

Let us be clear about what this motion would do. It would force all remaining amendments at committee to be moved and voted on without further debate. That is not a normal legislative process. It is Parliament being asked to do less of its most important job.

A budget is supposed to be a statement of priorities. It is supposed to tell Canadians what the government intends to do, how much it intends to spend and how it intends to pay for it, yet within weeks of presenting budget 2025, the Prime Minister began announcing billions of dollars in new spending commitments that had not been presented when the budget was tabled. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has estimated that these additional measures are roughly $48 billion over five years. Basically, a second budget is being unveiled piecemeal through press conferences and announcements, while Parliament is expected to simply keep up.

The most striking example is the newly announced Canada Strong fund, a $25-billion sovereign debt fund that did not appear as a central feature of the government's original plan. When a government finds $25 billion for a brand-new sovereign debt fund, only weeks after presenting a budget, Parliament should begin to wonder if perhaps these programs are not emerging from a coherent economic plan, but are being invented on the fly whenever the government finds itself in need of a new announcement. The same pattern can be seen in the government's new commitments on defence and international affairs. Billions of dollars have now been announced for new defence procurement structures, a Defence Investment Agency and a defence industrial strategy. Why do so many huge financial commitments continue to emerge after the government's fiscal plan was supposedly complete?

The Prime Minister has also unveiled team Canada strong, a multi-billion-dollar labour strategy. Then came the government's new electricity initiative. Canadians were told that billions more would be going towards transmission infrastructure, electricity corridors and long-term transformation of Canada's power grid. Once again, the government presented the announcement as though it had just came up with the idea at the last minute. How come these were not in the budget in the first place?

Then, last week, the government announced a $3-billion national food strategy. The government appears to believe that food security can be achieved through creating funds, hubs, agencies, financing mechanisms, planning structures and administrative frameworks. Food security has never been created by government planners. It has always been created by farmers, truckers, processors, retailers and entrepreneurs who bring the food from the field to the table. The announcement contains billions of dollars in new programs, but remarkably little discussion of the policies that have made food more expensive in the first place. Food security depends on farmers who can afford to farm, processors who can afford to process, truckers who can afford to transport goods and businesses that can operate in a competitive environment, yet after years of inflationary Liberal policies that have increased costs throughout the supply chain, the government now proposes another layer of inflationary programs and administration as the solution.

Each one of these announcements arrives with a new price tag attached to the national credit card. Every few weeks, Canadians are presented with another announcement, another commitment, another expenditure and another promise that government spending will somehow unlock future prosperity, yet after 10 years of this approach, Canadians have become entitled to ask a reasonable question: If government spending were the key to economic growth, why have the billions of dollars of new spending not made anything better?

The government would like Canadians to believe that these new programs are finally going to make life more affordable, but it is just an illusion. Every new fund, every new agency, every new strategy and every new spending commitment ultimately lands on the country's credit card. The bill always arrives. It arrives in the form of larger deficits, higher debt, rising interest costs and, ultimately, a higher cost of living for the very people the government claims it is trying to help.

Bill C‑30 is simply the latest example of what has become a familiar Liberal pattern: more spending, more borrowing, more debt and higher costs for Canadians. The Prime Minister promised fiscal responsibility. Instead, this budget more than doubles the deficit left behind by Justin Trudeau, from $31 billion to $72 billion. Outside the pandemic, this is the largest deficit in Canadian history. Canadians were promised a new approach, but it turns out that the new approach means spending way more than Trudeau could ever have imagined.

What makes this particularly troubling is that all of this is happening while Canada stands alone among the G20 countries as the only one in recession. The government continues to insist that more spending is the solution, yet with all that spending, Canada is the only G20 nation that has managed to achieve this disastrous distinction. One would think that after 10 years of disappointing results, the government might pause long enough to consider the fact that the remedy it keeps prescribing is actually making the illness worse.

Canadians are already carrying the highest household debt burden in the G7. They are coping with some of the least affordable housing in the developed world. Food bank usage has reached record lows and young families can only dream of home ownership. Seniors are stretching fixed incomes further every month. Working parents are making impossible choices between groceries, rent, transportation and basic necessities.

The Prime Minister did not campaign on doubling deficits. He did not campaign on larger government and ever-expanding spending commitments. He presented himself as the supposed adult in the room, the person who would restore fiscal discipline, bring competence back to the government and provide a new economic direction for the country. However, only months later, Canadians are looking at a $72-billion deficit, the largest deficit in Canadian history outside of the pandemic, and billions of dollars in additional spending commitments that were not even included in the budget.

The Prime Minister promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. This budget shows it is rising. He promised spending discipline. Spending is increasing faster than inflation and faster than economic growth. He promised economic renewal. Canada remains the only G20 country in recession. He promised to build faster, yet despite his creating new offices, new agencies and new approval processes, Canadians are still waiting to see any results.

The concern is not simply that these promises have been broken. The concern is that the government appears not to have learned anything from the experience of the last decade. For 10 years, Canadians have been told that another spending program, another fund, another agency or another strategy will solve the problem, yet the problem continues to grow as the government continues to grow.

The result is a country carrying more debt, paying more interest, experiencing weaker growth and facing higher costs than Canadians were promised. At some point, governments must be judged not by the announcements they make but by the results they achieve. Now the government has asked Parliament to spend less time examining legislation at the very moment it is asking Canadians to accept more spending, more borrowing and more debt. That is backwards.

When a government announces another $48 billion in commitments after tabling a budget, scrutiny becomes more important, not less. When deficits are growing, debate becomes more important, not less. When Canadians are struggling to afford groceries, housing and everyday necessities, accountability becomes more important, not less. Parliament was not created to rubber-stamp government announcements. It exists to test them, challenge them and ensure taxpayers understand the consequences before the bill arrives.

After 10 years of rising debt, rising costs and declining affordability, Canadians have every right to ask whether more spending will solve the problem or simply make it worse. The government might not like that, but it is not a reason to curtail debate. It is the very reason debate exists.

That is why Conservatives support the amendment moved by my colleague from Cariboo—Prince George. His amendment would allow the finance committee to continue its work instead of forcing members to vote on remaining clauses and amendments without debate. It would restore the basic principle that Parliament should examine legislation before passing it. Canadians can no longer afford more of the same, and they certainly cannot afford less scrutiny of the policies that brought us here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite. I think she did a great job of highlighting and reiterating a number of government announcements, so I want to thank her for reannouncing that good news here in the House. She mentioned new announcements and new commitments every few weeks, and I concur. That is exactly what we are doing.

I think there is a fundamental difference, though, between our perceptions of what is spending versus what is an investment. When we hear the members opposite talk about spending, they are coming from a “Canada is broken” world view, whereas on this side of the House, we believe in Canada, we believe in Canadians, and that is why we are investing in Canada.

Would the member not agree that is exactly what we were elected to do?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not agree that the Liberals were elected to make a whole bunch of announcements and get nothing done.

Conservatives believe in the basic principle that government does not create prosperity by endlessly spending borrowed money. We would focus on getting costs down, removing barriers to investments, speeding up approvals, supporting the workers and businesses that actually build homes and grow food, and restoring discipline to federal spending.

Canadians do not need more slogans, funds, agencies and strategies. They need a government that measures success by results: lower costs, more homes, stronger paycheques and a more competitive economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I see when I look at this bill, and its timing, is that the Liberal government has done basically only one thing to achieve the 15% cuts per department that were announced to perhaps one day balance the budget. Otherwise, running a $70‑billion deficit is no big deal. The aim, then, was to cut 15% in every department.

However, it seems that the only department that actually did it was the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the only area where it did so was in science and research. I think that is completely absurd, particularly when it comes to the capacity for innovation in agriculture. Will we be able to eat safe, healthy food? That worries me. There are also going to be cuts to food inspection at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. At the same time, certain pesticides that had previously been banned are now going to be approved.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that there are many examples of where the Liberals have gone wrong in this budget. The PBO found that the government used most of the additional fiscal room for new policy priorities, leaving the deficit track substantially unchanged.

In other words, when the government had some breathing room, it did not use that room to meaningfully lower the deficit or give taxpayers real relief. It used it to fund more spending. That is the pattern Canadians have seen for the last decade: more spending, announcements and promises. However, families are still struggling with groceries, housing, taxes and debt. Conservatives are saying that improved fiscal room should not be treated as permission to keep spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest expenditures that the government is making, which is relatively new, is in the area of the military. The Liberal government has actually elevated military spending to 2% of Canada's GDP, something the Conservative government in the past had at 1%. When the Leader of the Opposition was a part of the government caucus, 1% of Canada's GDP went to the military.

Does the member support the Government of Canada's expenditure of 2% of GDP to the military?

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

Mr. Speaker, I actually want to talk about the fact that what we are opposing is a process that weakens accountability and a fiscal plan that seems to be planned out on the back of a napkin.

Parliament exists to examine legislation, improve it and hold the government accountable for taxpayer dollars. That should not be controversial. The amendment moved by my Conservative colleague would allow committee work to continue and would remove the parts of the motion that cut off debate and scrutiny. That is a reasonable position.

If the government's legislation is strong, it should survive committee review. If its spending is justified, ministers should be able to defend it. If the plan is working, Canadians should be seeing results. Instead, Canadians are seeing higher costs, weak growth and more debt.

Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, you will find it unanimous consent to adopt the following motion. I move:

That this House concur in the provisions of the message received from the Senate on Thursday, June 11, 2026, with regard to appending a dissenting or supplementary opinion of a member of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying from the Senate to the first report of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying; and that a message be sent to the Senate informing it that this House has adopted this order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion, and of the amendment.

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion as it relates to the Liberal government's spring economic statement. It may be the spring season that prompted the Liberals to use this update to paint a rosy picture of our economy, but the reality on the ground is that the real and non-partisan numbers show a stark picture for residents in my community, especially among working families and struggling seniors.

The economic statement shows spending continuing to rise rapidly and no binding fiscal anchors. The growing deficit will only worsen as the Liberal government borrows more against the national debt. Debt service costs are rising rapidly, eating up more of each tax dollar than total spending on health care or defence. The fact is, Canada's economy has entered a recession. That is not a political talking point but an agreed economic viewpoint for decades.

Any period in which our economy sees two consecutive quarters of declining GDP is widely called a recession. This has been a mantra of economic statistics for decades. If others want to fight over the difference between a recession and a technical recession, the fact remains that there is nothing technical about a weak economy, as the Governor of the Bank of Canada described it just last week. A weak economy is what we see in 2026, when 112,000 more Canadians are out of work in just the first four months of this year and where, by per-person GDP, Canadians still have a lower standard of living than they did in 2022.

Worsening signs like this for Canadian household finances are, sadly, not hard to come by. Household savings fell to the lowest level in two years, with Canada having the highest household debt in the G7 by far. Statistics Canada found that Canadian household debt has outstripped income for six consecutive quarters. Equifax reported that insolvency volumes increased to levels not seen since 2009, up nearly 19% year over year. There are 1.5 million Canadians who have missed a debt payment in the first three months of this year alone, with mortgage delinquency rates climbing 32% year over year.

The Prime Minister promised us he would build the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet we are alone among the G7 in having our economy shrink in three of the last four quarters. Promises to build quickly and build big to fortify the Canadian economy, through measures like the major projects act, a bill that I voted for, have not come to pass. Canada has neither designated nor started a single major economic project to fast-track a year after we passed that legislation. Instead, years of Liberal laws creating burdensome regulations, high taxes and persistent large-budget deficits have all made it increasingly expensive for businesses to invest in Canada.

I understand that many want to hold on to the belief that the rosy picture the Prime Minister paints of the country is accurate, but looking at his peers outside politics, we see the real story. The Prime Minister's own choice for the non-partisan Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the Liberals' deficits are billions higher than they claim. She showed that promises to reduce government spending are not reflected in rising personal costs, which will also increase by billions of dollars over the next several years. She showed that the government's revenue forecasts will fall short because of expected weaker wages and slower salary growth in a worsening economy. Lastly, she said the government's fiscal plan has a 1% chance of meeting its fiscal anchor to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio each year.

As someone who knows balance sheets in both the private and public sectors, I can say that if a fiscal plan showed only a 1% chance of succeeding, any small business or local government would be revising the plan. Instead, the Liberal government moves forward with more spending and more debt, which will only result in more taxes and more inflation. These are the national figures, but I would like to take a moment to focus on how these national trends are causing real tension in communities like mine in Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

A real and growing consequence of higher-than-average unemployment, sluggish wages and food inflation is that more people are turning to local food banks. No one should ever be ashamed of turning to food banks, but government should be ashamed of the worsening affordability crisis pushing more workers, more seniors and groups that have historically not availed themselves of food banks to use their services for the very first time in their lives. The government's allocated funding for food banks is insufficient. It will not curb the worsening affordability curve. We have seen that it is pushing these groups toward food bank services. The Liberal government has overseen the worst rise in food bank use in a generation, surpassing levels during the 2008 financial crisis and the height of COVID-19, and rural Canada is really suffering.

The amazing volunteers I recently met with at the Boundary Community Food Bank told me that they have seen a 73% increase in demand for their services since 2020, with 25% of their regular clients having only applied within the last year and 20% of their clients working full- or part-time. They told me that they now see over 100 seniors from within this little community needing their services each month, and this is just in the Boundary. It does not cover the Kootenays, the Similkameen, the South Okanagan or Penticton.

Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay has one of the oldest demographics in Canada. Seniors used to be the demographic most likely to donate to food banks. They were more likely to fill out a volunteer form than to apply for a food hamper. That is now changing rapidly. This increased turn for our seniors is leaving them financially vulnerable and less able to participate in their own communities as much as they once did. This is a huge loss.

Volunteers at community events have traditionally been older, partially because they had a little more in their bank accounts to fill an extra tank of gas for volunteer driving, for buying extra hamburgers or hot dogs, or for giving a little more of their day. After speaking with people in my region, and after speaking with colleagues from across the country, I feel that seniors are increasingly unable to volunteer because of the cost of living.

