Debates of June 2nd, 2026

Parliament of Canada Act

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑278, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to address floor crossing, with thanks to the hon. member for Vancouver East for seconding.

It is elementary that, in a democracy, elections are the primary opportunity for voters to express their democratic choice. When parliamentarians cross the floor to join a different party from the one they were elected with, they unilaterally alter the will of their electors. The corrosive effects in our democracy are profound: Voters lose trust in elections, the prospect that MPs have been enticed by backroom deals emerges, and the idea that only government members get resources for their constituencies brings pork barrel politics to the table.

Recently, the very balance of power in the House was changed, not by voters at the ballot box but by political operatives in back rooms. While that may not be illegal, it is undeniably undemocratic.

The bill would not ban floor crossing nor the ability to sit as an independent member. The latter is a valid protection against party oppression and to preserve matters of conscience. The bill would simply require those members who wish to join another party's caucus to seek the approval of their constituents through a by‑election. If an MP who wishes to join another party believes they have valid reasons for doing so, they should have no problem putting that choice to the test of their voters, where it should be.

I urge all members to support this important measure to protect the democratic rights of Canadian voters.

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

Clarity Act

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

moved for leave to introduce C‑279, An Act to repeal the Clarity Act.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to introduce Bill C‑279, an act to repeal the Clarity Act. This bill simply seeks to repeal the federal Clarity Act, which allows Parliament to override the will of the people by a simple majority vote of 50% plus one.

The Clarity Act does two things. First, it allows the House of Commons to determine whether a referendum question is sufficiently clear before a referendum takes place. This is particularly paternalistic and impugns the intelligence of the public by assuming that people are unable to think for themselves and understand a question. Second, following a referendum, the Clarity Act allows the House to rule that the majority was not clear, that there was no majority because of the turnout, the percentage of votes in favour of the secessionist option or the substance of the debates. In short, the House of Commons can tell millions of people that their voice did not count based on 343 votes in the House with a potential majority of a few votes off from 50% plus one.

Bill C‑279 also aims to uphold certain basic democratic principles, which were reiterated by the National Assembly of Quebec when it voted unanimously in favour of the principle. That means both federalists and separatists, across all parties, are rejecting the Clarity Act and pointing out that 50% plus one is a clear majority and that, in the case of Quebec, it is up to Quebec alone to decide its future.

Again, our bill is simple. It simply aims to repeal the abomination and democratic aberration that is the Clarity Act.

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

Public Safety

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents.

I rise for the 12th time on behalf of the people of Dauphin, Manitoba, to present a petition on the rising rate of crime. Residents of Dauphin and the Parkland region are demanding that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that have fuelled a surge in crime throughout their communities. Since 2015, there has been a 54% increase in violent crime and a 75% increase in sexual assaults across Canada.

Petitioners are deeply concerned by what they read in the local papers, including a November report that the Dauphin RCMP is searching for a wanted man with three separate arrest warrants. Our once safe communities have now turned into places where people fear for their life because the government's catch-and-release policies have allowed violent repeat offenders to be out on bail instead of in jail.

The people of Dauphin and the Parkland region demand that the Liberal government repeal its soft-on-crime policies that directly threaten their livelihoods and their community. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.

Clearview Township Farmland

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the good people of Simcoe—Grey and, more precisely, Clearview Township. I have a petition to present with respect to a deep concern within the community.

The Department of National Defence has purchased 700 acres of prime farmland to build an over-the-horizon radar system. That is phase one. In order for phase two to be successful, it needs up to another 3,000 acres. The residents in that area have been asked to sell. They have no interest. Their fear is expropriation, similar to what happened with the Alto rail line. There are deep concerns because it is prime farmland. It is also right beside the Minesing Wetlands, an extreme environmental spot.

The petitioners do not think the department has looked at all options in other locations with respect to this. Therefore, they are asking that it stop the building of the over-the-horizon radar site on the already purchased property, prevent future acquisition of prime farmland in building an over-the-horizon site, and register the previously purchased property with the Ontario Farmland Trust to preserve its agricultural status.

Early Learning and Child Care

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present two petitions.

The first petition is from constituents in Burlington who want to reaffirm their support for the Canada-wide early learning and child care system.

The petitioners request that all future budgets include adequate funding that keeps up with inflation and allows for the growth of the program. They believe it is essential to the healthy development of children, to the economic value of women entering the labour force, and to the alleviation of the affordability crisis that is affecting the well-being of families and communities across Canada. They deeply believe in the Canada-wide early learning and child care program, and they ask that the House affirm its belief in the program as well.

Iran

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second is an e-petition, in which petitioners note that in January 2026, widespread human rights protests in Iran were met with state violence, including arrests, torture, enforced disappearances and the killing of 30,000-plus civilians. They state that the Iranian regime simultaneously shut down the Internet and telecoms, stifling witnesses and victims and preventing access for Iranians to reliable information and communications abroad.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to publicly condemn the Islamic regime's ongoing human rights violations that use state violence and the shutdown of digital communications and telecommunications. They demand the immediate restoration of Internet access and telecoms to ensure governmental transparency and civilian safety, the cessation of lethal force against Iranian dissidents, and the release of all political prisoners and detainees. They publicly support the Iranian people's right to determine their own political future free from violence and repression.

Petitioners call on the government to expand targeted sanctions, to enforce accountability measures against the people responsible for human rights abuses, and to pursue the above actions with international partners that support R2P.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first is from the good people of Vancouver Kingsway.

Over 600 residents signed a petition pointing out that the military strikes on Iran have caused significant civilian casualties and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, water systems and heritage sites. They point out that the war threatens irreversible harm to the civilian population, including children, women and political prisoners, and poses grave risks to regional stability.

The petitioners want the House to know that Iran's future must be determined by Iranians themselves, free from both foreign military intervention and domestic repression. They are calling on the Canadian government to urgently advocate for an immediate ceasefire and an end to all military strikes on Iranian territory, and to use Canada's influence to facilitate a durable regional peace through multilateral engagement.

Human Rights

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by over 30,000 Canadians who point out that the Canadian Charter of Rights exists to protect individuals and minority communities from discriminatory laws.

The petitioners are concerned about recent legislation enacted by the Government of Alberta and the Government of Saskatchewan that, in their view, restricts the rights, dignity and safety of transgender and gender-diverse people, particularly children and youth, including access to gender-affirming and medically appropriate health care.

The petitioners note that the provincial governments have invoked the notwithstanding clause to shield that legislation from judicial review, thus preventing charter challenges. The petitioners call on the House to urge the government to exercise its disallowance power under section 90 of the Constitution Act to better protect the rights of transgender and gender‑diverse people in Canada.

Floor Crossing

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Richmond Hill South and the almost 10,000 people across Canada who have signed this petition.

The petitioners are concerned about when a member of Parliament crossing the floor to join a different political party significantly alters the representation chosen by the electorate without providing voters the opportunity to reconsider that choice. Partisan affiliation can undermine democratic accountability, and Canadian citizens and residents require a formal mechanism to hold members of Parliament accountable when a fundamental change in party membership occurs mid‑term.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to introduce legislation to, number one, establish a recall mechanism for any member of Parliament who leaves their caucus to join another political party; number two, mandate that a recall petition process be automatically triggered within an electoral district once a member of Parliament formally joins a different political party than the one under which they were elected; number three, establish a requirement that if a recall petition receives signatures equivalent to at least 20% of the total votes cast in that riding during the previous federal election within 90 days, the seat shall be automatically vacated; and number four, require that a by-election be called immediately following a successful recall petition, to allow voters to determine their representation under the altered circumstances.

Brain Injury

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to table a petition signed by many people across Vancouver Island and across Canada.

The petitioners highlight that approximately 165,000 new cases of brain injury are happening annually in Canada and that health and community service providers require more education regarding the intersection of brain injury, mental health and addiction.

The petitioners also highlight that survivors and families are often left to navigate fragmented systems, with little to no support, leading to further deterioration in health, housing and economic stability. They have been calling for this to be in the budget, and they are hoping it will in the budget this fall.

The petitioners also support Bill C‑206, my bill to develop a national strategy to support and improve brain injury awareness, prevention and treatment, as well as the rehabilitation and recovery of persons living with brain injury.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand, please.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Opposition Motion—Economic Policies

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

moved:

That the House recognize that the Liberal Prime Minister has given Canada the:

(i) only economy in recession in the G7,

(ii) worst household debt in the G7,

(iii) worst housing costs in the G7,

(iv) second highest unemployment in the G7, a third higher than in the United States;

accordingly, the House call on the Liberal Prime Minister to immediately present a plan to reverse all the economic policies of the Liberal government which have given Canada the G7's worst economy.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with my great friend, and a decent hockey player, the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

Where is this Prime Minister? He has been hiding, ducking and dodging since Friday morning. This is the guy who was supposed to be a master negotiator, the guy who would get a deal done. He said he was the guy who would get Canada back on track, and he said he was the man with the plan. However, it all turned out to be a sham at the end of the day because on Friday morning, Canadians got the devastating news of something that they have already been feeling in the last 10 years under the incompetent Liberal government: Canada is in a full-blown Liberal recession.

In fact, this Liberal Prime Minister is the only leader in the entire G7 to drive the economy into a full-blown recession. All of the other G7 countries face the exact same external pressures and the exact same tariffs. Why is it that this Prime Minister, who was supposed to be the guy, plunged our economy into a recession? In fact, in the entire OECD, Canada is one of only two countries that are in a recession now.

Liberal pundits and their paid media keep saying this is just a technical recession. What is a technical recession? This full-blown Liberal recession meets the criteria with two consecutive quarters in a shrinking economy, but let us look at the time since this Prime Minister took power. In three out of the four quarters since he became Prime Minister, the economy has shrunk. Business investment has declined for five straight quarters and $20 billion of net investment has fled the country since he became Prime Minister. Just in the first three months of this year, 120,000 jobs are gone and 48,000 of those people are still looking for work.

This Prime Minister delivered to Canada the second-worst unemployment rate in the entire G7. He is the worst when it comes to housing costs. In the entire G7, Canada, under this Prime Minister, is the worst when it comes to household debt. Let us dig into that a bit. What does this recession mean? It may be technical to the paid media, but in Canadian terms, it is the single mom who has to put groceries back because she cannot afford them or she has to buy in portions every week because the cost of living has skyrocketed under the Liberals. Including food costs and housing costs, everyday life is more expensive because of Liberal taxes and the failure of Liberal policies.

It is the dad in Windsor who has lost his job. He is one of the 120,000 people who, in the first three months of this year under the Liberal government, lost their job. He has to sit around the dinner table explaining to the kids how many things they cannot do over the summer and how many vacations they cannot have because he is more worried about how he is going to pay the bills, pay the mortgage or rent and put food on that table. It is the mom who just got laid off and was barely hanging on. It could be one of the majority of Canadians who are just $200 away from insolvency. It could be one of those 2.2 million Canadians who are waiting in a food bank line every single month, and that number might even go up now because of the job losses under the current government.

This Prime Minister sold himself to be something different. He said he would not be like the previous guy. He is actually worse, so he is right in one sense. Not only is he spending more, if one can believe that. He doubled the deficit that Justin Trudeau left. Then, he corrected himself in the update and became the second-worst as well, having the second-worst deficit in Canadian history outside COVID. That means more costs, more debt and more taxes on Canadians. It is more of the same and it is all on the Canadian credit card. He does not care. This guy is better at going around and shaking a lot of hands, signing a bunch of fake papers and jet-setting around the world. However, it does not just stop at jet-setting around the world. He makes sure he has the finest meals on those planes. In fact, he just recently spent $200,000 on fine dining on those plane rides.

While Canadians are lining up in record numbers at food banks, and the food banks are even running out of food now, the Prime Minister gets to live lavishly, jet-setting around the world, pretending he is doing something. After all that showboating and all of that show, at the end of the day, he has plunged Canada's economy into a full-blown Liberal recession. There are families who are affected and who had been affected before.

In fact, in the business community, for consecutive quarters, there are more businesses closing in Canada than are opening. Business insolvencies are up. People are starting to miss their mortgage and credit card payments. The cost of everyday life has only gotten worse under the incompetent Liberal Prime Minister. In fact, if we look at debt loads, Canada has the highest debt load in the entire G7. Because of Liberal policies, the costs of food and housing are way up, and just those two pieces alone now make up about 120% of one person's income. That means someone's entire paycheque gets eaten up and then they have to either borrow, or put on credit, for food or other essentials. Then, that just piles up, and they start missing payments, which is exactly what is happening now.

The number of defaults, delinquencies and insolvencies are all up. We have not seen some of these numbers since 2009, when we literally had a global financial crisis, and the difference back then was that we had a really responsible Conservative government that knew where to spend money and that knew how to create jobs at the time. We never saw an inflation crisis the last time this happened. I do not remember an inflation crisis. I do not remember interest rates spiking at the highest and fastest rate in Canadian history. That medal goes to the incompetent Liberal government, because all it does is spend, spend, spend, because it does not mean anything to the government.

The Prime Minister is more concerned about his banker, bondholder and Brookfield buddies than he is about the average everyday Canadian. In fact, he is the same Prime Minister who sold the illusion that he was the guy who was going to deal with Donald Trump. He was all “elbows up”. Now everything is down, including our economy. We are in a recession, and now the Prime Minister is on team Trump. In fact, now he is parroting Donald Trump. Now it is “make America great again”. However, I ask, “What about Canada?” We might as well get the Prime Minister a MAGA hat.

What we are asking for today is that the incompetent Liberal Prime Minister present a plan, stop hiding and come out of the witness protection program. He is supposed to be leading this G7 country, the same one that he has driven into a recession. He must tell Canadians what his plan is.

Conservatives have a plan. If the Liberals want a plan that will help us get out of this mess that they created, they can take our plan and take credit for it. They can put their stamp on it, and at least Canadians would have a future that is more safe and more affordable. Conservatives would end the antidevelopment laws that the Liberals passed, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which does not let our product leave the west coast and does not let pipelines get built. We would get rid of the industrial carbon tax, which makes the cost of everything more expensive. We would lower taxes for individuals, small businesses and corporations, so we can create the business environment that we need. We would introduce a law so that, any time a Canadian company reinvests its capital gains in Canada, they would not have to pay those capital gains taxes. They could defer them, so we could create better jobs and a better economy right here in Canada.

Of course, we would put an end to all the Liberal waste: the billions and billions of dollars that go to Liberal-connected insiders in consultant fees because the Liberal ministers are too incompetent to create plans of their own, and the boondoggle of a project that is Alto. The government, for a project that has not even started yet, has already shovelled out millions in bonuses. We would put an end to this Liberal corruption.

The Liberals can take our plan. Let us get working for Canadians together. It is time for the Prime Minister to come out of hiding and present a plan.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it would be a lot easier to take the Conservatives at their word if they did not seem giddy about the fact that we are in the position we are in. On Friday, right after Statistics Canada had announced this news, the Leader of the Opposition ran out, almost excited, like he was happy that we were in this position. He started challenging reporters, when they were basically just asking him questions. A question that was asked by a reporter was whether he was overblowing this a little based on what the economists were saying. The Leader of the Opposition then asked what outlet they were with. Now the Conservatives are going to stand there and accuse us of employing the Donald Trump tactics. Members can look at what they are doing.

Does the member not think that perhaps, just a little, the Conservatives are overplaying their hand with this, in the degree of excitement that they are showing for the circumstances that we are in right now?

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

Madam Speaker, let me humble that out-of-touch, mega Liberal.

After 11 years of this incompetent Liberal government, no one is giddy anymore. No one is excited anymore. No one has anything to smile about. The 2.2 million Canadians waiting in a food bank line are not giddy. The dad who just lost his job because of incompetent Liberal policies is not excited and is not giddy. The mom who has to put food back because she cannot afford it this week is not giddy.

Conservatives are standing up for those Canadians because of bad Liberal policies that drove us into a recession, drove record numbers of people into the food bank and made more people food-insecure today than we have ever seen in this country before. That is what Conservatives are standing up for.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, what we always hear from these Liberals is that Canadians have never had it so good. Now that we have been talking about how Canada was on the wrong track and we are in a full-fledged recession because of these Liberal policies, they think this side is giddy. No, we are just disappointed.

We have been bringing up stories about how everyday Canadians are finding it hard to make ends meet for years, and how taxes and the carbon tax are burdening mothers and fathers. Do members remember the consumer carbon tax? Well, the Liberals want all the credit for taking it away. They put it in there in the first place. They took thousands of dollars out of families' budgets every year, and now they want to think that Canadians are giddy that we are in a recession. No.

It is such a difficult time right now for people around the country, and the Prime Minister is so out of touch. He will not answer a question about the recession. When he did talk about it, about three weeks ago, he said, on affordability, that Canadians have never had it so good.

Could my colleague please respond to how out of touch the Prime Minister actually is?

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

Madam Speaker, the member is absolutely right. At a time when the Prime Minister needs to present a plan to Canadians for plunging them into this Liberal recession, he is hiding. In fact, just yesterday, he did the whole Biden point, which is pointing to where he was going when asked a question and just walking that way. What he needs to do is present a plan.

My colleagues started off by saying the Liberals copied our plan when we said to axe the carbon tax. That is where they started. Let us put some other solutions in front of them right now: cancel the industrial carbon tax; bring down the cost of food and everyday life; cancel all the antidevelopment laws that the Liberal government put in place that do not let a new pipeline, a new mine, a new dam or any infrastructure get built; cancel Bill C-69; get rid of the tanker ban, Bill C-48, and my colleague from Calgary has a bill currently in the House so we can get our product not just to the West Coast, but off the west coast into the Asian markets; and get rid of the industrial carbon tax so that we can make Canada more competitive.

The world needs what Canada has. We just need the Liberal government to get out of the way.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am curious. The opposition has been talking a lot, understandably, as have we, about the importance of the development of the natural resource sector. The implementation agreement that we negotiated recently with the Government of Alberta is contingent upon some important factors that will ensure we find balance between that development and environmental protection.

My colleague across the way talks about scrapping all of these policies that are contingent upon a pipeline being developed in partnership with the Premier of Alberta who supports it. Does he disagree with the Premier of Alberta in relation to that question?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the only thing I can really agree with is when that member said that the Liberals have just talked about natural resources. We on this side of the House are all about action. Anywhere we go inside—

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

I am going to resume debate with the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to be able to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. I rise today to talk about the opposition motion that we have put forward, but before I do, I just want to take a few moments here to offer our sincere condolences to the families in Pelican Narrows who were impacted by a shooting that happened up there yesterday. Our thoughts and prayers are with the community and the family of the victim up there. I wanted to start off by acknowledging that.

What are we doing here today? We are talking about a recession. The Prime Minister himself, in an interview with the BBC when he was over in England, said “the technical definition of a technical recession is...two [straight] quarters of flat or negative [GDP] growth”. That is it. It is pretty simple.

What do we have here in Canada? Let us take a look. Real GDP fell 0.1% in Q1, and the quarter before that, it fell roughly 1%. Based on the Prime Minister's own words, that meets the definition of a technical recession, so that is what we have.

The Prime Minister has been in power for a little over a year. He is supposed to be the grandmaster economist who is going to save Canada. He was bold enough to stand at the microphones and say that the United States was on track for a recession, but Canada was not. There might be some impact from what is happening in the States, but it was headed for a recession, and we were not. That is what he said. That was right around the time of the last election, so that was one of the first things he was trying to sell to Canadians.

Okay, so let us look at his track record. When he was over in England, he said that Brexit was going to cause a massive recession. Well, he was wrong. I just talked about what he said about the United States. He was wrong. He said Canada was not going to enter a recession. Guess what. He was wrong, because here we are right now. The Prime Minister's very own definition has been met: two straight quarters of negative or flat growth.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am just quoting the Prime Minister. I know it is hard for the member to actually grasp his own leader's words, but that is what his own leader said. I am only quoting his own leader. If he does not like it, he can take it up with the Prime Minister.

Let us talk a bit more about some of the signs and the markers we have been seeing when we talk to Canadians. We have been telling the government for a couple of years now that the pressures on households are getting to be very tight. What we saw in quarter one was that over 37,000 Canadians filed for insolvency, just in Q1. That is the highest it has been since 2009, when there was an actual global recession and the housing market crashed around the globe. It has not been that high since then. That is what we have been seeing.

Let us look at household debt. Canadian household debt is 103% of GDP. Canadian non‑mortgage debt is $43,300, up from $40,200 two years ago, which was already a crazy high number. Now, when we look at the snapshot for just homeowners, non-mortgage debt is $82,400, up 19% in two years. Canadians are feeling the pressure and are putting more on their credit cards. It would appear that they are following what the government has been doing.

What has the government done? The government has been living off the credit card that the taxpayers basically provide it. Every single announcement the government makes is borrowed money. The government has been running on constant deficits for a very long time. We saw a bit of a recent influx in government revenues because oil prices have gone a bit higher and the government actually benefited from that. What did the Liberals do? They spent it. They blew it. The deficit for this year alone is almost $80 billion.

Let us take a look at what the national debt looks like. Canada is over $1.3 trillion in debt. That number is massively rising every single day.

What is the Bank of Canada telling us? Well, there is 523 billion dollars' worth of debt that has to be refinanced. That was refinanced when the former prime minister said, “Interest rates are at [all‑time] lows, Glen”: 1%. It is now being recalled at 3%, so the share for every Canadian, just on that number alone, is going from $1,500 to $1,900 because of that jump from 1% to 3%. That is going to have a massive impact, and that is just in the short term. There is longer‑term interest that is going to be up for renewal as the years go on, and those rates are going to be higher and higher. We have a continually snowballing and cascading effect that is going to rock Canadian households.

Let us take another look at what is happening in the business world. Business capital investment fell 0.7% in quarter one, which was the fifth straight quarter that business investment in Canada has fallen. This comes after a 10-year run with the Liberal government when foreign direct investment of over $1 trillion left Canada. For every dollar that came in, two dollars left. That is what we are seeing here. That is the by-product of what is happening today.

When we look at some of the other statistics from the Bank of Canada and a few others, they mention that government spending was down 2.5% and that is what caused a bit of a drop in GDP. The fact that it is government spending that is also driving that shows the government is the one trying to artificially prop up the economy. The private sector is struggling. We are not seeing massive private sector investment. There are a couple projects here and there, but we are just not seeing the large-scale investment that is required.

Let us look at what the Liberals wanted to do. Coming out of the election, they said they wanted to build at speeds not yet seen. What did they propose to the House? It was Bill C-5. They said they needed Bill C-5 because that was going to allow them to do what? It was to override their own bad laws they had put in place, because they recognized that was the problem. They said they needed Bill C-5 so they could circumvent their own laws that they had created. We said it would be better if they just scrapped the bad laws but that we would play ball and help them out, so we worked with the government to pass Bill C-5. We put some safeguards in there to make sure the Prime Minister was not greasing the palms of his buddies at Brookfield, and we helped them pass Bill C-5.

Then they put projects on the list. There are a couple of LNG projects on there. They have been on that list now for well over 250 days. We are closing in on almost a year with some of these projects listed, and there has been no movement. Nothing is happening. Germany came here and said it wanted our LNG, and the government said, “Sure, this time we'll work with you to make sure you get some LNG.” When did it say we would deliver the LNG to Germany? It was sometime in the 2030s. There is no fixed date because the government does not actually know. What did Germany do? When the former prime minister said there was no business case, Germany went home and built an import terminal in 194 days. That is a shorter amount of time than the projects have been on the Major Projects Office list with nothing being done.

What have Conservatives done? Well, we proposed the Canadian sovereignty act because we wanted to help the government get out of its own way. We proposed that in the same way we are doing here today, with an opposition day motion, to give the government a template to kind of get the ball rolling, to help it advance the football down the field, per se. The Liberals voted against it. They had an opportunity to implement another one of our great plans, and they voted no.

They took our advice and scrapped the consumer carbon tax. Now they are saying this is one of the greatest cost-saving moves they have ever made, and that is because Conservatives were right. It was Conservatives who put the pressure on them to do it, and eventually they relented.

Maybe if they would implement the Canadian sovereignty act, which would repeal the bad laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that would get them on the right track and get them going, because Bill C-5 was supposed to be the mechanism to help them circumvent those laws. If they would implement the Canadian sovereignty act, it would get them going in the right direction. It would also get rid of the industrial carbon tax, which we know is putting massive downward pressure on investment in Canada because nowhere else around the world wants the same type of pricing mechanism that the government is going to enforce on Canadian industry. It is going to be devastating to Canadians.

The Liberals should look at what Conservatives are proposing. We have had some great ideas that would help them and that probably would have helped them avoid entering this recession, which has been made by the Liberal government. If they want to work with us, we have great ideas. They have said no to many of them, and now they have to pay for that, which means Canadians have to pay for it because the government has no money. It is only because Canadians pay taxes and the government prints money against the future of Canadians that it acquires any money. At this point in time, if it wants to get the economy rolling, the government could take some of our great ideas that we have proposed, and that would actually help it avoid this recession.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to ask one very specific question. What are the member's qualifications that determine his world economic view? I would like it if he could perhaps provide me with a list of studies that he has undertaken or degrees he has achieved. It is important that we take advice from folks who have a lot of knowledge, as our Prime Minister does, on world trading trends.

We have often heard, for the last several months, about the Conservatives' plan. Can the member give me a copy of their plan today that they have been talking about for the last two months? I do not think they have a plan. It is a made-up plan with voodoo economics attached to it. Can he give me a copy of their economic plan today?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is a bit of a ridiculous question coming from that member, who spent 26 years in a provincial government and destroyed Saskatchewan. That is his track record: destroyed it.

Again, he takes issue with what I said, but guess what. I was quoting the Prime Minister. If he takes issue with what I was saying, I was quoting the Prime Minister. He should talk to his boss if he does not like what I was saying, because that is who I got it from.

If he wants to know what our plan is, he should just go back and look at the blues. We have it right on record. We debated it in this very House, and this member is saying he has never seen our plan. He needs to wake up and pay attention.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the question we were just asked by the only Liberal in Saskatchewan was about the qualifications of a member of Parliament. Our qualifications are that we work hard, we get voted in by the people and we bring their voices to the House. My big problem with this member is that he represents northern Saskatchewan and has voted against every common-sense motion we have had. He voted to add taxes to streaming services. He voted to not scrap the industrial carbon tax. He voted to keep the gun confiscation plan in place. Everything his constituents sent him here to support, he has voted against.

I would like some comments from my colleague on that.

Do not forget the Snowbirds.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Yes, Madam Speaker, let us not forget about the Snowbirds. When the Snowbirds were grounded, the Secretary of State for Rural Development said it was a very, very joyous and happy day. When the Snowbirds were cancelled, that is what he said.

Yes, let us take a look at some of the benefits to Saskatchewan. The Secretary of State represents the part of our province that should benefit the most because there are a lot of great resources in the north that could be developed. The industrial carbon tax is going to hammer those projects in his riding, so it is shameful that he continues to prop up that policy. He is clearly not on Saskatchewan's side. Only Conservative members are truly on Saskatchewan's side.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that the Conservative Party, both when it was in power and now that it is in the opposition, made several decisions that have been detrimental to Quebec's economy.

Conservative Party MPs opposed including the Davie shipyard in the national shipbuilding strategy, even though Davie is the largest and most efficient shipyard in Canada.

They opposed any government aid for Bombardier when the company was seeking cash to finance the C Series aircraft. In the end, the orders were lost to Airbus.

They opposed Quebec companies, as in the case of the maritime patrol aircraft proposed by Bombardier...

Furthermore, they are fiercely opposed to the energy transition.

I want to know if the Conservatives are committed to being more supportive of Quebec's economy in the future.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, let us talk a little about some energy policy. It is important. I think the member would agree with me that it is actually up to the provinces to decide what path they are going to go on. I know Quebec has done a lot with hydroelectric, and it views hydrogen, for example, as a plan to go forward.

In Saskatchewan, we have a lot of natural gas. There is a lot of oil extraction that goes on. That is a provincial resource. It is up to the provincial government to deal with that.

The federal government, the Liberal government, has been taking a top-down approach that is forcing provinces to take one path or a different path but not the path that the provinces themselves actually want to choose. Resource extraction is up to the provinces and should be left to the provinces, and the feds should just get out of the way.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's debate and to set the record straight in response to the opposition's frequent attempts to talk down the Canadian economy, Canadian industries and Canadian workers.

Before I launch into my speech, I want to take a moment to thank the member from northern Saskatchewan on this side of the House, who is, by far, the best representative for that province sitting in the House of Commons. He has advocated to ensure that Saskatchewan can supply uranium for the nuclear energy that India needs, and he has also advocated for our canola producers to ensure that we unlocked access to the Chinese market for them again. He has done an incredible job since he has joined the House, and members opposite should be ashamed for talking him down like they do the Canadian economy every single day. While the members opposite seem to wake up every morning hoping for bad news in this country, on this side of the House, we wake up every day and get to work for Canadians.

We know that Canada did not create the tariff and trade disputes that have knocked the global economy off its moorings. On this side, we also know that Canada did not create the war in the Middle East. It seems obvious to say this in the House of Commons, but sometimes the obvious avoids the minds of the Conservatives for some reason.

Energy prices have pushed higher as a result of the war in the Middle East, which are, again, beyond our control. Increased market volatility and geopolitical instability are fracturing supply chains and weighing on the global outlook across the world economy. Neither our economy nor any economy can escape the impact of these unfortunate developments.

We cannot control everything that happens abroad, but we do control what we do here at home. That is exactly what we are focused on. We are focused on what we can control. Ascribing responsibility for the impact of world-shaking developments onto the government of Canada is like seeing a bride dance with her father and concluding that the two are getting married. In short, it involves ignoring the full range of facts relevant to the analysis, which the Conservatives always seem to leave out, and jumping to the wrong conclusions. That would be no way to run a country.

The origins of the challenges being faced by Canadians and their government are beyond our borders. Countries around the world are being hit, and in some cases, they are being hit extremely hard. Let us take, for example, some things that we know. The Canadian economy is highly integrated with our southern neighbour's, making us even more susceptible to the impacts of the trade relationship that has often been one that we have relied upon. That is why the most trade-exposed industries, such as automotive, steel, aluminum, etc., are where the job losses are the most concentrated, but we also see half the sectors in our economy growing. Those that are less exposed to trade are expanding.

Despite the challenges we see in the Canadian economy, with some of our industries being impacted by trade and tariffs and others growing at a time of crisis, the IMF still says that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7 and expects Canada to record the second-strongest growth in the G7 this year and the following year. The IMF believes, as we do, that the Canadian economy remains resilient, with ongoing growth in household spending and business investment.

We have seen consumer spending rise by 1.5% over the last quarter, and it is up nearly 2% year over year. We we have also seen business investment in new equipment, machinery and IP protection grow by over 10% this year, but Conservatives conveniently ignore this fact. It is a direct result of the productivity superdeductions and immediate expensing measures that we put in budget 2025, which are focused in those areas to help businesses make those capital investments at a time of global uncertainty. This may be bad news for the Conservatives, but it is good news for Canadians.

The Conservatives like to paint a picture of doom and gloom because it suits their narrative, their social media clips and their fundraising emails. All of that seems to be the only thing they care about when they are speaking in the House. They ignore that our per capita GDP is rising. In quarter one, GDP per capita grew by almost 1% at 0.9%.

The Conservatives stood up in the House, and I cannot remember, but it must have been for five years, talking about GDP per capita as being the core measure of the strength of our economy. They went on and on about it, and today they do not give a hoot about GDP per capita. It rose by almost 1%, and we do not hear Conservatives say anything about it, not one word, despite having advocated for GDP per capita to be the core measure of the strength of our economy for over five years in the House.

They look past the fact that foreign direct investment is at a nearly two-decade high and is running at twice the rate of our nearest G7 peer. They also conveniently ignore the fact that credit arrears and insolvencies remain broadly in line with historical averages. We just did a study on this at the finance committee, where our government and the members on our side all supported the Conservative motion to study household debt. What we saw was that household debt is at historical averages after being at a pandemic low. What is really interesting about household debt in Canada is that Canadians have five times the wealth compared to the debt they have on average. They have five times the wealth. This is a significant stat that, obviously, the Conservatives would like to ignore, because it is not convenient for them to admit.

They conveniently gloss over the fact that non-U.S. exports are on track to double over the next decade, up 36% with 20 new trade and security agreements having been signed in just over one year. Their petty partisan slogans conveniently ignore the fact that wages have outpaced inflation every month that the government has been in office. In fact, wages have outpaced inflation and have been double the rate of inflation in the most recent statistics.

The Conservatives, again, have sat in the House for years and years. I am looking at two members who are relatively new, so they would not have an institutional memory of this, but Conservatives sat here and told us that wages needed to rise and that people needed stronger incomes and reduced taxes. This is exactly what the government has done. We have achieved wages growing higher than the pace of inflation every year that the government has been in the House. The Conservatives would rather ignore the fact that Canada now ranks as the most attractive country in the world for infrastructure investment. To top it off, Canada has added more jobs per capita than the United States has. In fact, we have added double the number of jobs the United States has.

Let me also say that our biggest bank, our biggest pension plan, even the central bank governor, the governor of the Bank of Canada, have all come to the finance committee and said that Canada is attracting global investors at a rate they have never seen before. I know that is not convenient for the Conservative narrative that they love to perpetuate, which is that Canada is broken. They are simply choosing to ignore Canadian ingenuity, Canadian hard work, Canadian resilience and that grit of the Canadian people to grow, despite the challenges we face. It is not true. It is just not true. The truth needs to be spoken in the House.

The resilience is rooted in the fact that our government has taken action to support Canadians through these challenges by building a stronger economy at home, protecting Canadian jobs and sectors, diversifying our trading relationships, making life more affordable for Canadians, attracting investment and boosting productivity.

We know, for example, that as a result of the ongoing global instability, Canadians are facing challenges in managing the cost of living, and they are facing them right now. This means that, while our plan to build the strongest economy in the G7 takes effect, affordability pressures, especially those related to food and essentials, demand immediate support for Canadians, so that is why we are stepping up. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit, for example, will help Canadian families by building on the former GST credit. The amount is increasing by 25% for five years as of July. In addition to that, it will provide a one-time payment, to be issued this Friday, June 5, which is equivalent to a 50% increase in the 2025-26 annual value of the GST credit.

Combined, this means that a family of four will receive up to $1,890 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years. That is literally making life more affordable for millions upon millions of Canadians. In fact, the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will provide additional significant support for more than 12 million Canadians. That is a significant number.

The Conservatives fail to recognize that we are stepping up to provide these supports. They would call the tax measures and programs that we offer “garbage”. They do not seem to want to help Canadians at all.

While we are reining in government spending on operations, we are also investing in the Canadian economy and offering federal benefits, supports and tax measures to help Canadians. Not only are we putting more money in the pockets of those who need it most, but we are also leaving more money in their pockets with our middle-class tax cut. By lowering the first marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%, since July 1, 2025, we are saving two-income families up to $840 this year.

That measure is for 22 million Canadians. The first measure, as I mentioned, is for 12 million Canadians. This tax cut is for 22 million Canadians. That is over half the Canadian population. It is a significant number of people who are going to benefit from that income tax cut. This rate reduction is providing meaningful relief to middle-class Canadians during the current period of economic uncertainty.

What is more, the bulk of the relief will go to the incomes in the two lowest tax brackets. This is a commitment that we have always had, one that I know the Conservatives do not share, which is to help the people who need it the most. That is a core Liberal value. It is a core value on this side of the House. I know the Conservatives have always just supported tax cuts for the rich, but at least we understand the challenges that Canadians face. We are stepping up to help the people who need it the most.

We know that no one is more important to consider through the lens of economic security than our kids. I have three young girls at home, and I would bend the space-time continuum to ensure their health, safety and prosperity and to ensure that their lives are protected and that they live the fullest lives possible. I am sure every parent would say that about their kids. That is why we made the investment in a national school food program permanent, which Conservatives have, on the other side, called “garbage”. They have misinformed Canadians, despite the fact that I have seen the programs deliver food to schools and to kids in classrooms. I have actually participated in that program, and I have seen the good that the program does across my region and Durham region.

Conservatives have said that there is no food in the food program. They have said that multiple times. They have tried to misinform people about feeding hungry children. They have actually voted against feeding over 400,000 more hungry children in the country, while standing up in the House every day and claiming that they are with the people, that they support families, that we need to do more to support people who are food insecure. What a crock. I have never heard a bigger crock of nonsense in my whole life than the Conservatives feigning and faking that they somehow care more than we do about Canadian families and kids who are in food bank lineups. We are the ones stepping up to support them with a billion dollars over five years, as well as having made that program permanent.

That was an ask from Food Secure Canada and the Coalition for Healthy School Food, which has been around for decades. Our government is delivering the investments needed in that program to make sure kids are fed all across the country. I could not be prouder of that measure.

On the home front, we are boosting housing supply across Canada through the improving housing supply act, which means that $1.7 billion would go to provinces and territories to remove barriers and accelerate homebuilding, such as through reducing development fees and levies on new home construction.

To help Canadians buy their first home, we introduced the first-time homebuyers GST rebate. With this rebate, we have effectively eliminated GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million and reduced GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. That tax cut for homebuyers will save Canadians up to $50,000, allowing more young people and families to enter the housing market and making the goal of home ownership a reality for more Canadians.

In my home province of Ontario, the agreement that we signed with Ontario will effectively achieve a 13% reduction of the HST charged on a new home purchase. That is up to $130,000 off a $1-million home, and then with a 50% reduction in development charges, that is significant support. It is up to $200,000 in savings. One cannot argue with that. If we want to increase housing supply, deal with affordability in the housing market and help our young people, as Conservatives often say in this House they do, we have to support those measures. Those measures are making an impact. We have already seen and heard anecdotal evidence from our development industry.

To further make life more affordable for Canadians, we are also reducing fuel prices and the pressure on Canadians at the pump by suspending the full amount of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline, diesel fuel and aviation fuels until Labour Day, September 7, 2026. This is expected to reduce price pressure at the pump and lower Canadians' bills at the gas station, with an expected savings of up to $5.75 on gasoline when filling up a 50-litre tank of fuel. All told, it is estimated this will provide over $2.4 billion in total tax relief in 2026, intended, obviously, to continue to ease the pressure on families. This builds on one of the very first actions we took as a government, which was to lower costs at the pump in provinces and territories, having suspended the divisive consumer carbon tax.

