House of Commons Hansard #139 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-30.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act Report stage of Bill C-30. The bill, which implements the spring economic update, sparks debate over legislative programming tactics and economic management. Liberals defend the economic measures and youth-focused investments as vital, while the Conservatives argue the government mismanages taxpayer funds and stifles parliamentary debate. Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois criticizes provisions regarding airport privatization, pesticide regulation, and the lack of consultation. 13300 words, 2 hours.
Business of the House Members unanimously adopt a government motion to expedite the passage of several legislative bills, including those related to national defence, self-government agreements, and financial crimes, while establishing the House's upcoming sitting schedule. 300 words.
Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act Third reading of Bill C-30. The bill implements the 2026 spring economic update. NDP MP Jenny Kwan criticized the legislation, arguing that it fails to address housing insecurity and rising affordability pressures. Green Party MP Elizabeth May also voiced strong opposition, specifically condemning the reduction of pesticide regulation and the bill's omnibus nature. Despite these objections, the House passed the legislation at third reading. 9500 words, 2 hours.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I asked a Liberal member a very simple question: Could he confirm or deny the rumours in British Columbia that, under the new security partnership between Canada and China and the government's desire to sell federal airport assets, Chinese companies would be able to buy those assets? He could not answer that question.
Does the Bloc Québécois agree that Chinese companies buying Canadian airports would pose security threats to Canada's security intelligence regime?
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleague because, unfortunately, in a 10-minute speech, there is not enough time to cover everything, and this is an issue of the utmost importance. The fact that they want to sell the airports simply to improve the bottom line in six months shows that we are dealing with people who cannot see beyond the end of their nose and who figure they will deal with the problems later.
If we sell the airports to the private sector, it will increase costs for individuals. Some infrastructure must remain public. Not only do we oppose foreign companies from China or anywhere else buying these assets, but we also believe they should remain public. We must retain control of our strategic infrastructure. This is fundamental.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I particularly appreciated my colleague's comments regarding division 8 of Bill C-30. He addressed the issue of pesticides and said that reducing health and environmental protections in the agricultural sector is very serious. I just want to ask him if he has any further comments to add.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question because it gives me an opportunity to elaborate on my point, especially if any farmers are listening to us right now and wondering whether we are still working for them. Of course we are. We work for their best interest and in everyone's best interest. We must retain some control. This gives me an opportunity to explain that what we are criticizing is a lack of efficiency. We do not want to take control away. It is important to be guided by science. A whole lot of people in Parliament have been enjoying saying the words “science-based” all week long, but I am not sure whether 25% of them even understand what it means when they say it.
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I was slow to rise because I was delighted with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé's comments.
We just talked about another topic, infrastructure and airports. Obviously, I have a lot to say about Bill C‑30. I am thinking, for example, of the work done by my colleague from Jonquière on everything to do with the industry. In my riding, workers in the forestry and aluminum sectors need help. The industry also needs help, but the government is doing absolutely nothing. That affects us back home. Budgets, economic updates and supplementary estimates address a number of issues, but a lot of other issues are left out.
When I go back to my riding this summer and speak to people, they will not know what the government has done for them, all the more so because it has put their jobs at risk. The Prime Minister said he would come to the aid of all these industries ahead of the CUSMA negotiations, which are dragging on, yet nothing has been done. The suggestions we made—the entirely reasonable proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois—have fallen on deaf ears with the government. I do not even know if it has looked at them. As my colleague for Berthier—Maskinongé said, we were not consulted on what should be included in these supplementary estimates.
I see this as evidence of contempt on the part of government. An opposition is not there simply to oppose. Yes, that is what we are called, and we are on the other side of the chamber, but we also have proposals to put forward. We see what is missing and what is being done wrong. We see how the government is improvising. That is why we are here. We are also here to improve things, for our constituents, of course, but I think we can also help the constituents of the ruling party.
My colleague demonstrated this on the issue of pesticides: the government decided to shift its priorities. I do not even know if the economy is as important as public health or if it has become even more important. In my view, it is a truly dangerous practice to allow a minister to listen to lobbyists and ultimately decide that a once-banned pesticide is acceptable after all and can be authorized, regardless of the health implications. They can argue that this is truly more important for the economy, but there is also a connection to be made between the economy and security. This is very concerning.