Over the last few years in my region, we have seen the loss of community events, such as those in the community of Penticton. In the last few years, we have lost Ironman, the Pentastic Jazz Fest, Ribfest and Okanagan Granfondo. Service clubs, which in the past were made up of seniors volunteering, are dwindling. It is impacting the entire community as a whole, and many seniors who are facing a financial crunch are considering even more dire options than simply not volunteering.

My office has heard from too many seniors who have exhausted their benefits and drained their savings and are inquiring into the terms of an application for MAID. It is a horrifying thought that, in Canada, the financial burden being carried by seniors should have them think that the best option is to end their life early, not on medical grounds but because of a harshly rising cost of living. This symbolizes an unaffordable Canada none of us should accept. Unfortunately, the spring economic update shows us little change in course to restore an affordable Canada for workers, families and seniors.

I move, seconded by the member for Oshawa:

That the amendment be amended, in paragraph (b), by replacing the words “paragraphs (b) to (f)” with the words “paragraphs (b) and (d) to (f)”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The subamendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to the previous speaker from the Conservative Party about military defence and how much money we are investing in the military. We are talking about an addition of billions of dollars. By doing that, Canada would meet its 2% target. That is something that is very important for us as a government. When I asked the previous Conservative member whether she supports that, she completely sidestepped the question.

I do believe that Canadians have a right to know this: Does the Conservative Party support the financial addition of the billions of dollars that we would invest, over and above? Does the Conservative Party support it, or does it believe we should cut that back? Do the Conservatives support making it 2% of the GDP?

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

Mr. Speaker, any time that anybody is supporting the military in the House, it is extremely important to do so. Unfortunately, the Liberals have not supported it in the past. It is the Conservatives who have stood up for the people who fight for this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the money for health transfers comes from the taxes paid by Quebec and the provinces. Initially, the federal government committed to covering 50% of the provinces' health care costs. It is now covering just 22%. The provinces protested. They wanted the government to raise that amount to 35%. The Bloc Québécois would have liked the government to at least maintain the 6% escalator, but it did not do so. It is probably going to drop to 3% soon.

How are the provinces and Quebec supposed to manage if the federal government takes their tax money and then makes cuts to health transfers?

What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague may know, health spending is extremely important to me. I sit on the Standing Committee on Health right now.

I agree that there are certain places where we need an increase in health spending, but we have to make sure that it is spent properly. We cannot spend any more on infrastructure or buildings for which we need to hire more and more bureaucracy. We need to spend it on boots on the ground. We need more doctors. We need more nurses. We need more MRI machines. We need things that would help people actually have a doctor. Thousands of people in my riding alone do not have a doctor.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech highlighting some of the affordability challenges that are affecting people in her riding and across all of Canada. I would just like to read a quote from Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, the food professor. He said:

...Canada does not have a food security problem.

We are one of the world’s largest agri-food exporters. Canadian farmers produce far more food than Canadians consume. Our challenge is not food availability. It is competitiveness.

Do the Liberals not understand that the taxes they put on every step of the value chain when it comes to production, when it comes to processing and when it comes to retail are driving up costs for Canadians? Maybe my colleague could expand a bit on how that is affecting people in her riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It is obvious. Anyone who runs a business knows that, if something costs more, they are going to have to charge more. It is not even advanced economics. People all over who have small businesses know that it is common sense.

Yes, we need to take away the red tape. We need to lower taxes. We need to take away taxes such as the industrial carbon tax. Especially in my riding, which is extremely rural, any time it costs more to transport goods to a grocery store, the owner of that store is going to have to charge more for that product.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time.

It is my turn to speak to Bill C-30, which seeks to implement the economic update. I want to address several issues, but, first, I want to talk about why we are doing things a bit differently here today. Last week, at the Standing Committee on Finance, on which I serve, the Conservative members used some pretty intense filibustering tactics during the study of C-30.

What I found especially shocking was that the Conservatives themselves admitted that this filibustering had nothing to do with any specific concerns about this bill but everything to do with winning concessions on another bill, Bill C-22. They said so themselves. They made it very clear. To get concessions on Bill C-22, they were prepared to filibuster, change everything and take as long as necessary to achieve that goal.

This filibuster was clearly deliberate, especially given how much of the committee's time was spent on a single clause and on an amendment moved by the Conservatives themselves. They then moved subamendment after subamendment. They used a very clear tactic: These subamendments were drafted in English only. We had to wait for them to be translated before work could resume. We can see the mechanism at play. Also, the Conservatives' discussions on these subamendments involved a lot of repetition and many digressions that had very little to do with the matter at hand. That also contributed to delays.

In any event, we spent hours and hours on it. It quickly became clear that no progress was going to be made at all. That is a big problem because Bill C-30 is so important. It concerns the April 28 economic update, which contains a number of very useful and very important measures for our economy. I suspect I may run out of time, but before I talk about those measures, I want to address a few problems that have been mentioned today in the conversations and in the debates that we have had here so far.

For example, as of the end of the fiscal year, March 31, Canada had met the target of 2% of GDP for spending and investments in national defence. That was confirmed by NATO itself, and it is something that Canada had not done in a very long time. Liberal and Conservative governments kept national defence spending at 1% or 1.5% of GDP. We very quickly and practically reached the 2% target, and we committed to allocating 5% of GDP to national defence by 2035. That is a very significant commitment.

We are making this commitment because the world is a different place now. Today, our situation is very delicate. Our biggest trade and economic partner is also our neighbour: the United States. It is a partner that has very plainly and clearly told us that it does not need what Canada has to offer. We could discuss that at great length. It does not need anything except our energy, our aluminum and other resources.

The Americans imposed a number of sector-based tariffs, which is not entirely consistent with CUSMA requirements, but they did it anyway to put the Canadian government under a lot of pressure. They really want to put a lot of pressure on the economy to force us into making all sorts of concessions, to the point where our own sovereignty is at risk. That is why we are investing heavily in defence. It is also why we are going to keep strengthening ties with reliable, dependable and predictable partners.

That said, it is also clear that 70% of our exports go to the United States. Our neighbour will always be our neighbour. We cannot change geography. We still have good relationships with American businesses and the American people. We are going to maintain those relationships. We have also committed to doubling our non-U.S. exports. Let us look at the reasoning behind that. Even if we can double the 30% of our exports going to non-U.S. countries, and I think we will get there, 40% to 50% of our exports will still be going to the United States. It will still be important to maintain our trade relationship with the United States. That is why we are still committed to updating CUSMA. That work continues, despite the obstacles the administration sometimes puts in our way. We remain focused on that, but we need to have a broader perspective on all of this.

It is important to point out one other thing that is very clear in the economic update. Our colleagues opposite keep saying that we are running huge deficits, that we are heading straight for a wall and that things are not working. Our colleagues sometimes paint a rather apocalyptic picture. Let us review some basic facts. Our deficit stands at 2.1% of GDP, which is entirely manageable. Canada's public debt is equally manageable. In fact, that is why our AAA credit rating is being maintained. If Canada were truly a country on the brink of ruin, how could we still have a AAA credit rating?

I will conclude on this point. How is it that long-term bond yields, for example 10-year yields, are around 3.5%? That is roughly 100 basis points, or one percentage point, lower than in the United States. If we are as broke as our colleagues opposite claim, why are interest rates on the financial markets still so favourable in Canada?

We are on the right track. We are going to diversify our economy and continue to sign trade agreements.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague across the way because I know he was the Liberal finance minister in Quebec and helped that province come out of a very dire situation. I also know that we both worked on treasury boards in our respective provinces.

When a government borrows money and increases the amount of money supply in the province or in the country, it is inevitably going to drive up inflation, which is also going to drive up interest rates, which makes it more difficult to borrow on bond markets. Can the member explain what the rationale is for the government to keep borrowing and borrowing, with nothing to back it up?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our borrowing capacity is not unlimited. Of course there are limits. However, in Canada, we are still a long way from that limit. Canada continues to have very easy access to financial markets. We have a AAA credit rating. The interest rate on 10-year government bonds is much lower than in the United States. The financial markets have confidence in Canada, and we will remain committed to diversifying the economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague's remarks and would like to hear him speak to the issue of Canadian sovereignty, since he brought it up again.

From the Bloc Québécois's perspective, we feel that this amounts to Canadian subservience to Donald Trump's demands, particularly in the cultural sector. One of our expectations regarding the latest economic statement was that the government would reintroduce the digital services tax. Not only did the government fail to reintroduce this tax, but we saw last week that it even gave up on forcing big tech companies to contribute their share to funding culture.

Would funding culture and ensuring that American multinationals pay for media content not have been a way to strengthen Canadian sovereignty?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, culture and supply management are issues on which we will not compromise. That is important. We have said it before, we stand by it and that will not change. However, it must also be noted that we have said from the start that a bad deal would be far worse than signing just anything. So far, we have not signed anything precisely because what was presented to us was unacceptable. No, we have not caved. On the contrary, we are standing our ground.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles. Did I understand my hon. colleague correctly when he said that the official opposition had engaged in filibustering despite the serious challenges we face in Canada and in the Standing Committee on Finance? Furthermore, the amendments they proposed to the bill's provisions were reportedly made only in English.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. They were subamendments. Every time the Conservative Party proposed a subamendment, the subamendment was always worded in English only, so we had to wait for it to be translated. That was one of the factors that caused the delay in our proceedings. Whenever we asked if we could set that aside and keep working while the translation was being done, we were denied.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord has just enough time to ask a very brief question.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether a distinction should be drawn between immediate spending, such as groceries, and long-term spending on measures such as those recommended by the Bloc Québécois. On example I am thinking of is reinstating the benefit to help keep workers in their jobs during difficult times, as well as all those measures that help us weather the crisis—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did say that it had to be very brief.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has less than 20 seconds to reply.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this will be a very brief response. Yes, we are working on two parallel tracks, including emergency support for businesses and workers through a variety of programs. We continue to develop new models of emergency assistance, but there is also more fundamental and structural support aimed at transforming the Canadian economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you, as always.

I rise in the House today on behalf of the beautiful, wonderful people of Bowmanville—Oshawa North, to oppose the Liberal budget, specifically Bill C-30. I do so because this is the latest example of the current Liberal regime failing to meet the moment in Canada. The Liberals are simply tinkering at the edges of the status quo, without offering any positive, substantive changes for our communities to become stronger and healthier.

Liberals may ask, what is the moment we are in? Certainly, they seem unaware. It is a moment when a generation of Canadians are knocking on the door, asking to be admitted into the Canadian dream, yet they are having that door shut in their face by a government that continues to show very little self-awareness for what is going on in our economy today. For Canadians who, frankly, have been working hard for over a decade now to establish themselves in the economy, to buy their first home or to start a family, they are encountering an uncomfortable and unstable position. They are working hard to do so, despite the challenges they face.

If the Liberal regime were truly interested in meeting the moment facing our country right now, they would do more than just tinker at the edges of the status quo. Rather, this would be a government that would respond with real change and real hope for the builders, the dreamers, the strivers and the hustlers who are working hard to get ahead every day.

The part of this budget that I would like to focus on in particular is the matter of housing, because it has become emblematic of the challenges we face in our country today. In this budget, in Bill C-30, the government has a provision to extend the grace period for repayments in the homebuyers' plan. Now, in a vacuum, this might actually be a worthwhile idea. It is good to extend the grace period. However, the problem we face is that when we look at the context of our country right now, it is simply not enough. In fact, it is outrageous to sit in the chamber and see Liberals patting themselves on the back for continuing to fail to fix the housing crisis in this country, while failing to recognize that much more needs to be done.

While Liberals sit in the chamber or fly off to Europe to celebrate their half measures and their band-aid solutions, one of their own housing bureaucracies, one of several, has published data today showing that the housing crisis continues to be unaddressed by the Liberal Prime Minister, who promised to fix it, the second Liberal Prime Minister, I may add, who promised to fix it in the last decade.

From today's CMHC housing starts and construction data, we see that in the month of May 2026, “Actual monthly housing starts were down 5.2% year-over-year in centres with a population of 10,000 or more”. We also see in that data that “housing starts for all areas in Canada decreased [month to month by] 6% in May”. CMHC's deputy chief economist looked at all of this data and offered a comment that I think this House must consider. He said, “Overall, these results suggest that construction activity is uneven and taken together with the decline of approved units not yet started and market intelligence point to weaker momentum for future supply”.

If we zoom out for a moment and think about what this means for the young Canadians knocking on the door who want to get in on the Canadian dream but are having the door shut on them by the Liberal regime, we see that there are real consequences for real people behind all of these numbers. For every house that is not getting built or is too expensive for the average middle-class Canadian to afford, we know there is a life being put on hold: people who want to move out of their parents' house but cannot do so; people who want to make an investment in their future but cannot do so; people who want to start a family but cannot do so.

By the way, as an aside, I would like to add that if we fix the housing crisis, we might see the declining birth rate start to tick up and the Liberals would have less of an excuse to continue with their mass immigration plan. However, I will leave that for another day.

This is what is happening to young Canadians today. They deserve so much better than what they are getting from the Liberal government, from a regime that continues to put budget after budget forward that fails to solve a single serious problem and is not getting better results. Young Canadians are not getting the response they deserve from their own government, the government they pay taxes to and the government that is intended to serve them.

I would like to share a story of a young man I met yesterday, from north Oshawa. He runs his own business, and on the weekends he drives an Uber. He is a very hard-working guy who grinds every week, non-stop. He recently got married, and he does not have any children yet, but he hopes to be able to afford a home one day. He shared his family story with me, and he is a real family man. He told me about his father who recently beat cancer, and I could see how proud he was when he talked about his dad going through that hard time with a smile on his face on the other end of it.