I could go on, but maybe I will just say that we have also supported Canadians with child care, dental care and the Canada child benefit. I know that families in my riding are saving a lot of money by having access to dental care and child care. The average family in my riding will pay about $1,800 per child per month for child care. After we introduced our program, those fees went down by 50%. They have gone down even further. Families are paying about $410 per month right now. Let us just think about how much savings that is on a monthly basis. Families are saving $1,400 a month in my riding of Whitby. That is significant support for families that have young children.

We have also preserved all the federal benefits that Canadians rely on. We have cut taxes. We have not raised one single tax. We have saved over $60 billion, over the next five years, by finding savings within government operations. That is significant. I was at the OECD last week. I had the chance to present on a panel on public finances with Greece, Argentina, Portugal, the U.K. and Ireland, and I can say that our peers across the world look at Canada and envy the fiscal position and the responsibility we have shown in relation to stewarding public finances in this country. I know Conservatives do not believe that, and that is fine. They are often out of touch with reality, and we see more displays of that in this House every single day.

These are just a few examples that I have covered in this speech of how we are bringing down costs for Canadians. The bottom line is that to support Canadians through the current global energy market disruptions, our government is delivering timely, tangible, fiscally sustainable and targeted relief for Canadians at a time when they need it, and we are doing so across a wide range of fronts.

Today's motion, by failing to account for the most prominent causes of the economic pressures that Canadians are struggling with, presents an incomplete and therefore faulty analysis. The bride is not actually marrying her father, and Canada is not doing as poorly, in comparison to the rest of the world, as this motion would suggest. As the famous American philosopher and pragmatist William James rightly concluded, “Pessimism leads to weakness. Optimism leads to power.”

We choose optimism and power. That is what building Canada strong means, and we urge this House to reject today's motion accordingly.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, notwithstanding the rhetoric in that speech and the pat on the back that the member is expecting, there is a disconnect between what he said and what we are seeing on the ground. As a matter of fact, in communities across the country today, Canadians are struggling to afford food to put on the table. Young people cannot find a job. Housing is completely out of reach for everyone.

Does the member know that schools are not open at dinnertime? Food Banks Canada has reported that 2.2 million people are visiting food banks every month, one-third of whom are children. While the member wants a pat on the back, 24,000 children today are going to walk into a food bank, hoping to find something on the shelf to eat because they are hungry.

What does he have to say to those hard-working Canadians, those families and those children who cannot afford to put food on the table today?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, we see that the Conservatives are always concentrated on the problem but have no solutions. As usual, they present only the challenges that the country is facing, without offering any solutions.

Our government is actually creating good-paying jobs for Canadians all across this country. We are making record investments and generational investments in housing, defence, infrastructure and productivity. We have offered tax incentives, tax cuts and new federal benefits to help families with the cost of groceries. The groceries and essentials benefit that Canadians will receive this Friday is a good example of that.

Why did the member vote against the national school food program if he is concerned with feeding families? I cannot understand where the Conservative Party actually stands on these issues.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Madam Speaker, despite everything my colleague said, the fact remains that Canada has the highest level of household debt in the world, or one of the highest in the world, according to the IMF. The people most affected by that are those with the lowest earnings: seasonal workers who are struggling to get enough EI, given the rising cost of rent and groceries.

I want to share the story of Lise Lapierre, whom I met at the E. Gagnon & Fils plant in Sainte‑Thérèse‑de‑Gaspé. Her EI ran out so she had no benefits coming in from early March to mid-April, so she evidently had no option but to go into debt.

When will the government finally take action and put an end to the spring gap in EI?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, we actually just extended EI support for seasonal workers in the spring economic update. We have also done lots for tradespeople, for example. We have a trade mobility deduction that has been extended from $4,000 to $10,000, for those who are travelling to be part of building Canada strong and helping us build the infrastructure, housing and defence capabilities that this country needs. We are making announcements every single day about new investments that are going into those industries.

The members opposite can laugh and they can mock, but there are 21,700 jobs at the new nuclear project at Darlington in my region. I have heard about displaced workers from our auto industries getting retrained and going to work in those construction jobs to build the small modular reactors.

It is no joke to members on this side of the House that we are building a stronger economy. We are replacing those jobs that have been displaced based on a trade war that we did not start and we did not ask for. We are doing everything that is in our power to help support Canadians with jobs.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that Conservatives really like AI, because it seems like half of their speeches and questions are written by AI. I am a bit more skeptical.

However, while I was sitting here listening to the member speak, I took a picture of the motion and asked AI, “What do you think of this motion?” This is the response I got: “This motion is built for maximum rhetorical punch, not factual or analytical strength. The motion collapses complex economic indicators into a simplistic, worse-than-the-G7 narrative, cherry-picks metrics without context and demands an impossible remedy that has no coherent policy meaning.” I am sure the Conservatives will say that this is our woke Liberal AI.

Can the parliamentary secretary provide his comments on whether he thinks AI got it right this time?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to have to clap for AI at this point. I certainly never suspected that it could do that quick of a job dispelling the illusions that the Conservatives are trying to purport and promote in the House with their motions, which they do every day in the House.

However, let us just take what the experts have said, even if Conservatives do not believe in expertise anymore. The National Bank said:

We are not fans of the term “technical recession.” Two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth can mean very different things depending on what’s happening to the population.

Canada’s economy registered a tiny contraction in Q1, following a decline in Q4. Yet real GDP per capita rose nearly 1% in Q1 and has been trending higher for the past two years.

Economic hardship—not arbitrary GDP thresholds—is what defines a recession. The economy remains fragile and uncertainty is elevated, but we are not ready to throw around the “R” word just yet.

That is from the National Bank.

I have quotes from RBC's Steven Gordon and many, many other professionals who analyze the economy and do not think that the Conservatives are accurate, so AI is right and the experts agree.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will bring it back to how the topic today actually impacts many Canadians. This is a very special subject, and it impacts so many Canadians. It is about opioids.

The member was talking about the safety of children. Right now, we have a government that actually endorses fentanyl use and drug consumption sites next to kids here in Canada. Through an exemption, there are actually federally approved sites right now in Canada operating 50 steps away from schools and day cares. In these drug consumption sites, there is fentanyl used 50% of the time. The member has totally skewed what he means by safety for children.

I cannot imagine the member's children being exposed to these drug sites every day going to school, so my question for him is, does he actually think it is safe to use fentanyl beside children?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is an example of the members opposite not even being able to stay on track with the motion they proposed in the House. Today we are debating a motion that creates all kinds of illusions about an economic reality that the Conservatives seem to have created, which they do every day in the House, to purport and disseminate narratives that are untrue, and the claims they are making in this motion are untrue. We have taken the time to provide information that dispels the many myths in the Conservative motion.

In terms of children's safety and security, our government has advanced the most comprehensive set of legislative reforms in Canadian history to keep Canadians safe. I wonder why the Conservatives have stalled and obstructed many of those Criminal Code changes, many of those changes that have added tools to police services to ensure that our kids and communities are safe.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives may be exaggerating a bit, but the fact remains that Liberal policies have in fact contributed to the technical recession we are currently experiencing, although we cannot call it an economic crisis.

For example, with their immigration policy that makes no sense whatsoever, they drove up the cost of housing. They also drove up the cost of public services. They do not want to compensate Quebec for that.

What does my colleague think about that? What are they going to do for Quebec? The costs relating to asylum seekers are estimated at more than $700 million, and the Liberals are still refusing to pay Quebec for that.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is being a bit more moderate in his assessment of the Conservative motion, which is obviously inaccurate, overstates and, in a way, exaggerates. It is nothing but hyperbole.

In terms of his question, our government has taken a responsible approach to immigration levels. We have reduced those immigration numbers in almost every category, with the intention to ensure that we are not straining our health care and housing—

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

We have to resume debate with the hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for contributing to the debate on this important motion. I am not saying that everything in it is right, nor am I saying that everything in it is wrong, but it is an important motion.

Before I begin, I want to say that we have concerns about the impact AI will have on our lives. Just today, in fact, I think we saw an example of how AI can insinuate itself into parliamentary debates. The government whip stood up and read us some AI text from a source that cannot be verified. There is no way to tell if it is true or false. Then there is the member for Whitby, with whom I get along very well. We do not agree on everything, but we have a good working relationship. He studied philosophy. He is a philosopher, yet he stood up in the people's assembly and, with a philosophically straight face, said that, if AI suits his partisan agenda, AI is right, and that is just the way it is.

Personally, I believe we are capable of having healthier debates in the House, especially since this is a technical debate, a debate on numbers, and since we might end up having to meet somewhere in the middle. With respect to this motion, what will ultimately determine how we vote will probably be the accuracy of the facts cited. According to the motion, we are in a recession. We have had two consecutive quarters of negative growth. There was a significant contraction of 1% in the last quarter, followed by a quarter for which we have only preliminary data. We know the data will be revised, but for now there was a very slight decrease of one‑tenth of a per cent.

First of all, I do not like the term “technical recession”. I was talking about this yesterday with the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who says we are not in a recession. He is not saying that the economy is doing well. He is saying that we are not in a recession, as if that is some sort of award, as if he could skate off with the puck by saying that we are not in a recession and that that is their objective as a government. In an economy, the aim is not to avoid a recession; it is to achieve real growth that increases people's purchasing power and raises living standards. I do not like the term “technical recession”. Think about having pneumonia. Can someone have technical pneumonia, but not pneumonia? Can someone have a bout of the technical flu, but not the flu? That is not how it happens. Either we are in a recession or we do not know yet and we will find out later. There are symptoms. It is a bit like psychiatry, in that there are clinical criteria. Sometimes, not all of the criteria are met. Sometimes, no one is sure of the diagnosis and it gets figured out down the line. However, one thing is certain: Things are not going well.

The Liberals are telling us that we are not in a recession. I would like to send a message to the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin. GDP data is constantly being revised. Right now, the growth is negative, but perhaps it will become positive when we look at future versions of the data. That is what the Liberals are telling us. They are saying to wait for the forthcoming data. However, when the data for the past few quarters was revised, positive quarters became negative. In the second quarter of 2025, the GDP dropped by 0.2%. The data for the fourth quarter of 2025 was also revised, but not in the government's favour. When the data is revised and things are worse than we thought, the Liberals should be taking some of the blame for that, but they are not.

How do we know if we are in a recession? First, it is not up to Statistics Canada, the government or us to decide that. In the United States, the National Bureau of Economic Research is the one that decides whether the country is in a recession based on a set of criteria that is generally in keeping with two consecutive quarters of negative growth, but the criterion is not two consecutive quarters. In Canada, we have the Business Cycle Council at the C.D. Howe Institute that has its own criteria. To determine whether we are in a recession, we need to assess the extent of the variation in the GDP. In this case, Canada saw a contraction in the first quarter, but it was very small. We need to look at the duration. There can be a recession with just one quarter of contraction. If the economy were to plummet by 30%, then we would not have to wait for the next quarter to see that we are in trouble. It depends on the specific circumstances. It depends on the extent of the slowdown. We want to know how many industries are affected. We want to know whether there has been a significant impact on GDP across many industries.

Are we in a recession or are we not? No one knows. Neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals can say for sure. This is an absolutely absurd debate.

More than that, this debate is obscuring the fact that the economy is not doing well. It is appalling that we would spend a whole day wondering whether we meet criteria 1, 2, and 3, whether we will meet them in two months, or whether the first month of the second quarter is positive or negative. It is appalling because no one believes the Canadian economy is sustainable in its current state. I think this is a distraction from the real debate.

However, it is reasonable to fear a recession because, while the unemployment rate is high, it has remained stable. The employment rate has held up relatively well, but it is fragile. That is true, and it is one of the criteria for a recession. As we can see from the GDP data, Canadian companies that are having trouble exporting have started to increase their inventory. What does that mean? It means that warehouses are filling up. They have not laid anyone off yet, but there are closures. There are significant impacts on businesses. However, some companies have decided to maintain shifts, not lay everyone off and build up their inventory. Warehouse space is finite. They cannot keep stockpiling goods indefinitely. What this tells us is that when it comes to exports, trade and negotiations with the United States, we are sitting on a ticking time bomb. The state of inventories is critical.

For the same reason, the economy occasionally recovers after a recession, but without adding any jobs, because businesses start selling off the inventory that was sitting in their warehouses, without rehiring people. There may be early signs of a recession without any job losses because our businesses are resilient and do not want to lose their workforce straightaway by laying people off.

We have talked about the importance of the wage subsidy in maintaining employment relationships for people who are being laid off. These days, if a company lays off its workers, someone else will poach their expertise. Of course, the Prime Minister has been telling us for a year now that the situation will soon be resolved. However, once the situation is resolved, the businesses will not be able to get their employees back.

As I was saying, there are warning signs. I listened carefully to the member for Whitby. It is not always easy, but I did it. He broke down the GDP for us. He told us that investments are ongoing thanks to their superdeduction. In reality, the superdeduction is the chantilly cream of fiscal policy. It is not a superdeduction. Are members familiar with chantilly cream? It is whipped cream with a bit of sugar mixed in. The pretty name is just to make it seem more appealing. The same goes for the superdeduction. It is not a superdeduction. It is the same accelerated depreciation found everywhere, including in the United States. On top of that, they have picked the winners.

Some companies are telling us that Canada has a digital sovereignty problem. They say that they want to get into fibre optics because the Minister of Finance forgot about fibre optics in these sectors, because he picked the winners. Now, the government is telling us that it is a superdeduction. It is not a superdeduction. It is accelerated depreciation. He talks about it like it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, an unprecedented novelty, as if accelerating depreciation were a generational change. It is taxation 101, and it shows that this language is just hype, just rhetoric.

The minister's parliamentary secretary told us that investment has increased and that consumption has held steady. It is true that household consumption has held steady. That is because we are showing solidarity. The Prime Minister is doing something that is taught in a first-year university course. It is called stimulus measures. When people are struggling, cheques are sent out to support consumption. This adds to the government deficit and will have to be paid back at some point. It is working for now, but sending out cheques is not a recipe for success over the next 10 years. What we need is growth. Government spending is also helping to offset that. Procurement is starting up, but these government expenditures are not a recipe for growth.

What is wrong with the GDP? Let us break down the GDP figures. I see the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin: He knows this, because he breaks down these figures. He is a bit like me: He loves this sort of thing. What is driving the weakness in GDP is exports. We are in the midst of an export crisis. If I may coin a term for educational purposes, it could almost be called an “export recession”. This highlights the importance of our relationship with our American neighbours, as well as the importance of improving that relationship, even though they are not always easy to deal with. We may be negotiating trade agreements with the White House, but we do business with companies across the United States that still value their relationship with us, and it is with those companies that we trade. We need to strengthen our relationship with them. This shows how important it is to launch these negotiations with the United States. Mexico has already started. Formal negotiations have begun.

When the Prime Minister was elected, he told us he was the best negotiator in the history of humankind, that he needed to be elected, that he would perform miracles and that the negotiations would go smoothly. That is what he told us. Since then, we have observed that the things that win votes in Canada hurt our relationship with the U.S. Some very harsh remarks have been made. I do not like Donald Trump any more than anyone else does. I do not think that what he is doing is acceptable. However, it is clear that the Prime Minister himself chose to damage his relationship with with U.S. in order to win votes in Canada, and that comes with a high cost.

We have a breakdown of the data. No matter which way we analyze it, the absence of a deal and the absence of negotiations are having a critical impact on Canada's economy and on exports. Funnily enough, the member for Whitby was explaining all the components of GDP earlier, but he skipped over the one that is in crisis, so let me give my colleagues the numbers. Last quarter, compared to the same quarter last year, exports fell by 4.1%. That is a 4% drop. That is huge, and that is the problem. Things are only getting worse. The negotiations are not starting. Are we in a recession today or not? That is not the question that matters. What matters is that the plane has crashed nose first and people are wondering if it has hit the ground yet or not. That is exactly what is happening in the House.

Canada's real exports, after correcting for inflation, fell by 4.1% in the first quarter. The quarter before, they fell by 2.9%. The quarter before that, they fell by 2.3%. The quarter before that, they fell by 3.5%. All of these figures are in comparison with last year.

Keep in mind that we always receive the statistics a little later and that the quarter has only just begun, but the figures I just cited essentially cover the Prime Minister's entire term in office. How do we define the Prime Minister's term? He took office in the midst of a tariff crisis, that is true. He did not create it, that is true. He could not negotiate everything in the first week, that is true. However, in every quarter of his term, we have neither an agreement nor any negotiations. Our relations are deteriorating, and things are falling apart. Nearly 80% of our exports go to the United States. I understand that the Prime Minister is out and about with his address book, travelling and striking trade deals, and that is fine. However, it is wrong to believe that we should completely set aside our relationship with the Americans. That would be economic suicide. That is literally what the Prime Minister is doing. That is what we are seeing with the 4.1% drop in exports. That is what we should be discussing today: that figure, and that figure alone.

It is always difficult to talk about the economic situation in Parliament. However, let us be honest. When jobs are created, the government often claims that it has created them. Most of the time, that is not true. There are cyclical factors. There are international factors. Governments do not necessarily create jobs. Likewise, a recession is not always a government's fault.

I will give the example of the Harper government in 2015. After Stephen Harper became prime minister, there was an energy crisis that led to a crash in oil prices. That was in no way the federal government's fault. Later on, Canada found itself in a recession. That was not Prime Minister Harper's fault. The job losses and decline in investment were the result of a situation that the government had to address. In that case, it was not the government's fault. Most of the time, that is how it is.

However, in this case, the government is playing a special role. The government is describing the situation as though it is not responsible for it. The government is telling us—

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

There is some noise. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to go and check what is causing it, because it is very disruptive.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, the government keeps saying that it is trying to control what it can, but that there is very little that it actually can control. It is going to pay out benefits and put together a package of stimulus measures, as if this could go on forever. The government keeps saying that it is not to blame. However, in this case, the government messed up, because the Prime Minister was elected on the solemn promise that he would be better at negotiating with the Americans than anyone else on the planet. That was his promise. Today, exports are tanking. I see that as a serious problem.

The Liberals are going to stand up. I know it. I see the MPs on the other side; we are starting to get to know them. They are going to tell us that per capita GDP is rising and that they have put an end to the per capita recession. However, when we told them, over the last two years, that per capita GDP was falling and that the average Canadian was becoming poorer, they told us we were anti-immigration racists, that it made no sense to speak out against immigrants, that they were the ones who would be looking after us in long‑term care. Now, all of a sudden, we are supposed to be talking about per capita measures. They can go back through the Hansard and see that I have been talking about per capita figures for a long time.

What happened? The Liberals reduced immigration levels. They used to be under the thumb of the person who is now their ambassador in Washington, someone involved in the Century Initiative group. These people had decided that there would be 100 million Canadians by 2100 and that they had to get to work immediately, without co‑ordinating with the provinces to ensure that these people would have access to services, that immigration would be successful and that everything would run smoothly.

I am in favour of immigration. I met the love of my life thanks to immigration. That is not the issue. We want integration, housing and so on, but the Liberals are cutting all that stuff. The population is declining, and they are proud of that. They say per capita GDP is growing. Economists are usually happy when GDP is growing because it indicates increased productivity, but in this case it is what we call a denominator effect. GDP is divided by the number of people. The Liberals are reducing the number of people, which means there is a chronic productivity issue, yet we are supposed to be impressed with them even though they attacked us relentlessly when we said the same thing three years ago.

The same goes for housing. I do not necessarily agree with everything in the motion. I do not think that we will support it considering how it is worded. The government knows full well that it is not going to build 500,000 homes in three years. It knows full well that housing was under pressure. As the latest data show, in the greater Montreal area, for example, we have almost reached a break-even point, with a vacancy rate of around 3%. There is a connection. The important thing is not the identity of the people in the housing, it is the number of people compared to the number of housing units. The number of housing units has to increase in proportion to the number of people to avoid creating pressure.

The Liberals will say that housing prices are dropping because of Build Canada Homes, something that no one has figured out yet. We do not understand how it works. The Crown corporation signs agreements and makes announcements, but no housing has been built. The Liberals will boast that their policies are working. We have been telling them this for years.

Earlier, the member for Whitby told the Conservatives that they never suggest anything and that all they do is complain. We have been proposing ideas for successful and well‑thought‑out immigration for years and we were called racists. Today, they are going to say that all we do is complain, and yet the Prime Minister is incapable of negotiating a trade agreement, the Saint‑Michel sawmill in Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints is about to close and our furniture industry is in crisis. The Liberals will tell us that exports to Europe have increased. Indeed, aluminum smelters are sending aluminum to Europe that they are not selling to the United States, and that is what is inflating the data. That is exactly what is happening. No, we are not getting any results.

The Liberals laugh at our proposals, but when we ask them to create a wage subsidy to free up the employment insurance system—whose actuarial structure cannot withstand two crises within seven years, including COVID-19—they should listen to us. When we tell them to reform employment insurance as well, they boast about having implemented yet more temporary measures. People are living in uncertainty. When we have had pilot projects for 15 years, perhaps it is time to assess whether they have worked and to move toward reform. Launching one pilot project after another is not policy. It is improvisation.

We are also asking that the government purchase a portion of the countervailing duties paid to the United States on behalf of the forestry industry. This would be an asset for the government that would provide liquidity to players in the forestry sector, enabling them to maintain their operations and deal with the unjust situation the Americans created. What am I doing? Is this just whining?

We are asking them to ensure that health care funding increases keep pace with the 6% rise in system costs. It is 5% this year and will drop to 3%. What is this? Is this just whining? Are they telling us that rebuilding a hospital creates fewer jobs than a military base?

To kick-start the economy, some choices need to be made.

The government pulls out its numbers, they break down the GDP and they tell us that everything is fine. They say that they are doing everything right and that it is not their fault when things are going badly. However, when things go well, they say it is because of the policies they implemented four or five months ago. I call on all government members to show a little more humility, because we have a long way to go in this matter.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Mirabel's passion is exceeded only by his knowledge on this subject.

I understand the member's point about measuring and calling a recession, but we have to set numbers somewhere. The fact is that Canada's economy has contracted for three of the last four quarters. Not a single country in the G7 has had a contraction in the economy in the last four quarters.

The government, we hear constantly, is blaming it on the trade war with the U.S. Mexico, which is more reliant by a fair amount on trade with the U.S. than Canada is, has actually seen its exports to the U.S. rise. Mexico, which is, again, more reliant on the U.S., has not fallen into a recession or a contraction in its economy, unlike Canada.

I wonder if my colleague could expand a bit on his talk about how the government needs to stop blaming the U.S. for political gain and start working to improve the economy and exports, much like Mexico has.

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

Madam Speaker, we sometimes get asked what the Bloc Québécois would do if we were in charge of the negotiations instead of the Prime Minister. Personally, I cannot promise miracles. We have always said that we would support the Prime Minister once he has a clear and intelligent strategy that he shares with us. After more than a year, that still has not happened.

I have the figures for the last five quarters. In the first quarter of 2025, there was 0.7% growth; that does not get us very far. There was a decline in the second quarter of last year, followed by a slight upturn in the third and a decline in the fourth. That means we are arguing over whether we have 0% growth or a 0.1% decline. Things are not looking good.

The problem is exports. When the companies that are showing a bit of resilience are no longer able to keep stockpiling inventory, there is going to be a problem. These figures do not take into account the new tariff calculations announced in April. The effect of that announcement is going to be felt gradually. Quebec is being hit the hardest. This new calculation is not yet included in these statistics. It is essentially a new calculation for tariffs on steel, aluminum and a few other goods. On the other side of the House, those who think that everything is fine, those who think that we have come through this and that we are more resilient, they need to bring their rhetoric into line with reality, regardless of how today's Conservative motion is worded.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, we could have said a lot of things, but we are short on time. I will just say two things.

First, when we break down GDP, we should note that one of the sources of weakness in the first quarter was government spending. We know this is temporary. It is an adjustment, and it will change. However, I agree with my colleague that one of the main issues is exports. Indeed, exports to the United States are a significant problem, and it will need to be addressed over time.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about private investment, especially in a climate of uncertainty. After all, the decline in exports and the trade war are also creating a great deal of uncertainty. Another trend we are seeing is a freeze on private investment, particularly in machinery, equipment, and so on.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say two things.

My colleague, who knows I hold him in high regard, thinks that we do not have enough time for debate. I suggest that he go and talk to cabinet and tell them to stop imposing gag orders because we are not short on time in the House. They are the ones who do not want to debate. They have a caucus meeting tomorrow morning. I think that the member should strongly argue his point. If I could support him, I would, but I have no intention of crossing the floor.

When it comes to private investment, we have issues with stagnation, competitiveness and productivity. It is true that there are issues that need to be addressed. However, while private investment is factored into GDP today, it is one of the main drivers of future growth. It is true that certain factors remain constant. It is true that the Prime Minister is doing what is taught in a first-year economics course. He is saying that the economy is not doing well so we are going to spend and do what we always do in a crisis. That is undeniably Canadian and that is what is taught in school.

However, exports are a key issue. We cannot allow our exports to keep falling by 2%, 3% or 4% year after year, quarter after quarter. This decline in our exports is not slowing down. It is getting worse and we have not yet seen the full impact of the tariffs announced in April.

In my opinion, that is the only thing that we should be talking about today, nothing else.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said that exports are down in Canada. Everyone is aware that the effects of the U.S. tariffs are very likely having an impact on exports to the U.S. However, the Prime Minister promised a new policy, namely that we would move away from the U.S. and develop partnerships around the world, which would compensate for the challenges associated with the U.S.

Does my colleague think that the data show that this strategy is working?

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

Madam Speaker, no government in Canada has ever argued that diversification is a bad thing. I believe it was Stephen Harper who signed our free trade agreement with South Korea, was it not? I would have to check. I think it was. Governments have signed free trade agreements.

Government members go around saying that Canada is protected, that it has the most bilateral agreements with G7 nations. Of course, the government has always sought to diversify trade. However, we have to consider the reality of our geography and interdependence with certain industries. Canada's automotive industry cannot exist without the U.S. market, which is close by. We need to do both.

The Prime Minister is pitting the two against each other. He is turning the diversification strategy into rhetoric which, in my view, is damaging our trade relationship with the United States. That relationship will one day be restored. This situation is getting to the point where the human impact—the impact on families and jobs—is very real. The government cannot spend its time simply sending out cheques in an economy where exports are declining, especially for Canada, which is a small open economy dependent on its exports, regardless of where it exports to.

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

Madam Speaker, my question concerns the Bloc Québécois's economic approach. It is clear that the Liberals, the former Conservatives and the current Conservative Party all think alike when it comes to the economy. It is always about economic growth, but without regard for the well-being of everyone.

What do my colleague from Mirabel and the Bloc Québécois think of the circular economy or Kate Raworth's book Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist? Could my colleague explain what the Bloc Québécois's approach to envisioning a different economy entails?

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

Madam Speaker, there is growth, wealth, income and the way they are distributed.

The Bloc Québécois's approach is quite simple. We note that fiscal capacity and room to manoeuvre are concentrated in Ottawa. Education, child care, health care, social services and municipalities—which are facing a homelessness crisis—fall under provincial jurisdiction or are directly provincial responsibilities. If we want a more just, more inclusive society with greater social mobility, transfers need to increase, and Ottawa needs to stop trying to create a social safety net managed by Cúram, that is not even capable of issuing cheques. That is our view.

As for the circular economy, we need an economy that is more environmentally friendly and generates less waste. We need an economy that takes all these issues into account. Twenty or 30 years ago, we were filling landfills. Today, we realize that what we threw away were resources that can be recovered and given value, provided we create a market for them. In my opinion, that is an approach for the future.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned a situation earlier and wondered whether it was the Harper government that established free trade with South Korea. The answer is a categorical yes. Members may recall that, under the visionary leadership of Ed Fast, the then minister of international trade, Canada, under Mr. Harper, had free trade agreements with 40 or so nations. Plus, back in 1988, when free trade with the United States was being debated, we received the support of Quebeckers, especially prominent Quebeckers like Bernard Landry and Jacques Parizeau, who spoke out in favour of free trade.

I would appreciate it if the member could explain why free trade is important for Canada and especially for Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, free trade allows us to specialize in the things we do best. It is not a contest to see who is the best and who is not. What I was trying to illustrate is that diversification has always been a constant battle for successive federal governments. The miracle that this Prime Minister is promising is decades in the making. The thing he is promising to deliver within three years in order to win votes is not going to happen within three years. It is something that happens gradually. I think he needs to work on improving his relationship with our neighbours to the south.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in today's debate on Canada's economic future, particularly with regard to the reality facing all Canadians as we speak, because yes, sadly, Canada is in a recession. It is with great joy and pleasure that I will share my time with my distinguished colleague from Calgary Crowfoot, and I thank all those who are vigilant, unlike myself, who have unfortunately dropped the ball. In that regard, I will have a few words to say about people who have dropped the ball.

We are not happy to note that Canada is in a recession. As all economists know, a country is in a recession when its gross domestic product, or GDP, is negative for two consecutive quarters. Some may seek to qualify this particular recession, but, mathematically speaking and quite clearly, it is defined as follows: If the GDP is down for two consecutive quarters, it is a recession, and that is what we are dealing with.

Some have tried to quibble over this definition of a recession. However, beyond the quibbling, there is the reality of the hardships faced by Canadians—hardships that have plagued Canada for far too long. We have the worst food inflation among G7 countries. Every month, 2.2 million Canadians turn to food banks for food. Let us not forget that we are in Canada. Of that number, one-third are children. Families, fathers and mothers, cannot afford to provide for themselves and must resort to visiting food banks.

I want to mention some folks in my riding, including people at Amélie et Frédérick and community fridges in Val‑Bélair, L'Ancienne‑Lorette and Loretteville on Racine. These people are working hard to provide food aid, and God knows their work is essential. We are fortunate that these volunteers with various charities in every riding, especially my riding, Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, are thinking of the least fortunate. The thing is, these folks are telling me that the people who donated to food banks for years are now the ones coming to food banks so they can feed their families properly.

Unfortunately, Canada also has the second-highest unemployment rate among G7 countries. That is the reality in Canada. Those are the problems Canadians are facing. This confirms the sad reality that Canada is in a recession: those 112,000 jobs that were lost since the beginning of the year. There is the reality faced by entrepreneurs who want to invest but are dealing with serious concerns about economic stability. They cannot invest in an environment that is not stable, and the Canadian economy is currently losing momentum. We can also see the impact in trade flows. Some $20 billion in investment has left Canada, on top of the $1 trillion in investment that has not been made in Canada over the past 10 years under Justin Trudeau and the current Prime Minister. That is why we feel that the Canadian economy is weakening, that it is declining and that it is in recession.

It is also important to understand that, over the last 10 years, Liberal governance has, unfortunately, not changed much. Take a look at what happened between 2015 and 2025, and from 2025 until today. Unfortunately, we are still on the same track. The government spends without restraint, it shows no concern for properly managing the money of Canadians who pay GST every day and their taxes every month, when our primary responsibility, as parliamentarians, is to ensure that the money is spent wisely. We have been living beyond our means for nearly 11 years. The debt has risen by $1 trillion, which is almost twice the total debt accumulated over the previous 125 years. That is the reality of Liberal management: $1 trillion in additional debt.

Last week, I had an exchange with the Minister of Finance during committee of the whole. I reminded him that he is the third-most senior minister in the government, since the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy and the Minister of Industry were both appointed ministers as soon as Mr. Trudeau was elected. Six months later, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, the current Minister of Finance, was appointed.

Today, as Minister of Finance, he is responsible for debts totalling $1 trillion, because that $1 trillion in debt has accumulated over the past 10 years. That is money we do not have. That is money that had to be printed. That is debt we are passing on to our children, our grandchildren, and our great-grandchildren, who have not yet been born but who will have to pay for it. That is why we must be careful. That is why we need a positive, winning strategy for Canadians.

Our Conservative approach is basically to leave more money in the pockets of Canadians. Two months ago, we started a debate about transportation and gas taxes. That affects all Canadians, not just those who have a gas-powered car. We know that the goods we buy, like food, do not fall from the sky. These goods are transported, and, in many cases, gas is involved. This gas tax affects all Canadians.

Our proposal was very clear: Abolish all federal taxes for the entire year. That would leave $5 billion more in the pockets of Canadians. We believe that people are better at managing their money than the government, to whom they send their money in the form of taxes.

The government used our idea to fuel theirs, no pun intended. They decided to temporarily cut the excise tax by 10¢ for a few months. To paraphrase Neil Armstrong's words in reverse, cutting the tax may be a giant leap for the Liberals, but it is a small step for taxpayers. That is why we need to go much further.

Our approach is to abolish all federal taxes. That would leave $5 billion more in the pockets of Canadians. That is how we can help people.

We also wanted to unlock the full potential of Canada's natural resources. I have had plenty of opportunities to discuss this in my time here and on prior occasions when I was in the National Assembly. I am an ardent fan and strongly in favour of all the natural resources we have and all energy sources. When I talk about energy, I mean green energy, renewable energy and so-called fossil fuels.

Canada has it all. Canada has every energy source that countries would go to war over. Canada has all the natural resources it needs to achieve its own and the planet's full potential. Canada is ready to go. Unfortunately, the government spent a decade holding back the development that Canada needs, that Canadians need and that the whole world needs. The whole world needs more energy. It needs the natural resources and rare materials that Canada has. The way I see it, there is no such thing as going too far with any of this.

Furthermore, we must continue to open the door to free trade with countries around the world. As I mentioned a few moments ago, that has been the case in Canada since Brian Mulroney's terms in office, since the 1988 free trade agreement and since Jean Chrétien's efforts to extend that North American agreement. I am also proud to add that, under Stephen Harper, we truly broke down barriers by concluding agreements with nearly 40 countries, and that is a good thing. I am very pleased to see that the current government is following in those footsteps.

We must continue in this direction, while recognizing that Canada is a champion of free trade. If free trade creates real wealth for Canadians, then it should go hand in hand with lower taxes and lower taxation. If we are capable of that, if we are a global model for free trade, then we should also practise free trade within our own country.

I therefore urge the government to go further. That is why, unfortunately, Canada is in a recession. Canada deserves better.

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

Madam Speaker, my concern is that the Conservatives tend to want to jump up and proclaim that Canada is in a recession, such as they did on Friday. Even the Bank of Canada has cautioned the Conservatives and others. Saying Canada is in a recession is premature at best. The Conservatives know that, yet they seem to want to glorify the word in order to plant fear in the minds of Canadians.

The member put many comments on the record just now. He talked about trade and the importance of trade. We have had 20-plus trade and defence-related agreements in the last year under this new Prime Minister, who was elected just one year ago. He talked about energy. This Prime Minister has talked about making Canada a super energy supplier going into the future. Take a look at the major projects.

I wonder if the member would—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the comments by my colleague from Winnipeg North, even if they are wrong.

The problem is, where are the results? People are asking for real results.

I am sure the member remembers well the campaign promise by the leader of the Liberal Party 15 months ago. He said it would be elbows up and he told America we would be strong again. When he got elected, he went to the White House. What did he do? It was far from elbows up. He was humble.

What did he do a week ago? He went to New York. What did he say? He said we will make America great again. Who can believe it? This is the truth. This is the reality.

Imagine if a Conservative had said that in New York. Those guys would have been in a nuclear war against us.

The truth is that this country needs real effects and real results—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wanted to talk about natural resources in particular. One economic sector in serious difficulty in Quebec is the forestry industry.

In the Gaspé, where I come from, forestry businesses are often family-owned. Those that export their products have been hit with 45% countervailing duties since October. One business operating in my riding is struggling financially. I am talking about Damabois, which has plants in Cap‑Chat and Matane. Two hundred jobs across Quebec could be at risk. Clearly, the government is not doing enough to support the forestry industry.

Does my colleague agree with me that the government should do more to support Quebec forestry companies?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for standing up for the businesses in his riding and in his part of the country. He does a good job of representing those people, unlike what we have seen over the past 10 years.

I want to point out that we think that all natural resources should be developed properly. The best way for the government to help businesses is to find markets for them, support them in their search for new markets and reduce the related tax burden. Giving out hundreds of thousands of dollars and subsidies is not going to help. Instead, the government needs to help businesses develop markets and ensure that they have more money in their coffers so that they can invest in the future with the help and support of governments. The government needs to give them more room to act by opening up markets.

Canada has representatives around the world, so lumber from the Gaspé region could be sold around the world.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we listen to the Liberal government, we get the same message: Canadians have never had it so good. We have 2.2 million Canadians going to food banks every month. We have out-of-control crime. We have the only shrinking economy in the G7. We have the only shrinking economy among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. About one-quarter of Canadians are living with food insecurity right now under the Liberal government.

Does the member think Canadians have never had it so good, as the Liberals are claiming?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his hard work, which I appreciate. I have known him for the last 10 years. He works hard for Canadians and the people in his riding.

Let me be clear about this. Unfortunately, for all of the promises made by the Liberals, especially the Prime Minister we have right now who, in campaigns from coast to coast a year ago, said his way was the right way, it would be elbows up and we would be very strong because he knew about the banking system, there have been no results yet.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to speak to opposition motions. Today Conservatives call on the House to recognize that the Liberal Prime Minister has given Canada the only recession in the G7. It is so sad that it has come to this and that we have to call on the House to recognize the sad fact that Canada is in a recession and is the only country in the G7 for which that is the case.

Why is Canada alone in the G7? The government has blamed international events and continues to blame international factors for Canada's poor economic performance, but I point out to the House that every other G7 country faces the same international factors. The Liberals cite war in Ukraine, in the Persian Gulf and in Iran, but this affects all countries. They talk about the trade war that we certainly do not want and did not ask for in Canada, but I point out that the United States is tariffing itself. It faces tariffs. It has made the decision to make its own citizens pay tariffs on what it imports, yet it is not in a recession. It is Canada alone among G7 countries that is in a recession, so we have to look at other factors driving this.

The Conservative motion calls on the government to recognize that Canada has the worst household debt in the G7. There was devastating testimony at the finance committee about a month ago. Equifax and TransUnion, two of the businesses that track consumer debt behaviour, informed the committee that indebted Canadians are getting deeper in debt. They are going further into debt, and the credit balloon is continuing to expand but not with additional players.

It is not that Canadians are buying homes for the first time, or this kind of thing, and becoming new participants in credit. No, indebted Canadians are getting deeper in debt. They are coping with this not with higher salaries and higher incomes to pay their debts. They are stretching out their payments, refinancing their loans, skipping out on essentials, cutting back on other expenses and exhausting their savings. This is not sustainable. This is not going to give us a consumer-led recovery, because consumers are tapped out.