Most of my colleagues have mentioned this, but it is very concerning. The public may not realize it, but it is our role to point out that this is concerning, that the public's health is being put on the back burner to accommodate certain lobby groups that are exerting significant pressure on the government. That is our job.
I said I would talk about transportation, and I also spoke about contempt. I would like to remind members that I represent a huge riding. I cannot help that my riding covers 350,000 square kilometres and is mostly along the river, stretching 1,400 kilometres along its banks. It also includes remote areas, since it is a northern riding. Some of these areas are so isolated that they are almost like islands, and obviously do not have access to the services available to people in major urban centres. That is understandable, but with its bill, the government is threatening some of our hard-won gains. I say “gains”, although not everything is perfect.
Let us look at airports and ports. I know that airports are included in Bill C-30, but the government also added some ports that it wants to get rid of. In my region, on the north shore, particularly in the eastern part, on the lower north shore, there are 15 airports and ports that the government wants to divest itself of. That is a big deal to me. Yes, it is a big number, but it is also huge in terms of its significance and the message it sends to the people of my region.
The government says it has an amazing $25-billion sovereign wealth fund. We have no idea how it will be funded because the government does not have a surplus. What it does have is record deficits. Maybe it needs some ideas. What can it do? It can sell the furniture. It can sell its assets. It can try to squirrel away a little cash, then say that the sovereign wealth fund is funded and will make some amazing projects possible.
In regions like mine, this worries people. Some people may not know this because they are not familiar with every riding, but, in my riding, airports are the only link to the outside world. When we say they are people's only link, that means they are the only way to access health care. Anyone about to give birth or in need of medical care has to get on a plane.
If we want to get mail from Canada Post, for example, it has to come by plane. If we want workers, they have to come by plane. If we want food at times of the year when the supply ship cannot get through because of the ice, it also has to come by plane. I mentioned ice, but even in summer there are ports where food should be arriving, yet they are no longer in service. People are worried.
On the one hand, these are not major ports or airports, and private companies see no benefit in buying them. They really have no interest in doing so. What worries us is that the government wants to divest itself of assets. We are fine with that if it can make money from it, but, on the other hand, we have seen that the only way for the government to make money is to make cuts across the board. It is not creating wealth; it is scraping together a bit here and there, asking where it could find a bit of money, given that it cannot manage to create any. It is absolutely incapable of doing so.
That is what the government is doing right now, so we are wondering whether it is going to help us. For starters, this infrastructure is run down. Some of it is dangerous. We cannot even access some parts of the wharves, even though food is delivered using those wharves. People board boats there too. Their safety is already at risk, and the government is not putting enough money into this infrastructure to maintain it and keep people safe.
Now, the government is saying that it is going to try to sell that infrastructure. It is going to try to sell this rundown infrastructure to someone when it does not bring in any money. That does not work. What is the government telling people in my riding? It is saying that it is simply going to stop taking care of that infrastructure and just abandon it. It is going to close certain airports and shut down certain wharves.
I mentioned 15 ports and airports, but there are more. There is also the Wabush airport, which is going to be put up for sale. Wabush is next door to my riding, and the airport there provides access to some parts of my riding. It is actually in Labrador, but that is where I have to fly into, like many other workers, doctors, nurses and so on. That airport is critical for us.
I think it is contemptuous to turn up like that and make a big announcement saying that the government is going to find $25 billion by selling infrastructure without even telling the public about it. The government should reassure the public by saying that, even though the lower north shore is not profitable, the government will keep its ports and airports and make the necessary updates. The government is always saying that the north should be populated, that it is a strategic territory, that indigenous communities should be supported and that it should be developed.
These are communities of 200, 400, 500 and 1,000 people. By depriving these communities of key infrastructure and the funding that goes with it, the government is telling these communities to close their doors and towns and not engage in development. There would be thousands of square kilometres where absolutely nothing will get done, even though there is extraordinary potential there. What is more, people are already developing these regions. Imagine the effect of such news on these communities when no one calls the developers. Neither the Minister of Transport nor his parliamentary secretary has given an answer to these communities.
