Debates of June 8th, 2026

The House resumed from May 4 consideration of the motion that Bill S‑228, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sterilization procedures), be read the third time and passed.

The Criminal Code

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today. This will be my first time speaking to Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to sterilization procedures. We are now at third reading.

As the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous relations and northern development, I must say I have heard from a number of witnesses at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. It is hard not to be moved by what indigenous women, as well as women from ethnic minorities, have gone through. We know that these women, including women with disabilities, are the most affected by something that simply should not exist. It is unacceptable, even terrifying, for women.

I think the fact that I am here today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to offer our support for the quick passage of this bill is a victory in and of itself, a victory that belongs to all women and their loved ones. We know that when tragedy strikes, we are all affected by what those around us are going through, so this will be their victory too, because I believe that there is agreement on both sides of the House to finally pass this bill, which is actually very straightforward.

This bill amends the Criminal Code to clarify that, for the purposes of subsection 268(1), a sterilization procedure is “an act that wounds or maims a person”. The bill defines a “sterilization procedure” as “the severing, clipping, tying or cauterizing, in whole or in part, of the Fallopian tubes, ovaries or uterus of a person or any other procedure performed on a person that results in the permanent prevention of reproduction, regardless of whether the procedure is reversible through a subsequent surgical procedure.”

This constitutes aggravated assault. As we have already done with regard to rape, we want to specify in the Criminal Code that this indeed constitutes aggravated assault. We want to ensure that, even though some people have talked about symbols, we want to go beyond symbols. We really want to ensure that we always strengthen the protection of those women whose bodily integrity is threatened. We want to ensure they are protected and we also want to assure them that they will be able to access the same health care as any other woman and that their free and informed consent will be required and taken into account.

Certainly, as critic, I wanted to ensure that unintended consequences of medical procedures would not be included. A number of people provided testimony and some expressed concerns. We want to ensure the bill has the desired effect. That is indeed what we tried to do, to allay any possible fears about the bill, and we have done so. Some of the fears were expressed by the medical community, but all the answers provided were able to, as I said, allay people's fears.

For example, the definition I read in the bill earlier requires the primary purpose of the procedure to result in the “permanent prevention of reproduction”. One of the examples we considered is that of a patient who consents to chemotherapy, which could indirectly result in sterilization. We ensured that this would not be covered by the bill. It would therefore not be included in the Criminal Code.

Once again, the purpose of the bill ensures that it applies only to acts that are intentionally sterilizing. I gave one example, but there are others. The idea is really to target intentional acts, acts that are performed without the patient's free and informed consent. We really wanted this provision to apply both to doctors and everyone else. Situations resulting in sterilization as a side effect are not covered by the bill.

Then there was section 45 of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects doctors who are trying to save lives in emergency situations. Indeed obtaining free and informed consent in an emergency can be extremely difficult. It is certainly a different matter when a life is at risk and action must be taken. It is not considered a violation of the Criminal Code. Section 45 protects the medical profession.

That was pretty much the idea we put forward in the last study. The goal was to dispel any fears people might have because not knowing the potential impact is always scary. That could make people reluctant to support the bill.

Both sides of the House now agree that the bill should be passed, particularly in light of all the testimony that has been heard. It is important to remember that, while witnesses appeared before the committee in this Parliament, the bill was also examined during the previous Parliament, so we have been working on it for a long time. We have broken down several barriers. Now we are coming to the very end. That means that there is a consensus. I believe that this is the most rigorous and responsible approach, even though, deep down, we fully support a bill like this one, which seeks to put an end to all discrimination regarding sterilization. However, we also need to listen to all community stakeholders and there is a strong consensus there too.

To wrap up, I will not read out all of the statistics that I have in front of me or all of the international calls for action. For example, the United Nations is calling for the enactment of legislation to protect all women from this type of injustice or, quite frankly, this type of crime. We are merely strengthening the Criminal Code. I hope that we can also provide the necessary resources. Yes, this is enshrined in the Criminal Code, but we are well aware that not everything can be solved through the Criminal Code.

This is an extremely complex issue. Therefore, we need to be able to support women while engaging in dialogue and collaborating with various governmental and non-governmental organizations to ensure we address the full scope of the issue. As I was saying, for me, the recurring theme is truly protecting women, being able to assure them that their bodies belong to them and that no one can make choices for them. What I am saying applies to just about every indigenous affairs issue that comes before the House and that we are involved in. We must consult with women, respect them and ensure that they are stakeholders in the decisions being made on their behalf.

In closing, I would like to pay tribute to all the women listening to us.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to apologize from the outset. This is not a speech that will soar to oratorical heights, castigating the government for its many failures and its apparent inability to understand the needs of the country. There is a time for that, but it is not now because this is not a partisan issue. It is not a matter of left or right, but we could say it is a matter of right and wrong, or at least to ensure that a historical wrong is never repeated.

Four years ago, the Senate human rights committee issued its report on forced or coerced sterilization of persons in Canada. For many people, it was eye‑opening. Canadians are vaguely aware of the history of forced sterilization in this country. Our history at times is nothing to be proud of.

In the early part of the 20th century, a movement arose that had a flawed concept of human dignity and what it meant to be authentically human. The idea was that we should strive to create perfect people, which meant those who were considered to be imperfect should not be allowed to have children. The state would force those deemed unfit to be sterilized so they could not reproduce. This was, and is, a reprehensible view.

Sadly, it was my home province of Alberta that led the way in this sad chapter of our history. The provincial Sexual Sterilization Act was passed in 1928, and more than 2,800 women were sterilized before the act was repealed in 1972. These women were denied the privilege of having children because society felt there was something wrong with them. What is more, they had no say in the matter. Many were sterilized at a young age. They were not even aware of what was being done to them, hardly the actions of a society and a government that was supposed to protect its citizens.

While Alberta may have led the way, it was not the only province to carry out these shameful acts. What is even more reprehensible is who the state deemed to be unworthy of having children. Young people and minorities from indigenous backgrounds were targeted. Furthermore, many of those were declared to be mentally deficient. Because of that classification, their rights were denied, and they were sterilized without their consent.

Canadians understand now that these actions were wrong; the product of another time and a warped view of the humanity of some individuals. We know that such things should not be allowed to happen again, but there is nothing in our laws to ensure that.

Bill S-228 would fix that. It proposes to clarify one section of the Criminal Code to bring an end to a legacy of systemic discrimination, colonization and racism that disproportionately, but not exclusively, affects indigenous and racialized persons. It will end the sterilization of persons without their consent.

Section 268 of the Criminal Code deals with the crime of aggravated assault. I think we can all agree that sterilizing someone without their consent is indeed a form of assault.

Bill S-228 would add a subsection, 268.1, to the Criminal Code of Canada, clarifying what a sterilization procedure is and ensuring it is understood that a sterilization procedure is an act that falls under this section. It is a simple change, but an important one if we want to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. We want to make sure that there are no misunderstandings.

I should point out that, at the Senate committee, concerns were raised by witnesses and senators that the original drafting of Bill S‑228 was over-complicated and that it might have unintended consequences, especially in cases of emergency surgeries or medical procedures resulting in sterilization. That has been rectified. After consultation with the Minister of Justice and legal advisers, the bill was simplified while maintaining its core goal of making it explicitly clear in the Criminal Code that forced sterilization meets the requirements of an aggravated assault. It would be against the law and would be prosecuted.

Some hon. members might be wondering about the issue of consent. What about those situations where an individual, for medical or other reasons, desires to be sterilized? Would this still constitute an assault? After all, in the Criminal Code, consent is not a defence against a charge of aggravated assault. The case law on that is very clear. However, there is jurisprudence concerning when the patient or substitute decision-maker is unable to consent and there is demonstrable severe suffering or an imminent threat to the life or health of the patient. In that case, a doctor has the duty to do what is immediately necessary, without consent.

Additionally, section 45 of the Criminal Code of Canada protects individuals from criminal responsibility for performing a surgical operation if it “is performed with reasonable care and skill” and is reasonable based on the person's state of health and other circumstances.

If this is a situation from the past, why do we need to address it today? Why is the bill necessary? As the Senate report noted after hearing from witnesses, this is not just a historical issue. The conclusion was that involuntary sterilization continues in Canada, under-reported and underestimated, and it needs to stop. As in the past, the targets are marginalized people, including racialized women, women with disabilities, institutionalized persons and indigenous women.

Justice demands that we in the House deal with this situation. Forced sterilization is a clear human rights issue. Non-consenting sterilization is aggravated assault and should be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. It is as simple as that. Legislation, of course, is not enough. The bill cannot fix the past trauma and harms suffered by victims, but it would go a long way to preventing future violations and to providing survivors some measure of justice.

It is a cliché to say that people who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them, but those words have become a cliché because there is a lot of truth in them. With Bill S-228, we in the House have an opportunity to show that we have indeed learned from our past and that we are concerned about our present and, of course, our future. We want to put an end to the practice of forced sterilization in this country once and for all. We have the opportunity to do something meaningful. I encourage hon. members to do the right thing and support the legislation.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today at third reading of Bill S‑228, an act to amend the Criminal Code.

At the outset, I would like to thank the sponsor of the legislation in the Senate, the Hon. Senator Yvonne Boyer, for her leadership, dedication and tireless advocacy on this issue. Senator Boyer has been a powerful voice for survivors and for indigenous women across this country, and her work has helped bring national attention to a practice that should never have occurred in Canada.

I also would like to thank the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes for sponsoring the legislation in the House of Commons and helping move it through the parliamentary process.

Most importantly, I want to acknowledge the survivors, whose courage, persistence and willingness to share deeply personal experiences have brought us to this point. Their voices have been at the centre of this discussion from the very beginning. The bill exists because survivors refused to allow these experiences to remain hidden and because they demanded accountability, recognition and action.

Today, members from all sides of the House have an opportunity to take an important step forward. Bill S‑228 is straightforward in its purpose. It would clarify that sterilization procedures carried out without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault under the Criminal Code.

The legislation would not create a new criminal offence. It would not change the law of consent. It would not alter legitimate medical practice. Rather, it would make explicit what many Canadians would reasonably expect the law to already recognize: A sterilization procedure performed without free and informed consent is among the most serious violations of a person's bodily autonomy and should be treated accordingly.

At its core, the bill is about consent. Consent is one of the foundational principles of both our criminal law and our health care system. Consent must be given freely, consent must be informed, and consent must be voluntary. Consent cannot be obtained through coercion, manipulation, pressure, threats, deception or abuse of authority.

These principles are not new. They are already deeply embedded in Canadian law, yet the experiences that have been brought forward by survivors demonstrate why clarity matters. For many survivors, particularly indigenous women, the issue was never simply what the law said on paper. The issue was whether the system recognized the seriousness of what had happened to them. The issue was whether there was sufficient clarity and accountability. That is why Bill S-228 is important. It would send a clear message that sterilization without free and informed consent is not merely a breach of medical ethics but is also a profound violation of bodily autonomy that engages the criminal law.

Discussions surrounding the bill have also provided an opportunity to reflect on a difficult chapter in our country's history. We know that forced and coerced sterilization occurred in Canada. We know that indigenous women were disproportionately affected. We know that many survivors experienced lasting physical, emotional, psychological, cultural and intergenerational harms. We know that these harms have contributed to deep mistrust of institutions and systems that should have protected these women.

The experiences shared by survivors have been powerful and heartbreaking, and they have reminded all of us that legislation is ultimately about people. Behind every discussion of criminal law, every amendment and every committee study, there are individuals whose lives have been affected. The bill recognizes that reality.

One of the themes that emerged repeatedly during committee study was the importance of ensuring that the bill provides clarity while avoiding unintended consequences. I believe that the legislation successfully achieves that balance. Some questions were raised about whether the bill could affect lawful and consensual medical procedures. The answer is no. The bill would preserve lawful medical care. Some questions were raised about whether physicians acting appropriately in emergency circumstances could somehow face new criminal liability. Again, the answer is no.

The legislation would clarify the existing state of the law. It would not change the legal framework governing emergency medical treatment. It would not remove existing protections available to health professionals acting with reasonable care and skill. It would not alter the long-standing principles that apply when urgent medical intervention is necessary to preserve life or health. These safeguards already exist within Canadian law and would continue to exist.

That point was reinforced through testimony received during committee study. In other words, Bill S-228 would strengthen accountability for non-consensual sterilization, while preserving appropriate medical care. Those two objectives are not in conflict; indeed, they are complementary. A strong health care system depends upon trust, and trust depends upon consent.

One aspect of the bill that deserves particular attention is its use of a “for greater certainty” provision. The legislation would not attempt to reinvent the criminal law. Instead, it would clarify how existing principles would apply in a specific context. Parliament uses this type of provision when it wishes to remove doubt and to provide greater certainty regarding the application of the law. That is precisely what the bill would do. It would provide greater clarity to courts, prosecutors, law enforcement and, most important, to survivors and Canadians. It would reinforce that sterilization without free and informed consent is conduct of the utmost seriousness.

Another important feature of the bill is that it reflects a collaborative approach. This is not a partisan issue. The bill originated in the Senate, was advanced by Senator Boyer, was sponsored in the House of Commons by a Conservative member and has received support from members across party lines. That is how Parliament should function when addressing issues of fundamental human dignity. There are times when we will disagree vigorously, but there should also be moments when we can come together around shared principles. Respect for bodily autonomy is one of those principles. Respect for free and informed consent is another of those principles, as is the dignity of every person. Bill S-228 reflects those values.

I also want to acknowledge the many organizations, advocates, academics, medical professionals and community leaders who have contributed to this conversation. We heard from individuals with expertise in reproductive justice, indigenous health, medical ethics, women's rights and criminal law. While witnesses approached the issue from different perspectives, there was broad recognition of the importance of affirming bodily autonomy and reinforcing the principle of free and informed consent. That broad support speaks to the strength of the bill. It also speaks to the seriousness of the issue before us.

The legislation is also consistent with broader efforts to advance reconciliation. Reconciliation requires more than words; it requires action, listening, responding to the experiences of indigenous people and taking concrete steps when harms have occurred. No single bill can undo the harms experienced by survivors. No single legislative amendment can rebuild trust overnight. No single measure can address every aspect of this issue. That does not mean Parliament should do nothing.

Meaningful progress often occurs through concrete and targeted steps. Bill S-228 is one such step. It would recognize the harms that occurred, reinforce accountability, strengthen clarity and affirm principles that are fundamental to a free and democratic society.

Throughout this debate, we have heard discussions about bodily autonomy. That concept is sometimes discussed in legal, medical or policy language, but at its heart, bodily autonomy means something simple: Every person has the right to make decisions about their own body, those decisions must belong to the individual, and procedures with permanent consequences cannot be imposed through coercion, pressure, manipulation or abuse of authority. These principles should not be controversial; they should unite us, and I believe they do.

The passage of Bill S-228 would not mark the end of this conversation. There would continue to be important discussions about patient safety, about reconciliation and about accountability. Those conversations should continue, but today Parliament is being asked to decide a specific question: Should the Criminal Code clearly state that sterilization procedures performed without free and informed consent constitute aggravated assault? I believe the answer is yes.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding sterilization procedures. This legislation addresses a practice that should not even exist. Every Canadian has the right to make medical decisions for themselves, free from coercion, intimidation or force. When that right is violated, the consequences can be lifelong.

Bill S-228 would explicitly recognize forced or coerced sterilization as aggravated assault under the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code states that, “Every one commits an aggravated assault who wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant.” Bill S-228 would add clarity by making it explicit that a sterilization procedure counts as wounding or maiming. It would also reinforce the principle that sterilization must never occur without free, prior and informed consent.

The Criminal Code has a needed exemption for medical professionals, but there is a gap when it comes to coerced or forced sterilization. Even though it happens by a licensed professional in a medical facility, it is still an invasive assault with permanent consequences. This conversation is not just about legal definitions, though. This is about women in vulnerable situations being coerced into a decision that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. It is about the dignity of the individual and the responsibility we share to protect those who may be vulnerable to abuse or exploitation.

It would be easy to dismiss forced sterilization as a historical issue, but, quite shockingly, we have allegations and documented cases of coercion from less than 20 years ago. The practice of forced sterilization is disturbing, but its origin in eugenics is especially troubling. The history of eugenics influenced laws and public policy in Canada, especially in the early 20th century. Some of those laws remained in place until the 1980s. In that history, individuals were judged on the basis of disability, race, poverty, social status and other characteristics, and were labelled as unfit to reproduce. These harmful ideas led to sterilization laws in some provinces and influenced policies that disproportionately affected indigenous people, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. Thousands of individuals were subjected to sterilization procedures, often without meaningful consent.

While those laws were eventually repealed, the attitudes that allowed them to exist did not disappear. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights found evidence that forced and coerced sterilization continued long after formal eugenics legislation ended, and that reports of such practices have continued into recent decades.

The lessons of the 20th century are clear. Whenever a society begins to judge the value of a human life based on ethnicity, disability, social standing or any other characteristic, fundamental rights are put at risk. When individuals are treated as problems to be managed rather than people deserving dignity and respect, abuse follows.

Now we have an opportunity to further reject that ideology. Bill S-228 affirms that every Canadian possesses equal worth, equal dignity and equal protection under the law. Indigenous women, women with disabilities and others have been disproportionately affected. Many have described coercion that occurred in moments of extreme vulnerability, such as while recovering from childbirth, under the effects of medication or facing significant pressures from authoritative figures. These accounts demand our attention.

Coming forward to share deeply personal experiences requires extraordinary courage. Many have spoken publicly, not only to seek recognition for what happened to them, but also to ensure that future generations are protected from similar harm. One of those survivors is Katy Bear, a Cree woman from my home province of Saskatchewan, where, regretfully, this took place all too often. She testified that she was pressured into sterilization shortly after giving birth at the age of 21. I will read some of that testimony, taken from a CBC News article. It reads:

Bear says she had never considered a tubal ligation before she underwent the procedure at Saskatoon’s Royal University Hospital in 2005. At the time, she was still in the hospital recovering from the birth of her fourth child.

“They [health staff] told me it was contraception,” recalled Bear.

“I was told because I was 21 and had four kids, that I probably shouldn't have any more, that my kids would be taken away by Child and Family Services.”

“I thought, it's a threat.”

Both she and her partner at the time were employed and owned their own home, she said.

“I never had anybody say I was under the watchful eye of the ministry, of being a bad mom,” said Bear.

“They rolled me in, gave me a consent form and they said, ‘just sign this, that's all you need to do.’”

Sadly, hers is not the only story by far. Nicole Rabbit, a member of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice, appeared before the Senate committee studying Bill S-250, the predecessor to this legislation. In her testimony, she spoke about her own experience and about the impact forced sterilization had on her family across generations. She shared that in her family alone, she, her mother and her niece had all been sterilized against their will. It went across generations. Reflecting on the harm caused by these practices, Ms. Rabbit told the committee, “It’s like you wiped out a generation.”

Those words should weigh heavily on every member of the House. Every human life has inherent value. No government, institution or authority figure should ever have the power to decide that someone is less worthy of having a family because of their ethnicity, disability, economic circumstances or background. The experiences shared by survivors remind us of the consequences of that principle being forgotten or not being enforced. Forced sterilization is not simply a medical procedure performed without consent. It is a violation that affects families, communities and future generations. The harm extends far beyond a single moment in a hospital room. It leaves lasting impacts that survivors carry for years and, often, for decades.

Other indigenous women have recounted similar experiences before parliamentary committees and in media reports. Some have described lasting feelings of grief and loss. Others have spoken about the erosion of trust in medical institutions and the difficulty of discussing what happened, even with close family members. The impact of forced or coerced sterilization extends far beyond the procedure itself. For many survivors, it affects family relationships, emotional well-being and future life plans. It can also create lasting feelings of institutional betrayal and broken trust in the institutions that are expected to provide care and protection.

I will remind this place that institutions are made up of people, and Parliament has a responsibility to respond. Bill S-228 represents an important step in that process and that response. Clearly identifying forced or coerced sterilization as an aggravated assault would strengthen protections within the Criminal Code and affirm the importance of informed consent, which is something that should be spread across absolutely every procedure by medical professionals. It would also provide greater certainty for victims and survivors. Criminal law should clearly reflect the seriousness of conduct that permanently alters a person's reproductive capacity without their genuine agreement.

At its foundation, informed consent requires more than a signature on a form. It requires that a person understands the nature of the procedure, the consequences involved and the alternatives that are available. It must be given voluntarily and without pressure. Consent obtained through intimidation, manipulation or coercion is not consent. That principle should be beyond dispute. The legislation gives Parliament an opportunity to reaffirm that principle in a meaningful way.

I want to especially celebrate the people who have made this happen. Senator Yvonne Boyer is an amazing leader who has done an amazing thing in advocating for survivors and ensuring that their experiences cannot be ignored. Her work alongside indigenous organizations, legal advocates and community leaders has contributed significantly to the growing awareness of this issue across Canada.

Most importantly, I want to recognize the survivors. To the survivors who have courageously shared their experiences, I want to express my incredible thankfulness. Their willingness to speak has brought attention to an issue that, unfortunately, many Canadians knew little about. Their advocacy has helped create the opportunity for meaningful change. While legislation alone cannot undo the pain that many have experienced, it can help ensure stronger protection for the future and provide a clear framework for accountability.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill S-228, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to forced sterilization procedures.

This is a short bill, but it deals with a grave wrong. It speaks to bodily autonomy, consent, human dignity, the equal worth of every person and the duty of the state to protect those who have been harmed by the systems that should have protected them. Bill S-228 would amend the Criminal Code to make it crystal clear that a sterilization procedure performed without consent is an act that “wounds or maims a person” for the purpose of an aggravated assault. It would also define what is meant by a “sterilization procedure”, including any procedure that permanently prevents reproduction.

At first glance, some may ask why this change is needed. We already have laws against assault. We already have rules around consent in health care. We already have medical standards and professional oversight. However, the painful truth is that those protections have not always protected people equally. They have not always been clear enough. They have not always been enforced. For too many women, especially indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities and others in vulnerable situations, the promise of protection and the promise of consent have been broken in this country.

A forced or coerced sterilization is not a minor medical error. It is not a paperwork problem. It is a profound violation of the person. It takes away from someone the ability to make one of the most personal decisions they will ever make in their life. It will affect their body, their mind, their family, their culture and their future. It is a harm that can last for generations. There is a saying in my own culture that when a person saves a life, it is as if they have saved the entire world. The corollary to that is that a person who prevents someone from making a life is preventing them from creating an entire world.

No one should be pressured into giving up the ability to have children. No one should be asked for consent while they are in pain, in fear, under the effects medication, in labour or under the control of a person in authority. No one should be treated as though their poverty, identity, disability, race, age, family situation or social standing makes them less worthy of respect. Consent that is forced is not consent, no matter the situation. Consent that is coerced is not consent. Consent given without proper information is not consent.

If someone has to ask why we need a bill like this in 2026, they are lucky. They are lucky to not know someone who has been in this situation. They are lucky not to have experienced this in their community.

This bill is about drawing a clear line in federal criminal law. It would tell survivors that Parliament sees them. It would tell the health care system that vague language is not enough. It would tell prosecutors, the police, professional bodies and institutions that this is not a grey area and this is not a decision to be made on the fly. This is not something that someone can do because they think it is best in the circumstances. It is violence and it is a violation, and we will have a law in this country that makes it clear that it is to be treated as such.

I want to recognize Senator Yvonne Boyer and everyone who has made it possible for all of us who have spoken this morning to stand in this House today to make it clear that this is not just something that Canada recognizes, but something that we will take concrete steps to prevent in the future.

Everyone in this House believes in the dignity of the person. We believe in personal freedom, but freedom is not real when a person's body can be controlled by someone else. We believe in accountability, but accountability is not real when the people who commit or enable serious harm to another human being in this country face no clear consequences. We believe in equal justice under the law, but justice is not equal when vulnerable people are less likely to be heard, believed or protected. We have an opportunity in the House today to do the right thing, not just for past generations, but for future generations and for those who are still suffering today with the burden of having had those experiences.

The history behind this bill is hard to face. Canada has had a long record of forced and coerced sterilization, often tied to racism, eugenics, colonization and the idea that some lives are less vulnerable than others. Those ideas were not harmless theories. They shaped policies, institutions and medical practices. They harmed first nations, Métis, Inuit and other indigenous peoples in this country. They harmed Black and racialized women. They harmed people with disabilities, people living in poverty and people who were placed in institutions and stripped of control in their own lives. By acknowledging these wrongs in the House, by putting them into the record of this place to be read and seen by future generations, we do not make Canada weaker; we make Canada stronger.

We must also be honest about the fact that this is not only history. Survivors have come forward in recent years. They have spoken about being pressured in their most vulnerable moments. They have spoken of procedures that they did not understand, did not freely choose and did not consent to. They have also spoken of the shame, grief, fear, distrust and deep injury that has come with that. That is a second, additional injury that we have done to those people in this country, on top of the forced sterilization they had to endure without their consent. Many have had to carry that pain in silence, so all who speak to this bill in the House this morning lend our voices to them. We want to make sure they know that they do not have to suffer in silence, but even when they have to suffer in silence, we in this place will suffer with them.

When survivors share these stories, our first duty is to listen, but our second duty is to act. Bill S-228 would not fix every harm in this country, but it is a start. Criminal law is a tool. Health care is, of course, largely within provincial and territorial jurisdiction. Professional regulation belongs to colleges and licensing bodies. Hospitals, health authorities, medical schools and governments all have work to do. There must be better training on informed consent. There must be cultural safety. There must be clear reporting pathways.

What we have done this morning in the House, and what my colleagues have done with Bill S-228, is a start. We have made a powerful pronouncement about what is to be tolerated in this country. Hopefully, in doing that, we will not only make sure that these atrocities do not happen to future generations but bring comfort to the people who have come to this place to advocate for the bill, letting them know that their advocacy, their actions, the things they have done and the messages they have brought to this place have been heard, that their sacrifices and the things they have done matter and that they have been a part of the solution for future generations.

I urge every member of the House to stand with survivors and with those who were never able to be born, today and always, through this bill.

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

The hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes has the floor for his right of reply.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all my colleagues on all sides of the aisle for speaking so positively about this important piece of legislation. I know it has been said a few times already, but I would like to quickly reflect on why we are here today. It was reiterated a few times today, in fact.

The bill, as we all know, did not originate in a government department, and it did not begin in a textbook. It actually began with survivors doing the hard work, right at the beginning, and advocating to politicians for change. It began with those courageous individuals who came forward to share some deeply personal experiences of forced and coerced sterilization. Many did so at great emotional cost. They relived trauma so that others would not have to endure it. They spoke not only for themselves but for future generations.

Today Parliament prepares to make a decision, and I want those survivors to know that they have all been heard. For too long, many felt ignored, dismissed or even not believed at all. For too long, they carried those experiences alone, but they persisted. They organized and advocated. They educated parliamentarians and Canadians alike, and because of their determination, we are now here today considering legislation that would make it unmistakably clear that sterilization without informed consent is a serious criminal offence.

I would like to recognize and thank those whose work brought us to this exact moment. Now, I want to name people who may or may not be in the city today, and I know we cannot say who is in the gallery with us. There is a danger of actually missing some people, and if I do, I deeply apologize. I would very much like to thank Susan Anderson, Katy Bear, Kahsenniyo Kick, Silvia Mckay, Morningstar Mercredi, survivor and board member Nicole Rabbit and Kitigan Zibi elder Shirley Tolley. I would like to recognize the many other survivors, family members, advocates and community leaders who, unfortunately, may not be named here, and I do apologize if I did not, but their work and contribution is just as important.

As well, I offer sincere gratitude to Harmony Redsky, executive director; Claudette Dumont Smith, board co-chair; and staff members Jessica Danforth and Alisa Lombard of the Survivors Circle for Reproductive Justice. Through their tireless work, education and support of survivors right across the country, they ensured that this issue could no longer be ignored. Their work helped to transform individual stories into a national call for justice.

I would also like to recognize Senator Yvonne Boyer, who for years has been a tireless champion for survivors. Long before this issue received widespread public attention, she was listening to those affected and working to ensure their experiences would be reflected in Canadian law.

I would also like to mention two of my colleagues, who actually traded their spots in this rotation to ensure that this piece of legislation moved up very quickly and without whose support it would not be being dealt with right this second, the member for Cloverdale—Langley City and my colleague, and seatmate, the member for Cariboo—Prince George. Their efforts allowed this to be escalated.

I thank all sides of the House for their contributions, as well as the members of my team here who have spoken so passionately about the issue. I really appreciate the support of caucus colleagues on all sides of the aisle.

As was said, and I know I am running short on time, this builds on a lot of work, years of work. Previous legislation died on the Order Paper last Parliament, but it was those survivors and the great work of Senator Boyer that kept pushing this through. I know there were times we might not have agreed on everything in this piece of legislation. Some raised concerns about implementation, and others discussed the interaction between criminal law and medical practice. However, those are good conversations to have. They are important and worthwhile. We worked through them and came to an agreement on all sides of the aisle that we can be comfortable with here as federal lawmakers.

Today we have an opportunity to respond. As we wrap up the Parliament for this sitting before the summer break, this is one of these moments here. The outcome of this vote will be very important, but more important is the message it will send. A strong vote in favour of Bill S-228 would send the message to survivors that Parliament believes them. It would send the message that Parliament recognizes the harm that was done and that Parliament stands firmly on the side of informed consent. No one should lose their reproductive future because of coercion, pressure, misinformation or abuse of authority.

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

The question is on the motion.

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.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would ask that it be carried unanimously.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 12 o'clock at this time so that we could begin the opposition day motion.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—The Government's Fiscal Policies

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

moved:

That, given that the Liberal government has driven Canada into the G20's only recession, Scotiabank and the Bank of Montreal both downgraded growth to below 1%, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer's latest report shows slowing growth and a weakening fiscal outlook that shows a bigger-thanpromised deficit with only a 1% chance that the government will meet its fiscal anchor, the House call on the government to reverse the costly, inflationary policies that have given Canada the G20's only recession.

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

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will proceed as usual to the consideration and passage of the appropriation bills.

Do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, before I get started, I want to notify you that I will be splitting my time with my good friend, fellow Calgarian and sometime airline seatmate, the member for Calgary Crowfoot.

There is nothing technical about the 2.2 million Canadians waiting in a food bank line hungry because of rising grocery prices due to the Liberal government's failed policies. There is nothing technical about the dad in Windsor who has just lost his job telling his kids around the dinner table that times are going to get tough because of the failed policies of the Liberal government. There is nothing technical about the single mom who is at the grocery store wondering what she can and cannot buy this week and how much she will actually be able to eat because of failed Liberal policies.

The Prime Minister is the guy who said he could get Canada back on track. He sold himself as the guy who would have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He sold himself as that during the election. What he ended up doing was plunging Canada into a full-blown Liberal recession, and in fact the only country in the entire G20 to do so. The Prime Minister is the only leader in the entire G7 to plunge their economy into economic decline in three out of the last four quarters. He has been Prime Minister only for a year, and he is already delivering these failed results. Canadians are the ones who are having to pay for it: through food bank lines that are growing, through the insolvencies that are growing, and just through the pain and suffering we are seeing all across this country because of failed policies.

Last week, the independent PBO came out with a very scathing report on the government and its so-called fiscal anchors, which seem like they do not even exist anymore. First, members will remember, back in the day, when Chrystia Freeland was here and claimed that the debt-to-GDP ratio would go down. The Liberals were so confident in that, they completely removed it as a fiscal anchor altogether. Poof, they got rid of it, but now they quietly, sneakily, brought it back. However, the PBO slammed them, just last week, saying that the debt-to-GDP ratio would go up, debunking their claim that it would go down.

In their last budget, the Liberals brought in another fiscal anchor. They said they would do deficit-to-GDP ratio. However, the PBO slammed them last week, saying that they will have a less than 1% chance of meeting that fiscal anchor, but that percentage is still better than actually having a Liberal answer a question in this place. Then they said they would balance their operating budget, but we just found out last week that they are actually going to spend $7 billion more than what they sold Canadians.

It is always these fake promises, these fake handshakes and fake MOUs. Everything about this government is fake. The Liberals sell themselves as economic kings or someone who can handle the economy, but at the end of the day, it is always failure. It is more costs, more debt, more taxes, and it is always on the national credit card. At the end of the day, Canadians have to pay for all these Liberal failures.

The PBO said, “Business investment continues to lag”, which is something the Bank of Canada has been warning about for years now. In fact, the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, many years ago, said that Canada is in a “break glass” emergency. They said it is about our productivity, which has not gone up. Productivity and the cost of living or the way people live, their standard of living, are the exact same thing, according to them, and that is why we are seeing so much pain and suffering across the country.

The PBO said that “firms postpone expansion plans amid heightened uncertainty.” The PBO also said, “Persistent uncertainty is...weighing on business investment and household spending”. Businesses are not investing, expanding or hiring because they do not have confidence in the direction of the economy.

That is clear to see in the numbers. In the last year alone, $1 trillion of net Canadian investment has flown out of Canada to the U.S., and since this Prime Minister took office, $20 billion of net investment has also left Canada.

We hear the Liberals brag about how good the economy is and how good Canadians have it. Then why do we not see it? They will cherry-pick or come up with random things that they think Canadians will fall for, but every time a Canadian goes to the grocery store or fills up a tank of gas, whenever they pay for something or get their taxes done, they see clearly and fully experience this full-blown Liberal recession, because when costs go up for them, that is what they experience. When their wages are not going up and their incomes are not sufficient, that is something they actually experience. The Liberal government continues to tell those 2.2 million Canadians in a food bank line that they are just technically hungry, technically out of food, technically out of money, and the people missing their mortgage payments are just technically experiencing that, but this is what they are actually experiencing.

Canadians are suffering. The Liberals refuse to even listen to Canadians. In fact, the Prime Minister is so out of touch, he said that affordability is the best it has been in an entire decade, which is completely false. Canadians have increasing grocery prices because of things like high taxes and the burden that the Liberal government has put on businesses. On top of that, it is slamming Canadians, farmers, truckers and other industries with its industrial carbon tax, which does not make just the cost of food go up. It makes the cost of everything in the supply chain go up. With Liberal thinking and Liberal math, Liberals think they are just charging the highest emitters or the corporations. Those corporations and businesses will pass on the cost, and that cost, ultimately, has to be paid by the average Canadian. That is why Canadians cannot keep up.

In fact, today, under the Liberals, an average Canadian is spending 120% of their paycheque on necessities like food and shelter. Liberals have doubled the cost of housing and made the cost of food go up. In fact, the Prime Minister gave Canadians the worst food inflation in the entire G7. That is why Canadians are now using up their entire paycheque mostly on housing, and everything else goes on a credit card or they borrow money. We are seeing debt loads. That is why Canadians are now also the most indebted households in the entire G7. They are picking up more and more on credit just for necessities.

It is not like the government does not have solutions in front of it. In fact, for the last 10 years, Conservatives have been putting forward solutions, but for every solution, it seems the Liberal government puts up two or three more problems for Canadians. For instance, what Conservatives would do and what we are proposing is to scrap all the antidevelopment laws the Liberal government passed. Let us get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. Let us get pipelines built in this country, along with LNG plants, mines, dams, all the infrastructure that Canada needs to get its resources to market and spread them out to the world. Let us get those antidevelopment laws out of the way. Let us get rid of the tanker ban. My colleague from Calgary Signal Hill has put forward a bill in this place to get rid of the tanker ban. Let us get pipelines built. Let us get a pipeline built to the west coast, but it needs to be able to get from the west coast to Asian markets. We have to get rid of the tanker ban. Let us get rid of and scrap the industrial carbon tax, which will make Canada more competitive on the world stage.

The world needs what Canada has. We have it all under our feet. We just need the Liberal government to get out of the way so we can produce more and spread it to the world. We need to lower taxes, whether it is personal, business or corporate tax, so we can create a better investing environment so that investment comes back to Canada and does not flow out. Let us get the capital gains tax deferred, as in the plan the Conservatives have put forward. Any company reinvesting its earned capital gains will be able to defer its capital gains tax so we can get more people investing in more jobs and more equipment and have more investment back into Canada, not let it flow out as the Liberals have done over the last 10 years. The government waste seems endless, whether it is the $20 billion in Liberal-connected insiders or the $90-billion train boondoggle.

