Debates of June 15th, 2026

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

[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.