This business owner in north Oshawa told me that he had a conversation with his wife last week, and he asked his wife an important question. He asked what she thought of some of the concerns weighing on him at the moment. Specifically, he was wondering whether he should continue to work so hard and continue to work two jobs and be away from his family as much as he is. He wondered if he should stop. He wondered if his effort was ever going to pay off based on what he saw happening in our country.

I will be honest; it was tough to hear him talk that way, because he is a talented and very capable young man, but he was considering giving up. He told me that when he had that conversation with his wife and asked her those questions, she thankfully told him that she thought he should keep trying. She expressed belief in him. When he told me about his wife's confidence in him, I could tell it meant the entire world to him.

I bring this up because people need to better understand what is happening to this generation of Canadians knocking on that door and trying to get in on the Canadian dream. They are often thinking about giving up and often questioning the merit of hard work. They are second-guessing themselves and the way they spend their time, and whether doing all of the things they were told a contributing citizen should do is actually going to bear fruit as they continue to get older.

This is exactly what is wrong with the Liberal regime's budget. It fails to offer any sort of understanding of what is going on today. It fails to show any contrition from a government that has, for 11 years now, made bad decision after bad decision, often sentencing young Canadians to a much harder life than generations past, making it harder to get ahead and making it harder for people to feel hopeful and optimistic about their futures. The Liberal regime then has the audacity to question the patriotism of people who say that they deserve better.

I would say that the young Canadians knocking on the door hoping to get in on the Canadian dream do deserve better. They deserve a lot better than what they have been getting. My message to all of the strivers, dreamers, builders and hustlers across this country is to just keep going. I know that it is hard and that often it feels like people in positions of power are not listening, but the reality is that we have no choice but to continue fighting for this country and for a better future.

Even when the people who are privileged enough to fly first class to Europe lecture us on what kind of country we should want to have here in Canada and even when they show us how tone-deaf they are, I want those who are fighting for a better future to know that someday I hope they will have a government that honours them properly.

God bless Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear from the member opposite and to see him back here in Ottawa. Our government is working collaboratively with the Province of Ontario to cut the HST on new homes and cut development charges. We are working with Premier Ford, municipalities and affordable housing providers. There has been a very favourable response from the homebuilding industry. Premier Ford said, “Our government will continue to deliver on our plan to protect Ontario in partnership with the federal government and municipalities by lowering the cost of building, getting shovels in the ground faster, cutting red tape and investing in workers.”

Would the member opposite agree with Premier Ford?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with Premier Ford on very little actually, including his opinions of the Liberal regime here in Ottawa and its performance on matters like housing. It is quite unfortunate that it is so difficult to get the people who profit and benefit off the status quo to understand why so many Canadians are frustrated with multiple levels of government, provincial and federal alike.

It is also unsurprising that the federal government would find common cause with a provincial government that also seems to be perfectly fine with a situation where no one's life is getting better and the quality of life for the average middle-class Canadian is declining.

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

Mr. Speaker, behind the economic update lies an economic situation that is strongly affected by the trade war with the United States.

I would like to ask my colleague for his insights. I would like him to tell us what he has heard from his contacts in the United States regarding the next steps in the renegotiation of CUSMA.

Also, what is his view of how the Liberal government is currently conducting the negotiations?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be perfectly blunt with the member. We have a lot of problems in this country, and I think we have a government here in Ottawa that has used the drama with the United States as an excuse to solve very few problems that affect the day-to-day lives of our fellow citizens. I think it is shameful that it has become a political tool to exploit justifications for making nothing better for the lives of the average Canadian. Instead, the Liberals are able to position themselves as fake nationalists who seemingly have very little pride or long-term vision for the good of this country.

I would like to see some humility on the part of the Liberal regime here in Ottawa. I would like to actually get a trade deal done for the good of Canadian workers and Canadian industries, and for the Liberals to stop exploiting this issue for their own political gain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague who represents Bowmanville—Oshawa North for his speech. I really appreciate working with him on various issues that are affecting Canadians today.

Earlier, the member for Winnipeg North, the parliamentary secretary, boasted about the Prime Minister and how he is solving issues on behalf of Canadians. To date, we are still waiting for the negotiations dealing with the tariffs with President Trump to be finalized. On another note, two hours southwest of London, in Windsor, we are still waiting for the Gordie Howe International Bridge to open up. It is a Canadian taxpayer-funded bridge, yet this chief negotiator cannot negotiate with the U.S. to open the bridge. A week ago, I found out that one hour east of London, in Kitchener, regarding the Canadian promise, people are now living out of Winnebagos in carpooling parking lots just off the 401. They cannot afford houses and they cannot afford rent, so they are now living in Winnebagos.

Can my colleague elaborate on whether those issues are occurring in his riding as well?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for London—Fanshawe's observations are completely accurate. We have a government here that has been sitting around for 11 years watching the decline of a country and, in many cases, managing the decline of a country. People naturally are increasingly frustrated by a status quo that is not working and is not serving the best interests of our people.

We have seen members opposite sit there, heckle, laugh and high-five each other while things keep getting worse for the average middle-class family. I would like to see them show any sense of contrition or learn from their mistakes. Alas, I have not seen that evidence.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan.

If the motion before the House, which we are considering today, is passed unamended, it will force a major fiscal bill through committee, cut off clause-by-clause review after only 30 minutes, deem amendments moved without meaningful debate, skip real report stage consideration, limit third reading to only a handful of speeches and restrict ordinary procedural tools after 6.30 p.m., while preserving special flexibility for cabinet ministers, but not for regular members of Parliament.

That would be a lot, and it would not be a minor adjustment to the parliamentary calendar. It would be a serious and unconscionable shift in power away from Parliament and toward the executive. That is why I rise today to support the amendments and ask the government to reconsider its current plans to ram this important legislation through the House.

Bill C-30 is broad. It would impact taxation, excise duties, fuel taxes, alcohol duties, housing-related rules, labour mobility, worker ownership, greenhouse building, banking payments, transportation information, employment measures, food inspection, pesticides and other areas of federal law. A bill of that breadth deserves Parliament's full attention. The government is asking the House to accept the appearance of scrutiny while bypassing proper review.

If the world is in crisis and if Canada is at a crossroads where we are attempting to do big things fast, to diversify our economy and our trade relationships, then we cannot afford to get this wrong. We need the best ideas to rise to the top, and that is the role of opposition. That is the role of committee. That is the role of clause-by-clause study. There is no boardroom table in a successful company that I know of where no dissent is allowed, where shortcuts get the best results or where the fastest policies are the best policies.

Clause-by-clause study matters. It is where members examine the actual words of the bill, not the press release around it. It is where we ask officials what a clause would do, how it would work, who it would affect and what would happen if were misused. It is where amendments are proposed and can be explained, tested and improved. It is where witnesses, members and sometimes the public catch drafting problems, unintended consequences and overly broad powers before they become law. That is not obstruction. That is how the best ideas rise to the top.

Under the motion, the committee would meet at 9 a.m., and, if clause-by-clause were not finished by 9:30 a.m., the remaining amendments would be deemed moved and then are voted on without further debate. This motion is a stopwatch, and in a time of global crisis, Canada cannot afford stopwatch law-making. The government's inability to manage a legislative agenda is not the opposition's crisis, no matter how much the government tries to bully us into submission.

This week, I spent some time at the public safety committee, examining witnesses about a Liberal subamendment to a Bloc amendment that related to privacy concerns that had been expressed to me by numerous people in my community. Others did the same. By the end of the interventions, we all understood and supported the clause as amended and subamended, and we had explained it in committee in a way that should reassure those watching from home that the clause would not cause undue harm to people's privacy. That is the kind of collaboration the government claims it wants, and when it comes to Canadians' privacy, it is what we all need, so why the government is shutting it down here in the House is beyond me.

The motion would short-circuit report stage. Then, at third reading, it would allow only a very limited number of speeches. Members do not come here as ornaments, here to decorate the government's bills with a few words. We come here to bring the lived and living experiences of Canadians into the policy choices that are before this country. When debate is reduced to a few speeches, those voices are marginalized. Canadians lose the benefit of having competing arguments tested before a vote takes place. In an unstable, volatile world, there is all the more reason for Parliament to take its time to make sure that Canada gets its policies right.

The proposed amendments would let the committee continue its work and protect the stages of review that help Parliament separate strong policy from weak policy before a law is passed. Some parts of Bill C‑30 deserve much closer public scrutiny than they are going to get, because they raise serious concerns about how the government now thinks about power.

One of the most troubling examples is the proposed change to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act. Buried in this spring economic update bill is a power that would allow cabinet, by order, to exempt persons, things or activities from the application of laws or regulations administered or enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. In plain English, cabinet could create exemptions from food and agricultural rules for up to three years, and then extend them for another three years. That means there could be a possible six-year exemption from rules that exist to protect Canadians, our food supply, our producers, our markets and our public confidence.

Canadians should not have to guess about questions like, “What is an unreasonable risk? Who makes the decisions, and on what evidence? What notice would Canadians receive and what recourse would they have if the power were used badly?” Food safety should not depend on vague language and cabinet decisions. Those are all questions that I will never get to ask because of the way the government is planning to ram through this bill.

Canadians expect food safety rules to be clear, public, stable and enforced. They expect science, inspection and accountability. They do not expect broad exemption powers to be tucked into a budget-style bill and rushed through committee.

That same concern appears in the proposed changes to the Pest Control Products Act. Those provisions would allow cabinet to authorize or reinstate the use of a pest control product, even after the responsible minister has determined that the environmental risks are not acceptable, if cabinet decides that the product is needed for economic or food security. That should make every member pause. The regulatory process could say an environmental risk is unacceptable, and cabinet could still step in and permit the product. There may be rare, emergency cases when flexibility is needed, and reasonable people can accept that, but emergency powers should be narrow, clearly defined, transparent, time-limited and subject to strong oversight. They should not be drafted so broadly that Parliament is asked to trust cabinet first and ask questions later.

These two brief examples demonstrate why clause-by-clause matters and why committees matter. Canadians need more than abstract, procedural debates. We need safeguards. We ought to make space for members to find provisions such as these, ask what they mean, test the government's explanations, hear from officials and affected groups and improve the law before Canadians have to live with it. A government that is confident in its agenda should be willing to explain it, defend its legislation line by line and accept amendments that add clarity, accountability and limits.

Canadians should pay attention, because the kinds of motions we are debating here today are becoming a trend. Too often, the government seems to believe that if it has the power to do something, that is reason enough to do it. That is not how responsible government works. Just because a government can use a procedure to limit scrutiny, it does not mean that it should. The House of Commons is not an inconvenience in the legislative process, and it ought not be treated as such. It is the central democratic forum of this country, where public money is authorized, laws are tested, ministers are held to account and the executive must answer questions before it changes the lives of Canadians. The Prime Minister should be willing to propose and defend his vision for Canada here, in this chamber, reserved for commoners. We are everyday Canadians who deserve answers.

The government has the votes and the procedural tools to force this through, but just because it can, it does not mean that it should. A serious government should not ask members to vote first and understand later. For those reasons, I urge all members of this House to support these amendments. I urge the House to reject this shortcut, protect Parliament's role and allow Bill C‑30 to receive the scrutiny it deserves.

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

Mr. Speaker, I need to preface this before I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, in case anyone has forgotten how unlikely it is that I am deeply grateful to her for her work, her diligence and her ability to analyze legislation. It still breaks my heart to hear “The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith” and not have it be Green Party member Paul Manly.

I have to pay tribute to this member. Every word she just said was excellent. We should be listening. Her words, “vote first and understand later”, should be put up in neon lights as the defining words of this session.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the leader of the Green Party in her overall assessment, not to mention the member who just spoke. How selective they are in not recognizing that if we were to listen to either one of the members, the legislative process would grind to a halt and nothing would pass. The leader of the Green Party knows that. She can say what she wants, but at the end of the day, there have been many games over the last number of months that clearly demonstrate that.

All one needs to do is look at the games that were played just last week, when we had the official opposition, the Conservative Party, agree to sit late and, literally a couple of hours later, vote to adjourn. The silliness we see from across the way prevents legislation. This government is saying we are going to serve Canadians by passing legislation, whether the Conservatives like it or not.

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

Mr. Speaker, actually, all I need to do is look at what happened in this House with Bill C‑3. It is a bill that went to committee. The committee treated it seriously and amended it. The bill came back to the House, and the government showed what it thought of committees. It rejected all of the amendments and used its majority to ram it through. Now we have a situation where there are advertisements in the United States, with companies saying, “You can find a connection to Canada.” We are going to have a big backlog. Americans are suddenly discovering that we have the health care and the country they want.

I do not even know what to say. The government does not respect the parliamentary process or committees, and it is going to have unintended consequences.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a question for my colleague, whom I thank for her speech.

I will add my thoughts on this democratic issue. While the government was busy manufacturing its majority, it did not accept any of the 11 recommendations from the Bloc Québécois. In such a context, the government should have talked to us and listened to us. However, this government has a tendency to move further and further away from listening and from democracy.

Now, here is my question for my colleague. In terms of the measure in the economic statement on suspending the excise tax on gasoline, some economic experts, including Luc Godbout from Quebec, maintain that it is not a good decision, from the perspective of both a balanced budget and the environment. At a time when we need to invest in our infrastructure and social programs, we just deprived ourselves of a source of revenue.

Moreover, experts are saying that there is a risk of forest fires this summer because of climate change and global warming.

What does my colleague think about that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

I brought up two examples in my speech, and here is another one. There is so much substance in this bill to consider. There are recommendations. There are experts whom we need to hear from, but we will not have the opportunity to do that.

As every member on the opposition side has made the point, over and over again, that this is a bill that requires more scrutiny and more consideration, the government members have stood up and accused us of all kinds of things in order to ram their bill through.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

First of all, I want to give a shout-out to Stanley Cup champion and Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola product, Logan Stankoven. We are so proud of Logan for winning the Stanley Cup.