Let us get rid of those. Let us get Canada back on track and make Canada the most profitable country in the world.

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

I am sorry, Madam Speaker, did the member miss half his speech? Maybe he should not have shared his time. He accused Liberals of cherry-picking data and then focused on one report from nine days ago, but seemingly missed the entire report that came out on Friday of last week, in which it was identified that Canada has seen an increase of 90,000 jobs, unemployment has dropped, full-time work has surged and sectors across the economy have grown. It is fascinating that the member got up in this House and accused the government of cherry-picking data, and the member actually used that word, but then did not even bother to utter one word about the incredible news for our economy that came out last Friday.

I am wondering if he would like to somehow explain to this House how, in his debate, he completely missed that point.

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

Madam Speaker, that out-of-touch Liberal has completely missed the point. Is he really going to stand up and brag about Canada, under the Liberal government, having the second-worst unemployment rate in the entire G7? Since this year started, the Liberal government is still responsible for 120,000 jobs that were lost. In fact, there is a net loss of jobs in this country under the incompetent Liberal government. The Liberals continue to make fake announcements, fake handshakes and fake MOUs. The solution is simple: The Liberal government just needs to get out of the way.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech. He really enjoyed quoting data from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I would like to ask him a question on that.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that if, tomorrow morning, we were to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline project in western Canada, which is now operational, we would lose money. The project was initially expected to cost about $6 billion, but ultimately cost us $34 billion instead. That means it is not profitable. If we buy a pipeline and have to sell it again, we lose money.

I would like my colleague to be clear. Does he support the government using public funds to buy pipeline projects?

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

Madam Speaker, we did not need to buy a pipeline. Canada did not need to buy a pipeline. It is because of failed Liberal policies, which are antidevelopment and drove investment and proponents of pipelines away, that the government not only bought the pipeline but was over budget by a lot and missed every single timeline target as well. That just goes to the same background that the incompetent Liberal government has, which is that it can never do anything on time or on budget.

[Rob Morrison, Conservative, Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, coming from a rural area, when I go to the grocery store, people are telling me how expensive everything is, and it is a two-hour trip for me to go to a grocery store. Food prices are so high. Of course, fuel prices are high. I have had no one tell me they have never had it so good.

I am wondering if the member can expand on that. Has he heard that? I cannot get out of a grocery store for two hours, because it is so expensive and people are blaming me for the food prices.

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

Madam Speaker, unlike the Prime Minister, who does not do his own grocery shopping and does not care that the Liberals' policies are raising the cost of groceries, when I go grocery shopping, just like the member, I spend at least two hours there because of how many people come up to me and talk to me about how much they are struggling. In fact, last week when I was grocery shopping at the local Superstore, a single mom said to me that she had to move in with her abusive ex-husband once again because she could not afford child care and to live anywhere else, and groceries are the last thing. She is one of those people having to put groceries back. This is the result of failed Liberal policies. This is the direct result. There is nothing technical about the suffering Canadians are facing under the failed Liberal government.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have been shouting themselves hoarse trying to convince us. Is there a recession or not? They want to launch a technical debate on this issue, yet the whole thing obscures the real debate, which concerns purchasing power and Canadian productivity. We have a problem: We are not growing. We have a productivity problem.

Do the Conservatives not think it might be more effective for the House to debate fundamental problems rather than definitions?

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

Madam Speaker, we are in a full-blown Liberal recession, and here is the answer to our productivity issues: Get the Liberal government out of the way, scrap all the antidevelopment laws so we can get more—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, Canada is in a recession, but the Liberals, and even some of their apologists among the punditry, say that it is only a technical recession. Allow me to get technical for a few moments. Technically, economic growth is shrinking, and that is how we measure the strength of a national economy. Technically, 40,000 more Canadians are out of work so far this year. Technically, the cost of living has left millions of Canadians unable to afford basic necessities, like food. Technically, under the Liberals, Canadian families are the most indebted in the world, which means they are tapped out, and cannot lead the way out of a recession through increased consumption.

Technically, young Canadians are giving up on the dream of home ownership, and with it, the dream of starting their own families, because Canadians technically have the most unaffordable housing among peer countries. Technically, over the last 11 years, the Liberals have passed a series of laws and ministerial orders that have prevented Canada from bringing its resource wealth to world markets and provide high-paying jobs for Canadians. Technically, the Liberal finance minister would make Chrystia Freeland and Bill Morneau blush over the fire hose of new spending and federal debt that young Canadians know they are going to be on the hook for. Technically, the PBO said the finance minister misled Canadians in his budget.

Today, we are having a debate about the recession that the Liberals are responsible for and we demand specific actions in response. I can already hear the howls of protest from the Liberals saying things like, “What about the tariffs? What about the war in Ukraine? What about the war in Iran?” These global events affect every other economy in the world. Let me say something before I hear even more howls from the Liberals claiming, “Do the Conservatives not know that Canada is more vulnerable because we are more trade dependent on the United States than those other countries are?” They are the same Liberals who claimed that their leader would have a trade deal with the United States by summer 2025. They are the same Liberals who spent the last 11 years actively preventing Canada from diversifying its export markets by systematically preventing the construction of the energy infrastructure necessary to export Canadian energy to the world.

Canadian oil and gas is by far Canada's most valuable export. It dwarfs everything else. Oil and gas exports are worth $160 billion a year. The Prime Minister said that he had the experience for this moment and assured Canadians that he would be successful in defending Canada's interests by negotiating a deal with the Americans while diversifying our trade. What has the Prime Minister done? He teased Canadians by saying it was time to get things built. He teased Canadians by claiming that his government would see that major projects would be built at speeds thought unimaginable. I thought that might mean that a year after he made these claims, there would be some kind of approval on the horizon for a pipeline project. I could easily imagine that.

In fact, I could imagine maybe one like the Pacific north coast pipeline that the previous Conservative government approved and that the Liberals cancelled only a few days after they were sworn in, in November 2015, a decision endorsed by the current Prime Minister at an energy committee meeting in 2021. He said then, five years ago, that he supported cancelling northern gateway, and now all of a sudden, he is scratching his head saying, “Yeah, maybe we should build some major projects,” but the projects are not being built.

The northern gateway pipeline that the government cancelled and the Prime Minister opposed did not get built. If it had been built, it would be carrying 525,000 barrels a day today to world markets. At today's prices, that would bring about $20 billion per year to the Canadian economy. Would we be in a recession today, if the Canadian economy had another 525,000 barrels a day in exported production? I do not know, but it would be better than what we have now. What if Canada had built an east coast pipeline too? Let us think of what that would mean for world energy security and what it would mean for the Canadian economy. The opportunities squandered by the Liberals contribute to the recession we are in now. They have prevented Canada from being part of the international solution to world markets that are cut off from the Middle East and from those that want to defund Putin's war machine.

So far, all the government has done is create a so-called Major Projects Office that will have incredible sweeping powers of exemption from Canadian law. It was set up nearly a full year ago and there are no major projects.

On top of the economic self-harm the Liberals have imposed on Canada, 11 years of incessant debt, deficits and money printing have left Canadians deeply in debt and unable to afford necessities. As bad as Bill Morneau and Chrystia Freeland were, the current finance minister is even worse. He might end up challenging Allan MacEachen and Marc Lalonde as perhaps the worst finance minister in Canadian history. Do members remember those guys? They ran up deficits in the eighties that were so big that by the time the Liberals were defeated in 1984, Canada was literally kiting interest payments by issuing new debt just to cover the interest on the existing debt. That disastrous time under the Liberals took successive governments, Conservative, Liberal and Conservative, to restore sanity to Canada's finances. Now the current government is threatening to take us back to those dark times. After Pierre Trudeau, there was a consensus that balanced budgets matter and ought to be every government's goal. The Liberals have blown it, despite their 2015 promise.

Last week, there was a series of terrible reports that challenged the very credibility of the government and the finance minister. The Parliamentary Budget Officer published a report that said that the deficit would be billions of dollars higher than the finance minister said in his budget. It would be higher this year, higher next year and every year in the projection.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said that spending would be higher. She said that borrowing would be higher. She said expected income tax revenues would be lower because she expects Canadians will have less income than the finance minister projects. She said that, based on the government's stress tests, which, “draws on decades of Canadian economic and fiscal history, including, recessions, financial crises, oil price crashes, and runs thousands of combinations to show the range of possibilities....that the likelihood that the deficit-to-GDP ratio will decline...is less than 1 per cent.”

That was the Liberals' latest fiscal anchor, the one they came up with when their last fiscal anchor was cut loose. They said that the deficit would decline as a percentage of GDP every year through 2031. The PBO said that the odds of that happening are less than 1%. After 11 years, they have made promise after promise about fiscal anchors and guardrails and have broken every single one of them.

The finance minister is like a sailor who forgets to connect the anchor chain to the boat, then drops the anchor in the water and has to go back to the chandlery to get a new one while everybody on the dock laughs at him. I can only imagine what next year's fiscal anchor is going to be. This latest anchor, the one that is already on the bottom of the ocean with no chain allowing the budget to drift toward the rocks, was never even a good anchor to start with. In fact, the PBO notes that the IMF thinks Canada would be better off with its old anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but that anchor is also overboard on the bottom of the ocean. It has been dumped overboard without a chain I do not know how many times.

Canadians are increasingly asking why the Liberals cannot table a plan to return to the balanced budget they started with in 2015. Many witnesses at the finance committee have called upon them to do so. However, the minister, in his arrogance and hubris, refuses and lectures those who ask him to simply do what his government promised to do way back in 2015. It is not just the PBO, not just the finance committee witnesses and not just Conservatives challenging the wisdom and credibility of the government's budgets; two of Canada's major banks have dropped reports downgrading their forecasts for the Canadian economy to below 1%.

Given the fact that Canada is in a recession and the government's budget outlook is deteriorating and lacks credibility, Conservatives ask this House to call on the government to reverse its 11 years of continued deficits and broken fiscal promises, and rein in its spending and borrowing before things really do spiral out of its control.

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned Liberal pundits at the beginning of his speech. Here is something a pundit said, “it's dangerous politics to be going out here claiming the sky is falling when in a month's time or two month's time, when the next numbers come out, it shows that it isn't. It was a week later.... The job numbers are better than they were last quarter. We have the C.D. Howe Institute coming out and arguing, another economist saying it's not a recession.”

Does the House know which pundit that is? It is Fred DeLorey, the former Conservative campaign manager for Erin O'Toole, who said that on the CBC.

Would the member like to comment on the comments of his Conservative friend's punditry?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, here we go again. Another Liberal, who would tell Canadians they have never had it so good and will deny that they are in recession, deny that the PBO and private sector economists have downgraded their growth projections and deny that they are misleading the House in their budgets.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives keep saying that investments are needed in fossil fuels. They are in favour of approving a new pipeline project in western Canada.

As members will recall, the Trudeau government purchased a pipeline that cost $34 billion, and if the government were to sell it tomorrow, it would ultimately lose money.

I wonder if my colleague thinks that using public funds to buy a new pipeline should be regarded as inflationary spending.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member brings up the Trans Mountain pipeline and, again, Conservatives were not calling upon the government to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline and build it themselves. They were calling upon the government to stop moving the goalposts on their approval process so that Kinder Morgan would commit and build it at its own expense.

Conservatives do not believe in the public sector taking over and intruding on that which should be left to private investors. Let us just get the government out of the way, so that actual private investors, with their own money, will invest in Canada's energy infrastructure and allow our production to increase. This is not about subsidizing anything. This is about getting the government out of the way.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, this Liberal government keeps telling us how good we have it.

I am here to say that 2.2 million people have been using the food bank, and 8.3% of those clients are seniors, up from 6.9%. Can the member please address this House as to why the Liberals do not care about seniors anymore?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government simply seems oblivious to the struggle of real Canadians, whether they are seniors, young people or really anybody.

The Liberal government seems more focused on these large bureaucratic structures, giving itself more power to use public money to interfere in what would normally be private investment decisions. I can only imagine where its sovereign wealth fund is going to take us in the world of corporate welfare and insider enrichment. I do not believe that the Liberals are in touch with what is going on on the ground.

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

Madam Speaker, anyone who has ever been a teacher knows that repetition is a teaching tool, so I am going to repeat the question my colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia asked. Is spending $34 billion of public funds on a pipeline inflationary? Is spending $34 billion of public funds on a pipeline inflationary? Is spending $34 billion of public funds on a pipeline inflationary? Is spending $34 billion of public money on a pipeline inflationary? I know the Chair can sometimes lose patience with us, so I will not repeat it a fifth time.

The question is clear. Is spending $34 billion of public money on a pipeline inflationary, yes or no?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know, it probably is.

We did not ask the federal government to borrow public money to build that pipeline. We asked it to get out of the way, so that a private business would invest its money without a hit to the public treasury and allow the thing to get built on its own.

I do not know why the Bloc seems keen to call on Conservatives to defend that decision. We never defended that decision.

[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 cannot believe I was away from the House for a whole weekend. It is great to be back.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou, my hon. colleague.

It is a pleasure to participate in today's debate and speak about the government's plan to maintain fiscal sustainability in Canada's outperforming economy.

On Friday, Canadians woke up to good news on two fronts. First, the May labour force survey results showed that our plan, one that will build a strong and resilient economy and create good-paying jobs for Canadians, is working. Last week's labour force survey, despite the Conservatives' not wanting to talk about this, reinforces the fact that the Canadian economy is stronger than expected.

With 88,000 net new jobs created, far higher than market expectations, which was 10,000 jobs, the Canadian economy performed in May at almost nine times the expectation. That means that on a year-over-year basis, Canada has created 147,000 new jobs, all in the face of historic economic uncertainty, trade tensions and geopolitical volatility. Since December 2024, in fact, Canada has added more jobs per capita than the United States has, creating 2.8 jobs per 1,000 people, nearly double the rate of the United States.

The second piece of good news is that 12 million Canadians woke up to having received the first instalment of the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit on Friday, which boosted the GST rebate by 50% this year, delivering almost $1,900 to the average family of four, and which will continue for another four years at an increase of 25%. This provides significant support for the people who need it the most, at a time when many families are struggling to afford the high cost of food and essentials.

None of this, of course, will make its way into today's Conservative opposition day motion. It will not make it into the Conservatives' petty slogans. We will hear no mention, in their social media clips or their fundraising emails, of Canadian job gains or support for groceries, because we know that what is good news for Canadian families, industries and workers is bad news for Conservative politicians, who have, honestly, nothing to offer in the House but tired, insulting and repetitive rhetoric that Canada is broken.

In fact, the bottom fell out of the Conservatives' narrative at the end of last week. They could not even support that narrative for longer than a single week. They jumped on calling something a “technical recession” that clearly was not.

I am not sure how Canadians can take Conservatives seriously when the Conservatives stand up in the House every day and say that they are empathetic towards what Canadian families are going through, but then they come skipping into the House with jubilation, clicking their heels, ready to pounce on any sign of bad news that the Canadian economy is struggling. They even do it prematurely, which they did last week when job numbers exceeded expectations by over eight times. It just shows us where the Conservative Party of today is at, looking for anything negative to support its narrative.

While Conservatives talk down Canadian businesses, Canadian innovators and Canadian workers at every opportunity, we will take today's opposition day motion as an opportunity to set the record straight. Let me reassure the hon. member that the government's fiscal plan remains rooted in fiscal responsibility, not for its own sake but to create capacity to invest in long-term economic strength and greater self-reliance.

Consistent with this approach, the recent spring economic update 2026 is the government's next step in our plan to build a stronger, more independent and resilient Canada for all Canadians. It advances our progress of building more affordable homes and the major infrastructure that transforms and connects our economy and helps us get goods to foreign markets, while bringing down costs to help Canadians get ahead. We are providing a clear and transparent account of how Canada's economy is performing in an increasingly uncertain world.

We are advancing major projects that connect and transform our nation, turbocharging housing construction, catalyzing an entirely new housing industry and forging new economic and security partnerships. We are acting decisively to protect our economic sovereignty, strengthen our strategic industries and position Canada for long-term growth. It is a principled and pragmatic approach that is moving Canada's economy from reliance to resilience.

However, some of the biggest long-term payoffs of this transformation will of course take time to be felt. To ensure that Canadians have the support they need right now, the government is providing a boost today and a bridge to a better tomorrow.

For over a year, Canada's new government has been relentlessly focused on making life more affordable for Canadians. Nearly 22 million Canadians are keeping more of their hard-earned money with the middle-class tax cut that will save two-income families up to $840 this year. First-time homebuyers are saving up to $50,000 with the removal or reduction of the GST on new homes. With the deal that we signed with Ontario, that number goes up to 13%, up to about $130,000 of savings on a new home purchase, plus a 50% reduction in development charges. That could be estimated at up to $200,000 off the price of a first home purchase.

We have also removed the consumer carbon price, driving gas prices down by about 18¢ per litre across most provinces and territories. We have reduced Canadians' bills at the gas station by up to 10¢ per litre on regular gasoline and 4¢ on diesel, by suspending the fuel excise tax over the summer. In addition, last week, more than 12 million Canadians began receiving hundreds of dollars more in their bank account through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit.

These are important measures for serious times. In a world of geopolitical instability, governments need to rethink how they respond to the headwinds we face and to build resilience for the future. From a fiscal perspective, economic resilience, bolstered by government policies to respond to immediate challenges through temporary supports, is delivering an $11.5-billion improvement in the projections of the budgetary balance in 2025-26. That is $11.5 billion less of a deficit than was projected, due to the Canadian economy's being more resilient.

This strength carries into future years, improving the budgetary balance, relative to budget 2025, by an average of $10.7 billion per year from 2026-27 to 2029-30 before new measures. This fiscal room allows the government to improve affordability and raise Canadians' standard of living through targeted and responsible policy measures, particularly in the areas of fuel, food and housing affordability. This move to invest more in Canadians started with budget 2025. It marked a strategic shift in the government's management of public finances, focused on expanding federal capital spending to mobilize investment, while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

With significant investments to support infrastructure, innovation and productivity and to develop our domestic industrial capabilities, budget 2025 set out a clear plan to build the strongest economy in the G7.

The government also remains committed to the disciplined implementation of budget 2025's efficiency measures. This includes the comprehensive expenditure review, which will save Canadians $60 billion over five years. With implementation well under way, the focus is now turning toward targeted, ongoing horizontal reviews, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services.

These are challenging times, but these are necessary actions, and we will continue to support our objectives of spending less and investing more in Canadians. Canadians are navigating a rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented world. The global economy is more than a year into a profound rupture. Economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition are increasingly shaping investment, trade and financial decisions. The conflict in the Middle East, which has disrupted key shipping routes and damaged energy security, has pushed energy prices higher, underscoring the fragility of global supply chains and adding to already elevated uncertainty.

Canada is obviously dealing with this by diversifying trade. We have signed 20 new trade and security agreements in the last year, and we will continue that work as we move forward to diversify and strengthen the Canadian economy.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I just want to bring up to the member across the way that his government has been in power for the last 11 years, and the Northwest Territories should be one of the powerful cylinders in our economic engine, but it is seriously misfiring. The Northwest Territories was in a recession in six of the years since the Liberals formed government: 2016, 2019, 2020, 2022, 2024 and 2025, after job-killing Liberal policies were enacted by the previous prime minister and the current Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister does not seem to be wanting to fix it either. He just turned 30% of the Northwest Territories into a park.

My question for the member is this: Is the Northwest Territories in recession, yes or no?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard from the banks, the C.D. Howe Institute and Desjardins. The Conservatives seem to love to talk down the Canadian economy and Canadian workers, and to jump prematurely into a narrative that they then, by the end of the week, find out is untrue. However, the Bank of Montreal has said that the solid May jobs report “should silence the recession crowd”. RBC has said there are still signs that labour markets are broadly improving. The C.D. Howe Institute says the latest job figures show that it is too soon to use that label based solely on a pair of small quarterly contractions in the economy. Desjardins says, “according to our analysis, the Canadian economy"—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was about the Northwest Territories—

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

That is debatable.

We will go back to the hon. parliamentary secretary to finish the answer.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was answering the hon. member's question. It pertained to the opposition day motion, which is claiming a number of things that are completely untrue. I am sure the member opposite is actually concerned with facts and figures given by Canadian financial institutions that do economics reports.

[Emma Harrison, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was hoping that my colleague could further elaborate on the Canadian grocery and essentials benefit. How many people qualify for that, and what does it mean for Canadians from coast to coast to coast in this time of uncertainty?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a great question, and I appreciate the opportunity to talk more about the affordability measures the government has put forward.

Obviously, we have cut back and have found optimization within the federal public service. We have reduced operational spending by $60 billion over five years, creating fiscal room both to make generational investments and to offer tax deductions and tax cuts, but we have also protected and, in fact, added federal benefits.

We added the groceries and essentials benefit, which went out last Friday to 12 million Canadian families. This is good news. I have heard anecdotally from residents of my riding that they have received upward of $500 in their bank accounts. That is going to help. It is short-term, temporary, targeted support, which is exactly what the Governor of the Bank of Canada said at committee is needed, in a time of crisis when we do not know how long the oil price shock is going to last.

We know that Canadian families are struggling. That is why we keep stepping up with affordability measures that will help them get through the challenging times, while we are building a stronger, more resilient economy, making the investments that are needed, attracting private investment and ensuring that we have growth for generations to come.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a wonder the way the member is talking, making it sound as though everything is just fine and there is nothing to see here. He suggests that our government is doing all the things and that everyone is getting everything they need. It is more gaslighting from a narcissistic partner than I have ever heard in my life.

The member clearly is not living in the real world. Perhaps he needs to come down from the clouds and talk to constituents in his riding. I know it has been a while, maybe, since he was there. I am pretty sure he does not live there anymore. Perhaps he should talk to them and to folks in Whitby, Clarington and Oshawa about what they are really struggling with, because the day-to-day reality is harder than what he is gaslighting them to make them think it is.

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

I would invite the hon. member to be careful with her language.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to point out many of the announcements I have happened to make in the member's riding. We have helped women's shelters in her riding. She was nowhere to be found—

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

That is not true. That is a lie.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, her party voted against the national housing strategy. It did not support those organizations.

What about the national school food program? Our government put in $1 billion over five years and then made that program permanent. I have gone and seen that program deliver food to kids who badly need it in her riding—

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

The hon. chief government whip has a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure you heard it. In that exchange, the member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.”

I am sorry. The neighbouring member for York—Durham thinks that is funny.

The member for Oshawa yelled, “That is a lie.” She should know that is unparliamentary. I would respectfully request that you ask her to withdraw that comment.

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

The hon. chief government whip has a point. It was heard. I heard it.

I would invite the hon. member for Oshawa to apologize.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was not standing to speak. I was shouting across, like we often do. I am sorry that it was heard, but it is categorically untrue what he said. I am always there for Oshawa—

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

We are entering debate.

The hon. chief government whip.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Oshawa is not recognizing the fact that what she said was wrong. At best, she was sorry that it was heard.

The rules in the House are very clear. We cannot accuse someone of lying, much less call them a liar. The member needs to withdraw the comment and apologize for what she said without qualification or any caveat attached to it.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I withdraw saying, “That is a lie,” but it was categorically untrue.

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

We cannot say indirectly what we cannot say directly.

The hon. chief government whip.

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

Madam Speaker, we have seen twice now that the member is refusing to recognize your authority, because she is once again adding a caveat to it and saying, “I apologize, but”. She has to unreservedly remove the comment and apologize for what she said.

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

The apology has to be unequivocal, with no caveats to it. We want to continue with the opposition day motion.

The hon. member for Oshawa.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have already said I withdraw the comment, “That is a lie.”

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

Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today.

When I read the motion today, I could not help but think of a story my father told me when I was a kid. The story had to do with Optimist clubs.

There are Optimist clubs in Quebec and in just about every province in Canada, and they are really essential to the community. They work hard. I am thinking in particular of the clubs in Beauport—Limoilou that sell hot dogs at baseball tournaments and donate the proceeds to young people. Everyone knows about the Optimist clubs in their community.

When I was young, my father told me a little story to make me think. Given the success of the Optimist clubs, he told me a story about two guys. The first one tells the other that since Optimist clubs seem to work so well, they should start a “pessimist club”. The second replies that he does not think it will work. When I read the motion, it reminded me a bit of that story, and I will explain why. I think it is important to put some facts back into the debate today.

Yes, the global economy is undergoing a period of uncertainty. Yes, the challenges are real. However, presenting Canada as an economic failure is more pessimism than a serious analysis. The fact of the matter is that Canada is still in a great economic position today compared to many of its G7 partners.

Canada is expected to have the second-fastest growth in the G7 this year and next. Our banking system, in which I worked for more than 20 years, is recognized as one of the strongest in the world. Our unemployment rate remains historically low despite global economic turbulence. Millions of jobs have been created since the pandemic, and Canada continues to attract major investments in growth sectors such as critical minerals, artificial intelligence, batteries, aerospace and clean technology.

Let us not forget the fundamental fact that Canada and the United States share the world's longest international border. This proximity gives us privileged access to the world's largest economy. Billions of dollars' worth of goods and services cross that border every day, supporting millions of jobs on both sides. Few G7 countries enjoy such a significant advantage in terms of geography and trade.

However, this advantage also comes with its share of challenges. When the American economy slows down, when trade tensions emerge or when political decisions are made in Washington, the effects are felt here in Canada right away. Our level of economic integration with the United States leaves us more exposed than many other countries to the ups and downs of the U.S. economy and the uncertainties of its trade policies.

That is precisely why we must look at our economic performance in context and with a positive outlook. Despite the economic upheaval in recent years, the supply chain disruptions, the rising global inflation and the uncertainty when it comes to our main trading partner, Canada remains one of the most stable and resilient economies in the G7.

That is why we need to assess Canada's economic performance rigorously and honestly. What do the numbers tell us? They tell us that Canada's economy is stronger and more resilient that many people expected.

The May labour force survey results show that our plan is working. While several analysts had predicted that only 10,000 jobs would be created, we actually created 88,000 jobs in one month. That is unbelievable. That is not a small difference. It is almost nine times what the market expected.

The unemployment rate also dropped to 6.6% from a high of 7.1% last August. These numbers demonstrate one very simple thing: Despite headwinds, global uncertainty and trade tensions with our main economic partner, Canada's labour market remains resilient.

What is more, over the past 12 months, Canada has created 147,000 jobs. Since December 2024, Canada has added more jobs per capita than the United States. Canada has created 2.8 jobs for every 1,000 residents, nearly double the rate seen among our neighbours to the south. These are results we can be proud of.

It is not just the number of jobs that matters. The quality of the jobs matters too. The recent gains have mainly come from full-time jobs, particularly in the construction industry.

Why is that so important? It is because it shows that the investments we are making are in infrastructure, housing and major economic projects that deliver real results. That is good news for the people and the riding of Beauport—Limoilou. It also shows that our decision to align our public investments more closely with the construction season is paying off. Meanwhile, wages continue to rise faster than inflation. For over three years now, workers' incomes have been outpacing price increases. That means more money in the pockets of Canadian families. That is the reality for millions of workers across the country.

Of course, there are still some challenges. I am thinking in particular about youth employment. Although youth unemployment is down by 0.9%, marking the first drop since January, we know that many young Canadians are still having a hard time entering the labour market. That is why our government is taking action. In the spring economic update, we announced over $6 billion in investments in our team Canada strong initiative. This initiative will mobilize Canada's skilled trades workforce and meet the growing needs of our economy.

Thanks to these investments, we expect to create more than 100,000 new, well‑paying jobs in the skilled trades by 2030. We are making it easier to access apprenticeships. We are supporting training. We are helping young people find stable, well‑paying jobs that are in demand across the country. We are continuing to protect essential programs like Canada summer jobs and the youth climate corps.

The opposition is asking us today to conclude that the Canadian economy is failing. The facts tell a very different story. They show us an economy that continues to add jobs despite global uncertainty. They show us wages rising faster than inflation. They show us investments that are boosting construction and strengthening our productive capacity. They show us a country that remains one of the strongest economies in the G20 despite global challenges.

Our government remains focused on a clear priority: building the strongest economy in the G7. That is the goal of budget 2025. That is the goal of the spring economic update. That is the goal of every measure we are implementing to support workers, attract investment, and strengthen Canada's competitiveness.

Canadians are asking us not to give in to pessimism. They want us to build the future. That is exactly what we are doing. Our free trade agreements with Europe and the Indo‑Pacific region have made Canada one of the best-positioned countries in the world for international trade.

The real question is this: Are we in a better position to weather this storm than most of our international partners? The answer is yes, because we have strong institutions, strategic natural resources that are in demand all over the world, and access to over 1.5 billion consumers through our trade agreements and, most of all, because we can count on Canadians' talent, innovation and resilience.

Rather than giving into pessimism, we have to acknowledge the challenges yet trust in the incredible strengths of our economy and the immense potential of Canadians. That is exactly what our government is focused on doing: investing in productivity, infrastructure, housing, trade and the workers building our collective prosperity.

I, for one, am siding with the optimists.

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

Madam Speaker, part of the concern I have about the Conservatives' opposition day is that, consistent with what they usually do, they are misleading Canadians.

With the first two speakers, we had one member stand up and say there has been a net loss in jobs since this Prime Minister became the Prime Minister, which is just not true, and then another member stood up and said export numbers are going in the wrong direction. Again, it is just not true. Implying that Canada is constantly broken is something the Conservatives are very good at doing, and they seem to take great glee in talking down Canada.

I wonder if my colleague could talk about what he believes is important in terms of how Canada is, in fact, growing and things are getting better in many different areas.

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

Madam Speaker, I see that my colleague is part of the optimists' club too. I am glad about that, and I am sure we will make something good out of it.

Canada is truly a superpower when it comes to clean and conventional energy. We have vast deposits of critical minerals, so we are well equipped. I see this because I am a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. I have seen the agreements we are signing all over the world. As I mentioned earlier, that is nearly 1.5 billion consumers worldwide we can do business with.

There is no doubt that by diversifying our economy and continuing to attract investment here, we are truly laying the groundwork for the future, and people know it. People know we are going through some rough times right now, but they still believe in us, and we really feel that.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are a few disturbing comments on the record already, unfortunately, early this Monday, from the government whip and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I find it very unfortunate that they continue to accuse Conservatives of hating Canada. I love this country, and the member for Winnipeg North knows that.

I find it very disturbing that he continues to accuse us of rightfully calling out the government where it has failed over the last 11 years. There are more Canadians at food banks than ever before, including educated Canadians with post-secondary degrees, more than ever, lining up at food banks because their jobs do not pay them enough to pay for the increase in food prices under the Liberals. There are more Canadians under 35 out of the housing market than ever before.

What exactly is it that the Liberals think they have to be so proud of?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure that question was actually directed at me, but I will take the time to answer it. During my speech, I recounted a story my father used to tell me when I was young, a story about optimists and pessimists. The whole idea is that if we want to build a strong Canada, if we want to look to the future, we have to be part of the optimists' club. If we are pessimists, we will get nowhere together, and the word “together” will cease to exist.

That is what we are building, and it saddens me to see members of the opposition parties saying one thing in the House and then doing another. I am talking about voting against measures that help, such as the Canadian dental care plan and the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. I would like to see them join us on the optimistic side.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to extend greetings to my colleague. We work very well together on the Standing Committee on Finance. As he said, he spent 20 years in banking.

I would like to know whether he and his fellow optimists believe that spending $34 billion on a pipeline for the dirtiest oil in the world and funding a new pipeline forms part of what he referred to in his comments as Canada's strategy to become a clean energy superpower. I would like to know whether the optimists consider that to be clean.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. I also know that he loves generating sound bites and I think what he just said will make a great one.

I am definitely a member of the optimists' club, and I also believe in saying “and” instead of “or”. I believe that, in order to build a strong economy, we should not simply decide whether to do this thing or that thing. We must believe in saying “and”, that is, we need to build. We need to move forward, and Canadians want us to say “and”, not “or.”

Canadians do not want to see us choose between a project in the west or a project in the east. They want both. That is the new strategy. In other words, we are going to grow our investments and build our projects so we can get Canada through these challenging global times by diversifying our economy, helping our businesses do things differently and doubling exports. That is what we are doing. We are working with the mindset of “and”, not “or”.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, but even more so when it is before you.

I will take a second to say that we obviously need to build a strong Quebec, and to build a strong Quebec, we need forward thinkers. I saw a lot of young people this weekend when I did the rounds of Young Entrepreneurs Day. I know there are young entrepreneurs in every one of our ridings.

I also wanted to take a second to acknowledge all elementary and secondary students and graduates. It is exam time for them. I know it is June, the sun is shining and they want to go outside. I want to tell them that they need to keep studying and working hard, that they are our future, that I am thinking of them and that I will wish them a great summer when school is out. By studying hard, they will be better equipped to weigh the facts, so they might spread less disinformation than is often found in Conservative motions and in Liberal speeches like the one we just heard from my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

I just asked the member for Beauport—Limoilou whether he considers pipelines carrying the dirtiest oil in the world to be clean energy. He replied that, no, in order to make something clean, we have to get our hands dirty, because to make something clean, we have to accept mess. The government wants to use the dirtiest oil to produce clean energy. Now those folks want to stand up in the House all day and say that the motion before us is nothing but disinformation. Clearly, the level of debate here is often pretty low.

There are tons of nuances in the kind of debate we are having today on the motion before us. This Conservative motion is actually pretty similar to the one they moved last week on the last Conservative opposition day. They start by saying that we are the only G20 country in a recession, that everything is broken and that we need to put an end to inflationary spending.

The last time I gave a speech, I explained that it might take a few months to find out whether we are in a recession today, once the data is revised and the next quarter or two of data comes out, given that we are in an unusual situation.

There are clips of Conservative MPs talking about us. They call us the “Liberal Bloc” and say we deny the existence of a recession. I am not saying that everyone should take a course in economics, but these people have never taken one in their life. They studied kinesiology, and now they are going on social media to educate us about what a recession is.

The problem is that while definitions are being debated, substantive issues are not. We are not debating the fact that we have a problem with very weak growth, endemic for a number of years now. We are not debating the fact that more of the past five quarters have been negative than positive. We are not debating the fact that, for the least wealthy 20% to 25% of people in our economy, the cost of living has risen faster than their purchasing power. We are not debating the fact that yes, these people need help and yes, it takes benefits. We voted for the new benefit, which the government says is intended to help with grocery bills but which is actually an enhanced GST rebate. We support that.

However, it is not sound policy to constantly add new benefits and increase the tax burden when the government is unable to generate growth, negotiate a free trade agreement with the Americans, or even tell us what the negotiating strategy with the United States would be. We can debate what does or does not constitute a recession. The C.D. Howe Institute council that dates recessions in Canada says that there must be at least one quarter of negative growth, that the decline in that quarter must be significant and that it must be sufficiently widespread across the economy.

Last week, Desjardins' chief economist said that 50% of sectors are affected. Normally, we say it is a recession when 60% of sectors are affected. It is a matter of the council's judgment, but that does not detract from the fact that things are not going well. The Liberals keep telling us that they are creating jobs. That said, governments always boast about creating jobs.

I would invite everyone here to take a look at the work of Nicolas Petrovsky‑Nadeau, an economist who studied in Quebec and who I believe is currently working at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. He explains how many jobs must be created each quarter to stop unemployment from rising. Just because jobs have been created, that does not mean that the government has succeeded.

The Liberals are saying that they did better than analysts predicted. Of course they did. What is the best way to manage expectations? It is to keep them really low. When analysts think that we are going to do extremely poorly and things do not turn out quite as badly as they thought, then we end up doing better than predicted. That is what the Liberals are bragging about. However, we will be voting against this motion because, once again, the Conservatives have failed to define what constitutes inflationary spending.