In fact, Food Banks Canada just released a report that says that among lower-income Canadians, food, other essentials and housing combined are more than 100% of the average household budget. People at the lowest levels are the people getting deeper in debt. They cannot afford food. They cannot afford gasoline. They cannot afford housing. They are coping with it by exhausting any savings they might have and getting deeper into debt.

Affordability is part of the crisis that we find ourselves in. With respect to housing, we call upon the government, in the motion, to acknowledge that we have the worst housing affordability in the G7. A first-time homebuyer, a young person or young family hoping to establish a new household and buy a home as part of a long-term financial plan or as a way to put down roots in a community, has not have a hope under the government.

The Liberals have presided over the astonishing run-up in the cost of housing that has shut out a generation of young Canadians from home ownership and traps people in rents that they are increasingly unable to afford. Rent has more than doubled under the Liberal government. Even though rents have been coming down for the last 18 months, as it has pointed out, they are still more than double what they were when the government took office.

We see housing as unaffordable. The Liberals have killed the dream of home ownership for a generation of Canadians. They have created a country in which one's ability to become a homeowner is really tied up in the question of whether or not their parents were homeowners and are able to share their equity with their children by refinancing their own home, lending them the money, co-signing, or all the different things.

I was in the mortgage industry, and for the entire length of my career, a normal person with a normal, proper job who wanted to buy a home could save up the down payment over a period of a year or two and could come in, qualify for a mortgage and buy a home. That is simply impossible now in almost all of Canada's major cities. It is a real shame. We heard testimony to that effect at the finance committee.

Our motion calls upon the government to present a plan to reverse the situation we are in. The Liberal government squandered the opportunity it had when it was first elected. Let us go back in time for a minute to 2015. In 2015, when the government was sworn in, it had a balanced budget and a conditionally approved pipeline to the west coast. Literally days after the government was sworn in, it cancelled the northern gateway pipeline.

If that pipeline had been built, it would right now be pumping 525,000 barrels a day to world markets. Let us think of the economic activity just from that one project alone. At today's prices, that is nearly $50 million a day. Let us think of the tax revenue foregone by the government. Let us think of the paycheques that do not exist from all the jobs that would go into the production and transmission of 525,000 barrels a day at today's prices.

The Liberal government blew it, and that was just one pipeline. There was also not yet an application, but there was an intent to build an east coast pipeline as well, and the government chased off that project when it started musing about changing, even before it put in Bill C-69, which really nailed the door shut and made sure no pipelines would ever get produced. What the Liberal government has done is it squandered the opportunity.

There were years when there was a strong world economy in the early years of the Liberal government, and the Liberals blew it. They still ran up deficits. They spent the cupboard bare in times of relative prosperity globally. Ever since then, they have been less able to cope with crises and have left us where we are today, extraordinarily in debt with a $67-billion deficit that the government just tabled and fiscal anchors that have been just cut loose. They announce one and then they abandon it.

The Liberals have presided over a productivity crisis that, two full years ago, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada said was a break-glass emergency. Well, the Liberals did not break the glass and deal with the emergency. They have just fumbled along right up to this very day.

The Prime Minister told everybody, about 15 months ago, that he was the man for a crisis and that he was the person who would have a deal with Trump's America by July 2025. The Prime Minister said that this was the time for prudent fiscal management and that as a banker he had the skills to manage the national budget. He said that he was a man for a crisis. It was all an illusion. Here we are now at a time when we are in a recession. We are the most indebted country in the G7. We have food bank usage that is off the chart. We have housing that is staggeringly unaffordable.

We have the same global concerns as every other country, but we are the one that is in a recession. The responsibility for that lies on the Prime Minister, and the 10 and a half years of financial and economic mismanagement that has occurred under the Prime Minister and the government's watch.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member needs a reality check.

Just over a year ago, Canada went to the polls and elected a new Prime Minister with impeccable credentials. Rents have actually gone down since he became the Prime Minister. The average household net worth has increased since the new Prime Minister came to office. Since then, we have had a AAA credit rating and the best financial position in the G7. There are so many things taking place, such as the major projects and a budget that delivers in many different ways to Canadians, yet the Conservatives consistently go around spreading misinformation to try to make it look as if Canada is broken, which is not true.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there we have it again: another Liberal saying that Canadians have never had it so good. I really wonder whom the member talks to.

The member raised the issue of the net worth of Canadians. I wonder if he has bothered to determine just how that average number might work out. Is it that there is an extraordinarily small number of people who have seen their assets inflate in value while the typical Canadian household is deeply in debt, getting deeper in debt and exhausting its savings just to keep up with bills?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about how the Conservatives want to eliminate all the fuel taxes. That would cost the government at least $5 billion.

Would my colleague support scrapping all of the oil subsidies so that the government can recoup that money?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member meant that we have called upon the federal government to eliminate all the federal taxes on fuel, he is correct that we have called upon it to do so. We are disappointed that the government has not done it.

As for subsidies, we are the party of free enterprise, and if the government would simply eliminate all the regulations and laws it has passed since 2015 that prevent projects from being built, we would be much better off today. I spoke about a couple of specifics on that in my speech, but it is on the government and its red tape that is holding Canada and our industries back.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, the front page of The New York Times declared Canada as having the richest, most prosperous middle class in the world. Eleven years after the Liberals took office, as my colleague mentioned in his speech, there is record household debt and delinquency, and the middle class is suffering. How is this possible in a country that is so blessed with the resources that Canada has?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is possible because there was a change of government in 2015, and the new government blew it. It really is that simple.

I mentioned some of the other advantages, from a government point of view, that the Liberals inherited from the previous government, in fact from previous governments. There was a decades-long running consensus around fiscal discipline in the House, and the Liberals blew it. They inherited, yes, what The New York Times described as the world's most prosperous middle class. This was a country where people could get ahead if they just did the work. A normal person could go to school, get a job, save a bit of money, buy a house, put down roots and start a family in a nice, safe neighbourhood. That is the country the Liberals inherited, and they blew it.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

I would like to begin where this motion does not. I will not begin with the numbers, but with the people this motion is supposed to be about. Somewhere, today, there is a parent at a kitchen table, running the math on a mortgage renewal for a second time because the first answer could not possibly be right. There is a young person in the same house who did everything they were asked to and is now looking at the cost of a home and wondering whether this country still has room for them. I am not going to tell either of them that these things are better than they feel. They are actually not, and we all know that. That worry is real, and it deserves a serious response, which is exactly what this motion is not, so this is where I part ways with the member who put this motion forward.

The Conservative Party offers that family a story that all of this is the fault of one or two people, conjured in a single year, and that the cure, which the member just spoke about, is to simply tear things down. It is a tidy story. It asks nothing hard of the party that is telling it. It is a bid for power and a social media clip dressed up as an answer, but it is wrong. It is wrong about how we got here, and it is emptiest precisely where it ought to be the fullest, which is on what they would actually do instead. The members opposite are just about everything they are not and have no ideas about what we should be doing.

Let us give that family an honest answer. The pressure did not arrive all at once. It built slowly over decades, through what successive governments of all stripes and at all levels chose to do and, far more often, chose to put off. There were too few homes built year after year, infrastructure was deferred and deferred again and productivity was left adrift while other countries pulled ahead. The one I know best is that, for decades, we let it become too hard to build big things in this country. Governments left the walls standing between our provinces so that it stayed easier to trade with another country than to trade with one another.

None of it was inevitable. It was the accumulated cost of choosing not to act. The bill for everything that was waiting came up at the very moment the global economy was being torn up and rewritten. There are tariffs at levels not seen in generations and supply chains are fracturing under conflict in Europe and the Middle East. The Prime Minister has called this what it is: a rupture, not a transition.

I did not come to this chamber as a political staffer. I did not grow up in politics. I came from building companies and creating actual jobs. I know what it takes to start something, to make payroll and to scale a business past the point that it is fragile.

I know the patterns the members opposite never name. In this country, we generate world‑class research. We build competitive firms and then, sometimes, we watch the industrial scale, the intellectual property, the jobs and the talent migrate somewhere else. This pattern is not a law of nature, but a result of choices. This is a government that has finally made the other choice. It has chosen to back our champions, keep our IP here, keep jobs here, build talent here and let Canadian companies scale without having to leave Canada to do it ever again.

We have made it easier to build big things again with the Major Projects Office so that nation-building projects stop dying in the queue. Ground has already broken on projects, like the port expansion in Montreal, which will move Canadian goods to the world for decades, and there are four major projects in my own province of British Columbia. The One Canadian Economy Act tears down the internal trade walls I just described. We have a productivity superdeduction so that businesses can write off investment right away and have a reason to make it here. We have a plan to unlock $1 trillion in investment over the next five years. We have $6 billion and 100,000 new skilled trades workers through team Canada strong so that we have the hands to build what we approve. We have Build Canada Homes, which is not another task force, but an actual builder with more than 7,500 homes already under way in this country.

Here is how I know it is working. It is showing up in my own province. Anglo Teck is choosing Canada as its headquarters, bringing blue- and white-collar jobs to British Columbia. Torys is opening up a new office in Vancouver. Lululemon is keeping its headquarters in British Columbia. These are companies that could plant their flag anywhere on earth, and they are choosing here because they see what British Columbia and Canada have to offer. They are betting on our prosperity. They would not place that bet on a country in decline.

The Conservatives are gleeful about the fact that there are challenges in this country. They propose no solutions and they continue to tear down, but what the rest of the world is seeing, through foreign direct investment, companies moving their headquarters here, talent coming to this country and researchers coming to this country, is that this is the place to build a future. That is because we have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on that, know what it takes to build big things and are prepared to do the heavy lifting to get it done.

The wider proof is real. Wages have outpaced inflation every single month this government has been in office. Foreign investment, as I said, is flowing to us faster now than it is to any of our closest peers. It is at an 18‑year high. Canada has now surpassed the United States as the most attractive market in the world for infrastructure investment. Our economy is now projected to grow the second fastest in the G7 this year and next. To me, this is not the portrait of a country in retreat, but a country that has decided to build again.

The member opposite asked the government to “immediately...reverse all the economic policies” that got us here. I would ask him to be honest about what that actually means. Does it mean reversing the Major Projects Office? Does it mean eliminating the superdeduction that rewards firms for investing in this country? Does it mean eliminating the work to tear down the walls between our provinces or the $6 billion for 100,000 new tradespeople?

While he is at it, let him tell that family at the kitchen table which of their savings he means to take back. Is it the national school food program, which his own party has called “garbage”? Is it the child care that his party leader calls a “slush fund”, which has benefited people in his own riding? Is it the dental care that seniors in his communities are currently benefiting from? Are those the programs he would choose to roll back?

To the Conservatives, the help that gets a family through the month is a line item that they sneer at. It is something to be looked down upon. To us, it is precisely the point. It is lifting families up so that they can build success. We cannot rip out the scaffolding and claw back what families are counting on and call that a plan to build.

I understand the impatience. After this many years and decades of building too little, Canadians have every right to be impatient, but impatience is not a reason to stop building and tear out the scaffolding. It is a reason to build faster. A family having a tough time does not need a politician to name their fear back to them, only louder. They have lived that fear. They do not need it performed as political theatre. The young person wondering if there is room for their future in this country does not need another performance of outrage from the members opposite, which has, sadly, become the only thing they seem to know how to do. Young people need us to build something worthy of their trust, and that is what our government has chosen to do.

In times of crisis and in times of difficulty, Canadians expect us to come together and build big things. They expect us to put aside pettiness and all of the things we cannot do to focus on the things we can and should do. They expect us to show up with solutions.

All of us who have kids know that when we have difficult conversations with them, a temper tantrum is not the way to a solution. Resolution comes through doing things together and showing by example. The Conservatives would have us believe that by ripping up the paper, tossing our toys and walking away, we are somehow going to build a stronger economy. That is not how economies are built. They are built by people who are prepared to invest in this country, which we are seeing now in record numbers. We are seeing that through workers who are prepared to be retrained today for the jobs of the future. That is what we are seeing. It comes with governments that are prepared to match the ambition Canadians have with what they need, which are the resources and the support to be able to get to those places.

Danielle Smith talked about how working with this Prime Minister is a joy. David Eby talked about how working with this government is a joy. I am really curious to know how provincial governments, from Wab Kinew's and David Eby's to Doug Ford's and Danielle Smith's, look at this government and say this is a government they can work with, yet the Conservatives sit there and wonder why their poll numbers keep going down and Canadians refuse to return them to office. It is because premiers of all parties have recognized that this is a government that is prepared to work hard for Canadians, build things for Canadians and invest in the type of economy that Canadians want to see built in this country for a future their kids can look at and be proud of.

Yes, we all know that times are tough. When times are tough, we work together. We are providing solutions to people to give them the supports they need to get through this period. We are showing them a path to a brighter future with the dollars, supports, commitments and, most importantly, the compassion and hope to be able to deliver on big things. We are doing that. We are backing it up by having the provinces and the private sector working with us.

I encourage the Conservatives to stop the slogans and get to work for Canadians with us.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is coming from a Liberal government that is completely out of ideas. Here is why.

We let the Liberals have Bill C‑5 because they said it was the thing they needed to get business investment and get things built at speeds we have never seen before in this country. We worked with them to pass it because we agree that Canada needs to get building and start getting things done, yet not a single project from the Major Projects Office has been approved and advanced to any next stage.

The Liberals then turned around and said that is not working. What else can they try? They decided to try a sovereign wealth fund, but they do not have any money to put into it, so they are going to borrow against it. They are going to use debt to finance it. It is going to cost Canadians $750 million a year just in debt service charges for their so-called sovereign wealth fund. It is going to be a debt fund. On top of that, they figured out that that is not going to work either, so now they are going to have consultations to figure out how to speed things up.

The government is clueless. It has no idea. Why does it not pass the sovereignty act that the Conservatives proposed to get projects built?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the question was. It sounded yet again like a litany of complaints and no new ideas, which is exactly what the opposition is devoid of.

Perhaps I could tell them something they might be hopeful about. In my province of British Columbia, there are now four projects at the Major Projects Office. I understand that the Government of Alberta is looking forward to putting forward a proposition to be able to get energy resources to tidewater. It seems that the provinces, the country and the private sector are working together to ensure that we are building things.

I understand the impatience on the other side. After all, the bill was passed less than a year ago. However, they somehow expect mines to spring out of the ground, mills to be built overnight and pipelines to randomly show up. People who have actually built things know that is not how things get done in this country, and it is not how we build real, resilient infrastructure.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a bit about diversification. In their speeches, Conservative MPs like to talk a lot about market diversification to help our economy, but the only market diversification deal the Conservatives were able to strike was when they exported their leader from a riding in Ontario to a riding in Alberta.

Can my colleague talk about the investments the Prime Minister was able to bring to this country that will help his riding and our country?

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the number of trade agreements we now have with countries around the world, we can see that countries are seeking to invest in Canada. Whether they are countries in the Middle East or Europe, or our partners in the EU, more and more countries are looking at Canada with confidence as the place to invest. Why? It is because there is a government they can trust and rely on. There are Canadian workers who have talent and are the best in the world. We have research and researchers in this country coming up with the ideas of the future today.

They see the convergence of those three things as a recipe for success and a place where they can place a bet, and they know our word means something.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his speech. While we do not necessarily agree with everything in the Conservative motion before us today, we do believe it raises an interesting and relevant question to which I do not feel the government has provided an answer.

Essentially, what the Conservatives are saying is that Canada is in a technical recession, that things are going badly and that the Liberals are to blame. The fact is I cannot say that they are not at least partly to blame. They are the ones in charge, after all. The Prime Minister, who was elected nearly a year ago, promised us he would resolve the tariff crisis with a wave of a magic wand.

Here we are a year later, and nothing has changed. Now, today, the government is engaging in rhetoric by trying to contrast having agreements with our southern neighbour with having agreements with other countries around the world.

Given the difficult situation, might it not be time for the government to sit down at the negotiating table with our southern neighbour?

It might be time for the government to realize that we cannot really get by without doing business with them either.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in English, we say we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

We believe we need to work toward resolving the issue of U.S. tariffs. That is what we are doing. At the same time, we believe it is important to diversify our trade with other countries. That is why we have succeeded in establishing agreements with other countries for Canadian products, thereby creating opportunities for Canada to diversify—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to interrupt the hon. member.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's motion is on a serious topic. However, it is written in a very unserious way.

As we know, the United States has fundamentally changed its approach to trade with countries around the world, not just with Canada. However, given our geographic proximity to the United States and given the fact that it is our main trading partner, this tariff dispute, which we did not initiate, is having specific repercussions on the Canadian economy, our workers and our businesses. At the same time, conflicts around the world, particularly in the Middle East and Europe, are having significant impacts on supply chains, which in turn affect the global economy.

In light of today's challenges, Canadians do not need political theatrics. They need a serious plan to strengthen our economy and make it more resilient. In last year's general election, Canadians had a choice between a team offering empty slogans and divisive politics, and a team with a plan to strengthen our economy. That is exactly what they chose.

Since our election, we have been working to diversify the Canadian economy, facilitate the implementation of major projects of national interest, strengthen domestic demand, and support our workers and businesses.

When we look at the motion tabled today, it is clear that the official opposition is not taking the current challenges seriously enough. Once again, it is presenting us with a motion that seems designed more to fuel social media content and generate sound bites than to propose concrete solutions and work with us for the benefit of the Canadian public.

I can list a few examples to illustrate our work and the results we are achieving. When it comes to economic diversification, we have been working for over a year to strengthen our trade partnerships around the world. This enables our businesses to access new markets and, at the same time, attract foreign investment to Canada.

In fact, over the last 12 months, we have made significant progress in this regard. We have signed more than 20 new economic and defence partnerships and secured nearly $97 billion in foreign investment commitment. These are concrete results. They have an impact on the Canadian economy as well as on the ground, in our ridings.

For example, agriculture is an important sector of the economy in Madawaska—Restigouche, where many farmers grow potatoes. The new agreement with Mexico will give Canadian potato farmers access to a market of over 130 million consumers. I have talked to business owners in my riding about this, and they are very excited about the benefits of this new agreement. That is how we build a strong economy: by providing new markets and new opportunities for Canadian businesses.

I also want to mention that, in our work to strengthen the Canadian economy, we are also looking to develop new sectors and build capacity in areas where we may be less competitive right now. I will use the commercial space industry as an example. Right now, Canada is the only G7 country without sovereign space launch capabilities. That means that our country, our businesses and our institutions have to rely on foreign countries, particularly the United States, to launch their satellites into orbit.

This reliance has real-world consequences. It is diverting investment to other countries. Naturally, since we lack sovereign space launch capabilities, investors turn to other countries. This leads to costly delays for our companies, since they need to launch their satellites through other countries. In addition, our critical infrastructure is at the mercy of decisions that are beyond our control.

In an increasingly uncertain and competitive world, Canada can no longer rely on others to guarantee its access to space. That is why we introduced a bill on Canadian space launches. This legislation will be a real game-changer by establishing the framework needed to build Canada's own space launch capabilities. The idea is to boost Canada's commercial space launch industry.

These changes will have real benefits for the Canadian economy. They will help develop a new commercial space industry in Canada and create numerous opportunities, particularly in the telecommunications sector. This is a particularly promising area. We often hear about connectivity problems in rural areas. Certain emerging technologies like low-earth orbit satellites show a lot of potential for improving connectivity in regions that are currently underserved by cellular networks. However, if we want a seat at the table, we need to have the capacity to develop these technologies in Canada and then be able to launch our own satellites. This also opens up all sorts of interesting opportunities in navigation and natural resource development in remote regions, as well as in the defence sector.

This will also help reduce costly delays for Canadian businesses. We also expect it to attract billions of dollars in investment to Canada. In fact, since the announcement of this bill, several Canadian and foreign space launch companies, as well as foreign governments, have approached our government to signal interest in doing business in Canada for satellite launches. This is creating new partnership opportunities with our NATO allies and strengthening Canadian sovereignty. It is a concrete example of how our plan to strengthen the economy also helps strengthen our defence capabilities and our sovereignty. Moreover, as a member from an Atlantic riding, I am pleased to note that this potential is particularly significant in the Atlantic provinces, where several spaceports are under development, including the Maritime Launch Services spaceport in Nova Scotia and NordSpace's Atlantic Spaceport Complex in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When we talk about investments that will strengthen the domestic market, when we talk about investing in infrastructure, building housing and delivering major projects of national interest, we have to start by investing in our workforce and our workers. In last month's economic update, we announced a plan to increase the number of workers in the country's Red Seal trades. For starters, apprentices attending technical training can get up to $400 in financial support per week—$16,000 per year—plus a $5,000 bonus when they obtain their certification. We want to give them a financial incentive to help them complete their training from A to Z. We will also provide financial support to small and medium-sized businesses that offer on-the-job training because apprentices have to accumulate a certain number of hours to get certified. Specifically, we will provide up to $10,000 in wage subsidies to small and medium-sized businesses that take on apprentices. This is an effective way to increase the number of welders, electricians, plumbers and carpenters, to name just a few. These workers are essential to achieving our ambitious goal to build more in Canada.

When we talk about providing employment opportunities, we also need to talk about youth. In budget 2025, we announced increased funding for the Canada summer jobs program. In my riding, it amounts to an investment of over $1.5 million this summer to support more than 400 jobs. These jobs provide practical work experience for young people in Madawaska—Restigouche. They will have an opportunity to work for community organizations, municipalities, day camps, the construction sector or SMEs. This wide range of employment opportunities might not have been available without this funding. For employers, SMEs, community organizations and municipalities, this is a game-changer. Over the past few weeks, I have called over 200 different employers in my riding to let them know the good news that they are going to receive funding this summer through this program. Based on the feedback I received, the program is making a real difference to them. I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the young people in my region who get jobs through the Canada summer jobs program a terrific summer.

When we talk about building a stronger Canadian economy, we must also ensure that we build a fair and equitable system and that we are there for those who need it most. That is why all our efforts to strengthen the Canadian economy are accompanied by a social safety net. I am thinking of all the programs we have put in place over the years, including the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit, the Canadian dental care plan, the affordable child care programs and the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. These programs make a huge difference to those who need them most. Unfortunately, when the official opposition is presented with measures that genuinely help people, their instinct is usually to oppose them.

In closing, I think that we can see a contrast between this side of the House and the other side. The motion that is before us today is a joke. It was written in such a way that it cannot be supported. It seems to have been designed to generate sound bites for social media. It proposes very little in the way of concrete measures. On our side of the House, we do not let ourselves get distracted by this sort of grandstanding. From day one, we have remained focused on our work. Canadians gave us a clear mandate: to strengthen the Canadian economy and make it more resilient. That is what we are doing to deliver the results the public expects.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I love hearing my colleague accuse the Conservatives of being people who just want sound bites for social media. The point is that we are not making things up when we present the facts, when we talk about the loss of 113,400 jobs in Canada and when we talk about how people are struggling to put food on the table. We have the statistics to back up what we are saying.

Statistics Canada has said that two consecutive quarters of negative growth mean we are headed for a recession. We are not making that up. I would like the member to provide further clarification on his way of thinking rather than attacking us in such a strange way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to reread all the opposition motions that have been put forward in the past year.

When it comes to the Conservatives, there is rarely anything substantive. It is always couched in hyperbole and exaggeration. There is little substance in their motions, and criticism comes easily. They are drafted in such a way that it is clear they cannot be supported.

Personally, I would like to see more substance and more solutions in Conservative opposition day motions.

We were talking about results, and we want results. Canada is expected to have the second-strongest growth in the G7 this year. Exports to non-U.S. markets are expected to double over the next decade. Foreign direct investment in Canada is up. We have signed more than 20 trade and partnership agreements around the world.

These are concrete results that are making a real difference for the people we represent.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my riding neighbour for his speech. He and I represent ridings where seasonal work is a reality.

According to the IMF, Canada's household debt is one of the highest in the world right now. Those most often affected are low-income earners, our seasonal workers, the very people who are indispensable in economic sectors that serve as pillars of our regions, such as the fishing industry.

I recently met Lise Lapierre of E. Gagnon & Fils, in Sainte-Thérèse-de-Gaspé. She spends long hours pushing carts full of crabs and lobsters. In spite of everything, she is dealing with the EI spring gap. This year, it lasted from March through mid-April.

Does my colleague not think that, to address the economic situation, this government needs to wake up and quickly reform employment insurance to put an end to the spring gap for seasonal workers?

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

Mr. Speaker, in our most recent economic update, we announced a funding extension for the pilot project providing five additional weeks of benefits in 13 economic regions, including the two regions in my riding. I believe my colleague's riding is also included in this pilot project. This will provide five additional weeks of regular EI benefits to help bridge what is commonly referred to as the “spring gap”.

This is in addition to other measures we have implemented, such as eliminating the one-week waiting period for EI benefits.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to thank my riding neighbour for his speech.

He talked a lot about infrastructure. There is an infrastructure fund that has been very useful for his riding and mine. The Conservatives voted against that fund. It is the rural transit solutions fund.

My riding and my colleague's riding are now connected by a public transit system, which is something our ridings did not have before. My colleagues can imagine how hard it was not having public transit. Now we do have public transit in our ridings thanks to the programs that the government implemented.

Could my colleague tell us how this program has helped people in his region get to other regions?

Could he also tell us how even tourists to our region are now able to benefit from this new service?

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

Mr. Speaker, our federal funding covered a substantial portion of the capital costs of providing a public transit service that is truly tailored to rural regional realities. FlexGo is providing affordable service that meets the needs of our seniors, workers and post-secondary students.

Since this service was launched, it has made a huge difference on the ground and in people's lives. This is an investment that is contributing to the economic vitality of our communities while providing an essential service for people who may not have any other way to get around. It has been a resounding success from the start. Ridership has been even higher than predicted.

This is a concrete example of how we are contributing to our rural regions.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was asked about the recession he created, he ran away like a scared jackrabbit.

Can the member tell me where the Prime Minister is?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister works every day to implement our plan to build the Canadian economy.

One need only look at the results; they speak for themselves. More than twenty new partnerships have been launched around the world. We have attracted foreign investment to Canada. We have the second-strongest economic growth among G7 countries—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member's time is up.

I will just remind members, we are getting close to that thin line in mentioning the presence or absence of members of this place; we are not going to go down that road.

Resuming debate, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday morning, we learned that Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. This is the topic the member for Edmonton West will address, as I will be sharing my time with him. As he will explain, we are the only G7 country in a recession. For the past five days, we have been waiting for a response from the Prime Minister, a man who has portrayed himself as a brilliant economist and crisis manager. For five days, we have been in crisis due to the revelation that our economy is the only one in decline, for two consecutive quarters. We are the only country in North America that is in a recession.

What does the Prime Minister have to say about this?

First, he said nothing. It took four days before he spoke to reporters. Last night, he approached a reporter. He thought she might ask him a nice question, perhaps give him a compliment. He was very happy. When she got to the microphone, the reporter asked him a question about the recession. Suddenly, he was unable to speak. He turned around and dodged the question. That is quite a response from a great economist.

This morning, we asked him the question: Is Canada in a recession?

He did not answer, other than to say that the economy is weak. Yes, it is weak. It is not the biggest and fastest-growing economy in the G7, as he had promised. It is a weak economy. Then he started making up excuses.

Today, we are going to deal with the excuses that the Prime Minister is coming up with to justify having the only recession in the G7. Today, he says it is purely accidental and that if we take a closer look at the data, we will see that the investment component of GDP is up.

Let us look at the report that Statistics Canada released on May 29, 2026. What does it say about investment?

Allow me to quote a line from that report:

Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.

Investment has been down for five straight quarters. One of the causes of this recession is the dearth of investment. Based on the numbers since this Prime Minister took office, there has been a net decline of $20 billion in investment. In fact, we have the worst investment numbers in the G7, and we can see that the only economic aspects that went up last quarter are government spending and consumption, not investment.

The Liberals' second excuse is that this is just a technical recession.

There is no such thing as a technical recession. Two consecutive quarters of negative growth is, by definition, a recession. The Liberals and their friends say we cannot just look at a single data point, so, okay, let us look at more data points.

In the first three months of this year, 112,000 jobs were lost. The net number of jobs lost since the Prime Minister took office a year ago is 45,000.

Canada's unemployment rate is the second-highest in the G7. It is one-third higher than in the United States. The economy contracted in three of the last four quarters since the Prime Minister came to power. Our economy has bled more than $20 billion in net investment. A total of $109 billion drained out of the Canadian economy, and only $89 billion flowed in. Most of that foreign investment has been used by foreign corporations to take control of Canadian businesses. There has been no real, material investment.

Canada has by far the highest level of household debt in the G7. This may be why Equifax reported that the number of insolvency cases had reached levels not seen since 2019, with a 19% increase over the previous year. In fact, 1.5 million Canadians missed a minimum payment on their debts. The mortgage delinquency rate rose by 32% compared to the previous year.

When we look at the numbers in Canada, it is clear that we are in a recession because of the Liberal policies that have been imposed. No, they cannot use the usual excuse of tariffs or global factors. Every other country in the world is facing these challenges, but no other G7 country except Canada is in a recession. Mexico is part of North America and shares a border with the United States, but it is not in a recession. Canada is the only one in a recession.

That is why we need to reverse the Liberal policies that caused the recession. The recession was caused by taxes, anti-development laws, government red tape and the doubling of the deficit. We, the Conservatives, are proposing to cut taxes on labour, energy, investment and housing construction. To reduce the cost and size of government, we are proposing to cut red tape, consultants, business support, foreign aid, handouts for bogus refugees and so on. The free enterprise system will enable us to grow our economy and cut costs. That is a real solution and that is what we are proposing today.

I rise today to address the news from Friday that Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Five days have gone by, and the Prime Minister has not bothered to answer a single question in the House of Commons addressing this terrible news. He said he was a man with a plan, a guy who could handle a crisis, and yet for four days, he would not even take media questions on the fact that Canada was the only G7 country in a recession.

Yesterday, while walking out from a speech, a journalist called him over. He had a big smile on his face, expecting that the media was going to again throw rose petals at him. When he arrived and found that the question was about the recession, he said oh, ah, and he turned around and walked away, that being his first response after four days of learning that Canada is in a recession, the only country in the G7 in a recession.

Today, he finally took a few questions from the media but refused to answer whether we were in a recession. He did make a number of excuses. He claimed that it was just that some aspects of GDP shrunk. In reality, he said, investment, is up.

What does Statistics Canada say about that? The report that broke the news of the recession said, “Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.”

It is not true, Mr. Prime Minister, that investment is up. In fact, the only things that were up were government spending and consumption, meaning that Canadians had to spend more just to survive. The things one would want to be up, like the net exports, were down. We have a trade deficit. Investment was also down.

He went on to claim that, in fact, it was just a technical recession. In what sense is it technical? The textbook definition of a recession is two back-to-back quarters of negative growth. That definition is met.

Liberals then say, as the Prime Minister said today, that we cannot focus just on one thing. I agree. Let us focus on the other data points.

In the first three months of the year, 112,000 jobs were lost. Since the Prime Minister took office, on a net basis, there are 45,000 more Canadians unemployed. We have the second-highest unemployment in the G7, a third higher than in the United States. Of the last four quarters under the Prime Minister, the economy has shrunk in three of them. Business investment is down 0.7%. Over $20 billion of net investment has fled since he took office. Equifax reported that insolvency rates have increased to levels not seen since 2009, up 19% year over year, and 1.5 million Canadians have missed a debt payment in the first three months of this year alone, with mortgage delinquency rates up 32% year over year. Canada has the biggest household debt load of any country in the G7. The CEO of the Daily Bread Food Bank in Toronto said that one-tenth of Toronto is now eating at a food bank. That is the real cost.

This is not technical. Hunger in the bellies of Canadians who cannot pay their bills is not technical. Canadians need a reversal in the Liberal policies, and that is what we are fighting for today. Let us have a strong, affordable and safe Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal more confidence in the Bank of Canada than I have in the leader of the Conservative Party. The Bank of Canada has indicated that the Conservative Party might be a little off on this. Conservatives might be glad that Canada, from their point of view, is in a recession, but, in reality, it is one of a number of factors. GDP has to be taken into consideration. Even though they might be gleeful on the other side, we on this side of the House will continue to work to build a stronger, healthier Canada and economy.

Does the leader of the Conservative Party have anything positive to say about Canada and how Canada is going to lead in growth in different areas?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked two questions.

Do I have anything positive to say about Canada? I have plenty of positive things to say about Canada, particularly the resilience of the Canadian people who, because of their hardiness, are able to endure the punishment that the Liberal government continues to mete out.

Do I have anything to say about the growth that the government claims the economy is going to lead on? I cannot say anything about that because the government and the economy it leads are not leading the G7 in any metric, other than the most household debt, the most expensive housing and the fastest-increasing food costs. In all of those areas, the economy is leading under the Liberal government and, of course, the first economy to go into a recession. That is not the type of leadership we want for our economy.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition.

I have been fortunate to sit in Parliament for a little over 10 years. For a little over 10 years, I have had the opportunity to listen to his excellent speeches. They tend to be very good.

However, every time my colleague rises in the House, ever since I first had the opportunity to listen to his speeches, I get a sense that they always boil down to much the same thing. To hear him speak, anyone would think we are constantly on the verge of an apocalypse.

Obviously, I am not saying that the economic situation is positive; far from it. However, I wonder if he should perhaps change his approach; furthermore, in his criticism today, he said that the Liberal plan is bad for the economy.

However, if we look at the Liberal government's record over the past year, we see that it has implemented measures essentially proposed by the Conservative Party. He says himself that the Liberals spend their time stealing his ideas.

Is he telling us that Conservative ideas are partly responsible for this apocalypse?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to say that the Liberals have stolen our ideas. They have done so in words, but not in action. They have not put those ideas into practice.

Over the Liberals' 10 years in government, they have increased the cost of government, doubled the national debt, expanded the bureaucracy and public spending, and blocked the development of our natural resources.

In the last election, they promised to turn things around, but nothing has happened. It was nothing more than an illusion.

The Liberal Prime Minister has kept all the anti-development laws in place. He has doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit. He has increased the cost of the bureaucracy. The government now accounts for a larger share of the economy than at any time in the past 30 years. All the anti-development taxes are still in place.

I wish the Liberals would actually implement the ideas they steal from us, not just pay lip service to them.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, it was announced Canada had entered a recession and it is no coincidence that shortly thereafter, Food Banks Canada brought out its poverty report. Perhaps Liberals will not believe what we are saying about their reckless policies that are harming Canadians. The Food Bank report gave Canada an overall grade of a D+, an F for employment rate and an F for food security. Right now, one in four or 25% of Canadians are food-insecure.

Can the leader talk about Conservative policies that will bring back a Canada that will work for all Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is the human cost of the Liberal recession. Canadians cannot afford to eat. In fact, yesterday's report demonstrated that about 25% of Canadians are food-insecure and 25% of food banks at some point last year actually ran out of food. Imagine being that single mother at the checkout, her bank account empties and when she tries to pay with her debit card, it is rejected. She looks at the lineup of people who all just saw her get rejected. She gets into her car humiliated, makes her way to the food bank and it is empty. What does she do now?

Liberals say that this is just a technical recession. I ask them to look that mother in the eye and say that her children's hunger is technical. There is nothing technical about it. There are real human costs for the Liberal government's failures, and if the Prime Minister cared at all about those costs and the people paying them, he would come into the House of Commons and answer a question about it, for once.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on our motion.

Food Banks Canada had a stark warning, and this is a stark quote from its most recent report: “Something fundamental has shifted in Canada.” It goes on to further say that, in Canada, “a job is no longer enough to ensure a reliable pathway to stability.” One in four Canadians is facing food insecurity, and 20% of the 2.2 million lining up every month at food banks are employed. I am going to read again that line from the report: in Canada, “a job is no longer enough to ensure a reliable pathway to stability.” That is what over a decade of the Liberal government has inflicted upon Canada. Something has fundamentally changed in this country, and it has fundamentally changed for the worse because of the government.

In Edmonton alone, we have two separate food banks just serving veterans. Those who have served our country in the military, but also RCMP, have two separate food banks to serve them, just for them to get by. At the same time, we have the Prime Minister spending close to $200,000 for gourmet meals on his jet just for three trips, while the Liberals are spending $200 million for Liberal insiders for a concrete pad, a cement pad, in Nova Scotia.

Canada has entered recession territory. The Liberals will quibble and say that it is only a technical recession and really does not count, but the economy is shrinking: not just the last two quarters, but three of the last four quarters. We are the only G7 country with a shrinking economy. In fact, even basket cases like France and Italy do not have shrinking economies. We are in fact the only economy that has shrunk in the last four quarters in the G7. No one else has: not the U.S., not Germany, which continues on its path to net-zero economic suicide, and not Italy, without all the oil resources we have, but just us. Again, think of the old world, the G7, and all the issues they are having with the Ukraine war and being cut off from their natural gas resources, and yet somehow they have avoided a recession like ours.

This GDP issue reflects our stagnating standard of living and anemic productivity growth and highlights our weakness in business investments. According to the Fraser Institute, investment in plants, machinery equipment and IP has fallen 20% as a share of the economy in the last 10 years. I wonder what happened 10 years ago that would cause us to be on such a decline. Further, the last four years have seen this decline accelerate, matching about four years ago when the current Prime Minister started helping the government as a special economic adviser. What a coincidence, I know.

More sobering news is from the Bank of Canada monetary policy report. The member for Winnipeg North just previously was saying that the Liberals believe in the Bank of Canada and that the Bank of Canada has all the information, and he asked if we did not believe in the Bank of Canada. Well, I believe in the Bank of Canada monetary policy report, which actually shows that the government is misleading Canadians on growth. The Bank of Canada is predicting, next year, a 16% lower GDP growth than the government just did in its spring budget. The year after that, it is predicting a 13% lower growth. I ask the member for Winnipeg North whom he believes. Does he believe the Bank of Canada, as he just stated he does, or does he not now, when it is not convenient for him?

Even the Bank of Canada does not believe the government when it says that we are the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We are not.

Further, which is even more sobering, for 2026, of the anemic growth that we have under the Liberal government, the Bank of Canada is saying 75% is from added government spending. It is not from exporting oil, perhaps, and not from IP or investment, but from government spending. In 2027, 44% of the growth in the forecast is government spending. The year after, 25% of all the growth that the Bank of Canada is seeing in GDP is coming from government spending. This is not a way to grow out of the troubles we are in, by just simply borrowing more money and spending more money. Over the next five years, we are going to have almost $400 billion just in interest payments. What are we getting for it? We are not getting growth, like the one we see in the other countries. We are seeing a shrinking economy.