To my hon colleague, the member for Winnipeg North talked about playing games. Is this not the government that shut off the cameras in four committees the moment it got a majority? I ask my colleague, who is playing games?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was in committee when the first vote happened after the government received its majority. Members can look at the tapes. I sat there and said, “We are going to go upstairs, and when we come back down here, the government is going to use its majority to end the conversation in this committee,” and that is exactly what it did.

This is not a government that is starting conversations. It is a government that is ending conversations.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in this debate on Government Business No. 12 on the spring economic update.

A lot has changed since the spring economic update. The most recent PBO report says the government has slowing growth, a larger than promised deficit, a weakening fiscal outlook and a 1% chance of meeting the government's own fiscal anchor. That has all happened since the last spring economic update.

We are debating Government Business No. 12, and it feels like Groundhog Day. Every time the Liberals bring a closure motion forward, the member for Winnipeg North gets up and says the Conservatives are blocking and filibustering. It is an example of the far-left ideology over there. It is always someone else's fault. There is always a reason why they did not get the job done. If Liberal legislation did not get passed, it is the Conservatives' fault. If the Liberals cannot meet any of their economic targets, it is Donald Trump's fault. If the Liberals cannot get trade deals done, its the fault of the global crisis. There is always something to blame for why the Liberals never follow through on their promises. If they cannot get houses built, it is the municipalities' fault. If they cannot get more trade deals, perhaps it is the Easter bunny's fault. I do not know. The Liberals always have someone to blame, and that is the far left in a nutshell. It is never, ever their fault.

One thing I want to talk about when it comes to ideology is child care in Saskatchewan. This is the Liberals' flagship. This is their baby. They thought it would change the lives of parents. I want to talk about the latest report on child care in Saskatchewan, which says 92% of people in Saskatchewan say it is difficult to find child care. Families are being told that child care is more affordable, but affordability does not matter if there is no availability. The report goes on to say that so many communities in my home province of Saskatchewan are being called child care deserts. There are simply not enough day care spaces. Get this. It further says the people the Liberals pretend to care about and want to help are the ones who are hurt the hardest. It is often the parents who need flexibility the most. The nurses, first responders, retail workers and anyone working evenings, weekends or shift work are left without options.

This is what the Conservatives talked about all along when the Liberals brought forward their child care program. We said parents need choice. Make it the parent's choice. Allow private day cares to stay open. Allow parents to have the choice of where they want their children to go. Supplement public day care with private day care so that there are more spaces. The Liberals promised to build 255,000 day care spaces, and they have only made 65% of that target. Shame on them for over-promising once again and leaving parents holding the bag.

There are a few other things I want to talk about that were in the spring economic update but never materialized in Saskatchewan. When the people in Saskatchewan look at the spring economic update, what do they not see? They do not see funding for the Snowbirds. It took the Liberals only 10 years to ground the Snowbirds program in Saskatchewan. The iconic Snowbirds are housed in Moose Jaw. The aerial acrobat team is the pride of Canada, and it took the Liberals only 10 years to ground it. They are going to over-promise and over-commit once again. They promised to have the Snowbirds flying by 2030. I do not think that is going to happen, and I do not think anyone on these benches thinks the Snowbirds are going to be flying any time soon. A lack of preparation and planning by the Liberals caused that.

Let us talk about what else is not in the spring economic update for Saskatchewan. There is no money for the RCMP Heritage Centre. It is in my home riding of Regina—Lewvan. The Liberals have promised money since 2015 to help the RCMP Heritage Centre become a national museum. They promised it in the 2015 campaign, the 2019 campaign, the 2021 campaign and the 2025 campaign. It was in their platform, and they still have not followed through on the commitment to make the RCMP Heritage Centre a national museum. That is a shame, because it does wonderful work and tells the stories of our brave men and women in uniform. That is something that should be done sooner rather than later. I hope they follow through on that commitment, because they promised it time and time again and they have never delivered.

Another thing in the spring economic update that would not help Saskatchewan is the closing of agriculture research stations in Scott and Indian Head. I do not know when the Liberals became the anti-science party. I do not know why they do not want to believe in the science of agriculture across our communities. The research stations are so important because there are four different types of soil in Saskatchewan. That is why there is one in Scott, one in Indian Head and a federal research station in Swift Current. They do different experiments on these different soil types.

If the Liberals close two of these research stations, they are going to throw away decades of research that has been done to help the soil become more fertile and to help us make sure we have better crop varieties. They do not say much about the fact they have cut funding to research stations. They do not talk about the cuts they have made, and there are so many more places where the Liberals have wasted billions of dollars. Then they decide to cut the Snowbirds and the agriculture research stations, and not fund their commitments to the RCMP heritage museum that they have promised time and again.

The last thing I would say, and this has been really quiet on the Liberal front, is that the government is talking about the potential of selling airports, which I find is a very interesting strategy coming from the Liberal side. The Regina airport is located in Regina—Lewvan. I do not know what the Liberals do not like about Regina—Lewvan, but I hope they will come visit. We would give them a tour so they could see a lot more of this beautiful part of the city in Regina, Saskatchewan. I invite them all to come out. They could see—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting point from the Liberal across the way. I wonder, if I crossed the floor, if the Liberals would fund the RCMP Heritage Centre.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, we hear them cheering that, yes, they would. They tricked one of the Conservatives by promising to fund something in their riding. That is how the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong got tricked into moving over to the Liberal side. She was promised money from the housing minister. I find it very interesting that the Liberals are willing to try to buy people.

I will tell my friend across the way a little story. My daughter saw some of the comments with respect to floor crossing, and she asked me if I would ever cross the floor. I told her that I would not in a million years. She said, “Good. I'll still be proud of you.” There is the saying “from the mouths of babes”. Even 11-year-olds know that we should really keep our word all the time.

I think sometimes we get the most truth when we talk to young people across the country. That is what the Liberals have lost in the economic update as well: the fact that young people are struggling more each and every day. The fact that the vast majority of young people in Canada do not believe they are ever going to afford a home is not good enough for our country. We need to do better for young people.

The fact that 2.2 million people go to food banks in this country, which is the breadbasket of the world, is not good enough. A vast majority of those people going to food banks are children, young people and students. The fact that people are languishing on wait-lists for years in the health care system is unacceptable. The fact that we gave $1.6 billion to failed asylum claimants for health care benefits but we do not look after seniors who need hip and knee replacements is unacceptable.

One thing I want to get to before I wrap up is the fact that when we say that Canada can be better, and when we question if the Liberals are doing good enough for Canadians, they call us unpatriotic. That is unacceptable. The Liberal government is not Canada. Every member of the chamber loves our country, but we think our country can do a heck of a lot better than it is doing right now.

We are the only G7 country in a recession, and the blame lies at the Prime Minister's feet. He promised the world he could deal with Donald Trump. There is a video that says this. That was an absolute crock. The Prime Minister has failed at every promise he has made. He promised to build at speeds not seen in generations. That is not true. He said he would deal with Donald Trump. That is not true. He said he would make sure that the budget was balanced. That is not true.

Do members remember when Stephen Harper said that budgets are like potato chips and that one cannot not have just one? It has been 11 years of straight deficit budgets that keep getting bigger, and Canadians are left holding the bag.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member was critical of the parliamentary secretary. He was suggesting that the parliamentary secretary was inaccurate when he said that Conservatives are just filibustering everything. He tried to make the offer that Conservatives come here in good faith.

We can look at Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. The reality is that it is a bill that passed the House unanimously, passed committee unanimously and ultimately passed the House unanimously, yet we still had to move time allocation on it. Even with a bill they completely and fully supported, the Conservatives would not let it go through the House. It is a little bit much for the member to stand up and suggest that we are the ones accusing them of games, when, in reality, he knows full well that Conservatives are playing games on every bill, including the bills they support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to debate back and forth with my colleague, because, as I said, we helped the Liberals pass Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act. We needed it. We co-operated. They needed it to make the economy stronger, but they have not used the bill once. Even when we are trying to help them grow the economy, they fail.

I will take no lessons from the colleague across the way. We will do our job and study legislation, but when we do help, they still cannot get the job done.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech.

I heard all of his demands for his province of Saskatchewan that Ottawa has not listened to. I heard him list the things that Saskatchewan is asking for and not getting. I have a serious question for him about something that is bothering me.

The Conservatives often talk about reducing the deficit, as my colleague mentioned, and being responsible with public funds. Our party is constantly condemning the subsidies for oil and gas companies. We see these companies raking in huge profits these days, practically record profits.

Why are my colleague and his party not speaking out about the public funds going into the oil and gas companies' pockets?

Could that money not be put to better use addressing Saskatchewanians' needs?

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

Mr. Speaker, there are so many ways the Liberals have wasted money. I can talk about the $300 million in PrescribeIT. I can talk about the tens of billions of dollars given to third party consultants and about the growing size of bureaucracy. If they hire more consultants, they should not have to have a larger bureaucracy. We can talk about the millions, even billions, of dollars sent out of the country in international aid, which is probably on an ideological basis not on a humanitarian basis. There are a lot of areas where there is money wasted by the government. I want to make sure that those are cut and that the provinces remain full.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am really glad that the hon. member brought up the Snowbirds, because this past weekend, the Barrie Airshow was held. There were 150,000 people who attended the air show. I was fortunate that I had the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan come to Barrie, because he has been leading the fight to keep the Snowbirds flying. He heard from a lot of people how disappointed they were that the Snowbirds have actually been cancelled. The main concern is that this five-year hiatus may turn to six years, to 10 years and then to their never returning.

I am wondering what the hon. member would do to keep the Snowbirds flying.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is truly heartbreaking that, under the Liberals, the Snowbirds are going to be grounded. I remember, as a young kid, our driving to Moose Jaw from our farm in Rush Lake and watching air shows for the Snowbirds. Seeing those planes in the sky was a special moment. In Barrie, 150,000 people got to see that for the last time.

The fact that the Liberals did not have a plan to make sure that the Snowbirds could keep flying and had proper jets to keep flying is a damnation on their record. They had 11 years to make a plan, and they failed. That is why we are not going to have the Snowbirds for the foreseeable future. We would do whatever we could and help them in any way to make sure we could get planes so the Snowbirds could keep flying. It is just really sad for our Canadian identity and our Canadian heritage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just over a year—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South is rising on a point of order.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 57, under closure, no member may speak more than once. I believe that the recognition of the member is out of order.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I would just note that the member is correct. A member cannot speak more than once on one motion, but I believe the parliamentary secretary has not yet spoken to the subamendment, which we are now debating. He would have spoken to the amendment.

The parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually happy to speak. I am sure my Conservative friends do not mind.

Just over a year ago, Canada elected a new prime minister and a new government. With respect to what we have done, I actually ran out of time to expand on it. I would like to amplify a few things we have been able to accomplish in just over a year since Canadians made the decision to elect our current Prime Minister.

The very first action taken by the government was actually getting rid of the carbon tax. The second action was to provide a tax break for Canadians. Twenty‑two million Canadians benefited from that tax break.

Let us also take a look at one of our social programs the Prime Minister and the government made permanent: the school food program, with 400,000 young children being able to be fed a meal on the school premises. We can also talk about the groceries and essentials benefit changeover, in which we gave a substantive increase to deal with the issue of affordability. The first payment went out just yesterday. We have things such as the break on the gas excise tax, a 10¢‑a‑litre reduction. When we combine that with the carbon tax, we are talking about 25¢ a litre. These are the types of things the government has done, recognizing the importance of affordability and working towards giving a break to Canadians.

Let us take a look at some of the economic measures we have been able to put into place. I am thinking of the one Canadian economy, which is something I was able to expand on during my previous intervention. Then we can take a look at the major projects.

What I did not highlight about the major projects is that, if we think of it in terms of the amount of money, investment in capital, in infrastructure in every region of our great nation, we will see that we are going into well in excess of $120 billion. It is happening in every region. When we take a look at it from our perspective, we are establishing a goal of five years and $1 trillion of overall capital investment into Canada's economic trading opportunities and so forth. We are also investing in the Canadian military and recognizing the importance of establishing a sovereignty fund.

These are part of what we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time. There is a lot more to come as the Prime Minister and government move forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I am actually going to correct myself. I incorrectly recognized the hon. parliamentary secretary. He ought not to have been given the chance to speak.

The Standing Orders do state that once closure has been moved in the affirmative, no member may speak more than once, even if there are amendments or subamendments, so it was the Chair's fault. I incorrectly recognized the hon. parliamentary secretary. That ought not to have happened, and that should not be the principle going forward. This is according to Standing Order 57.

Page 560 of Janse and LeBlanc, at section number 14.11, reads, “if an amendment or subamendment is proposed during the closured debate. However, a member who is recognized to speak to the main motion after the adoption of the closure motion may not speak again to any subsequent amendment or subamendment.

I just wanted to clarify the record on that one.

The hon. member for Barrie South—Innisfil is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, does this mean that the Speaker's ruling will censor the parliamentary secretary for the rest of the current Parliament? Am I hearing this correctly?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the member for his intervention, but obviously, that is a matter of debate.

Is the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South rising on a point of order?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to claim the rightful spot on speaking to this.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Unfortunately, at this point, it is now past the hour of 8 p.m.

It being 8.03 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Government Business No. 12 now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

[Chair read text of amendment to the amendment to House]

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment to the amendment 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, we would like a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #158

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.

The next question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of amendment to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment 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.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think we should have a recorded division.

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

Vote #159

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the amendment defeated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent that my vote on the previous vote, on the subamendment, be considered a yea.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The next question is on the following motion.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

[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.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, let us do it again, with a recorded division, please.

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

Vote #160

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate as follows:

That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint it that, in relation to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing), the Senate does not insist on its amendments with which the House of Commons has disagreed.

Bill C-9—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), not more than five further hours shall be allotted to the stage of consideration of the Senate amendment to the Bill; and

That, at the expiry of the five hours provided for the consideration of the said 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 then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Standing Order 57 says that:

Immediately before the order of the day for resuming an adjourned debate is called, or if the House be in committee of the whole, any minister of the Crown who shall have given notice at a previous sitting of his or her intention so to do, may move that the debate shall not be further adjourned, or that the further consideration of any resolution or resolutions, clause or clauses, section or sections, preamble or preambles, title or titles, shall be....