I think the chief government whip is not listening because I am speaking French. He does not even have his earpiece in. When we speak French in the House, nobody seems to listen, except you, Mr. Speaker, because your French is very good and we appreciate that. I listened to what the members for Whitby and Beauport—Limoilou had to say, but now that I am speaking, they are patting each other on the back, chatting, joking and laughing. The funny thing is that I am making fun of them and they do not even realize it. They are not interested in what is happening in the House of Commons. That member is a Liberal House officer, the whip, the guy who is supposed to be responsible for Liberal party discipline, but he is not listening.

This Conservative motion contains disinformation. We do not know what inflationary spending is, but there is still a grain of truth to it, namely the assessment that the Canadian economy is in poor shape. I have spoken about the issue of growth. We have a persistent growth problem. The government disagrees. It tells us that, according to certain IMF forecasts, we will be the best in the G7. However, that has not happened yet. If the Liberals had done a good job, they would be talking to us about the past few quarters. Instead, what they are telling us is that they have done such a poor job in recent quarters that they are going to rely on a forecast from the IMF that is actually quite old. Let us wait and see what happens with those forecasts.

In the same speech, the member for Whitby told us that his government outperformed the forecasts, but that it was still bad. Now the Liberals are telling us they will be the best in the G7 because there are forecasts. That is brilliant. The Liberals have mastered the art of twisting the numbers until they say what they want them to. We know what confessions under torture are worth. They are worth next to nothing.

The government is breaking down the GDP even though it has not yet started trade negotiations with the United States. Granted, Donald Trump is not easy to work with. However, the government does not have a strategy. We are trying to find out what the strategy is. We, the separatists in the Bloc Québécois, were criticized during the election campaign for saying that we would work with the government on its strategy to normalize relations with the United States as far as possible. We are looking for the strategy. There is no strategy.

Since the Prime Minister has been in office, since the arrival of the so-called new government, exports have steadily declined quarter after quarter. The decline has exceeded 4%, quarter after quarter, since the first quarter of 2026. That is because we do not have trade agreements. What are the Liberals doing to hide this? They tell us that they have increased our exports to Europe. When we break down the figures, we realize that it was basically a large volume of aluminum sent to Europe, at fairly high prices, that changed the statistics. We do not have a trade agreement. Why not hold an opposition day on that? That is something the Conservatives should consider.

What is more, there is no reliable fiscal anchor. We do not even know how to assess the government's performance anymore, because the government no longer knows what to compare itself to. Previously, we had the debt-to-GDP ratio. The government told us that this no longer works, so it became the deficit-to-GDP ratio. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has also weighed in. By the way, the Liberals chose her themselves and unilaterally imposed this decision on the House. There was no consensus on this appointment, particularly because of the way it was made. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is clearly competent, but the government appointed her unilaterally. Now she is saying that the government will not be able to meet its fiscal anchor every year.

Luc Godbout appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. I think it was last week. Luc Godbout holds the research chair in taxation and public finance at Université de Sherbrooke. His team does extraordinary work, they are recognized and they are non-partisan. They are not a bunch of bozos from the opposition who do nothing but complain, as the members on the other side of the House like to say. The witnesses told us that they do not understand what the government's fiscal anchors are and that we need to have some. They told us that they cannot even say whether they are good or bad because the Liberals change the rules whenever they feel like it. That is a valid point in the Conservative motion.

What else is in the motion? It talks about inflationary and non-inflationary spending. That is just political rhetoric. What else did we learn from the representatives of the Université de Sherbrooke research chair? They said that our spending is in a shambles. A budget is drafted and presented, appropriations are voted on, and then we find ourselves in a situation where the Minister of Finance suddenly decides, on a whim, to add a new benefit, a new scheme, a new payout. Everything has been so poorly planned that even academics can no longer keep track of the deficit over the course of the year.

That is a problem. It is a planning problem. It is a rigour problem. In the last budget cycle, the Minister of Finance decided to present a budget in the fall instead of in the winter. He was not ready, so he changed the provisions before the update, which means that the Standing Committee on Finance is still studying one budget bill anther another and can no longer keep track of them. That is mismanagement.

What did Mr. Godbout, the research chair and professor at Université de Sherbrooke, say when he when he came to testify? He told us that the government needs to be clear about what constitutes capital expenditures and what constitutes operating expenditures. The government is making up its own rules, and they do not comply with generally accepted accounting principles. In the budget, it is classifying security at FIFA matches as an investment. We need clear rules because the government is disguising operating expenses as investments. According to the professor from Université de Sherbrooke, the government is giving tax credits to companies that might invest and calling that an investment. That is not how any public accounting system in the world operates. Even in the United Kingdom, where investments are accounted for separately—where there is a balance sheet, a statement or some sort of equivalent in the public accounts—nobody does this. That is mismanagement.

I do not know what the Conservatives call inflationary spending, because anything can fit in that category. I asked one Conservative MP a question earlier. I asked him whether spending $34 billion in public funds for a pipeline was inflationary. He practically turned himself inside out rather than answer my question. The Conservatives do not want to answer. What is inflationary spending? Does inflationary spending include a 10% increase in the OAS for people between 65 and 74 years of age, victims of Liberal discrimination who are suffering due to the increased cost of living? We do not know.

Furthermore, I notice that no one seems to have a solution. No one is suggesting solutions. The government tells us that everything is fine and that the IMF thinks that everything will be fine. Well, we are proposing solutions. Last week, during the last opposition day, the member for Whitby told us that opposition members never do anything but complain. However, after the unions, the FTQ, the Syndicat des métallos and the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, we were the first to say that a wage subsidy was needed in response to the new tariff calculation method that the U.S. administration introduced in April. A wage subsidy is needed to protect businesses that are captured by the new tariff formula and that cannot increase their inventories any more.

That is one thing. The employment rate is doing well because companies are accumulating stock, but that will not last forever. When these companies run into problems, we will need to maintain the employment relationship so that employees do not have to rely on employment insurance, so that they do not go work for competitors and so that we can free up some margin in the actuarial calculations that are used to balance the EI fund. Given the tariff crisis, we must ensure that we do not have to increase EI contributions for companies that may be struggling a bit right now. These are the kinds of solutions that we are proposing, but we are essentially being told that we do not want to build Canada strong by building pipelines and we never come up with any solutions.

I understand that the government signed a separate infrastructure agreement with Quebec. We are pleased about that. The Liberals have been telling us for years that certain conditions must be met and that we were wrong. However, now they have signed a separate agreement and everything is fine. Instead of going with a non-existent high-speed train with a business plan that does not make any sense and that heartlessly expropriates people's land, as Alto is currently doing, we are asking for more funding for public transit. That is a solution that would help relieve congestion on our city highways. That would be a good idea.

Let us talk about the forestry industry. The Saint-Michel sawmill just closed down. For years, these people have been facing tariffs that make no sense. They have been forced to pay countervailing duties that get tied up in the United States. These companies win their cases in court 10 years later. They get their money back, but by then, they have gone bankrupt.

However, this is an asset. We are telling the government to buy back these countervailing duties. It is an asset that would not even be counted toward the deficit, and it would give these businesses some breathing room and liquidity. The response we get is that the government has already done everything it could. It grants loans to businesses on the verge of closing, but it refuses to implement this measure. Then it criticizes us for not coming up with proposals.

The government wants to build a strong country, but Quebec and the provinces also have responsibilities. Think of the hospitals with leaky roofs and the infrastructure. The governments of Quebec and the provinces are closer to the people than the federal government is.

The influx of asylum seekers has exceeded Quebec's capacity to accommodate them and has cost $733 million. The National Assembly has unanimously called for this amount to be repaid to Quebec. Why has it never been repaid? That would also give people some breathing room. After all, people do not just pay federal taxes. They also pay provincial taxes. When the provinces are financially squeezed, it does not help taxpayers. When a sick person has a hard time getting the services they need, that does not help them either. When teachers cannot be recruited, that does not help children. Another thing that Ottawa needs to do is transfer the money that is owed to Quebec.

The Liberals say that they are investing, that it is important to boost productivity and adapt to climate change. The government wants to buy pipelines and, at the same time, it is closing the Department of Agriculture research centres in the riding of the Minister of Government Transformation. These centres are designed to support climate change adaptation, develop new species and boost agricultural productivity. There is a unanimous consensus in the agricultural sector. These research centres are vital to the future of our food. They are being shut down to save what amounts to practically 0% of the federal budget, yet still, they are being shut down.

I am not going to talk about the Governor General, because not everybody likes that, but everyone knows what I think of the role.

The Bloc Québécois is putting forward proposals to help our businesses. Take the example of an aerospace policy. The government has a nature policy, an energy policy and policies for just about everything, yet Liberal MPs from my area are going around saying we do not need an aerospace policy and that the government is handing out subsidies. These things take time. The aeronautics and aerospace sectors operate over decades. We need to connect the military, the civilian sector and everyone's needs so that we buy our own products. The government is saying that we do not need a policy. It is time to buy aircraft, and he is off in Sweden trying to convince someone to open a factory here rather than ordering planes, yet we are told we do not need a strategy.

The government is also telling us that the industry is not asking for it. However, the Standing Committee on Finance heard from the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada, or AIAC, and its representatives told us that we need an aerospace industrial policy. They made that clear to us. If we had one today, the government would not be doing the tango with every company in the world to determine which aircraft to choose, because the orders would already be coming in. That is what would happen.

I am not saying that everything the Liberals do is bad. The productivity superdeduction is a good measure, and I think it should be expanded. I think the government has picked the winners, but its fiscal situation has become so bad that it cannot afford to do that anymore. That is a problem. Some good things have been done, but it is not enough.

I hear the government saying that all the opposition does is complain, shout and spread disinformation. Do members know how difficult it is, politically, to say that we know the recession will be coming in the future? It would be easy to say we are in a recession, like the Conservatives do. Do members know how difficult it is politically for us to remain rigorous, to stand our ground and to keep things in perspective? We are doing that. When we do that, the government is happy. When we propose solutions that come from the front lines and the industry, in the same speech, we become the whiners of the minority opposition that the government no longer listens to.

Now that they form a majority, I am asking the Liberals to dial down the arrogance and smugness. They have to stop saying that they are the best thing since sliced bread and start considering the good ideas coming from the other side of the House. I have very good relationships with the other members of the Standing Committee on Finance. I see the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin walking into the House. I think we have ideas to contribute, but the government needs to be at least a little receptive.

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

I would remind the hon. member that referring to members entering or leaving the House is not permitted.

The member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my esteemed colleague the opportunity to tell me how people in Mirabel are feeling. The government told them that a high-speed rail project is going to cut right through their farmland. It did not offer much in the way of explanation. A lot of questions were asked, but not a lot of answers have been given.

I am sure that my colleague has a lot to say about that.

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

Madam Speaker, this issue has to do with the business of supply, because we just voted supply for the project.

With Bill C‑15, the Minister of Transport callously decided to make people along the Alto corridor second-class citizens. He decided to take away their recourse and their right to question the need for expropriation for a train. Through his actions, the Minister of Transport is destroying what little social licence there was for this project.

People in my riding are being harassed by Alto. There have been unauthorized drone flights. Now they have stopped because they were not allowed in the first place. People from Alto are knocking on doors without identifying themselves and without offering a business card.

There are people in my riding who have been expropriated once already, who are familiar with expropriation and whose family or friends dealt with family tragedies such as suicides, broken families and depression. This is not ancient history. The last five pieces of land expropriated following the airport saga were only given back in 2024. That is what is happening with a train that does not exist and that has no business plan or cost-benefit analysis.

Bill C‑15 is an injustice. The people of Mirabel think that we need to scrap this project and start over from scratch.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked a great deal about the lack of a strategy on the issue of trade. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The member would know that.

For example, the Prime Minister and this government made a commitment to look at export opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. We have some 20 agreements related to trade and defence. We have passed legislation on trade agreements with Northern Ireland, England and Indonesia. We are actually in negotiations on trade agreements with the Philippines and India. We have a Prime Minister who has been very proactive in promoting Canadian exports.

Contrary to what the member implied, in the first quarter, we had a net increase in trade between the United States and Canada.

We are going to negotiate the best deal. It will be one that is in Canadians' best interests. The trade agreement will not necessarily be in the interests of the Conservatives or the Bloc, but it will be in Canadians' best interests.

I wonder if the member sees the holistic approach we are taking and sees it as a strategy.

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

Madam Speaker, it appears that we were not watching the same election campaign. When I was campaigning last year, I did not see the Prime Minister spend 30 days campaigning on the idea that he was going to strike a deal with Indonesia. That was not what the Prime Minister was saying during the campaign. He said that 80% of our trade was with the United States, that he was the best person to negotiate with Mr. Trump and that Mr. Trump would respect him. That did not happen.

Afterwards, the government started saying that we have free trade agreements with all the G7 countries, but the Prime Minister did not sign any of those agreements. I am in favour of diversifying trade. It is a good thing. Our agreement with South Korea was signed by the Conservatives. The reality is that the current Prime Minister campaigned on the promise that he would be able to quickly get the United States to sign an agreement, and that did not happen.

Do the Liberals have a strategy? It is possible that they do, but given the government's level of transparency, we are unaware of what that strategy is. If the Liberals want help, if they want us to work with them, if they want ideas and if they think we are smart enough to collaborate with, maybe they should tell us what is going on rather than keep us in the dark. More and more things in this government are becoming concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office. It is worrisome, because we thought that the concentration of power in the PMO became a thing of the past with the end of the Trudeau government.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, the member called upon the government to turn down the arrogance a bit. The Liberals have a majority and they can win any vote they want. They could start being just a little more humble about their performance.

I would note that the Minister of Finance recently appeared at the finance committee. He did not answer any of the member's questions. He did not answer any of my questions. He ignored the questions that were put to him by opposition members.

Does the member have anything else to say about the government's performance and the need for a little humility, given that performance?

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

Madam Speaker, it is true that the government has become increasingly arrogant since it bought itself a majority. First, as we saw during the consideration of all votes, the Minister of Finance has not answered a single question in his political career. This did not begin last week.

Let us consider Driver Inc. People have died because of these truckers. Children have died. During the debate in committee on Driver Inc., the Liberals voted in favour of holding the meeting in camera, and we learned that the chair of the committee is attending events put on by those responsible for Driver Inc. With Bill C‑30, which is currently before us, they are relaxing the laws on pesticides. They are hiding that in a budget bill. We learned that the Minister of Health is participating in events put on by pesticide companies who have been pushing for this for years.

Parliament exists for a reason. It deserves better than what the Liberals are doing to it. I believe in the work of Parliament. We are working hard in that regard. We read the bills. I am in contact with the parliamentary secretary and the member for Whitby. We have ideas. We submit amendments. However, the current government has decided that, now that it has a majority, it is free to do away with democracy in this place. I think that says a lot about the Prime Minister, who sees himself more as a CEO than as a prime minister.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians did not need a Parliamentary Budget Officer report to tell them that the economy was in trouble; families knew it when their groceries kept getting more expensive, when their mortgage payments doubled and when young people gave up on owning their own home.

For years we have been sounding the alarms, yet the Liberals kept telling us, “Everything is fine.” Now, the PBO confirms that we have a bigger deficit, weaker growth, lower wages and only a 1% chance of meeting the government's own fiscal anchor.

Why does my colleague think it took the Liberal government so long to admit what Canadians already knew, and why are they still refusing to change the costly policies that are making life less affordable?

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

Madam Speaker, the devil is in the details. We need to look at the numbers and break them down a little. During question period, the Prime Minister stated that average wages have risen faster than inflation. However, we need to look at the people at the bottom of the ladder. Being rich in Canada today is not an issue. They can still afford to buy big cars. They can even afford to pay $2 a litre for gas. They can still go to restaurants. The problem is that things are stagnating for the 20% to 25% of people who live from paycheque to paycheque. Those people have not seen an increase in their purchasing power.

This government has been in power for 10 or 11 years. We all agree that the previous prime minister was not much of an economics guy. Even his finance minister ran away, which says a lot. This government keeps doling out benefits and new cheques without acknowledging the problem. It is fine to help people in times of crisis, but when we see that 20% of the people in this country are getting poorer and losing purchasing power and the government simply hands them a cheque, that is hardly a vision for society. It is just making people lose faith in our institutions. That worries me.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke earlier in the debate on Alto, and I know how sensitive the people in his riding are about expropriation. Going beyond the expropriation issue, just some cocktail-napkin math here, if it costs $90 billion and, as the McGill study said, there are only going to be 12 million annual passengers, and they borrow the money at, let us say, 4%, that is about $300 a ticket.

Does the member think that the Liberals have done their homework in any way on what the actual cost would be in order for that project to be financially viable?

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

Madam Speaker, there is no business plan. We ask questions and Alto responds by spending millions of dollars on advertising instead of giving us the facts.

For the first full year of operation, according to McGill University researchers, Alto is overestimating the number of passengers by 15 million per year. According to the McGill University study, over the years and in today's dollars, more than $50 billion will have to be spent on subsidies, just to keep this project going. The government is going to have to pay 15% of the project's costs up front. The government is going to have to expropriate more land than they need so they can sell it back to developers to fund 15% of the project's costs. That is if there are no cost overruns, and there will be cost overruns. Let us see how they work. Let us see how they approach people. Aside from the expropriations, my constituents and all Quebeckers and Canadians are right to be worried about Alto when it comes to their taxes.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

I rise today in support of the opposition motion before us. This motion states that Canada has become the only G20 nation to fall into recession.

Members may debate the definition of a recession, economists may debate what a technical recession is, but even if they disagree on the label, they should not ignore the signals. The question that Canadians are asking is not about the definition of recession, which is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative real GDP growth, but why Canadians feel weaker with more instability, why business investments have slowed, why families feel less secure and why opportunities feel harder to reach. Perhaps that is what the concern is mostly about.

Canada should not accept becoming an outlier among advanced economies, and that is why Conservatives are very sad to hear that Canada is going through a recession. We warned what reckless inflationary spending would do to our economy and to our country. Recessions result in households making smaller plans, businesses delaying decisions, young people lowering their expectations and communities wondering whether growth can still include them.

Many Canadians felt that financial hardship long before there was an announcement that we were in a recession, because Canadians do not experience the economy through quarterly reports or decimal points. They experience it when groceries cost more than they expect, when their children wonder whether they will ever own a home and when communities lose opportunities.

This motion asks us to consider whether our current approach is producing the outcomes Canadians were promised. Canada has recorded declining real GDP in three of the last four quarters. Business capital investment fell by 0.7% in the first quarter of the year, marking the fifth consecutive quarter of decline. Businesses are leaving Canada. Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7, at 6.9%, and 112,000 Canadians lost work just in the first four months of this year. Food bank usage has reached 2.2 million visits every month, which is the highest level on record and double what it was in 2019. One in four Canadians is now experiencing food insecurity.

These are not abstract indicators. These are not technicalities. They reflect pressure that households are experiencing every single day. Canadians are more cautious now about spending, investing and planning for their future. People are asking whether wages are keeping up, whether opportunities are shrinking and whether their children will have the same chances of success as they had.

Canadians are also being asked to adopt major technological changes at the same time that households and businesses are becoming cautious and financially weaker. People are worried about whether their paycheques will stretch far enough, whether opportunities are shrinking and whether the future will offer more security or less.

Recessions are not only periods of contraction. They are tests. They expose whether the economy has built the productive capacity, the investment conditions and the resilience needed to recover and grow. That is why this motion deserves serious attention.

While concerns grow about recession, the government has announced major ambitions around artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure. Those ambitions deserve to be debated seriously, because digital infrastructure does not just exist on paper. Artificial intelligence requires data centres. Data centres require compute capacity. Compute capacity is something very physical. Reliable energy is needed. That deserves serious debate, because Canadians are being asked to carry two realities at once: economic weakness today and economic transition tomorrow.

Workers and families are feeling the growing pains today, and we know the new AI system the Liberals are trying to build could even change the meaning of work. As tasks become automated, businesses will likely need fewer workers. Some sectors will become more productive with fewer workers. This is why we must be honest about the future with AI and automation and what it will look like. If Canadians are already struggling with affordability, weak growth and uncertainty, then the question becomes: Are we preparing people for the transition that the Liberals are putting forward? Are we informing people about what is to come with AI and the digital infrastructure that the Liberals are building? Are we creating enough growth to absorb the disruption that AI will bring? Are we strengthening productive capacity?

Perhaps part of what Canadians are feeling right now is not only economic pressure but uncertainty about transition. People sense that systems are changing and that technology is becoming more integrated into daily life. Decisions once made by people may increasingly become influenced by digital systems, and they are asking deeper questions. As these systems become more powerful, what remains of humans? That question should not be dismissed, because as we build digital infrastructure and adapt to artificial intelligence, we should ensure that human judgment remains meaningful. That divine spark in us must be preserved through human dignity. We see our dignity in work, in providing for our families, in learning and volunteering to help others even without being paid or rewarded. It is through this dignity and charity that our society was built. We must ensure that people are never reduced to technicalities, profiles, outputs, data points or mere QR codes.

Technology should strengthen human capability, not weaken human agency. If we are entering a period of profound change, then our responsibility is not simply to build smarter systems; it is to build systems that remember the value of people and exist to serve people. The question is whether Canadians will participate in the prosperity that new technology creates, whether workers who are displaced and lose their jobs can adapt to the technological change, whether businesses can adapt and grow, whether families can plan for the future and whether communities can benefit. The goal cannot simply be more technology and more spending deficits. The goal must be more opportunity, because opportunity, not deficits, is what builds confidence and confidence builds investments.

That is why this recession is so real. It is not because of technical definitions. Economists may debate what “technical recession” means, but Canadians do not live in a technicality. Canadians live with grocery bills. They live with a lack of jobs. They live with a shrinking economy. They live with food bank lines. They live with cancelled plans and postponed dreams. They live with choosing between turning up the heat in their homes and buying food. They live with the uncertainty of wondering whether their children will have the same opportunities they had. That is why this debate matters. It is because recessions are not ultimately measured by quarters. They are measured by whether people still believe tomorrow can be better than today.

If Canadians are losing confidence in their efforts and opportunities, then we should not dismiss that as a technicality. We should treat it as a warning that our responsibility is not simply to manage decline but restore the conditions that allow people to build, invest, contribute, believe in the future and, once again, unite in a prosperous Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I know the member read her speech, but perhaps she wrote it last week because the number that she used for Canada's unemployment in her speech does not reflect the new number that came out on Friday. She might want to update her numbers. She might also want to reflect on the fact that the report that came out last Friday showed that Canada had a net increase of 90,000 jobs in May, that full-time work surged and that sectors across the economy have grown.

I am curious. Notwithstanding the fact that she may have written that speech on Wednesday of last week, why did nothing in the 10-minute speech she just provided talk about the new report that came out on Friday, which showed that there was a significant improvement in May alone?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is so sad that the Liberals will not admit the situation they are in. They use everything to deflect. They deflect even from the term “recession”. They try to redefine it. They try to use labour data from summer jobs to buttress, to increase, what the employment rate is.

It is a really sad situation, because Canadians are suffering. They need truth. They need honesty. They need transparency. We are not getting these from the government.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, someone mentioned rigour and transparency earlier in the debate. I must admit that I am hearing a lot of rhetoric today. Some folks are trying to simply persuade people, rather than using real ideas to convince them.

Yes, some Quebeckers and Canadians are struggling to make ends meet, and I would like to see some solutions brought forward.

A $25-billion sovereign wealth fund has been proposed. This is a debt that will be used to finance other major projects, with all decisions being made behind closed doors, without any input from the public. These include pipelines, which entail huge debts and do nothing to reduce our carbon footprint.

We know there is no official definition of the term, but I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that these are inflationary measures.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, countries that have a sovereign wealth fund are based on wealth. They are not based on debt, as the Liberal government is attempting.

The member's question was also about pipelines. Every single day, Canada imports 550,000 barrels of oil. We have the third-largest accessible oil reserves on this planet, yet we continue to import oil from other nations. The lost opportunity, our not optimizing our full potential and not developing our natural resources, is one of the reasons we are in this recession. We are trying to solve the problem using creative deals like creating a sovereign debt fund and pretending it is wealth. It is not going to solve the problem.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the London region, especially London—Fanshawe, has been hit hard with the Liberal policies with regard to the local economy. In March, we had a 9.1% unemployment rate. In April, we had a 9.2% unemployment rate, the highest in the country.

Could my colleague elaborate on the economic issues in her riding?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the economic issues in my riding are very similar to the economic issues in many ridings in the country. People are making tough decisions: Do they turn up the heat in their home, or do they make sure they put a meal on the table for their family that has sufficient nutrients in it to feed and energize their family? These are the tough decisions that people are making. Some families line up at food banks. These include families with two working parents who just cannot make ends meet. We have to do something to make life more affordable for average Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, when a truck is stuck in a ditch, there are two ways to make the problem worse. One is to keep flooring the gas while pretending that spinning the tires means we are getting somewhere. The other is to just simply blame the mud, the road and the person who told us to take the turn in the first place, but to never admit that the driver could be the problem. That is where Canada's economy is today. The government has been spinning the tires for years, throwing mud in every direction and telling everyone that if we wait just a little bit longer, the country is finally going to start pulling ahead. However, now we can see what is really happening: We are not moving ahead but are in fact falling behind.

The motion before the House says what millions of families already know: Canada has been driven into the G20's only recession. Scotiabank and the Bank of Montreal have both downgraded growth expectations. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's latest report shows slowing growth, a weakening financial outlook and a bigger-than-promised deficit. Those words can sound very far removed from real life, but that is exactly where this bad news lands. It lands on the mortgage renewal, the grocery bill, the repair that cannot wait and the credit card bill that was supposed to be paid down but is, in fact, bigger than expected.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has now put numbers to what Canadians already feel. She projects real GDP growth of only 1.1% in 2026 and 1.6% in 2027. That is not an economy that is charging ahead. She also says that the deficit is expected to rise from $36.3 billion to $72 billion. That is not simply a rounding error. It is the fiscal equivalent of promising to back out of the driveway but ending up going through the garage door.

The government did not miss its promise by just a little bit. It missed it by billions and billions of dollars. It told Canadians that spending was under control, but eventually the bills come due. The numbers are a lot harder to spin than the speeches the Liberals offer are. Canadians were promised one thing, but the numbers now show something completely different. As usual, Canadians are of course stuck with the invoice.

Then there is the fiscal anchor that used to be a point of discussion. That is the government's own promise to keep the deficit from growing out of control. It is supposed to tell Canadians that someone around the cabinet table still knows when to stop borrowing, stop spending and stop pretending that the budget will balance itself. The PBO says that there is less than a 1% chance the government will meet that promise. That is not a fiscal anchor; that is a lottery ticket, at best. No person could walk into a bank with a 1% chance of making their household budget work and call that responsible. No small business owner could tell their employees that there is only a 1% chance that the paycheques will clear and call that a plan.

A weak economy shows up long before anybody gives it a name. It shows up when the job sites get quiet, when the bay sits empty at the shop, when the truck stays parked in the yard and when a young worker who was supposed to start Monday is told he cannot because there is not enough work. That is what slow growth means when it reaches the real world: fewer hours, fewer raises, fewer orders and fewer chances for young people to get started in their career.

The government wants us to believe that this was all just unavoidable. It says there have been global pressures. Of course there have been. Every G20 nation has faced interest rate hikes, supply chain challenges, inflation, war, energy shocks and global uncertainty. The difference is that Canada is now being described as the G20's only nation in a recession. When everyone faces the storm but only one boat starts taking on water, maybe it is time to see what the captain has been doing.

A country does not get rich based on how much the government spends. A country gets richer when people can build, invest, produce, hire, export, take risks and succeed. It gets richer when a welder can leave the shop on Friday and start his own business on Monday, or when a mine with Canadian mineral workers can be approved before the opportunity moves somewhere else.

We have all the ingredients of an incredibly prosperous country. We do not have a shortage of ability. We have a government that keeps turning that ability into delays, higher costs, and smaller paycheques for Canadians. Imagine someone who wants to build something in this country. Imagine a shop in a small town, a mine up north, a grain terminal, a processing plant, a power line or an energy project. They start with an idea, workers ready to go, suppliers lined up and a belief that Canada is still a place where real effort can become something real.

These investors then meet the process that the government has built. First comes the permit delays, then some new rule and the consultation that leads to yet another consultation. Then the financing gets more expensive throughout the time that passes. Investors then ask why the same project could move so much faster somewhere else. After a while, the question is no longer whether the project makes sense; the question is how long people are willing to bleed money before they simply give up. That is why the government's own consultation paper on getting major projects built is so revealing.

After years of Conservatives, provinces, workers, industry and investors warning that Canada had become too slow and too uncertain, the government is now admitting the same thing but in writing. Its own paper says major projects could “face a complicated and time-consuming” process. It points to duplication and poor coordination between departments. It says, “mines, ports, pipelines, nuclear facilities, and transportation infrastructure [are] often slow, expensive, and confusing.” It even admits that “it has often taken more than five years for a project to receive the federal decisions” needed before construction can even begin.

Bill C-69 was passed in 2019. The Liberals sold it is a way to restore confidence, to protect the environment and to help good projects move forward. In reality, it became simply a symbol of delay and uncertainty. The Supreme Court later of course made clear that the problem was not only in the delays that it caused. The act went too far, by allowing the federal government to turn limited federal interests into a much broader review of projects that often mainly fell under provincial jurisdiction.

The Liberals amended the act and then claimed that the problem was somehow fixed, yet here they are again admitting that major projects still face a process that is slow, expensive, confusing, poorly coordinated and too often takes longer than five years. The Prime Minister wants to sound like a man who can get Canada building again, but the system he is now allegedly trying to repair was built, defended and celebrated by his own Liberal Party.

Canada does not need weaker environmental standards. It needs clear standards, real timelines, and decisions that actually get made. Money goes where it is welcome. Jobs go where projects can move forward. Opportunity goes where people are allowed to build things. If the government keeps making Canada slower, more expensive and more uncertain, it should not be shocked when investments start looking for a different address.

What Conservatives are saying is not very complicated: Reverse the costly and inflationary decisions that helped put Canada in this position to begin with; restore discipline and federal spending; stop treating borrowed money as a substitute for private sector growth; make Canada a place where major projects can actually get approved and built again; lower the cost of work, investment, energy, transport and homebuilding; stop punishing the sectors that pay the bills; and focus on paycheques, production, homes, food, energy, exports and opportunity.

Canada is not poor, Canada is not weak, and Canada is not doomed. The country has everything it needs to succeed, except a federal government willing to stop making excuses and stop making success harder. We could be a country to which investment comes because approvals are clear, taxes are competitive, energy is reliable, workers are respected and projects move forward. We could be a country where the next generation inherits more than debt and more than just excuses. It starts with admitting that the current approach has failed miserably.

The government made the bills bigger, the economy weaker and the deficit worse, and now it wants us to be impressed that it found some gentler words for its own failure. Canadians deserve better than a government that asks them to settle for less. We were not handed a small country, a poor country or a country that is running out of promise. We were handed one of the greatest nations on earth, blessed with resources, talent, courage, and people who still believe tomorrow can be better than today.

What we need now is a government with enough faith in Canadians to let them build, work, dream and prosper once again. It is time to stop spinning the wheels and calling that progress. It is time to change course.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have heard the “Canada is broken” rhetoric over and over from Conservative members, in which they stand up and gleefully cheer for any downturn in the Canadian economy as an opportunity to score cheap political points. It is a sad reflection, and it is insulting to Canadians. It is insulting to businesses and to Canadian workers.

Recently, the May job report showed 88,000 new jobs were created. Unemployment is dropping, wages are growing faster than inflation, and the International Monetary Fund has concluded that Canada has the strongest economy in the G7. Will the member opposite please acknowledge that Canada is not broken?

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

Madam Speaker, Canadians are thriving, despite the government.

The member talks about this being just a technical recession. Are collectors just technically calling, asking for their money that has been loaned out? Is a mom just technically skipping meals so that she can afford to feed her daughter? Are these just technicalities? No.

The crisis facing this country has been clear for many years. The government not only caused it, but refuses to accept that it is to blame for it. It is time to change course and recognize when the government is spinning its wheels and failing Canadians. Life has not been good for everyone. It is time to accept that and change direction.

We can and must do better for the people we are here to represent.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, the analogy, I think, is just perfect. The Liberals are spinning their tires so hard in the mud, trying to prove to Canadians that they are improving the economic situation when they are in fact failing it, that they are actually going backward and making things worse. They are doing this instead of being stuck stationary and, certainly, instead of moving forward, which is exactly what people in this country need, particularly Manitobans and young Canadians across this country, from coast to coast to coast.

I wonder if the member, who has been here a bit longer than I have, could provide a little more context about what it might take to finally get the Liberals to do a bit of self-reflection, eat a bit humble pie and maybe make a change so that Canadians are better off.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to believe the Liberals have that in them. The last 10 years have not shown me that they have an ability to accept things as they are. It is like they do not talk to people who live in the real world and see the cost pressures they are facing.

One thing that really bothers me is that in government, just like in life, it is okay to sometimes say, “We were wrong. We messed up.” We do not have to continuously hide behind the fact that things are not going okay and try to blame everybody else. The government should take a bit of responsibility. The other day, I heard a minister try to blame Stephen Harper. It is 11 years later.

It is time to accept that things have not been going well because of the policies and accept the ideas that are coming collaboratively from the Conservatives to try to move this country forward. Change the policies and change course so that we can all be better off.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, we can see my colleague's love for his constituents and his desire to ensure that Canada's economy comes out okay, if not better.

I did not get a satisfactory answer to my questions when we talked about rigour and transparency. The Conservative Party is talking about inflationary measures, and I was wondering whether my colleague thinks that a sovereign wealth fund is an inflationary measure since the government's sovereign wealth fund is not being created with money that has already been saved. It is a debt.

I am wondering the same thing about the government's major projects and the pipelines in western Canada. The government is spending money, but do the Conservatives consider that to be inflationary spending?

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

Madam Speaker, Canada led the way with this idea that we could borrow our way to calling something wealth. The idea of a sovereign wealth fund is a good one, if we are a country that is in a position to create wealth and has executed on the idea of creating wealth. Instead, we decided to keep our oil and gas in the ground as much as possible over the last decade.

The idea of investing in projects in Canada is a good one. Financing it entirely based on debt and calling that progress is just another example of how the government seems to refuse to accept that things have not been going well for Canadians and that its policies are to blame.

We can and must do better.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, Canadians are not slow. They understand that transitions are tough. They understand the kinds of situations we have been in in the last couple of years, whether they were because of COVID or the unjustified tariffs that Canadians have experienced across the board.

I am curious to know what the member opposite thinks Canadians think of him and his party when they see him get excited about Canadians not doing well.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member says transitions are tough. That is another odd excuse. It would not be a tough transition to elect a Conservative government so that this country can once again prosper.

Food Banks in Prescott—Russell—Cumberland

[Giovanna Mingarelli, Liberal, Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding work of the food banks in Prescott—Russell—Cumberland and to thank the dedicated volunteers who, day after day, support our constituents with dignity and compassion.

Food banks are essential to our region's food security. From the beginning of my mandate, I have been committed to working closely with these organizations.

Over the past year, I visited food banks in Hawkesbury, Vankleek Hill and Clarence-Rockland. Everywhere I went, I saw dedicated teams facing growing demand with often limited resources.

I want to sincerely thank the food bank volunteers and staff. Their commitment is the backbone of our community.

I am committed to keep working alongside them and to be a strong voice for the people of Prescott—Russell—Cumberland, who are counting on us.

Math Achievement in Plumas

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a truly outstanding achievement by a young resident student from Plumas, Manitoba. Lenjo Uebersax, a student from Plumas Elementary School, has been named Mathletics' top grade 8 student in Canada and ranks 30th worldwide. This is a huge achievement. As his teacher Mark Dodds explained, this is “one of the largest academic competitions in the world”.

More recently, through the Mathletics program, Lenjo completed the entire grade 9 math curriculum and, as of last Friday, began his grade 10 math curriculum independently. Plumas Elementary's principal, Fiona Rempel, extended congratulations on behalf of the school, noting that Lenjo's exceptional work ethic and determination are putting their small school on the map.

Lenjo's accomplishments are very well deserved. Congratulations to Lenjo for his remarkable success. We look forward to following him on his journey of academia.