What do we do about this? Well, apart from joining Marty McFly and Doc Brown, getting into a DeLorean and going back to 2015 to ensure that Trudeau does not get elected, we can change the policies now. We can start undoing the Liberal policies that are wrecking the economy.

The Chamber of Commerce, just recently in a submission to the finance committee, said that the government needs to focus on competitiveness, and that we cannot compete globally because of a regulatory and red tape regime that is seen as cumbersome and anti-investment. We have well over 300,000 different rules and regulations, over 450 different acts, sometimes with thousands of regulations per act that are tying up and slowing our economic growth. What does the government do? Well, normal governments around the world would perhaps say, “Well, let us reduce red tape. Let us cut some of the red tape.”

We know defence procurement is a mess, but instead of actually addressing it, the government created another bureaucracy to work around its own rules that it created. For major projects, it is same thing, adding more bureaucracy to work around the other bureaucracy it created. Further, the government created another bureaucracy for red tape reduction, and 34 full-time equivalents were added to the bureaucracy to cut red tape.

We submitted an Order Paper question asking what the government managed to cut for regulations. With 34 full-time employees, we ended up with 29 regulations repealed. Here are some of them. They repealed UN regulations regarding Sierra Leone. Wow, that is going to grow the economy. They cut regulations on corded window covering products. They cut regulations regarding board elections for the Wheat Board, years after the Wheat Board went away. This is what 34 full-time employees managed to do over a period of a couple of years to cut red tape. They changed regulations on the Wheat Board elections for the board of directors of a Wheat Board that does not exist anymore.

How are we going to grow the economy if this is the best the government can do? We could get our energy products to market. We could build pipelines. We could get rid of the oil and gas emissions cap. The government will say that we do not have that anymore, but it has not come out and said that the cap is dead. We could get rid of the anti-Alberta tanker ban, Bill C-48. We have a private member's bill before this House right now to eliminate the tanker ban, and Liberals are opposing it. It is perfectly fine to have Saudi Arabia oil come up the St. Lawrence, but we cannot have Alberta oil off the north B.C. coast. We could get rid of the costly industrial carbon tax and the unconstitutional “no new pipelines” bill, Bill C-69.

If we want northern gateway to get built, which could add tens of billions of dollars of added growth to the economy, the government needs to get out of the way. It needs to kill Bill C-48, the anti-Alberta tanker ban. It needs to kill Bill C-69. It needs to get rid of the oil and gas emissions cap. We need to get rid of the government's determination to wreck our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been just over one year since Canadians went to the polls and elected a new government. Some of the tangible actions we have seen in that one year include the fact that international exports beyond the United States have significantly increased. We can talk about rents, which have been going down. We can talk about the average household net worth, which has actually improved. We can talk about Canada's AAA credit rating and the fact that we have the best financial position of the G7 countries. We are still providing the types of programs that deal with the issue of affordability, like the groceries and essentials rebate, and providing assurances in regard to other social programs, like our child care program.

Would the member not agree that this is very much a holistic approach to building a stronger and healthier economy?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for fiction hour in the House of Commons. What has the government delivered in over 10 years? It is not a new government. It is the same old, tired Liberal government. It has delivered rising unemployment, record debt, record deficit and record Canadians at food banks. The government has delivered an economy that requires us to have two food banks just to serve veterans in Edmonton. That is what this 10-year-old tired, corrupt Liberal government has delivered for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my former seatmate here.

I would like to ask the following. The economic update did not take into account the new 25% tariffs imposed by President Trump on all products containing steel or aluminum. This will have a particular impact on Quebec, as 25% of exports from Quebec SMEs to the United States will be affected.

Does my colleague think that measures should be taken to support these businesses? The Bloc Québécois is proposing a wage subsidy to help employers maintain ties with their employees.

What does my colleague think?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a lot of great points. The Prime Minister twice promised to get a deal done by last summer. Twice, he has not delivered. The best thing we can do for my colleagues from Quebec and their constituents is deliver a deal. The government has failed to do so, despite repeated promises by the Prime Minister.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep saying that there is so much growth in Canada, so let us take a look at the growth that I am seeing. I am seeing growth in inflation, which was up 0.5% in April, and growth in unemployment in April. Food bank usage is up massively. We are also seeing that business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, which was the fifth consecutive quarter in which business capital investment in Canada dropped. I am wondering what my colleague thinks about that and if he has any ideas about how to get the government back in line.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, in a submission to the finance committee, laid it out. They stated that the current environment imposed on businesses by this government makes investment unwelcome. Canada needs to change. We need tax reform, and we need regulatory reform. As the Chamber of Commerce has stated, we need to fix our regulatory regime. We need tax reform. We need the government to stop standing here and pretending that all these announcements are serving Canadians. It actually needs to take action.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the same question. At the end of the day, if we are not investing back in our businesses, how are we going to grow the economy? After five quarters of negative growth in business investment, how exactly are we going to grow our economy?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes a great point. The Canadian economy is shrinking. Mexico has a far greater reliance on U.S. trade than Canada does, and its economy is not shrinking. In fact, its auto industry exports to the U.S. are double what they are in Canada, yet somehow Mexico is managing to grow its economy with the same issues we have. What it does not have holding it back is a Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

I will be opposing the motion. We have a comprehensive plan. I am seeing in my travels across the country and in my riding that the plan is starting to deliver results. If we take an honest look at the full set of strategies the government has announced, the measures as early as June, with the income tax cut and the delivery of the Major Projects Office, forward to the budget in the fall, with major measures to prime our economy, through to the spring economic update and the strategies we have announced during and since then, we see a plan that is starting to work and to have impacts on the ground.

I want to refer to a couple of these strategies because they provide important context when the official opposition is calling for a plan. The plans have been presented and are starting to land, I think, quite positively with Canadians.

I will give the example of the national electricity strategy, which we announced just recently, with an intent to double our capacity by 2050. We know that electricity is a key competitive advantage for Canada and that we have abundant and relatively clean electricity. This is an area where Canadian ingenuity, workers and opportunities coast to coast are available to develop the kinds of technologies that help lower costs and emissions, and help to prime and benefit industries at home, but also lead in some cases to an exportable technology.

I know there are a lot of innovators in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park who are working on businesses and innovations that are delivering, whether that is a more efficient grid, solutions that are putting power back into the grid or, indeed, solutions that are using previous internal combustion engine-based or fossil fuel technologies and converting them into cleaner technologies. The national electricity strategy is a very prominent example of one of the plans that exist in our broader plan to deliver economic well-being to Canadians.

I would also refer to the critical minerals strategy, which is, again, a key competitive advantage for Canada. We need to have the processing capacity and to identify the specific minerals that are available to us. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and other ministers have taken a leadership role in creating buyers' clubs by bringing companies, countries and investment funds together to identify real opportunities and then using the Major Projects Office to deliver opportunities to get those projects under way more quickly. A critical minerals strategy is key to our economic plan.

I would also refer to our auto strategy, which I, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, have some considerable involvement with, as it is the Minister of Industry's strategy. She is working very hard to protect access to the American marketplace and to protect the investments that exist in Canada but also to attract not only new investments around electrification and electric vehicles but also related investments in software and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. I am very proud to see that some of these sectors, which previously were confined to southern Ontario, are now spreading across the country.

I had the pleasure of going to the electric vehicle and charging expo recently in Toronto. It was such a pleasure to see companies from coast to coast to coast delivering innovations, including electricity charging for vehicles at apartment buildings in Vancouver, all-in software solutions out of Quebec and even the first green hydrogen heavy truck vehicle, developed by Elemental Trucks out of Rexdale. There are so many innovations coming out of Canada, from Canadians, out of this opportunity and this excitement around the kind of economy we are building. We are seeing it in the numbers. My colleagues the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and the chief government whip have already referred to some of these statistics and some real benefits that are coming from these strategies.

I will also refer to an area that I spend a bit more time on, the research and science portfolio, where we are seeing people coming by the hundreds from around the world, some of the most talented scientists, who are attracted by our impact+ research chairs program and our impact+ scholars program, to say that Canada is the place to do science. We just recently announced 658 doctoral and post-doctoral researchers. The best and brightest in the world are choosing Canada in part because, first, this is the place to do science and research, a place that is not going to be corrupted by politics, and second, there is economic opportunity and the hope that comes from the ability to do this work and deliver these innovations in Canada, for Canada and for Canadians.

I see the benefits of our economic strategy starting to take root in places like the University of Calgary, where I recently had the chance to visit a Genome Canada‑funded project. This is one of the great stories, and I am seeing so many of these stories coast to coast now, where we have eastern and western Canada coming together to deliver the kinds of innovations that are going to grow our economy. The specific project I saw was a project to make underground energy storage safer by using tiny underground microbes. This is a set of University of Calgary researchers collaborating with a Newfoundland and Labrador start-up, Triple Point resources. Again, there is confidence. This is a Canadian start-up out of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is investing its precious capital in innovation toward a carbon-reducing solution, collaborating with scientists out of the University of Calgary. This is the kind of national economic spirit that we are seeing more and more of, that this Prime Minister, with this government, is delivering.

We know that this has been the year for space in Canada. I was recently in Longueuil, Quebec, at the Canadian Space Agency headquarters, as part of the Horizons conference co-developed by the Canadian Space Agency and Space Canada, a government agency and an industry association working very closely together to ensure that the future space economy is one that Canada can depend on and benefit from. It is in this year of science, when we have not one but three Canadian Space Agency astronauts intimately involved in some of the key missions that have captured the globe's attention: Jeremy Hansen, Jenni Gibbons and, soon to go to the International Space Station, Joshua Kutryk. The Canadian inspiration around that has resulted in more interest and more investment. I meet a number of young people now who are starting rocket clubs, who are excited about participating in this sector and who often can get support through our research funds to then develop that kind of science and innovation. This is part of our economic strategy as well.

I see this locally as well, with companies like TransPod, out of my riding, which is developing a high-speed transportation solution between Calgary and Edmonton. Again, this is a Canadian company in eastern Canada working collaboratively with those in western Canada. I see it with a company like Beachman industries, again, in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, which is one of the first companies in decades to get certified by Transport Canada for motorcycle manufacturing. It is Canada's only electric motorcycle manufacturer. The co-founders have big ambitions to take this innovative technology and to grow it into the transportation space, delivering transportation solutions. They are Canadian innovators in auto manufacturing, and in this case, it is happening right in the heart of downtown Toronto.

What I also appreciate about our economic strategy, though, and I do not hear much about it from the other side, is that the economy is not just the GDP. It is the GDP per capita, so I do want to compliment my colleague the parliamentary secretary, but it is about much more than any one statistic. It is about the kind of community we create that makes it possible to have economic activity. It is about the kind of community we create that gives people the confidence, the support and the resources to participate productively in the economy, like national child care and the PSW tax credit.

I had the pleasure of speaking at the SEIU excellence awards, the first-ever awards event that the Service Employees International Union put on for its health care workers, Local 1. I saw those PSWs, mostly women, mostly educated in other countries, say that, yes, because of the work done together and because of the government recognition of that work, there is going to be a tax credit that is going to recognize their specific efforts during the pandemic and beyond. That is going to put aroun $1,100 in those workers', mostly women's, pockets. Members can bet that is going to help the economy in those households because those families, those women, are going to be spending that money out in the economy.

I even see it in places like the many business improvement areas that we are blessed to have in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, which is the home of the original business improvement area, in Bloor West Village. We are hearing from them that, yes, public safety is really important, and there is some appreciation for the new provisions around bail legislation, and that public safety and the public realm as well as supporting people at different levels of the economic scale and different income levels are key to having a strong economy. In Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, we are very appreciative of the opportunity to see that.

Finally, in my riding, I see it in the housing we are building, whether it is social housing, supportive housing or some of the co-operative or private sector housing that I will be happy to talk about in future months in the riding. The kinds of housing opportunities we are creating in the riding create an opportunity to participate economically in a much more productive way. It is a kind of investment in housing that, unfortunately, I hear regularly criticized by the other side.

We have an economic plan that is starting to land with Canadians, and I look forward to questions on it from my colleagues.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way talked a lot about investment in research, so I am going to ask a straightforward question.

When it comes to investment in research in Saskatchewan, we are losing two research farms in the agriculture industry because the Liberals have cut the funding for agriculture research. Also, at Environment Canada, they have cut funding for radar research, which is going to hamper our ability to give warnings when heavy snow, rainfall and blizzards happen.

If he is going to brag about the research funding the Liberals have done, what about the people they are leaving behind in Saskatchewan with the agricultural research cuts and the radar research cut at Environment Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I had the chance to visit Saskatoon in January or February of this year, and I had the pleasure to visit the facilities and the labs that are being funded at the University of Saskatchewan, in particular the VIDO vaccine facility, a world-leading facility, as well as the cyclotron facility. They are world-leading major research facilities that are, again, attracting scientists from around the world, as well as SAIT. SAIT and the University of Saskatchewan have a really strong collaboration that brings research together, at both the college and university levels.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, looking at how the Canadian economy has been performing, it is clear that the real problem is exports. We know that the forestry industry is being hit hard by 45% countervailing duties, which of course limits its ability to export competitively to the American market.

We in the Bloc Québécois proposed that the government buy back the countervailing duties, the money owed to our businesses, in order to give them a bit of liquidity.

Why did the government not take up our suggestion?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat familiar with the challenges my colleague is talking about. I am from Bathurst, New Brunswick, which is right across Chaleur Bay. I am therefore very familiar with the challenges and issues facing the forestry industry. We have been hit hard by U.S. tariffs for decades. We are working very hard. We are in close contact.

As for my colleague's suggestions, I know that, on our side, we have supported the industry through the strategic fund and other support measures, but we are always happy to continue the conversation with him.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal concluded that Canada's ongoing policies amount to genocide, pointing specifically to the government's seized value of indigenous lands, territories and resources. The tribunal noted that part of the issue is related to the failure of the government to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples.

Will the government begin to uphold its constitutional obligations and uphold section 35(3) rights? Will it take this finding very seriously and respect the right to self-determination of indigenous peoples, or is it going to continue building a pipeline to the court?

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

Mr. Speaker, UNDRIP and indigenous rights, as well as doing economic development with indigenous peoples, I think, are foundational principles of this government. We have seen it reflected through some of the recent deals that have been announced. I hope to continue to work on it from this side, along with colleagues who are interested.

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

Mr. Speaker, building a strong economy means helping our businesses innovate. One of the tools we have is scientific research and experimental development tax incentives.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to comment on the work we are doing to improve and enhance this tax incentive program, which is very important to many businesses in our regions.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague champions that kind of research.

In the spring economic update, we increased funding for research at community colleges, building on a very solid foundation thanks to historic investments in the 2024 and 2025 budgets for research on defence and international intellectual capital.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in the House today for the better part of the debate listening to members. Earlier today, I was here for the opening speech by the critic, the member for Calgary East, when he was introducing the motion. I do not know if I just got bored of listening to the same rhetoric by the Conservatives, but I started staring down at the motion as it was written on my piece of paper and wondered what AI would think of this motion. I literally took a picture of it and asked AI, “What do you think of this motion?” This is literally the response—

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the chief government whip just acknowledged taking a photo in the House while he was sitting there, which is against the rules. I hope you will urge him to delete that, Mr. Speaker.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Technically, I do not think he said he took the picture while in the House, but of course, the member will take corrective action if that is so warranted.

I will allow the member to continue with his commentary.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is literally what the response was that I got from AI about the motion. Word for word, it said, “This motion is built for maximum rhetorical punch, not factual or analytical strength. The motion collapses complex economic indicators into a simplistic, worse-than-the-G7 narrative, cherry-picks metrics without context and demands an impossible remedy that has no coherent policy meaning.”

I hear my friend from Saskatchewan across the way criticizing AI. I would remind him to tread lightly in this area, given the fact that I am pretty certain at least 70% to 80% of the questions asked during question period by the Conservatives are generated by AI, before he goes down that path of trying to be critical of it. I can understand why he does not like listening to what was generated as a response, but it is the reality of the situation.

The real irony is not that AI spit out the obvious and what everybody already knows. What it really comes down to is that this is exactly what Canadians are feeling right now in watching the Leader of the Opposition's response to what has happened. Let us just take ourselves back to Friday morning when Statistics Canada released information that we were in a technical recession by a declining growth of, listen to this, negative 0.03%. We are talking about a really small percentage.

The Leader of the Opposition jumped on this news like it was the biggest gift he has ever received. He was so gleeful about it. He gathered whoever he could from his caucus who remained here on a Friday; they usually disappear halfway through question period on a Thursday. He dragged them out in front of this building, lined them up behind himself at 9:30 a.m. and gave a press conference with a gigantic smile on his face. He was so excited by this news.

Imagine being a member of this House, one of the 343 members, let alone the Leader of the Opposition, and taking such joy in knowing that Canadians are suffering? That is exactly what we saw from him. That is not even where it ended, because it got even worse than that.

Rightly so, a reporter from The Hill Times asked the Leader of the Opposition, on the topic of the economy, “Might you be going a little too far with this by suggesting that this is a massive, colossal economic situation?” The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, started laughing at the reporter and said, “Of course you are making excuses for the Prime Minister. What outlet are you from?” The reporter said The Hill Times, and the Conservative leader said, “Oh, yeah, The Hill Times.”

What I find so utterly amazing is that Conservatives, much less the Leader of the Opposition, are unable to recognize that their strategy may have been really effective in 2024, but with everything going on in the world right now, with the way that the U.S. is positioning itself against us right now and is treating us like an economic enemy at times, and with the sense of incredible pride that Canadians have in wanting to stick together and fight this together, the Conservatives still think that it is a winning strategy to talk down Canadians, to talk down the Prime Minister and to talk down the position we are in. I can wonder all day long about why the Conservatives think this is an effective strategy, why they are doing this and why they have not realized that their 2024 tactics are just falling on deaf ears right now.

People do not even have to listen to me. They do not even have to consider the fact that I am bringing this to their attention. They can just look at the fact that it is reflected in the polling. It is reflected in the decision in the last election. Canadians do not want the Conservatives. They do not want that rhetoric. They do not want that style of approach. They do not want a Leader of the Opposition who is going to laugh at reporters, challenge what outlet they are with and then dismiss them. Canadians do not want that.

I really wish that my colleagues across the way, who keep heckling me right now, would take a moment to reflect on the fact that maybe there is a little bit of truth to what I am saying. Maybe the Canadian people would like to see humility and would like to see a Leader of the Opposition who actually takes the time to reflect on the world that people live in and does not jump at an opportunity to celebrate it, so that he can say “I told him so” to the Prime Minister on what amounts to a statistical error.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is negative 0.03% of growth. I am sorry. It is catastrophic. Look at them. They are doing it right now. They absolutely refuse. They want to make this the biggest, boldest and absolutely worst thing that could possibly happen. That is the narrative they are going with.

I am actually not surprised, because they are just parroting what their leader did on Friday. He went outside this building, and he took the opportunity to celebrate the position that Canada was in.

Conservatives can keep doing this. They can do it all day long, but I am telling them right now that this is not selling to the Canadian public. The Canadian public is not buying this.

By the way, the Conservatives did this before. What situation did they set up for themselves? Their approach, always, is not asking what they are going to do to improve the lives of Canadians. Their approach is to make the other guy look bad, attack the other guy and beat him or her into submission so that they look like the champions.

Guess what? They tried that in 2024. To a certain degree, they were kind of effective at it, but it did not materialize into their forming government, did it? It did not. They just ended up coming right back. It certainly did not result in Conservatives forming government.

The key thing they are missing is that, rather than just attack, attack, attack, they have to provide solutions. They have to provide alternatives. I have said this so many times in the House.

I am actually trying to give them political advice right now. People back in my war room are probably asking why I will not shut up, because I am telling them what to do, but it is true. I am just trying to help them because I feel like they really, genuinely need it.

The reality is that Conservatives are going to keep doing this over and over and over. It is not going to produce anything for them because the reality of the situation is that Canadians are looking for parliamentarians, especially in the world that we live in right now, to work together, to collaborate together, to come up with ideas together and certainly not to celebrate potential downfalls, which is what the Leader of the Opposition and his caucus are doing.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, do members know what was amazing about the chief government whip's speech? He did not mention Canadians once. He did not talk about the 2.2 million people at a food bank. He did not talk about the food bank survey, which just came out, that gave them an F in food security, an F in employment and a D +in legislation.

He did not talk about the things that real Canadians are talking about, which we bring to the floor of the House of Commons each and every day, talking about how Canadians are struggling under their policies. He made it about himself. He made it about the Liberals. He even talked about our leader answering questions from the media. It is amazing that he brought that up because his leader is in the witness protection program; he will not talk about the recession he created.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know I am not supposed to address the presence or absence of members in the House, but that member listened to and sat here for my entire speech. After walking away from that, the only thing he could say was that I only talked about myself. I literally gave them political advice for eight straight minutes, talking about what they could do better. I am literally trying to help that member. He says that I am talking about myself. Of course I was talking about the struggles that Canadians are going through. What I was criticizing was the way that the Leader of the Opposition appears to be celebrating it.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this and previous speeches, the member opposite boasted about using AI to analyze the Conservatives' motion, so I have a lot of questions.

I was under the impression that people elected members of Parliament so they could do their own thinking about topics of debate in the House. Lately, elected Liberal MPs have been using algorithms from foreign platforms to analyze bills and opposition motions, and so has a government spokesperson.

I would like to know just how common this has become on the other side of the House.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a nice try. I am probably one of the very few members of the House who does not read from or use a script or anything when I am speaking in the House. I literally spoke to the Speaker the whole time and read four sentences from something on my phone.

We are about to go into question period, and every single question we hear, including from the Bloc, at least 70% or 80% of the time, will be a written-out question. I would love to know who writes out those questions for the Bloc or for the Conservatives.

As far as it goes for me, I stand here, I speak my mind, and I speak it without notes or assistance.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not find it surprising that the Conservatives describe Canada as a complete failure when millions of Canadians are working, investing, creating businesses and contributing every day to one of the strongest economies in the world?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely correct. The reality is that we live in a world right now that we could not have predicted two years ago. We are responding to the uncertainties in that world and laying the framework and the groundwork to have a stronger economy that is not reliant on one particular trading partner but that can be diverse throughout the world. I have full confidence in the Prime Minister's ability to do that. I think it is glaringly obvious to Canadians that the alternative in the Leader of the Opposition just does not measure up.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about AI, which I want to talk about. We know that Canadians right now are facing rising costs and economic uncertainty. Financial fraud is even becoming a greater threat, and it is not being talked enough about today. Organized crime is using AI-generated scams for deepfakes, spoof calls and fake investment schemes to target people already under financial pressure.

A record amount of fraud is impacting seniors in my riding who are losing their life savings. Families are being defrauded, and victims are often left to recover on their own. Protecting Canadians requires urgent government intervention: blocking scam calls, holding financial institutions and digital platforms accountable, ensuring that victims have access to support and recovery services, and growing the scale and urgency of this problem at a time when every dollar counts. When will the Liberals finally combat fraud using the measures they have, as a key tool in protecting Canadians' financial security and economic well-being?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this is something the government takes extremely seriously. This is the first government to have a Minister of Artificial Intelligence who is directly overseeing how we can safely implement artificial intelligence, which is inevitably going to make its way through society, and how we can safely do that in a way that protects Canadians but still sees the maximum potential that can come from this technology, including when that potential uses the opportunity to critique opposition motions from the Conservatives.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Newmarket—Aurora.

I rise today in the House to support the Conservative motion calling on the Prime Minister to take action to deal with the recession. I do so with a deep sense of responsibility, but also with great concern for the economic future of our country and that of our children and our grandchildren.

The facts are unequivocal, stark and beyond dispute: Canada is in a recession. The motion tabled today makes that clear. It calls on the House to recognize that the Liberal Prime Minister has given Canada the only economy in recession in the G7. The current Prime Minister has the unenviable distinction of being the only leader among all our partners to have led his country down this path.

While our international partners are tackling global challenges with resilience, Canada is sinking. The Liberals like to hide behind flowery words and their speeches. They call this situation a technical recession. Let us be very clear: There is absolutely nothing technical about this. There is nothing technical about a family having to choose between filling up the gas tank and buying groceries. There is nothing technical about the thousands of workers who have lost their jobs, while our country now has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, one-third higher than that of the United States. There is nothing technical about people seeing their dream of home ownership vanish forever because this government's policies have led us to the highest housing costs in the G7.

What the Liberals call a technical anomaly is in reality a crisis of their own making, caused by their own decisions that are suffocating the public by creating the highest household debt in the G7. This is very bad news for Canada, for Canadians, for Quebeckers, and for the people of Beauce, as my colleague would proudly say. People from coast to coast to coast need a strong economy and a government that supports it, rather than weakened Liberals.

Unfortunately, I am not surprised. No one on our side of the House is surprised. This recession is not just happenstance or the result of unpredictable international circumstances. It is the direct result of a decade of Liberal mismanagement.

After 10 years of this government, Canada's federal debt has more than doubled, soaring from $616 billion to $1.473 trillion. This Liberal government has racked up more debt on Canada's credit card than all previous governments put together. The Liberals have flooded the economy with printed money, triggered an inflationary crisis and made life more expensive for everyone from coast to coast to coast. The economy is suffering, and Canadians are being left to foot the bill.

Where is the Prime Minister's leadership while our economy is collapsing? What is his response to this major crisis affecting Canadian families? It is silence. The Prime Minister has not said a word about the recession. He refuses even to utter the word. He refuses to face reality. He refuses to answer Canadians' valid questions. Instead of presenting a serious economic plan, he prefers to look the other way and feign ignorance. This silence is an insult to workers who are losing their jobs and to families who are asking for only one thing: leadership. The Prime Minister has chosen to hide behind his ministers and stock phrases. His lack of public comment on the matter demonstrates a complete disconnect and a profound disregard for the economic hardship Canadians are facing.

Let us talk about the Liberals' disastrous mismanagement and its devastating effects. While ordinary Canadians are being forced to stretch their own budgets and food banks across the country are seeing record demand, this government continues to squander taxpayers' money on misguided projects, crony contracts and inefficient bureaucracies. Public funds are being managed as though there were no obligation to be a good steward.

Let us look at a few flagrant examples of this waste.

First, let us consider the ArriveCAN scandal. This app was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing $60 million.

Worse still was the Cúram fiasco, which was supposed to cost $1.75 billion and ended up costing $6.6 billion. In the most recent update, the government added an additional $500 million for this system. That is a cost overrun of over $5 billion. Who is paying for that? It is Canadians. It is those who work hard every day. It will be our children and grandchildren who will pay for the Liberals' mismanagement. That is a national disgrace.

The list goes on. I spoke about this next example already this week. A private company is leasing a plot of land from the provincial government for $13,500. That company then turned around and sublet the same land to the Liberal federal government for $20 million a year on a 10-year contract, for a total of $200 million. That is $200 million out of Canadians' pockets for a plot of land that is worth $13,500.

Instead of providing real answers, the minister told me this week that he would love to arrange for me to meet with some astronauts. I will invite my friend from Beauce to come to the meeting. The minister's brilliant management tactic is to offer us a meeting with astronauts in order to explain how a $13,500 lease turned into $20 million in subletting fees every year for 10 years. Come on.

The recession we are in today is no accident. It is the inevitable result of 10 years of structural deficits, stifling bureaucracy, punitive taxes and blatant contempt for sound fiscal management. Spending money does not lead to prosperity. Taxing people does not enrich this country.

That is why our motion today is centred on the need for the House to call on the Liberal Prime Minister to immediately present a plan to reverse all the economic policies of the Liberal government that have given Canada the G7's worst economy.

Canadians are fed up with their government asking them to tighten their belts while the Prime Minister stays silent and his ministers squander billions of dollars on a defective IT system. There is nothing that could justify wasting so much taxpayer money.

Quebeckers and Canadians deserve a responsible government, one that respects every hard-earned dollar of its citizens. They deserve a government that understands that taxpayers' money does not belong to the state.

That is why I support this motion with pride and determination. It is high time to cut Liberal waste, abolish Liberal taxes, restore a balanced budget, reverse these destructive policies and finally give Canadians back control of their economy, along with the hope and the chance to dream once again of a great and proud country.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find my colleague's alarmist rhetoric a bit sad.

I want to congratulate him. He is about to become a grandfather for the first time. I am a grandfather myself, twice over.

However, for my part, I can look forward to a bright future for my grandchildren thanks to the decisions being made by the government. Just think of the Lévis region, where the Davie shipyard has started construction and will be providing jobs for people from Beauce.

So I would like to know if he really sees this as alarmist rhetoric or if he will side with the government for the sake of his grandchildren's future.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite, whom I like a lot, also has the privilege of being a grandfather. It is unacceptable that our children and grandchildren are already $44,000 in debt the day they are born because the Liberal government caused the deficit to balloon from around $700 billion to $1.4 trillion in the space of 10 years.

UNITE Network

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to highlight Canada's leadership in strengthening global health systems.

As UNITE chapter chair for North America, I had the honour of welcoming Dr. Ricardo Baptista Leite to Ottawa, who is president of UNITE. Alongside colleagues and leading health experts, we discussed how legislators can work together to advance innovation, preparedness and stronger outcomes internationally.

UNITE is a global parliamentary network with more than 552 members across over 120 countries working with partners, such as the WHO and the United Nations, to promote fair and sustainable health systems and digital innovation. Canada has the expertise, the institutions and the credibility to help shape global solutions, from prevention and preparedness to supports for women, children and vulnerable communities.

By working together with partners through UNITE, we can drive meaningful progress that reaches communities in every corner of the world.

Victoriaville CEGEP Vulkins

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this year, the Victoriaville CEGEP's Vulkins sports program is proudly celebrating its 55th anniversary.

For over half a century, the Vulkins have embodied the pursuit of excellence, perseverance and teamwork. The CEGEP's dynamic teams and athletes have made Victoriaville famous across Quebec and far beyond.

This anniversary is significant for me personally because my brother Carl and I were lucky enough to wear Vulkin purple. During our time as Vulkin athletes, we developed values, friendships and a sense of belonging that have stayed with us to this day.

I want to pay tribute to all the generations of athletes, coaches, volunteers and staff members who built the big Vulkin family over the past 55 years. I also want to take this opportunity to invite all alumni and members of the public to the Vulkin reunion from October 9 to 11 and to the inauguration of the Boralex sports centre, which is happening around the same time. As they say in Victoriaville, once a Vulkin, always a Vulkin.

Kaur Collective Foundation

[Gurbux Saini, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Kaur Collective Foundation, a national organization advancing South Asian women's health equity and collective care.

Founded and led by Jessie Kaur Lehail, Kaur Collective Foundation works at the intersection of women's health, culture and power. It leads health equity research and projects that improve access to culturally safe care for South Asian women. Kaur Collective Foundation also pushes government and institutions to see intimate partner violence, human trafficking and food security labour through a cultural lens.

I ask all members to join me in thanking the Kaur Collective Foundation for its vital work supporting South Asian women.

Prairie Farmers

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a time of year on the Prairies when the alarm clock is mostly just for show because the work starts long before it rings.

In Manitoba, the last few weeks have thrown just about everything at us, including snow, sleet and wind that tried to relocate about half of the province. The plan can be made, the equipment ready and the fields waiting, and they will still end up in a fight with the weather. Farmers do not get to press pause; only the weather can do that. That is farming. They repair equipment, seed, spray, fuel up, pray for rain, pray for sun and then get up the next morning and do it all over again. Through it all, farm families just keep going. That is just what they do.

It may surprise some to learn that food does not magically show up on the grocery store shelves. It starts with families that take risks most people never see. It is parents, kids, siblings, grandparents and neighbours trying to pull together through long days and late nights for the kind of work that simply needs to get done. We thank the farm families who feed our country and keep rural Canada thriving. I wish them all a safe and prosperous season.

Bakery Cup of Canada

[Jacques Ramsay, Liberal, La Prairie—Atateken, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government is aware of the challenges facing SMEs, particularly the issue of hiring well-trained employees. With the team Canada strong initiative, we want to address these challenges by offering grants to apprentices in Red Seal skilled trades and to the SMEs that hire them.

That could include the bakery Le Duo Choc in Candiac, owned by two dynamic individuals, Katryne Deguire and Florent Lehmann, where apprentices would learn from the best, and for good reason. Florent and his employee, Félix Jeandot, were recently recognized at the Bakery Cup of Canada, winning the categories of best croissant and best baguette. Félix also won the award for outstanding assistant.

I want to congratulate these two artisans. I wish Le Duo Choc bakery every success, as it will be proudly representing Canada at the Mondial du Pain championship to be held next year in France.

David Burns

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with a heavy heart today to pay tribute to one of Oshawa's most devoted and generous community leaders, David Burns, who passed away this past Wednesday.

Dave was the cherished husband of Christine for 62 years, a loving father and proud grandfather. Born in Halifax, he moved to Ontario to start a life grounded in faith, family and later politics.

While his family will miss him terribly, he also leaves a deep void in Oshawa's tightly woven Conservative family. He was a long-time federal PC supporter who would become one of Oshawa's original Reformers, and in 2004, he became a founding member and director of the Oshawa Conservative Association, which he served continuously until just last year.

From the nineties through to my own campaign last year, Dave was on the front lines of nearly every single Oshawa election. Known for his dry humour and quick wit, he was a passionate man who stood unapologetically for his principles. That is the man our team and I will miss and remember.

I thank Dave for his unwavering service, humour and generosity. May God bless Christine and the entire Burns family.

Canada-Wide Science Fair

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise with great pride to recognize an extraordinary group of young girls from my riding of St. Boniface—St. Vital, Team Bison. These five students recently competed in the 2026 Canada-Wide Science Fair in Edmonton. In their fourth consecutive year at the fair, they earned a bronze medal as well as several prestigious awards and scholarships.

As someone who believes deeply in the potential of young people, I am especially proud of what they accomplished. Their curiosity, hard work and passion for discovery are inspiring. They are helping show the next generation of girls that they belong in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Their example reminds us of the importance of continuing to support and empower women and girls in these fields.

I thank Team Bison for making our community proud. Their accomplishments inspire us, and I have no doubt this is only the beginning of what they will achieve. I congratulate them on this well-deserved achievement.

Public Safety

[Roman Baber, Conservative, York Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I think the Prime Minister is trolling us.

What did he propose to protect the Jewish community? It was the Advisory Council on Rights, Equality, and Inclusion, with Omar Alghabra of all people. It is an insult. That is the Prime Minister's solution to synagogues being shot at and thugs harassing senior homes or marching in North York and chanting for intifada. Liberals love advisory councils. It is grade school level.

Why not take some real steps? They could enforce the law, call the RCMP's integrated security enforcement team. This is a national security matter. The Liberals need to deport the 700 IRGC agents from Canada. So far, they have deported one. They could listen to the Association for the Chiefs of Police and pass my bill, Bill C-257, which would criminalize the wilful promotion of terrorism. Work with us and pass my bill.

To the 400,000 Jewish Canadians, I am embarrassed by the Liberal government. The Conservative leader and all of my Conservative colleagues will not tolerate this nonsense. We will always protect Canada's Jews.

Artisan of the Year

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we think of Warwick, we think of cheese. For world-renowned cheeses and culinary and regional specialties that set trends everywhere, look no further than the best cheese maker in Quebec, who can be found in Sainte-Élizabeth‑de‑Warwick.

Jean Morin, the charming, generous and indispensable master and founder of Fromagerie du Presbytère, was named Artisan of the Year at the Gala des Lauriers de la gastronomie québécoise. This is yet another one of the many accolades received by Jean Morin and his team. He has an entire wall of them. It is thanks to him that we have the Louis d'Or, the Bleu d'Élizabeth, the Religieuse and the Taliah. All of these cheeses are a pure delight and pair well with a variety of Quebec wines.

A lover of local foods, Jean also knows how to bring people together with his Friday events at the Presbytère, which draw tens of thousands of tourists for delicious picnics and great music. Jean embodies the very essence of one of Quebec's most beautiful and gastronomically rich regions.

Bravo, Jean.

Westminster Hotel

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the Yukon has recently lost a treasure in the beloved and historic Westminster Hotel. I caught a last glimpse of this famous establishment, affectionately known as “The Pit”, while attending Dawson City's Gold Show just a couple of weeks ago.

Though closed after flooding during December's deep freeze, the hotel still glowed with rose-coloured pride in the evening light of Dawson's early summer. Sadly, it was just the next morning that we watched this storied pink dame of Dawson give way to a fatal fire.

Built during the gold rush in 1898, The Pit weathered repeated challenges from permafrost thaw, as it witnessed over a century of Dawson's countless colourful chapters, earning its reputation as Dawson's shared living room, informal post office and obligatory gathering place. My mind floods with memories soaked in the cheeky artwork of Halin de Repentigny, and I still hear the echoes of music of all brands, festive seasonal celebrations and the quiet murmur of chatting locals.

An era has ended. I bid farewell to The Pit and give a fond nostalgic embrace to all in Dawson City.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister's latest report card is out. Canada is the only G7 country with a leader who took its economy into a recession.

Canada's economy declined in the last two quarters and contracted in three of the last four quarters. There were 112,000 jobs lost in just three months and 46,000 more Canadians are jobless than when the Prime Minister took office. Business investment fell for the fifth straight quarter and $109 billion in investment has fled Canada since he took office.

Canadian households now carry the highest debt in the G7, the least affordable housing in the G7, the highest food inflation in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. Consumer insolvencies are up 19%, 1.5 million Canadians missed a debt payment in just three months and mortgage delinquencies are up 32%. Nationally, food bank visits have doubled, one in four Canadians is food-insecure and households pay 120% of their income on rent and food.

Canadians do not need more bureaucracies and slush funds for Liberal insiders. Conservatives will end inflationary deficits, repeal Liberal antidevelopment laws, cut red tape and bring home jobs, investment and hope.

Khalid Usman

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

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the Pakistani community in Canada lost a giant with the passing of Khalid Usman, and for me, he was Khalid Bhai. A friend and mentor to so many, he always had a smile on his face and never lost his sense of humour.

A Markham city councillor for 14 years, he lived a life of public service and gave back to the community in so many ways. As a dedicated philanthropist, he raised millions for charity, including Markham Stouffville Hospital and Shaukat Khanum, a cancer hospital in Pakistan.