It is a long sentence. The point of this is that Standing Order 57 is clear that a minister of the Crown must do it. This is the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime, who does not have a department and is not the minister sponsoring the bill. I believe that the standing order does not actually permit her to move this motion of closure or to introduce this motion today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the good thing is that we have over 150 years of precedent on our side on this. If members go back and look at the precedents, I am sure they will find many examples where ministers of state have moved this motion.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime is a cabinet member and therefore may move the motion.

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. Members will recall that the precedence for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government side.

Members should keep their interventions to approximately one minute and may speak more than once.

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

The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Here we have the same Liberal playbook yet again. There has been so much opposition to Bill C-9, and now the Liberals are insisting on using their majority to, again, ram it through. It is a majority they got not at the ballot box but through floor crossers.

We have heard from so many groups, including from His Eminence Frank Cardinal Leo from the Archdiocese of Toronto. I am wondering what the hon. secretary of state would say when so many faith groups are opposing Bill C-9. Should the Liberals not be taking a step back on this?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a platform promise that our newly elected government made last May. This bill was introduced on September 19, and it has gone through all the democratic channels through this legislative process. I believe it is now time for us to end debate on the bill so that Canadians can be safe in their places of worship.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most concerning things about the bill is how it has been described by members of the cabinet across the way, including the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who suggested that passages of the Bible and the Torah are inherently hateful and are worthy of prosecution.

I wonder if the secretary of state for thought crime would get up and say whether or not she agrees with that minister.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind members that we cannot make up titles for ministers. We cannot refer to them in any other fashion than by the specific way that the titles are listed on the cabinet list.

The hon. Secretary of State for Combatting Crime has the floor.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is very targeted and would address hate crime with the mens rea, the intent, to wilfully promote hate. I believe that is constitutional and is within the means. It would protect all faiths in this country. The intention of the bill is to protect Canadians and to make sure that people are deterred from committing hate crimes in Canada.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what the religious exemption that is eliminated by Bill C‑9 refers to, because I am hearing things from our Conservative colleagues and I cannot believe what I am hearing. There was never any question of prohibiting people from reading the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text.

What is prohibited is spreading hate based on a religious text. Some people use that as an excuse to spread hate, and that is what is being prohibited. That is the defence that will be removed from the Criminal Code. Reading the Bible, the Quran and the Torah is allowed, it always has been, and I hope it always will be.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree. In addition to that, we included, for greater certainty, a clause to clarify that nothing prevents a person from communicating statements on matters of public interest, such as religious, political or scientific matters, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group or wilfully promote anti-Semitism.

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

Mr. Speaker, no matter how well-intentioned the bill may be, I do not think I have ever received so many angry and concerned calls, letters and emails from constituents about a bill. I do oppose the legislation, but I would appreciate adequate time to be able to explain the reasons I agree with those from the civil liberties community who believe the bill would create more litigation and more charter violations through the provisions that are unclear about when someone happens to be on the street and does not know that around the corner there is a day care centre or a synagogue, but they are expressing their charter rights to be able to participate.

I cannot support time allocation on this. I know everybody is in a hurry, but rather than push us to bulldoze things through, why not consider keeping—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but we are debating time allocation. I feel like I am being heckled and cannot express myself properly.

If we are interested in having proper time to debate bills, why does the government want to use time allocation as opposed to allowing us to sit until Friday, which was the original schedule?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill has had an unprecedented number of hours of debate, whether in the House or at committee. Like I said previously, it was tabled in the House September 19.

Let me be clear, because there is a lot of misinformation about the bill. I too have been receiving a lot of calls, but I have been trying to correct the narrative, because many people misunderstand and have misinterpreted the bill. The intimidation and obstruction offence in the bill would not criminalize expression or peaceful assembly, including lawful protests or other forms of public communication.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the hon. secretary of state bringing forth closure on this very important legislation, it being a key campaign promise. I happen to represent the majority of the Hamilton Jewish community, who are extremely supportive of the bill and the protections it would offer for their places of worship, their synagogues, and the places where they gather and deserve to be safe.

I was wondering if the hon. secretary of state could talk about the consultation that has gone into this legislation and the need for it to be passed as quickly as possible.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, many community groups have been asking for the government to take action, as we have seen a rise in hate crimes against many people of different ethnic backgrounds, religions and races. This is important. The LGBTQ community has also faced a rise in hate in this country.

This is part of a larger set of initiatives that we as a government are taking. There is the Canada community security program, which we have heavily invested in. There is Canada's action plan on combatting hate. We are doing work to collect data. However, it is important to also deter and punish those who take part in hate crimes. Those who commit them will face harsher penalties after the bill is passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have lost track of the number of times I have risen just this week to talk about why the government's inability to plan a legislative agenda should not become an emergency in the House. This is yet another move toward time allocation. I want to remind everyone in the House that the rush the Liberals did with Bill C-3, when they rammed it through the House and undid the amendments that were done at committee, showing a disrespect for the committee process, led to unintended consequences, creating a large document backlog, confusion for families and a very broad path to citizenship for people with a limited connection to Canada.

I see another bill and another set of unintended consequences, and we have gotten so much mail about this. I would like the member to explain yet again why we cannot take the time to properly consider this important legislation.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been considered in the House. It has been considered in the other place. Amendments have been made in both Houses of Parliament, and the bill has come back for genuine debate.

I know the Conservative Party of Canada has been busy for many months spreading a misinformation campaign, so we have been getting a lot of calls from people thinking stuff is in the bill that is not. It is a short bill. It is very targeted, and it is in compliance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would not limit anyone's ability to practise their faith in this country.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, many religious groups have expressed concern about Bill C‑9, in particular about the removal of a long-standing good-faith religious expression defence. Now that the Liberals have decided to dismiss these very legitimate concerns, could the Liberal member clearly explain where the line now falls between the lawful expression of sincerely held religious beliefs and a criminal offence?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through the committee process, a lot of good ideas came forward. In this bill, we have a clear definition of what hatred means. It was taken from Supreme Court precedents and those from other levels of court as well. The definition of “hatred” has been well established in this country, so it is very clear. Considering the fact that the Attorney General's consent would also be required in this bill, there would be an additional safeguard provided.

Work has been done on the bill, and I thank all parties for contributing, but it is time to get this passed so we can protect Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and reiterate another point. Certain groups have written to us because there has been a great deal of disinformation coming from the Conservatives. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Bloc Québécois tabled certain amendments it felt were essential. During one debate, I even heard people go so far as to say that people would no longer be able to protest. Normally, a protest is a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression.

I do hope, however, that if a protest is intended to incite hatred, there will be tools available to intervene.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, protesting is a fundamental right in this country, and this bill would not limit the right of peaceful protest, but it should be recognized that under section 1 of the charter, rights and freedoms may be subject to reasonable limits if those limits are prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Those who are not wilfully participating in hate would not end up being charged under any provision of the bill.

There has been a lot of misinformation. I want to reassure Canadians that the bill was brought forward with good intentions after lots of consultation and demand from communities, because we have seen these acts of violence increase in this country and we want to make sure that the government sets the precedent that we will not tolerate hate in our country.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the secretary of state just admitted that the government is thinking of this bill as a limit on freedom of expression. That means we are actually just debating whether it is reasonable. That is a very important concession, and it is the first time we have heard section 1 of the charter from the government in the context of Bill C‑9.

I will note that the secretary of state put on notice her intent to seek closure 12 minutes after the debate on this bill began. She and her colleagues have no interest in listening to Canadians, and there are a lot of them. For example, 4 My Canada, led by Faytene Grasseschi, shares that there have been 194,000 phone calls; 1,000 organizations that have signed a declaration against Bill C‑9, representing 1.4 million Canadians; and 240,000 pieces of mail.

When the secretary of state says that this is all Conservative misinformation, is she saying the United Church of Canada, the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Canadian Muslims are misinforming, or is it just anyone they disagree with? This is a very important point, and the Liberal government has refused at every stage to listen to Canadians. Will it start now?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill was brought forward after listening to the concerns of Canadians. The fear, intimidation and hate that they have been facing are why we have brought forward the bill. It is in order to protect Canadians and to protect the rights of freedom of expression. There are many Canadians who do not feel that it is safe to be able to practise their faith in this country, so the bill is about protecting religion in Canada and making sure that everyone understands that people have a right to their beliefs. That is what the bill is about.

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

Mr. Speaker, freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Charter of Rights. I will ask the secretary of state to provide her thoughts on a Conservative Party of Canada email that I received. The email says, “the Liberals are waging a war on religious freedom. Their goal is to expose people of faith to criminal prosecution for a simple act of quoting their own sacred texts.” At the end of the email, it says, “Donate now”, referring to donating to the Conservative Party.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on the misinformation that stems from the chamber, all the way out to the public from the Conservative Party of Canada and how it is using this as a tool to raise money. Raising money is more important to Conservatives than having good, sound public policy. Our freedoms are guaranteed in the Charter of Rights.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have had many conversations in which people state and read out Conservative talking points, exact emails that were sent out by the Conservative Party of Canada.

I want to reassure Canadians today that the proposed intimidation and obstruction offences in the bill have been carefully designed to target criminal conduct while respecting charter rights on freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The government is confident that the legislation is consistent with the protections of the charter and, if challenged, it can be defended before the courts.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not happy to rise to my feet, but I do have an interesting question about Bill C-9. The Liberals talk about all the hate and mistreatment of other people.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from northern Saskatchewan can beak all he wants, but this is a serious question about a serious bill. There has been such a rise in hate over the last 10 years, and who has been in government? Why are people so much more angry? Is it the fact that the Liberal government trampled rights and freedoms when it froze people's bank accounts? Was it the fact that it brought police into Ottawa to tamp down a peaceful protest of people wanting their own choice on vaccines? The government has been the most divisive government in the history of Canada. It divided east versus west and rural versus urban, and people have had enough. That is the frustration.

Should the government not take a bit of responsibility for what is happening on the streets under its watch? It has brought this to the point where people are so frustrated with how they have been treated, and they want answers.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of reasons. Sometimes world events are a reason. Sometimes it is people's hatred because of the polarization that has happened online over the last little while. Canadians are more isolated than they used to be. They are more staunch in their opinions. In the past, thousands of Black North Americans were lynched. There have been many acts of hate in the past as well. This government did not do that.

The government is taking action. All the Conservatives have been doing is trying to obstruct. They do not want us to protect Canadians. The Conservatives reached an all-time low last week when they voted against longer sentences for child predators.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everything has been said about this bill, including with regard to the religious exemption. Committee proceedings began last October, and in the end, it took time allocation to get it passed. I find that truly deplorable because this is an important bill. Hate is a societal cancer at every level.

I support Bill C-9, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-9 and we will vote in favour of Bill C-9. However, regarding the question raised by our Conservative colleagues as to whether we should grant them more time to discuss it, I am not opposed to that.

Personally, I believe there was a lot of unnecessary filibustering in committee since last fall. Despite that, if our Liberal colleagues agreed to drop time allocation and give the Conservatives more time, we would be willing to agree to that. By the end of the week, we could all come to fully understand Bill C-9 and pass it unanimously.

If our Conservative colleagues intend to conduct a good-faith review of this bill, I support them.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, much time has been given to debate on this matter in the House and in the other place as well. The Senate came back with one amendment; it was the addition of a hate symbol, the noose, because of the anti-Black racism that we have seen throughout North America, and I would say throughout western countries around the world. That is the issue right now. That was the amendment that was brought forward by the Senate, but it does not seem like anyone has questions on that.

I am sad to say that even when debate on this was occurring at the House of Commons committee, a lot of time was wasted talking about frivolous and irrelevant things. I do not believe the opposition party has been acting in good faith.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen such public upheaval over legislation since the gun registry was introduced in the late 1990s. The fact of the matter is that we have had anti-hate legislation on the books since the 1970s, and under former justice minister Vic Toews it was more clearly defined; that has been in place.

The real problem is that the government does not want to enforce this and law enforcement is not enforcing what already exists. When we see protests, right outside this building, with people screaming at the top of their lungs that they want to see our Jewish population annihilated, there is a refusal to act on that, even on the grounds of the House of Commons.

Is this bill not really about trying to make it look like the Liberals are doing something about combatting hate instead of really doing it and having it enforced?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are acting. We are changing the Criminal Code of Canada. The offence of mischief that the member is talking about has very low penalties and is added at the sentencing portion of a crime. This is a stand-alone hate crime. This bill would also create a crime of intimidation and of obstruction. We have seen many Canadians not be able to go to their day camps, their religious schools or their places of worship. It is really important that we make sure that all Canadians feel safe living in Canada.

This bill is essential. Canadians have asked us to make amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada, and we have done so. We have done so in this bill and in several other bills, because we are a government that believes in protecting Canadians.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Paul and Elly Major, the parents of Dr. Blair Major, a faculty member of Thompson Rivers University in my riding, on their 50th wedding anniversary. I congratulate Paul and Elly.

We heard a member talk about people who cannot go to synagogues. There was actually a synagogue that was shot up, and that has now been tied to a terrorist who was then alleged to have been connected to a police officer who has been killed. We have had an unprecedented number of churches being burned with nary a word from the government. We have had people who cannot access their places of worship, and the government has not sufficiently denounced it. Forgive me if I say that the government's words ring hollow after 12 years of inaction.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative argument is so disingenuous. In the hate crime or the shooting that happened at the U.S. consulate, the RCMP and local law enforcement investigated that incident. There were actors who belonged to a terrorist organization. It has been reported and alleged that they were working out of the United States of America and were plotting events here in Canada and in Europe. Our law agencies were investigating and were on top of it, and so I give them a lot of credit for the investigation that they have done. However, they could also use more investigative tools, like those in Bill C-22 respecting lawful access, but the Conservatives have been standing in their way.