Kai Smart

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of UBC student Kai Smart, whom I worked with on fundraising for mental health. On March 20, at the age of 23, Kai tragically lost his life in an avalanche in Japan.

I would like to share some words written by Kai's parents, John and Julia, who said Kai was a mountain man, an explorer of the world and a lover of people from all walks of life. He was an avid skier and adventurer. In his short life, he experienced more than many do in a lifetime.

What stood out about Kai was how he moved through the world. He connected with people across borders, languages and cultures. He carried curiosity, courage, kindness and humility wherever he went, making others feel welcome, inspired and more alive.

“Live like Kai” has emerged as a mantra in the mountain community he called home. In his memory, the Smart family is establishing a memorial fund to support young people making a positive impact.

Rest in peace, Kai.

River City Robotics

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize five extraordinary young Edmontonians who are proudly representing Alberta and Canada on the world stage.

Team Gladius from the River City Robotics club competed in the FIRST Tech Challenge, where students design, build and program their own robots from the ground up. In just their second season, these students engineered an award-winning robot and won the Inspire Award, which is the competition's highest award. That victory carried them to the FIRST world championships in Houston as one of only 14 teams from Canada competing, and they did not go to just watch. They won multiple matches against the very best teams in the world, which are much older and much more experienced teams.

Sam, Jack, Luke, Tavin and Walter, along with their coaches, Kevin, Shawn and Angela, are exactly the innovators our future needs.

Congratulations to Team Gladius. They have made Edmonton, Alberta and Canada proud.

Jeremy Hansen

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is a space-faring nation. We have contributed valuable technologies, research, scientists and engineers, and we are a global leader in the field of space exploration.

We can now add another achievement to our list of accomplishments. The first Canadian to orbit the moon, Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen, is in Ottawa today following the success of the Artemis II mission.

This mission has inspired Canadians and stands as a symbol of hope for our continued exploration of the final frontier.

We commend Mr. Hansen's contribution and, on behalf of all Canadians across the country, thank him for his service.

Summer in Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thankfully, summer is here, and with its arrival comes the much anticipated opening of our local farmers' markets and the start of festival season in communities across Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.

We are very fortunate to have two major local farmers' markets operating this year. The Barrie Farmers' Market is back outdoors and open every Saturday on Collier Street from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. In Springwater, the Elmvale Farmers' Market kicks off its season on June 11 and will run from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. at the Elmvale municipal parking lot. We are also fortunate to have several fantastic festivals in our region in the coming weeks, including the Troubadour Festival, Kempenfest, Boots and Hearts and many Canada Day celebrations, including those in Elmvale, Hawkstone and Barrie.

Finally, this weekend, the Barrie Airshow will feature the Snowbirds, providing one of the last chances for residents to see them perform for years.

I encourage all residents to get out and attend one or all of these great markets and festivals, and I wish them all a happy summer.

Road Safety

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Saturday marked 20 years since the death of OPP sergeant Greg Stobbart, a beloved Burlington resident who was killed by a careless motorist while on a training ride on his bike. He was a dedicated officer with 25 years of experience, a committed athlete and a deeply loved family man and friend.

In the face of unimaginable loss, Greg's wife, Eleanor McMahon, chose courage. She founded the Share the Road Cycling Coalition, which has since become one of the most influential road safety organizations in Canada. Eleanor's advocacy resulted in “Greg's law”, Ontario's one-metre safe passage law, strengthening penalties for drivers who injure or kill vulnerable road users. From grief to purpose, she transformed road safety in Ontario and saved lives.

With the 20th-anniversary Share the Road Gran Fondo in Milton and the annual Ontario Bike Summit, we remember Sergeant Stobbart, honour his legacy and together continue the work.

Murray Fearrey

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with profound sadness to pay tribute to a dear friend, a dedicated public servant and a remarkable leader, Murray Fearrey, who passed away on May 28.

Murray spent his entire life in Haliburton, where he was born and raised and devoted time to his entire community, which he loved. His commitment to public service spanned nearly six decades, beginning in 1971. As reeve and mayor of Dysart, plus 12 years as county warden, he served with unwavering dedication, integrity and compassion, always putting the needs of residents first.

Murray's impact can be found from Head Lake Park to the arena, the curling club, the library, the hospital, the long-term care centre and many more. He helped shape the institutions for generations that will benefit because of his work.

Beyond his many accomplishments, of course, Murray was a trusted friend, a source of wise counsel and a true gentleman whose steady leadership earned the respect of all who knew him. I extend my deepest condolences to his partner Donna, his children, his friends and colleagues. May he rest in peace.

Robert Thibert

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

Mr. Speaker, in the 1950s, today's Quebeckers were French Canadians who worked for the English. With the Quiet Revolution, which was also an economic revolution, the Quebec nation was created, along with a class of full-fledged Quebec entrepreneurs. In their garages, in their basements or on their boats, these small business owners started from nothing, often with the support of Caisses Desjardins at the time, and built Quebec's SMEs.

One of those entrepreneurs is Robert Thibert, who started his business in a garage making rubber mud guards. Thibert has become a large company that distributes various vehicle parts. That is impressive enough. However, in addition to being a tough businessman, although I sometimes find that hard to believe, Robert Thibert is a gentle, attentive, loyal and generous man. For example, he has donated or raised close to $2 million for good causes in his region, in the area around Châteauguay.

Let us applaud the great generosity and business acumen of a Quebec builder. Every region of Quebec should have somebody like him.

I want to thank Mr. Thibert. The best is yet to come.

Pride

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate Pride season across Canada, we are reminded that the rights and freedoms many enjoy today should never be taken for granted. Around the world, identifying as 2SLGBTQIA+ remains illegal in 65 countries, and in 12 jurisdictions, individuals still face the death penalty simply for being who they are.

I would like to recognize the work of the Canadian Pride Caucus, which is well known for its work here at home, but it is also playing an increasingly important international role. Through engagement with foreign parliamentarians, human rights defenders, diplomatic missions and civil society organizations, the caucus helps advance Canada's commitment to dignity, inclusion and protection of human rights on the global scale.

I invite all colleagues from all parties to join us tomorrow at noon on Parliament Hill for the Pride flag raising. Let us come together to celebrate Pride season and reaffirm Canada's commitment to equality, inclusion and protecting human rights for all. I wish everyone a happy Pride.

The Economy

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. Now the Liberals want Canadians arguing over labels: technical recession, marginal recession, full recession. Even the Prime Minister himself admitted a technical recession and a recession are the same thing.

Families are not sitting around the kitchen table debating definitions. They are looking at higher mortgage payments, grocery bills that keep climbing and paycheques that are not keeping up. Our economy has shrunk in three of the last four quarters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says there is less than a 1% chance that this government meets its own fiscal anchor. Meanwhile, the Bank of Canada is warning that one in 10 Torontonians may not be able to renew their mortgages next year.

Canadians have worked hard, played by the rules and done everything asked of them. They should not be falling further behind because the government cannot control its spending. Canadians need a serious plan to restore growth, protect paycheques and bring hope back to the Canadian economy.

Islamophobia

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I joined members of our London community for the annual remembering “our London family” vigil and march, marking the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attack that took the lives of Salman, Madiha, Yumnah and Talat Afzaal because they were Muslim. I also had the privilege of spending time with members of the Afzaal family, whose courage and resilience continue to inspire all of us across our city.

I would like to thank the Youth Coalition Combating Islamophobia for organizing this important commemoration and for its continued advocacy to build a more inclusive and compassionate world. I also want to thank my colleagues who joined me in London for this event.

As we reflect on the legacy of the Afzaal family, let us recommit ourselves to confronting Islamophobia, rejecting hatred in all its forms and building a Canada where everyone can live safely and with dignity. The Afzaal family will never be forgotten.

The Economy

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister has driven Canada into a full-scale recession. Our economy has been shrinking for three of the last four quarters. We are the only G20 country in an economic downturn. While the government tries to downplay it, families know something is wrong. They feel it every day at the checkout counter. Manitobans are worried. I have spoken with farmers, families and small business owners, and they all say the same thing. Everything costs more: groceries, gas, fertilizer and housing.

At a time when we are seeing record food bank use, the Prime Minister is spending nearly $195,000 on luxury inflight catering. That is outrageous. The budget watchdog said the government has no chance of meeting its own fiscal targets. Growth is slowing, unemployment is growing, and businesses are leaving Canada.

Manitobans cannot afford the Prime Minister's out-of-touch leadership or his luxury lifestyle. It is time the Liberals replace their costly and inflationary policies with solutions that put Canadians and Manitobans first, not last.

2026 Dance World Cup

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a rising star from my riding of Sackville—Bedford—Preston.

Ten-year-old Elayce Clayton from North Preston is headed to Dublin, Ireland, this July to represent team Canada at the 2026 Dance World Cup, the second-largest dance competition in the world. Elayce's talent in dance has earned her a solo performance at the competition, where she is certain to make our community and country proud. Even at her young age, Elayce has been preparing for this moment her whole life. According to her mom, Elayce has been dancing on beat since she was just two years old.

With her training in the categories of jazz, contemporary and hip hop, Elayce has an exciting dance career ahead of her, but first, she is off to Dublin, and no matter where her passion for dance takes her from there, all of us in Nova Scotia will be cheering her on. I offer my congratulations to Elayce.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is the only leader in the entire G20 to plunge their economy into a recession. In his own words, he admitted a recession is two consecutive quarters of GDP decline.

StatsCan confirms that Canada is in a full-blown Liberal recession now. The PBO came out with a scathing report against the government's so-called fiscal anchors. They are all going to be broken. The Liberals are not going to meet their debt-to-GDP ratio. They are going to blow through their own fiscal projection by $7 billion, and they have less than a 1% chance of meeting their deficit-to-GDP ratio. There is a better chance of a Liberal actually answering a question in this place.

We have solutions. We would remove Liberal antidevelopment laws that block our resources and infrastructure. We would cut taxes for Canadians and Canadian businesses to unlock our Canadian growth, and remove capital gains taxes for companies that reinvest right here in Canada. The incompetent Liberal government just needs to do one thing: get out of the way.

Artemis II Mission

[Peter Schiefke, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the craft safely returned to earth on April 10, an exciting new chapter began in space exploration.

For the first time in over 50 years, humans left Earth's orbit and journeyed toward the moon, on the Artemis II mission, a mission that marked not only a major milestone in science and space exploration but also a proud moment for Canada. As the first Canadian to participate in a lunar mission, Colonel Jeremy Hansen joins the ranks of great explorers who have pushed the boundaries of what is possible. He and his fellow astronauts demonstrated the courage, dedication and excellence that define humanity's greatest achievements.

For Canadians, Colonel Hansen's example is a source of pride and inspiration. On behalf of my community, Vaudreuil, all members of the House, and all Canadians, I would like to congratulate Colonel Hansen and the entire Artemis II crew on their historic mission. I thank them for inspiring a new generation to push the boundaries of what is possible.

The Economy

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while 2.2 million Canadians line up at food banks, the Liberals are still refusing to let Canadians know that we are the only G20 nation in a recession. The apparent reason has something to do with decisions made over the past 11 years and the Liberals' lack of vision. Let us look at the facts: Economic growth is sluggish, productivity is weak and deficits already exceed what was forecast in the budget.

After a week of dodging the question, can the Prime Minister tell us, yes or no, if we are in a recession? The first step toward solving a problem is to acknowledge it.

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member opposite missed the stellar jobs report that came out last Friday. Had he read it, he would have seen that Canada has created some 88,000 jobs. However, there is more good news. In our province, Quebec, the province with the second-lowest unemployment rate, unemployment rates fell for women, youth and men. Across the country, this is good news for Canada. We are going to keep building Canada very strong.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may not be aware of this, but on May 15, 2016, when the Prime Minister was the governor of the Bank of England, he said that the technical definition of a technical recession is two consecutive quarters of flat or negative growth. Let us look at what is happening in Canada. The economy has slowed down in three of the last four quarters. That is not two quarters, but rather three of the last four quarters.

What will it take for the Prime Minister to realize that his plan is not working and that the Liberal government's actions over the past 11 years have led us straight into a recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, despite the good news we received last Friday regarding employment and unemployment, we know that there are still people in this country who are struggling with affordability. That is why, also on Friday, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit was paid into the bank accounts of 12 million Canadians, providing $543 to single people and $1,086 to couples with two children. That is one-time assistance to Canadians who need it.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and in the last few days, we have learned more about how bad the numbers actually are. Stats Canada reports that business investment has now fallen for five straight quarters. Labour productivity has declined in three of the last four quarters.

If the Prime Minister's plan is working, why are Canadian businesses seeing a continuous decline in investment and productivity? Will the Liberals admit that we are in a recession and that their plan is not working at all?

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

Mr. Speaker, what a great day it is to be Canadian when we have Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen on the Hill today. He brought this country together.

The Conservatives love numbers. I know they love numbers, so here is a number for them: 88,000. The Canadian economy created 88,000 jobs in May. That is an amazing accomplishment.

On this side of the House, we are going to focus on building a Canada strong. It is time for them to get on board.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton Gateway, AB]

Mr. Speaker, while it is good to see some positive job numbers, the fact is that we are still thousands of jobs below where we were at the beginning of this year.

Under this Liberal Prime Minister, household savings have fallen to their lowest level in years. Families are struggling to keep up with the cost of groceries, housing and other necessities. Some Canadians are now spending more than 120% of their income on food and rent alone. However, the Liberals claim that it is only a technical recession.

Will the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why they are only technically worse off after a decade with this Liberal government?

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

Mr. Speaker, actually, last Friday in Halifax, I had the honour to announce the one-time top-up payment of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which will pay 50% of an annual groceries and essentials benefit return.

On this side of the House, we are going to build a strong economy. I know that party loves the glass half empty, but on this side, the glass is half full. Our Prime Minister is building a strong economy for all Canadians. We are going to continue to invest in Canada and build Canada strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession right now, and it is no surprise why, with the Liberal Prime Minister's record. The economy has shrunk in three of the last four quarters. Labour productivity is getting worse. Investment is leaving the country. Government spending and debt are up. Even the Prime Minister's own hand-picked economic watchdog has had to downgrade the forecast for this country. A government that will not acknowledge the problem sure as heck cannot fix it.

Will the Prime Minister admit that Canada is in a recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member says that investment is leaving the country. How about the $20 billion that Shell just invested in this country? How about the $8 billion being invested for the Canadian Armed Forces in Goose Bay? How about the wind farms in Nova Scotia? How about the Darlington nuclear reactors in his province?

They say investment is leaving this country. They should wake up and see what is going on.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish the minister were as interested in the jobs of Canadians as he is in his own.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer said the Liberal government has a 1% chance of meeting its fiscal anchor, which is still better odds than getting a straight answer from the government in question period. Behind these numbers are people: people in food bank lines, people going on unemployment, young people who cannot get that critical first job. The London region, which includes St. Thomas and Elgin, has lost another 600 jobs in the last month, bringing it up to over 21,000 in the last two and a half years.

Maybe the minister will not tell me there is a recession, but will he tell these Canadians there is?

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

Mr. Speaker, what I am not interested in is his job. I am interested in the 18,000 jobs we have created at Darlington. I am interested in the 2,000 jobs we have created at Contrecœur. I am interested in the 8,000 jobs at LNG Canada. I am interested in the 5,000 jobs we are going to create at Ksi Lisims. I could keep going.

He should start worrying about his job.

Canadian Identity and Culture

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

Mr. Speaker, this time it is clear. The Prime Minister is abandoning the cultural sector in the face of American digital giants. Not only is he capitulating on the levy increase demanded from streaming platforms like Netflix, Prime, and Disney, but we also found out that he will require the CRTC to cancel every last bit of funding for Quebec and Canadian content. Even the meagre 5% that Ottawa was trying to impose is too much for the Prime Minister. In one fell swoop, he is undoing 10 years of fighting to defend our creators.

Is he at least aware that he is openly threatening the future of Quebec culture?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, only the Bloc Québécois would stand up in the House and vote against three-quarters of a billion dollars for culture, for CBC/Radio-Canada, for Telefilm Canada and for the National Film Board of Canada.

Next, the Bloc Québécois members are going to turn their noses up at the $600 million offered to a cultural sector that we love and must support. While they pretend to support culture, we are taking action.

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

Mr. Speaker, we predicted his appointment would be a disaster, and it is. The Prime Minister is once again abandoning Quebec culture because of Washington. The Union des artistes and the entire cultural community spoke out against it in the media on Saturday. Their letter is entitled “Chronicle of a disappearance foretold”, because our culture is sure to disappear unless the Prime Minister grows a proverbial spine.

The European Union collects levies from the web giants. It even lets its member states add to them. Why is the Prime Minister incapable of taking a stand?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more disastrous than that kind of question, especially coming from someone who was once the president of the Association québécoise de l'industrie du disque, du spectacle et de la vidéo, or ADISQ. Earlier, ADISQ said that it was a good investment.

We Liberals will invest in culture while the Bloc Québécois members keep pretending to help while doing nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, at least he prepares his answers. That is $3.4 billion that will be lost in the creative sector in Quebec and Canada. The minister is going to invest $600 million that he is taking directly out of taxpayers' pockets. He is talking about an announcement he made almost a year ago, before all the disastrous decisions made by the Prime Minister, who is kowtowing to the United States. He is even threatening the very existence of the convention on the diversity of cultural expressions, which originated in Quebec. That I know. I was there when it happened.

Why is the Prime Minister giving up on the existence of a distinct French-Canadian culture?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, while my colleague is spouting nonsense and talking about betrayal, we will continue to invest in Quebec and Canadian culture, not by waiting for years but by investing now.

It is a bit rich for the member opposite to be talking about betrayal when he shows up in the House of Commons every day to try to destroy the country that I love.

The Economy

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, under the costly Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. In the past few days, we have learned so much more about the dire state of our economy under his watch. While the cost of living skyrockets, our economy has shrunk for two quarters straight. Businesses are fleeing. Capital investment has plunged for five consecutive quarters, and Scotiabank warns that our growth is less than half that of the U.S.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that his policies caused the Liberal recession, or is he so out of touch that he thinks Canadians are just imagining their economic despair?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my opposition colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador that employment numbers are up in our province. I also want to remind her once again of the almost $1 billion for small craft harbours, growing our rural, coastal and indigenous communities that support our fisheries, an essential part of rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are also supports around housing, road construction, infrastructure, community centres, and on and on this goes. We are actually in a time of growth. I hope the member gets on board.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, clearly Liberal photo ops and empty Liberal announcements will not pay the mortgages of struggling Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer just confirmed that there is less than a 1% chance that the Liberal government hits its own deficit targets. It is already borrowing $7 billion more than it admitted, while driving up bloated bureaucracy to $86 billion. The broad economic picture is getting worse, not better.

Will the Liberal Prime Minister tell us, are we in a recession, or are Canadians just technically doing worse after a decade of Liberals being in power?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, Minister of Fisheries]

Mr. Speaker, I will once again remind the member opposite that when we get people to work, when we invest in our young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and Canadians with programs like the apprenticeship program, which walks with them throughout the journey to a Red Seal designation, and when we have construction jobs, it enhances our economy and it raises our employment numbers, which we are now seeing.

This is what it takes to build Canada strong. Empty slogans and negative responses are not helpful. I invite the member to work alongside us.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. There has been no answer as to why the government has failed us and brought us into a recession. First, it was a technical recession, but when Canadians pushed back, it became tariffs. When that did not stick, it became not enough spending and not enough immigration: What?

When Canadians have to steal 10 billion dollars' worth of groceries because of affordability, is it because they are only technically hungry?

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are seeing rents come down across Canada right now. We are seeing 20 straight months of rents declining, which is a positive trend. We are investing in the affordable housing that Canada needs to make sure that Canadians can afford housing. We are investing in discounts and rebates with the groceries and essentials benefit, benefits for children and food programs, across the board.

This side of the House votes for affordability. That side of the House votes against it.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have hope that one day the government will actually answer questions and take accountability, but it seems as though today is not that day.

When the news broke that Canada is in a recession, my very first thought was, “When is the government going to ask for another blank cheque?” It is already borrowing over its budget. The spring economic update said it would borrow $65 billion this year. However, the budget watchdog says it is going to be $72 billion.

I would like to know just how much the Prime Minister will tell Canadians it is going to take to fix it.

[Gregor Robertson, Liberal, Minister of Housing and Infrastructure and Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are making unprecedented investments in Canada's community infrastructure: $51 billion in the build communities strong fund, which is going into our communities for community centres, for housing-enabling infrastructure and for public transit. These are unprecedented investments to make Canada more affordable and to get jobs on the ground across Canada for our young people, with 100,000 new tradespeople who will be trained, supported by this House again. The other side of the House does not support any of this action. They are just negative. They should get with the program.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. The economy has shrunk in two consecutive quarters. Per capita GDP is only up 1.5% over seven years, and labour productivity has declined for four years straight. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer said there is a less than 1% chance that the government will meet its fiscal anchor.

Will the Prime Minister tell us if we are in a recession, or are Canadians only technically doing worse after a decade of Liberal rule?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, British Columbians are talking to me about the fact that they see we are facing headwinds for our economy right now. They see the U.S. charging tariffs that have not been seen since the Great Depression. They see the work that we are doing to invest in labour and to invest in good jobs for individuals, and they see the employment numbers coming up. British Columbians are optimistic, and they want us to continue the work we are doing.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Liberals caused these economic headwinds. The fact is that the Liberal Prime Minister is the only prime minister who is running this country, which is in a recession. Canadian banks are now warning of economic decline, with Scotiabank forecasting just 0.8% growth for Canada compared to 1.9% in the United States, while BMO projects even weaker growth, 0.5%, in 2026. It is not only that, but the Liberals are already borrowing billions of dollars over their projected costly budget.

Will the Prime Minister finally admit that Canada is technically in a real recession?

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, British Columbians see that we are facing headwinds caused by geopolitical events and tariffs. The U.S. has fundamentally changed its approach to trade, raising tariffs to levels that have not been seen since the Great Depression. Canadians want to see the steps that we are taking to address this. They want to see the diversification of trade. They want to see us invest in major projects, and they want to see us invest in Canadian workers. Why can our colleagues not join with us to make these investments?

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and the Prime Minister has zero respect for the sacrifices Canadians are making every day. We know families are cutting back. Businesses are delaying investment. Productivity is falling. A former central banker is driving the economy, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, appointed by him, is saying there is a 99% chance he is going to drive the economy into a ditch.

Will the Prime Minister admit Canada is in a recession, or does he believe Canadians are better off after 10 years of Liberal rule?

[Evan Solomon, Liberal, Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario]

Mr. Speaker, instead of gleefully running down the economy, which the opposition does every day, those members should help us build it up. They do not like to point out that 88,000 new jobs were created, as said in the May report. They do not like to point out that wages have grown faster than inflation every month since we took office. They do not like to point out that rents are down 9%. In Windsor, when we invest in Central Stampings and when we invest in Unique Tool & Gauge, which we have done, the Conservatives oppose investing in their own communities.

They should get with the program and build this country up together.

Health

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is overstepping once again. He wants to be able to re-authorize, by order in council, pesticides that have been banned on scientific grounds. In a provision buried in the omnibus budget Bill C‑30, he wants to give himself the right to overturn Health Canada's decisions by invoking undefined concepts such as economic security. Researchers and health and environmental organizations are unanimous: this is an anti-science measure serving the interests of large agrochemical companies. They are here today to ask for one thing.

Will the government remove this provision from Bill C‑30?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I would like to say something to my colleague, and I will be very clear. The health of Canadians will always be the Canadian government's top priority. That said, we can also work with the agricultural sector and protect Canada's food sovereignty. As I always say, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are hiding a measure in Bill C‑30 that allows pesticides banned for scientific reasons to be re-authorized. This is the biggest setback since the Pest Control Products Act was created in 2002. Not only is the Minister of Health not upset about this, she even boasted that she was the only minister to ever attend a CropLife Canada event. CropLife Canada is an association of agrochemical companies that includes the pesticide giant Bayer.

Why is the Minister of Health standing up for the profits of multinationals instead of standing up for public health?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency do indeed fall under Health Canada. It is therefore perfectly normal for me to engage with the sectors I represent, because I need to meet with them to understand their concerns.

On the first point the member raised, I do not understand, because normally, when I am responsible for something, I have to meet with stakeholders. I will say it again: We will never authorize a product that would put anyone's life at risk.

The Economy

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us talk facts. Under this Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country to fall into a recession. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is reining in her growth forecasts. The RBC, TD Bank and BMO have downgraded their outlooks. Canadians look on as their standard of living erodes. The Prime Minister, however, still refuses to utter the word “recession”.

I am therefore going to ask him this simple question again: Are we in a recession or are Canadians only theoretically poorer than before, after a decade of Liberal rule?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, facts are stubborn things. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development anticipates that Canada will achieve the second-strongest growth of the G7. Over the past year, foreign direct investment in Canada reached twice what it was for our G7 peers. For 38 months, wages have risen faster in Canada than inflation. On top of it all, one especially stubborn fact that displeases the Conservatives is last month's good news for Canada's economy with the creation of 88,000 jobs, because Canada's economy is a lot more resilient. This resilience is due in part to the efforts of this government.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is another figure. There are 45,000 fewer Canadians in the workforce than at the beginning of the year. These facts speak for themselves.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer just completely dismantled the economic narrative put forward by the Prime Minister and the minister opposite: We are facing lower growth, higher deficits and declining productivity, and we are the only G20 country that is in a recession. What is worse, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that there is a 99% chance that the government will fail to meet its own fiscal anchor.

The Liberal Prime Minister presents himself as a great economist. How would he describe a situation in which the economy is shrinking, Canadians are getting poorer and the government has no chance of meeting its anchor? Canadians call that a recession.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Conservatives are overjoyed whenever we face even the slightest headwind in the Canadian economy. However, on this side of the House, we wake up in the morning and ask ourselves what we can do despite external circumstances, despite the illegal and unjustified tariff war we are facing. What can we do to build Canada's economy?

We are investing in Nouveau Monde Graphite, the biggest graphite mine in the G7. We are investing in high-speed rail between Quebec City and Toronto. We are designating the Port of Québec as an international container port. We are investing in 150 Airbus aircraft, and we created 88,000 jobs last month. That is what we are doing on this side of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief reminder for the minister. The country's best years were under the Conservatives.

Slower growth and a higher deficit: That is the alarming assessment from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The result is that GDP per capita growth in Canada remains among the lowest in the G20; the Canadian economy has contracted over the last two quarters; and under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in recession.

I have a simple multiple-choice question for the Prime Minister: Has Canada entered a recession or a technical recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are focused on economic growth and we are working hard to achieve it. Our plan is working. The youth unemployment rate has fallen by nearly 1%. That means 22,000 jobs for our young people. What is more, we are investing $6 billion in the skilled trades to recruit, hire and train 100,000 young people. We on this side of the House are building Canada strong for everyone.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I asked whether we were in a technical recession or a recession. Once again, there is no answer. In order to solve a problem, we first have to acknowledge that a problem exists. However, the Liberals still refuse to acknowledge that Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Liberals are going to add $318 billion to the national debt by 2031, assuming no other measures are put in place. There is no limit on the Liberal credit card.

Will the government finally put an end to its mismanagement, which has, unfortunately, plunged Canada into a recession?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government has a plan to transform the foundation of our economy and make it more resilient. We are creating tens of thousands of jobs, particularly in Darlington and Contrecoeur.

We are investing in hospitals, community centres, public transit and affordable housing. We are creating the conditions for long-term prosperity and building Canada strong from coast to coast to coast.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, under this Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's report confirms that the deficit could be as high as $72 billion in 2026. Meanwhile, Canadians' purchasing power has stagnated since 2015. For Quebeckers, that means that groceries, mortgages and gas are more expensive.

Are these technical bills, or will the Prime Minister admit that Canada is in a recession?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, since this summer, we have created more than 165,000 jobs here in Canada. In May alone, 88,000 jobs were created. If we look at the United States, for example, we see that Canada is creating jobs. The number of jobs created per capita in Canada is almost double that of the United States. It is great to see that so many Canadians are optimistic and have a positive outlook on the future.

Youth

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, young people deserve to grow up in safe, united communities brimming with opportunities.

Could the Secretary of State for Children and Youth explain for the House what the historic agreement reached last week with Quebec means for young people in Quebec and Canada?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Terrebonne for her question.

Our government invested $10 billion in Quebec, and young people are going to reap the benefits. We are going to build modern school campuses, hospitals and emergency rooms. We are going to improve public transit to take people to school and to work. We are building a strong economy for our youth and for our future.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and the state of the economy is dire. The economy has shrunk three out of the last four quarters, per capita GDP shows annualized growth of only 0.2% per year over the last seven years, capital investment has declined for five quarters in a row and bankruptcies have hit rates not seen since 2009.

At what point do the Liberals stop calling these technicalities and start admitting that Canadians were promised growth and fiscal responsibility but got a recession instead?

[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)]

Mr. Speaker, it is times like this that remind me of the famous pragmatic philosopher William James, who famously said, “Pessimism leads to weakness, optimism to power.” Perhaps there is no quote that could better explain the misfortunes of the Conservative Party of Canada in the House. However, let us be honest. Despite the headwinds, there is much to be optimistic about in the Canadian economy: 1.5% in consumer spending, wages outpacing inflation every month this government has been in power and 88,000 jobs in May. That is 800—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, if denial could grow the economy, we would certainly be leading in the G20. Canada is in a recession. Scotiabank has forecast growth of just 0.8% and BMO 0.5% for this year. The Bank of Canada warns that one in 10 homeowners in Toronto might not be able to renew their mortgage. While the Liberals may try to dismiss this recession, Canadians cannot ignore losing their jobs and businesses or delaying retirement.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge these recessionary conditions Canadians are facing are real, or are those just technicalities too?

[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)]

Mr. Speaker, I want Canadians to realize what the Conservatives choose to spend their time on in a time of great anxiety and uncertainty. They choose to amplify bad news in our economy. They choose to be pessimistic at a time when Canadians need optimism.

Canadians need a government that lifts them up. That is what our government is doing by investing in 12 million Canadians with the groceries and essentials benefit. We are celebrating 88,000 new jobs in the Canadian economy, exceeding expectations by 800%. That is the kind of government Canadians deserve.

They deserve much better—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession, and in the past few days, we have learned much more about how dire the state of our economy is under his watch. On Saturday night, in a Lake Cowichan pub, workers told me their biggest worry was affording groceries, but the Liberals' recycled grocery stunt cuts off at only $59,000 for a couple, meaning that full-time workers are shut out.

The Prime Minister laughed at suffering Canadians in this House last week. Will he stop laughing and start caring so that Canadians can afford to eat?

[Stephanie McLean, Liberal, Secretary of State (Seniors)]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve facts, not Conservative fear. Labelling the economy without context does not help workers or businesses. The Bank of Canada has, in fact, cautioned against doing that.

Economies around the world are facing global uncertainty, but Canada is weathering these global headwinds better than many of our peers. Our economy is stable, jobs are being created and we continue to support Canadians through these headwinds.

We will remain focused on affordability, economic growth and supporting jobs, while the Conservatives remain focused on fearmongering.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. The economy has shrunk for two straight quarters, and in three of the last four quarters. Productivity is declining. Businesses are struggling. Families are working hard and unable to get ahead. Young people feel locked out of jobs, housing and starting a family. Canada's economy is getting worse, not better.

Will the Prime Minister tell us if we are in a recession, or does he believe Canadians are only technically struggling to pay their bills?

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the Conservatives' photocopier is out of toner, because they have all received the exact same photocopy of the exact same question. It is too bad that the Conservative leader does not trust his MPs to ask an original question. Perhaps they might ask about their local businesses or something that is happening in their own province. It is the same question over and again.

We have to stick to the facts. Canada's economy is growing. In fact, Canada has surpassed the U.S. when it comes to having a higher employment rate. The Canadian economy, because Canadians are working hard, added 88,000 jobs in the last month.

We have a plan and we are working hard to make sure that Canadians are getting ahead.

[Amanpreet S. Gill, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberal Prime Minister, Canada has become the only country in the G20 in a recession. Businesses are no longer investing in Canada. Even the banks have lost faith. Scotiabank and BMO are projecting growth at less than half of that of the United States.

The first step to fixing any problem is admitting that there is one. Will the Liberal Prime Minister admit to Canadians that we are in a recession, or will he continue to tell them they are only technically suffering after a decade of Liberal rule?

[Eleanor Olszewski, Liberal, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Alberta on the Conservative benches must have missed the latest job numbers for our province. Employment in Alberta is up 104,000 compared to this time last year. It is the strongest year-over-year jobs growth of any province. This is thanks to resilient Alberta workers and businesses that are building, hiring, investing and helping to drive Canada's economy forward.

Conservatives from Alberta should stop talking down their own constituents and acknowledge the work they are doing to build a better economy.

Health

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals on the health committee are blocking an investigation into the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. For over a month, they have stopped the committee from holding any new meetings to get answers. They have shut down meetings. They have turned off committee cameras. They have blocked the health minister from testifying. Now, in a disgusting political stunt, they are using Canadians suffering with HIV as an excuse to bury the truth.

If the Liberals have nothing to hide, will they come clean today and allow a full investigation into the PrescribeIT $300-million scandal?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will say it again. There were governance issues with Canada Health Infoway. Someone from the federal government sits on the board of directors, and the necessary measures were taken. The CEO has left, and we have an acting director right now.

The people involved are currently reviewing the mandates together to see how we can do a better job of solving the governance issues.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, despite handing 300 million tax dollars over to Canada Health Infoway for the government's failed PrescribeIT project, we can see that the Liberals have no interest in finding out why or how this money was wasted. The Liberals have voted down every attempt to get the answers.

The Conservatives have been clear. We will work through the summer to get to the bottom of this. Canadians want to hear the minister and the former CEO provide testimony.

Will the minister tell her Liberal colleagues to end their obstruction and get to the bottom of this scandal?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my answer, but first, I would like to talk about the Standing Committee on Health's study on AIDS, which the Conservatives are blocking. I just want to tell them that there is a national crisis, particularly in Manitoba. That is the first thing I would say.

The second thing I would say is that, yes, the board is reviewing the governance and the mandate. It will do so and report back by the end of the summer.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada Health Infoway blew $300 million of taxpayer money on PrescribeIT. They have blown $1 billion over 10 years with nothing tangible to show for it. For six weeks, they have failed to produce the documents the health committee has ordered them to produce.

The health minister now says this totally dysfunctional organization will undergo a mandate review. Can she tell us how long the review will take and how much money the review will cost? Why does she not take the obvious decision today and pull their $50 million of yearly funding now?

[Marjorie Michel, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The first thing I have to say is that, in the Canadian government, we are careful with every dollar we spend. That is why, when we realized that Canada Health Infoway was not completely fulfilling its mission, we decided to halt funding. That is the first thing.

However, it is also important to know that the Canadian health care system needs to be modernized, and Canada Health Infoway, despite its governance issues, did a good job. The AI scribe program has really had a lot of—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. member for Red Deer.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is week eight of the Liberals' obstruction at the health committee. They are desperately covering up the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal and the hundreds of millions wasted on a failed program that made Liberal insiders rich and did not fill prescriptions.

Angry Canadians are calling out the Liberals and asking them to stop the obstruction, but apparently they are more afraid of getting yelled at by the Prime Minister again. The Liberals must end this two-month cover-up so that the Conservatives can get the answers Canadians deserve.

What are the Liberals hiding?

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

Mr. Speaker, these questions, written by the—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

There is too much noise. I cannot hear.

The hon. government House leader can start from the beginning.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, these questions, written by the Leader of the Opposition, are not really convincing anyone.

What is convincing people is this attitude coming from the Conservative benches that what is a headwind and a challenge for Canada ought to be blamed on Canada. The “blame Canada brigade”, as people are calling them, skips in here at any hint of bad news for the Canadian economy, but when we remind them about 88,000 new jobs, they go into hiding.

Hooray for Canada.

The Economy

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government's goal is to build a stronger and more resilient Canadian economy to protect our jobs and industries. As this plan is rolled out, we are also providing support and assistance to make life more affordable.