For Canadians of Pakistani origin, he was a trailblazer, showing us what a career and a life dedicated to building a better Canada could be. I appreciated his encouragement and support from the earliest days of my career.

My prayers are with his wife, Dr. Abida Khalid, his three daughters, Hina, Rabia and Maria, his grandchildren and all the extended family members, and all those whose lives he touched.

May Allah grant him the highest place in Jannah.

Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un.

The Economy

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while the current Prime Minister is the only G7 leader to take his country into a recession, the consequences are felt by Canadians from coast to coast. Food Banks Canada just released its poverty report card for 2026, and it shows that one in four Canadians is food-insecure and food bank visits have doubled since 2020. These are not just stats; these are real people with real stories.

Parents call my office saying that they are giving up meals in order to make sure that their kids have enough to eat, but the Prime Minister refuses to take responsibility. Hard-working families cannot get ahead when they are left carrying the cost of Liberal waste, runaway spending and failed policies. Canadians cannot afford more of the same. They deserve a government that will end inflationary spending, repeal antidevelopment laws and cut excessive red tape.

We Conservatives will unleash Canada's economic potential. We will ensure Canadians keep more of their hard-earned dollars and we will build a more prosperous future for generations to come. Canadians do not need a government that stands in their way. They need one that is going to help them get ahead.

Red Shirt Day

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Red Shirt Day for Accessibility. In recent weeks, both in my riding of University—Rosedale and in the work of the Standing Committee on Finance, we have heard from Canadians with disabilities and the organizations that support them.

Too many Canadians with disabilities live in poverty. I was so pleased to see our government announce important improvements to the disability tax credit and to join the Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions at Community Living Toronto, an extraordinary organization in my riding, to highlight how we are simplifying the application process and making it easier for eligible Canadians to access supports.

Along with Canada's disability benefit, these measures represent meaningful progress. I look forward to helping build on this work because I know our government is committed to a more inclusive and accessible Canada.

The Economy

[Shannon Stubbs, Conservative, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made Canada the only G7 country in a recession. Even though the other countries face the same global challenges and tariffs, Canada's economy shrunk 75% of his term, with the lowest investment per worker in the G7. That is less opportunity and more stress for Canadians who cannot afford it. A year in, almost 46,000 more Canadians are jobless, household savings are at their lowest and millions of Canadians, especially kids, visit food banks just to get by.

These are predictable results with deficits double Trudeau's, higher carbon taxes and a decade of top-down “Ottawa knows best” chaos and division. So much for the elbows-up man with a plan for Canada. Canadians get photo ops, discussion papers and a self-identified European PM who just said he wants to make America great again.

Conservatives will cut taxes and inflationary spending, slash big bureaucrat bonuses and corporate cronyism and axe antidevelopment laws and red tape that block building to unleash Canada's economy so Canadians can hope to thrive, not just survive.

Prader-Willi Syndrome Awareness Month

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, May was Prader-Willi Syndrome Awareness Month, a time to recognize individuals and families across Canada living with the rare genetic disorder that requires lifelong medical, behavioural and social support. Last Wednesday, families from across the country gathered on Parliament Hill for FPWR Canada's first day on the Hill, raising awareness and advocating for stronger support, timely access to therapies and more inclusive policies for Canadians living with rare diseases.

This cause is especially meaningful to me, because one of those remarkable children is Olivier, my very own nephew. Like so many families, ours has witnessed both the incredible resilience of individuals living with Prader-Willi syndrome and the daily challenges they face. These families are not asking for sympathy; they are asking for equity, dignity and the opportunity for loved ones to live full lives.

I want to thank FPWR Canada and the families, caregivers, researchers and advocates who continue to push for progress and bring hope for rare disease communities across Canada.

The Economy

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Liberal Prime Minister. Five days after learning that Canada was the only G7 country in recession, the Prime Minister finally decided to answer a question from the media and offer fresh excuses. He says the reason we are in a recession is that immigration is too low and that per capita GDP is actually very good. Per capita GDP has risen by 0.2%.

Is the Prime Minister expecting a parade for that?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister answers questions rather than insulting the media. That is the first point.

The second point is that I think it is important to understand that our plan is working. Our non-U.S. exports are on the rise; in fact, they are doubling. The other point is that wages have consistently outpaced inflation. Furthermore, we can see that Canada is the most attractive destination in the G7 for foreign investment.

It is clear that our plan is working.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the per capita GDP growth rate is about as high as the Prime Minister's question period attendance rate. He should be answering questions about the fact that, under his leadership, Canada is the only G7 country to be in recession. Today, he said that investment in Canada has increased over the last two quarters. Let us look at the Statistics Canada report.

In the first quarter of 2026, business capital investment fell by another 0.7%, marking a fifth consecutive decline.

Why is the Prime Minister spreading misinformation?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a plan, but we are also facing headwinds. It is clear that with the tariff threats, wars in the Middle East and wars in Europe, Canada is facing headwinds, but we have a plan.

Our plan is working. We have a defence plan to spend money here. We have a plan for industry and, indeed, businesses are purchasing more equipment and materials. We have a plan for major projects.

The real question is why does the Leader of the Opposition seem so happy to gloat over the fact that Canada is facing headwinds? Why is he not presenting his own plan?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Prime Minister. We do not need more excuses. He has delivered the only recession in the G7. Mexico is not in recession. It is just as integrated with the United States and shares a border with that country. The Prime Minister finally emerged to take media questions on his recession today, and he blamed it on the fact that immigration, as he claims, is not high enough and that per capita GDP is actually not so bad. The only problem is that, in the last year, per capita GDP has only grown by 0.2%.

Does he really expect a parade for 0.2%?

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

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, except for the Leader of the Opposition, understand that we have the most integrated economy with the Americans in the world. They understand our economy continues to show resilience in the face of illegal and unjustified tariffs. They understand we are facing two global economy-destroying wars. Canadians want us to work to build, not to talk down, Canada. That is why we are building nuclear. That is why we are building transmission. That is why we are building ports. That is why we are building roads. We can keep going. They should stop talking us down.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are building a recession, and they are building excuses. The fact is that all other G7 countries face tariffs and global wars. Mexico is just as, if not more, integrated with the United States; and none of those other countries are in a recession. Only the Liberal Prime Minister has delivered that. After five days, he finally emerged to talk to the media, after hiding from answering questions, and blamed the recession on the fact that immigration is not high enough. Per capita GDP has increased by 0.2%.

Why the—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has some kind of phony and artificial narrative. I do not know where he is drawing this from. He picks up pieces of information. He tries to weave them together. What is interesting is that he has no plan. He has nothing to say. The last time he had a plan, he told Canadians to go invest in cryptocurrency. For God's sake, let us take a look at where that is at.

Why does the Leader of the Opposition not get up and give us a real plan, and instead of running down this incredible country, build this country forward and build it up?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Liberal Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said:

Experience shows that when the economy enters recession, the poorest are hit the hardest, [and]...the lower-skilled, lower paid people tend to lose their jobs first.

And recessions disproportionately affect the young.... Graduating in a recession is generally bad news for someone’s earnings....

In the extreme, prolonged recessions can lead to permanent labour market scarring, with potentially devastating effects on livelihoods, identities and communities.

This is people's lives.

The Prime Minister caused this painful recession. Will he show up, stand up and own up?

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

Mr. Speaker, do members know what Canadians are excited about? Canadians are excited about building up this country, building Canada strong. Whether it is things like a new NORAD base, a new wind project, mining projects in my neck of the woods in northern Ontario, new ports, or new opportunities for people to participate in the skilled trades, the Conservatives talk down every opportunity Canadians have.

Canadian workers are tired of being undermined in the House. They know we have their back. They know we are building big, and they are going to do it with us.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yes, Canadian workers are tired. They are tired of working six days a week and not being able to afford their rent. They are tired of showing up at the grocery store and having to hand products back at the checkout because they cannot afford to pay for them. They are tired of making their way over to the food bank and finding that the food bank is empty. They are tired of a Prime Minister who causes this recession and then does not have the courage or the decency to show up in the House of Commons and take ownership of—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I was expecting that on the last question, because now I cannot remove a question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs has the floor.

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, last year, Canadian exports to non-U.S. markets grew by more than 17%. Canada has the fastest-growing economy in the G7, this year and next. In the first four months of this year alone, we secured more than $10 billion in commercial deals for Canadian businesses.

Speaking of infrastructure investments, there is Ksi Lisims, Mackenzie Valley Highway and Contrecoeur. Canada was ranked the world's most attractive destination for foreign direct investment. There is a reason: We are building Canada—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Order. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

Small Business

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were promised that the issue of tariffs and trade would be fixed in June 2025. Clearly, that did not work out. It is not the Prime Minister's fault. It is Donald Trump's fault. One year of dithering later, here we are again, and now the Prime Minister wants a 16-year agreement. I agree, that is fine with me, but it will certainly take a little longer than two weeks.

In the meantime, will the government help SMEs with a wage subsidy that would help retain expertise and jobs in Quebec?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that we are there for our businesses, especially our SMEs. We are there for businesses in Quebec and across Canada. In fact, just one month ago, we announced some new funding: $1.5 billion for the steel, aluminum and copper sectors. I have been in contact with a number of stakeholders in Quebec and across Canada. They are very grateful for our help.

In the meantime, while the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade is in Washington, we will be there, not just for any agreement, but for a good agreement for Canadians.

Forestry Industry

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in all of this, there is no provision for what virtually everyone in the field is asking for: a wage subsidy program that would help maintain employment relationships, preserve expertise within companies, and prevent foreign workers with specialized skills from being sent home. There is nothing on this for these companies.

In the meantime, our forestry industry is in trouble and our sawmills are closing.

Will the government implement the cost-free solution proposed by the forestry industry to resume lumber exports?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we will be there for our forestry industry, just as we have been there for the aluminum, auto and steel sectors. We are indeed facing headwinds on the trade front with the United States, but we will always be there for the people. In fact, the Prime Minister will be in Quebec later today to drum up billions and billions of dollars in infrastructure investments for communities both small and large across Quebec.

We will always be there for Quebeckers and for the communities.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the tariff crisis has just forced Matawinie's biggest employer to seek protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. The Saint-Michel sawmill and its 250 jobs need immediate, debt-free liquidity, otherwise it is all over. The Bloc Québécois warned the government that its support measures for the forestry sector would not be enough. Ottawa needs to buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties paid by our companies. This measure would cost the government nothing, but it could save businesses like the Saint-Michel sawmill.

When will the government understand that urgent action is needed?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, of course our thoughts are with the workers in Saint-Michel-des-Saints because we know that this is a very difficult time for the forest products sector across the country.

That is also why we will be there for them. We currently have a plan for steel, aluminum and copper, which is very beneficial under the circumstances, knowing, of course, that unjustified and unjustifiable tariffs are being imposed on these sectors. However, the Minister of Natural Resources and I are working to ensure that these BDC products can also be made available to the forestry sector.

I look forward to working with my colleague on this because we need to support communities across the country.

The Economy

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants Canadians to believe that this recession is the fault of the world. Tariffs, energy prices and global uncertainty are all convenient Liberal excuses. However, every nation in the G7 face those same conditions, yet Canada alone has fallen into a recession. Twenty billion dollars in net investment has fled this country under his watch. That is a failure of Liberal economic policy.

If the world is to blame, then why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, clearly the Conservative leader is missing in action again when it comes to anything constructive with respect to the economy. Where is he? Where is he today with anything constructive?

Canadians do not want political theatre. They want a government that is serious about this economy. We are going to diversify our trade, we are going to build major projects, and we are going to invest in unions and workers. On this side of the House, we are serious about building an economy, the strongest economy in the G7. The Conservative leader is missing in action again.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Let us try to stay away from metaphors.

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member can spin, deflect and dress up this issue however he likes, but why should Canadians believe that the Liberal government's promises about the future are true, when the numbers today prove that the Liberals cannot manage the present?

Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. The Prime Minister told Canadians that we have the best deal in the world with the U.S. Oil prices are surging. Canada should be thriving. Instead, our economy has contracted three out of the last four quarters.

I will ask again, if the world is to blame, then why—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. secretary of state for financial institutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a news flash for the leader and the party opposite. We are in a trade war. We are facing economic headwinds. Canadians do not want the political theatre that the leader loves. Listen to the chief economist of Scotiabank, who characterized his behaviour as “irresponsible”.

On this side of the House, we are going to build an economy for all Canadians. We are going to invest in infrastructure, in defence and in housing, in major projects. We will build Canada strong, a Canada for everyone. The opposition leader is missing in action. Where is he?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I know that people are being very clever, but let us try not to be.

The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a recession is two consecutive quarters of economic decline. The Prime Minister has had three of his four quarters in decline. That puts Canada as the only G7 country in recession. While the Liberals are in denial, the facts do not lie. There are more small businesses in Canada closing than opening. More than half of small business owners do not recommend opening a business.

When will the Liberals at least admit that their policies put Canada into a recession?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I want to celebrate the apprenticeship program, a program that is focused on getting young people trained to Red Seal status, with support at every step along that process.

We are building the economy with almost $1 billion for small craft harbours and support for our rural communities, as well as an economic boost for communities.

That is what Canadians expect, and that is what we are delivering.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think those words are very comforting to the apprentices or to the 112,000 people who lost their job in the past three months. Mortgage defaults are growing year over year. Canadian households have the highest debt in the G7. Insolvencies hit their highest level since 2009. Twenty billion dollars has fled this country.

How much more data does the government need before it realizes that whatever the Prime Minister is pretending to do is not working?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the member opposite from Newfoundland and Labrador that we are working closely with the Conservative provincial government to build the province together, with Bay du Nord and with $8 billion for 5 Wing Goose Bay to expand the capacity of the base, but also, the support goes out into the broader region.

The work continues with housing initiatives. On and on it goes. There was an announcement today from the Finance Minister in Newfoundland and Labrador.

That is what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Canadians, expect us to do. That is what we are doing. We are laser focused, and we—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

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

Mr. Speaker, it was not that long ago that the Prime Minister got up and said he was the grand economist who would turn things around, the guy we could go to in a crisis. Well, here we are: Canada is the only G7 country in a recession, and where is he? He is nowhere to be found. He ran from a reporter who asked about it. He does not rise in the House of Commons to speak to it, while Canadians are suffering, struggling and paying the price.

When will the Prime Minister admit that Canada is in a recession and that he is the one to blame?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to get serious. I think members of the opposition and Canadians know that we are in very uncertain economic times and that we are engaged in a trade war that is not of our making. That is why the Prime Minister and the government have a plan. That is why we are so focused on diversifying our trade and engaging in free trade agreements with countries around the world. That is why we are selling uranium to India. That is why we are selling planes to Malaysia and selling canola to China.

Our plan is working. We will keep working hard to make sure we are creating good-paying jobs for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are never going to get to net zero with that level of gaslighting.

My goodness, the London economic region, which includes Elgin and St. Thomas, has the highest unemployment rate in Canada, at 9.2%, with 1,800 jobs lost in April. Does he expect me to go to my constituents and say, “Don't worry. You can sell all that uranium you've been working on”?

Families are struggling. Families are suffering. The government keeps spending more and more money and will not even acknowledge the consequences of its actions. When is it going to get serious and account for the fact that it has put Canada into a recession, the only country in the G7 to be there?

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade and to the Secretary of State (International Development)]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite can be as gleeful and as jovial as they want, but Canadians know that this is a very serious moment for our country. That is why they require serious leadership. That is why they have elected a leader and a party that have a plan to diversify our economy. We not only will engage with the United States and Mexico to get the best deal possible for our country, but we will also build bridges and new partnerships around the world with China, India, Southeast Asia and Mercosur.

That is where our focus is and we will not stop until we create good-paying jobs for all Canadians.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, members should not believe the Liberals when they say that we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. We are the only one in a recession. The Liberals should try telling that to the mom skipping meals so her children will not. They should tell that to the grandma at the food bank who is just trying to put Sunday dinner on the table. They should tell that to the student whose future has been stolen. There are 112,000 jobs gone, a trillion dollars of investment gone and $670 billion in generational jobs gone. It is not wars. It is not tariffs. It is the Prime Minister's record.

Which Liberal will get up to defend that?

[John Zerucelli, Liberal, Secretary of State (Labour)]

Mr. Speaker, we are proud to stand up for our record every day in this House of Commons because the member knows very well that we are in the middle of a trade war. This country is facing headwinds, but we have a plan. Canada is building, from LNG in B.C. to critical minerals in the Prairies, from nuclear and transit in Ontario to ports and mining in Quebec and offshore energy in Atlantic Canada.

This is how we create good jobs, great opportunities in the skilled trades and good union jobs. We are building a Canada strong for all.

Climate Change

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals just keep backtracking on the fight against climate change, to the point where the outgoing MP for Laurier—Sainte-Marie has come to the worst possible conclusion.

Speaking on QUB radio, he said: “We're going to see that, with the backtracking there's been this year, the United States under Donald Trump is doing more to tackle climate change than Canada is.” By the end of the year, he believes that Donald Trump's record will be better than that of the green banker. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister just shrugs his shoulders and says that is just how it is.

How can the Liberals defend that?

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

Mr. Speaker, we stand by every position we take because we know that, under the current circumstances, these are the best choices we can make to ensure our economic independence as well as the survival of our planet.

Our nature plan will have a significant impact on biodiversity, but also on climate change. The methane regulations will have a major impact on reducing pollution from the fossil fuel industry. The EV strategy and the electrification strategy are a set of measures that ensure Canadians—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Repentigny.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, in committee, the Liberals proved that they did not calculate how all their backtracking is affecting the achievement of their climate targets.

They do not have the numbers. The so-called “green banker” did not even take the time to calculate the harm this backtracking would cause. The outgoing member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie believes that, when we look at these numbers, we will see that Canada's record will be worse than the United States' record under Donald Trump.

If the minister does not agree with him, it is simple; all she has to do is show numbers that contradict him. When will we—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Minister of the Environment, Climate Change and Nature.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, since the Bloc Québécois is interested in numbers, I want to talk about a few numbers.

We strengthened the methane regulations, which represents a reduction of 400 megatonnes. If he wants to talk about what we have done for the climate and for climate action internationally, Canada is a leader with our international action plan to support climate action. If he wants to talk about what we are doing for EVs, we are seeing a huge increase in EV sales because our government has made changes. We are continuing to do the work.

The Economy

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is a sad reality: Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. The Liberals have been racking up deficits for 10 years. Since they took office, the debt has risen from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion. They are engaging in inflationary spending. There have been 10 years of economic mismanagement. The result is clear, and the facts are undeniable: 112,000 Canadians have lost their jobs over the past three months. Many Canadians are struggling to pay their mortgages and buy groceries. Two million Canadians visit food banks every month—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. Secretary of State for Children and Youth.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has a plan to build a strong, resilient economy. We see this in the 8,000 jobs in Contrecœur and in the 1,000 jobs at Nouveau Monde Graphite in Matawinie. In addition, this Friday, 12 million Canadians will receive the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. This is a significant top-up payment to help families cope with the cost of living. In addition, we have reduced the gas tax.

We are here to build the future and a strong economy for all while supporting Canadians and families across the country.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all G7 countries are facing the same challenges, yet Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate among them.

While Canadians are tightening their belts in the midst of a recession, the Liberals' wasteful spending is out of control. Just look at Cúram. The budgeted amount was $1.75 billion but the actual cost is $6.6 billion, which is a deficit of $5 billion. What about the plot of land that was rented for $13,500 a year, for which the Liberal government is paying $20 million a year?

Why is the Prime Minister asking Canadians to make sacrifices while the government is spending money like there is no tomorrow?

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

Mr. Speaker, we continue to be there for Canadian families. We are investing in a school food program to help families with the cost of groceries. That represents over $800 for a family that is benefiting from this program.

We also have a dental care program that is helping families and Canadians with the cost of living. I want to note that, in the riding of my colleague who asked the question, over 32,000 residents benefit from this dental care program. The opposition members voted against this program. This is the type of support we are giving Canadians by being there for them right now.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister is the only G7 leader to have driven his economy into a recession. This recession is the result of a lack of leadership, unchecked spending and high taxes, which are causing record job losses. Over the past 360 days, GDP has fallen by 0.6%, yet Brookfield has surged by 19.56%. While the Prime Minister and his friends at Brookfield are getting richer, the people of Beauce are getting poorer.

Will the Liberal Prime Minister show some leadership and take this crisis seriously?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, we always take what is happening in Canada seriously. What is not serious is the Conservatives' rhetoric. For 10 years, they have been talking about productivity. Now, in the last quarter, productivity is rising, and they are saying absolutely nothing. That is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all G7 countries are facing the same challenges, yet the Liberals are the only ones who have led the Canadian economy into recession. The Liberals are squandering taxpayers' money without a second thought.

Let me give some examples. The budget for ArriveCAN was $80,000; the actual cost was $60 million. The budget for Cúram was $1.75 billion; the actual cost was $6.6 billion. Here is the icing on the cake: They spent $180,000 on food for just three flights for our Prime Minister. What is the big deal? It is free.

When will the Prime Minister start managing Canadians' money properly?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, let me give him a concrete example: ensuring the long-term future of the school meals program for children. Is he for or against it? I would like to hear his answer.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. Yesterday, my colleague on the other side responded by trying to convince us that their approach is working. She said, “It is working.” However, a tremendous number of people back home are telling me that they feel a lump in their throat when they get to the supermarket checkout, praying that the payment will go through, because they are not sure there is enough money in their account.

How can she say it is working when a rich country like Canada is forced to rely on food banks to feed its people?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, it is working. It is working so well that, when I meet with people in my riding, they know that we are working hard to tackle the extremely difficult circumstances faced by my esteemed colleague's constituents. They know that the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is a decision we have made and that it is working for them. It is a decision that the Conservatives did not support.

When we support the economy through investment, the Conservatives are nowhere to be seen. They vote against it. Our constituents know that our approach is serious and that it will work.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, do members know what the difference is between this side of the House and that side of the House? Conservatives wake up hoping for bad economic news that they can use to repeat pithy slogans, fire off fundraising emails and talk down Canadian industries and Canadian workers. On this side of the House, we wake up knowing that Canadians are counting on us to build a stronger, more competitive and more affordable economy. That is exactly what we are doing.

Can the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions update this House on how Canadian innovators, entrepreneurs and workers are helping us navigate a rapidly changing world?

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

Mr. Speaker, the last thing Canadians need right now is political theatre, and that is all they get from the leader of the Conservative Party, political theatre and empty parking lot press conferences.

We have a plan. We are going to diversify trade relationships. We are supercharging major projects. We are investing in workers. The plan is working, the GDP is growing and we are attracting federal direct investment at a pace not seen in decades. That is good news for Canadians and bad news for Conservatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession, and Canadians are facing the real consequences of that reality. Demand at food banks continues to surge across the country, and Food Banks Canada is now reporting that millions of Canadians are facing historic levels of food insecurity. The fact is, one in four Canadians is now food-insecure.

If the Prime Minister says this recession is being driven by global energy markets and tariffs, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is time that we celebrate Canada. We have more good news. Canadian canola sales continue moving to supply the world, Canadian potash is needed everywhere and Canada will deliver. Canadian uranium sales to India are steady, and Canadian agribusiness is booming. We will continue doing what Canada needs.

We will stand up for our industries impacted by tariffs. We will protect our workers. We will stand up for our sovereignty. We have a job to do, and we will get it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, unlike that secretary of state, Canadians do not get to ignore the reality of the recession caused by the Liberal government's terrible policies.

Food Banks Canada is reporting that lower-income households are spending more than 100% of their income on basic essentials. Every other G7 country is facing the same global pressures, yet Canada is the only one in a recession.

Why are Canadians paying the price for this government's economic failures, while every other G7 country has avoided recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we protect and defend our country. All we hear from the Conservatives is negative. They need to stop talking down our country and start backing up Canada. The rest of Canada is doing that. We have seen, in Saskatchewan, for 10 long years, that those Conservative MPs sat on their hands, doing nothing. That is why the people of Saskatchewan are angry.

At the end of the day, we come to Ottawa to work; the Conservatives have done nothing in 10 years. I have seen this Liberal government move more things in one year than in their 10 years.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is now the only G7 economy in a recession.

It might be big news to the bankers and bureaucrats in Ottawa, but in my community, the warning lights have been flashing for months. The Cambridge Food Bank reports that hundreds of people with full-time jobs are using their services every month.

These Liberals lecture hungry people about so-called global factors, but France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the U.K. all face tariff pressures from the U.S. and none of them are in a recession, just Canada. If our recession was about tariffs, war and oil prices, then why is it that Canada is the only G7 economy in a recession right now?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that Canadians are facing challenging times. That is why our government is providing real relief for Canadians. Through the national school food program, we are feeding 400,000 kids healthy meals at school.

I have good news. On Friday, Canadians are going to get the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. An average family of four will receive $1,900. This is real relief being provided to Canadians right now.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that minister's cherry-picking skills would put even the best fruit farmer to shame.

Over 100,000 jobs have been lost since the beginning of the year, and business investment has declined for five straight quarters, but the Liberal government pretends that everything is fine. Families in my community have real questions about how they are going to make ends meet, put food on the table or just keep their jobs. The Liberal Prime Minister's response is to go into hiding. He has been dodging the cameras and our questions for five days.

Now that we have a real economic crisis, why is the Liberal Prime Minister missing in action, and why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

[Rechie Valdez, Liberal, Minister of Women and Gender Equality and Secretary of State (Small Business and Tourism)]

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that the member is from the province of Ontario and continues to vote against supports and affordability to help Canadians.

Let us talk about Ontario. More than four million people have received the GST rebate, delivering $2.2 billion to Ontarians. We are also helping first-time homebuyers. In the province of Ontario, there is an average of savings of up to $200,000 for first-time homebuyers. We are going to help them with affordability. We are going to help them during these challenging times. That is how we are going to grow Canada strong.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I am in the House of Commons or the twilight zone. Last Thursday, the Liberal Prime Minister went around telling everyone that we have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7, but on Friday, Statistics Canada reported that our economy shrank in two consecutive quarters. We are in a recession. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession.

Today, Liberals are blaming tariffs and global conflicts, but if that is the case, why is no other G7 country facing the same headwinds in a recession?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, only the Conservatives think that global factors such as wars, climate change and tariffs are a conspiracy theory. They are not a conspiracy theory. They do have an impact on our local economy.

What is our government doing? We are responding in ways that help Canadians, like the groceries and essentials benefit, which that member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek voted against. How about the 20,000 people in his riding who rely on the Canada child benefit? He voted against that, too.

I suppose I will congratulate the leader of the Conservatives on one thing. He has managed to whip all those Conservatives up to ask only four questions this entire question period. At least they are consistent.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me repeat to that out-of-touch Liberal, Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. That member has failed Canada. The Liberals have failed Canada. Parents in Hamilton want job security, a tariff deal and paycheques that can afford groceries. The Stoney Creek Community Food Bank is serving over 120 families per week. The Food Banks Canada report card came out yesterday, and the Liberals got a D+.

When will the Liberals stop gaslighting Canadians and start working for Canadians?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are busy making jobs happen in Hamilton East—Stoney Creek while that member votes against policies that support families in his riding, like the Canada child benefit, dental and the groceries and essentials benefit.

That member is cherry-picking things out of the groceries and essentials benefit and from Food Banks Canada. He should be ashamed of himself. We are following the instructions from Food Banks Canada. We are putting on the record that we are here to help families with jobs and with the groceries and essentials benefit. All the Conservatives can do is read the same tired speeches from their leader into the record over and over again, while we are busy, on this side, helping Canadians.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country currently in a recession. This made-in-Canada recession has caused food bank usage to surge. In my community, the Barrie Food Bank is now supporting 8,000 clients per month, up from just 1,000 at the beginning of 2020. According to the executive director of the Barrie Food Bank, the organization recorded more than 8,000 visits in March alone. This represents a 12% year-over-year increase, including 377 first-time visits, which is up 30% from 2025. If Canada's recession were truly driven by global energy and tariff pressures, why is no other G7—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians, including this government, are hoping for an end to the volatility that we have seen across the world that affects us in our local communities. I hope that member takes a moment to consider why he voted against the groceries and essentials benefit, which is being delivered to Canadians this Friday. Over 40,000 constituents in his riding are going to receive that benefit. These are important supports, and the Conservatives continuously vote against the very measures that are there to deliver a more affordable life for Canadians.

Public Safety

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister delivered a speech on anti-Semitism so neutered that an anti-Semite would have given it a standing ovation. His solution was a council that includes a lawyer who went to court defending illegal encampments and a former minister whose organization lost federal funding for supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and who then lobbied the former government to keep them off the terror list. The council is led now by a minister who wants to ban passages from the Bible and funded these same anti-Semites in his own department.

Jewish Canadians are being attacked on the streets, and the Liberals are giving the keys to the very people that fuelled the crisis. I have one question for the Prime Minister: Is he serious?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a dangerous and serious crisis of anti-Semitism, and all the opposition can do is drive more division in the country when we do not need it most. The very synagogue where I was bar-mitzvahed was shot with 20 bullets. We do not need lessons from the opposition as to the seriousness.

That is why it is a shame that the opposition opposed our anti-hate bill to protect campuses, places of worship and community centres from this scourge of anti-Semitism. They should stop the divisive rhetoric, join us and protect all Canadians.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that minister should ask anyone in Canada, or even the hundred Liberal donors who were in that room last night, if they feel safer today. The answer is no, because what we heard yesterday was hollow. It was reviewing previous reviews and studying studies on a crisis that the government presided over, funded and fuelled. That is not a plan. Nothing he said will stop the bullets from entering the member's own synagogue or the genocidal slogans that are uttered in the streets every single day against Canadians.

Will the Prime Minister finally stand up in the House and meet the moment he so spectacularly failed—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. minister.

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

Mr. Speaker, like all Canadians, I was proud to stand with the Prime Minister yesterday as he named the dangerous scourge of anti-Semitism. He took action, and not with divisive rhetoric. We have an anti-hate bill that will protect our places of worship, campuses and community centres. We have put money into protecting synagogues and camps.

Instead of stoking division, and instead of the hollow rhetoric, the opposition should stand with us, protect Jews who are facing unprecedented levels of anti-Semitism and take some action.

The Economy

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives prefer punchy catchphrases, sometimes to the detriment of the facts.

Here are the facts: The Canadian economy grew by an estimated 1.7% in 2025 and is expected to post the second-fastest growth in the G7 in 2026‑27. That is a fact. Canada has just reached an 18-year high in attracting direct foreign investment.

That is a fact. We will never hear the Conservatives cheer for our economy or cheer for our workers.

Could the Minister of Industry explain why?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Brome—Missisquoi for his important question.

We know that Canada's economy is one of those most closely integrated with the U.S. economy, not to mention that we are also in the midst of a tariff war. Despite that, investments are being made in sectors affected by tariffs.

In fact, last Friday, together with Quebec Premier Christine Fréchette, we inaugurated AP60, Rio Tinto's new plant in Saguenay that will produce the world's greenest aluminum.

We have also invested $100 million in ELYSIS, the latest in carbon-neutral aluminum technology. Simply put, we are capable of creating jobs even in the current tariff environment.

Employment

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker program suppresses wages, creates poor working conditions and kills entry-level jobs for our Canadian youth. Now, we have learned that the Liberals spent $1.6 billion over the last five years to administer the TFW program, and they lost $500 million in the process. Instead of issuing 215,000 new foreign work permits this year, the Liberals should immediately abolish the TFW program and replace it with a fair deal for young workers, food‑producing industries and regions with extremely low employment.

When will the Liberal government abolish the expensive, wasteful and destructive temporary foreign worker program?

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

Mr. Speaker, the temporary foreign worker program is administered with three principles. First of all, the program makes sure that any Canadian who wants that job comes first. Second of all, it makes sure that employers that are eligible for temporary foreign workers treat those workers with respect and honour and follow those rules. We have inspectors to make sure that happens. The third principle is to make sure that employers in areas where very tight employment exists can access workers to keep their businesses alive, which is something that many of that member's colleagues have written to me to expand.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals blew $500 million on the temporary foreign worker program in the last five years. Let us see who spent that money. That $500 million was spent while the current Minister of Justice had the file. That $500 million was spent while the current Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture was in the role. The current immigration minister is on track to spend even more. That is quite the list of captains on the IRCC Titanic.

Will the Prime Minister admit that he has lost control and finally put someone in charge who will stop issuing new foreign work permits and abolish the temporary foreign worker program?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that a couple of years ago the headline was that the Canadian Conservative Party had launched a petition to fast-track students. That was the member for Saskatoon West. He has to come clean regarding the immigration piece. When it comes to the issue for the member, he must clarify whom he is misleading. Is it the voters back in Saskatoon, or the people of Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, in March, the government increased the temporary foreign worker program from 10% to 15% for thousands of work sites in remote and rural communities across Canada. At the same time, Canada lost 112,000 jobs in that same period of time and the youth unemployment rate was at 14.3%.

Through my Order Paper question yesterday, we learned that the program for temporary foreign workers cost $1.6 billion with a net loss of $509 million. What will the government say to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed youth in this country when they are increasing the number of temporary foreign workers this year?

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

Mr. Speaker, that member's numbers are quite incorrect. In fact, temporary foreign worker use has declined, so much so that the large corporations that many of his colleagues continue to advocate for are actually now focused entirely on Canadian talent. That is the way it should be, and that is why we have taken these actions.

It is much harder for employers to hire temporary foreign workers in regions with high unemployment rates and in regions where people are looking for work. In fact, this work is what we are doing despite the advocacy of many of that person's colleagues. Maybe they can get their messaging clearer.

Indigenous Affairs

[Terry Duguid, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for far too long, first nations leaders and communities in Ontario have called for a child and family services system that reflects their cultures, their priorities and the right to care for their own children. Can the Minister of Indigenous Services update the House on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision on the Ontario final agreement and how this historic milestone advances first nations‑led child and family services reform?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an important question.

I want to sincerely congratulate the Chiefs of Ontario, the Nishnawbe Aski Nation and the Ontario first nations that have worked tirelessly to be the ones making the decisions for their own children. On May 29, we honoured the start of this work, based not only in culture but also in ceremony, to undertake this work. Through this historic investment, $8.5 billion means predictable, stable funding. It will also go to ensuring that prevention efforts are a priority. We are supporting this critical work. We are committed to continuing—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Edmonton Southeast.

The Economy

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only country in the G7 in a recession. There is nothing technical about someone coming home from work and telling their kids that they no longer have a job. Canada's economy has shrunk for two quarters in a row. Business investment is falling. Food bank use is at an all-time high. This is not a technical recession. This is a full-blown Liberal recession. If global factors are to blame, then why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession?

[Anita Anand, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, we are creating over 1,000 jobs through Nouveau Monde Graphite, supporting 18,000 construction jobs, and the Darlington nuclear project is supporting 18,000 construction jobs. This is just an example of the types of investments the Government of Canada is putting into the Canadian economy. Just recently, we secured the largest order of Canadian-built aircraft in our history, 150 Airbus A220s built by Canadian workers. At a time when Canada is facing a trade war, we are building, we are investing and we are diversifying.

Marine Transportation

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

Mr. Speaker, ferries are essential highways for coastal communities. Of course we support strong federal funding for ferry services in Atlantic Canada. However, BC Ferries receives only $1.63 per passenger in federal operational support, compared to about $291 per passenger in Atlantic Canada. Temporary relief measures and repayable loans for B.C. cannot replace fair, long-term federal operational support.

When will the Liberal government finally modernize these outdated agreements and provide fair support for British Columbia and BC Ferries?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, we thank the member for his advocacy for British Columbia. I am aware that the letter he sent to the department has been received. We are looking forward to having conversations about how we can continue to invest in British Columbia and how we can continue to invest in Canada. We were elected with a mandate to build Canada strong, and we will proceed with doing that.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked the immigration minister if she would do what France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany had done and evacuate 130 Palestinian students with university acceptance and scholarships with deferred biometrics and grant them emergency travel documents. The minister said, “we have directed officials to accelerate the student visa processing for people in Gaza, and I can confirm the decision will be made now, and in fact all...will be completed in the next 10 days.”

I am now learning that is not true. Either the minister was deliberately misleading, or she is inept and has no clue what is going on. Will the Prime Minister just fire her already?

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Minister of Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, we remain committed to what we have promised. Despite significant challenges, Canadians need to know that over 1,400 Gazans have arrived in Canada. Through our programs, I have directed my department to accelerate decisions on study permits for Palestinian students who have been able to exit. They are being interviewed, and final decisions are being made. We will continue processing applications while upholding the requirements to protect our immigration system and those it serves.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Claude Wiseler, President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I believe the hon. member for Foothills is rising on a point of order.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand that during question period there could be some heated moments. However, during the questions from my colleague, the member for Thornhill, who is a Jewish member of Parliament speaking about the very real threats to her community, the member for York South—Weston—Etobicoke called her a liar on a number of occasions. I would ask the hon. member if he would stand in this House, apologize and withdraw those words.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the unparliamentary comment that I made.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Order.

The member for Mount Royal is rising on a point of order.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to be told that I have abandoned my people, my Canadian people but presumably the Jewish people, to say that the member for Winnipeg South Centre abandoned his people, to me is incredibly unparliamentary. It is unacceptable and I would ask the member to withdraw his comments.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my comments.

Minister Statement During Committee of the Whole

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning information provided to Parliament by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on Thursday, May 28, 2026. During those proceedings, I asked the minister about approximately 130 Palestinian graduate students from Gaza who have been waiting for nearly two years for decisions on their study permit applications. I noted that many face requirements that are impossible to satisfy under war conditions, including biometrics collection and prolonged security screening. I further noted that several countries, including France, Ireland, Belgium and Germany, have adopted flexible measures to facilitate the arrival of scholarship recipients from Gaza.

I then asked the minister whether Canada would do the same. In response, the minister stated, “we have directed officials to accelerate the student visa processing for people in Gaza, and I can confirm that decisions will be made now, and in fact all...will be completed in the next 10 days.” While part of the minister's answer was delivered off microphone and is not fully reflected in the transcript, it is audible in the video recording of the proceedings. I heard the minister make those comments in the chamber. Given the significance of the statement, I subsequently reviewed the recording and confirmed what I heard. The minister's response was not vague. It was not aspirational. It was not framed as a hope or expectation. The minister informed Parliament that officials had been directed to accelerate processing and that decisions would be completed within 10 days.