Are they supposed to wait on their development projects? We need wharves for development. We need an airport to attract residents. We are trying to develop our tourism industry, but no one will be able to get to our communities anymore, unless they come by rowboat, and they can only do that two weeks out of the year, because the water is too rough the rest of the time.
It is the opposition's job to speak out against this. It is my role as the member of the riding to say that this does not make sense. I have to ask the Liberals to answer our questions. I would really like for the minister to ask me questions about these airports and ports so that I can discuss the situation with him. However, this should not be done with contempt. The government should not be leading people to believe that it is going to make all kinds of money by selling infrastructure that is not sellable and that no private buyers will be interested in.
All of that is just part of what is in Bill C-30. That is the substance. It is unbelievable. As for the form, the government does not even want to discuss it in the House. This is an authoritarian government. I do not like using that word, but it is increasingly applicable.
Ten years ago, I would never have thought that I would have to say this. I spoke about arrogance and contempt. The government does not listen; it puts blinders on and does whatever it wants, even though the members sitting on my side of the House say on behalf of the people of Quebec and Canada that this is not what they want.
I would like the government to listen to us and to give us the proper amount of time to debate. The Liberals are setting a new record for the number of closure motions. Meanwhile, silencing members means silencing the people in my riding and in Quebec.
Bill C-30 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation ActGovernment Orders
Winnipeg North Manitoba
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority. Every measure we have brought in is a reflection of what our constituents and Canadians have been telling this government, for example the wealth fund, which the Bloc appears to be opposing. Many other countries in the world have a wealth fund. There is no reason not to be optimistic about Canada's wealth fund, which will enable Canadians to participate in the growth. Many initiatives have taken place, from trade to major projects. I think of the port of Churchill and the port of Montreal, all sorts of opportunities.
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague's question in two parts.
First, when I hear that all Canadians have been heard, I would really like my colleague to come to the lower north shore. I invite him to come to the lower north shore and Minganie this summer to tell people that the 15 ports and airports that his government would like to sell off or perhaps even close is really what they asked for. They did not ask for villages to be shut down.
Then, on the subject of the sovereign wealth fund, we are told that all countries have one. However, my colleague is overlooking one small detail: The other countries that have such a fund are funding it with their budgetary surpluses. They are not selling off infrastructure to scrape together a bit of money to set up a sovereign wealth fund. That is the huge difference. Canadians did not ask to be saddled with more debt.
Bill C-30 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation ActGovernment Orders
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that all sectors of the Canadian economy need significant investment, including aviation, forestry, aluminum and other sectors. However, investment has declined over the past year. On May 29, Statistics Canada reported the following: “Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.”
Could my colleague comment on that?
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Mr. Speaker, that is just one data point. That said, I will not defend the government. Things seem grim over there, and there is not as much spending as we would like to see to stimulate all sectors of our economy, particularly local ones.
I think a broader perspective is called for—a vision, even. I am sure my colleague feels that the government's current proposal lacks vision. The way I see it, creating a sovereign wealth fund without actually having the money suggests a lack of vision. They have no idea what they are trying to achieve, but they want to look good. It is meaningless. It is basically the same thing. What are they trying to accomplish? How are they going to fix the situation? What is the government's vision? Maybe that explains the figures we are seeing, but I hope this does not become a bad habit.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was packed with truth and clearly articulated. She spoke about indigenous peoples, who are often mentioned here in lofty terms, but who, in reality, still face many challenges. National Indigenous Peoples Day is coming up in a few days.
I would like my colleague to say a few words about that.
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Mr. Speaker, when I spoke about ports and airports, I was referring to indigenous communities. I am thinking of the Innu communities of Unamen Shipu, Pakuashipi, Nutashkuan and even Mingan and Ekuanitshit, which need this infrastructure to develop.
We are already aware of the needs in these communities, particularly when it comes to housing. We have also discussed infrastructure issues related to water and employment and all manner of issues. There are already a great many areas where we need to take action.
