Debates of June 15th, 2026

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?