As members of Parliament, we are entitled to rely upon information provided by the ministers during parliamentary proceedings. Indeed, our ability to hold the government to account depends upon it. Following the minister's statement, I understood that decisions on these applications would be forthcoming within the time frame identified by the minister. I communicated accordingly with stakeholders and advocates who have been working tirelessly on behalf of these students. However, information subsequently received has raised serious concerns regarding the accuracy of the minister's statement to Parliament.

Just today, I have learned that officials in the minister's department are saying that the minister's response regarding a completion in the next 10 days is not the case, as I have been contacted by Canadian advocates for the students who wrote me today to say, “We just met with an IRCC representative this morning and it doesn't sound like they will follow through on this.” The students' advocates told me that officials said to them that there is no 10-day timeline. This was further confirmed by advocates and university professors at a meeting that took place from noon to 1 p.m. today. Therefore, this is my earliest opportunity to raise the matter. This information shared at this meeting with four members of Parliament, including myself, from the stakeholders suggests that officials are not proceeding in accordance with the commitment communicated by the minister during committee of the whole and that the applications in question may not, in fact, be completed within the time frame of 10 days that she identified.

I fully acknowledge that findings that a member deliberately misled the House may be rare and require a high threshold. The authorities establish three conditions: first, that a statement was misleading; second, that the member knew it was incorrect at the time it was made; and third, that there was an intention to mislead.

There are several factors that distinguish this matter. First, the minister made a specific and verifiable representation to Parliament concerning the processing of a defined group of applications with ministry staff at her side. Second, the representation included a precise timeline: completion within 10 days. Third, the statement concerned operational actions that would necessarily have been based on the information provided to the minister by her department officials, who were sitting right in front of her. Fourth, the information that has emerged since the minister's statement calls into question whether the commitment communicated to Parliament reflected the actual status of those files.

Mr. Speaker, I am not asking you to determine today whether the minister deliberately misled Parliament. Such determinations are not made lightly. Rather, I submit that the circumstances raise sufficient concern to warrant further examination by the House. Members must be able to rely on ministerial statements when carrying out their parliamentary duties. When a minister provides a specific assurance to Parliament and substantial doubt subsequently arises as to its accuracy, the House must have confidence that the matter will be examined.

The privileges of members are engaged when our ability to perform our parliamentary functions is undermined by information that may be inaccurate or misleading. In this case, I relied on the minister's response in exercising my responsibilities as a parliamentarian. The House was entitled to rely upon that information.

The integrity of our proceedings depends on the accuracy of the information provided by ministers when answering questions from members. Accordingly, I respectfully submit that there is a prima facie case of question of privilege.

If you so find, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move the following motion: That the matter of the statements made by the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship during committee of the whole proceedings on May 28 concerning the processing of study permit applications for Palestinian students from Gaza be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study and report.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I thank the hon. member. Of course, we will take that intervention under consideration.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to advise you that the Conservatives would like to respond to this at a future time.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the point of order raised by the hon. member and the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East, having been in those discussions on the main estimates, and I know I do not need to reacquaint you, Mr. Speaker, I note the serious nature of those committee of the whole sessions. I am very troubled by what the hon. member for Vancouver East has detailed in what she has documented, and I hope this matter will be investigated thoroughly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Economic Policies

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are moments in the life of a country when people stop asking for promises and start asking for honesty, and this is one of those moments. Canadians are not confused about what is happening around them. They see it every day, with their bills, when they put groceries back on the shelf or when their adult children move back home because even full-time work no longer guarantees independence. They know something is wrong. What makes it worse is that they are being told not to believe their very own eyes.

The Liberal government says that the economy is not in a recession and that affordability has not been this good in 10 years, but Canadians know the truth because they are living the truth. The truth is that under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada has become the only country in a recession in the G7. The truth is that Canadian households now carry the worst debt burden in the G7. The truth is that housing costs in Canada are now among the worst in the industrialized world. The truth is that our unemployment rate is now the second-highest in the G7. This did not happen by accident. Policies have consequences.

The Liberal government has governed as though debt were imaginary, as though growth would somehow appear without productivity and as though governments can endlessly spend money they do not have without asking working people to eventually carry the cost, but Canadians are carrying the cost. They carry it every time their rent goes up, every time interest rates rise and mortgages are up for renewal and every time they hear another announcement from a government that mistakes press conferences for progress.

The Prime Minister likes to say that Canada will move at speeds not seen in generations. I will say, when Canadians first heard those words, they wanted to believe them. Now, after more than a year of this government, the results have not matched the rhetoric. The Liberal recession means declining growth. It means our economy is shrinking. It means Canada is not moving at speeds not seen in generations. It means Canada is falling behind. This is not just a criticism but the reality that Canadians are living with and that businesses are responding to.

The Prime Minister is travelling the world trying to sell Canada to investors, while blowing $200,000 on inflight catering over three flights, but what is he selling? He is selling a Canada where major projects still take too long and approvals are uncertain, a Canada where the tanker ban remains in place and Bill C-69 continues to scare away billions of dollars in investment, a Canada where housing starts are not rising at speeds not seen in generations but slowing to a pace not seen in generations.

We hear members opposite boast about the Prime Minister's résumé, but a fancy résumé does not matter to investors looking for opportunities in a business-friendly environment. In fact, in 2025, 45% of all foreign direct investment into Canada, or $44 billion, consisted of foreign purchasers buying up Canadian businesses rather than building new facilities or expanding productive capacity. Canada used to build national champions, but increasingly, we are selling them.

We do not need better marketing. We need a Canada that is actually open for business. We have energy, critical minerals, the workers, the talent and the geography. We have people who are hungry to build, to work, to invest and to grow. What we do not have yet is a government creating the conditions for investor confidence.

The Liberal government has given itself extraordinary powers. It has the Major Projects Office. It has given itself a majority government through dirty backroom deals, so it should have the ability to move. Where are the major projects? Where is the urgency to meet this moment? The Liberals talk about unleashing Canadian energy, but the tanker ban remains. They talk about building homes, but housing construction in the GTA and in Vancouver has collapsed, and 100,000 people are now out of work.

They talk about mines, manufacturing and productivity, but the regulatory reform needed to restore investor confidence is still not there. They talk about moving quickly, but Canadians keep seeing the same pattern: announcement first, action later and, too often, action never. Should we really be surprised? The Prime Minister is surrounded by the same Liberal team that delivered the last decade. He can steal our ideas, but does he really believe in them? We know the team around him is not willing to do what it takes to fully implement those ideas and restore Canada's economy, so Canadians are stuck with the same Liberal pattern: announcement followed by failure to follow through.

Conservatives put forward practical ideas more than a year ago, such as the Canadian sovereign act, the removal of industrial carbon tax, the removal of HST on all new homes worth up to $1.3 million, shovel-ready project zones and capital gains deferrals so we can kick-start our economy and bring wealth home for our people. In the last election, we laid out an ambitious agenda for the first 100 days to set the tone on energy, crime, competitiveness and affordability, because urgency matters. Now, more than a year later, only a tiny sliver of that vision has been implemented, and the Liberals are wondering why things have not changed.

The Liberals dismissed most of those ideas, and then they copied them halfway and failed in the implementation. The ideas that would have had the biggest impact are still sitting on the sidelines. Half measures will not reverse a lost decade. Yes, Canada faces challenges with the U.S., and trade uncertainty is real, but Canada is not the only country facing those challenges. Still, the government wants to blame every failure on geography. On the one hand, the Prime Minister says Canada has the best trade deal with the U.S. of any country in the world and says he wants to help make America great again. On the other hand, he blames our proximity to the United States for our lack of growth and says there is a permanent rupture in our relationship. Which is it?

The truth is that Canada has what the world wants, but the world is not yet convinced that the Liberal government will do what is necessary to unlock it. Let us think about this. Oil prices have soared, yet Canada is still in a recession. We have the best free trade agreement with the U.S., yet Canada is still in a recession. We have the critical minerals the world needs, yet Canada is still in a recession. As I sit in the House, all I hear from the Liberal benches is deflection after deflection and excuse after excuse. They need to wake up and take responsibility. This is not simply something that is happening to Canada. It is a result of slow execution and weak confidence in a government that confuses announcements with achievements. When will the Liberals realize that the cause of the recession is not Canada or Canadians but them and their failed policies?

Canadians do not need more hollow speeches. We need ambition in law, in approvals, in construction, in energy, in mining, in manufacturing and in paycheques. We need a government that passes laws and delivers results because the problem is not that Canada lacks potential. The problem is that the Liberal government has not yet had the courage or the urgency to move beyond announcements, get serious about implementation and finally unleash our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada has implied that the Conservative Party is actually being a little unrealistic by trying to suggest that Canada is in a recession, when in fact, it is 0.1% and there are a number of different indicators, yet the Conservatives seem to be gleeful that there appears to be a recession, in their minds. They are happy for Canadians on that fact.

I wonder if the member could explain why the Conservative Party is so happy to see Canadians having a difficult time.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member says that we appear to be gleeful, when the only ones in the House who stand up question period after question period to say, “We have good news” are on that side of the aisle. The reality is we are talking about statistics. Our economy has shrunk in three out of the last four quarters. Canada is the only country in the G7 to be in a recession, with the worst household debt in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment in the G7. We have countless indicators to tell us a story.

What is most concerning is that the member wants to deny all of this and pretend it is not happening. The Liberals are never going to fix this problem.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, part of the reason for the economic slowdown is the tariff war we are engaged in with the United States. It is all well and good to criticize the government, but we also have to make proposals from time to time.

One sector that has undoubtedly been hit harder than the others is the softwood lumber sector. A solution has been circulating for some time now. It was developed in collaboration with forestry companies and the major unions. The program involves buying back some of the anti-dumping countervailing duties. I am sure my Conservative colleagues are familiar with the proposal.

Do they agree that the Canadian economy and the forestry sector should be given a boost by implementing a program to buy back the anti-dumping countervailing duties?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. Part of drafting a solution is actually acknowledging the problem, which is what the Liberal government is failing to do. The Conservatives put forward practical ideas more than a year ago, and I provided a list, which I will repeat: the Canadian sovereignty act, the removal of the industrial carbon tax, the removal of the HST on all new homes worth up to $1.3 million, shovel-ready project zones and the capital gains deferral so we can kick-start our economy and bring wealth home to our people. In fact, we had provided a plan for the first 100 days to set the tone on energy, crime, competitiveness and affordability. This is the plan the Conservatives have put forward and have been advocating for.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora for her excellent analysis of the situation we find ourselves in here in Canada, where the Liberals, and the Prime Minister in particular, refuse to acknowledge the data provided by Stats Canada that we are in a recession and are the only country in the G7 in a recession.

I am wondering if the member has any thoughts on why the Prime Minister and his Liberal colleagues refuse to admit the seriousness of our financial situation here in Canada.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is inconvenient for the Prime Minister to acknowledge the reality and it goes completely against what he campaigned for and what he says every single day. He talks about moving at speeds not seen in generations. He delivers grand speeches, but the reality is these indicators we are looking at in terms of the economy are confirming the stories we have heard from the people in our ridings, the people who are struggling. They already knew these indicators were about to be released because they have been living them. They know the truth, but the Prime Minister is so disconnected that he cannot even acknowledge the reality that Canadians are living.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start off by commenting on the last statement the member put on the record. The member talked about disconnect. I would suggest that if there is a party that is disconnected from Canadians, it is the official opposition. The Conservative Party is completely out of touch with reality in terms of what is actually taking place in Canada.

I think of our Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago when we had a new government, and I reflect on the many different actions, both legislative and budgetary, that this government has taken over the last number of months. One cannot help but see that within that blueprint, members will find the reflection of what Canadians are telling Liberal members of Parliament and the Prime Minister. The member implied that the government is out of touch with Canadians, but nothing could be further from the truth. Many of the actions we have brought forward clearly demonstrate that. On some of those actions that are reflective of the interests of Canadians, Conservatives have filibustered or have outright voted against.

Whether it is economic development or the security of Canadians through the crime file, we have never seen such a proactive Prime Minister or government dealing in such an aggressive way as this Prime Minister and this government in the last 13 or so months. The numbers are there to substantiate it. All one needs to do is take a look at some of the actions taken by this government.

There is one report that I thought was really interesting that I want to quote, coming from the International Monetary Fund. For those who are following the debate and discussion of this so-called opposition day motion, which has no legitimacy whatsoever as a motion, quite frankly, this is an organization that has over 190 member countries and is directly involved with the issues of finances around the world. Here is what the IMF had to say about Canada: “focus strategically on investment that [is] progrowth”. It projects Canada will have the second-strongest growth in the G7 in 2026. That is the IMF saying that, not members of the government side, and it is not alone. We are going to have the second-highest growth in the G7. That is what is being forecasted this year.

I was here last Friday. When the Conservatives heard the news of the 0.1% GDP on the negative side, they were jumping up and down, virtually celebrating the fact that it had taken place. In public accounts yesterday, the deputy governor, on behalf of the Bank of Canada, warned that we should not be taking one figure such as that and reading too much into it.

One would think that the accumulative brain thrust within the Conservative Party would understand the simplicity of it. When one starts saying that Canada is in this deep recession, which is not true, there are things one could look at that could very easily justify a second look, as the Bank of Canada will do, as opposed to trying to, once again, demonstrate to the Conservatives' followers, that far-right element, that somehow Canada is broken, when it is just not true.

I mentioned the other day that, whether it is the Prime Minister, other ministers or any member of the House who travels abroad, if they talk to business leaders and other stakeholders, other governments, they will find that there is a high level of interest. People want to look at Canada. They want to invest in Canada. In fact, what members will find is that Canada leads on per capita private investment coming into the country. It is the best and the highest in the world.

Let us take a look at some of the things we have actually done as a government. We have a Prime Minister and a series of ministers who are aggressively going out and expanding export opportunities for small businesses, thereby supporting jobs in a very real and tangible way.

The Conservatives ask about the results. Well, let us take a look. What was the commitment? The Prime Minister said, during the last federal election, 13, 14 months ago, that we wanted to expand our trade beyond the Canada-U.S. border, that it was important, and that we were going to strive to double that over the next decade. Today, because of the efforts of this Prime Minister and this government, and I would suggest every member of the Liberal caucus who continues to encourage trade with other nations, we are up in the double digits from last year. Depending on who we ask and how we look at it, it is anywhere from 15% to 30%. Trading opportunities continue to be enhanced. Is it any surprise, when we have had 20-plus agreements of trade and security over the last 13 months?

We have brought in trade legislation dealing with trade between Canada and Indonesia, Canada and Northern Ireland, along with England. That legislation has passed. There is absolutely no doubt that we are moving forward on the trade file. We recognize the value of the United States and the trade that we have there. It is well over $3 billion a day, going both ways in terms of an accumulative total. Even that trade is up from last year.

Unlike the Conservatives, we will continue to work with our American counterparts to achieve the best deal that we can for Canadians. We are putting Canadians' interests ahead of political parties' interests, which is contrary to what the Conservative Party is doing. Ultimately, they say we should capitulate. Let us remember the other day, on another opposition motion, they wanted us to capitulate completely on our arts community, saying that we have offended the trade negotiators because of a decision that was made by the CRTC, an arm's-length organization. They saw that, and right away they wanted us to capitulate.

Whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of the national Liberal caucus, we are not prepared to sign just any agreement. We are prepared to fight for the best deal for Canadians and ultimately prevail. That is what we are going to achieve. When we look at some of those indicators, and I am thinking of the G7 countries, we think of other aspects than what the Conservatives like to talk about. In terms of Canada's credit rating, we are the best in the G7, and our fiscal position, again, is the best in the G7.

With respect to growth for 2026, we are not the best, but we are next to the best. We will be number two. That is what is being projected for Canada. We are in fact not only the best in the G7 in foreign direct investment but are way out in front of the closest one to us. This does not surprise me, given the actions that the Prime Minister has taken and the world leaders he has met with, along with investors and many different stakeholders, not only within Canada but also outside Canada.

I made reference to this in the past, and I will do it again now. Whether it is the Philippines or India, we have a Prime Minister who has met with their leadership. Ultimately we are hoping to be able to achieve agreements with those two nations, ideally in 2026.

A number of individuals involved in trade came to Canada just last week, or 10 days ago, in regard to improving trade relations and building a stronger, healthier trade relationship between Canada and India. I have had a number of conversations with the high commissioner where he talked very positively about the opportunities for both Canada and India. At the same time, we can still deal with sensitive issues related to security, and other issues, but we understand how important it is to grow our economy by looking at diversifying our trade opportunities. For foreign direct investment, the Prime Minister goes abroad and ultimately attracts literally billions of dollars of foreign investment commitments to come to Canada.

These are the types of things that can make a difference. The Conservatives seem to be of the opinion that after we won the election, one week later, everything should be done. It takes time. There were major projects we put together and legislation we ultimately passed, weeks after the election. We established a Major Projects Office to take in ideas and to support the projects in the city of Calgary a few months later. I believe it was in August or September; I am not 100% sure.

We have major projects now on the books that are in every region of our great nation. As I have highlighted in the past, we can talk about wind and tide energy in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about the port and minerals in the province of Quebec. We can talk about nuclear energy in the province of Ontario. We can talk about Thompson and the mines. We can talk about Churchill in my own province of Manitoba. We can talk about copper, potash and canola in Saskatchewan. We can talk about pipelines for Alberta. We can talk about not only pipelines but also mining in B.C., and major developments of resources in the north.

At the same time, we are being sensitive to indigenous, provincial and other stakeholders on critical issues such as our environment. When we talk about these developments, we have to ensure that they are done in a sustainable way.

These are the types of things that the Government of Canada is moving forward with. A pipeline does not appear overnight. It takes time, but we have a Prime Minister and a government that not only have an MOU but have gone a step further. We are taking even more actions on the MOU.

We have a government that understands the value of working collaboratively with indigenous people, provincial governments and more. That is how we are going to build Canada strong, a strong Canada that is there for all Canadians. Those are the type of things we have actually been doing.

Then there is the Conservative Party, which ultimately votes against virtually everything. The Conservatives continue to talk negatively and to spread misinformation. Let me give an example from yesterday.

We were having a debate yesterday, and the member for Brandon—Souris talked about the military. Part of the discussion that was going back and forth was with regard to the Canadian Forces and investments in it. Two things come to my mind on that issue. First is the issue of misinformation. Imagine that someone is the member of Parliament from Brandon and that they tell people that the veterans office in Brandon is actually closed. When I verbally challenged the member on that, the critic for veterans affairs, from his seat, tried to imply that I do not understand that the office in Brandon is closed.

When we have the member of Parliament from Brandon saying that, and when we have the critic for veterans affairs saying that, and all one needs to do is to just take a look in Hansard, one might be led to believe that the office in Brandon no longer exists. Of course, like many other things that the Conservatives say and do, it is just not true. There is a veterans office in the community of Brandon.

The reality is that it was the Conservative Party, and the leader of the Conservative Party today, that actually closed the office in Brandon, as well as eight other veterans offices. The Conservatives then had the audacity to say that how we treat veterans is going to have a negative impact on recruitment in the Canadian Forces, or so the critic for veterans affairs implied.

Do the Conservatives not know that last year a historic number of people applied to become members of the Canadian Forces? I will make a suggestion as to why that is taking place. It is because we have a government that has recognized the value of the Canadian Forces and has actually met the 2% commitment and has committed to go far beyond 2% of GDP.

Contrast that to where it was when the leader of the Conservative Party sat in government around the cabinet table. It was at less than 1% for one year. It is the absolute opposite in terms of what the Conservative Party tries to feed its constituents and Canadians as a whole, which is misinformation. Not only do Conservatives talk about misinformation here on the floor of the House, but they talk about it outside the House, through social media and emails. They talk about the issue of affordability, yet take a look at what they have said about issues such as the groceries and essentials national benefit program. By the way, the cheques and deposits are going out this week.

The national food program feeds 400,000 young children. Some of the Conservatives have called it a “garbage” program. Others have said the program does not exist, even though it is feeding hundreds of thousands of children. It is truly amazing how the Conservatives oppose the government on affordability measures yet, on the other hand, criticize us for not having more affordability measures.

I would suggest that the Conservative Party of Canada needs to rethink the way in which it presents itself, not only in the House but to all Canadians, on a multitude of different issues.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am always amazed to see the member for Winnipeg North rewriting history in every one of his speeches.

Earlier, he referred to the fact that the Prime Minister was unable to resolve the tariff crisis during his first few months in office, yet that is exactly what the Prime Minister had promised during the election campaign: With his background, he would be able to resolve this tariff crisis. It is easy to say, in retrospect, that it was impossible, but it was still an election promise that was very important to him at the time. However, I will set that aside.

I will simply point out to the parliamentary secretary that the situation in the forestry sector is currently untenable. Solutions exist. The province most affected by the tariff dispute is Quebec, with its aluminum and forestry sectors. Among these solutions is a buyback program that has been supported by everyone in the forestry sector, yet the government continues to turn a deaf ear.

I would like to know how my colleague can explain this lack of responsiveness on the part of the government and the lack of action we are seeing in the forestry sector.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, whether it is our forestry, aluminum, steel or automotive industry here in Canada, these industries are of great concern to the federal government. That is one of the reasons why, through tariffs and monitoring these industries, we have come up with re-skilling programs to direct financial support.

What I want to pick up on is the member's comments with respect to the issue of the three Ts: the Trump, tariff and trade issue. The Prime Minister made a commitment to expand trade going outside the United States, and we have been exceptionally successful at doing that.

With regard to an agreement with the United States, we currently do have an agreement. We are prepared to sit down and continue negotiations in good faith to protect the interests of Canadians, but we are not prepared to capitulate. I think it is important that we persist and that we push for the best deal we can for Canadians.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member on the other side. He gave a speech about what the opposition is doing right now. I am a little dismayed, because I think he needs to speak to what the motion is, which is about the recession that Canada is very clearly heading into now. There are a number of data points we have to give here, but the member has to identify, and probably has to own, quite frankly, some of the policies the government has pushed the country to that have led us to the economic point we are at right now.

Would the member please address that as opposed to blaming others, either south of the border or on this side of the House, saying that we are the ones misspeaking on this? The data speaks for itself. The country is in economic decline. Can he tell us what he thinks he should change on the other side of the House in order to arrest that trend?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am more inclined to believe what the Bank of Canada is saying on the issue of the recession than I am to believe the leader of the Conservative Party.

I think the GDP, yes, is a very important indicator, but there are also other important indicators that should be looked at. At best, the Conservatives are being premature by going around and shouting in glee that Canada is in a recession, when there are other indicators that show that Canada is building strong and that the economy will grow. It is predicted to have the second-largest growth in the G7. I think there are some solid figures out there, and I look forward to ultimately being able to demonstrate very clearly in the coming months that we are, in fact, sticking to a strong build Canada.

[Michael Ma, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member on his great speech, particularly around misinformation. As we know today, AI feeds on all sorts of comments, whether they are right or wrong, collectively on social media, and misinformation will obviously lead to a bias in the AI results. I wonder if the hon. member could speak on the impact of that for society in general.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with today's technology, when we look at social media and the ability to be able to communicate through computer and Internet networks, one should be concerned. At the end of the day, when someone promotes and encourages things that are negative, it does have a residual impact.

That is why I think the Conservative Party of Canada, the official opposition, needs to be more, I would suggest, responsible in dealing with the facts on a number of different issues. I just cited one that took place yesterday. I could have easily cited another opposition day, when Conservatives were saying that Canadians were paying 22% more for gasoline than Americans. I took a picture of three different gas stations in Winnipeg that were all priced at around $1.55 for a litre, which is a whole lot cheaper than in California, where there are 39 million people.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I always appreciate the member's speeches in the House of Commons and always learn so much more about Canada, given the long time he has been an MP in the House. I wonder if the member would share with us how much change we have seen in the 45th Parliament, especially in regard to the focus we are seeing in investments for Nunavut.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the ongoing advocacy over the years to where we are today, we can talk about the military investments and the importance of issues like that of the rangers, which I know is important to my colleague. I think of the whole area of mining. Yesterday, she was telling a story about a trucker and how indigenous people as a whole are protecting and advocating for our environment.

There is the understanding of and relationship with the Government of Canada in recognizing that the north is such a critical component. Canada is not Canada without the north, and we need to invest in it. We need to make sure we are there in very real and tangible ways. I look to my friend and colleague to continue to do that advocacy, both within this chamber, within the caucus, and just in general, because I think it builds a stronger Canada.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the school food program. We have school food programs in Saskatchewan for kids who come to school hungry. I think it is really important.

However, the government committed $216.6 million annually to the food program and is making it permanent. An additional 400,000 children will benefit from this commitment every year. There are 5.5 million students in school right now and 3.5 million are in elementary. With the money the government is giving, it works out to $2.70 per day per child. How is that caring for children? Why does the government not give the money back to the parents through a proper economy and let them feed their own kids?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was about to give a compliment after the member made reference to the Saskatchewan program. One has to remember that this is not for all children in school. It is for the youngest of children. Provinces and stakeholders have been widely supportive of the program. What I liked about her question was that she acknowledged it is a good program in the province of Saskatchewan. That is what she implied.

I would suggest it is a good program for the 400,000-plus children nationwide. I have been a parliamentarian since 1988, and I can tell the member opposite that from virtually day one, I have heard about the issue of education and how important education is to our society. Part of that is that a child cannot learn on an empty stomach, which is why it is so important for the government to have established a national program by demonstrating leadership on the issue.

Hopefully other provinces and so forth will be able to possibly grow the program, but at least we are making a very strong and positive statement. The Conservatives should reverse their position.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

I rise today because Canadians deserve a government that lives in the real economy, not in Liberal talking points. The facts are now impossible to deny: Canada has entered a recession. Canada's economy has contracted in two consecutive quarters. It has shrunk in three of the last four quarters. Business investment has fallen for a fifth straight quarter, and household savings have fallen to their lowest level in years. Business and capital investment has also fallen by 0.7%.

However, on Friday, a Liberal stood in the House and said, not once but twice, “let us be clear: Canada is not in a recession.” That is not economic leadership. That is economic denial.

Canadians do not need another lecture from the Liberals about projections, models, forecasts or fine words. They need reality. They see reality every time they open their credit card bills. They see it every time they go to the grocery store. They see it every time they check their savings accounts, and they see it every time their paycheques run out.

The Liberal Prime Minister likes to remind Canadians that he is an economist. He likes to quote projections. He likes to hold signing ceremonies. He likes the language of global summits, high finance, transition plans, industrial strategies and bureaucratic frameworks, but Canadians live in reality, and the reality is this: The Liberal Prime Minister is the only one in the G7 who has taken his economy into recession.

Every other G7 country is facing tariffs. Every other G7 country is facing global uncertainty. Every other G7 country is operating in the same world economy, but only Canada, under the Liberal Prime Minister, is in recession. That means this is not simply a global recession due to global factors. It is not simply a tariff recession. It is not simply an outside shock. This is a homegrown made-by-Liberals recession.

Let us start with a simple economics lesson. Growth comes from work, investment, productivity, innovation and capital formation. A country becomes richer when workers become more productive, when businesses invest in machinery and technology, when entrepreneurs take risks, when capital stays in or is attracted to the country, and when government policy rewards production and innovation instead of punishing it.

Over the last 11 years, the Liberals have done the opposite. They increased the industrial carbon tax. They layered on antidevelopment laws. They buried our resource sector in red tape. They chased away investment, domestically and abroad. They created new Liberal bureaucracies staffed by Liberal insiders, new Liberal slush funds that benefited Liberal friends, new bloated programs and new political photo ops. They even doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit and told Canadians it was all an investment.

In capital markets, there is a simple rule: Capital goes where it is welcome and stays where it is rewarded. Under these Liberals, capital is not being rewarded in Canada. It is being regulated, taxed, delayed, blocked and politicized. That is why business investment is falling. That is why major projects cannot get built. That is why Canadian productivity is weak. That is why dollars that should be building Canadian mines, energy projects, factories, homes, ports, pipelines and technology are leaving the country.

Since the Liberal Prime Minister took office, $109.3 billion in investment has left Canada, while only $88.4 billion has returned. That is a net loss of $20 billion. That is not a rounding error. That is lost opportunity, lost jobs, lost paycheques, lost productivity and lost national leverage. Canadian households now carry the highest debt in the G7, the least affordable housing in the G7, the highest food inflation in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7, the second-lowest productivity in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment in the G7, and now Canadians are paying the price for this Liberal failure.

Canada has lost 112,300 jobs in just three months. There are 45,800 more Canadians who are jobless now than when the Liberal Prime Minister took office a year ago. There are now three unemployed Canadians for every job vacancy. The promise of a better future is being replaced by the fear of falling behind. That is what happens when governments forget the basic lessons of economics.

When we tax production and innovation, we get less production and innovation. When we punish investment and capital, we get less investment and capital. When we make it harder to build, fewer things get built. When government consumes more of the economy, families and businesses are left with a smaller part of the pie. That is not complicated; it is basic economics, but after 11 years of Liberal economic policies, Canada has become a case study in how a rich country can make itself poor.

The Liberals inherited one of the world's most resource-rich, highly educated and stable democratic economies. They inherited a country rich with energy, minerals, farmland, ports, universities, entrepreneurs and workers who want nothing more than to build a good life. They spent 11 years vandalizing this country by making it harder to work, harder to build, harder to invest, harder to hire, harder to buy a home and harder to feed a family, and now the consequences of this Liberal economic vandalism are being felt everywhere.

Food Banks Canada's 2026 poverty report card found that one in four Canadians is experiencing food insecurity and that food bank usage has more than doubled since 2019; one in 10 of greater Toronto area residents now relies on food banks. In 2025, food banks in the GTA saw a record 4.1 million visits, which is up 340% since 2019. Food bank visits have doubled since 2020. One person in five now visiting a food banks is employed, so a job is no longer enough to guarantee stability. That is an indictment of the Liberal government's economic vandalism.

That is what this homegrown made-by-Liberals recession looks like. It looks like empty fridges, empty grocery baskets and empty bank accounts. It looks like parents skipping meals so children can eat. It looks like workers doing everything right, but still falling behind.

The Liberal Prime Minister and his state-sponsored Liberal media machine may call it technical, but there is nothing technical about a quarter of Canadians being unable to adequately feed themselves. There is nothing technical about a young family paying double the rent they would have paid a decade ago. In 2015, rent for a one-bedroom unit in major Canadian cities was about $970 a month. Today, it is about $1,850.

That is not a technicality. That is a generation locked out of independence. There is nothing technical about housing costs. In November 2015, the typical housing cost in Canada was $435,000. Today, it costs $659,000, so it is up 51%. In 2015, it took 39% of median pre-tax household income to own a home. Today, it takes 52.4%, and that does not even account for housing units having smaller square footage today than they did in the past.

Every leading economic indicator is flashing. That is not prosperity. That is a decline managed by Liberal press releases. In public finance, Liberal deficits matter because they have consequences. A deficit is tomorrow's tax bill with interest. It is a claim on future wages due to higher inflation. It is a transfer from young Canadians, working families and seniors to fund today's Liberal ideological vanity projects.

The Liberal Prime Minister is expected to increase our federal debt to nearly $1.63 trillion by 2031. That is $1 trillion more than when the Liberals took power. Canadians are expected to pay $58.3 billion per year just to service the interest on that debt, which is more than what the Liberals collect on the GST and what the federal government pays provinces for health care. While Canadians were tightening their belts, the Liberal government was loosening its own. While families were cutting back, the Liberals were spending more. While small businesses were watching every dollar, the Liberals were expanding government and bureaucracy.

The Liberals wonder why inflation became embedded, why affordability collapsed and why household balance sheets are breaking. Canada now has the highest household debt-to-disposable income ratio in the G7. That is according to Statistics Canada. That means Canadian families are more exposed, more leveraged and more vulnerable when interest rates rise, when household costs increase or when their jobs disappear.

Equifax has reported severe stress in household credit. More than 1.5 million Canadians missed a credit payment in the fourth quarter of 2025. Mortgage delinquencies are up 32%. Consumer insolvencies are up 19%. The financial stability is gone for too many households. This is where economics and finance meet real life. When Liberal governments run inflation deficits, it pushes costs into the economy. When inflation rises, interest rates rise. When interest rates rise, households get squeezed. When households get squeezed, consumer spending slows. When consumer spending slows, businesses need to pull back net new investment. When businesses pull back, jobs disappear and productivity tanks.

That is how a homegrown Liberal recession is made. It is the chain reaction of disastrous Liberal policies. The Liberals taxed energy and made everything that is moved by truck, train, ship and tractor more expensive. They blocked development and weakened the investment case for Canada. They ran deficits that fed inflation. They created uncertainty with endless rules, reviews, delays and political favouritism. They expanded bureaucracy instead of productivity.

Then when the bill came due, the Liberals blamed global factors, but the world did not pass Liberal antidevelopment laws in Canada. The world did not impose Liberal carbon taxes on Canadians. The world did not double Justin Trudeau's Liberal deficit. The world did not create Liberal slush funds for connected Liberal insiders. The world did not chase away Canadian investment. The world did not tell the Liberal government to put politics ahead of everyday Canadians. The Liberals here in Canada did all of that.

Liberal excuses do not create growth. Liberal speeches do not create growth. Liberal signing ceremonies do not create growth. Liberal Party slogans do not create growth. Growth comes from workers, builders, farmers, miners, manufacturers, entrepreneurs, innovators and families that are allowed to keep more of what they earn and build more of what this country needs. That is why Conservatives are calling on the Liberal Prime Minister to reverse the policies that created this homegrown made-by-Liberals recession. That means ending inflationary spending and Liberal credit card deficits, repealing Liberal antidevelopment laws, scrapping uncompetitive Liberal red tape and stopping the creation of new Liberal bureaucracies and slush funds for Liberal insiders. We need to get projects built, bring investment home, reward work, restore productivity and put money back in the pockets of Canadians.

Canada does not need managed decline. Canada does not need another Liberal lecture. Canada does not need another glossy strategy document written by Liberal consultants and announced at a podium. Canada needs a government that understands the economy is not built in Ottawa boardrooms. It is built by Canadians who get up every morning, go to work, take risks, pay taxes, raise families and keep this country moving. They have done their part. Now it is time for the government to let Canadians build again, let Canadians work again, let Canadians invest again and let Canadians hope again. That is how we reverse this Liberal recession.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe I can help the member. If we look at foreign direct investment per capita, Canada is number one in the G7 countries. Arguably, it would be in the top three worldwide. People living abroad deciding to invest in Canada, I would suggest, is a very good indication of why we are going to have the second-best growth in the G7 this year. That is what is being projected.

The Conservative Party wants to deny that in favour of consistently being negative about Canada. That is all they do.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is another example of a Liberal Party mouthpiece laundering their disinformation here in Canada.

The Liberals like to accuse Conservatives of cherry-picking information, but that is exactly what they are doing. They are cherry-picking statistics here. The truth is that $109 billion of investment has left Canada, while only $88 billion was attracted. That is a net loss of $20 billion. The Liberals can brag about foreign direct investment, but more money is leaving Canada at a faster pace. About a trillion dollars has been lost since the Liberals took power. Those are the facts. Liberals need to live in reality. Canadians do not live in Liberal speeches.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to talk about these fancy big things. It is a complete disconnect from the reality we see.

Food banks have 2.2 million people visiting them every month. In Richmond Hill, a municipality that the hon. member and I have the huge honour of sharing the responsibility of representing in this House, the Richmond Hill Community Food Bank has record numbers of visitors.

I wonder if the member can tell us what he is hearing in the community about the fact that Canada is not number one, not number two and not number three, but in fact the very last of all G7 countries in terms of food affordability.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have both visited the Richmond Hill Community Food Bank, and have seen the conditions that everyday Canadians in Richmond Hill are facing.

The facts prove what we are seeing on the ground. Canadian households now carry the highest debt in the G7. We have the least affordable housing in the G7, the highest food inflation in the G7, the lowest investment per worker in the G7, the second-lowest productivity in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment in the G7.

It really pains me to see that we live in a G7 country with food banks that are busting through the seams with people lining up, and the food banks are running out of food. That is the Canada that this Liberal government has delivered after 11 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague talked about food banks, because Food Banks Canada is here on the Hill today.

Food Banks Canada made it clear, and actually warned us, that our employment insurance system no longer reflects the reality of work in Canada. This is impacting people. More Canadians are working multiple part-time jobs, contract positions and gig work. Yet, they are paying into a system that often denies them support when they need it most. It highlighted that while food bank use continues to reach record levels and families struggle with the rising cost of living, millions of workers are being left behind by an outdated EI system designed for a workplace that no longer exists.

Do the Conservatives and my colleague agree with Food Banks Canada in their call for comprehensive EI reform so that gig workers, part-time workers and precarious workers can actually access the benefits that they pay for?

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

Mr. Speaker, one way we could bring immediate relief on food price inflation is by stopping the crazy Liberal inflationary spending and by scrapping the food taxes like the industrial carbon tax, the package tax and the fuel standards tax that the Liberals keep piling on Canadians, day in and day out.

Conservatives proposed a motion to scrap those taxes. The Liberals called them imaginary and voted down our motion. It is shameful. The Liberals are not living in reality. They are living in press releases. Canadians are watching their credit card bills, their bank statements and their mortgage statements. That is the reality that Canadians are living in.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak about an economic matter in the House of Commons today again.

Before I actually get into my speech, I want to talk about the broader terms we are talking about here. We are talking about what a recession is. Of course, there is a technical definition of a recession, but the real indication is usually in the rearview mirror. It is an indication that there has been a significant decline in economic activity that has spread across the economy and has lasted more than a few months. A wide range of data go into that, including GDP decline, which we have had and jobs decline, which we have. We are now at a 6.9% rate of unemployment. Other indications include incomes going down, which is clearly the case in Canada; production going down, so manufacturing and all these other industries that are actually declining in Canada at this point in time; and an inverted yield curve, which we had in 2023 and is usually an indicator that down the road we will enter a recession. All of these indicators are here right now, so we are looking at where we are going to be.

There is falling consumer confidence. Once people are losing their jobs and are out of work, we are going to see them participating less in the economy. That makes it a self-fulfilling prophecy because they pull in their spending. They decide to forgo the expenses that would lead us to where we need to go as an economy.

Rising bankruptcies are an indicator. Let us look at the debts that Canadians have right now. There is a significant amount of debt. We are the most indebted country in the G7. There are a whole bunch of statistics here. I know they are just statistics when we talk about numbers. They are not just statistics to real people who are losing their houses and are having to refinance their mortgage at higher rates. These are pain points that people are feeling across Canada and that we have to make sure that we are looking at rather effectively.