Now the government is saying that we might not be able to get out anymore. It is the same for the communities of Nutashkuan, Unamen Shipu and La Romaine. In short, this shows a lack of respect for first nations. It means the government is not listening to them, and it is certainly not consulting them.
Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House:
(a) the motion respecting the Senate Amendment to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Minister of National Defence, be deemed adopted on division;
(b) Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, as amended, be deemed concurred in at report stage on division and be deemed read a third time and passed on division;
(c) Bill C-27, An Act to give effect to the Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be deemed concurred in at report stage on division and be deemed read a third time and passed on division;
(d) Bill C-29, An Act to establish the Financial Crimes Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts and regulations, be deemed read a second time on division and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights;
(e) Bill S-227, An Act respecting Arab Heritage Month, be deemed read a third time and passed;
(f) the written questions dated June 17, 2026, standing on the Notice Paper, be deemed to have been transferred to the Order Paper on Thursday, June 18, 2026, for the purpose of Standing Order 39;
(g) the House shall not sit the week on September 28, 2026;
(h) commencing on Monday, November 30, 2026, and concluding on Friday, December 4, 2026, the House shall continue to sit until midnight, except on Friday, when the House shall continue to sit until 8 p.m.;
(i) at the conclusion of oral questions today, proceedings pursuant Standing Order 38 shall take place immediately; and
(j) following proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38, the House shall stand adjourned until Monday, September 21, 2026, provided that, for the purpose of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, June 19, 2026.
Business of the HouseGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
All those opposed to the hon. minister 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)
(Bill C-11. On the Order: Government Orders:)
June 12, 2026—The Minister of National Defence—That the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the National Defence Act and other Acts, be now read a second time and concurred in
(Motion agreed to)
Bill C-22. On the Order: Government Orders:)
June 17—The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada—Consideration at report stage of Bill C-22, An Act respecting lawful access, as amended, as reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, with amendments.
(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)
(Bill C-27. On the Order: Government Orders:)
June 17, 2026—Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations—Consideration at report stage of Bill C-27, An Act to give effect to the Final Self-Government Agreement for the Tłegǫ́hłı̨ Got’įnę and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, as reported by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs without amendment.
(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)
Bill C-29. On the Order: Government Orders:)
April 27, 2026—The Minister of Finance and National Revenue—Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-29, An Act to establish the Financial Crimes Agency and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts and regulations.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
Bill S-227. On the Order: Private Members' Business:)
June 2—The member for York South—Weston— Etobicoke—Consideration at third reading of Bill S-227, An Act respecting Arab Heritage Month.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like it placed on the record very firmly that the Green Party does not support Bill C-22. We understand it is going to be passed on division. We want our position on the record.
Arab Heritage Month ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
So noted.
The hon. member for Vancouver East is rising on a point of order.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the NDP would also like to make sure that it is on the record that the NDP members do not support Bill C-22, likewise to my colleague from the Greens.
Arab Heritage Month ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
So noted.
I believe the hon. member for York South—Weston—Etobicoke is rising on a point of order.
Ahmed Hussen Liberal York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all members of the House for passing Bill S-227, an act respecting Arab heritage month. This is an important bill for the community and for Canada, and I really want to express my sincere gratitude to all colleagues for supporting Bill S-227.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the third time and passed.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. As parliamentarians, our responsibility is to examine not only what the government has chosen to include in an economic update, but also what it has chosen to leave out.
Bill C-30 would implement selected measures announced in the spring economic update, but budgets and economic updates are not technical exercises conducted by the Prime Minister on his own or by his narrow circle of advisers. They are statements of priorities for all Canadians. This is the hope and vision of what our constituents expect of us: to take off our blind spots and look at the bigger picture. What we ask of the Prime Minister today is to review what the government values, where it is prepared to invest and whose needs it is prepared to postpone.
The question before us is not simply whether the measures contained in Bill C-30 should proceed. The question is whether this bill would respond to the realities Canadians are living every day. This is where my concerns lie, which is that this legislation does not not meet the moment of the challenges everyday Canadians face. It does not live up to the hype of the projected progressive Prime Minister that was portrayed during the election or what we have come to read about him. There is a dissonance between words and action, and therein lies the problem. In my constituency of Vancouver East and in communities across this country, the gap between policy and lived experience is widening, and the concerns around the centralizing tendency of the government are being noticed across the country.
