House of Commons Hansard #127 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Parliament of Canada Act First reading of Bill C-278. The bill requires Members of Parliament who change political parties to face a by-election to seek their constituents' approval, aiming to prevent MPs from unilaterally altering the democratic will of voters. 300 words.

Clarity Act First reading of Bill C-279. The bill seeks to repeal the federal Clarity Act, arguing that the existing legislation undermines democratic principles and that Quebec alone should determine its future based on a 50% plus one majority vote. 300 words.

Petitions

Opposition Motion—Economic Policies Members debate a Conservative motion claiming Canada is in a full-blown recession. Conservatives criticize the government, citing the highest G7 household debt and rising unemployment, while demanding a new economic plan. Liberals dismiss these claims as alarmist, pointing to future economic growth and strategic investments. The Bloc Québécois emphasizes an export crisis linked to trade failures. Finally, the House pauses to bid farewell to MP Jonathan Wilkinson as he departs for a new diplomatic role. 49300 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives emphasize that Canada is the only G7 country in recession, blaming Liberal mismanagement for fleeing investment and rising unemployment. They highlight historic food insecurity and call for abolishing the temporary foreign worker program. Finally, they criticize the government’s response to rising anti-Semitism and the Prime Minister’s perceived lack of leadership.
The Liberals defend their economic plan, citing foreign direct investment and trade diversification. They highlight affordability measures like the groceries and essentials benefit and dental care. The government also emphasizes investments in nuclear energy and green aluminum, while addressing rising anti-Semitism and reform for Indigenous child services.
The Bloc advocates for a wage subsidy to protect Quebec's expertise and jobs. They demand duty buybacks to save the forestry industry while criticizing Liberal backtracking on climate and missed environmental targets.
The NDP advocate for fair federal funding for BC Ferries. They also accuse the immigration minister of providing misleading information regarding the 10-day timeline for processing study permits for Palestinian students.
The Greens support a thorough investigation into concerns regarding documentation from main estimates committee sessions.

Remarks by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux argues that allegations from the opposition regarding misleading statements represent a difference of opinion rather than a matter of privilege, asserting that parliamentary disputes over facts should remain subjects of debate. 700 words.

Arab Heritage Month Act Report stage of Bill S-227. The bill S-227 proposes designating April as Arab heritage month in Canada. Members from all parties expressed strong support for the legislation, emphasizing the historical and ongoing contributions of Arab Canadians to the country's economy, arts, and culture. Proponents argue the designation will foster inclusivity and counter discrimination, while recognizing the diverse histories and achievements of communities that have shaped Canada. 8100 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

International law and Middle East Elizabeth May criticizes the government for failing to condemn U.S. and Israeli military strikes against Iran, arguing they violate international law. Rob Oliphant defends Canada’s diplomatic approach, emphasizing the importance of international agreements, humanitarian law, and targeted sanctions while stressing that lasting solutions require negotiation rather than military action.
Canadian dental care plan administration Gord Johns critiques administrative hurdles and eligibility review processes causing anxiety for seniors and veterans in the dental care plan. Maggie Chi defends the program's reach, noting ongoing efforts to verify eligibility and ensure program sustainability, while promising to work with affected individuals to find equitable solutions.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River Saskatchewan

Liberal

Buckley Belanger LiberalSecretary 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?

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Whitby Ontario

Liberal

Ryan Turnbull LiberalParliamentary 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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

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?

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

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?

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

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?

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

June 2nd, 2026 / 11:10 a.m.

Conservative

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?

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

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—

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

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

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Bloc

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—

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Conservative

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:35 a.m.

Bloc

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.

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Marc-Aurèle-Fortin Québec

Liberal

Carlos Leitão LiberalParliamentary 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?

Opposition Motion—Economic PoliciesBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Bloc

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.