Let us think about our unemployment rate now. It was 6.9% this last month. When we had what is called a technical recession in the rearview mirror in 2015, the unemployment rate was 7%. That is 7% versus 6.9%. We are not far off from an unemployment indicator that would be severe for this country.

To get down to the real pain points here, we have half a million former students in Canada who are still unemployed and who do not have the jobs that they trained for in their educational institutions. These are real lives. They are real contributions that people are trying to make to our economy that are not being fulfilled right now. We need to move in that direction.

Payrolls are down, but let us think about where they have gone. Since 2023, we have 300,000 more public sector employees and what we call MUSH employees, municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals, and there is less private sector employment. That is a problem in an economy running a huge deficit, and we note that the current government is not shy about running higher deficits. That is what is contributing to inflation and what is going to contribute to the fact that we are going to have economic pain here going forward and we need to get ahead of that as quickly as possible.

GDP is going down. Labour productivity is not improving.

I want to talk about this motion today in support of Canadians who are increasingly asking a very simple question: Why is it getting harder to get ahead in this country? The debate is not just about G7 rankings. It is great to make sure we compare ourselves to other economies, but it is about whether Canadians feel progress in their daily lives.

In my riding of Calgary Centre and across the country, people are working hard, doing everything right and still finding themselves falling behind. That should concern every member of this House. The motion before us reflects a troubling pattern. Canada is underperforming relative to its peers. Growth is weak. Household debt is high. The unemployment rate is rising faster than in comparable economies. This did not happen overnight and it did not happen by accident. Choices have been made all the way along that have caused us to be exactly where we are right now.

For years, there were warning signs. Economists raised concerns about persistent deficits during periods of economic growth. My Conservative colleagues and I on this side of the House spoke about it repeatedly here. The Liberal government was told that continued spending without corresponding productivity gains would eventually create inflationary pressure. Those warnings were dismissed. We saw early signs of declining business investments, particularly in key sectors like energy. We saw capital beginning to leave the country. Those signals were ignored by the Liberal government.

We told the Liberal government that global demand for Canadian energy would remain strong, and it has, but instead of positioning Canada to meet that demand, the Liberals layered on uncertainty and delay through job-killing policies, like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, that told investors loud and clear to take their capital somewhere else, and that is exactly what they did, leaving Canadian workers and communities behind. Again, the warning signs were there, even on productivity.

Long before today, experts pointed out that Canada was falling behind our peers: less investment per worker, slower output growth and weak gains in competitiveness. None of this is new. The real concern is that these warning signs were not only ignored then; in many cases, they continue to be ignored now, because instead of correcting course by repealing Bill C-48 and urgently amending the Impact Assessment Act to provide certainty, the government has doubled down on the very approach that caused the problem: more regulation, more delay and more confusion for those looking to invest in Canada.

The signs have been clear for years. Economists warned us that persistent deficits would lead to inflation. Investors pointed out that regulatory uncertainty was driving them to look elsewhere. Workers saw opportunities dwindling in key sectors.

However, the Liberal government did not take these warnings seriously. Today, Canadians are paying the price. It is time to acknowledge these mistakes and change course to restore the conditions necessary for Canadians to succeed.

The consequences of these choices are now showing up in the daily lives of Canadians. Household debt has reached historic highs, not because Canadians are reckless, but because many have had to rely on credit to maintain their standard of living. At the same time, inflation drove up interest rates, and now families are facing the combined pressure of higher borrowing costs and higher everyday expenses. I hear it constantly. People who felt financially stable just a few years ago are now reassessing everything, from major investments to everyday spending. This is not abstract. This is real, and it is widespread.

Nowhere is the gap between potential and performance more obvious than in Canada's energy sector. We are one of the most resource-rich countries in the world. We have the expertise, the workforce and the environmental standards to be a global leader, and yet, at a time when the world was actively seeking secure, democratic sources of energy, Canada failed to step forward. That was a moment of opportunity, and we missed it. In Calgary, the consequences are clear. Investment decisions are delayed, projects face prolonged uncertainty and the new memorandum of understanding does very little to solve that problem.

Capital looks for more predictable environments. This is not because the resources are not in Canada. It is not because the talent is not in Canada. It is because the policy framework has not kept pace with reality. The world continues to need energy, and Canada should be part of that solution, responsibly, sustainably and competitively. This leads to a broader issue: productivity and investment.

Canada is falling behind. We are attracting less capital per worker than our closest peers. We are seeing weaker productivity growth, and over time, that erodes living standards. When investment slows, everything slows: job creation, wage growth and economic mobility. Investors are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for clarity, clear rules, predictable timelines and confidence that Canada is a place where long-term investment is welcome.

Today's motion calls for a plan, and rightly so. A credible plan must start with recognizing how we got here. Then it must focus on restoring the fiscal discipline to reduce inflationary pressures and rebuild economic confidence; re-establishing Canada as a destination for investment through clear, stable and competitive policies; and embracing a realistic approach to energy, one that supports both economic growth and environmental progress without undermining either, because growth is not accidental. It is the real result of consistent, coherent choices over time.

Canada has everything it needs to succeed, the resources, the talent, the entrepreneurial spirit, but potential is not enough. Without the right policies, opportunity is lost.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the comments the member has put on the record.

I think in terms of the prairie provinces and the province of British Columbia. If we take a look at the Prime Minister and the government as a whole, working with the other jurisdictions, I believe we can see that there is a great sense of collaboration. People out west are appreciative. They see the collaboration that is taking place. There is a very strong sense of optimism, whether it is in resource development or in many other common interests that we have in western Canada and even going up north.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the collaboration that is taking place today and has taken place over the last number of months, which is really leading to a great deal of optimism out west.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a memorandum of understanding that some provincial governments say is a change in direction in the Liberal government but a change in direction on paper only. When we actually analyze that paper, as many of us have, we see that those changes in direction are not clear enough to actually indicate that people want to invest here. Ask the private sector entities that are impacted by those announcements and those words on paper that the government has put forward. It is still not committing capital. The reason it is not is that there is no clarity about the outcome for the process they have to go through.

Getting infrastructure built in Canada requires an onerous process in which the companies involved, large companies, have to spend more time, resources and money going through the process than they actually have to spend putting the infrastructure in place. That has to change. The process cannot be the only thing that matters. We have to get things built in this country again.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech. Eleven years ago, Canada had the best-performing economy in the G7 and the OECD. After 11 years of the Liberals and their disastrous policies, we are the only G7 country in recession, and we have the lowest private sector investment of any economy in the OECD.

What would Conservatives do to close the gap the member talked about, in terms of the immense resource wealth we have, and the smart people, yet poor results?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that actually was an excellent question, because people ask me all the time, “What would you do differently?” I think we need to be very clear. We would make sure that those rules are very clear, unlike the muddled rules we keep coming up with where we are talking out of one side of our mouth to this group of people and the other side of our mouth to another group of people.

There will be clarity about how we get through process quickly and sustainably in Canada. That is something every investor is looking for. What is the process? How long will it take? When can they start building and get a return on their investment? That has to be clear to all investors, all proponents, in getting things done in Canada once again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Centre, despite our differences. I also have respect for my colleague the member for Calgary Confederation, who on May 27, 2025, in the House said, “We will ensure the future sustainability of programs that have already saved families thousands of dollars a year. This includes child care and pharmacare.”

I am going to talk about pharmacare, because right now in Alberta there is not a pharmacare plan, something we fought really hard for as New Democrats. Does my colleague think that people in Alberta's not having diabetes medicine or birth control is the responsibility, or blame, of his premier, Danielle Smith, or is it the Prime Minister's fault?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague. I know that Alberta, frankly, has a very robust social welfare system, the envy of many provinces across the country. Whether those funds come from the federal government or the provincial government, they are stacked and actually represent a level of sustenance across the economy that people in need actually require. That includes money for housing, for health and for all the things we look at in a social system, where people need to have a basic life and make sure they are taken care of. That is part of governing in this country: making sure we look after the people who do not have the ability to quite look after themselves and that we are there for them in that respect.

Layering on a federal program on top of provincial programs is no way to approach federalism in Canada. That is something we want to make sure of: that we give the province the ability to solve this at its level when it has that jurisdiction to take care of.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, Dental Care.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to provide some final words after almost 11 years in this place. I want to begin by acknowledging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as well as the many dedicated public servants and staffers with whom I have had the privilege to work during my time here.

While I know there are some people in all parties who cannot get past the, at times, partisan nature of politics, I have made many friends across the aisle during my time here, folks who are here to serve their constituents, their province and their country but who can also be open to speaking to and even having fun with people of differing perspectives. Honestly, the fact that many of us actually like each other as people across the aisle is something that Canadians should see more often.

I fully recognize that many people have devoted a significant part of their professional lives to building a better Canada and a better world.

All members of the chamber have been fortunate to have been allowed to play a role in shaping public policy in this country and internationally. It is a privilege that very few folks enjoy.

Before getting into policy issues, I want to point out that, in the House, we all give a lot, but we also receive a lot.

One of the things I am particularly grateful for is having had the opportunity to learn Canada's other official language. Although my French is far from perfect, this skill I have acquired here is a great gift.

When I left the private sector to run for office, many people in the business community thought I was mad, but it has been the most rewarding experience of my life. As an MP and as a minister at DFO, at Environment Canada and at Natural Resources Canada, I have often said I had truly the best job in Canada. As MPs, we know well that the impact we can have on constituents' lives can at times be profound, but it can also be profoundly rewarding.

I do not typically like to use the word “proud”, as the people who have worked with me know, but today I will. Over nearly 11 years in government, I am proud of several things that I, my team and departments, and government as a whole, helped to accomplish.

A few of the highlights include developing Canada's strengthened climate plan, the healthy environment and healthy economy, the first plan in Canadian history to show in detail not only how we could achieve a climate target but how we could exceed one; launching Canada's first critical minerals strategy and the investment tax credit regime to advance clean energy development; establishing what I believe will be transformational in this country, the indigenous loan guarantee program; catalyzing the full modernization of Canada's aging Coast Guard fleet; creating the B.C. salmon restoration and innovation fund to address the decline of wild Pacific salmon, which is a critical issue in British Columbia; and expanding marine protected areas from 1% to over 14% during my time as minister of fisheries.

Every member of the House will have heard many times people asking why they should engage in the political process, often saying that individuals cannot make a difference. That attitude is particularly prominent these days with young people. However, I would say, in my experience, that this is simply not true. I entered politics over a decade ago to tackle climate change in a way that creates economic opportunity and is not simply about sacrifice. Over that time, working alongside colleagues, I have had the chance to make meaningful and, I believe, lasting contributions to climate policy that builds a strong future economy.

Individuals can make a difference through their words and through their actions. That is a message I often share with young people, whether in schools, through my youth council or in communities across the country, many of whom presently feel the system does not work for them. On the climate issue that brought me into politics, while today's geopolitical climate may suggest that progress has slowed, I remain optimistic that Canada, Europe and the world will meet this challenge.

Climate change is not going away. It is a scientific reality, with human and economic impacts that are growing every year.

Climate change is a major challenge, but addressing it and building a strong economy for the future can and indeed must go hand in hand. Looking at actual global trends rather than simply rhetoric, it is clear that the world is moving to a lower-carbon future and that many countries, China in particular, have explicit economic strategies to accelerate the energy transition.

Progress is being made, albeit more slowly than science suggests we need. Growth in energy-related CO2 emissions is continuing to decouple from global economic growth. Very importantly, climate progress is, increasingly, not simply being driven by government policy. It is being driven by technology. Simply put, many low-carbon energy technologies are now cheaper and often much better than conventional alternatives, and this is something we should all celebrate. Climate change and its impacts are a matter of science, not politics. How we choose to respond remains a fundamentally political decision, one that requires foresight, thoughtfulness and courage.

The past 11 years have been enormously rewarding, and I am grateful for the opportunity to continue serving this country in a new capacity, as the Prime Minister has asked me to take on the role of Canada's ambassador to the European Union.

I accepted this position for the same reason I entered politics: a commitment to Canada and a belief that this is where I can make the greatest contribution right now.

The Prime Minister has an ambitious vision for what this partnership can become. My role will be to help implement that vision and ensure that it delivers concrete results for all parties.

I love this country more than I can fully express. Canada is the best country in the world, not because we are perfect but because we face our flaws and choose again and again to do better. Ours is a story of resilience, of expanding rights and of building a more inclusive and just society. Whether that story continues is up to us and our willingness to stand up for what we believe in, defend democracy, advance reconciliation, confront climate change and build an economy that works for everyone.

Serving as a member of Parliament and a minister has been the privilege of my life. Serving in my new role will be a different kind of privilege, one that I approach with the same sense of duty and determination.

I will conclude by waxing a bit philosophical. I think most of my staff who are here will probably find that funny. I believe we are capable as a species of enlightened self-interest. In this regard, acting on climate change is firmly in our collective self-interest. However, I also believe that many of us are also very much capable of altruism, of thinking not only about how building a better community or helping those less fortunate may benefit us in the longer term but actually also about how we are morally obligated in the direction of social justice. To all people in and outside the House, I say that we can indeed work to build a better and more just world if only we have the courage and the will to try.

In this vein, I will conclude by quoting the words of William Blake, taken from his poem Jerusalem. I freely admit that I took these lines from the conclusion of speeches by the great Tommy Douglas. As a Saskatchewanian originally, and as someone who actually watched him in person and met him as a young person, I think Tommy would think that is just fine. These lines, I think, capture the essence of a commitment to community and to public service, which is, I believe, about striving each and every day to make this country and this world a better place in which to live.

Blake wrote:

I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.

It has been a pleasure and an honour to get to know and work with all of my colleagues.

I look forward to seeing many of them in Brussels.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to note the departure of the hon. member for North Vancouver—Capilano, who will be leaving this place to serve Canada abroad in a new capacity.

The member and I have spent a good deal of time on opposite sides of some very important debates, such as on net-zero legislation, the 2 billion trees initiative and broader Conservative concerns about the government's environmental approach. Those disagreements were real. I stand by them, just as I am sure the hon. member does. While most of those exchanges were during his time as the minister of the environment and minister of natural resources, I also want to thank him for his service as the minister of fisheries. I know he cared very much in that role about salmon policy, and it is always welcome, as I have said many times, to have another British Columbian voice in Ottawa, particularly one in a position of authority.

In fact, when it comes to the debates we had, I suspect we may both continue to believe we were on the right side of those debates. Perhaps the only fair way we can resolve that is to compare notes in the years ahead, say, in 2030, and maybe again in 2050, when the results of those policies are clear.

What is worth noting is that even through those disagreements, we never lost the ability to have a conversation. Whether it was in the House, at committee, at the parliamentary gym or even when we found ourselves seated next to each other on a long flight, there was always professionalism and mutual respect.

As a fellow British Columbian, I can attest to the travel demands that come with representing a riding on the west coast. It is not always an easy schedule. I recall mentioning to the member at the gym that perhaps in his new role, he might finally find himself ahead of events happening in Ottawa rather than living life feeling three hours behind.

I recall one moment during COVID at committee when I yielded my time, and of course, members would know that the opposition never has tricks for ministers when they show up at committee. When I yielded my time to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to question the minister on his net-zero bill, in that instant, a minister's staffer sprung, or I should say flung, into action, diving onto the desk, pulling one book out and somehow switching it with a completely different book. It was a small moment, but it allowed the minister to switch the answers fitting the perspective of a Conservative to that of a Green member of Parliament.

It may have been a small moment, but it reflected not only the preparation but also the strength of the people we count on. Moments like this remind us that none of us do this work alone. We often rely on dedicated staff who work behind the scenes, often under pressure, to help us perform our duties as elected officials as ably as possible. They may not often be recognized, but they should be, and we should thank them not just today but, I believe, every day.

There comes a time when many who serve here look for new ways to continue contributing. Canadians have been well served by former parliamentarians at the federal and provincial levels who have stepped into roles abroad. It was Prime Minister Harper who began appointing experienced political leaders such as Gary Doer, followed by Gordon Campbell. Prime Minister Trudeau continued this practice, with Stéphane Dion and John Horgan of British Columbia.

These individuals said yes to continuing to serve and to putting their years of insight and experience to work for Canada in a new way. I suspect having a prime minister make that personal call helps in one's decision-making. I would just point out before I finish that there are many experienced parliamentarians who have since left active political life whose insight and perspective could likewise be drawn upon.

On that basis, I wish the hon. member for North Vancouver—Capilano well. While I have said we have disagreed, I respect his willingness to serve and have no doubt he will continue to do so in his next role.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a pleasure today to be able to speak about the remarkable career of the member for North Vancouver—Capilano.

I was surprised today when I looked up information about my colleague to try to find things I did not know about him. We share a similar background in political science and philosophy. Maybe that is why we get along so well. As members know, my colleague was the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, Minister of Environment and Climate Change, and Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. That is how we got to know each other. What I did not know was that, in the 1990s, he was part of Roy Romanow's team as a constitutional negotiator and an expert in federal-provincial relations. For a Quebecker, knowing Roy Romanow is not a good thing. However, let us not hold it against anyone. I got to know the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie in the private sector. That happens to us all.

I especially want to highlight the fact that he has been a non-partisan parliamentarian. Debates in the House of Commons can often be heated. With the exception of his responses regarding the carbon tax, my friend, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano, generally responded candidly to the questions put to him. I also observed that non-partisanship in the work we did with him. It is thanks to him that we were able to add phosphate to the list of critical minerals. That was essential for my region. There was also the program to build greener homes, which faced some challenges. He was always very helpful and always open to assisting colleagues, even those on the opposition side. The two billion trees program did not go as smoothly, but he always defended it adroitly. I believe he can be proud of everything he has done in defence of the environment. He has been a resource for many people in various groups. Even when attempts were made to undermine his credibility, it was quite difficult to do so, which suggests that the member for North Vancouver—Capilano had a strong reputation among environmental groups. I have often wondered, when people talk about zero-emission vehicles, whether anyone actually owns a hydrogen-powered vehicle. The member for North Vancouver—Capilano is the only person I know in Canada who does.

I would also like to thank him for a trip we took to Berlin, where we were able to meet with representatives from Siemens. The problem was that people at Siemens thought I was part of the government, so they felt free to speak frankly to the member for North Vancouver—Capilano about what they thought of a hydrogen strategy involving carbon capture and storage. At that moment, even though it was not the answer they were expecting, the member did not lose his composure. It was a demonstration of true non-partisanship and a certain degree of trust. I sincerely thank him for that.

Earlier, in his speech, he talked about how grateful he is that he learned French. He managed to do that during his time in office. I think that is very much to his credit, and I want to share a brief story. On one occasion, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano asked his assistant why I was talking to him in English when I always spoke to the member in French. I must admit that this is a sign of respect for a francophone. I will explain to him why I prefer to speak to a minister in French. The reason is that, often, when someone is not speaking in their mother tongue, there are small nuances that they do not properly grasp. I will give him an example that he is very familiar with. We were chatting after I found out that he was likely going to be appointed ambassador. I asked him how his wife was taking the news, whether she would be going with him and whether she would be giving up her job. He told me that, yes, she would be going with him because she loves having new adventures. “Having new adventures” has a bit of a different meaning in French. That is why I always speak in my mother tongue. My father had two life mottos. They should be taken with a grain of salt, but my father always told me that I should not trust anyone who does not drink but that I could trust a man who laughs heartily. The member for North Vancouver—Capilano has always had a hearty laugh ever since I have known him. That says a lot about him and shows how friendly and likeable he is.

I will conclude by saying that my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean and I very much hope there is a guest room in Brussels. We are trying to broaden our networks. We have joked a lot about this.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish him every success in his new role. It will be a pleasure to work alongside him again.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a genuine privilege to pay tribute to the hon. member for North Vancouver—Capilano on behalf of Canada's New Democrats and to wish him well in his upcoming post as Canada's ambassador to the European Union. I was told I had a minute and a half to say what needed to be said. I find myself with a little bit more time, so I am going to use that time because there is much that can be said about this member.

He has always brought intelligence, collegiality and dedication to service to this place. As a cabinet minister with several critical portfolios, he has made significant contributions to our nation. His voracious reading, attention to detail and commitment to hard work are now the stuff of legend. He centred much of his efforts on preparing Canada for a sustainable future. We know that through his efforts, we have made profound progress on salmon conservation and plastic pollution. In fact, the largest investment in Canadian history in salmon preservation was done because of his efforts.

The House, in its wisdom, has already anticipated my next line, which is that I applaud him for his vision and passion in this regard.

As B.C. members of Parliament, I can say for us that we deeply appreciate the positive impact he has had, in particular, on our province and our coasts. I think the very best that can be said about any elected representative is that they made a difference. Well, the hon. member has certainly done that here in spades. We wish him all the best in his new duties, filling a critical role that will benefit greatly from his skills and talents. I know that he will make a difference in Brussels and do Canada proud.

As he does so, I urge him to hearken back to his early days as a Saskatchewan Young New Democrat, an excellent pedigree, and in times of doubt or difficulty, never hesitate to ask, what would Tommy Douglas have done?

I thank the member for his service, and we wish him all the best.

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

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague from North Vancouver—Capilano, it is bittersweet to see him leave this place. The only sweet part is knowing that he will be representing Canada so well as our ambassador to the European Union, a jurisdiction that has not forgotten climate change.

Earlier today, I was meeting with a colleague from the German Greens who serves as a member of the European Parliament. She was describing to me what it was like to work in Brussels and Strasbourg, back and forth, and she thought it was a long trip. I explained what it was like to be a British Columbia member of Parliament in this place. She is from Hanover. The hon. member may run into her someday.

My hon. colleague and friend from North Vancouver—Capilano and I have become friends. I do not think we started out that way, but it was one of my favourite moments in any committee meeting when our hon. colleague gave me his time at the beginning of the environment committee. It was a choice moment, and it does not happen very often, but he did not really need a briefing book either way. I will just say that. He is one of the ministers in this place who are not in need of someone telling them what the facts are or telling them what to say. It would be unnecessary.

In reviewing all the years that he has served in this place, primarily under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as Minister of Fisheries, Minister of Environment and Climate Change and Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, anyone here will know that we hardly ever crossed paths: in other words, pretty constantly. There is the work that the hon. member did on fisheries, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Kingsway has pointed out, the work to ban single-use plastics to get them out of our oceans, the work, as has been mentioned, for wild salmon, the work on carbon pricing and the work to move to a post-carbon economy.

These lessons and the hard fights that he had must not be lost, so I will say, from the bottom of my heart, “thank you”, and I will say that perhaps his child Max might say that when the member gets to Brussels, he should change Canada's position to make ecocide a crime under the International Criminal Court provisions. That is just something to take away. No one asked me to say that.

Additionally, I would say to the hon. member for North Vancouver—Capilano as he leaves here that we are always in the right to remember one of the greatest Canadian parliamentarians ever, Tommy Douglas. The fact that the hon. member was able to be brought into cabinet to represent Saskatchewan, while a Vancouver MP, is one of those things that we know will define him as a great Canadian to represent Canada to the EU.

I ask him to remember other lines that I recall from William Blake's Jerusalem, which I also love. It is not “my sword sleep in my hand” or about this green land, but remember how William Blake described industry: the “dark Satanic Mills”.

To the hon. member, continue the good work. We look forward to seeing him at home in Canada, and in the meantime I hope to be able to come now and then to Brussels. I thank him so much for his service. There are not enough words to thank him.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I, too, would like to say how pleased I was to work with the minister.

I have always admired his intellect and the fact that he was always approachable whenever we wanted to find out more about an issue related to his department.

I personally wish him every success in representing Canada on the international stage.

The hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour.

[Terry Beech, Liberal, Burnaby North—Seymour, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for North Vancouver—Capilano will be deeply and profoundly missed in this House, on the North Shore, in B.C. and across Canada. We were nominated as neighbours within weeks of each other, and for more than 12 years, I have had the pleasure of watching his impact on our community and our country. The only solace I have is that Europe, the world and Canada get to continue to benefit from His Excellency's new position.

He did not do this alone. He is notorious for surrounding himself with the best people, and I thought he might want to take this opportunity to acknowledge some of the great Canadians with whom he has had the opportunity to work over the years.

[Jonathan Wilkinson, Liberal, North Vancouver—Capilano, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is very nice, and it does give me an opportunity to give a few thanks.

I would start by thanking the dedicated public servants who worked with me in various departments, and in particular the deputy ministers, who, honestly, were all excellent folks: Catherine Blewett at Fisheries, Stephen Lucas, John Moffat, Chris Hogan at Environment Canada, J.F. Tremblay, John Hannaford, Mollie Johnson, Michael Vandergrift and Jeff Labonté at Natural Resources Canada. Canada should be very comforted and proud that we have such amazing public servants.

I thank my constituency staff. I often said, no offence to the other members in this place, but they ran one of the best constituency offices in the country, certainly the director, who has been long serving there, Cynthia Bunbury, and the many volunteers in my riding, in particular Duncan Frostick and Kevin Evans, who were great sources of guidance for me.

Of course, I thank the folks who worked in my offices here in Ottawa and the chiefs of staff I have had: Marlo Reynolds, Claire Seaborn, Alexis McIntyre, Kyle Harrietha and a whole range of amazing staff, many of whom have chosen to be here today.

I thank Laura Mitchell, who has been with me for 10 years, and a number of other folks who came with me from North Vancouver. I thank Richard, Kieran, Sandy, who ran all of Atlantic Canada for me very ably, and Erin Flanagan. I hope I am not missing somebody.

I thank Sabrina Kim, who sometimes drove me crazy, but she was one of the best communications directors I had.

It is because of folks like that that we are able to actually do our jobs in this place, and I was very fortunate to have amazingly dedicated, talented people.

Thank you.

[David McKenzie, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour and privilege to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the citizens of Calgary Signal Hill.

First, I want to recognize the hon. member and the comments he made in the House. While I did not know the hon. member on a personal level, the degree of emotion and genuine goodwill expressed today is a testimony to the depth of commitment, sacrifice and hard work undertaken by members of the House, and it should hearten all Canadians.

We have all been struck by the hard news that Canada is in a recession. Given the Prime Minister's background in economics, I suspect more than a few Canadians were surprised and dismayed at this news.

Earlier today, the government House leader told us here in the House that the government has a plan that is working, but the member for Nepean has been Prime Minister for over a year, and Canada is in a recession. It is clear to me and to Canadians that whatever the plan is, it is not working.

Now the Liberals seem to be leaning heavily on what they seem to think are a couple of bright economic statistics. As a Canadian, I would like to say that, thank goodness, there is at least a tiny bit of hope, but then again, let us have a closer look.

A collection of Liberal MPs, from cabinet ministers to further back in the ranks, have stated that Canada has “the second-fastest growing economy in the G7”. Quite frankly, I have no idea how the Liberals put that statement together with the fact that Canada is in a recession. Recession means economic contraction and shrinkage, not growth.

The second suggestion has been that Canada has foreign direct investment at twice the rate of our nearest G7 peer. That is an awfully strange statement from the Liberals, given that the report just last week by the Royal Bank of Canada stated that more than $1 trillion in investment left Canada between 2015 and 2024. That is two dollars leaving for every dollar that came in. In fact, just late last week, Stats Canada announced that, in the first quarter of 2026, more investment left Canada than came in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, June 3, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-4, an act to amend the Energy Efficiency Act.

Remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised on June 1 by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, respecting statements made in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

I submit that in the matter before the House, at no time did the parliamentary secretary mislead the House. The matter of the dispute is clearly a difference of opinion between the parliamentary secretary and the member opposite. This amounts to a dispute as to the facts and not an attempt by the hon. member to deliberately mislead the House.

In such matters that involve interpretations of perspectives, Speakers have consistently stated that it is not their role to pass judgment on such matters. In addition to the fact that the claims related to the disputed facts are not grounds for prima facie findings of privilege, there are two long-standing practices of the House when it comes to statements where there is a disagreement between members.

The first is that the members are to be taken at their word. The second is that many disputes relating to matters raised in the House amount to a dispute as to the facts. I submit that these are both central to the matter at hand.

As to the practice of taking members at their word, on December 6, 2011, the Speaker ruled on a member's involvement in inviting individuals to the gallery that were the cause of a disturbance. In this case, the Speaker referenced a ruling by Speaker Milliken from November 5, 2009:

Remembering the time-honoured tradition in this place that members are taken at their word and so in keeping with the precedents...the Chair is prepared to consider this particular aspect of the matter to be closed.

The second matter relating to issues raised in this place concerning alleged misleading statements more often than not are deemed a dispute as to the facts. On February 27, 2020, the Speaker ruled:

...nor is there any evidence to suggest that there was an attempt to deliberately mislead the House. For these reasons, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege in this case.

Regarding this ruling, the Speaker ruled, on October 19, 2023:

In keeping with this well-established practice, the current complaint does not lead me to believe that I have a basis to depart from past Speakers' decisions. Judging the accuracy of a response is not something that previous Speakers have attempted to do, nor is it something I will do today.

Moreover, on February 8, 2005, Speaker Milliken ruled on a matter respecting a response to a question, “Any dispute regarding the accuracy...of this response is a matter of debate. It is not something upon which the Speaker is permitted to pass judgment.”

I would, finally, point to the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk's remarks on this matter on June 1, as to the fact that this is not a question of fact but rather a question of interpretation of opinion. He stated, “The definition that economists generally accept....” By using this phraseology, the member himself is clearly stating that the matter is not a universally accepted fact. Accordingly, the dispute as to a definition is a matter of opinion. Therefore, the members are entitled to their own opinions. This is the nature of debates in this place.

This is the conclusion Speaker Jerome reached on a matter before the House on June 4, 1975. In that case, he ruled, “The third point on which there is agreement is that a dispute as to the facts, a dispute as to opinions and a dispute as to conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact is a matter of debate and not a question of privilege.”

I submit to the House that this is precisely the case with the matter raised on June 1 and therefore should not constitute a question of privilege.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The parliamentary secretary is so noted.

Does the parliamentary secretary have another point of order that he would like to raise?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if you canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m., so that we can begin private members' hour.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-227, An Act respecting Arab Heritage Month, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Arab Heritage Month Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I request that it be carried.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

(Motion agreed to)

[Ahmed Hussen, Liberal, York South—Weston—Etobicoke, ON]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a profound sense of gratitude and optimism as we approach the final stage of Bill S-227, an act respecting Arab heritage month.

Today, we stand at the finish line of a journey that began several years ago with the member of Parliament for Ottawa South, and that has been built upon through collaboration, goodwill and a shared belief that Canada's diversity is one of its greatest strengths. This legislation is simple in its wording but powerful in its purpose. This bill is not new to Parliament. Today we have the opportunity to complete that work. We have the opportunity to fulfill the commitment made by Parliament and deliver a recognition that Arab Canadians have long sought and richly deserve.

For more than 140 years, Arab Canadians have helped build this country. They have served as entrepreneurs, teachers, physicians, engineers, artists, public servants, military personnel, community leaders and, indeed, elected representatives. They have opened businesses on our main streets, cared for patients in our hospitals, educated our children, strengthened our communities and enriched our national culture. Their stories are not separate from the Canadian story. Indeed, they are woven and they are part of the Canadian fabric.

Bill S-227 is about ensuring that future generations understand that reality. It is about ensuring that young Arab Canadians see themselves reflected in our national narrative and know that their heritage is valued, respected and cherished. It is about education as well. Arab heritage month would provide Canadians of all backgrounds with an opportunity to learn about the history, contributions, traditions and languages of Arab Canadians. At a time when misinformation, stereotyping and division can too often find space in public discourse, education remains one of the strongest tools that we all have to build social cohesion. This understanding builds trust. Recognition builds belonging, and belonging strengthens our country.

Throughout this process, I have been reminded of what makes Canada special. We are a country where people from every corner of the world can build a life, raise a family, contribute to their communities and proudly call themselves Canadians. We do not ask people to leave their heritage behind. We ask them to contribute to the rich tapestry that defines our nation. That is the spirit of Bill S-227. This legislation is not about one community alone. It is about the Canada we continue to build together, where diversity is celebrated, where every community is recognized and where every child can see themselves reflected in our shared history.

I want to thank Senator Mohammad Al Zaibak for his leadership and perseverance in guiding this bill through the Senate. His advocacy has been instrumental in bringing us to this special moment.

After years of effort, collaboration and support from parliamentarians across party lines, Conservative members of Parliament, Bloc Québécois MPs, New Democrats and Greens, and from communities right across our country, we now have the opportunity to make Arab heritage month a permanent part of Canada's legislative framework. I encourage all members, all colleagues in this House, to support Bill S-227 and help send it to the next and final stage on its journey towards becoming law so that we can signal to Arab Canadians that they are indeed integral to Canada.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are here once again to consider whether April should be designated as Arab heritage month in Canada. Given the contributions of Arab Canadians to the growth of this country, since the first one arrived in 1882, I am sure this is an idea that we can all agree on.

This community, which started with just a few families, has grown to more than one million Canadians who have Arab heritage. The Arab community in Canada is not, as the media sometimes thinks, a group of people who come from one place and have one way of thinking. We are, in many ways, an example of the diversity that is Canada.

Canada's Arabs trace their roots to many countries: Lebanon, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Palestine, Kuwait, Tunisia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Jordan, Mauritania, Libya, Yemen, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain. United by a common linguistic root, they have different religions and cultural traditions. The popular perception may be that to be Arab is to be Muslim, but we Arabs know differently. Canada's Arabs identify as Christian, Catholic, Orthodox and various types of Protestants. The majority are of Muslim background. There are many who are a vital component of the societies of the Middle East.

These diverse communities are tied together by a common language, the Arabic language. Even if one does not understand a word, it has a melody that makes it pleasing to listen to. Arabic is spoken by more than 400 million people worldwide. After English and French, Canada's official languages, it is the third most widespread official language on our planet. It is one of the six official languages of the United Nations. When we celebrate Arab heritage month, we are celebrating the people and we are also celebrating this language. It is the language of poetry and mysticism, and of law and humour. It is a language that unites people across the Middle East and North Africa.

The rich literature that can be found in Arabic tells the story of many cultures united under a common banner. To me, that sounds like Canada. For centuries, Arabic was the language of culture and learning, especially when looking for information on science, mathematics and philosophy. Our mathematics system is based on Arabic numerals. We all know that and rarely, if ever, stop to think about why they are called that.

Arabic heritage month would be an opportunity for those of us with Arab roots to share the richness of our culture in perhaps a more deliberate way than is the case now. I must admit, I have never had a conversation about the origins of Arabic numerals and their liberating effect on mathematics that has led to so many scientific advances. Perhaps I should start doing that.

Or, maybe I could initiate discussions about the scientific advances of what is referred to as the Islamic golden age, a period of rapid scientific advancement that took place between the eighth and 13th centuries. Despite its name, the advances of this period were not brought about exclusively by Muslims. Wikipedia tells us:

Christians...contributed to Islamic civilization during the reign of the Umayyads and the Abbasids by translating works of Greek philosophers and ancient science to Syriac and afterwards to Arabic. They also excelled in many fields, in particular philosophy, science...[and theology].

Some of the notable Christian scholars of the time were Hunayn ibn Ishaq, Yusuf Al-Khuri, al Himsi, Qusta ibn Luqa, Masawaiyh, Patriarch Eutychius, and Jabril ibn Bukhtishu.

If not for Arab scholars at that time working to translate works from antiquity, from the original Syriac, Greek, Persian and Latin, into Arabic, much of the knowledge of the ancient world could have been lost forever. We owe a cultural debt to those Arabic scholars of more than 1,000 years ago for preserving so much of the world's heritage.

I could go on and talk about how Arabs have influenced architecture and medicine in ways that continue to impact us today, but members get the idea. There is so much more to Arabic culture and history than most people are aware of. Setting aside April as Arab heritage month would encourage Canadians to discover more about these people and their history.

The Arabs have always exported their culture. We can visit Spain’s Andalusian region and see the Arab influence in the architecture of the region. Does this matter in Canada? There are probably those who say that what happens elsewhere is not as important as what happens inside our borders. The truth is that Arab Canadians have made a huge impact on this country in all the areas one can imagine.

Who was the first international Canadian pop star? It was Paul Anka, a Lebanese Canadian from Ottawa. Who is perhaps our most beloved children’s entertainer? It is Raffi, whose roots are also in Lebanon. What NBA all-star is of Syrian background? It is Jamal Murray, who also represents Canada internationally. Championship wrestler Sami Zayn is a first-generation Canadian born to Syrian immigrant parents.

We Arabs are a social people, which may be why many of us are drawn to political life. We want to serve, though we do not always see things the same way. That may be why Arabs who have served in this House have done so for the Conservatives, the Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democrats. We are united in our desire to serve, even as we disagree on policies. That, of course, is the very Canadian way. We have not had an Arab Canadian prime minister yet, but Prince Edward Island has had a Lebanese Canadian premier, Joe Ghiz.

It goes without saying that one of the Arabs’ biggest contributions to this country has been in the area of business. We have an entrepreneurial spirit. Wherever commerce happens in this country, whether it is big or small, we are almost certain to find a businessman or woman of Arab descent.

All of this is to point out that it is long overdue for us to acknowledge the contribution of those of Arab heritage to the Canadian mosaic. Setting aside April as Arab heritage month would allow all Canadians an opportunity to pay tribute to a special people. As I have said before, Canada is an example of what a society can be when the people celebrate their heritage without forgetting what unites them in common purpose. Let us celebrate Arab heritage month, whoever we are and wherever we are from.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on Bill S-227, an act respecting Arab heritage month.

This bill is straightforward. It would designate the month of April each year as Arab heritage month in Canada. It is a simple bill, but it speaks to something meaningful. It gives Parliament an opportunity to recognize the history, culture, work, sacrifice, entrepreneurship, faith, family values and civic contributions of Arab Canadians across this country. Arab Canadians have been part of Canada's story for generations. From the earliest Arab immigrants in the late 19th century to the communities that have grown across the country today, Arab Canadians have contributed to the Canada we share.

Today, Arab Canadians are found in every part of Canadian life. They are small business owners, doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, tradespeople, artists, writers, public servants, faith leaders, community volunteers, students, parents and grandparents. They are neighbours. They are friends. They are people who came to Canada for freedom, opportunity, peace, dignity and a better future for their children.