In Vancouver East, constituents are facing housing insecurity, food insecurity, gaps in health care coverage. uncertainty in indigenous housing initiatives, delays in compensation programs and rising affordability pressures across every essential service. They are also increasingly concerned about federal priorities shifting toward expanded military spending while social programs remain underfunded or delayed. Across all these areas, a pattern is becoming unmistakable: announcements without delivery, commitments without timelines, programs without certainty sunsetting out of existence, and decisions increasingly centralized in Ottawa, far removed from the communities they affect.
Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules. This is not administrative complexity. This is a failure of delivery, and Canadians are living the consequences of this unfortunate reality.
I will begin with first nations education. In B.C., first nations education is supported through the BC Tripartite Education Agreement between first nations leadership, the province and Canada. At the centre of that agreement is the First Nations Education Steering Committee. This is not a symbolic structure. It is the core funding architecture for first nations education in B.C. It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province.
Despite early assurances that a renewed long-term agreement would be included in the 2026 spring economic update, first nations partners were instead informed that only a one-year extension would be provided. A one-year extension does not provide for stability. It produces uncertainty, and uncertainty in education is not abstract. It affects staffing, planning and children's outcomes. The First Nations Education Steering Committee and first nations leadership have been clear: What is required is a 10-year renewal agreement that provides predictability, continuity and proper fiscal planning. Reconciliation is not achieved through short-term extensions, but is achieved through durable commitments that governments keep. Right now, that certainty is missing.
The same pattern is evident with support for survivors of residential schools. Many indigenous leaders, survivors and advocates have repeatedly raised stable funding for the Indian Residential School Survivors Society. For decades, survivors have carried the trauma inflicted by Canada's residential school system. They have carried grief, loss and intergenerational harm resulting from policies designed to erase indigenous identities, cultures and communities. Today, many continue to rely on the Indian Residential School Survivors Society for culturally appropriate counselling, crisis support and healing services.
In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indigenous Services Canada that the organization would receive confirmation for its two-year funding by mid-May, to date, there is still no action. The funding will end on July 1. This delay is going to have serious operational impacts for the people it serves. The organization continues to seek certainty regarding its long-term core funding.
Reconciliation cannot depend on year-to-year uncertainty. Reconciliation is not a slogan. It is not a press release. It is not a commemorative statement. Reconciliation requires action. It requires resources. It requires government to ensure that organizations serving survivors have the certainty necessary to continue their work. If the government can find fiscal room for subsidies for big oil, it can find the resources necessary to provide stable support to those serving residential school survivors.
Turning to housing, the “for indigenous, by indigenous” urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy was something that the Liberals committed to in the last Parliament. It was something that the NDP prioritized in the confidence and supply agreement. I fought for that. We fought for that and won interim funding of $300 million and long-term funding of $4 billion over seven years for FIBI URN, and an equivalent amount of $4 billion over seven years for distinction-based funding, yet the funding of the long-term component has yet to flow.
Indigenous housing providers continue to face uncertainty about governance, timelines and implementation. Even as funding is referenced in the federal announcements, there remains no clear guarantee that delivery will remain indigenous-led in practice, nor a firm timeline for rollout. While policy frameworks evolve in Ottawa, indigenous communities continue to experience the highest rate of homelessness in Canada. In Vancouver alone, indigenous people represent a disproportionate share of those experiencing homelessness, despite being a far smaller share of the population. They are the predictable result of decades of underinvestment and policy delay.
Housing providers are ready to build. Friendship centres are ready to build. Indigenous-led organizations are ready to build. The problem is not capacity. The problem is execution. People cannot live in promises of affordability. They cannot sleep in frameworks. They cannot raise children in consultations.
Constituents are also increasingly concerned about rental assistance for co-operative housing members. Co-ops work. They provide stability. They provide affordability. They provide community-based housing that has proven effective for decades.
Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes. Rising Star and China Creek, for example, in my riding, will be hit hard if the rental assistance subsidy is not renewed. The expiry of the FCHI phase 2 funding without a successor program or extension risks undoing decades of investment in this model and displacing established community members, including families with young children and seniors who depend on it. Access to rental assistance is necessary to enable co-ops to be a deeply affordable housing solution. FCHI cannot, and must not, sunset.
Aside from housing, Van East constituents continue to raise serious concerns about the Canadian dental care plan. I have written to the minister regarding applications for medically necessary procedures, including crowns, that are being rejected using template language that provides no meaningful explanation of what criteria were not met. Patients are left without clarity, providers are left without guidance, and appeals are effectively blocked.
Even more troubling are cases where some of my constituents were previously approved for the Canadian dental care plan, received care in good faith and are now being told that they are not eligible after all. In some cases, they are even being asked to repay benefits that they already received. These are often seniors who opted out of private dental care insurance years ago because premiums were unaffordable on fixed incomes. At the time of approval, they met eligibility criteria and were approved. They acted in good faith. They made irreversible financial decisions based on the government's approval. Retroactive reassessment after reliance undermines trust in public programs. A system cannot function if eligibility is uncertain at the outset and reversible after the fact. This is not fairness. This is instability.
Health care affordability is another glaring omission from this bill. Many Canadians welcomed the promise to establish an expanded universal pharmacare, yet constituents increasingly tell me that they worry that those promises are being quietly abandoned. They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries. They care about whether universal pharmacare will actually become universal. The Prime Minister sent a clear message that universal pharmacare is not a priority for him when the spring economic update did not provide additional resources to this key initiative.
On affordability, Canadians are increasingly concerned about surveillance pricing. This is the use of personal data, behavioural tracking and algorithmic systems to charge different prices to different individuals for identical goods and services. It means two Canadians can stand in the same digital marketplace and see different prices based on what a corporation believes they can pay. Even when legislation such as Bill C-36 references algorithmic pricing risks, it does not actually prohibit surveillance pricing. It does not even name it. It does not stop it. Instead, it leaves Canadians exposed to opaque pricing systems that they cannot see and cannot challenge.
Premier Wab Kinew has taken decisive action in Manitoba to stop it. The Prime Minister and this government have refused to take a stand. What side is the Prime Minister on? Unlike the Liberals, who will always be on the side of big corporations, the NDP will stand on the side of the people. That is why I will be introducing a private member's bill this fall to ban surveillance pricing outright.
Food safety is also at stake. Proposed changes to pesticide regulation have raised concerns from environmental and public health organizations, including Ecojustice, which warns that reforms risk weakening scientific oversight and transparency. Canadians expect food safety to be grounded in independent science. They expect precaution where health is at stake. They expect transparency in regulatory decision-making. Anything less undermines public trust.
My constituents have also raised concerns regarding the Prime Minister's intention to privatize ports and airports. Even Stephen Harper would not dare to touch these critical assets. They are strategic national infrastructure essential to supply chains, trade and economic resilience. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission repeatedly flagged concerns over monopoly pricing, noting that user costs, passenger charges and parking fees surged dramatically. Airlines passed escalating landing fees directly to passengers via higher ticket prices when they privatized. The Shipping Australia industry association noted that private port operators prioritized maximizing shareholder returns, implementing heavy rent increases on terminal tenants that trickled down into standard freight and consumer goods. If Canada goes down this track, this is what Canada can expect.
This neo-liberal playbook seems to be from another era. A broad pattern is emerging. We are seeing the increasing centralization of decision-making in Ottawa from the Prime Minister. We are seeing delays in social program delivery and increased military spending, alongside constrained social investments. Budgets are about choices, and choices are about priorities. Canadians are asking, what does increased military spending mean for housing, for pharmacare, for dental care, for indigenous housing, for transit and for disability supports? These are not abstract fiscal questions. They are real-world opportunity costs, and Canadians deserve transparency about them.