How many more victims are the Conservatives going to create by their obstruction?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think that one thing we all agree on is that the Conservatives are really good at spreading misinformation and disinformation. They have Canadians believing that the bill, if introduced the way it is, would make it possible for someone to be charged just for reading scripture or sharing their faith. This is what the Conservatives have done.

I wonder if the secretary can tell us why it is urgent to pass this bill so that we could help address some of the disinformation that has been shared by the Conservatives.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen many incidents. We have seen 2SLGBTQI+ groups be discriminated against and an extreme rise in violence against them and the transgender community here in Canada. It is important to protect all communities. Whether it is a member of a faith group, a student on campus who wishes to go to a prayer room, or a young kid trying to attend a religious camp or a Jewish school, it is important for them to be able to live their lives. Canada is a place where all people should be free to practise their faith and to go to school without fear and intimidation. That is what the law is all about. Bill C-9 is about giving Canadians the safety they deserve while being who they are.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on behalf of the residents of Oshawa.

I would like to start my question by mentioning my father. Today would have been his 85th birthday. He passed away four years ago, just 10 and a half months after my mom passed away. When I was a teenager, there was a lot of talk about hate speech and hate crimes and defining them. I remember him saying to me, at that time, to watch carefully because this will turn into something else as time progresses. What it will turn into is that, one day, our government will say that a certain piece of scripture or religious text will be deemed hate speech or a hate crime. That is a real concern for me.

Why should Canadians trust these guys not to do exactly that and imprison people for speaking their religious truth?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the misinformation that I have been speaking about tonight. That is not what the bill does. I would say that I think Canadians would mistrust the current Conservative Party of Canada right now because Conservatives talk about being tough on crime and they talk about making Canada safe, but their actions have not been showing it. Just last week, they voted against making femicide a first-degree murder charge. They voted against longer sentences for child predators. They voted against minimum penalties.

Who are these Conservatives and why are they against safety and protecting Canadians?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with a quote: “[Bill C-9] has the potential to criminalize peaceful protesters and legitimate dissent. This bill, in its current form, gives too much discretionary power to law enforcement, allowing for subjectivity.” That was from the Liberal member for Nunavut a couple of months ago.

I have a question for the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime. Her colleague, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, is a lawyer. He said the following: “In Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Romans, there are passages with clear hatred.... There should...be discretion for prosecutors to press charges.”

Is he right or wrong in his interpretation of hate speech laws applying to scripture?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that the bill has gone through all the steps of the legislative process. Through those steps, amendments have been made. Witnesses were able to come forward at committee. Members were able to give their opinions. There was an amendment made by the House. Therefore, after that amendment, the bill maintains the requirement of Attorney General consent for all offences in the bill. What is the member talking about? Police will not even be able to lay charges on their own. This is exactly the misinformation that I keep saying the Conservatives have been spreading.

My message to Canadians is this. We are the government and we are the party that is here to act and to keep Canadians safe.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

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 as follows. May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

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.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to request a recorded division, please.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Call in the members.

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

Vote #161

Combatting Hate Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

June 15, 2026

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Ken MacKillop, Deputy of the Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 15th day of June 2026 at 8:25 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ryan McAdam

Executive Director

Office of the Secretary to the Governor General

The bills assented to on Monday, June 15 were Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts, Bill S-228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures) and Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act (bail and sentencing).

The House resumed from June 11 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C‑9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places), and of the amendment.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9. My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position.

That said, I think it is worth reiterating a number of points regarding Bill C‑9, because I would say that too much misinformation has been spread about this bill. Whether in good faith or bad faith, this disinformation has significantly undermined the bill's social acceptability.

I would say that hate is like a cancer on society. It is eating away at our society from all sides. We see it online in social media comments that are not only unacceptable but often go so far that legal action is taken. Forty or 50 years ago, we did not see the kind of hate and violence that exists in schools today. It did not exist. Today, elementary school children can attack their teachers and use language that is worse than inappropriate, violent language toward teachers. We see it on the streets. Every day, we read the newspapers and see everything that is happening on the streets.

We also know that society is changing. More and more newcomers are coming from all over the world to settle in Quebec and Canada. Their customs, values, religions and education are different from ours. They are not better or worse, only different. In fact, they are so different that we have to adapt to each other. Unfortunately, this difference sometimes leads to hate or, at the very least, hateful behaviour. That is what Bill C‑9 is trying to address.

Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed.

Hate in Quebec and Canada has seen a significant increase. Between 2019 and 2022, there was an overall increase of 83% in hate crimes in Canada. An increase of 83% in three years is no trivial matter. When I said that society is undergoing major transformations, this is a good example. In 2023 alone, which is not that long ago, just three years ago, there were 1,284 hate crimes targeting a religion. That is 516 more crimes than in 2022. In one year, the number of hate crimes increased by 516 for a total of 1,284 crimes, all targeting a religion.

That is a problem we need to address. That is what we were elected to do. We are in the federal Parliament. We cannot set the school curriculum because that is up to Quebec; it is under provincial jurisdiction. We cannot run hospitals because that is under provincial jurisdiction; it is up to Quebec. All the Bloc Québécois is asking for—and as members will have noticed, we have been asking for this consistently for as long as anyone can remember—is for the federal government to shoulder its responsibilities. It collects too much tax. It should return that money to the provinces, yet it uses it to try to manipulate the provinces by saying it will give them their money back on the condition that they do what it wants. We are constantly speaking out against this. That is the provinces' area of jurisdiction. We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas.

However, when we talk about the Criminal Code and when we talk about hate crimes, we are squarely in the federal government's wheelhouse. There was an increase to as many as 1,284 hate crimes targeting a religion in 2023 and an 83% increase in hate crimes in Quebec and across Canada between 2019 and 2022. These figures should speak for themselves and convince everyone in the House that we need to address this problem.

For the Jewish community alone, we saw a significant increase to 900 cases over the same period, as well as an increase to 211 cases for the Muslim community. That is unacceptable. We have laws and regulations, and we have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which virtually all of us are committed to some extent. The values enshrined in the charter are values we all uphold. We think it is important, for example, to allow everyone to practise the religion of their choice in Quebec and Canada. We think this is so important that the Quebec National Assembly passed a law known as the Act respecting the laicity of the State that has attracted a lot of media attention and that is currently before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State seeks to ensure that everyone can practise the religion of their choice without any interference from the state. The state is said to be secular. It has no religious identity or preference. As a result, public servants who represent the state in their work, such as police officers or teachers, are representatives of the state and should not show any religious preference. That is the approach that Quebec has taken to ensure that everyone, whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Christian or Buddhist, can practise the religion of their choice without facing criticism from the state.

We are being told that hate crimes are being committed against religious communities. It is the federal government's responsibility to address this problem, and that is what Bill C-9 does. It is rare for the Bloc Québécois to agree with the government's proposals, particularly those of the Liberal government, whose legislative measures we have criticized on a number of occasions. However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice, whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country.

The offences or situations covered by Bill C-9 relate in particular to the incitement of hatred through the use of symbols. This bill will prohibit the use of certain hate symbols, such as the swastika or symbols associated with terrorist organizations. More recently, the noose was also added to this list following an amendment proposed by the Senate. We can discuss that.

We could add many more symbols. We could take some out for all sorts of good or bad reasons. For example, I believe that the swastika is a religious symbol for the Tibetan community. I think it is the Tibetan community, but I am not sure. It is a symbol that is not just used to mark the despicable acts committed by the Nazis during World War II. It is also a symbol that has been in use for a very long time, long before the Nazis came to power in Germany. It is a symbol that some would have liked to protect and exclude from the list. As I was saying earlier, nothing is perfect. We need to try to address the issue as best we can. In the vast majority of cases, when someone uses a swastika, it is meant to recall a time that we do not want to forget, because I think we need to remember it, but a time that we do not want to go through again. Bill C‑9 will put an end to the promotion of hate through the use of hate symbols.

As I was saying earlier, there is intimidation going on in our schools, on our streets and on the Internet. That is what intimidation is. Hate is being used to intimidate people, and I do not understand, or I am having a hard time understanding, how this can be happening. I do not think that should be happening. I think that, in a society, even if it is an imperfect one, where individuals respect one another and respect differences of opinion, intimidation should be banned.

However, in this case, we see that intimidation was used to prevent or hinder access to public places. I am thinking of certain schools, places of worship, and community centres that have been subjected to all sorts of unacceptable acts of intimidation. Regardless of a person's religious affiliation, or even if the person has no religious affiliation at all, everyone has this right. Everyone also has the right not to believe in God. Everyone has the right not to have a religion. Everyone has the right to be undecided. We have the right to simply have no interest in the matter. All of this is perfectly legal. However, preventing people from accessing their place of worship is disrespectful. By doing so, we create—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, it is getting a little late, but I do not believe we have quorum in the chamber right now.

And the count having been taken:

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We do have quorum.

The member for Rivière‑du‑Nord may continue his speech and pick up where he left off.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague.

I was talking about the offence of intimidation in order to obstruct or interfere with access to a place of worship. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable. It is disrespectful and creates frustration, which often leads to acts of violence. We need to address this problem. Of course, protests must still be allowed. The Bloc Québécois cares deeply about that. We care deeply about these values regarding rights and freedoms.

I see that some of my colleagues are starting to leave. I must be a little bit more boring now. I apologize.

We are committed to freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of thought. We have no objection to people demonstrating outside public places. We believe that it can be a wonderful expression of democracy when done respectfully. However, blocking access—for example, demonstrating outside a church to prevent people who attend that church from entering, or intimidating them to discourage them from returning—is disrespectful and unacceptable. Bill C-9 addresses this problem.

There is also the issue of offences under the Criminal Code that are committed and additionally motivated by hatred. We must do something about this. Bill C-9 addresses this. Sentences may be increased by up to 10 years. Committing theft or another offence under the Criminal Code is one thing. There are penalties in place. A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly.

Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing. I say “unfortunately” because, like most of us probably, I wish we never had to do this or worry about this issue. We should live in a society where, first of all, no one commits crimes, and second, when someone does, it certainly should not be for hateful motives that are unacceptable in our society. These are all important things that we welcome with great pleasure, though that is not quite the right word. We certainly agree with that.

The Bloc Québécois felt that Bill C-9 was incomplete and had certain shortcomings, which is why we proposed a number of amendments. We are pleased that, following discussions, the minister came to the conclusion that this made sense. Some of the proposed amendments were adopted.

The first was to restore the prior consent of the Attorney General before starting proceedings under these hate crime provisions. When we talk about hate, we are talking about a number of things that often stem from frustration, which is often due to a lack of respect. One thing leads to another and we see situations where the parties are at odds with each other and things get heated, if we can put it that way. Without this requirement to obtain the Attorney General's consent, we run the risk of ending up with cases that might have little chance of success or that could, at the very least, turn into frivolous prosecutions. We do not want that.

I think that we need to be prudent, remain calm and use some wisdom when dealing with these hate crime offences. Personally, I like to think that there are people in the Attorney General's office who will keep a close eye on things. It was a Bloc Québécois amendment that sought to undo the elimination of the prior consent of the Attorney General from Bill C‑9. That provision will remain and will ensure prudent and reasonable management of this whole issue.

Then there is the definition of hate. There was a definition in Bill C-9 that struck us as somewhat flawed. In fact, it was a sort of exercise in rephrasing the Supreme Court's decision in the Keegstra case, changing a few words to try to come up with wording that was a bit more catchy or flashy.

I think that was a bad idea. We wanted to stick to the definition established by the Supreme Court in the Keegstra decision, and the Minister of Justice agreed to do so. We therefore amended Bill C-9 to adopt the exact wording proposed by the Supreme Court. This will spare us legal setbacks, rulings that would delay the implementation of the law, or even hinder or overturn certain trials.

Finally, there is the issue we have been discussing for some time now. It feels like when we talk about Bill C-9, that is all anyone talks about. Members will notice that I waited to bring it up, because I have spoken about it so often that everyone knows where I stand on the matter. I am referring to the religious exemption.

Hatred, hate crimes, hate propaganda and anti-Semitism are already covered by section 319 of the Criminal Code. However, one of the subsections created an anachronism. I do not have the text in front of me, but I believe it states that no person shall be convicted of these offences if it can be proven that they spread hatred in good faith based on a belief in a religious text.

That makes no sense. How can someone spread hatred in good faith? That seems contradictory to me. Canada, like Quebec, has also enshrined freedom of religion in law. In a state that claims to be secular, how can one claim that a person can twist and distort religious texts to make them say things that serve to spread hatred and that this constitutes a valid defence? I am sorry, but that seems unacceptable to me.

We reached a compromise with the Minister of Justice because some people had been spreading a lot of propaganda about repealing the religious exemption, claiming that people would no longer be allowed to read the Bible, the Quran or the Torah. I find that troubling because members of the public accepted that idea, whether out of naivety or because they trusted elected officials in whom they believed, and now they are concerned about Bill C-9.

We added subsection 319(2), which states that nothing in the Criminal Code “shall be construed as prohibiting a person from communicating a statement on a matter of public interest, including an educational, religious, political or scientific statement made in the course of a discussion, publication or debate, if they do not wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group by communicating the statement...[or] if they do not wilfully promote antisemitism by condoning, denying or downplaying the Holocaust.”

This clearly indicates that a person may make a statement of a religious nature as long as it is not done for the purpose of spreading hate. That seems like an acceptable compromise to me.

I will stop there. I sense that my time is up. I was pleased to address the House on this issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from the Bloc really elevates the necessity of having legislation of this nature. Sadly, there are too many in society who want to play a destructive role when it comes to racial tensions and behaviours. The hate out there is very tangible. That is one reason I believe it is very important to see this legislation pass. Over the last number of years, I have found there is a certain element of society that has been emboldened, and we are seeing more racist behaviour and hatred out there that is not acceptable. This legislation, I think, would make a difference.