Can the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement provide the House with information on the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit and how it will help Canadian families?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. Finally, someone asked me a good question. My colleague is right to highlight this initiative.

Last Friday, June 5, 12 million Canadians received the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, including three million Quebeckers. For a family of four, this can amount to up to $1,890 a year to help cover the cost of groceries.

That was not the only good news last Friday. Canada has created 88,000 jobs and, for the 38th consecutive month, wages are rising faster than inflation.

Our plan to build a strong Canada and a prosperous economy for everyone is working.

Public Safety

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Durham police just exposed a major criminal tourism ring, laying 1,500 charges against dozens of non-citizen criminals, primarily from Romania and India. Today, there are even more reports about the Bishnoi Gang, a violent extortion racket that has been recruiting Indian foreign nationals whom the Liberals let into Canada on foreign student visas.

The Liberals' lax border policies and catch-and-release bail policies have turned Canada into a playground for international criminals. Which minister will finally be fired for this disgusting failure?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Durham police, Peel police and many police forces around this country that are working very hard, day in and day out, to crack down on organized crime. They have laid many arrests and many charges, and the criminal justice system will be dealing with these criminals.

These are organized international crime groups. Many countries are suffering from their coordinated efforts, but Canada is cracking down and will punish these criminals.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Durham police are busy because the Liberals lack screening policies, lack a criminal justice system and let these people into the country to begin with, which is a problem. It is the same light-touch process that recently granted a visitor permit to an IRGC terrorist.

What is the best way to stop non-citizen criminals from committing crimes in Canada? It is preventing them from entering the country in the first place. Can the Liberals tell the victims of these violent, non-citizen criminals how they got into Canada to begin with?

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, do members know what victims in my community ask me? They ask me how long investigations will take. In order to speed up investigations and provide further tools to law enforcement, they need Bill C-22 to pass. However, the Conservatives in this House have been delaying that bill and have been on the side of social media giants, instead of on the side of Canadians so that public safety can be served.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody in Canada is buying that. Everyone sees what happened here. The Liberals had mass immigration and open border policies coupled with a woke judiciary and catch-and-release bail policies for a decade. Now, people across the country, law-abiding Canadians and newcomers alike, are paying the price.

The Liberals rejected our common-sense Conservative bill that would have ensured that non-citizens convicted of serious crimes are sentenced based on their crimes, not on their passports. Why would they do that? Why are they continuing this craziness and allowing non-citizen criminal rings to continue to harass—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The hon. secretary of state.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Mr. Speaker, these crime groups are linked to many countries around the world, and law enforcement is finding that these criminals are operating not just from within Canada, but from many different countries.

Do members know what would help? It would help to be able to investigate these crimes within Canada and be able to pass Bill C-22. We are one of the only western countries that does not have a legal access framework.

When will the Conservatives become tough on crime? The government is ready to do the work.

Employment

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, families in my riding of Milton East—Halton Hills South woke up to good news. May's labour force survey showed robust job gains, which is a promising sign that our economic plan is bearing fruit. Also, the CRA began issuing payments under our government's enhanced Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which is equal to a 50% increase over the previous GST credit.

Can the Secretary of State for the CRA and Financial Institutions update this House on how our economic plan is setting a long-term trajectory for growth and resilience, while also making life more affordable for Canadians here and now?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Milton East—Halton Hills South's question is another great one today.

Last week in Halifax, I was proud to announce that the CRA began issuing the top-up groceries and essentials benefit. By introducing that benefit, we are going to build a strong Canada. We are going to support families. We are going to build a strong economy. We see evidence of that with 88,000 jobs created just last month.

The glass is half empty; the Conservatives are going to talk down our economy. We are going to build Canada strong.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Bill from the valley is a home renovation contractor. He called me to tell me that, by the end of May, he is usually fully booked for the entire season. It is June, and he has just two projects booked. People are more worried about putting food on the table than about fixing a leaky roof or a broken porch. He thinks he may have to take on an extra line of work.

Will the Prime Minister tell Bill that Canada is in a recession, or is he going to tell Bill that he is just technically running out of work to do?

[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)]

Mr. Speaker, there are many signs of progress in the Canadian economy. There is a 1.5% increase in consumer spending, and GDP per capita is up almost 1%. Wages have outpaced inflation, and the new May job numbers came out just last Friday. I know the Conservatives want to completely and wilfully ignore those numbers, but there are 88,000 net new jobs in the Canadian economy, 800% beyond expectations and recovering 80% of the job losses due to the tariff threats from the United States.

That is good news for Canada. We are building the foundations.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, Alberta is considering several routes for a new diluted bitumen pipeline and export terminals through northern British Columbia, yet the Nisga'a Nation says that neither Alberta nor the federal Liberal government has discussed any oil pipeline proposal with the Nisga'a government. Reconciliation cannot mean making decisions first and talking to first nations later.

Will the government commit today to meaningful consultation, accommodation and free, prior and informed consent of affected first nations, and to upholding the north coast oil tanker ban?

[Rebecca Alty, Liberal, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations]

Mr. Speaker, when the proponent has a path, there will be the duty to consult and, if necessary, accommodate. However, there is no project so far, so the duty to consult has not begun yet.

The House resumed from June 4 consideration of Bill C-16, An Act to amend certain Acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters (child protection, gender-based violence, delays and other measures), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Protecting Victims Act

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:09 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-16.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

The question is on Motion No. 1.

A vote on this motion also applies to Motion No. 3.

(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #135

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare Motion No. 1 defeated. I therefore declare Motion No. 3 defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 2.

(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #136

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare Motion No. 2 defeated.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division, please.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #137

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

Government Response to Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8)(a), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions. These returns will be tabled in an electronic format.

Foreign Affairs

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) and consistent with the policy on the tabling of treaties in Parliament, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement between the Government of Canada and the European Space Agency on the Protection of Classified Information”, done at Colorado Springs on April 14, 2026.

Interparliamentary Delegations

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: the report of the Canada-France Inter-parliamentary Association regarding its mission to Paris, France, from March 4 to 8, 2024; the report of the Canada-France Inter-Parliamentary Association regarding the 80th anniversary of D-Day at Juno Beach in Normandy, France, from June 2 to 8, 2024; the report of the Canada-France Inter-parliamentary Association regarding the 50th annual meeting held in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and Montreal, Quebec, from September 1 to 6, 2025; and the report of the Canada-France Inter-parliamentary Association regarding the ninth Paris conference held in Paris, France, from December 15 to 17, 2025.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Bilateral Mission in Warsaw, Poland; Riga, Latvia; and Tallinn, Estonia, from November 9 to 15, 2024; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, on September 2 and 3, 2024; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region in Oulu, North Ostrobothnia, Finland, from September 22 to 24, 2025; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the Meeting of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region and Arctic Frontiers 2025: Beyond Borders Conference in Tromsø, Norway, from January 25 to 28, 2025; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the First Part of the 2025 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from January 27 to 31, 2025; the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the Third Part of the 2025 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from June 23 to 27, 2025; and the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association respecting its participation at the meeting of the Fourth Part of the 2025 Ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, France, from September 29 to October 3, 2025.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie—Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the following reports: the report of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group on the 46th General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from September 16 to 22, 2025; the report of the Canada-China Legislative Association and the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group on the 45th General Assembly of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly in Vientiane, Laos, from October 17 to 22, 2024; the report of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group on the Co-Chairs' Annual Visit to Tokyo, Fukuoka and Kumamoto, Japan, February 17 to 22, 2025; and the report of the Canada-Japan Inter-Parliamentary Group on the 23rd Bilateral Meeting in Vancouver, British Columbia, and Whitehorse, Yukon, from September 1 to 6, 2025.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the orders for the second reading of private members' public bills originating in the Senate, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

Liaison

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Liaison Committee, entitled “Committee Activities and Expenditures April 1, 2025-March 31, 2026”.

Justice and Human Rights

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, two reports of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The first is the sixth report, in relation to Bill C‑223, an act to amend the Divorce Act, in which the committee requests an extension to hear from witnesses and complete its study of the bill.

The second is the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, in relation to Bill C‑235, an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to increasing parole ineligibility. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(3)(a), a motion to concur in the sixth report is deemed moved, the question deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Wednesday, June 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Somali Heritage Month Act

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑283, An Act to establish Somali Heritage Month.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce Bill C‑283, an act respecting Somali Heritage Month. If passed, the bill would declare July of every year Somali heritage month across Canada. I would like to thank the member for York South—Weston—Etobicoke for co-sponsoring the bill with me, and I hope members on all sides of the chamber will support the bill.

Canada is home to many Canadians of Somali heritage. They have left and continue to leave an important mark on our country and on communities across the country, and they have touched our economic, social and political life. Somali heritage month would give us an opportunity to celebrate that heritage and the role that Canada has played in supporting Somali Canadians, and to celebrate their contributions to Canada. Every July, it would give some Somali Canadians another reason to celebrate their Canadian pride and another reason to say, “Somalia hanoolaato”.

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

Canada Labour Code

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (replacement workers).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to close a loophole in the Canada Labour Code that allows employers to use outside managers as replacement workers during strikes and lockouts. I thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for seconding the bill.

In the last Parliament, the NDP secured long overdue federal anti-scab legislation to restore fairness to collective bargaining and to protect workers' rights. However, those rights are undermined when employers can bring in managers from other locations to perform the work of striking or locked-out employees, tilting the balance and prolonging disputes. We saw this during a recent Rogers strike in Abbotsford, British Columbia, where United Steelworkers technicians spent more than four months on the picket line while outside managers performed their work as scabs. No worker should have their right to strike undermined in this way.

The bill would close that loophole and protect free and fair collective bargaining for Canadian workers. I urge all members to support it.

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

Wartime Service Recognition Act

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

moved that Bill S-246, An Act respecting the recognition of wartime service, be read the first time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to introduce at first reading Bill S-246, the wartime service recognition act. The bill would provide for the development of a national framework for the recognition of certain military service as wartime service, and a timeline for designation of wartime service if it meets the criteria, going back to the Korean War and for future conflicts.

The bill passed unanimously in the other place. It follows decades of advocacy by veterans for recognition of modern wartime service and would mean that future veterans would not need to fight for their own recognition. Canadian Armed Forces members put their life on the line for our freedom, and the bill would make sure they are properly recognized.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, and concluding on Friday, June 19, 2026, the House shall continue to sit until midnight, except on Fridays, when the House shall continue to sit until 8 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The question is on the motion.

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.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we would like a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, June 9, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

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 13th 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. The 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 communities. I fully support the good people of Dauphin.

Agriculture

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling yet another petition from residents in and around the Indian Head area in southern Saskatchewan who are urging the government to reverse its terrible decision to shut down the Indian Head agricultural research farm.

The farm has over 100 years' worth of data on things from soil conditions to moisture levels and all kinds of factors that affect the growing season. This centre has produced hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of economic benefit, not just to the agricultural sector in Saskatchewan but all across Canada, with the valuable research it has produced and innovations in everything from crop varieties to pest management.

The Liberal government, which managed to find money for gender-just rice farming in Vietnam, cannot seem to find enough funds to keep this important centre open. The petitioners call on the government to reverse its terrible decision to keep the agricultural research farm open for generations to come.

Trans-Canada Highway

[Gaétan Malette, Conservative, Kapuskasing—Timmins—Mushkegowuk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to table another handful of petitions, this time signed by people from Smooth Rock Falls, Ontario. They are continuing their calls to action for the government to designate the Trans‑Canada Highway as a project of national interest.

Every day, hundreds of travellers put their lives at risk on Trans‑Canada Highway 11, a vital artery connecting communities in northern Ontario.

Smooth Rock Falls is just one of many communities supporting the petition, and this will be continuing, from village to village, until there is action.

Floor Crossing

[Jamil Jivani, Conservative, Bowmanville—Oshawa North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of Canadians who are concerned with the continued economic mismanagement of our country and who are observing that the Liberal government is using its majority of seats now in the House of Commons to continue mismanaging our economy and putting young Canadians in a tough position.

Canadians are looking for accountability, and they are looking to have confidence in the democratic process renewed by having the Parliament of Canada Act amended so that MPs who have left their party and crossed the floor, handing the Liberal Prime Minister a majority, will have to face their voters in a by‑election.

Firearms

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to rise in the House to represent Canada's most beautiful region, Beauce. Today, I have the honour of presenting petition e‑7232, signed by 10,354 hunters and sport shooters.

Over the past few months, I have had the opportunity to meet with the constituents, federations of hunters and anglers, gun clubs and responsible firearm owners across Quebec who signed this petition. Their message is clear: The gun buyback program is a huge expenditure that does not address the root cause of violence in Canada. The petitioners firmly believe that mental health and support for people in distress are the real pillars of preventing violence and strengthening safety in our communities.

Legal gun owners are already subject to strict rules. Rather than wasting public funds on confiscating legally acquired assets, the government needs to invest where the needs are most urgent in our communities. As long as the protection of our communities is ignored, the problem will continue. That is why the 10,354 petitioners are calling on the government to put an end to the firearm buyback program and redirect the funds immediately to actual services, such as support for community organizations, mental health care and resources for people experiencing homelessness.

Questions Passed as Orders for Return

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

Mr. Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1091, 1092, 1093, 1094, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1099, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1104 and 1105 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—The Government's Fiscal Policies

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

Mr. Speaker, in terms of the opposition day motion, I thought it was really important for us to try to paint a different picture from what the Conservatives have been trying to tell Canadians, day in and day out.

Canada as an economy, as a community, is actually doing quite well in comparison to other G20 countries. We continue to work every day on building a stronger and healthier economy. We often talk about how important it is to have a strong economy. In fact, we have had the Prime Minister clearly indicate that we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7. We are committed to doing that, to putting in the effort and the work necessary in order to achieve that goal.

Canada has what the world wants in a very real and tangible way. I do not say that lightly because, at the end of the day, if we were to talk to the Prime Minister or any of the ministers who have been travelling abroad, in particular the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Industry or the Minister of Foreign Affairs, we would find that, wherever they go, they constantly hear about how others want to invest in and be a part of the Canadian economy or society, in some fashion or another.

That should come as no surprise to members opposite. We were very aggressive in the last federal election just over a year ago when Canadians chose a new government and a new Prime Minister with a very clear mandate to build stronger relationships and look at ways to export our products beyond the Canada‑U.S.A. border.

It is truly encouraging to see the degree to which, in that last 12 months, we have been very successful at reaching out and getting trade and defence agreements with a number of nations around the world. We have now had, for example, legislative measures here that have passed in Indonesia and the U.K., or England and Northern Ireland. It was really quite encouraging to see legislation and other aspects of trade being expanded. That is not failing to recognize the importance of U.S.‑Canada trade relations. In fact, what we have seen is a substantial increase in trade between Canada and the United States at the same time. I think it is worthy to note the degree to which we as a nation rely on trade.

If people wonder why we have a government that is so focused on trying to expand opportunities, they should get an understanding and appreciation of the number of jobs that are very much dependent on trade. I have said this in the past. Canada makes up roughly 0.25% of the world population, yet we contribute far more in terms of trade. That should be in the back of our minds as we look at ways we can build that stronger and healthier economy. Exports and two-way trade matter. They mean literally hundreds of thousands of jobs, but that is not all that, as a government, we are acting on. We have a government that realizes that it is one thing to talk about improving and increasing exports and trade opportunities, but we also have to be able to invest in and build Canada's infrastructure.

We have a government that is very much focused on building that infrastructure in major projects. When we have a Prime Minister who tells not only Canadians but the world that we want to be an energy superpower, it means that we have to be prepared to look internally within Canada to see how we will achieve this.

Factor that into trade and how important it is that we work with other jurisdictions, and what we have seen is a team Canada approach at building a stronger and healthier economy. This is because when we talk about those major projects, what we are really talking about is working with stakeholders, provinces, territories and indigenous leaders and looking at projects that are going to help build that economy, whether it is in the energy area or dealing with exports of widgets, which is absolutely critically important.

We can ultimately see those tangible results. We have relationships with those provincial entities, territories, indigenous leaders and other stakeholders and we have seen major projects in every region of our great nation. I can talk about wind energy from Atlantic Canada and other energy sources. In the past, I have highlighted the expansion of the port of Montreal. This is a major investment that is going to allow for a lot more in terms of Canada's ability to export.

I can talk about nuclear energy in Ontario. A while back, I was in the Philippines as part of a government trade promotion mission, where I sat around the table with representatives from, I believe, the Ontario government, along with the federal government. Most importantly, there were representatives for nuclear energy potential in the Philippines. They were talking about how they were looking at Canada as a way to expand their nuclear energy supply, in particular, in Ontario, and that is why we see those federal investments. We can play a strong leadership role not only for Ontario or within Canada, but also abroad.

Continuing to move from east to west, we can talk about Manitoba and the mining opportunities there through major projects. A personal favourite of mine, and I know the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski has been a very strong advocate for it, is the port of Churchill. We can talk about opportunities.

Even the Premier of Manitoba is on board, promoting and encouraging opportunities with the port of Churchill. It would provide us, I believe, the opportunity to expand the port to be a year-round port, with the potential of exporting LNG and other types of minerals, scarce minerals, and other items. For the first time in generations, we have seen significant movement, and there is a sense of hope and optimism that we are moving in the right direction by working together and collaborating.

We can move on to Saskatchewan, where we can talk about copper mines, canola and potash. The federal government is working well with the provincial government in recognizing the potential that Saskatchewan can materialize for the entire nation.

With Alberta, we signed an MOU not that long ago. It was concerning, given the number of MPs from Alberta, that the Conservatives were not on board with that MOU. Now we have an implementation agreement, which is even a step further, because the Government of Canada, working in collaboration with the Province of Ontario, is in a great position to ultimately see more energy sources coming out of Alberta. Working collaboratively can make a difference.

We can go to British Columbia. British Columbia leads the nation on things like LNG and mining. I am thinking of copper and other things. We can go into the north, where we are investing billions into northern economic sovereignty. There, we are seeing the promotion of energy can be a resource for actual sovereignty by promoting growth, in terms of our militarization in one form or another, in terms of the north and protecting sovereignty.

The bottom line is that the federal government is demonstrating very clearly how, working collaboratively, we can build a stronger and healthier economy and society that all Canadians will be able to take part in.

This is a wonderful opportunity. Political entities at different levels of government and municipalities of all different sizes are coming together and recognizing, based on the last national election, that it is time for collaboration. That is what we are witnessing, and there are tangible results there. We have seen other federal initiatives promoting investment, which is so warranted that we are fighting for it, such as the sovereign wealth fund, better known as the Canada Strong fund.

The sovereign wealth fund has the potential to be there in a very real and tangible way for Canadians; it also affords Canadians the opportunity to be part of a wealth fund. I believe that the generation of this fund and having it as a resource in Calgary, where we have the Major Projects Office, can be a fantastic asset. We will be able to work in that collaborative fashion, making sure, where we can, that these major projects get off the ground and that they are sustained and highly successful.

We have also seen a significant commitment to investments in Canada over the last year. We are not talking about millions of dollars; we are talking about billions of dollars in commitments. That is of great significance, because we recognize the times. We recognize that we need to think beyond the Canada‑U.S.A. border. At the same time, we are also looking, in terms of the United States, at ways we can enhance that relationship. There is a great deal of back-and-forth between American and Canadian politicians and the populations of the respective countries. There is a relationship that is exceptionally deep, between Canada and the United States, and we are going to continue to see that relationship well into the future.

At the same time, it is important that we do not capitulate, that Canada stands strong and firm and ultimately achieves the best deal it can under the current administration. Contrary to what we might hear from across the aisle, if it takes time, we are prepared to put in the time. We are prepared to put in the resources. We have a cabinet and ministers who are providing the lead on this file and the capability to deliver for Canadians. That is what we will do on that particular file, recognizing that we exchange nearly $3.6 billion a day, I believe, between our two great nations.

What is encouraging is that trade has actually increased year over year, so it is not fair to say or to imply that there is anything otherwise taking place with respect to international trade beyond Canada and the U.S. or between Canada and the U.S. The Prime Minister and the government are very much aware of how important that trade file is for both nations. We are very much aware of the importance of developing, promoting and materializing those major projects. It is something we are committed to doing.

I have a quote I want to share with members. It is an important quote that I believe really says a lot, since the last national election just over a year ago. The International Monetary Fund, the IMF, is a fund that is, in essence, an organization that over 190 countries contribute to. It carries a great deal of influence around the world. Here is what it had to say about Canada and our approach: that we are “focus[ed] strategically on investment that [is] progrowth”. This organization is projecting that Canada will have the second-strongest growth in the G7 in 2026.

When we put it in that perspective and look, from an economic point of view, at what we have been able to accomplish over the last year, it is leading to the types of results we need to see. As was pointed out on a number of occasions, in May alone, 88,000 jobs were created. Canada is in a great fiscal position to be able to do the things we need to do to support Canadians, such as the groceries and essentials benefit, which is providing support for Canadians. In fact, just last week, 11 million families benefited from that particular program. We reduced the tax on gasoline, the federal excise tax, by suspending it until Labour Day. The issue of affordability is important to this government.

I realize I am running out of time. Hopefully, maybe in response to a question, I will be able to provide more details on the environment. However, whenever I talk about economic opportunities, advancements and major projects, I truly believe, as the government does, that sustainable development means the environment, with indigenous people being involved. It means including provinces and territories, working collaboratively, and together we can, in fact, build Canada strong—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I missed my root canal today.

I want to talk about my colleague across the aisle's saying that he has recognized the economy. The Liberal Party has failed Canadian people for far too long. The Liberals had this opportunity 10 years ago, but they are just recognizing it now. The failures have prevented Canadians from being insulated from the challenges we are facing globally.

I have just never heard such drivel in my entire life. The Liberal government has failed and has missed opportunities, and it is like a brand new thing to them. It is unbelievable. This should have been done 10 years ago. Canadians would not be in food lines. In my own riding, people are now being interviewed to go to the food bank. How has the government insulated and prevented Canadians from going through that? It is an economic mess.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but I guess the member is being consistent with the leader of the Conservative Party, who likes to go around Canada and tell Canadians that Canada is broken, that the sky is falling and that it is a massive darkness. A Conservative MP stands up, and we get the opinion that a black cloud is going over Canada.

I would contrast Canada, its economy and overall performance, with any other G7 or G20 country. We have more foreign direct investment coming into Canada on a per capita basis, definitely the best in the G20 and G7 and likely the best in the world. The Conservatives just do not want to recognize when there is good news. If we raise the good news, they—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member for Winnipeg North talk about good news and how lucky Canadians are to have the current government, I really have to wonder. I wonder if I am dreaming and if someone should wake me up. It is really astonishing. The Liberals' self-congratulation is getting embarrassing.

When figures come out, we can break them down and interpret them as we wish, but some of them do not lie. In the first quarter of 2026, 35,000 retail jobs were lost. Retail is the end of the line. It is clothing shops, supermarkets and convenience stores. That is where people go to shop for their everyday needs. The loss of 35,000 jobs in the first quarter of 2026 means that people cannot afford to buy from their regular stores. That is an alarming figure that shows that Canadians and Quebeckers are currently feeling much more financial distress than optimism, contrary to what my colleague would have us believe.

At some point, will the government take concrete measures to help people pay for groceries and basic needs?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right that sometimes people, and politicians on both sides of the House, will be selective in the stats that they will throw out.

Let me give a stat that I believe is important. Since the last federal election, there has been an increase in employment of over 150,000. Members can cherry-pick all they want in between, but at the end of the day, there are 150,000 more jobs since this Prime Minister was elected Prime Minister, and that is given the circumstances of that election.

Canada still has a AAA credit rating, and for the first time in generations, we are investing in the Canadian military. We have actually surpassed that 2% of the GDP.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am just surprised. It is the Conservatives' opposition day, and I do not think we even have the number of people required in the chamber.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he could just—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

It is comments and questions, right? The question is, could the member talk about all of the positive things that our government is doing to restore our country—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I am curious. My colleague on the opposite side mentioned the fact that there are very few Conservative MPs present, even though it is their opposition day. Like you, I thought this was a quorum call, but is it permissible to note the absence or presence of MPs in the House?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

No, talking about the absence or presence of members is not permitted. Members of Parliament are not allowed to do that.

I will give the hon. parliamentary secretary the opportunity to answer the question.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question very much. If we look at what has been achieved over the last 13 or 14 months since Canadians elected our current Prime Minister, it has been a great deal.

Someone brought up the analogy of a marathon runner in terms of how the government, and the Prime Minister in particular, is responding to the Canadian economy and society as a whole, bringing in good legislative measures and financial measures to support Canadians. Canadians are seeing it, and they are encouraging us to continue to move forward. Only the Conservatives seem to be the naysayers.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather appalling the way the member stands up here and talks about how everything is so wonderful. I will ask him what I asked earlier this morning. Is he talking to folks in his riding? People are struggling.

We Conservatives are fighting for those people, and we are talking to them every day. I spoke with one of my constituents, who talked about the groceries and essentials benefit. I should correct the record because the Liberals keep saying that we voted against it, which is patently untrue. Since that is not the case, I did ask how the groceries and essentials benefit was helping her. My constituent said that it is giving her $1.31 per week, which might help her buy another package of ramen noodles.

I wonder if the member would recognize that having all of these programs is really just a recognition of the government's failure.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member opposite would recognize that the average wage has actually increased more than the inflation rate every month since we had that last federal election.

At the end of the day, there are individuals who are having some financial difficulties, and that has always been the case. Obviously, we all want to try to assist where we can, and that is where I would challenge the member opposite. A good program is the national school food program, which was made permanent by this Prime Minister, by this government. There are members of the Conservative Party who have called it garbage and said that it does not exist. It feeds 400,000 young children, yet they oppose it.

At times, one begins to question just how much hypocrisy is oozing from the other side.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, how does the member perceive the reaction in trade negotiations when the opposition is proposing that Canada is in a gloomy position, while most economists and experts are not positioning it that way at all? The Conservatives are positioning this as though Canada is in the midst of a tremendous downfall, when in fact it is the opposite, but that is giving leverage and strength to the United States in trade discussions.

Can the member comment, please?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question because there is so much truth in what the member said. If we go around and tell the world that Canada's economy is bad, we cannot trust it, everything is broken and so forth, which is what we hear from Conservative member after Conservative member talking negatively about Canada, that ultimately assists the U.S. over Canada.

I would cite the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North, who went down to the United States, and his report, after meeting with President Trump and the Vice-President, was that Canadians are just having a “hissy fit”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

We have time for a brief question from the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to address what the parliamentary secretary is implying, which is that the economy here in Canada is good, I would ask him to come down to the London region. It is not just the increased food bank usage but the other organizations that support the food bank. I was talking to a representative from Urban Roots, which grows natural food to be donated to various organizations, including the local London Food Bank. The usage has increased in the last year.

I would ask the member to comment on that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that different regions of the country have different impacts in the community. The government continues to look at all the regions of the country, and we do what we can, such as the national school food program for children, which the member opposite voted against. We also financially support food banks.

We are, as a government, a whole lot more compassionate than what we have seen from the Conservatives over the last number of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Wellington—Halton Hills North.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a recession can be defined as two consecutive quarters of flat or negative GDP growth. By that definition, Canada is in a recession. The government has downplayed the seriousness of these two consecutive flat to negative quarters of growth and painted a picture of an economy with underlying strength. However, that fails to take into account the bigger picture. Here is the bigger picture: In three of the last four quarters, aggregate GDP shrank. That comes on the heels of years of shrinking per capita GDP.

Per capita GDP is a more important measure than aggregate GDP. Here is why. Decades from now, it would be far better to live in a country of 40 million Canadians making double what they make now than to live in a country with 100 million Canadians making the same as they make now. The first country would have a smaller economy than the latter, but it would be more cohesive, more prosperous and more environmentally sustainable, with higher levels of individual income. Many corporate CEOs would prefer the latter country, because the total accessible market would be larger, but the average Canadian would be poorer for it.

Looking at the last three years, the picture of per capita GDP is grim. Canada was effectively in a per capita recession in 2023 and 2024. In 2022, per capita GDP stood at $60,735. In 2023, it shrank by $458. In 2024, it shrank, yet again, by $539. Over a two-year period, per capita GDP dropped by almost $1,000 per person, a drop of about 1.6%.

Looking at the last six years, the picture is not much better. Before the pandemic began, per capita GDP stood at $59,681 in 2019. Last year, it stood at $60,073, an increase of only $392 over six years. This is a compound annual growth rate of 0.1% per year, effectively zero. All the while, the cost of living skyrocketed.

The picture is just as bad when we look at last year. While per capita GDP edged up slightly in the last quarter, the first quarter of 2026, by 0.2% quarter over quarter, the fact is that per capita GDP shrank in Q2 and Q4 last year. As a result, per capita GDP last quarter was up only 0.2% year over year, effectively zero. In other words, per capita GDP in the first year of the new Liberal government follows the same trajectory as it had under the old Liberal government.

Part of the bigger picture is not only declining GDP, but productivity. As a Nobel Prize-winning economist once said, “Productivity isn't everything, but, in the long run, it is almost everything. A country’s ability to improve its standard of living over time depends almost entirely on its ability to raise its output per worker.”

The picture of productivity looks grim. When we look at Statistics Canada's annual measures, labour productivity has declined in each and every one of the last four years for which we have full-year data. Productivity dropped from $67.70 an hour worked in 2020 to $63.20 in 2024, a decline of almost 7%. Two years ago, on March 26, 2024, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, called Canada's lagging productivity an “emergency”. Since then, productivity appears to have flatlined, if not declined. The emergency appears to have become even more dire.

When we look at Statistics Canada's quarterly measures, business sector labour productivity declined over the last year. In the first quarter of 2025, it measured on an index of 100 at 104.7. Last quarter, it stood at 104.074, a decline of 0.5% in just one year. Under the new Liberal government, the productivity emergency has gotten worse than it was under the old Liberal government.

At this point, I will remind the House that I will be splitting my time.

When the Bank of Canada rang the alarm bells on productivity, it cited low levels of business investment as one of the root causes. Business investment has plummeted over the past decade. According to a recent analysis by Steven Globerman of the Fraser Institute, business investment in plants, capital, equipment and IP, expressed as a percentage of GDP, dropped from 13.8% in 2014 to 11.1% last year, and under the new Liberal government, the decline has continued. According to Statistics Canada's release of May 29, “Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.” Steven Globerman has called this a “business investment emergency”. We have not only a productivity emergency but a business investment emergency. The word “emergency” is not my word. This is the word of the Bank of Canada and a reputable research organization.

The fundamentals have not gotten better in the past 12 months under the new Liberal government: not on per capita GDP, not on productivity growth and not on business capital investment. In fact, in many cases, it has gotten worse. The data I cite in this speech is taken from Statistics Canada, including tables 36-10-0706-01, 36-10-0480-01 and 36-10-0206-01, unless I have specified otherwise.

In my assessment, nothing the new Liberal government has done with the new Prime Minister in the past year fundamentally changes the trajectory of the economy, and the early data that has come in over the past four quarters confirms that assessment. Canada's per capita GDP continues to flatline, if not decline. Canada's productivity continues to flatline, if not decline. Canada's business capital investment continues to flatline, if not outright decline.

That is because the government has failed to introduce the fundamental reforms necessary to turn the economy around. It has failed to introduce wholesale tax reform to our personal and corporate income tax systems. We need tax reform of the scale and ambition that we saw in 1971 or in the 1980s under the government of Brian Mulroney. It has failed to introduce fiscal reform of the scale and ambition of former prime minister Chrétien and finance minister Martin, who, in 1995, introduced a revolutionary budget that refocused the federal government and balanced the budget in 36 months.

It has failed to introduce desperately needed competition reform to address the oligopolies and the uncompetitiveness of our economy, which are making our goods unattractive for export to global markets. Export expressed as a percentage of our GDP has plummeted, from about 43% of GDP in the year 2000 to about 33% today.

The government has also failed to introduce the regulatory reform needed. We need to reduce the regulation that is strangling business investment and growth. The government implicitly acknowledged that its regulatory approach is not working. Not only has the government not used the national interest designation under Bill C-5, but it is engaged in yet more consultations to introduce yet more legislation to change its regulatory approach.

Until early April, the government could argue that it did not have the power to enact these fundamental reforms because it did not have a majority. That excuse no longer holds. The early data coming in over the past 12 months is that the new Liberal government is on the same course as the old Liberal government on per capita GDP, productivity and business capital investment. The government has a choice: to acknowledge how bad things are, reverse course and introduce fundamental reforms in taxation, competition, and regulatory and fiscal policies, or to continue to preside over Canada's continued economic decline. If the government does not acknowledge the very real and serious fundamental challenges our economy is facing, it will not fix the problem.

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

I have two quick points, Mr. Speaker. The member gives the impression that it is an issue of foreign investment. Foreign investment today is at a 20-year high. I do not quite understand how he sees that as a decrease. On exports, we are at least 17% higher internationally, outside of the United States, but also exports to the United States are up from last year.

Where is the member really drawing his numbers and conclusions from?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is making the mistake of looking at flows, in other words at the P&L, rather than at the balance sheet. The balance sheet is clear. Business capital investment has declined in each and every one of the last five consecutive quarters. That is the more important measurement, because as capital is deployed, it depreciates, and the fact that business capital investment has failed to keep up with the capital depreciation in this country and has declined over the last five quarters is a much more alarming statistic than the flows he is citing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Canadian economy is not doing well. It is also true that certain Liberal policies have contributed to the fact that we are in a technical recession.

However, by painting an overly dire and one-sided picture, are the Conservatives not discrediting themselves? What does my colleague think?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

It was not me who used the word “emergency”; it was the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada. It was a central banker who used the word “emergency”, which is strong language for someone who is normally quite opaque about the direction of the economy.

It was not me who used the word “emergency”; it was Steven Globerman at the Fraser Institute, a reputable research organization and one of the largest economic research organizations in the country.

The fact is that nothing has addressed the fundamental problems facing our economy, and that is why Canadians continue to struggle with the cost of day-to-day living and other essentials.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I always learn so much whenever my colleague stands in the House.

I am hearing constantly from the people in my riding that they are struggling with basic needs, like putting food on the table. I know I am not the only one. I am sure every MP in this room right now, every MP who was elected in the last year, feels the same thing. We know from the data that there is a recession. We know there are issues in Canada, but the Liberals keep denying that anything is wrong. What does my colleague think is the danger of denying issues like this when they are so blatant? I know the Liberals are hearing the same things we are hearing. What is the danger of denial?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the dangers of denial is that we are going to see a brain drain from this country to our neighbour to the south. According to the TD Bank study that was released on May 21, Canada's top-skilled workers are leaving for the United States in droves for lower taxes and higher pay. It says, “Canada is not hollowing out; it is spilling out at the top” and “Absent progress on this front, Canada will continue to be a feeder system for the U.S. innovation economy.”

Statistics Canada confirms that in 2023 alone, 18,590 Canadian residents immigrated to the U.S. permanently, and a 2024 Bank of Canada study found that 40% of Canadians who would rank in the top 1% of earners have already left Canada for the United States. It also found that up to half of the top 2% to 10% of income earners have also already left.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am participating in today's debate to speak about the government's plan to maintain fiscal stability and provide a bit more clarity on Canada's economy.

The government's fiscal plan remains rooted in fiscal responsibility. This is not for its own sake, but to create capacity and invest in long-term economic strength and greater self-reliance. Consistent with this approach, the recent spring economic update of 2026 is the government's next step in building a stronger, more independent and more resilient Canada. It advances the building of more affordable housing and houses. It talks about major infrastructure that transforms and connects our economy while bringing down costs to help Canadians get ahead.

It is absolutely important to give a clear and transparent account of Canada's economy and its performance in an increasingly uncertain world, and to not promote fear. We are advancing major projects that connect and transform our nation, supercharging our housing construction and forging new economic partnerships. We are acting decisively to protect our economic sovereignty and position Canada for greater long-term growth. It is a principled and pragmatic approach. However, some long-term payoffs will take time.