In Vancouver East, the consequences are very real and very visible. Seniors are relying on food banks. Families are skipping meals. People are delaying medical care. Housing is increasingly out of reach. Affordability is being eroded not just by prices but by systems that are less transparent and less responsive. One constituent described losing weight because they cannot afford enough food. Another, a 77-year-old senior, said they are relying on a food bank for the first time in their life. These are not isolated cases. They are becoming systemic. As one constituent put it, on the issue of transit, we need our transit to green commutes more than we need another pipeline.
Every budget decision involves trade-offs. Canadians deserve transparency about those trade-offs. We are faced with deep drought conditions across Vancouver Island, the Okanagan, the Chilcotin and the South Thompson regions. Climate change is real. Instead of investing in transit, the spring economic update cuts it by $5 billion, while the Prime Minister signs an agreement with Alberta to build yet another pipeline. Canadians deserve to know why the Prime Minister would prioritize pipelines over funding for transit expansion, especially when B.C. faces the highest and most sustained fire risk in the country.
Similarly, Canadians deserve to know why billions of dollars can be found for military expansion when communities continue to be told to wait for desperately needed social investments. If the government believes military spending must increase, it should explain why the same urgency is absent when it comes to homelessness, poverty, housing and health care. Increased military spending is happening when there has not been a robust public debate on it, during the last election or thereafter. It was just announced by the Prime Minister as a fait accompli.
Many constituents have raised concerns regarding military goods and components exported to the U.S. that may subsequently be transferred elsewhere without the same level of scrutiny that applies to direct Canadian exports. Those concerns were reflected in proposals such as my private member's bill, Bill C-233, the no more loopholes act, which was defeated by the government. Canadians want robust risk assessments. They want transparency. They want accountability. They want assurances that Canadian-made military goods are not contributing to human rights violations or breaches of international humanitarian law. Economic policy and trade policy cannot be separated from human rights obligations.
Many constituents have also written regarding the humanitarian crisis facing the Cuban community. They have called on Canada to increase humanitarian assistance; support access to food, medicine and fuel; and pursue constructive diplomacy. They have urged Canada to work with international partners to ensure that relief reaches those in need and to maintain an independent foreign policy grounded in dialogue, co-operation and respect for self-determination. Canadians understand our international role and Canada's proud history of our commitment to peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance and international solidarity. It is not time to turn our backs on what has historically made Canadians proud.
Let me close with this, Mr. Speaker. This bill reveals clear patterns. Housing is delayed. Indigenous housing remains uncertain. Health care programs lack transparency. Dental eligibility is unstable. Survivors are waiting. Disabled Canadians are waiting. Families are waiting. Waiting has become the default policy, but Canadians cannot wait indefinitely. The crisis is before Canadians. It is time to act for the people, not for corporations.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for an extremely important review of the gaps between the spring economic statement and the reality for Canadians. I just wonder if she would like to expand on any of the points she has made, because they were excellent.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the people sleeping outside tonight cannot wait. The seniors choosing between food and medication cannot wait, and the constituents facing administrative collapse in a federal compensation program cannot wait.
Budgets reveal values, and this bill reveals them clearly. Canadians deserve an economy built on fairness, transparency and delivery, not on delay and indifference. They deserve a government that is willing to govern for all Canadians, not just for the hedge fund managers, the private equity CEOs and the finance bros who hang out at the Empire Club of Canada in downtown Toronto, such as the Prime Minister and his narrow circle of insiders. Everyday working Canadians deserve better.
Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault Liberal Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Mr. Speaker, after the economic update was released, several unions praised our initiative to develop the team Canada strong initiative to recruit up to 100,000 new skilled workers. We implemented a series of measures to help these people, particularly apprentices, on their journey to certification.
I want to ask my NDP colleague whether she will support our efforts to help Canadian workers.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting, actually. In this sitting, in these last two weeks, the government has brought down the guillotine for significant major legislation, including Bill C-22, and we are poised to rise, probably by the end of today, I suspect. What is left on the agenda, which was not actually a priority for the government to push through, is the bill on apprenticeship to support union workers, so there we go.
The Liberals are pretending they support unions, yet at the same time, they are ramming down back-to-work legislation. They are invoking section 107 to take away the rights of unions to strike. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, has a private member's bill on that. Will the government members support it? If they support unions, they will support my colleague's bill on actually banning the use of section 107.