My Conservative friends should realize that it would not impact religious freedoms. I wonder if the member can give his thoughts on the religious freedoms issue.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's hope. I wish a bill like this one could pass unanimously.

I have said it before and I will say it again: This fall, I will be marking 11 years in the House, and I have never met a member who was acting in bad faith. I profoundly disagree with many of them on many issues, but I think that they all defend their points of view in good faith because they truly believe in them.

I also trust everyone's intelligence, and I think that, if members carefully read the Criminal Code provisions on hate and the religious exemption, they should easily come to the conclusion that we need to move forward and get rid of this archaic provision that is holding us back.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the residents of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Joan Loehr. She was a prominent resident of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. She and her family have given a lot to the community. She leaves behind her children Geoffrey, Regan, Kent, Joel, Jarett and Mary. May perpetual light shine upon her.

The member for Winnipeg North just talked about religious liberty and not being worried about this impacting religious rights and speeches. My colleague talked about legislative intent. Well, the Supreme Court of Canada grappled with this issue of legislative intent, I believe it was this year, in a ruling, where Parliament specifically said it wanted the legislation to say this. It was in debate, and it was in an amendment, and the Supreme Court of Canada still went against that.

With that in mind, the uncertainty that this bill would create is part of the issue. What does the member say to that?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems pretty clear. No one can tell me that it is possible to spread hate in good faith or to interpreting a religious text to read that hate is a good thing. The same goes for hating Jewish people, Muslim people, Christians, Catholics, Black people, white people or God knows who else. It may be possible, but can we agree that all of it is done in bad faith? Spreading hate in good faith is impossible, and doing it based on religious writings is even more impossible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for all of the work he did during the study of this bill, which required a lot of effort, listening and compromise. I personally was pleased to be here to listen to his speech from beginning to end.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the amendments that the Bloc Québécois managed to get adopted during the study of Bill C-9, particularly the one aimed at restoring the consent of the Attorney General to lay charges for the crime of promoting hatred. Why was it important to secure that win?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine—Listuguj, who always asks thoughtful questions. Working with him is always a pleasure.

Obtaining the prior consent of the Attorney General is important to avoid misuse and abuse. Bill C‑9 endeavours to avoid certain hate-related abuses. The goal is to avoid excessive prosecutions or pitting one group against another. Rather than allowing people to bring proceedings without guard rails, the Attorney General is a subject matter expert who can set limits on prosecutions and ensure that charges are only laid in situations involving clear violations of the Criminal Code provisions.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been troubled by the Bloc's position, and I am hoping my hon. colleague can help me a little.

One of the examples that Bloc members have continually used to defend the removal of the good-faith exemption is the example of Mr. Charkaoui, who quite rightly was condemned for inciting hatred against Jews in Quebec. My colleague spoke about reading the law carefully, and if he were to read the Criminal Code carefully, he would see that this type of activity is already prohibited. It was not because the religious exemption is in the law now that police were prevented from charging. It was that the police chose not to.

I am confused about why the Bloc has continually used this example, which has been shown to have nothing to do with the good-faith defence.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raises a good point. The Adil Charkaoui case shocked everyone in Quebec at the time, and probably everyone across Canada. I do not have the text in front of me, but this individual used biblical texts to say something along the lines of “Lord, eliminate all of Allah's enemies, spare no one”. It was clearly an incitement to hatred against Jews. However, the Attorney General did not bring any charges in this case. It seems that my colleague has information that I do not have. He seems to know why no charges were brought. I do not know.

I do know one thing, though. I practised law for 30 years before I came to Parliament, and I know one thing. There are quite a few cases in the Crown prosecutor's office. Before deciding to assign a case to a lawyer and instructing them to bring charges, the director of the office will assess whether there is a reasonable chance of success or not. They will ask themselves whether they are getting involved in a case that is a non-starter or whether it makes sense.

In Charkaoui's case, if I had been the director of the Crown's office at the time, with a provision like the one in subsection 319(3)(b) of the Criminal Code, which permits hatred to be spread if it is done in good faith based on a religious text, I would likely have said that my chances of success are virtually nil and I would not have wasted the lawyers' time on such a case.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am glad that the hon. member mentioned the importance of reinstating the Attorney General's consent before charges proceed. I wonder if he could explain why that oversight is so important, especially given that we are being told, during these debates, about Conservatives doing this and Liberals doing that. Could he expand on why making sure that there is AG consent is so important and how appropriate oversight is particularly important in this kind of legislation?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just said this, and I do not want to repeat myself, but I think it is important to have guidelines. We are dealing with explosive issues. Hate is fuelling outbursts of anger online, on the streets, in schools, and just about everywhere. We want to try to tackle hate. For heaven's sake, let us approach this with some wisdom and keep this guideline of entrusting general oversight to an expert—the Attorney General, in this case. That seems to me to be the wisest and most effective way to tackle this issue.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have just enough time for a very short question.

The hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I listened carefully to my colleague. Does he believe that the amendments proposed in committee will really ensure that the bill effectively addresses this hate speech that should not even be happening in the first place? Does he believe we have the necessary tools to tie all this together properly?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for her question and for the important work she does here, particularly regarding the status of women and seniors. Her work is invaluable.

I am hopeful that Bill C-9 will help us combat the scourge, the cancer, as I said earlier, of hatred in our society.

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time tonight.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the message from the Senate concerning Bill C-9, the combatting hate act. At the outset, I would like to thank all who have contributed to the development and the study of the legislation: the Minister of Justice, the members of the House and Senate from all parties who participated in the debate, witnesses who appeared before committee, community organizations, faith leaders, legal experts, advocates and Canadians who shared their experiences and perspectives throughout this process.

Today we are considering a message from the Senate that includes an amendment to Bill C-9. Our government supports this amendment. I will speak to that shortly. I think we should remember first why the legislation was introduced in the first place. At its core, Bill C-9 is about basic things: protecting all Canadians from hate and making sure that every Canadian has the right to worship in safety, to gather at their community centre in safety, to go to a summer camp that is a religious camp in safety, and to be who they want to be and to worship whom they want in safety.

This is a diverse country. In my riding of Toronto Centre, there are people of every different faith and people of different backgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, identities and beliefs, just as there are living together in communities across our nation, and that diversity is to be celebrated. That diversity is our great strength. It strengthens our communities, our economies, our values and our openness. That inclusion is part of who we are, but we have to be candid about what is happening. We have seen a startling crisis of hate, specifically a disproportionate and vicious rise in anti-Semitic attacks in the last two years, specifically targeting the Jewish community, but also all forms of hate.

We should name them, and one does not diminish the pain of the other by naming anti-Semitism, by naming Islamophobia, by naming homophobia or by naming anti-Black racism. This does not diminish one or the other or group them together. What it does is identify groups, individuals and families who are experiencing disproportionate hate.

Across the country, Canadians are witnessing these attacks against places of worship, threats directed at religious and cultural communities, acts of intimidation, hateful demonstrations and targeted harassment against individuals. The synagogue where I was raised, where I was bar mitzvahed and where I was confirmed, Temple Emanu-el, was shot with 20 bullets through the glass front doors, where I entered and so many families to this day enter in peace. There were people inside. Thank God no one was hurt.

In so many synagogues across the country, this is happening. We know this, and it is one of the key reasons for Bill C-9. It is so sad that it is necessary for us to do this in Canada, but it is, and it is for the people who are directly affected. I have spoken to them. I know them. They are members of my own family. These incidents are not simply statistics. People are fearful. They have anxiety. They ask us, as a government, what we are going to do to protect them. They feel vulnerable. They want legislation to protect their community centres, their schools and their places of worship, and we need to make sure not just that they are heard but also that we act on that.

That is what the bill is about, because no Canadian needs to live in fear. No Canadian should be intimidated when they are attending a synagogue, a mosque, a church, a temple, a community centre or a cultural gathering where people practice their faith or celebrate their heritage.

I was recently in Quebec City with colleagues, and we went to the mosque that was shot up. We met two survivors. They had bullets still in their bodies. They remember that tragic act of Islamophobia, and they live with those wounds. Today it is anti-Semitic attacks on the rise, and that time it was Islamophobic attacks. Sometimes there have been attacks on the 2SLGBTQ community. Just recently it was the moment to mark the anniversary of what happened in the club where so many members of that community were massacred.

Bill C-9 responds to these tragic realities. The legislation would create new, important tools within the Criminal Code to address hate-motivated conduct and better protect communities and better protect people, families and kids who are being targeted when they just want to live their life in this great country of ours.

Among the measures, the bill would create new offences aimed at preventing the obstruction of access to places primarily used by an identifiable group and preventing intimidation of individuals seeking to access those spaces. If we go to a synagogue today, there are police cars around it.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition are chirping about that, but they can come to the synagogue where I was and try chirping, because we are there, there is fear and this bill would stop it. This is not a slogan and this is not something to be divided on and try to score points about. This is about supporting a bill that would protect people and prevent this kind of fear and intimidation.

The bill would create new hate-motivated offences that could be applied when a criminal offence is committed that is motivated by hate towards an identifiable group. This reflects the sad reality that hate-motivated crimes do not only harm individual victims; they send a message to the entire community. They create fear, they create intimidation and they create communities that feel targeted. When someone commits a crime motivated by hatred towards a religious group, an ethnic community or another identifiable group, the impact extends beyond the single victim. Bill C-9 recognizes that reality and would ensure that our criminal law reflects the broader harm that hate-motivated crimes can cause.

This legislation also addresses the public display of hate symbols used to promote hate, such as the symbols of listed terrorist organizations. These symbols have long been associated with terror and intimidation, persecution and discrimination, and they have been used throughout history to threaten, terrorize and dehumanize.

On the purpose of the legislation, let us be clear, and let us not twist it to score a political point. I know that my hon. colleagues in the opposition, in good faith, want to protect Canadians like everyone else. This is not about regulating legitimate debate or limiting legitimate debate. This is not about limiting political disagreement. In fact, we protect that every single day. This is not about limiting academic discussion or religious expression. That is protected. Religious freedom is protected under section 2 of the charter. Canadians remain free to express those views, to disagree with one another and to engage in public discourse. Rather, this legislation is focused on conduct that promotes hatred and seeks to intimidate or target communities, and these are important.

The Senate has proposed an amendment to include the noose among the hate symbols captured by legislation. We support this amendment, because at the heart of this, it is not about limiting religious freedoms. We have a protected charter right to practise sincere religious beliefs, but not to invoke hate or incite violence, and the right to be protected in any forum where one is inciting hatred or promoting violence against another identifiable group.

Bill C-9 is necessary. Bill C-9 is urgent to protect our citizens, to protect our communities and to protect our schools, and to do it in a very specific manner and a very targeted way so that it does not limit freedom of expression or religious expression, but rather protects communities that are feeling threatened.

My hon. colleagues from the opposition say they want to protect all communities. This is their chance to act on it in an expeditious way.

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

Mr. Speaker, all members in the House want to combat anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and hate in all of its forms. Our concern is that the bill is performative and that it is more words in a space where there are already too many words.

I would like to know if the minister can tell me who can be arrested the day after Bill C-9 passes who cannot be arrested today and that it is going to result in the elimination of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and hate, which he says is going to happen when the bill passes.

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we should use common sense here. The bill is not just words; it would be a law.

This is the most important thing that a government can do, which is to very seriously look at the law and change it to secure citizens where they worship and go to school. On the display of hate symbols, there is a new category as well. This would give police guidance when there is obstruction and intimidation in front of schools, universities, community centres and places of worship.

The hon. member knows these are not just mere words. This would be the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, no one should feel unsafe because of who they are, what religion they practise or where they worship. Unfortunately, in Canada, we have seen a rise in hate crimes, and several organizations, including human rights groups, are calling on us to take action. Faced with such a situation, I believe the public expects us to raise the standard of the debate and, as parliamentarians, to work together.

I would therefore like to ask my colleague to explain why, as parliamentarians, we should set partisanship aside in such an important debate to ensure that we can pass this significant piece of legislation before Parliament rises for the summer.

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his work bringing communities together and keeping them safe.

This is an extremely important time for us to have a thorough and fair debate about how we are protecting communities, but it is not the time to invoke more division. It is not the time to stand in the way of the protection laws that the leaders of these communities and the opposition are purporting they want to protect. Bill C-9 is the very thing that communities are asking for, which is laws that protect them and their places of worship and that give police guidelines on how they should protect these communities.

This is not the time for more division or to divide one Canadian against another with false ideas of what the bill would do. The bill is clear. It would protect not only freedom of religion but also communities. It is time to vote to protect communities and listen to the community leaders.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful the minister is here. He and I worked at the same time in Canadian media, and I have a good relationship with him.

However, his government's record on civil liberties and freedom of expression could not be worse. He talks about the horrors that have been inflicted upon the Jewish community, in particular, and I share those concerns. I have been sounding the alarm about those concerns when there has been a failure to act in enforcing existing laws. It is illegal to incite genocide. It is illegal to obstruct someone from entering a house of worship. It is illegal to threaten violence and harm.

If existing laws are not being enforced, why does the minister think these ones will be?

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always good to hear from my hon. friend in the opposition, who I know has spent a lot of time thinking about the line between security and civil liberties, and the very reason for this chamber is so we can have robust debates about finding exactly where that line is.

Sadly, for communities today, for Jews in synagogues, for Muslims in mosques, for the 2SLGBTQ community, too often they are not being protected. We need new laws to do that, laws that are well crafted to protect liberties and protect people.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the people of Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert. There are days in the House that are full of procedure and routine, and then there are days like this, where Parliament is doing exactly what it was created to do. These are the moments that give true meaning to the office we hold. My colleagues have explained the mechanics of Bill C‑9. I will use my speaking time to address the reality that this bill recognizes.

Let us start by stating the obvious: Hate is real in Canada. It exists today, in 2026, in our workplaces, our schools, our places of worship, and our neighbourhoods. Statistics Canada data confirms this year after year: Police-reported hate crimes have risen sharply. Synagogues are being targeted, mosques are being targeted, and people are being singled out because of their background, faith, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Black Canadians are consistently among the groups most affected.