To ensure that Canadians have the support they need right now, the government is providing bridging supports. For over a year, Canada's government has been focused on making life more affordable. Nearly 22 million Canadians are keeping more of what they earn with the middle-income tax cut. First-time homebuyers are saving up to $50,000 with the removal or reduction of the goods and services tax on new homes. The removal of the consumer carbon price has lowered gas prices by 18¢ per litre. The government has temporarily suspended the federal fuel excise tax. Last week, more than 12 million Canadians began receiving hundreds of dollars more through the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit. These are important measures.

In a world of geopolitical instability, governments need to rethink how they respond to the headwinds. From a fiscal perspective, especially in light of these challenges, we are delivering up to $11.5 billion in improvements to our project deficit going forward in our budgetary balance. This strength carries into future years, providing the budgetary balance relative to that of budget 2025 by an average of $10.7 billion per year from 2026-27 to 2029-30 before those new measures. This fiscal room allows the government to improve affordability and raise the Canadian standard of living through targeted policy measures.

The recent budget marked a strategic shift in the government's management of public finances. It is focused on expanding federal capital spending to mobilize investments while maintaining those critical programs that so many Canadians rely on. With significant investments in infrastructure, innovation and industrial capabilities, budget 2025 set out a clear plan to build the strongest economy in the G7.

The government also remains committed to being disciplined. This includes the comprehensive expenditure review, which now totals over $60 billion in savings and revenues over the next five years. The focus is targeted, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services. These challenging actions are necessary. They have the objective of spending less so that we can invest more in Canadians.

Canadians are navigating a rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented world. Economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition are increasingly shaping investment, trade and financial decisions. The conflict in the Middle East, of course, has disrupted key shipping routes, and damaged energy infrastructure has pushed energy prices higher, underscoring the fragility of global supply chains and adding to an already elevated level of uncertainty.

Despite this environment, Canada's economy continued to expand, growing by 1.9% in 2025. Domestic activity remained solid, even with the elevated tariffs and the impacts they have on our trade tensions. North American supply chains withstood disruptions more effectively than expected, with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, the CUSMA, protecting approximately 85% of Canadian goods exports from these recent U.S. measures.

Businesses and workers have shown remarkable resilience in the face of significant uncertainty. Contrary to the naysayers, firms continue to invest, diversify suppliers and expand into new markets. Canada continues to attract significant global capital, leading the G7 in per capita direct investment inflows. A Statistics Canada survey of planned capital expenditures for 2026 indicates that businesses plan to step up capital spending this year. Reflecting on Canadian adaptability, the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, expects Canada to post the second-fastest growth in the G7 over 2026 and 2027.

Labour market conditions have also remained resilient. Since 2024, Canada has added more jobs per capita than the U.S. In May alone, the Canadian economy added 88,000 jobs, which has already been mentioned a number of times today. These jobs are mainly in the private sector, and all of them are full-time. The unemployment rate has fallen to 6.6%. Wage growth has now outpaced inflation for more than three consecutive years, supporting continued gains in real incomes.

Overall, the Canadian economy has shown resilience in the face of significant trade tensions and geopolitical uncertainty, and most respected economists and experts agree.

Let me remind the hon. members in the House that even with all of the global challenges, Canada starts from a position of strength. Canada's net debt burden today is lower than any other G7 country's. It is even below the levels of those countries' prior to the pandemic. Canada also has one of the smallest deficits in the G7 as a share of its economy. This fiscal challenge gives the government the capacity and responsibility to act to build a stronger economy, make life more affordable, create high-paying jobs, take care of each other and determine our future.

Canada's fiscal position also stands well among 30 other advanced economies. We are one of only two G7 economies, alongside Germany, to maintain a AAA credit rating with most global credit rating agencies. This AAA rating supports investor confidence and keeps us borrowing at lower costs than would otherwise be possible.

We know some of the payoffs will take time. That is why our government is standing with Canadians through uncertain and rapidly changing times by acting responsibly to provide supports today and making smart, long-term investments that strengthen Canada's economy. This means creating the mechanisms to ensure that Canadians thrive today and tomorrow, supporting workers and young people, enhancing the housing sector, combatting financial crimes and investing in strong communities.

We need to be on the right track. All members of the House should be collaborating effectively to promote Canada, not creating fearmongering and not giving enough sway and support to the likes of those who are leveraging to downplay the Canadian economy and its strength and the unifying effect that we are seeing.

We will stand strong for Canadians, and Canadians will stand strong by continuing to do what they do well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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 Riding Mountain, Health; the hon. member for Kitchener South—Hespeler, Health.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite is in his riding and he is talking to the Canadians standing in food bank lineups, facing consumer insolvency and struggling to afford groceries, I wonder if the response he gives Canadians is that we are 100% on the right track. Are these the statistics he gives them?

Is this acceptable to the Canadians who live in his riding? It is sure not acceptable in my riding, when I talk to people who are struggling.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite brings up a very important point, which is that during these moments of challenge, it is important for the government to stand by Canadian citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable.

What has the government done? We have made middle-income tax cuts, which the opposition member did not approve. We provided the groceries and essentials benefit program. We eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers. We are putting a pause on the fuel excise tax. We have also launched the automatic federal benefits program to provide more support for those very individuals. The member opposite did not support those measures to help her constituents.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rather like my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore. We should hear from him more often in the House.

I would like him to talk about the budgetary projections and fiscal anchors the Parliamentary Budget Officer mentioned. She projects that the deficit will be $6.5 billion higher, reaching a total of $71.8 billion, compared to the economic update released just a month ago.

I found that interesting. The Liberals were telling us how much smaller the deficit was than expected and that the situation was better. It is a bit like me giving my teenager $100 to go buy pizza and him being proud to hand me back $5 afterwards. We do not know what he did with the rest, but that is not good management. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

Given the current circumstances, where is the deficit headed?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is bringing the question to me by way of what economists are saying. Let me tell the House what some of the economists are saying.

According to Desjardins, “real GDP has contracted for two consecutive quarters”, but according to its analysis, “More than half of the industries in Canada have been expanding over the past six months, and consumers have continued to increase their purchases of good and services.”

According to RBC, “we continue to think underlying details in both the labour market and GDP data are better than” what is being headlined and stated in the growth of numbers.

According to TD Bank, “Looking to Q2, some bounce-back should be expected.”

According to the National Bank, “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”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, as a former finance minister for Ontario, the hon. member understands very well the turbulent impacts that can happen to economies. Can he talk a bit about how our government's approach is stabilizing and growing the Canadian economy?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that all levels of government recognize that during points of difficulty, it is important to stimulate economic growth. It is counter-cyclical. That is what is happening here.

We have to create the bridge to enable our citizens to weather the challenges before us. We cannot just stand in the House and create fear, saying the sky is falling, and do nothing to help. We have to approve some of the work that is being done to support them in this case.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, behind every announcement from the government is a problem getting worse, whether it is crime, debt or the cost of ordinary life. Canadians have stopped taking Liberal promises on faith because they are now measuring them against their own reality. They fall short every time.

When will the government and the member address that they cannot announce their way out of results—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be great if we installed some of the crime bills that are right before the House, as well as some of the bail sections. We are combatting crime. On this side of the House, we recognize the impact it has on my community, specifically. We are creating the reverse onus and making it harder for criminals to make bail. We are toughening sentencing for repeat and violent offenders. We are criminalizing coercive control to stop domestic violence. We are ending house arrest for criminals who commit—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in support of this motion because it tells the truth about what the Liberals have done to this country. The reality is that Canada is in a recession. This is not a slowdown. This is not a rough patch. It is a recession. In fact, it is the only country in a recession in the G20. Canadians in Newmarket—Aurora are living it every day. They are paying more for groceries. They are watching their mortgage payments climb. They are wondering whether their kids will be able to afford a home in the community they grew up in. They are asking a simple question: How did it come to this? The answer is 11 years of poor Liberal policies and spending without limits.

The numbers do not lie. Scotiabank has downgraded Canada's growth to 0.8% this year, and the Bank of Montreal has downgraded Canada's growth to 0.5% this year. Then, there is the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an independent, non-partisan officer of this Parliament, and her latest report does not mince words. There is slowing growth, a weakening fiscal outlook and a deficit that is bigger than promised. The probability of the government meeting its own fiscal anchor is 1%. Let us remember that this is after the government chose to give up the last fiscal anchor it also could not meet.

If a student handed in a business plan with a 1% chance of success, they would fail the course. If a CEO presented a strategy with a 1% chance of meeting its targets, the board would show them the door. However, the government members stand here and ask Canadians to trust them with the national finances, with a 1% chance of keeping their own promises. Let us not forget they revised this fiscal anchor after they already failed to meet their last one.

I should mention I am splitting my time.

The government will stand and say this is all external, that it is caused by global headwinds, tariff uncertainty, forces beyond its control. Canadians have heard that before. They heard it when inflation hit 40‑year highs. They heard it when housing costs skyrocketed. They heard it when the debt doubled. There is always an excuse from the Liberal government. There is never accountability. Here is what it cannot explain away: Every other G20 country is growing. Canada is an outlier. Canada is the exception. Even Mexico, which also shares a border with the U.S. and has been significantly impacted by tariffs, has managed to steer clear of a recession.

When we are the only country in the world's 20 largest economies to be in a recession, that is a local policy problem. Still, the Liberal government has chosen to respond with more of the same: denial, increased spending, higher taxes, more regulation and more debt. It continues to choose to make life more expensive for the very Canadians who were already stretched to the limit.

I want to speak directly to what this means to the families I represent in Newmarket—Aurora. I heard from a young couple, both working, both doing everything right, who cannot afford a down payment because their rent has eaten up every dollar they saved. I heard from a small business owner on Davis Drive who is watching her customer base shrink because people simply do not have money left over at the end of the month. I heard from a senior on a fixed income who never thought he would have to choose between his bills and groceries.

This is deeply concerning for me because my own grandfather lives in Aurora and we have this conversation all too often. Seniors, who spent their entire life working hard, who gave it their all, are now on a fixed income and have to make these impossible choices. They are not statistics. They are neighbours and friends. They are family members, in fact. They deserve a government that is honest about the damage that it has caused and is serious about fixing it. This motion calls for exactly that.

Today's motion does not ask the impossible. It does not ask the government to undo every mistake overnight. It asks for something straightforward: reverse the costly inflationary policies that brought Canada to this point; stop the reckless spending that drives up debt and keeps interest rates higher for longer; stop layering on new taxes and new regulatory burdens on businesses that are trying to hire, invest and grow; and stop the costly credit card budgeting that future generations will be asked to pay for.

On this point, I had a discussion with a group of youth just a few weeks back. They told me they felt like they were on a bus where the driver did not care about the passengers and did not care about the direction that the passengers wanted to go in. They felt that they were the passengers, because the government was driving them into incredible amounts of debt that they would eventually inherit.

The government can start with its $750-million gun grab, the $90-billion train or the $25 billion of debt it will be taking on for the so-called sovereign wealth fund or the $20 billion on consultants. Those are just to name a few. I am talking about Canada's conditions for real, sustainable growth, not politically convenient announcements, but the kind of economic environment where businesses expand, investors can invest, workers earn more and businesses can actually get ahead.

Today's motion is simple. It is honest. It is necessary. Canada is in a recession, the only country in the G20. The banks have downgraded growth projections. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has sounded the alarm. The numbers do not lie, even when the government's talking points are trying to obscure them.

Conservatives will always stand on the side of fiscal responsibility, economic growth and the hard-working Canadians who deserve a government that respects every hard-earned dollar that they make, and to work as hard as they do.

With that, I urge all members of this chamber to support this motion.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I have not had a chance to work with the member opposite yet here in this Parliament. I would like to ask for her thoughts with respect to the supports that we have been providing for young people, including in the spring economic statement in terms of providing training opportunities for young people. I think that she mentioned some young people in her speech and the importance of supporting young people.

I would like to know if she would support those initiatives, in terms of helping train young people for apprenticeships.

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

Mr. Speaker, I brought up youth because I have been hearing these concerns for quite some time. Of course, for youth, it is about that first job opportunity. It is an opportunity to build a career and have a future here in our country. Most of the concerns are with unemployment that is highly concentrated in youth. It is a concern for them because they tell me it is not a situation where they can just walk in and get a job any more, or submit a résumé and get a job any more. A lot of them are not able to find that job. When they do, because some of the industries, especially the trades, do not have senior people there any more to train them, they find their futures are actually quite difficult.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my colleague talked about young people struggling to find work in the current economy.

As I pointed out earlier to the member for Winnipeg North, 35,000 jobs were lost in the retail sector in the first quarter of 2026. These are precisely the kinds of jobs that are often available to younger people and those who may have less formal education.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives fully support making massive investments in developing the fossil fuel industry. Billions of dollars are going to oil companies in the form of tax breaks, for example.

Would my colleague be in favour of easing the burden on taxpayers a little, including the young families she seems to want to defend in her riding? People in my riding, Drummond, are also struggling.

Would she be willing to reconsider the subsidies given to oil companies and redistribute some of those billions of dollars to taxpayers who are really struggling right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, one of my priorities is to be the voice of the youth who are struggling today.

As I mentioned before, it is quite concerning for them because of how critical that first job is. They are looking for these jobs in all sorts of industries, but we are seeing that business investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters and that more businesses are shutting down than opening up. Retail, which is one of the largest employers for our youth, is being hit particularly hard.

There is no initiative right now from the government to actually remove some of the barriers that these businesses are challenged with, when it comes to overtaxation, over-regulation and actually being able to expand their business.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question the member is an excellent member of Parliament. We are lucky to have her and so are her constituents.

I just want to pick away at this a little. I know she heard the speech earlier from the Liberal member talking about how he felt his government has saved the taxpayer $60 billion. I just do not see that in any of the documents. I do not see that in anything we are discussing today with respect to the opposition day motion. In fact, we are calling out the Liberal government on the fact that its economic policy has failed Canadians. It has failed this country for 11 years. We need a fresh perspective.

I wonder if that member can elaborate on the fact that the Liberals seem to be pretty out of touch when they have spent over their $60 billion projected deficit. We are now much higher than that. Somehow these Liberal members are still running around saying that they have saved the taxpayers money when in fact we are seeing record-level deficits.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are no savings. In fact, if we look at the projections going forward, there are even more costs. Even when we look at the spring economic statement or the budget itself, there are hundreds of announcements that they have made that have not been included in those projections.

Bill C‑20—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Minister of Government Transformation]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-20, an act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—The Government's Fiscal Policies

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion. At the outset, I must say that I have sat in the House for a fair bit today, listening to the debate. I cannot help but reflect on some of what I have been hearing as a result of some of the news that was received regarding the economy: a sense of almost excitement or gleefulness that comes from the Conservatives as they celebrate the opportunity to try to make a bigger issue out of news and turn this into a partisan issue rather than trying to genuinely help.

I am being heckled, but I will read something from Fred DeLorey, a former Conservative campaign manager. About three or four days ago, while he was being interviewed on CBC, he said, “it's dangerous politics to be going out here claiming the sky is falling, when in a month's time or two months' time, when the next numbers come out, it shows that it isn't. It was a week later.... Job numbers are better than they were last quarter. We have the C.D. Howe Institute coming out and arguing, and other economists saying, it's not a recession.”

I am not talking about some Conservative operative from the 1980s or 1990s. I am talking about the campaign manager who led the Conservative Party of Canada's national campaign just two elections ago, and that is what he said. He is being extremely critical of the approach that the Leader of the Opposition is taking to this issue, running out and trying to proclaim that the sky is falling.

Let us look at the timeline. Mr. DeLorey is looking at the timeline too and reflecting on it in the quote I read out. The timeline is this. On Friday, May 29, the first-quarter growth numbers came out, and the growth for Canada was -.04%. It does show that it is negative growth. Two consecutive negative-growth quarters means that we are in a recession.

Why are the Conservatives clapping? This is exactly what I was talking about. They jump on an opportunity. They start clapping at the idea that the economy is not doing as well as it otherwise could have been doing.

This is what ended up happening. The Leader of the Opposition, on a Friday morning, ran out one of the main doors of this building, held an emergency press conference and said that there is a massive, full-scale recession and it is all the Liberal Prime Minister's fault. He went on and on.

The Leader of the Opposition attacked a reporter for asking a basic question. One of the reporters said that some economists are not saying that what he is saying is true, and the reporter asked if he was jumping the gun a bit. He attacked the reporter and asked what outlet the reporter was with. These are totally Trump-style attacks.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what happened. Regardless of the Conservatives' heckling, it happened in front of this building on a Friday morning. The Leader of the Opposition could not wait 30 minutes to digest the numbers. He had to do it immediately.

Let us fast-forward to this past Friday, June 5, when we found out the job numbers in the report for May. There were almost 90,000 net new jobs in Canada, which contributed to a decrease in unemployment. Full-time employment skyrocketed. There was significant economic growth in many sectors.

What did the Leader of the Opposition do? Did he run outside and hold another press conference? No, he did not. He is literally in hiding. He disappeared. He has not said a word.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, by the way, as my colleagues across the way heckle me on this, I have not heard his speech today. When is he going to give a speech on this? He has not said a single word on this issue. He literally does not want to address this.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Mr. Speaker, should I call my own point of order on this? At some point you have to step in.

The Leader of the Opposition has not said even a single word about it. It is one thing if he wants to claim one day that the sky is falling, but a week later he cannot even reflect on the fact the job numbers are better and the economy might not be in that full-scale recession he tried to paint a week earlier.

My colleagues are having a hard time listening to me, so why do I not go back to Fred DeLorey, the campaign manager from two elections ago. By the way, a number of Conservatives sitting in the House ran for office when he was the Conservative campaign manager. This is what he said just three or four days ago: “It's problematic when you choose to go down that road that [the Leader of the Opposition] has chosen to go down so aggressively, almost like he's rooting for a recession. I understand partisan politics very well. You know, I'm a tribal Conservative. I want to win the next election. Three years before an election, screaming that the sky is falling every week is not how you do it.”

These are the words of a former Conservative campaign manager, who ran the 2021 election for the Conservative Party of Canada and who full-on went on CBC news and announced to the world that the Leader of the Opposition is, in his words, “rooting for a recession.”

That is what we are dealing with. The Leader of the Opposition cannot think that he is ever going to be the leader of a country, when he runs out there one day and claims that the sky is falling, that everything is coming to an end and that we have the most dramatic economic downfall in Canadian history, then a week later keeps his mouth completely—

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I cannot recognize the member. I cannot see the member, because she is not in her seat.

I will let the chief government whip continue his remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member cannot run out there and act as though the sky is falling one day, and then a week later pretend that there is no news, because it is completely contradictory. Conservatives can heckle all they want on this. They can disagree with me. They can challenge me. They can do whatever they want. The reality of the situation is that this is the narrative that is out there. This is what the vast majority of Canadians see when they see the games the Leader of the Opposition plays.

Unfortunately, it is my position that what the Conservatives are doing today is just continuing to play into that narrative of “The sky is falling”, without being genuinely reflective of what is really going on and the reality of the situation. They can hem and haw, roll their eyes and say that I have no idea what I am talking about, but I would encourage them to be a little self-reflective and to try to figure out if they can sort out why they did not win the last election and why they continue to be so low in the polls. It is because of the Leader of the Opposition and the way he continues to go on and on, the games he plays, and the things he does. Canadians are just not buying it anymore.

The Conservatives do not need to like it, but that is the reality of the situation. They hopefully can take some time this summer to reflect on what their strategy should be moving forward, because as we have seen over the last number of years, the strategy they are currently using, which led to today's opposition motion, is not a successful one. I do not think it ever will be. I hope they can learn from that and figure out that there is something they can contribute to the House and to democracy, but it is not going to be with the approach they have been taking and, in particular, the approach the Leader of the Opposition is taking.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I was speaking with some grandparents from my riding who were actually sitting in the gallery listening to my colleague, our finance critic, speak on the state of our economy. I did not realize they were coming. I am very grateful to have met them downstairs. As they listened to the Liberal members—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There is a point of order from the chief government whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member cannot reference anybody who was or was not in the gallery. Perhaps you would like to remind her of the rules.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The chief government whip is indeed right. The member cannot make a reference to the presence, currently or in the past, of members of the public in the gallery. I was going to interrupt the member after her comments.

I will let her finish if she can keep it short.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the grandparents listened to the Liberal members dismiss concerns about the recession, rising debt and the cost of living. They told me they wished they could call and tell the government what they were seeing in their own lives, as seniors struggling to make ends meet. They talked about grocery bills that keep climbing, adult children who are struggling to get ahead, and their grandchildren facing a future that looks less affordable than the one they inherited.

Can my colleague explain to me why so many ordinary Canadians can see we are in a recession, while the Liberal government continues to downplay the very real economic struggles that families are facing every day?

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

Mr. Speaker, did the member tell her constituents how she voted against every single bill we brought forward that would improve the lives of Canadians? We lowered taxes in the lowest tax bracket. We brought in a national school food program. We brought in dental care. We brought in pharmacare. We have done so many things over the years that the member has been in and out of the House to experience and to vote on, but she has voted against all of it.

My only question to the member—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I will just interrupt the chief government whip, as there is a point of order from the member for Brandon—Souris.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip knows well that he cannot reflect on a member's presence or past presence in, or absence from, the chamber. I would remind him to read his own rule book, for which he is responsible for the government—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the member for Brandon—Souris. I thought that the chief government whip elegantly moved around that particular part when he was answering.

I will let the chief government whip finish up in just a few seconds so we can continue with questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the member for Brandon—Souris is referring to. I am responding to the member for Cloverdale—Langley City's question. She is in the House right now. We all know that.

The point is that the member who asked me a question a moment ago, who was in the House when she did it, is now suddenly trying to ask me to explain things to her constituents, but she voted against every single measure that was brought in to help the lives of those very constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the one side, we have the Conservative doomsayers, who exaggerate the problems. On the other, we have the Liberal optimists, who say that everything is fine.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that Scotiabank and the Bank of Montreal both downgraded their growth projections, which are at less than 1%.

The most recent report of the Parliamentary Budget Officer also noted a slowdown in growth and a deterioration in the fiscal outlook, with a larger-than-expected deficit and a mere 1% chance that the government will meet its budget forecast.

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

Mr. Speaker, those same organizations projected that there would not be the job numbers growth that there was in May. Those same organizations projected that unemployment would not drop as much as it did. Those same organizations projected that full-time employment would not surge the way it did.

Yes, there are projections, but then there is reality. The reality is that on Friday of last week, there were incredible job numbers for our country. The Leader of the Opposition has yet to make even a drive-by comment on them. Meanwhile, a week ago, when there was a -0.04% growth rate, he ran outside, acted like the sky was falling and declared a full-scale recession. It is just theatrics to him.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague has been hearing the same thing I have been hearing in my riding. I hear people saying they understand that Canada is facing a lot of challenges with respect to geopolitics, with respect to trade and so forth. They want Canadians to stick together and to work together for the benefit of all Canadians.

The member alluded to how this debate today has been about almost celebrating Canada's difficulties in terms of the economy. Can the member let us know if he is hearing the same thing from constituents that I am with respect to working together for the benefit of Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think using the word “celebrating” would be going a little too far, but I know where the member is going with this.

What I was trying to say is that what Conservatives do is get excited. I can almost guarantee members that a week ago, on May 31, when those numbers came out and Canada had a negative 0.04% growth rate, they got excited because they saw an opportunity, and this is what they have been doing. All I was trying to say when I got up in the House and gave this speech was that doing that is not going to put them in a position to form government. The sooner they learn that, the better for them, but the worse for us, I guess.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having the opportunity to rise today to speak to this very sobering issue.

I will be splitting my time with the wonderful new member from Long Range Mountains, who is a fantastic member in this place and brings a lot of expertise. I am happy to share my time with her.

Also, I want to say hi to Susan, who might be watching at home, who typically watches many of these speeches. I thank and appreciate her for all the support and the friends at Cornerstone.

We are talking about a recession. We might be down by 0.1% or up by 0.1%, but the truth is that the economy is not doing very well, regardless of whether the government suggests that we are not in a recession or that, as some people like to say, it is just a technical recession. In fact, according to Sean Speer, editor-at-large at The Hub, all of this is a bit of silly semantics: “The real questions are: how much does the economy suck, how long has it sucked, why does it suck, and what are the different ideas to stop it from sucking.”

We have a productivity crisis in this country, and everybody knows it. The Prime Minister has even acknowledged it. I think the Prime Minister was elected in part because of his résumé, but it appears, over a year into his term, that his economic agenda and plan are not working. It is even a bit hard to determine what his economic plan and agenda are. If it is to attack productivity, one cannot connect very many of his economic announcements to actually making the big reforms and changes we need to the economy in this country to get it going. Of course, President Trump's tariffs weigh on our economy, but we saw serious economic trouble before anyone had heard of President Trump. The Bank of Canada has called it a productivity emergency. Senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers declared it “an emergency”, a “time to break the glass”.

If it is true that we are in this economic crisis of productivity, the Prime Minister's agenda is not addressing it. He is saying we have moved at speeds faster than ever before, but we have not seen fundamental reforms. There has been no serious competition reform, tax reform or regulatory reform. In fact, when it comes to those three items, we could classify the Prime Minister not as a bold actor but as one who supports the status quo. He is the status quo man. He is not willing to take on the banks, the airlines, the telecoms or the other oligopolies that we need to take on to enhance the productivity of our country. He must move faster.

On competition, we should radically attack the profit pools of our financial institutions, in particular the banks, by introducing more competition to deliver lower prices to Canadians. If we want to send a message to the United States, let us do it through CANZUK. If British Airways wants to fly a plane between Toronto and Vancouver or Toronto and Halifax, why do we not let them and invite any airline in the CANZUK countries to do so?

On taxes, we should immediately move to reduce capital gains on those businesses and individuals who reinvest in Canada and in Canadian companies. We need a tax reform package to lower taxes, business and personal, and significantly reduce complexity.

On regulation, we need service standards for permitting. We need to pre-approve projects in areas of the country, which means they can be done faster. We should be working more closely with indigenous leaders across the country to identify and pre-approve projects, to de-risk them, in order to free up and attract private capital. If the Prime Minister was serious about building a pipeline, he would have already started his consultations with indigenous groups. We risk allowing this valuable time to go by without making the difficult decisions. Instead, we get announcements, speeches and bureaucracies, such as the Major Projects Office, which, by the way, in and of itself is an admission that the regulatory process does not work. We have the build Canada office, and then the sovereign wealth fund, which will be funded, of course, with debt.

Now I would like to turn, for the reminder of my comments, to a specific risk that I think is growing and that the government should be paying more attention to. The Prime Minister's fiscal plan for this country is putting us at serious risk. By doubling the size of the deficits of PM Trudeau, the Prime Minister is threatening the fiscal stability of our country. If we get into economic challenges around the world, we will be less able to deal with them. We are borrowing record amounts of debt this year and in the next two years. This year we will borrow $510 billion in the market, then we have to borrow $594 billion in the market, and in 2027-28, we have to borrow $563 billion.

We borrow mostly on the short end of the curve, so what happens is that this debt has to be rolled over every two or three years. That is like signing up for only a one- or two-year mortgage on a house. One would have to go to the bank, and guess what happens. Their interest rate gets reset every single time. When 40% of the government's debt is purchased by non-bank financial actors, which are hedge funds and financial speculators, we are at serious risk if those hedge funds and purchasers cannot continue to purchase. In the face of all of this, the Prime Minister's fiscal plan is to borrow more money, record amounts of money.

If there is an economic event, a sovereign debt crisis or a war, something that happens totally outside of Canada, our debt service costs are going to explode. They are already going to be $80 billion in just a few years, and that is $80 billion that could not go to more productive uses. That $80 billion is a projection based on interest rates staying the same or going down. What if interest rates go up? The Prime Minister, who is a two-time central banker and chair of the Financial Stability Board, should know better than to increase the size of deficits and debt in this country and put us further at risk, and I am not the only one who thinks so.

The Bank of Canada is warning that we will have potential problems. It is saying that higher stock market valuations, higher corporate debt and higher amounts of money borrowed by hedge funds to buy sovereign debt are vulnerabilities. “This has made it more likely that a new shock or a combination of shocks could cause several vulnerabilities to crystallize at once,” said the senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers.

The Bank of Canada is warning the government that there could be economic instability, and we have a risk of who funds our government in purchasing our debt. That will put our AAA credit rating at risk. We can kiss the fiscal anchor goodbye. In fact, already the Parliamentary Budget Officer is saying that the government has a less than 1% chance of even keeping that anchor. The Prime Minister's decisions are completely imprudent when it comes to fiscal responsibility, and it will result, and may result, in more pain later.

Now, one of these events might not happen, but no one predicted the financial crisis in 2007 and 2008, or very few people did. However, it might happen, and with the fact that it might happen, and that the risks are growing, this Prime Minister's decision to increase the size of the debt and the deficits can be called nothing short of reckless, because it will imperil the government's ability to pay for social programs. The bankers and the bondholders get paid first, and our social programs will come second. As I said, one would think that the Prime Minister would be more attuned to some of these global risks and would be taking a much more fiscally responsible path with the government's spending.

As I might not get a chance to welcome everyone to Midland this weekend, it is Ontario’s Best Butter Tart Festival. Please come. I am super happy to plug that big event in my riding this weekend.

I am also more than happy to answer any questions from any member in the House about my remarks.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my excellent colleague for his speech, not least for the way that he ended it. I might just have to find myself down there for a couple of butter tarts.

His speech accurately portrayed what I am hearing, and what I know most of our colleagues in this place are hearing, from constituents. They are feeling the recession. They are feeling the inflationary policies of the government that have driven down their wages and driven up their cost of living.

I would like the member to provide a little more clarity on why he thinks the Liberals cannot admit that their 11 years of inflationary spending have had a devastating impact on our economy, on household incomes and on household debt, and what the implications of that could be going forward.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a wonderful question from a great colleague and contributor in this chamber.

This is a movie we have seen before. The government was slow and late to acknowledge that inflation was a problem. It is slow and late to the party on the economic decline and stagnation of this country. Why? It is because if the Liberals acknowledge there is a problem, because they have been in power for 11 years, well, gosh, maybe they could have done something about it.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel like it is Halloween and I dressed up as the member for Simcoe North, but it is purely coincidental. No need to worry, we did not call each other to confer before starting the day.

I would like to ask him a question. In his speech, he talked a lot about risk. One of the major risks that I see at the moment was raised by one of his colleagues on his Facebook page. I have to credit him. He posted that GDP growth under Mark Carney dropped by zero—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the hon. member. Members are not to use the Prime Minister's name in the House. He may be referred to by his title.

I will let the hon. member continue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was quoting a post.

As I was saying, according to Statistics Canada, the GDP contracted by 0.6% in 365 days. According to Yahoo! Finance Canada, Brookfield's stock value climbed by 19.56% in 365 days. The GDP contracted by 0.6%, while Brookfield stock gained close to 20% in value.

Is that normal? I would like to hear what my colleague has to say.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

My friend in the Bloc has great taste in colours of ties and colours of suits, today for sure.

The member raises an important distinction. There is something called a K-shaped recovery in the economy. That is, those who have assets and wealth are actually doing quite well, like those who are invested in Brookfield, and those who do not have assets and wealth are struggling. They struggle with higher costs and higher food prices and fuel prices. This is really what is happening in the economy. There are those who are doing well and those who are not doing so well. It just so happens that everyone who seems to be doing well knows the Prime Minister very well.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a lot of expertise in the area of trade. I, of course, come from a riding and a place in this country that is heavily dependent on resources, on trade, on forestry and on north-south exports and imports. Unemployment in my riding is now at 8.5%.

I wonder if the member could talk about how the economy is not being felt the same in different parts of the country and, perhaps, explain to the members opposite why their economic policies are hurting ridings like mine in particular.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her excellent question and for pointing out that the economy is not uniform across the country.

The government applauds job numbers that we saw on Friday, and by the way, those monthly numbers happen to get revised quite substantially. Unemployment is different across the entire country. Those jobs that we see added are not necessarily going to those 80,000 people who lost jobs in the previous number of months. This is a challenge. We are trying to show the government that there is economic pain in different parts of this country, and the government ought to start paying attention.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Long Range Mountains in Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the most industrious and self-reliant individuals, who are asking for fairness and economic stability, not just for themselves and this generation, but also for their children and grandchildren so they can thrive at home.

I rise today to speak in support of our Conservative opposition day motion, which addresses the cold, hard reality facing our nation. The Liberals have officially driven Canada into a recession, and the latest data shows that for everyday Canadians, it is only going to get worse.

The Liberal Prime Minister is the only leader in the G7 and the wider G20 to plunge his country into a recession, after driving the Canadian economy into decline in three of the last four quarters. The Liberals want to label this a technical recession, but there is nothing technical about an empty stomach or someone coming home from work and telling their kids they no longer have a job. Hard-working, everyday Canadians are being forced to pay the price. This means that, in communities across my province, families are making choices they never imagined they would have to make. They are putting groceries on credit cards. They are postponing starting a family, delaying retirement and wondering whether they can afford to keep the house they worked so hard to buy.

The Liberals love to blame global factors for Canada's economic misery. They point to international tariffs and to geopolitical conflict, but every single country in the G7 faces those exact same global headwinds, international tariffs and global challenges, yet none of them, not one, is in a recession, only Canada. Under this Prime Minister's watch, his inflationary spending, his layers of red tape and his antidevelopment laws, our economy has stalled and Canadian productivity has been choked out. Canada now officially holds the highest household debt in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. This is not a sign of success, and Canadians are not doing well as a result.

Affordability has deteriorated so badly that working families are falling behind. What frustrates people back home is hearing Liberal ministers stand in the House and tell them that this is affordability, not loose slogans. They hear them say that government programs are working, that announcements are resonating and that Canadians are better off because of Liberal policies, but families back home are asking me a very simple question: If things are going so well, why are so many people struggling?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that the likelihood of this costly Liberal government meeting its own fiscal anchor to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio is less than 1%. Worse yet, the Liberals are already borrowing way over their own budget. In their spring economic update, they claimed the deficit would be $65.3 billion this year, but the PBO predicts a deficit of $71.8 billion. Where does that leave the taxpayers? It leaves them buried under mountains of Liberal debt. Federal debt charges are projected to skyrocket by 46%. By 2030-31, 13.1¢ of every single dollar of federal revenue will go directly to pay the interest charges on this costly credit card Liberal government.

While everyday Canadians are being forced to tighten their belt and make sacrifices, the devastating impacts are evident. Consumer insolvencies across Canada have reached their highest levels since 2009. Newfoundland and Labrador continues to see rising insolvencies, and behind every insolvency is a family that has reached its breaking point. These are Canadians who worked hard, paid their bills and tried to get ahead, but they are falling behind because groceries cost more, fuel costs more, home heating oil costs more, housing costs more, rent costs more, and this has increased the pressure on household budgets in a way many families simply cannot absorb.

While everyday Canadians are struggling, the Prime Minister's luxury inflight catering costs reached nearly $195,000 for just three trips, including premium meals and expensive hospitality at taxpayers' expense. The Liberal environment minister took a recent trip to Brazil and burned through $467,000 on luxury accommodations and another $650,000 just to rent, design and operate a single promotional pavilion. That is over $1 million spent on a single overseas trip for Liberal elites. This is all occurring under a Prime Minister who recently stated in New York that “a country that cannot feed, fuel, or defend itself is not truly sovereign”, yet he has created a reality where millions of hard-working, everyday Canadians are relying on food banks while he dines on luxury catering in the clouds and his minister stays in luxury accommodations. We cannot run an economy on expensive Liberal bureaucrats and elite menus; we need real private sector growth.

Under the Liberal Prime Minister, we are in an entrepreneurial drought, with more small businesses closing than starting up. Business investment has dropped for five consecutive quarters. Capital investment fell by another 0.7% in the first quarter of this year alone, and over $20 billion in net investment has fled our economy since the Liberal Prime Minister took office.

When capital flees, productivity dies. Labour productivity has fallen in three of the four quarters, and this directly impacts our labour market. The PBO noted, “The labour market has softened in line with the broader slowdown.” In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the highest provincial rate of unemployment in the entire country. In the first three months of this year, 1.5 million Canadians missed a debt payment, while mortgage delinquency rates climbed 32% year over year.