Some came from places where basic freedoms cannot always be taken for granted. Others came for opportunity, education, family, safety or the chance to shape their own futures. Whatever their path, they came here because Canada promised something better: a place where people could work hard, own a home, raise a family, worship freely, build a life with the person they love, start a business, speak their mind and contribute to the common good. That is the Canadian promise, and it is worth protecting.

In my own community of London—Fanshawe, we know how much Arab Canadians contribute. We see it in our small businesses. We see it in our restaurants, our community organizations, our charities, our classrooms, our workplaces and our neighbourhoods. We see families who are deeply committed to education. We see entrepreneurs who take risks, create jobs and serve their communities. We see newcomers who arrive with courage and hope and who work incredibly hard to build a life in Canada. We see young people who are proud of their heritage and proud to be Canadian. That is something worth celebrating.

Arab heritage is not one single story. It is rich, diverse and complex. It includes many countries, traditions, faiths, dialects and histories. It includes people whose families have been in Canada for generations and people who arrived only recently. It includes literature, music, food, fashion, scholarship, architecture, poetry, science, business and public service. It includes people who have preserved their heritage while also embracing Canada and contributing to our shared national life.

In Canada, people do not have to forget where they came from in order to belong. They can bring the best of their heritage, their work ethic, their family values, their traditions, their faith, their creativity and their love of community, while helping build one country together. That is the Canadian balance: pride in one's heritage, loyalty to Canada and a shared commitment to the values that keep this country free. Those values matter. Equality before the law matters. Democracy matters. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the rule of law and respect for the dignity of every person matter.

Commemorative months can serve a useful purpose when they help Canadians learn, reflect and build respect. They can open doors for schools, community groups, museums, libraries and families to tell stories that might otherwise be overlooked. They can help young people see themselves in Canada's history. They can help neighbours better understand one another.

However, we should also be honest. Commemorative months must not become empty gestures. They should not become virtue signalling or tokenism. They should point to something real like respect, opportunity, equal treatment and safe communities in a country where hard work is rewarded. That same seriousness should guide how we approach Arab heritage month. It should not be a symbolic check mark. It should be a genuine recognition of a community that has helped build this country.

It should encourage Canadians to learn about Arab Canadian history, including the early families who came here in the late 19th century, the communities that grew over the decades, the businesses that were built, the community institutions that became anchors and the younger generations now serving in every field imaginable. It should encourage us to celebrate Arab Canadian food, literature, music, art and entrepreneurship.

It should also encourage us to listen to the real concerns of Arab Canadian families today, concerns about affordability, jobs, housing, safety and whether their children will have the same opportunities that brought so many families here to Canada. This is because heritage is not only about the past but also about whether families can build a future. That is where Parliament has a responsibility that goes beyond symbolic recognition.

We should celebrate Arab Canadians, yes. We should also work to make Canada a country where every family, including Arab Canadian families, can afford a home, find meaningful work, start a business, raise children safely and live with dignity.

One of the things I hear again and again from families in my community is that they do not want special treatment. They want a fair chance. They want hard work to mean something again. They want their children to have opportunities. They want government to get the basics right. They want safe streets and a strong economy. They want schools, workplaces and public services that treat people with respect. They want Canada to be a country where freedom is protected and where people are united by shared responsibility. That is a vision worth defending.

That is also why this bill, while modest, can still matter. It can help ensure that every April, Canadians are invited to learn more about Arab heritage and Arab Canadian contributions. It can help communities mark that heritage with pride. It can help young Arab Canadians know that their story is part of Canada's story. It can help remind Parliament that the people we serve are not abstractions but families with histories, hopes, challenges and dreams.

I want to conclude by speaking directly to the Arab Canadians in London—Fanshawe and across Canada. Their history and their heritage matter. Their contributions matter. Their families, their businesses, their service, their faith communities, their culture, their stories and their dreams for the next generation are part of Canada. This bill would recognize that.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support of Bill S-227.

I want to thank Senator Mohammad Al Zaibak for introducing the bill, and I want to note that this legislation, an identical bill, was brought forward and passed unanimously in the previous Parliament but of course died on the Order Paper before receiving Senate consideration.

Canada's Arab communities have contributed enormously to our country, and they deserve the recognition that reflects their place in our shared story. Canada is home to more than one million Arab Canadians. The first recorded arrival of people of Arab origin dates back to 1882, in the early years following Confederation. Arab Canadians have enriched every aspect of Canadian life, including arts and culture, language and literature, and food and hospitality.

I would be remiss if I did not use this opportunity to raise people's awareness of the incredible Lebanese and Arab food in my community, including at Fattoush, a restaurant on Whyte Avenue in my riding that is run by Randa Alead. It is a wonderful place. Everyone should stop in if they are in Edmonton.

Arab Canadians have contributed to business and entrepreneurship, and to public service and politics. I would like to give a shout-out to Joe Hak, a Lebanese Canadian who unfortunately passed away two months ago but who was a real leader in our community, a real leader for Lebanese Canadians in Edmonton and across this country. Arab Canadians have been leaders in faith communities and with civic leadership.

Arab Canadians are not newcomers to the Canadian story. They have helped write the Canadian story for generations. Heritage months are opportunities to educate, celebrate and reflect, and they help future generations understand the contributions of communities that have helped build this country. Recognition sends an important message to young Arab Canadians that they belong, that they are valued and that their stories matter.

That is important for many reasons, but I reflect on the last few years when I have travelled across this country speaking to people, as the foreign affairs critic for the New Democratic Party, about what has been happening within Palestine. I also reflect on people of Arab descent's telling me that they feel like their government does not see them and does not see them as citizens. This moment in time is important for us as Parliament and as a country to recognize the important contributions Arab Canadians make.

It is also important when we look at the rise of Islamophobia, anti-Arab racism and anti-Palestinian racism across this country. Members will recall the Quebec City mosque attack in 2017, the murder of the Afzaal family in London, Ontario, in 2021 and the ongoing vandalism and attacks targeting mosques and Muslim communities. In my city of Edmonton and across this country, Arab Canadians continue to experience discrimination and hate. Where hate tries to divide us, parliamentarians have a responsibility to affirm that every community belongs.

The bill is about more than symbolism. It would create opportunities for schools, community organizations, municipalities, provinces and cultural institutions to celebrate and educate Canadians about the diversity and achievements of Arab communities. It would highlight the diversity of the Arab world and the many cultures, languages, traditions and experiences represented within it.

New Democrats proudly support Bill S-227. We reaffirm our commitment to standing against racism, colonialism, hatred and war, and we celebrate the rich contributions of Arab Canadians to Canada's social fabric. Arab heritage month would help ensure that the stories, achievements, struggles and contributions of Arab Canadians are recognized not only during one month each year but as an essential part of Canada's past, present and future. I urge all members to support the bill.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as the House marks Arab heritage month, I rise not for the ritual gestures that too often accompany such observances but to speak plainly about a civilization whose story stretches across three millennia and whose people have become part of our own. These calendar designations can slide into performance, but they can also compel us to examine substance, the actual inheritance of language, memory and achievement and the choices that have shaped Arab societies in our time. I intend to do the latter.

In his indispensable book Arabs: A 3,000-Year History of Peoples, Tribes and Empires, scholar Tim Mackintosh-Smith demonstrates that Arab identity has never been reducible to a single ethnicity, sect or moment of origin. It is above all a linguistic continuum, the Arabic language acting as a thread that has held together a vast and varied human tapestry from the first recorded mentions of Arabs, in Assyrian records of 853 BCE, through the tribal poetry and trading kingdoms of the peninsula, the urban sophistication of the Levant, the Berber and Arab worlds of the Maghrib and the nomadic traditions of the Bedouin.

Pre-Islamic Arabs were already a presence on the margins of greater empires, their poets celebrating honour, resilience and the stark beauties of desert life. The latter expansion of Arabic carried with it not only faith but administration, scholarship and a capacity for synthesis that absorbed and advanced the learning of others. This is the deep inheritance we acknowledge today. It is not a monolith but a living inheritance of peoples who have been both creators and custodians of civilization.

That inheritance met the modern world in difficult circumstances. After the Second World War, many Arab societies sought dignity, development and independence. One dominant answer was the pan-Arab socialism of Gamal Abdel Nasser. It drew on Soviet models of central direction and anti-western posture, promising to sweep away colonial legacies and unite the Arabs under a single political and economic project. In practice, it produced authoritarian structures, economic rigidities and repeated foreign policy failures.

The United Arab Republic with Syria collapsed quickly. The 1967 war exposed deeper weaknesses. Several societies that followed this path paid in lost decades of growth, suppressed enterprise and the entrenchment of regimes more interested in control than in the human capital of their citizens. The ideology functioned, whatever the intentions of its adherents, as a barrier to the very western institutions, markets and habits of mind that had accelerated development elsewhere.

A second answer rose in reaction. Islamist movements, beginning with the Muslim Brotherhood, presented themselves as moral alternatives to corrupt dictatorships and failed secular experiments. They spoke to real grievances and offered a language of renewal that resonated with many, yet the empirical record where such policies gained real influence is clear: deepened social polarization; restrictions on dissent and on minority communities, including long-established Christian-era populations across the Levant, Egypt and Iraq; economic policies that often failed to generate broad prosperity; and in their most extreme expressions, the incubation of violence that has scarred societies from the Maghrib to the Mashriq and beyond. The costs in emigration of talent, institutional decay and cycles of instability are measurable and ongoing.

There is a striking exception to these patterns, though, and it deserves our attention. In the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan built a federation from tribal foundations with a realism and self-confidence rare in the post-colonial era. He prioritized education, infrastructure and competent administration over ideological display. His heirs have extended that project with measurable success: deliberate diversification away from hydrocarbons into technology, finance, tourism, logistics and advanced industry; sustained investment in human capital; and a foreign policy of pragmatic partnerships.

The Abrahamic Family House in Abu Dhabi, which is a single complex containing a mosque, a church and a synagogue, embodies this approach in built form. It is a deliberate statement of coexistence among the Abrahamic traditions, not their subordination. It is the product of a confident Arab leadership, not imported dogma. It is therefore unsurprising that the clerical military regime in Tehran, whose revolutionary ideology has relied on exporting instability and targeting pragmatic Arab success stories, has directed proxy attacks and threats against the UAE in recent years.

Success is an indictment of alternatives. Across the Arab world, the poles of cultural and aspirational gravity have shifted. The old centres, Cairo under its successive experiments, Damascus in its long decline and Baghdad amid its traumas, no longer set the tone they once did. Increasingly, younger Arabs, entrepreneurs and reformers look to Abu Dhabi and Dubai for working models of modernity, prosperity and competent governance. Rhetoric has yielded to results.

This story is not abstract for Canada. Nearly 800,000 Canadians identify as Arab, a population that has more than tripled in two decades through immigration and natural increase. They come from Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, the Maghrib, the Gulf states, and elsewhere, the full geographic and human diversity of the Arab world. Many arrived as economic immigrants chosen for their skills. Others rebuilt lives after conflict or persecution. They have contributed in every domain that matters to a modern society, such as enterprise and professional excellence, medicine and engineering, scholarship and the arts, and public service and community building. They have done so while sustaining family structures and work habits that strengthen rather than erode our national social fabric.

In Canada, they have found what many Arab societies have struggled to secure: the protection of individual rights, the rule of law and the possibility of advancement based on merit rather than connection or ideology. Christian and Muslim Arabs alike participate in our institutions on equal terms. That participation is not an accident of geography, but a product of a political order that treats citizens as individuals first. Where Arab citizens enjoy full equality and democratic participation elsewhere, we see another demonstration that liberal institutions remain the most reliable framework for minority flourishing and Arab talent alike, such as with Arab Israelis, both Christian and Muslim, who serve in the Knesset, the courts and the professions.

I would say to our Arab Canadian brothers and sisters that their presence here is not a footnote to someone else's story. From the mighty Nabateans in the times of Rome and the great works of philosophers like Avicenna and Averroës to the modern resilience of a people who have endured and created across centuries, they bring the depth of an ancient linguistic and cultural inheritance and the determination of those who chose this country. Canada is stronger for it. We honour that heritage best not by reducing it to grievance or slogan, but by recognizing its complexity, achievements and continuing capacity to add to a free and self-governing society.

The lessons of the past 80 years are not obscure. Grand ideologies, whether imported socialism dressed as pan-Arab unity or political Islamism promising moral regeneration, have repeatedly subordinated practical governance and individual agency to abstractions with measurable costs in human welfare and stability. Pragmatic leadership that builds institutions, welcomes talent and measures success by results has produced different outcomes. The shift in Arab attention toward those who deliver is rational and observable.

The best tribute the House can offer is to defend the conditions that allow such contributions to continue, such as the rule of law, free enterprise, open inquiry, secure borders and a confident national identity that does not require citizens to shed their inheritances, but requires them to uphold the common principles that make Canada work. In doing so, we honour Arab heritage in the only way that ultimately matters, by ensuring that the sons and daughters of that heritage can flourish here as free people in a free country. That is the Canada worth building and the heritage worth respecting.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to say that the speech by my colleague, the member for Calgary Heritage, was so wonderful and well informed. My words tonight will not meet that threshold.

What I am here to talk about is shawarma. My first introduction to Arab culture was at Mr. Falafel. It is on 10th Avenue near my old university, the University of British Columbia. I was a poor student, and I probably had enough money to eat out once a week. When I went there and got that big, juicy shawarma sandwich, it was a highlight of my week. I still love eating it. In fact I went back just a few weeks ago to visit some entrepreneurs at UBC, and I stopped by Mr. Falafel. They have been in business for 26 years now. I love that restaurant. It speaks to what many Arabs do when they come to Canada: They start small businesses. They, disproportionately, start small businesses, and they make a positive impact in Canada's economy.

Another shawarma place I have been frequenting since my university days is Shawarma King. It is right up the road on Bank Street. In fact, my buddy Mo has been serving me shawarma there since about 2008, when I moved to Ottawa to do my master's degree at Carleton University. I eat there probably once a week, even to this day. It is nice going to Shawarma King, a long-established shawarma joint in Ottawa, after a long day on Parliament Hill, to talk to my buddy Mo. The food is just incredible: the eggplant, the cauliflower, the mixed beef and chicken, the tahini sauce on top and the tabbouleh salad. I love this food. I think it is the greatest food in the world.

Another place is Falafel King on Denman Street in Vancouver. It serves the best carrot soup I have had in my entire life. Whenever I go to English Bay, I have to stop by Falafel King and get the carrot soup. They also put a lot of tahini on their chicken, and I can never go wrong with that dish. It is honestly one of the best meals, and it brings me joy every time I get to eat it.

There is another place, a new one, and it is a good one. I went to Ajax on a small business tour a few months ago, and I went to Aleppo Kebab. The owner is a Syrian refugee. He used to have a shawarma joint in Syria that served all the tourists who would go to the Roman ruins. Unfortunately, due to all the conflict in that country, he had to come to Canada, but like many people who come from Syria and other Arab countries, he did not sit around getting welfare; he started a business. The shawarma barbecue I got at Aleppo Kebab in Ajax is the best Middle Eastern barbecue I have had in my entire life. It makes sense, as the owner's family has been doing this for generations, and he is a really good businessman.

I love Middle Eastern food. I am giving these examples because they are real and people can relate to them, but they also speak to the broader impact that shawarma restaurants have had for small business in Canada. Another great example of Middle Eastern food has come from some families I have helped in my job. An Iraqi family has given me Iraqi dolma. It is wrapped in a leaf, and it is just mouth-wateringly delicious. They put some rice and lamb in a compressed pot with tomatoes and all sorts of spices. I cannot find better food than what there is in the Middle East. It just blows my mind, and it warms my heart every single time.

The bill we are discussing today is about recognizing Arab contributions to Canadian society. Arab Canadians have had an outweighted impact in terms of food. Shawarma is the greatest food in the world, and I think it is the best form of fast food in the world. Every chance I get to eat it, I am going to continue doing so. I thank all the shawarma restaurants across Canada for keeping me fit and in better shape, not going for a burger or something less helpful, because their food is just so amazing.

When I speak to many of the new immigrants from countries in the Middle East, they do not want to stop at shawarma restaurants. Their frustration with Canada relates to skills recognition. The reason some of these entrepreneurs are so good with their restaurants is that, in their home countries, they were running engineering firms. They were doctors at regional hospitals. They were orthopaedic surgeons. Canada must and can do a better job of admitting people and allowing for their previous work experience to be recognized in Canada.

The common story that has been shared in the House of Commons thousands of times is that of a cab driver or shawarma restaurant owner who had this great career abroad. They came to Canada on the points system, not necessarily as a refugee, but as soon as they got here, they found it almost impossible to practise the profession that got them here in the very first place.

The Liberal government has made commitments to improve skills recognition. I hope to see those promises fulfilled. I think that is a good thing for Canada and a good thing for our economy. Provincial governments across the board have done so as well.

If we take anything from the legislation before us here today, it is that very point: We will not see the full potential of Arab citizens in Canada if we do not modernize our immigration system and our skills recognition to allow people to flourish in the way we want every new Canadian to flourish in our country.

I am thankful for the time to speak today. It was wonderful to talk about amazing shawarma in the House of Commons.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise every time I get the opportunity, but in particular, for this very important private member's bill respecting Arab heritage month.

Before I get into the speech, I would like to take a moment, because it has been some time since I have risen in the House, to say what a great privilege it is to represent the great people of Northumberland—Clarke. It is a true honour to be here. I thank them very much for sending me here three times, and who knows, there may be a fourth.

The heart of today's speech is obviously Arab heritage month. I am going to start by painting the macroeconomic picture, and it will become clear as to why I am doing that.

Canada, right now, is in an economic challenge, really an economic struggle. Of course, as was said many times in the House, we are the only G7 country that is currently in a recession. Our GDP per capita has barely grown over the last 10 years. In fact, it is the worst growth per capita since the Great Depression. We also have an unemployment rate, which is rising, of almost 7%. It is nearly a third higher than the United States—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we are not on the opposition day motion. We are on a very respectful bill that was brought forward that deals with the Arab community. I would ask the member to be relevant.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member. We allow for broad relevance on these matters. I am sure the member will bring his remarks back to the matter at hand.

The hon. member for Northumberland—Clarke.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Clarke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will get to the punchline because I do not want to keep the member waiting.

We have always needed the type of entrepreneurship and innovation that has been led by Canadians of Arabic origin.

I want to tell members a story about a Lebanese gentleman who I got to know. His name is Ziad. He is not the member in the House. I think I am allowed to say that. I got to work alongside Ziad and it was an absolute honour and privilege. This gentleman is a true shining light for what Canada should be and what the Lebanese community in Canada is. When working beside him, I learned that there was not a business opportunity that this guy could not see. I will not get into the details of the business, but obviously like any business, it is important to have more sales to grow it and to be more productive. When everyone else said that they were not going to get the sale or the business was not going to grow, Ziad would always find a way.

If members have had the honour and privilege of meeting Lebanese Canadians, they know that, bar none, there are no better business people in this country or anywhere in the world. They bring with them an incredible power of positivity. They have a natural mind for business. They get to deliver those products and services, not just because they want to be successful or they want to make a profit, although we know that those things happen, but because they have a deep sense of community and believe, support and trust one another.

Canada is in an economic quagmire. We are in an extreme challenge. We have the most indebtedness of any G7 country outside of Japan. We are facing high unemployment. Our inflation is still within range of 2.8%, but is creeping up. We have the highest food inflation. A quarter of the population is food-insecure. While we have always been highly dependent on Canadians of Arabic origin, we are even more dependent right now, because we need their entrepreneurial spirit.

I want to tell members a story about my friend's dad. She told me the story. Her dad came over here with literally not a dollar in his jeans. He built a construction business. He did not speak English or French. He had everything in life stacked against him, but once again that incredible Lebanese spirit, mind for business, innovation and entrepreneurship shone through. Not only was he able to create a successful business, but he was able to raise a family and help build a community. He supported other Lebanese members of his community within Canada. His daughter went on to be a very successful lawyer. That is the type of entrepreneurship innovation that Canada is increasingly in need of.

One of the stats I will go back to again, if the member will indulge me to digress, but I promise to bring it back, is with respect to what is called the entrepreneurial drought in Canada. Throughout recent history, there have always been more businesses starting than closing in Canada. That ended in 2024. We are now seeing more businesses closing every day in this country. Actually, more businesses are now closing than are opening in Canada. In fact, over 50% of folks who are business owners today say they would not recommend to a friend or an acquaintance to start a new business. However, we desperately need that business in Canada. Certainly, government policies, as one government official said to me, have put a lot of snow on the runway and we need to clear it off now. I think that is very well put. We need to clear the path for these entrepreneurs so that the great entrepreneurs of Arabic or other origin have the ability to succeed and be more successful.

Ultimately, Canada has, I believe, the best workers, the best brains and the most intelligent people in the entire world, which is in no small part because of our diversity. We bring the best and brightest from literally all around the world. I have certainly been impressed by people of all different origins. It makes all the sense in the world to acknowledge that diversity with a spirit of inclusivity so we can allow all Canadians to achieve the economic dream that, unfortunately, because of 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, has increasingly become more difficult to achieve. We have a whole generation that is finding it very difficult to buy a house. The average age of first-time homebuyers is creeping further and further along. I believe all Canadians should have the opportunity to own a house.

I know that Canadians of Arabic origin will be there pushing, as they have with their tremendous legacy throughout the world. They, of course, have been responsible for breakthroughs in nearly every single discipline one can imagine, whether that is culture, mathematics, engineering or science. They have been there, making those breakthroughs, making our world literally a better place, including saving lives with medical breakthroughs.

Canada is more independent. We need Canadians of Arabic origin more than ever because, as one Liberal official said to me, of all of the snow that has been put on the runway over the last 10 years. Now I believe the population is over a million people who count themselves as of Arabic origin, and that is absolutely tremendous. I, for one, am hoping that number grows, because of the amazing contributions they have made. They are some of the best doctors in the world and some of the best engineers. As I said, my own personal experience is with several Lebanese business owners who contain this incredible energy of optimism and spirit that Canada really needs more than ever.

With that, I would say that this private member's bill, the Arab heritage month act, has my full support, and I look forward to it being unanimously passed. I say this as a House of Commons member and a people's representative acknowledging the tremendous accomplishments of Arab people. If I could, I would give a whole year, in fact, but I guess April will have to do.

It is my pleasure to stand here in full support of this private member's bill. I cannot wait for it to be law and to celebrate it here with some great shawarma.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this.

I want to start by mentioning two historic Arab Albertans involved in politics. The first is my very dear friend, whom I call my brother. He is the member for Edmonton Manning. My friend was the very first Lebanese MP ever elected in the province of Alberta. Besides his being a phenomenal representative of the people, I have come to know his family very well. It is an incredible family. My dear friend also donated one of his vital organs to help save his son's life, which is further proof of what a fine gentleman he is. One of his sons later worked for me on a couple of my campaigns and did a phenomenal job, and then moved on to help out the provincial party in Alberta as well.

If I could find an Arab politician to live up to my colleague from Edmonton Manning, it would be Larry Shaben. Larry Shaben was the very first Muslim elected to higher office in North America. That was in Alberta. He was also the very first to serve as a provincial minister in Canada, even when compared to, perhaps, the equivalent in the U.S.

He served as a minister under the great Peter Lougheed, as well as Don Getty. I want to read a quote from Peter Lougheed about Larry Shaben, at Mr. Shaben's funeral: “We all know how much better we are because we knew Larry Shaben. We all know how much better Alberta as a whole is because of Larry Shaben.” I cannot think of a better tribute from one of the greatest Albertans ever to one of the other greatest Albertans than the one Mr. Lougheed made to Mr. Shaben. I wanted to bring that up.

I know that my colleague from Edmonton Manning, whom I would like to call by his name but I will not, will live up to Mr. Shaben as well.

The very first Arab recorded in Alberta was in 1912, known as Ali Ahmed Abouchadi, who was also from Lebanon. He and his uncle, Sine Abouchadi, moved from Lebanon and settled in Lac La Biche, which is now, I think, probably the largest Arab community in the entire world and the largest Lebanese community in the entire world, including Lebanon itself. It is a phenomenal community north of Edmonton that I have had the pleasure of visiting many times. It still maintains incredible Lebanese culture.

I also want to talk about a couple of friends of mine from Edmonton. As my colleague mentioned, we could spend all day talking about contributions from the Arab community in Canada, but I want to mention a couple of dear friends of mine whom I have known for many years.

The first is my office manager, Oula Sanduga. I know she is probably back in Edmonton right now planning my demise for mentioning her and talking about her in the House, because she is a bit shy. I have had the pleasure of working with Oula for 10 years in my office. Before working with me, she worked for the hon. Laurie Hawn, and before that, Peter Goldring. Oula hails, originally, from Palestine. She is a very proud Palestinian. I am very proud to have her with us.

Over the 30 years she has worked in MP offices, she has helped untold thousands of Canadians, whether it is with CRA issues, EI issues or especially immigration issues. We have people contacting our office from around the entire province, knowing that Oula is the one to help. She is considered by all of our offices in Alberta as the most senior, most educated and most experienced person to help out on so many files.

Oula has just returned to our office after very lengthy challenges, and I cannot express how happy we are that she is back with us. I know that my constituents express that exact same feeling. My predecessor, in part of my riding, the hon. Laurie Hawn, used to say about the constituency staff and the MPs that the MP is just the hood ornament and the constituency staff is the engine of the car. Oula is a phenomenally strong-running V8 engine in that comparison.

The other one I want to mention specifically is Oula's father, Dean Sanduga. Dean, of course, also hails from Palestine. He is an incredible community leader and has raised an incredible family. To this day, even though he is considerably older than me, he still stays very active in the community, helping newcomers, helping Canadians and helping Edmontonians. Again, I wanted to thank both of them for all the incredible work they have done.

Now, for the rest of my few minutes I have, I am going to plagiarize and read from a story by someone at the U of A, Sarah Carter. She is a professor there. I found some of the stories she was telling about Syrians coming to western Canada. One of her favourite authors is a gentleman named Habeeb Salloum. My colleague from Abbotsford may like this. Mr. Salloum was famous for writing books, including Arab Cooking on a Prairie Homestead.

One of Mr. Salloum's books concluded with a great comment, as Sarah Carter wrote, “'The saga of the Arab immigrants is truly the story of Canada.' He feared they were being forgotten, as those with Arab heritage sought to assimilate. He hoped 'fellow Canadians and others, after reading our family’s saga will feel that Arab Canadians have contributed to Canada’s history.'” I encourage people to read that book. Those are very strong words from Mr. Salloum.

I want to just start with some of the story that Sarah had written about Arabs in Canada, especially Syrians. She starts off with “Syrians have a long history in Canada. Paul Anka is perhaps the best known Canadian of Syrian ancestry.” I look around the House, perhaps at my colleague from Abbotsford with his love of Arab food. He is so young that I am not sure if he knows who Paul Anka is. I am looking around for the other grey hairs. There are a few of us. Paul Anka is a wonderful gentleman, and yes, I think he is probably the most famous Canadian of Syrian ancestry.

Sarah goes on to say, “there were others; many of whom we must consider 'Old Stock Canadians.'” I think she makes a reference just to show how long people of Syrian heritage and Arab history have been in Canada. It goes back to, as we heard earlier, the beginning of Confederation. She continues, “Somewhat less well known, for example, but still very popular in his day, was 'Canada’s King of the Fiddle,' Ameen 'King' Ganam, born in Swift Current in 1914.” I am aging myself. I actually remember who “King” Ganam was.

I see I am getting the wave that my time is up. I will come back to finish my last two minutes with the story about “King” Ganam and Tommy Hunter.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Foreign Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising at the hour of adjournment, or as we colloquially call it around here, the late show, to pursue a question I asked the Prime Minister but to which the response came from the hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The question I asked was on March 9 and was in relation to the events of February 28, when, illegally, the government of Israel and the government of the United States authorized attacks, strikes, on Iran. In my question to the hon. minister, I quoted our former minister of foreign affairs, the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, who actually wrote to the Toronto Star to say, “Canada once rejected America's aggressive, unlawful foreign policy. Today [the Prime Minister] embraced it.” He went on to say, again quoting Lloyd Axworthy, “Under the [United Nations] Charter, cross-border uses of force are prohibited except in two narrow cases”. He then pointed out that Operation Epic Fury, as the White House called it, applies to neither.

I wanted to ask the Prime Minister at the time whether he would belatedly condemn what the U.S. and Israel did in attacking Iran. The response from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, just to summarize, was that while we support Iran's never obtaining nuclear weapons, this support is not a blank cheque. Canada reaffirms that international law binds all parties. The U.S. and Israel must respect the rules of international engagement. In other words, this stopped and fell short of a condemnation of our allies' ignoring international law. That is in fact what we did. The condemnation should have been from Canada's government immediately.

I want to include in my brief remarks tonight while pursuing this question something that I rarely do. I would like to thank a member of the opposition benches, a newly elected member of Parliament from the riding that abuts mine, shall we say, my neighbour, the hon. Liberal member for Victoria, who was, prior to entering politics, associate professor of international law at the University of Victoria. He was unequivocal in issuing a written statement that Canada's response fell short.

I will quote the hon. member for Victoria as he was quoted in the Times Colonist: “Canada cannot endorse the unilateral and illegal acts of military force”. He went on to call for “a consistent Canadian standard, one that applies the laws of war and the principle of protecting civilians, whether the actors are allies or adversaries.”

The difficulty we have is that Canada should have been quick to condemn in the first Trump administration. I think we actually did that when the Trump administration tore up the agreement that had been reached with Iran, which was working. Of course the goal is to make sure Iran never has nuclear weapons. The Government of Iran is ruthless, ignores human rights, is abusive and also exports terrorism. Nobody questions that, but ignoring international law is a grave error. In the case of the original U.S.-Iran deal, it was working. It was “Trust but verify”. The international atomic energy experts were getting access to all the research facilities.

As the time passes, I wonder what the government is saying about the United Nations charter and international law. Is it only when it is convenient?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her commitment to, tenacity with and passion for the issues that we both care about deeply. I also want to thank her for elaborating on the question because, on March 9, she never got to the question. She gave the Minister of Foreign Affairs lots of air time, but now I know what the question is. Without chiding too much, I am really glad to get to the question.

Let me be clear that Canada has been consistent and clear in its position regarding Iran. We continue to call for an end to the hostilities. We call for all parties to uphold the April ceasefire agreement, exercise restraint and respect international humanitarian law. We urge all parties to avoid actions that can further destabilize the region. Canada continues to work with international partners to support diplomatic efforts aimed at reducing tensions and ensuring the full reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

In parallel, Canada is working through the G7 to support coordinated engagement with gulf partners, which would restore that safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Canada stands ready to support a Strait of Hormuz defence mission in only three potential areas, maritime logistics, demining support and satellite imagery, which would support efforts by the U.K. and France.

We must maintain pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran to address its destabilizing behaviour, including nuclear and ballistic missile programs, support for terrorism and human rights violations, through sanctions and UN engagement. We must be unequivocal on this. Iran can never acquire a nuclear weapon, and its support for terrorism through proxies and on its own must end. The U.S. and Iran must reach an agreement that ensures robust International Atomic Energy Agency verification of Iran's nuclear program that limits Iran's ballistic missile program and addresses Iran's support for those regional proxies.

I also want to comment for a moment on the concurrent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. We are deeply concerned by its escalation and the risk of further regional instability. Real people are losing their homes and their livelihoods and are being put at risk. That is why we firmly support the Lebanese government's effort to restore, exercise full state authority, including through the disarmament of Hezbollah, which is listed as a terrorist organization in Canada, and to advance credible and durable peace. Our government will continue working with international partners to support an end to the conflict, the protection of civilians and the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Lebanon.

We are clear-eyed about the challenges facing the region. It is a region that is in disruption. A lasting solution will never be achieved through military action by anyone. It will only be secured through diplomacy, dialogue, sustained negotiations, conversation and goodwill. We have to reach a new position of understanding.

We remain guided by international law every day, and we stand ready to play our part. We will continue to prioritize and respond to the safety of Canadians in the region as well. We will work to support a return to stability in the whole of the Middle East.

The hearts and minds of Canadians are with the people of Gaza, the people of the Palestine as a whole and the people of Lebanon, including the south and Beirut, as we are with the people of the gulf who are bombarded daily.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary, for giving such a thoughtful answer. He is quite correct that I did not get out the last words, which were, will the Prime Minister belatedly condemn these actions?

The actions have continued, as the parliamentary secretary indicated, from that horrible attack of February 28. We have now had the spreading of conflict in multiple directions. There are sanctions against Hezbollah and sanctions against Iran, but when are we going to talk about sanctions against Netanyahu and Israel for persistently violating international law?

Again, what can we do? I know it is complicated by Trump's attacks on Canada in terms of our commerce and trade, but the reality is that there are several great destabilizers around the world right now. There is Trump, there is Netanyahu, and there is Putin. How can Canada amplify our diplomatic efforts and consider sanctions against these bad actors?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will close by reiterating Canada's position. We have indeed issued sanctions on two key ministers in the Netanyahu government, and we have issued sanctions on some settlers who have perpetrated violence in the West Bank. At the same time, we will call on all parties to stop hostilities and to uphold ceasefire agreements. A lasting peace in any region will only be achieved through diplomacy, dialogue and sustained negotiations.

Canada is working closely with allies and partners in reducing tensions, trying to safeguard the free flow of trade through the Strait of Hormuz and supporting the stability that underpins global economic security, while continuing humanitarian aid and the building up of democratic institutions and the people of the region.

Dental Care

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian dental care plan is one of the most significant expansions of public health care in a generation. For too long, millions of Canadians went without dental care because they could not afford it. They delayed treatment, lived with pain and watched manageable dental problems become serious health issues because the cost was out of reach.

The New Democrats fought to make this program a reality because access to health care should never depend on the size of a person's paycheque, pension cheque or bank account. Today, millions of Canadians have access to dental care because of the Canadian dental care plan. This is a success worth protecting. It is why I rise tonight to raise a serious and growing concern.

My office has been contacted by Canadians who have applied in good faith, were approved, received care and renewed their coverage as instructed. Many believed everything was in order, only to receive letters saying their eligibility was now under review or they may no longer qualify. Many affected are retirees, former union members, veterans and pensioners who made decisions about dental coverage through their unions or employers years ago, sometimes decades, based on the rules that existed at the time. Some were told that if they opted out of their dental coverage, they could never rejoin.

When the Canadian dental care plan became available, they applied honestly because they believed they did not have access to dental coverage. The government reviewed their applications and approved them. Now they are being told that information on a T4 or T4A tax slip suggests they may have had access after all.

Susan from Errington believed she qualified because she had opted out of her pension dental plan before December 11, 2023, and could not re-enroll. She has documentation supporting her position but no clear timeline for a decision.

Ian from Parksville left his former employer decades ago. He declined dental coverage because the premiums were nearly equal to the pension benefits he receives. He was told he could never rejoin. Now he fears being asked to repay benefits he received in good faith.

Allan from Coombs, a retired veteran, opted out of dental coverage in the 1990s because he could not afford the premiums. He was told he could not rejoin. Now he is caught in an eligibility review because rules appear to be changing decades later.

Joyce from Lasqueti Island had not seen a dentist in eight years because she could not afford private coverage. The plan finally gave her access to care. Now she worries that coverage may be taken away.

These constituents are not alone. We know people across Canada do not know whether they will lose their coverage, whether they can renew, whether documents have been received or whether they will be asked to repay benefits already approved by the Liberal government. Many cannot even speak directly to the officials reviewing their cases. They are directed from one department to another with no clear timeline for a decision. Even members of Parliament have limited ability to obtain updates. This is not simply a question of paperwork. It is a question of access to health care.

Will the government maintain coverage and protect renewal eligibility while reviews are under way? Will it establish clear service guidelines and standards, provide applicants and MPs with a dedicated point of contact, and ensure that Canadians who acted honestly and in good faith are not denied dental care because of gaps between government systems and the reality of their circumstances?

The Canadian dental care plan is improving lives. We must not allow bureaucracy, confusion and administrative barriers to undermine that promise.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member, my good friend from Courtenay—Alberni, for his very important question.

As the member mentioned, the Canadian dental care plan is the most transformative social program in a generation. More than seven million Canadians are now eligible for the CDCP, and more than four million Canadians have received dental services from the plan. During the most recent renewal period, more than 80% of CDCP members successfully renewed their coverage.

In the member's riding of Courtenay—Alberni, more than 29,000 people are eligible for the CDCP. That means seniors are receiving care that has been delayed for years. Children and young people are getting access to preventative care earlier. Families are saving, on average, about $900 per year through the program. At a time when many Canadians are feeling pressure from the rising cost of living, the CDCP is helping people access essential dental care with greater peace of mind.

As with any program of this scale, it is important that eligibility requirements are administered carefully and consistently. Health Canada regularly conducts eligibility reviews to confirm that applicant information aligns with records held by the Canada Revenue Agency. In cases where additional clarification is needed, individuals may be asked to provide supporting documentation, which the department then reviews before confirming eligibility.

The member has rightfully raised cases where, through no fault of their own, some individuals were incorrectly approved for dental services. I can assure the member that the department is working closely with impacted individuals and the members of Parliament who have raised this issue to find an equitable solution.

I know this issue is important to the member, and I want to emphasize that the minister and all of us are committed to ensuring the program works effectively for Canadians. That means making sure eligible Canadians can continue accessing the dental care they need while supporting a system that remains reliable and sustainable for the millions of Canadians who depend on it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I truly hope the Liberals will address these issues.

I have another emerging issue that I want to raise.

My office has been inundated with calls from seniors, retirees, veterans and pensioners who are confused, anxious and afraid of losing the Canadian dental care plan coverage because of yesterday's June 1 renewal deadline. Many applied honestly, were approved and received care but are now being told their eligibility is under review. Others missed the deadline because of unclear communication, delayed notices or confusion and now must reapply, risking a gap in coverage.

The government needs to understand the anxiety that this has caused. Requiring renewal creates unnecessary barriers, especially for seniors and vulnerable people navigating government systems.

The renewal deadline must be extended. No Canadian should lose dental coverage because of administrative confusion. The government must provide clarity and ensure no one is left without the care they depend on.

Will the government fix this?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and good friend from Courtenay— Alberni for raising this important issue.

Our government remains committed to ensuring that the Canadian dental care plan continues to deliver for Canadians. More than four million Canadians have already received care through the CDCP, and more than seven million Canadians are currently eligible for the program.

We will continue working to ensure that the program remains accessible, effective and responsive to the needs of Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:40 p.m.)