I am going to talk about these communities that are being targeted. Black communities have been part of the fabric of this country from the beginning. They have helped to build it, defend it, care for it and educate it.

The Haitian community has had roots in Quebec for over 60 years. It has given us doctors and nurses who have kept our health care system afloat. It has given us teachers, entrepreneurs, artists and members of the House of Commons and Quebec National Assembly, and yet these very communities face a dual reality that Parliament must have the courage to acknowledge. Black Canadians are overrepresented in our prisons. Reports from the Office of the Correctional Investigator have been documenting this for years. At the same time, they are also overrepresented among victims: victims of hate crimes, victims of intimidation, victims of acts meant to remind them that they will always be seen as different.

Bill C‑9 tells this community and all communities targeted by hate that the law sees when they are targeted. The amendment regarding the noose is the clearest expression of all this. This symbol carries a history of terror that all Black families know without needing to be taught. When it appears on a construction site or in a locker room—and yes, that still happens—its message is instantly understood. Until now, a victim who reported such acts would find themselves thrown into a legal maze. However, from now on, Canadian law will clearly state that using this symbol to intimidate or promote hatred is an offence. Confronting anti-Black hate means naming it. That is exactly what this amendment does.

I would like to highlight the fact that this amendment comes from the Senate. It was the senators who listened to their communities, who scrutinized this bill thoroughly and who saw that it could be improved. I thank them. This is our parliamentary system at its best: two chambers working together to produce better legislation.

The stand-alone hate crime offence, the heart of the bill from the outset, completes this work. Hate takes forms that leave no visible mark: repeated threats, violence and intimidation. This offence gives the justice system the tools to prosecute these acts for what they are: criminal offences. For victims, no matter which community they belong to, the equation changes. Reporting will be worth it.

No single law can resolve decades of inequality on its own, but this law does what it can. It acknowledges suffering that has long gone unnamed, and it tells Black Canadians and Haitian Canadians, as well as all communities affected by hate, that their government sees what they are going through and takes it seriously.

There is no room in Canada for symbols that deliberately promote hate. Voting for this bill will be one of my proudest moments in this House.

I urge all of my colleagues from every party to do the same.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Before I begin, I want to recognize Hafiza Zalmay and congratulate her on her Bachelor of Business Administration. She and her husband came from Afghanistan. It is a huge accomplishment, so my best wishes go to Hafiza.

My colleague is part of a government that is intent on bringing this bill forward. Everybody wants to protect people with their religious institutions, but as my colleague from Nanaimo—Ladysmith just pointed out, as I was listening to the minister's speech, it is the exact same thing. Right now, nobody can obstruct someone from going into a place of worship and not break the law. Dare I say, I do not know that there is much in this bill that, if one were to do it, they would not already be breaking the law?

However, there are so many controversial elements. Why are the Liberals insistent on this when free speech and civil liberties advocates have spoken about the potential dangers—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member.

I must give the hon. member a chance to respond.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a surprising question coming from my colleague, a lawyer. Bill C‑9 is meant precisely to better protect Canadians from hate and intimidation, whether they are Black, Muslim, Jewish or members of any other community.

Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, to live in safety and, above all, to have peace and tranquility. That is the law.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

In his speech, and in the speech by his Liberal colleague before him, I could hear a certain commitment to freedom of religion, which I share. We in the Bloc Québécois are committed to it as well. I would like to know his thoughts on that matter.

Does he think we should keep protecting freedom of religion and ensure that the state does not meddle in these issues, the way that Quebec did with the Act respecting the laicity of the State, for example?

Does that seem important to him? Does he support freedom of religion the way we do, in the Bloc Québécois?

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would say no. I am committed to freedom, full stop. As for freedom of expression, as the saying goes, when one has nothing left to say, one should stop talking.

What is more, it is really surprising that my Bloc Québécois colleague is asking me this question when his party recently proposed taking Quebec out of the multiculturalism framework, unless my colleague is at odds with his party.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote Joseph Neuberger, who had an article published in one of our Toronto newspapers. I quote what he said: “I write as a criminal lawyer with more than 32 years of experience, and as the chair of the Canadian Jewish Law Association.” He specifically stated, “Religious freedom in Canada is firmly protected by the Charter. That protection is well established and robust. Bill C-9 does not weaken it.”

Would my colleague not agree that there is a great deal of misinformation out there that does a disservice to all Canadians because it is definitely misleading?

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Sometimes I see what my Conservative colleagues are doing at committee. It is confusing. They say things that really undermine social cohesion. Sometimes, I feel like I am not even in Canada, because Canada is all about freedom of expression.

My colleague from the Bloc Québécois just asked me whether I support freedom of religion. Personally, I support all forms of freedom, provided it respects everyone and does not offend anyone, and provided it does not undermine social cohesion.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while the hour is late, it is always a privilege to get up and speak in the House, especially on an issue that is so important.

I rise with a bit of a heavy heart, though, because I realize this will likely be the last time I can speak at substantive length to this bill and express my concern with, first, the government's heavy-handedness in dealing with this debate. It is unfortunate that the government moved to end this debate only a few minutes after it began. The irony of cutting off and censoring debate on a bill that deals with expression is not lost on me, nor is it lost on Canadians.

I want to say at the outset that I understand the laudable goal that exists with Bill C-9. I think it is one that is shared by all members of the House. It is certainly shared by me. However, we know what is said about good intentions and the path that they lead to. The laudable goal, of course, is the elimination of hateful speech and conduct in our society. We all share that goal.

After 11 years, Canadians just do not trust the Liberal government to preserve and protect their liberty. Quite the opposite is true. There is a history and a pattern that proves this suspicion that people of faith across Canada have. There was an ideological test to receive summer jobs funding, which I did not forget, and I do not think Christian communities, Jewish communities or Muslim communities across Canada forgot that either. There was the removal, or proposed removal, of charitable status for organizations that defend and promote life. These are still the avowed positions of the government opposite.

I will note that I am splitting my time.

In the Senate debates, Professor Haskell said, “Past experience shows that when Liberal governments promised that devout Christians would not be harmed by their new laws, those promises were broken.” History has a way of teaching us not to believe the Liberal government when it says, “Just trust us.”

That is why Bill C-9 united Christians across all denominations, from the United Church to the Catholic Church to the Anglican Church to the evangelical churches across Canada, but it was not just Christians who were united against this bill. One of the most fascinating things about this is that the Liberal government succeeded in uniting all faiths against their proposition. We have heard tonight, numerous times, that “Canadians were asking for this” and “Communities were asking for this,” but actually the opposite is true, and we have the letters from those communities to prove it. We have letters from the rabbinical council of Toronto, the National Council of Canadian Muslims and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to prove it. The reality, as I understand the evidence, is that every faith community opposed this legislation. Rather than asking for it, they opposed it.

I want to focus a bit on the most troubling part of Bill C-9, which is the removal of long-standing protections for religious freedom and the ability to have civil and substantive discussions about matters that go to the core of belief without the government's interference in that. Unfortunately, a Faustian bargain was struck between the Liberals and the Bloc to remove that protection from the Criminal Code.

Now, it is not my opinion that this is what was taking place. This is the opinion that was held by the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, who said that certain passages of the Torah and the Bible are categorically “hateful” and that prosecutors should have “discretion...to press charges.”

What is deeply troubling about this is that in this whole debate, over the entire months that we have been discussing this, the minister has never resiled from his comments. He has never sought to clarify his comments, and he never sought to add nuance to those comments or explain to religious communities what he meant by them. To add insult to injury, not one member of the Prime Minister's cabinet has said anything about them. In fact, no member, to my knowledge, of the Liberal Party, despite being asked in debate after debate, has resiled from those comments. What should we take from them? The only logical conclusion to take is that they believe them. If that is the case, then our fears are well founded.

The reality is that Canadians should be allowed to discuss and debate controversial issues, even if we do not like them, even if we think they are repugnant. It does not matter. That is what living in a free society allows us. Government should not decide what religious truth is. I do not want the minister of culture being the arbitrary arbiter of whether Jesus Christ was the Messiah, and I do not want them to be the arbiter of whether in fact there is no God other than God, “and Muhammad is his messenger”. That is not the government's role.

However, perhaps one of the most pernicious aspects of this amendment that removed that protection was that it was predicated on a completely false fact. It was predicated on the idea that there was an instance in Quebec that could not be prosecuted because of this religious protection. That is categorically false and, no matter how many times the Bloc want to bring up that example of Mr. Charkaoui , it does not make it true.

I want to note this as well about the Senate amendment, because that of course is part of what we are discussing tonight. The Senate amendment seeks to add an additional symbol to criminalize in the code. Let me start with the obvious. The use of a symbol can, of course, be hateful, but I would respond that if it is, it is already a crime.

There have been several examples where police across Canada have prosecuted individuals for expressing their hateful conduct through the use of a symbol. Of course, a noose could be used as a hate symbol, undoubtedly. However, to me this is a bit of an odd inclusion. To me this sounds like the importation of an American problem into Canada, and the use of that problem to divide and fearmonger. Canada does not have the same history as the United States does with this symbol.

Moreover, discussing symbols opens a Pandora's box. Who would decide what symbols are hateful? Well, according to the bill, the government could decide to add any new entity to a terrorist list, and therefore its symbols would become hate symbols. Is display enough to warrant prosecution, or does intent matter? These questions remain unanswered.

If we were to go down the path of selecting symbols, I would have several to offer. How about the hammer and sickle? If we want to talk about a hateful symbol that Canadians fought and died against, for example in the Korean War, the hammer and sickle would be one of them, but this just proves the point about the selective nature of what the Liberals think hate is. Burning churches is understandable. Conservatives had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to list Samidoun as a terrorist organization. This tells us that it is not about hate. It is about things the Liberals disagree with, and that is the problem with this type of censorship.

There is a creeping culture of censorship that pervades the Liberal government: Bill C‑9, the Liberal censorship law; Bill C‑22, the Liberal surveillance law; Bill C‑35, the Liberal law on digital ID for all; Bill C‑36, the Liberal digital Stasi commission. We are sliding backwards into self-imposed immaturity, lacking the ability to use our own understanding without the guidance from another, in this case the state. Why is the Liberal government afraid of freedom? When a government lives in fear of its citizens, it seeks to censor them.

Let me close with a quote from the great Frederick Douglass, a great abolitionist, who said:

Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. It is the right which they first of all strike down. They know its power. Thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers, founded in injustice and wrong, are sure to tremble, if men are allowed to reason of righteousness, temperance, and of a judgment to come in their presence.

We have the beginnings of tyrannical government in Canada, and that is the problem. Bill C‑9 is only the beginning. It is not the end.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely beside myself right now. I heard the member opposite defending the use of the noose as a symbol of hatred. It is absolutely disgusting.

Withdraw those comments. That is beyond the pale, sir. There are white supremacist rallies in communities across this country, including in Hamilton, and for a member of this legislature to defend the use of a noose as a symbol of hatred is completely unacceptable. Withdraw those comments.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind hon. members to address their comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for York—Durham.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a ridiculous comment. I would invite the member to actually listen and go back to the transcript, which we can review together. I would be happy to educate him. I said of course the noose could be used as a hate symbol. I simply pointed out that Canada and America have a very different history when it comes to this symbol and that fact should be recognized.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot thank my colleague from York—Durham enough, not just for his speech tonight but for his tremendous leadership on Bill C‑9, meeting with faith communities, members of the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Christian community, all across the country, people who have raised concerns, people whom the government says it is protecting but who feel the opposite is true.

One of the comments that stuck out from what my colleague said was with regard to the selective nature of how we define hate and how hate laws are applied. I will note that, earlier in the House, a member of the Liberals gave an enumerated list of people who have experienced hate in this country, and both times he did that, he left out Christians, despite the fact that 123 Christian churches have been burned or vandalized over the last five years.

As I say that now, Liberals are groaning and laughing, which speaks exactly to what I am saying. What does my colleague think about the fact that, even right now, the Liberals are laughing at the idea that Christians could be the target of hate?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, being involved in this debate has actually been an amazing experience for me personally because it has allowed me to reach and speak with other faith communities, which I would not otherwise have had the chance to do. I met with Muslim groups in Toronto and Jewish groups in my own riding. I had a different faith and a different view of the world, but we were in complete alignment on Bill C‑9. It was actually quite amazing.

My hon. colleague raises a great point, which is the selective nature of what the government considers hate. He points out a very good example, that regardless of which lists the Liberals use or which groups they identify, they seem to leave out some and include others. Unfortunately, that leaves us to conclude that some people, in their view, are more equal than others. This is why we are so concerned when they get involved in censorship, because we know which groups they think deserve protection and we know which groups they think do not deserve that protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the fact that the member just mentioned that the noose has a different definition here in Canada. I would like to know what the member thinks the noose symbolizes here in Canada that is different from the United States. Just a few years ago, in order to intimidate the Black community, nooses were found on several construction sites in Toronto.

Do you think that the noose was placed there for a friendly purpose?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind the secretary of state to address her comments through the Chair.

I do not think anything on the subject, but I invite the member for York—Durham to respond.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the secretary of state to do her job and ensure that those people are prosecuted under existing laws rather than bringing in new laws to censor Canadians. As I clearly said in my speech, a noose can be used as a hate symbol. I stand by those comments. It can be. I simply pointed out that there is a different cultural and factual context here.

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

Mr. Speaker, what I find most offensive in regard to Bill C‑9 is the amount of misinformation that is spread, whether it is inside the chamber or outside the chamber. The Conservatives have done this through social media, through literally tens of thousands of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for York—Durham.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I accept that there are strong differences of opinion on the bill. I have tried and other members have tried to always present our opinion factually. We can have a disagreement about what the interpretation is, but we are not engaging in anything that they suggest. Their only criticism is misinformation.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being midnight, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12 a.m.)