These numbers represent real human suffering. Consistently, I hear from people right across Long Range Mountains who are telling us heartbreaking stories. Clayton from Corner Brook reached out to our office. He is a senior and requires home care but is considering cancelling because, with the rising cost of heating, rent and food, he just cannot afford it anymore.

I consistently hear about young people leaving. For generations, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have watched sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends leave home for opportunity elsewhere in Canada. We know the pain of saying goodbye at the airport. We know what it means to miss birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas dinners and family milestones because opportunity exists somewhere else. A recent study examining migration patterns across Canada found that Newfoundland and Labrador experienced the highest rate of net out-migration in the country, losing the equivalent of more than 10% of our population to other provinces. No province in Canada lost more people proportionally than Newfoundland and Labrador. We are the only province in Canada to experience a net migration loss to every other province in the country.

Among young adults aged 18 to 24, Newfoundland and Labrador experienced net losses equivalent to nearly our entire current population in that age group over the last three decades. When our young people believe they can build a better life somewhere else, they move. When the Liberals fail to create the conditions for growth, investment and opportunity, families make difficult choices, and this has been the heartbreaking reality in Newfoundland and Labrador, a province rich in natural resources and untapped potential and opportunity.

Squashed opportunity is not the only pressure. Grocery costs are up year over year, and 53% of employed Canadians report that food affordability has drastically worsened over the past year. More than one in three employed Canadians are now forced to use debt just to buy groceries. Some families are spending an unbelievable 120% of their total income on food and rent alone. Food bank demand nationwide has doubled since 2019, reaching a heartbreaking record of 2.2 million monthly visits. More than 137,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians live in food-insecure households. More than one-third of children in our province live in households struggling to consistently put food on the table. That is not a statistic that should exist in a country as prosperous as Canada.

We cannot borrow our way out of a Liberal debt crisis. We cannot tax our way into economic prosperity, and we certainly cannot spend our way out of a recession that was manufactured by out-of-touch Liberal spending in the first place.

For months, Conservatives have warned that this inflationary agenda would weaken growth, drive out business investment and leave working families to hold the bag and pay the bill. Today, the data has proven us right. The people of Long Range Mountains and all Canadians deserve an immediate turnaround. They deserve a Prime Minister who will tell them the truth and present a real plan to reverse these failed Liberal policies.

It is time to end the Liberal recession. It is time to cap costly Liberal spending, scrap the inflationary Liberal carbon tax, cut the red tape and unleash the potential of our natural resources and our workforce.

Conservatives understand the immense pressure that everyday Canadians are under, and we will continue to stand with them to rebuild hope, reward hard work, restore the dream of home ownership and empower the private sector to grow and thrive so Canadians can once again believe in the future of this great country.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to visit the hon. member's riding a couple of years ago. It is a beautiful riding with phenomenal people. I was listening to her speech quite intently. She mentioned something that I think we can all agree with. No one wants young people to have to leave their home to find work. I think that all of us want to make sure that young people who want to stay in their home province, find a good job and be able to settle and have a family have that opportunity.

With that, I know that we recently brought forward the team Canada strong plan in the spring economic statement, which will allow for apprenticeship training and some opportunities to allow young people to get the skill set they need to help build the homes that the member is referring to. Would she agree that this could be a good initiative in terms of helping young people stay in their home province?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for visiting my beautiful province.

My response is that if we do not have an economy that has opportunity for our tradespeople, we can train them all we want, but they are not going to stay in the province if they do not have those good-paying jobs. We have an offshore oil and gas sector that has watched investment completely flee the province, with a 40% reduction in investment over the last decade. This is an example of how we are failing the young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador on her speech. It was a great speech until she said that she was the alternative solution to the situation, with the usual Conservative Party slogans, using the same proposals that promote oil and gas over natural resources and renewables.

Anyway, I would like to focus on the part of her speech that I liked, the part about the regions that are becoming ghost towns because there is a shortage of long-term employment and development opportunities to encourage young people to move there. It is unacceptable that young families are looking to leave Newfoundland and Labrador. Newfoundlanders should have the chance and the opportunity to make a life for themselves in their home province.

My region is facing some challenges at the moment. The government does not seem to understand the situation, which is jeopardizing our manufacturing sector and for which there is an incredibly easy solution. I would like to hear my colleague talk more about concrete solutions to real problems rather than waving around a magic wand that she thinks would solve everything if a Conservative government were in power.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member. Rural Canada and rural Newfoundland and Labrador have so much untapped potential and opportunity. Newfoundland and Labrador is a natural resource-based economy, but there are so many projects that are caught up in regulatory red tape. There are so many small and medium-sized business owners who have a taxation burden. They also have a regulatory burden that they cannot get out from underneath. This is what fuels rural economies all over Canada, but especially in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the solutions that Conservatives would bring forward to unleash opportunity in rural Canada and especially in Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech really hit home for me, coming from rural B.C. Not many people would call Kelowna rural, but it is just north of me, and it has the highest unemployment rate now in the country, at over 9%. Then that filters down to all the areas around it, including my riding. I am hearing from constituents constantly about exactly what the member talked about. They are having trouble putting food on the table, and it is a real thing. We are not stirring the pot; it is actually a real thing. I am hearing about it in my office constantly. I am seeing it at the food banks.

What is the danger of denying that there is a problem in our country? What is the danger of the Liberals continuing to deny this?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my mom would often say that in order to fix something, we have to acknowledge that the problem exists. This is exactly the problem we are seeing with our country right now. If we try to deflect with rhetoric and talk about our leader and get all excited, we are not dealing with the actual issues. That is the problem with denying it.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know we are living through one of the most dangerous and divided moments the world has seen in generations. We all know the pressure that is coming toward Canadians is not coming from just one direction, but all directions at once. We know our closest ally and trading partner has imposed tariffs at levels we have not seen in living memory. Wars are being fought in Europe and the Middle East. Supply chains that took decades to build are being fractured in real time. All of this is unfolding against a technological transformation that is defining what work and our economy will look like a decade from now and, indeed, in less than a decade from now.

This is not a normal moment, and most Canadians know it. They feel it at the grocery till and at mortgage renewal. A young person feels it doing the math on a first home. We all understand that. We all understand the concerns and the risks, and we all understand that it is our job to figure out how to make it better.

No honest account of how we got here points to a single villain or a single year. This has taken decades, across governments of every stripe in a country where it has become simply too hard to build, too hard to get major projects off the ground, too hard to keep our best talent, research and companies from leaving to go elsewhere and too hard to turn ideas into industry. These are not partisan accusations. They are an inheritance for every single one of us in the chamber from decades and decades of action.

The question before the House is not whether the moment is hard. We all know it is. The question is what a serious government does about it. What this government has chosen to do is focus relentlessly on what is within our control. We have established a Major Projects Office to make sure that we can get nation-building projects built and that they do not die in a queue. We passed the One Canadian Economy Act to make sure that we tear down the internal trade walls that made it absurdly easier to trade with another country than with the next province over. Our productivity superdeduction gives businesses a reason to invest here and now. Build Canada Homes is already building thousands of homes. Through team Canada strong, we are putting $6 billion behind 100,000 new skilled trade workers, because we cannot build what we approve without the hands to build it.

Here is the part that the members opposite will never mention, because it is not convenient: We are doing this with people, not against them. Premiers of every political stripe, Liberal, Conservative and New Democrat, and even Danielle Smith have found that this government is a partner with whom they can actually work. That is what governing in a time of crisis actually looks like. We put down the partisan cudgel, we pick up the tools and we work together.

This brings me to the motion from the Leader of the Opposition that is before us today, because it was definitely not written in that spirit. It is not an offer to build. It is not an offer to think about how we might work together. It is not even an honest account of where we are. It is, yet again, performative theatre.

I want to take a moment to focus on a single word that is at the centre of it. The motion does not say “a difficult quarter”. It does not say “a slowdown”. It reaches, in the very first line, for the biggest word available: “recession”.

There is a body that all of us have recognized, whose entire job is to decide whether that word applies. It is the C.D. Howe Institute's business cycle council. Trusted by Conservatives and Liberals alike, it is the organization that has effectively been trusted as the organization that determines whether we are, in fact, in a recession, and it has not said that. It is not a Liberal organization. It is not a Liberal press release or a Conservative press release that gets to decide this. It is the council that called the 2008 financial crisis and the council that called the COVID downturn. When the real thing arrives, that council is the one that names it, not politicians.

Three days ago, the council looked at exactly the same data the Leader of the Opposition is brandishing, and it refused to use his word. It found the decline so slight, at a fraction of a single per cent, that it does not even come close to any recession it has ever declared, and it warned in very clear terms that it is precisely this kind of label placed upon it by politicians and stapled onto numbers like these that causes further problems, because it is designed to sound official and frightening.

The country's own referees, the people who called the 2008 recession and the COVID downturn, looked at this and would not go there. The Leader of the Opposition decided that it is his job to go and write a bigger word than theirs into a motion. Let us ask the question that the motion was built to stop anyone from asking: Why?

Why would the Leader of the Opposition reach past the experts, as is custom for him, for the most frightening word he could find? Why does he need a slowdown to be a catastrophe? Why is it valuable for him to cast fear into the hearts of Canadians, who are already facing challenging times, which we all acknowledge? It is because, for him, the catastrophe becomes a permission slip.

A slowdown asks the government to steady the ship and keep building, but a catastrophe is the only thing that could ever justify what this motion actually demands, which is to reverse the policies. We should say what is clearly hiding inside that intention. Reversing the policies means taking away the dental care that seniors are using right now. Taking away child care means telling the parents at Butterfly Kisses, a child care centre in his own riding that has brought fees down for working families, that those working families will no longer be able to access the subsidies that make it possible for children in his riding to access affordable child care. Reversing the policies means taking away the national school food program that feeds children before they sit down to learn.

Whether they are in Carleton or Battle River—Crowfoot, Canadians are asking for the same things. They are asking for dental care, child care and certainty and stability in the government. They are looking for leadership that not only tells them that things will be all right, but shows them a path and takes the action to do so by building consensus.

The Leader of the Opposition wants rubble he can stand in. That is what reversing the policies means once we start performing the word “recession” in pantomime or theatre in this place and start reading the fine print. They cannot rip the floor out from underneath people over a fraction of 1%. They can only do it if they first convince the country, as they are seeking to do, that the house is on fire.

The Leader of the Opposition needs catastrophe. He needs the fire, but not because the data supports it. He does not. He needs it because without it, there is no excuse for what he is selling Canadians. Without it, there is little reason for toxic leadership from his side. That is the real divide in this chamber, and it could not be starker. One side is working to convince Canadians, alongside premiers, Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats that it is time to work together and build things, and another side is saying the building we are trying to build together is condemned so that no one objects when they start tearing down the walls.

On this side, we are going to keep building. That building is showing up in results where people live and in what they will experience.

In B.C., which is my home province, the merger that created Anglo Teck has planted a new global mining champion headquarters in Vancouver, with thousands of Canadian jobs and billions of dollars in investment secured here at home. That is talent and capital choosing Canada at the very moment when the members opposite insist that Canada is collapsing.

The OECD, which is by no means a Liberal agency, projects that this country will grow the second-fastest in the G7 this year and next—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the member.

It being 6:30 p.m., and today being the last allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, 2026, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the opposition motion.

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.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(18), the division stands deferred until later this day.

Concurrence in Vote 5—Department of National Defence

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That Vote 5, in the amount of $17,968,133,395, under Department of National Defence — Capital expenditures, in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Halifax.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak about the government's spending priorities for the 2026‑27 fiscal year as set out in the main estimates.

The main estimates outline the funding and resources departments require to deliver the programs and services Canadians rely on. Parliament must authorize these expenditures before the government can legally spend public funds. To further strengthen accountability and scrutiny, parliamentary committees have the opportunity to hear from and question ministers and officials to determine whether proposed spending aligns with key government priorities. Canadians can also see how the government intends to use their tax dollars. The amounts listed in the main estimates are reflected in appropriation acts, also known as supply bills. Once passed, these acts give the government the legal authority to spend.

With respect to main estimates 2026‑27, I would like to point to budget 2025 as the context for these spending requests. As the budget made clear, the government is committed to strong fiscal management. This means spending less on operations so that we can invest more in building Canada strong. Since the budget was tabled in the fall, rather than in the spring, as in previous years, there has been greater opportunity to align the main estimates with budget decisions. As a result, the 2026‑27 main estimates reflect $14.7 billion in new spending announced in budget 2025, including in key areas like defence, infrastructure and housing. Measures that are still under development will be presented through future supplementary estimates.

As I mentioned, making investments in priority areas means that the government is spending less and investing more to build the strongest economy in the G7. As such, the spending outlined in these main estimates also reflects some of the savings resulting from Canada's new government's comprehensive expenditure review. Last year, we made a clear commitment to spend less on government operations so that we can invest more in the workers, businesses and nation-building infrastructure that will grow our economy and strengthen this country. The comprehensive expenditure review launched in July was essential in meeting this commitment to responsible, cost-effective spending that delivers results for Canadians.

The review required federal organizations to bring forward savings proposals to spend less on the day-to-day running of the government. It targeted programs and activities that were not core to their federal mandate, were duplicative or were not aligned with the government's priorities. Organizations also considered ways to work more efficiently, leveraging existing and emerging technologies, like artificial intelligence, where they can make the government more effective and efficient. Some of the results of this review were presented in the budget, and savings of $13 billion annually by 2028‑29 were identified across departments.

This includes bringing the public service back to a sustainable level, including through a reduction in the size of public service by an estimated 16,000 full-time equivalents.

The government understands the scope of the review. That is why the reductions are being managed with fairness and compassion, relying on attrition and voluntary departures to the greatest extent possible. The government remains committed to supporting impacted public servants with compassion and transparency. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our public servants for their dedication and commitment in delivering services to Canadians.

We are also leveraging all available tools to limit involuntary departures, including the early retirement incentive. The early retirement incentive provides an opportunity for eligible employees to retire without a penalty for early departure. Around 7,000 employees have already applied to the program. The government's departmental plans tabled in March provide more details on the review and how financial resources will be used to achieve planned results.

Before getting into the details of the main estimates, I would like to speak about the financial reporting cycle and why it is so important. I have already mentioned the purpose of the main estimates, but not all funding requirements appear in the main estimates, so the government also introduces supplementary estimates throughout the year. Supplementary estimates may include funding for new initiatives, urgent needs, such as disaster responses, or items that were not ready in time to be included in the main estimates. These documents are tabled at different points throughout the fiscal year: supplementary estimates (A) in the spring, supplementary estimates (B) in the fall and supplementary estimates (C) in the winter, if required.

Taken together, the supplementary estimates and the mains are part of the estimates family of documents. This estimates family of documents also includes departmental plans, which set out priorities of federal organizations, and departmental results reports, which show how departments performed and help Canadians assess how effectively their tax dollars were used.

Another significant document in this fiscal cycle is the public accounts. While the estimates outline planned spending, the public accounts provide the audited, consolidated financial statements of the Government of Canada for each fiscal year ending March 31. They detail how the funds were actually spent and how the revenue was collected.

The government is well aware of how important transparency and accountability are to Canadians. That is why we continue to prioritize the way the estimates are presented. Extensive explanatory documentation is readily accessible online to parliamentarians and Canadians. Online platform tools used for this purpose in GC InfoBase present the main estimates and the supplementary estimates, along with other data related to government finances, people and results.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there was another speech made today, probably a little more watched than this one, from our leader, in Calgary, talking about national unity.

When I look at the financial situation facing Canada today, one of the things I cannot help but think about is how different things would be had pipelines, which were already under way in 2015, been built to completion. Right now, we are in a circumstance where our country is bringing in billions of dollars' worth of oil from countries like Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, to the east coast, and the regulations at play are not nearly as rigorous for that oil as they are for oil coming from Alberta and Saskatchewan.

I am wondering if the hon. minister thinks that is fair and if he has some thoughts on the impact that has on the Canadian economy.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as we know, we are going through global instability and global challenges. This is the moment we need to seize.

Our new government, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, one of the greatest prime ministers, is bringing nations together, moving forward to take bold actions and delivering results. It is great to see all levels of government working together, moving on, sharing priorities and building Canada strong.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the Parliamentary Budget Officer has cast doubt on the government's ability to maintain one of its fiscal anchors, namely its target to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio.

She predicts that the deficit will be $6.5 billion higher than projected in the economic update. She does also predict that the debt-to-GDP ratio will fall from 2% to 1.5% by the 2030-31 fiscal year, but she estimates that there is less than a 1% chance that Ottawa will achieve an annual reduction in the deficit-to-GDP ratio.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the new government is focused on investing in core priorities that matter most to Canadians and taking bold actions. It is because of those actions that we see, as we saw last Friday, a report that almost 90,000 jobs were added to the Canadian labour force, and that unemployment has dropped.

There are measures the government is taking to build the strongest economy in the G7 and to focus on delivering results for Canadians.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested to understand how the positive indicators we are starting to see, in terms of the biggest growth in the G7, highest per capita foreign investment and things like this, are going to impact the estimates going forward.

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the main estimates and supplementary estimates, along with other data related to government finances, are published in the expenditure database, a digital tool, which people can consult. This is key to giving parliamentarians and Canadians more information on how public funds are being spent. I encourage my hon. colleagues who have not already done so to consult this great tool.

Main estimates represents a total of $502.8 billion in budgetary spending for 130 organizations to deliver programs and services that Canadians rely on—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Halifax.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the global security environment today is volatile and uncertain. We face real challenges, both military and non-military, that demand an equally strong and coordinated response. Canada must be prepared to defend ourselves and our allies.

Our government has announced the most ambitious defence rebuild in a generation. Today, with the 2026-27 main estimates, we are putting the money behind that commitment. I am really pleased to stand in the House to talk about this today, representing my riding of Halifax. Halifax is home to the largest defence base in the country. CFB Halifax, in one form or another, has existed since the 18th century, predating Canada as we know it. The military and our armed forces members are ingrained in our history and are already shaping our future.

Our city is advancing incredible projects for the Canadian Armed Forces. We are building the River class destroyers and we are home to NATO DIANA and the Maritime DISH. As we prepare our next big defence procurement with the new fleet of submarines, there is even more possibility for Halifax.

The government is requesting $50.7 billion for the Department of National Defence. That is $15 billion more than the previous year, or a 42% increase in funding. That includes $5.1 billion in new operating funding, $7.1 billion in capital and $2.3 billion in grants and contributions.

These are not abstract numbers. They represent real capabilities and real investments in real people: the personnel who wear the uniform and defend this country every day.

Last year, Canada hit 2% of GDP on defence for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, half a decade ahead of schedule. Reaching the 2% benchmark is a foundational step in renewing Canada's defence and a clear statement of resolve in a more dangerous world. We are now working toward NATO's new defence investment pledge: 3.5% of GDP for core defence and 1.5% for broader defence and security infrastructure, for a total commitment of 5% of GDP by 2035.

As the Prime Minister noted at CANSEC, Canada is already meeting that 1.5% target for critical defence infrastructure. These estimates keep that momentum going. Canada's new government is delivering on its promise to make generational investments in the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces and to further accelerate these investments in the years to come. In a more dangerous and divided world, Canada is taking full responsibility for defending our sovereignty and building our strength as a reliable partner and ally.

Our government made a promise to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are getting it done. A military is only as strong as its people, and this government has made clear that our people in uniform deserve to be treated accordingly. The $1.3 billion in these estimates reflects the historic pay increase we delivered for CAF members; the largest in a generation. Better pay means better recruitment. It means better retention and a more capable and more ready force.

The results are already showing. CAF recruitment is the highest it has been in three decades. Last fiscal year, we surpassed our recruitment goals, bringing in over 6,700 new regular force members. We are also investing $274.9 million in CAF recruitment and training to modernize how we attract and develop the next generation of service members. We are building a more robust recruiting and training system, and we will dedicate the resources needed to be successful.

There is $274.5 million committed for Canadian Forces health services, because the obligation to care for our people does not end when an operation does. The CAF continues to build a more modern, effective and inclusive military supported by digital tools and data-driven processes. Work is ongoing to improve efficiency, reduce delays and align recruitment and training systems with the evolving needs of the organization and of Canadians.

Words do not defend Canada, but capabilities do. The CAF must be ready to operate in the Arctic, across North America, through NORAD, within NATO's collective defence framework and wherever global stability demands a Canadian contribution. These estimates include $7.3 billion for in-service support, keeping the equipment we have available, reliable and sustainable. As well, there is $1.2 billion for fleet equipment readiness to adapt and respond to a faster and more complex security environment. Preparedness also means investing in what comes next.

That is why we have included $12.8 billion for major multi-stage procurements, River class destroyers, joint support ships, Canadian multi-mission aircraft and critical infrastructure investments that will serve Canada for decades. These capabilities will defend our sovereignty in the north, protect our maritime approaches and allow us to operate shoulder to shoulder with our allies.

The Canadian Coast Guard is part of the Department of National Defence's main estimates. The $4 billion included here funds its critical missions, search and rescue, icebreaking, environmental response and ocean science. As part of the defence portfolio, the Coast Guard will now do more, sharing intelligence, coordinating with defence partners and enhancing Canada's maritime security posture. In a country with three oceans and the world's longest coastline, that is no small thing.

No country defends itself alone, not Canada and not our allies. That is reflected in the $3.3 billion in grants and contributions, funding programs, organizations and partners whose work advances Canada's defence mandate. A significant share supports Ukraine through the military training and co-operation program, because the fight for a rules-based international order is one in which Canada has a direct stake.

We are investing in NATO initiatives that strengthen interoperability, intelligence sharing and collective decision-making across the alliance. We are also doubling down on Canada's defence industrial base. These estimates include initial investments for the new Canadian defence industry resilience program, strengthening domestic production capacity and Canadian sovereignty.

That includes support for nitrocellulose production, a critical energetic material for artillery that is in high demand across allied militaries. Programs like IDEaS and MINDS continue to connect innovators, academics and industry to the defence mission, turning Canadian expertise into Canadian capability.

In February, we released Canada's first-ever defence industrial strategy. The framework is straightforward: building Canada first, partnering where we cannot and buying smart where we must. These estimates put that strategy into action.

Spending more is only part of the story. Spending well is the other part. Through the comprehensive expenditure review, the Department of National Defence is targeting approximately $460 million in operating cost reductions from 2026-27 through 2028-29. That means continuing the fleet divestment strategy, streamlining the real property portfolio, expanding energy performance contracts and modernizing project approvals and internal business processes.

The global security environment is not waiting for anyone. We are building again. The 2026-27 main estimates are a down payment on that commitment, an investment in people, in preparedness and in the partnerships that make Canada stronger. We are spending with purpose, we are investing with urgency and we are rebuilding the Canadian Armed Forces with the ambition this moment demands. I urge all members to support these estimates.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is from Halifax, where I served many years in the navy.

This is $50 billion for the “most ambitious defence rebuild in a generation”, ships, submarines, fighter jets, the Defence Investment Agency and the defence investment strategy. It all sounds impressive. Here is the reality. The Liberals have left Canada with no national security strategy or national defence strategy. Experts, and even worse, our allies are calling us out. Indeed, the Liberals' own “Our North, Strong and Free” plan, which is not a strategy, calls for Canada to have a national security strategy every four years, yet we have none.

Does the member for Halifax agree that they are putting the cart before the horse and that, without a national security strategy, the DIA and the DIS are doomed to fail?

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly disagree with the member. I do not think that we are putting the cart before the horse. I am really excited about the defence industrial strategy. I am really excited about the vision, hard work and accomplishments so far of our Minister of Defence. I am really proud of all of the members of the defence sector in Halifax, many of whom I know more and more, having taken this role on just over a year ago.

I am excited to continue to partner with them. The response that I have received so far is one of gratitude, optimism and hope for the future of Canada and of our defence.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to supply and appropriations, a major issue for me in the past year has been the announcement about budget cuts to science and research. This will save the government approximately $27 million to $35 million over five years. Will saving this amount over five years really make a difference when we know that the deficit is over $70 billion? The government will save a mere $27 million to $35 million by making cuts to science and research.

What we are also seeing today in Bill C-30 is that the government is going to permit the use of more pesticides without knowing what kind of cocktail this will create and without knowing what impact it will have on human health, because the government is also making cuts to the science and research that would help find alternatives.

Is my colleague concerned about that?

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am really excited about the dual spending that is happening as we put our strategy into action. Dalhousie University has a wonderful ocean science and research program, and it is capitalizing on defence spending to further ocean science and research. That is a really important piece of it, where we are going to increase our innovation and research.

Excitedly, today, we just announced that the Our Ocean Conference is going to be hosted for the first time in Canada in 14 years in Halifax in 2027, where we will bring all the great minds from science and research together to continue to advance our shared priorities.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her support for members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families.

The member spoke a lot about the defence industrial strategy, and a previous question suggested that there was no defence strategy. In fact, in the defence industrial strategy, it clearly indicates the 10 sovereign capabilities that Canada has indicated very clearly with respect to what they are looking for in terms of procurement and our own sovereignty.

I would ask the member to elaborate a bit about what she is hearing on the ground in her riding with respect to those 10 sovereign capabilities.

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my conversations have been more focused on some celebrations lately. We just had the 85th anniversary of the HMCS Sackville. We recommissioned it notionally, which was fantastic. We had the commemoration of the Battle of the Atlantic. I was able to make a funding announcement for improved and increased housing for CAF members in Halifax and across the Halifax Regional Municipality.

My conversations have been much more celebratory of late, but I am sure my constituents have a lot to say on those 10 priorities, and I will be sure to talk to them shortly.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Province of Nova Scotia leases the Maritime Launch Services land for approximately $13,500 per year, yet through the federal agreement that we are going to be debating tonight, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 a day. That is a 400,000% increase.

Does the member think that is really, truly good value for money?

[Shannon Miedema, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very excited about the launch capabilities that we are exploring in Nova Scotia. I have no idea of the details of the provincial government and what deals they are making, so I cannot comment on that any further.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes.

I want to begin where we should always begin, with judgment. Archibald Lampman, a Canadian poet who worked right here in Ottawa, once wrote, “The pulse of the great machine goes on forever, dead and blind, and no voice or sound of human will disturbs its deep and ceaseless grind.”

The reason I share this is because Canadians are watching the decision about Maritime Launch Services in such bewilderment. They are asking if this is an actual attempt at Canadian space sovereignty or something else altogether. Many who have looked into this decision closely have questions. The more they look and the more they research, the more this looks like a decision that was hastily made and that just happens to support well-connected Liberal insiders and lobbyists surrounding Maritime Launch Services.

The Liberal members will stand in this House and argue this $200-million expenditure is a necessary investment to secure Canada's place in a global space economy. They will justify this spending, just as Liberals always justify deficit spending, to grow the economy, meet the moment, invest in our future and protect our sovereignty. We have heard it all before, over and over again, with the superclusters, the SDTC green slush fund, planting billions of trees and subsidizing EV battery plants. I could go on and on. Liberals will always find new ways to burn tax dollars on projects that benefit Liberal friends and insiders, but these projects always fizzle out and leave nothing but debt and unanswered questions behind.

Let us look at the so-called space sovereignty spending, the $20 million in this allocation. If this was truly a national investment, we would, of course, be building a national asset. As an example, when Norway decided it needed its own sovereign launch capacity, it acted with the discipline of a sovereign state. It built its own infrastructure, it owns the land, it owns the pad and it owns the capability. It has an asset directly under its control. Who owns NASA? The people of the United States through the U.S. government.

Who will own Maritime Launch Services, the spaceport that we are talking about? This is where it gets a tad murky. At the present time, online information suggests that 26% of the ownership is held by individuals, close to 12% is listed as institutional owners and the remaining balance of 60% is unknown. This is for a national asset, something that the Liberals tell us is necessary for our space sovereignty. In other words, the Liberals are doing the exact opposite of what other democratic countries are doing when it comes to protecting and creating space sovereignty. This means we are not building a true national asset.

Instead, we are building a private company's balance sheet. We are paying $200 million for the privilege of using a facility we do not own, under terms that strip away our sovereign leverage and hand it to a private entity. That is the difference between acquiring an asset and assuming an obligation. They are not the same thing. Make no mistake, this is giving away public tax dollars to create private equity, a scheme that a Brookfield investor would no doubt approve of. The government claims this is about growing the economy, yet the math reveals a different reality.

This is not a market player; it is a public dependency. When 97% of a company's revenue is derived from a single taxpayer-funded contract, that is not a commercial enterprise. That is a ward of the state. We are told that this is a burgeoning spaceport, yet look at the reality at Spaceport Nova Scotia this week. We are being asked to cheer for suborbital test flights that generate zero revenue and serve only as public relations demonstrations for a foreign firm. In this case, we have a launch happening very soon with T-Minus Engineering testing their technology on our soil. Who is T-Minus Engineering? It is a privately held Dutch company.

The government's position relies on the claim that we are buying capability, but are we really? How can this Liberal government claim to be buying capability when the regulatory framework to govern that very capability does not even yet exist? Now, the Minister of Transport had admitted in this House that we needed Bill C-28, the Canadian space launch act, to establish a proper framework.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are bypassing the legislative process, stretching the outdated Aeronautics Act to fit rocket science and pushing the machine forward without the very safety, environmental and financial guards they admit are necessary. Let me just say this again. Two foreign-owned, Dutch Barracuda rockets will be tested suborbitally, and they are paying no revenue to Maritime Launch Services. Through public disclosure, we can see that this is, again, a company 90% of whose revenue is from one single contract with the Government of Canada. The government claims this arrangement protects the national interest, but it is also ignoring that with these tests it is putting on right now and the launch pad, the Government of Canada bears the ultimate legal and financial liability.

As proposed within Bill C-28, the minister gets to pick what private operators are indemnified and what public taxpayers will pay in case of a catastrophic accident or spill over the ocean. Those things do happen. This would fall on the Government of Canada. Again, if these rockets fail, cause damage or contaminate our water, the responsibility does not reside with the public firm, which is the Dutch company I was mentioning, nor with MLS itself, but with the Canadian taxpayer. We are socializing the risk of catastrophic failure while privatizing the potential gain for shareholders and lobbyists.

Let me address now the financial absurdity at the heart of this deal. The provincial government lets this land for roughly $13,500 per year, yet, through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year. This is not an investment. This is an excessive, indefensible transfer of wealth. While the public carries the liability, the corporate structure shows all the hallmarks of a venture designed to enrich the insiders rather than to launch satellites. We have seen massive share dilution, with hundreds of millions of shares issued while insiders reduce their own exposure.

The Liberals have been totally silent about this. This is not how a healthy, productive market behaves. This is an inversion of market principles, where the government is using public money to insulate a company from the rigours of competition, or from the risks that come from the business itself. The government's position is that we must pay this price to play this game. My position is that we are paying a premium so private corporations like MLS can play the game.

Some might ask why Conservatives are not ambitious enough, why we are not for the type of investment this represents for our space sovereignty. Well, ambition is not the issue here. We all want a robust Canadian space sector, but ambition without discipline is a policy of failure. By the government's own test, the capability is not demonstrated. The value is not realized. Ownership is absent, and the risk is entirely public. This is not an investment. This is an obligation with downside exposure. Canadians are paying up front, bearing the risk and carrying the liability for a capability that does not yet exist. We are being asked to trust the great machine as it grinds onward, indifferent to the taxpayer.

As Conservatives, we refuse to participate in this gamble with other people's money. For these reasons, we cannot support this allocation. Again, I would just remind the government that this is not a case of problem and solution, where the problem is a lack of space sovereignty and the solution is MLS. This solution has been imposed on the Canadian taxpayer. Conservatives will not support it, and we will fight against a government that puts its own needs and those of insiders before our sovereign ability to advance this field in a proper fashion.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I think we all need to understand is how important our sovereignty is and the fact that the government is not in the business of making money. It is in the business of facilitating and making sure each individual Canadian is well supported. The government right now has supported not only industry in these difficult times, but also individual Canadians, through things like the groceries and essentials benefit.

Does the member favour supporting Canadians, or is this a gimmick for him to just get a leg up in how we operate and more of a partisan issue as opposed to supporting Canadians?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating $20 million, one of 20 years' worth of payments that are going to a private company for an asset that we would never own. As I mentioned, in Norway, when they wanted to create sovereign space capacity, for approximately $30 million, they did it themselves. Here, we would be giving $200 million. I would ask the member opposite what $200 million could do in this economy. There are so many other priorities that would be better suited from here, but perhaps, if the Department of National Defence needs this capacity, it should own the asset, operate the asset and get the benefits to Canadians, not to MLS.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague a question to determine his party's position on a request that is very important to the Bloc Québécois and that was brought to me again yesterday. I was in the Magdalen Islands, and some seniors came to see me to ask about the status of the Bloc Québécois's request to increase the old age security pension for seniors aged 65 to 74.

This would cost just over $3 billion per year and would be good for our seniors, whose purchasing power has been eroded and who are not always in a position to earn more. What is my colleague's position on our request?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here to talk about $20 million that would be allocated from the Department of National Defence and given to a private company. As much as I appreciate the member's concern for seniors, the fact is that if we as an opposition, whether the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, the Greens or the Conservatives, simply talk about anything other than what the government is actually doing, it is taking our money and giving it to a private interest. There are already signs of huge profits being taken for a company that, a year ago, disclosed to its investors that it was not a going concern, meaning it was close to bankruptcy. I recognize that under the Liberals, not only are seniors close to bankruptcy but MLS was too. Where did the government choose to put its money in bailing out MLS versus seniors? That is what we are here to talk about, and that is what I will be talking about here tonight.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a weird day of events. Today we celebrated an astronaut who represents the pinnacle of the Canadian space program, and all members of the House were applauding that, as we should. However, Liberals are now trying to defend a tax boondoggle whereby a piece of land leased for $13,500 a year is being re-leased to the government for $20 million a year.

My question for my colleague is this: How important is it that we get full transparency and that the government releases all the documents around this deal to show Canadians exactly what happened there?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what the member is saying. The government has gone completely radio silent when it comes to transparency on this. It is claiming that MLS answers a problem it has not properly defined. As I said, in Norway they spent about $40 million to create their own infrastructure, which the people own. The Liberals would be giving $200 million of taxpayer money, financed by bondholders. We deserve answers. Maybe the member might want to go to the national defence committee and ask for a production order in relation to this.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to share my time with the hon. member, who so well articulated why this is an opposed item for His Majesty's loyal opposition.

I would like to start my remarks with a quote from the installation speech of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Louise Arbour, the 31st Governor General of Canada. This is a quote from the speech she gave in the other place this morning to assembled guests and dignitaries, as well as to all Canadians. She said:

Humanity has always sought to go further, to push the boundaries. And to go higher, as our Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen did on his mission into space.

How could anyone be anything other than awestruck by the thought that he set his eyes on places no other human being had ever seen before?

I say this with confidence: let us not slow our momentum toward progress out of fear of differences.

Extreme polarization is dangerous—but so is extreme consensus.

It is through our differences, and our fundamental right to express them, that we will nourish critical thinking, creativity and innovation. It is through our differences that we will build our common future.

As Canadians, we have the extraordinary privilege of living in a mature democracy. We benefit from strong institutions that allow different views to be expressed.

I offer that excerpt from the remarks of Her Excellency because it is regrettable that some who are new to this place do not know and some maybe have forgotten what it is that we are to do here and who we are doing it for. The act of opposition exercised by His Majesty's loyal opposition, and, in fact, by all members who are not in government, which is not the people in the governing party but members of the executive, is accountability. However, this discussion and debate, particularly around this $20 million annually or $200 million over 10 years, has been framed by some people, when Conservatives raise legitimate questions, as being an act of disloyalty, so let us get a couple of things clear.

Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil. That is a legitimate objective. Canada has a proud history in space, as noted by Her Excellency, in the recent successful journey of Colonel Jeremy Hansen, but there are also the Canadarm or Canadarm2; Marc Garneau, who was the first Canadian in space, in the year I was born, I would note; Roberta Bondar, who was the first Canadian woman in space; Chris Hadfield, a Canadian astronaut who commanded the International Space Station; and many men and women who have made extraordinary contributions to humanity's continued reach for the stars.

The Canadian Space Agency says that a commercial launch is “a natural evolution” for Canada's space sector, and I agree with this objective. The question is not whether Canada should pursue sovereign launch capability, as my hon. colleague noted previously. The question is whether taxpayers got good value for money in this $200‑million deal over 10 years, and we need to be clear about that. It is not about sovereign launch capability.

When Conservatives vote against, for example, a budget that includes spending on national defence, we hear the cries from Liberal members, “They hate the military,” and, “Why don't they love Canada?” That is an awful thing to hear.

I believe the Liberals actually know better. We all ran and were elected to serve the people of this great country, and there are more than a few of us who have put on the uniform to serve our country. I thank the men and women who came before us, and the men and women today who serve, not the least of whom are those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

This is not about disloyalty to Canada. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is about us exercising our responsibility to get accountability for taxpayers. We are the representation for that taxation, and we have asked very simple questions about the $20 million. The government announced a 10-year, $200-million agreement to lease one dedicated launch pad for a spaceport in Nova Scotia. The government says it is going to support DND, the Canadian Armed Forces, the wider Government of Canada, our allies and our partners. It said the pad must reach its initial operational capability by the end of 2026 and that 90% of the funds must be spent in Canada.

Those are important promises, but they raise basic accountability questions. Number one, how was the $200-million price tag determined? Number two, was there a competitive process, or was this a sole-source deal? Number three, what did taxpayers receive for the first year, given that Maritime Launch says the agreement is retroactive to April 1, 2025? It is being paid $20 million per year, and the first payment of $20 million was due before March 31, 2026. Number four, what milestones, holdbacks, clawbacks or cancellation rights protect taxpayers if the site is not ready by the end of 2026? Number five, what due diligence was done on Maritime Launch's financial position? Its 2025 annual filings refer to the spaceport as “under construction” and note that depreciation begins when the spaceport is available for use.

I am not here today to say that the project is bad or that the—

[An hon. member]

Yes, you are.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just came in, and he was not paying attention. He misses the entire point. He is the kind of person who comes in here and starts screaming about people being disloyal for doing their job of holding the Liberals accountable for $20 million. We love Canada. That is not something that they hold a licence on. We love this country. The hon. member, who put on a uniform for this country, knows better, and he should act better.

I would not say that this project is bad, but I would say that the Liberals have to demonstrate basic due diligence to Canadians. That is their responsibility. Parliament has to make sure that the money was handled properly. If everything was done properly, the government and the company should be able to show that. We invite them to do it. I would welcome them to do that, but they have not.

With that in mind, I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the amount of “$17,968,133,395” with “$17,948,133,395”.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not exactly know whether the Conservatives have something against Atlantic Canada or how they justify their positioning on Canada having an opportunity to launch things into space.

[An hon. member]

Shameful.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member says “shameful” from across the way, but let us keep in mind that the Conservatives tend to oppose anything that the government wants to do. We have made a clear commitment to our Canadian Forces and to what will be taking place in the industrial development sector, whether it is in space or for our Canadian Forces, that whole 2%. The Conservatives, no matter what we seem to do, want to be negative and want to shoot it down.

Is there any aspect of the government expenditures that he actually approves of, whether it is for the forces or for the space launch centre?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have woken up the parliamentary secretary from his nap, but he missed the part of my speech where I said, “Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil.” That is a legitimate objective. He completely missed the entirety of the point of what we are doing here. The guy has been here a long time and does not seem to understand what we are supposed to do. We have to hold you guys accountable. We keep catching you giving Liberal insiders money.

Time and time again, we have caught these guys greasing the wheels with Liberal insiders. We support our Canadian Armed Forces. We support sovereign launch capabilities. They have got to show us receipts, not just hand $20 million out the door.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind members to ask questions through the Speaker but not directly to the Speaker. I would remind them to keep it within the rules of decorum as well.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Red Deer.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the question that my other colleague asked. The Province of Nova Scotia leased this land for approximately $13,500 per year, yet through this federal agreement, Maritime Launch Services receives $55,000 every single day of the year.

Will the member explain exactly how a 400,000% markup over the provincial lease rate serves the interest of the Canadian taxpayer?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is the question that my hon. colleague has raised. This is what we have asked the government to demonstrate, and we are opposing the $20 million for this year's use because it has failed to do that. It is not about the aspiration. It is about the execution. What is the value for money that taxpayers are getting here? We are in lockstep with Canada's continued reach for the stars, but we have to see what we are getting for $20 million. Canadians expect that of us.

In fact, it is not $20 million. It is $200 million. Are there improvements being made to the site? What continued services do we get for that money? Is it an investment for Canadians or is this an investment in a private company, which is going to have the equity, and not Canada?

These are assurances that we need. We need to understand why and how, and for some reason, the government is refusing to demonstrate that to the House and to Canadians. That is why we oppose the expenditure.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one thing that is not part of the current debate is the clear disparity between the forestry industry and the oil and gas industry when it comes to the funds the government allocates to these two different industries.

The oil and gas industry gets billions of dollars in subsidies, while the forestry industry gets nothing. We know full well that the forestry industry is the industry best positioned to combat greenhouse gases and that the oil and gas industry is the industry that is most harmful to the planet.

Does my colleague think it makes sense that, year after year, budget after budget, appropriation after appropriation, we subsidize the industry that pollutes rather than the one that is better for the planet?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking to reconcile, of course, is how the government prioritizes its expenditures and how we could support sectors like our forestry sector if the government was not spending money on what it cannot demonstrate to us is not the rewarding of well-connected insiders, which is a pattern that we have seen with the Liberals. We want the receipts. We want them to support Canada's wonderful natural resources sector and also to support our military and launch capabilities.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. I am sure he will make very good use of that time.

Since we are talking about the estimates today, we can address any aspect of the use of public funds. I want to briefly revisit our disappointment regarding the implementation of the budget, Bill C-31, among others, and the lack of response to one of our main concerns.

There is something I do not understand. We keep saying that our SMEs need help. We also keep trying to explain to people in other Canadian provinces, in English-speaking Canada, that Quebec's economic fabric is unique because of its SMEs, which need support. We believe that the wage subsidy would be helpful in the current climate, given the new tariffs. However, we have not received a response. It is radio silence. There were no consultations before the budget measures were introduced.

The government continues to subsidize the oil industry at every opportunity. Once again, these bills give the government even more power, including discretionary powers, which, to be perfectly honest, are frightening.

Anyone who looked at the media this morning saw the news about crop protection products, herbicides and pesticides. I know what I am talking about, since I was the agriculture and agri-food critic for a long time. We studied these issues extensively at committee.

What we were seeing, particularly with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, which is now called the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, was a lack of efficiency. Whenever there was an emergency on a farm and an emergency registration was requested, it got delayed. It can take years, because the staff are in no rush, because there are not enough resources, or for any number of reasons.

For three or four years, we had been studying the possibility of allowing drones to be used to spray pesticides, even though these same pesticides are already approved to be sprayed by plane. Planes spray pesticides at higher altitudes, over larger areas and using larger quantities. Logically, drone spraying will require a smaller quantity of pesticides and be able to focus on specific parts of the field. That is exactly what we want. It takes three or four years to approve that. We are scratching our heads and wondering why.

That is what we were calling out. What is the government doing now to address the problem? It is saying that when the PRD rejects a product, cabinet can decide to authorize it for economic reasons. This is a very slippery slope, one that is reminiscent of what we have seen in previous bills. In just about every bill we vote on, the government gives its ministers the power to override other laws.

This is extremely concerning. I do not believe that allowing cabinet to decide to authorize banned products will increase public confidence. We already use several products that are banned in Europe. What we need are resources and efficiency at the PRD and the CFIA. We must not give elected officials, who are not scientists, the power to authorize the use of toxic products.

Let us be honest: These products are used to kill pests or eliminate diseases. That is what they do. The people who apply these products are our farmers, the people who feed us. When products are banned, it is often not only because of their effects on the soil, but also because of the risks they pose to the people applying them.

What they are saying is, too bad, saving the crop is more important. I do not feel that we are reacting strongly enough to this change. I believe there is a major problem with undemocratic governance right now. The Liberal government continually grants itself the power to override the application of laws.

Things are not moving quickly enough in Canada. We are not efficient enough. It is not that complicated. The government is going to run this country like a business. If a law slows things down, then the government will get rid of it. That is what it is doing with the Alto high‑speed rail project.

If members watched the press scrums today, then they saw my leader's response. We have no choice but to oppose this project because it is being handled all wrong and because the government is infringing on the rights of our constituents. As the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I cannot sit idly by while my constituents are treated like second‑class citizens because the government wants to run a train through their land and it wants the project to be completed quickly without any delays. The government is going to take away these citizens' right to speak to an independent hearing officer and their right to object to the price offered for the land.

What is more, the government knows that the railway may have to cross sensitive areas, such as the Lanoraie peat bog. It figured that with the high-speed rail project, it is easy. It just needed to add a line to the bill stating that an environmental assessment is not required. That is how Canada is being run right now. I think the public will eventually realize this, as this bad habit of granting absolute powers continues to repeat itself. We are drifting away from democracy. That is what I think.

Parliaments have passed laws over the years. I am not saying we should not adapt our laws. I am not saying we should not review and assess them regularly. If 28 regulations have been added and none have ever been removed, perhaps one or two could make way for the new ones that address the same issue. That is possible. However, we need to be smart about this. We need to take our time. The opposition parties need to be consulted. We need to have healthy, thorough debates. That is not what is happening right now.

Instead, time allocation is imposed, so we do not have enough time. It is being rushed through. They want to go on vacation. It is summer, and it is almost time to wrap up our work, but the government still wants to get its seven, eight, 10 or 12 bills passed. That means we have to stay until midnight and get it done. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

I dream of a world where election campaigns last a month and a half, like they are supposed to, and where, in between elections, elected officials work together for the common good. In that world, the party in power would not be able to negotiate with members to secure a majority and then do whatever it wants without consulting anyone else. That is what we are currently experiencing. That is what I am experiencing, and it is dangerous.

I have said it before, but I will say it again and again, because it seems that some members on the other side of the House are not listening. The Bloc Québécois is a constructive opposition. We do not just sit around whining. We have come up with proposals. One good idea would be to eliminate the oil subsidies. The Liberals are listening to us so much that they are increasing that funding.

There are wage subsidies, as I mentioned earlier. There is EI reform. When people lose their jobs, 40% of them are ineligible for benefits. That is outright theft because they have paid into the system. They are required to do so, but they do not qualify. It would be like me charging people for home insurance while telling them I will never pay out. I am not sure they would keep paying me for long, unless they did not check their bills. We do check them. There are the cheques that were sent out during the election campaign, for which we have requested reimbursement. There is the influx of refugees we took in.

I am going to talk about agriculture again, because I miss it a little. I saw the UPA people today at their press conference opposing high‑speed rail. They have a point. Research centres have been closed. The government should be investing in research and innovation, not making cuts. At a time when cabinet is being given the power to approve whatever crop protection products it wants, the agencies responsible for regulating and approving them are facing cuts. What should be happening is the opposite. Personally, I dream of a government that makes agriculture a priority. The fact that less than 1% of the budget goes to agriculture in a country like Canada is shameful. It should be at least 2%. Agriculture is the foundation for everything. Defence is about to get 5%.

Do members know how cities were captured in the Middle Ages? They were not attacked; they were encircled, and the besieging army simply waited until all the food inside was gone. That is the way a territory is weakened. It may have the best army in the world, but if it does not have the means to feed it, if it does not have free-flowing international trade and is not self-sufficient when it comes to food, it will have a big problem.

We need to make wise choices and, for goodness' sake, stop this shift toward authoritarianism.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe that through the whole estimates process, the government has given a great deal of attention to the issues of agriculture and, in particular, taxation. The member made reference to how we could support making things more affordable. Just last Friday, we dealt with the issue of providing the groceries and essentials benefit program, supporting 11 million Canadians. There is more. We could talk about the fuel excise tax. Fuel costs 10¢ less a litre.

If the member was fair in his assessment, he would realize that, in many ways, the government is there to support the issue of affordability with regard to agriculture, whether it is canola out west or providing export opportunities—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite his poor reasoning, I still find the parliamentary secretary quite likeable. If he were being fair, he would admit that the excise tax exemption is lining the pockets of oil companies. That is what we have always said, and it is what we have been saying for years: The government needs to stop giving these companies tax breaks. They are vultures. They will siphon off every last bit.

The government keeps talking about the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, but this is simply a rebranding of the family allowance. This is not all new funding. Yes, the amounts have increased. However, does the government know a good way to stimulate the economy, get it moving and help people who really need it? It involves indexing the OAS for people aged 65 to 74, just as it is for those aged 75 and over.

I am being told that $3 billion a year is too expensive, but it would seem that $200 billion for high-speed rail is not too expensive. I do not know which is more important to the Liberals, but these people need money, and I am talking about less than $100 a month.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech. He mentioned the Alto high-speed rail project between Quebec City and Toronto. For years and years, there were plans for a high-frequency train, but then an outgoing prime minister waved a magic wand and suddenly it became a high-speed train.

My colleague raised a very important point. Land is currently being expropriated in a place that already has an extremely painful history with expropriation: Mirabel. The folks at Alto could not have done a worse job of handling this than they are doing now. Can the member, who represents an agricultural riding, tell us what impact it has on farmers when the government irresponsibly expropriates land?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to once again thank my esteemed colleague for that very interesting question. What happened in Mirabel with the supposedly international airport that never came to be was that the government had to return nearly 90% of the land that it stole from people. People had to buy it back at today's prices. That is what happened. Now, Alto is coming to our area, even though Mirabel still bears the scars of past expropriations. I do not want Berthier—Maskinongé to experience that kind of horror.

Alto is coming to my area and terrorizing people along a 10-kilometre-wide stretch. The government is telling us not to worry because Alto only needs 60 metres. First of all, there is going to be a construction site around that 60 metres. Second, if only 60 metres is needed, then why take a stretch 10 kilometres wide? It looks like the government is planning to take more land than it needs. Is it going to try to resell the land around this train through land speculation to fund this huge project?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleague's speech was very interesting, especially the first part, when he talked about drifting away from democracy. It resonated with me, because I was elected last year and I have noticed that, month after month, the government keeps introducing legislation to bypass lots of other legislation, saying that, from now on, as much power as possible is going to be placed under certain ministers' discretion.

What risk does my colleague see in all that?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé has 45 seconds to answer.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not much time to assess this risk.

The risk is that anyone can make decisions about anything. Let me draw a parallel. During COVID‑19, members of the Conservative Party wanted us to vote on motions that would lift the health measures in place for air travel. We agreed, but we had the wisdom to concede that we were not microbiologists or epidemiologists. We therefore asked to include wording to the effect of “with the consent of public health authorities”.

The danger is that uninformed people will make decisions—under pressure from lobby groups or economic pressures—to approve products, including crop protection products that will be used on our land. Later, our children and grandchildren end up paying the price. It is terrifyingly serious.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and especially for his last answer, which I think was quite intelligent, and full of common sense and wisdom.

As my colleague also said in his speech, at the Bloc Québécois, and in Lac‑Saint‑Jean in particular, we are not satisfied with simply noting that economic challenges exist. We propose ambitious but above all achievable ideas to help our regional economy grow. It is in that spirit that I wish to draw the attention of the House to a very real opportunity for our region. A unit or subunit of the Canadian Armed Forces reserve is being established in northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

At a time when the federal government is announcing historic investments in defence and looking to increase its military personnel to 39,000 members by 2032, Lac‑Saint‑Jean has everything that a reserve unit needs. The project being considered in Saint‑Félicien has strong local and regional support. In fact, the mayor of Saint‑Félicien was here on the Hill today to promote this great project with people from the Department of National Defence.

I should mention that this work had already begun several years ago. A feasibility study had confirmed the project's potential, but the 2021 federal election put a halt to the process. There had even been discussions in the early 2000s. Today, however, the timing has never been better. The federal government is seeking to strengthen the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces, increase the recruitment of reservists and invest more in defence. Our project is directly aligned with these objectives and will generate lasting economic benefits for the Lac-Saint-Jean region. It is a win-win opportunity for both the Department of National Defence and our region.

Moreover, Canada's new defence industrial strategy raises the important question of the capacity of our regions to support growth and meet the current needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. This is precisely where Lac-Saint-Jean stands out. This riding, which I am proud to represent, has very real strengths: solid regional support, clearly expressed by municipal and regional elected officials; infrastructure already in place that can tangibly support training, recruitment and operational support activities; and above all an engaged population. We are not starting from scratch. We are talking about a region that is already organized and structured, and that is capable of hosting a reserve project.

Of particular note is the strategic location of Saint‑Félicien and northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean, which truly serve as the gateway to more northern regions. At a time when Arctic and northern sovereignty issues are becoming increasingly important, this location is turning into a real asset to the government's proposed strategy.

In my riding, we have ambitious but achievable ideas for growing our regional economy. This is the first time I have spoken about this initiative, I know, but there is nothing improvised about it. It is a solid, well-documented project that can have a real impact on achieving federal defence objectives. Moreover, this kind of project is not of military interest only; it also has a role to play in stimulating regional development, maintaining a federal presence in our regions and creating economic benefits for our communities.

Indeed, the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean has five times fewer federal jobs than average compared to other Canadian regions. This was confirmed by the study we commissioned, so it is clearly an inequity that must be addressed. The establishment of a military reserve is a golden opportunity to create jobs, retain our young talent, diversify our economy and strengthen the political weight of our regions. I repeat: In my riding, we have ideas that are ambitious but above all achievable for growing our regional economy, because in Lac-Saint-Jean, we are not content to be mere observers. We want to be key players in the development of our communities.

If the government is serious about its approach and truly wants to achieve the Canadian Armed Forces' modernization and growth objectives, it must absolutely focus on regions like ours. One thing is certain: The federal government will not be able to meet its recruitment goals by limiting itself to major urban centres. Regions therefore have an essential role to play. As mentioned earlier, Lac-Saint-Jean has the infrastructure and resources to host a reserve unit. This project, as I said, is realistic, relevant and beneficial for everyone.

In closing, the message I bring today is quite simple. Lac-Saint-Jean is ready and can truly do its part. I sincerely hope this government will heed my call.

Speaking of which, I have to say that it took months, if not years, before the federal government lifted a finger to help the forestry industry. When it finally did, it still stubbornly refused to address the lumber industry's top priority, which is for the government to buy back the countervailing and anti-dumping duties that are sitting idle in the United States and implement a loan and loan guarantee program to match the amounts being withheld by the United States.

When it comes to the forestry industry, the current government lacks one thing: an understanding of the situation faced by people who make a living from the forest. I understand that situation. Before I was lucky enough to represent the people of Lac-Saint-Jean, I worked on the paper machines at what was then known as the Resolu mill and which is now called the Domtar mill. I know what life is like for those people.

Forestry workers get up very early in the morning and work 12‑hour shifts on a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule. Does anyone on the other side know what a 3‑2‑2‑3 rotation schedule is? It is three day shifts and two days of leave followed by two night shifts and three days of leave, and then the whole thing starts again but this time with three night shifts and two days of leave followed by two days shifts and three days of leave. That is what life looks like for pulp and paper mill workers.

What does life look like for a guy who harvests lumber? He wonders whether he will have enough money when he gets back to make the payments on his machinery, which costs a fortune. When a sawmill worker wakes up one morning only to be told that there is going to be a temporary shutdown after all, that is what life is like in the forestry sector.

For small forestry communities, it also means that everyone is laid off. For the mechanic, the guy at the corner store or the town's grocery store, it means that people can no longer spend their money there. It means that they will move elsewhere to find work. It means that schools will close. That is the reality for people in the forestry industry.

Meanwhile, the government is telling us that it is going to announce $10 billion over 10 years. We are talking about $10 billion over 10 years that are not even funded for the forestry industry. The government just gave $14 billion to the oil and gas industry for one year, and yet they are telling me that the government is taking action for the forestry industry. The reality for people in the forestry industry is that this industry is in crisis. The time to help them is now.

Meanwhile, the government is singing the praises of its Minister of Finance, who is actually the member for a region where forestry is a key industry. It is hard to believe. This Minister of Finance is flinging money at the oil and gas industry while sawmills are shutting down in his own backyard. That is the reality for the forestry industry. It is downright shocking and frankly bizarre to see what this government's attitude has been for years. It will not raise a finger to help the forestry industry, to help workers.

What is more, those workers are the lifeblood of the industry that is in the best position to fight greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, yet the government is giving money to the industry that is in the worst position to do those things. In fact, the industry it is giving money to is actually making climate change worse. That is just insane.

I hope the government will eventually understand what workers are going through. I hope it will eventually realize that this industry is circular. First, workers need to go get the lumber. Then they need to haul it back by truck. Then they process it into wood chips, which are put through pulpers to make pulp. They also have to make kraft pulp. Then it is sent to the sawmills.

This government has no idea. It does not realize how important this is to Quebec's forestry regions.

I will stop there.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong when he makes the assessment that the government does not understand. Of course the government understands. That is why we are providing financial support, whether it is for our forestry industry, our aluminum industry or our steel industry. We can appreciate the tension and anxiety within those ndustries.

My question is more in regard to the issue of reserves and Arctic sovereignty, a very high priority. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister was up north and made a commitment of close to $35 billion in order to invest in the armed forces and protect our sovereignty in the north.

Does the Bloc party support the investment for northern Canada in order to substantiate a very strong, sovereign north—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague listened to the question, he would have realized that I want a Canadian Armed Forces reserve unit in Saint-Félicien, in northern Lac-Saint-Jean.

He said I was wrong about the forestry industry, but he is the one who is completely off base. Sawmills are closing right now. I invite him to come meet the workers who have just lost their jobs, who have just been laid off because the government did nothing. It did not stand up to the Americans over the illegal countervailing duties. That is what happened.

We are in the middle of the sixth trade war, and they are still wondering what they are going to do to respond to this affront from the Americans. They have not done a thing. Meanwhile, when the auto industry gets hit with tariffs, they write a cheque during the election campaign. It took them a week to respond. They are doing absolutely nothing for the forestry industry, even though we have been subject to tariffs for years.

Honestly, that is pretty weak.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said he is lucky to represent the people of his riding, Lac-Saint-Jean. I would like to gently correct him. As far as I know, he did not win the lottery to get here. He has duly earned the respect and support of his constituents.

My colleague highlighted how ineffective this government has been over the last 11 years, but looking forward, I was excited about the proposal he brought forward. It is great to hear a Bloc Québécois MP from Lac-Saint-Jean speak so enthusiastically about the future of Canada's north. I find that very interesting.

He also talked about the federal government's impact on his region. I do not want to start a war between Lac-Saint-Jean and Saguenay, but could my colleague talk about the importance of the Bagotville military base, which Canada established during the Second World War precisely to protect the aluminum industry that made it possible to build the aircraft that would liberate the world from Nazism?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows his history well. That is indeed the reason why the Bagotville base was created. It was to protect the aluminum smelters, which were a key sector in the war effort.

Indeed, there are good federal jobs, but my colleagues should know that these jobs are in La Baie. Speaking of La Baie and Saint-Félicien, the drive between the two locations still takes a good two and a half hours. The drive between my town, Alma, and my colleague's riding is shorter. That should give you some idea. Still, it is a long way, which is why we commissioned this study proving that northern Lac-Saint-Jean is under-represented when it comes to federal jobs.

As for protecting Canada's north, my dream is that the Quebec army and the Canadian army will one day conduct joint exercises to defend the Arctic.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with what our colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk was saying. Our colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean has not won the lottery. He is lucky, it is true, because he comes from a fine riding, but the people of Lac-Saint-Jean are truly lucky to be able to count on him.

I can see that he knows the issues very well. To his credit, he spoke about them with passion. I find it hard to believe the government would turn a deaf ear to these requests. As the MP for Lac-Saint-Jean explained, establishing a base in Lac-Saint-Jean would meet the desired recruitment targets and enable people who have lost their jobs to find new ones. It is a win-win situation.

I listened to him and I cannot believe that there has not already been some indication from members of the government that they are going to move forward, that they like the idea, that people can count on them, that they will be there. However, that does not seem to be the case. Does my colleague have any idea how the government will respond to this proposal, which is sound and is in everyone's interest?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. In fact, I have to say that the government is being open. We had meetings today. I hope that, in addition to this political openness, there will be openness on the part of the Department of National Defence. I am certain that we can convince people at the Department of National Defence to create this unit or subunit.

We have the support, which is rare, of the mayor of Roberval, the mayor of Dolbeau-Mistassini, the reeve of the Domaine‑du‑Roy RCM, and the reeve of the Maria‑Chapdelaine RCM. Many municipalities will be voting on resolutions at their city councils to support this idea. Saint‑Félicien has a CEGEP and reservists get 50% of their post-secondary education paid for by the army when they pursue this opportunity. In short, I think this is a great project for northern Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member from Milton East—Halton Hills South.

I think we all know that fraud in Canada is a growing problem. Stories are now appearing in the media virtually every week. Data from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre shows that Canadians lost $638 million to fraud in 2024. Reported losses to the CAFC since 2021 have now surpassed $2 billion. The rate of frauds being reported remains low, with an estimated only 5% to 10% being reported, so the problem is understated and in the billions of dollars.

We know that fraudsters generally target the most vulnerable people among us, such as seniors, new Canadians and young people. Bank fraud in particular is a significant concern in Canada, yet investigations by financial institutions often end with banks' blaming the very customers who trusted them with protecting their money. This raises the issue of the proper responsibility of banks to their depositors and the role of the federal government in regulating or not regulating them properly.

I would like to share with the House some real examples that have been brought to my attention recently by constituents in Vancouver Kingsway. For case number one, I will read from the letter I received:

“In early September, my dad, a 67 year old retiree called me in a panic. He had just realized he had been scammed out of his entire life savings and more. He was involved in what we believe was a ‘pig butchering’ scam. He was told he was investing in cryptocurrency—he had a wallet which showed incredibly high returns. When he went to withdrawal, he was hit with yet another fee of $90,000 USD to do so. His ‘partner’ who was to be paying the fees to share in the investment suddenly said she didn't have anymore money. This is when he realized.

“...Going through the details of the scam ended up showing that my dad didn't purchase crypto in a typical way. He was directed to the bank to wire money to several different locations. Locally here in Vancouver, then to New York and then finally to Vietnam.

“My dad opened a new account at BMO in April 2025 and thus the transactions begun. Every 10-14 days my dad went to the same branch on Mainland Street in Yaletown and sent anywhere from $100,000-$300,000 USD to accounts based in Vietnam under the guise of ‘purchasing auto parts.’ Every single time he wire transferred the money, the same branch manager signed off on it. No questions asked. By the end of August he had drained most of his RRSPs, remortgaged his home, took out personal loans, and borrowed from family and friends. l'm dumbfounded by the fact that the branch manager at this location never noticed the red flags: a brand new customer, a senior retiree, purchasing nearly $2 million dollars in auto parts from a personal bank account.

“I filed a complaint against BMO.... They refuse to answer if my dad was ever reported to FINTRAC. They replied that he signed off on the wire transfers that stated if he was being coached into cryptocurrency he shouldn't go through with it—none of the wire transfers use that type of language. Further, BMO states that they have a policy in place for prevention of fraud with seniors—obviously this policy wasn't followed in this instance. There has been zero accountability for what happened from BMO. They have said they will not return or refund any of the money and that this was completely my dad's own doing.

“My dad died of a sudden fatal collapse on January 5th, 2026. Months of stress and uncertainty, embarrassment and emotional toll had taken place. He had nothing. Forced to sell his condo to pay off some of his debt but seemingly about to be homeless.

“Fraud is abundant. We read about it all the time. I simply don't understand how the bank could see such large sums of money to be transferred with no regard. And at this point, they simply do not care....

“But I do want something good to come out of his death—more people need to hear stories like this for real change to happen....

“The lack of responsibility by BMO has changed the course of my life. My dad will not get to watch [my or my sisters'] families grow up. He will never financially contribute towards us. We are now left with the bill of his death and bankrupting his estate. lt's a devastating end.”

Example number two is Mrs. L, a 79-year-old senior who was the victim of a devastating financial fraud that resulted in the loss of a significant portion of her retirement life savings. Fraudsters impersonated law enforcement and coerced her into selling her retirement investments in her registered retirement accounts and wiring the money abroad to them from local RBC and TD branches. She lost some $400,000 in her life savings. To add insult to injury, she now faces a significant tax liability from the CRA due to this, despite already having suffered a complete financial loss of much of her retirement savings. Because she withdrew RSP savings, which were then stolen, she now has to pay taxes on these monies, even though they have been lost to her.

The NDP recently moved seven amendments to Bill C-15, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 1, aimed at strengthening protections for Canadians targeted by bank-related fraud. Unfortunately, Liberals and Conservatives combined to defeat them, and we see nothing addressing this in these estimates. Our amendments would have required banks to reimburse customers who fall victim to consumer-targeted fraud, unless they have been grossly negligent in relation to that fraud. Banks would have also been required to report anonymized consumer-targeted fraud data, so we could get a better understanding of the scope of this problem. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada would have been required to conduct regular unannounced audits of banks' anti-fraud practices and policies, publish detailed fraud statistics and make its annual fraud report public, so that we could make sure that banks are actually following through on the policies they claim to have. The amendments also sought to make decisions of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments binding.

These measures were recommended by advocacy organizations, including Option consommateurs and Democracy Watch, which argued that without mandatory audits, transparency, and accountability mechanisms, existing anti-fraud rules would remain ineffective.

The United Kingdom recently brought in new rules requiring that a consumer who is a victim of a fraud known as an APP scam, which is a scam wherein the scammer convinces the victim to make a payment, must be reimbursed, unless there is gross negligence on their part. In Quebec, the Consumer Protection Act was recently amended to impose reimbursement obligations on financial institutions in cases of fraud involving a consumer's bank account.

I want to quote Democracy Watch, which noted this:

It is not enough to just require the banks to have policies and procedures in place. The Bank Act was changed in 2018 to add...two provisions requiring banks to have policies, procedures and training to ensure the financial interests of their customers are protected...but the FCAC was not required in those provisions to audit the banks to ensure they comply with those provisions and, as a result, the FCAC has done nothing to ensure they actually comply....

The new anti-bank account fraud measures will also have little effect unless the FCAC is required to conduct regular, unannounced audits and to prosecute and penalize violations...

Option consommateurs noted this:

We believe that an approach that holds banks more accountable will not only allow thousands of Canadians who are victims of fraud to be able to recover their money, but it will also decrease the occurrence of such fraud. By placing greater responsibility on banks, the legislative framework will incentivize these businesses to deploy the appropriate measures to prevent their losses.

The example of the United Kingdom is a clear illustration of this. According to the Payment Systems Regulator, following the entry into force of the new consumer protection framework, the number of claims for...fraud decreased by approximately 15% between October 2024 and June 2025, compared to the same period [the year before].

With the advent of AI and growing technology, the prospects of fraud growing in this country are chilling. Imagine a senior answering the phone and hearing the computer-generated voice of their bank manager or their grandchild, who is asking them to wire money somewhere. This is the kind of technology that exists now, yet we are operating on outdated legislation. Although the government did put a financial crimes agency in the budget, which is a good step forward, it can and should do much more to help protect Canadians from fraud in this country. New Democrats will certainly work together to help make that happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member raises an issue that I know affects so many people. All members of Parliament are genuinely concerned about these unethical individuals, many living outside of Canada. With the modernization of technology of the Internet, phone scams, robocalls being made and vast numbers of emails, scams take many different forms. Unfortunately, it is quite often the vulnerable in society who are targeted, but it goes even beyond that. I am very familiar with a senior, Peter, who was defrauded of hundreds of thousands of dollars also. I think it is important that we highlight the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre as an organization that does some good things.

I appreciate the comments of the member regarding the budget. We—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. The problem is staggering. If the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre said that Canadians lost $638 million to fraud in 2024, and only 5% to 10% is being reported, we are talking about $6 billion to $12 billion a year being lost to fraud in this country.

I know we cannot stop it entirely, but what we can and should be doing is taking measures. The government should really look at the amendments the NDP put forward, because we can place more responsibility on banks, which are financial experts, to watch for the red flags and maybe ask questions so that when vulnerable people are going to banks and being defrauded, at least that is addressed in some meaningful manner.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this debate to the floor. It is a deplorable situation where people are exploited, particularly in their golden years, out of everything they have made and hope to pass on to their children. I appreciate the member doing that.

One of the challenges is that bank officials do not necessarily understand, and when someone comes in who seems to have full use of their faculties, they are loath to either start asking questions or even stop a transaction. Provincial governments can make a big difference. Right now, if someone loses the ability to make good judgments for themselves, oftentimes a court order has to be received by family members who are concerned. Basically, it is like a light switch, saying that someone who had autonomy to make their own decisions is no longer able to do that.

I know the member has Mr. David Eby's number on speed dial. Is he prepared to talk to the province about changing the provincial laws so they are not like a light switch?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is going to take a multi-jurisdictional approach. The member is quite right that the provinces have a role to play, but the federal government regulates banks and the banking sector.

One of my children has a disability, and every January or February I make a contribution to her RDSP. When I do that, because I have made only one contribution a year, I have to answer about 20 minutes of questions to assess my level of investor knowledge, and yet I just read out examples of a senior walking into a bank who just opened an account and is wiring hundreds of thousands of dollars to Vietnam, and they get one question asked of them.

I think that banks can and should be doing much more to flag these problems, and perhaps we can at least help some of these seniors who are being defrauded out of their life savings.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some good points. I liked the part where he talked about the protections that Quebec offers consumers.

I would like to talk to him about the business world. Berthier—Maskinongé witnessed a minor miracle this morning. It was the grand reopening of Duchesne et Fils, which had been under the protection of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act for months. All of the elected officials, namely the MNA, the RCM's reeve, the mayor and myself, worked as a team and helped Groupe Zohar, the company that took over. We were happy. The employees' faces looked so different today compared to a few weeks ago, when a press conference was held to sound the alarm and point out that more time was needed. This is the kind of thing we need to do.

Companies, Quebec's SMEs, need help. Firms are going out of business. That is what made this morning's event so special. Would my colleague not agree that our wage subsidy proposal, which I keep bringing up here every chance I get, would help with that?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, my heart goes out to those employees, and I agree with my hon. colleague that the SME sector is critical to Canada's growth. What I would say is that Quebec is leading the country in advocating changes to the way banks are held responsible for these fraud situations, so I think we should study the Quebec example and apply those very valid mechanisms at the federal level as well.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the 2026-27 main estimates for national defence and to this government's efforts to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces.

We all know the global threat landscape has changed. The threats we face are numerous and multiplying, from incursions in the Canadian Arctic to attacks on our cyberspace. Canada cannot meet these challenges with yesterday's tools. The first job of the government is to keep Canadians safe. Our government is protecting Canadians and supporting our allies with an approach that transforms defence procurement. We need a ready and resilient Canadian Armed Forces that can recruit and retain skilled people and that has the training, infrastructure and modern capabilities needed to succeed in today's complex and volatile security environment.

Defence and security have become the nation's top priority, as evidenced by the significant increase in planned spending in the 2026-27 main estimates. We are requesting $50.7 billion for the Department of National Defence. That is $15 billion over the previous year, roughly a 42% increase in funding. That includes an additional $5.1 billion in operating funding, $7.1 billion in capital funding and $2.3 billion in grants and contributions. These are significant investments in Canada's security, our sovereignty, our alliances and our people in uniform, who give so much of themselves to serve this country.

Last year, Canada spent 2% of GDP on defence for the first time in nearly four decades, ahead of its original schedule. With these main estimates, we are continuing that momentum, working toward NATO's new defence investment pledge of 5% of GDP by 2035. That commitment includes 3.5% for core defence requirements and 1.5% for broader defence and security-related spending. In fact, the Prime Minister noted at CANSEC that Canada is already meeting that 1.5% target for critical defence infrastructure.

These estimates will help us support our people, strengthen our preparedness and build the partnerships Canada needs in a more dangerous world. A significant portion of this funding, $1.3 billion, reflects last year's historic pay increase for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to better reflect the unique challenges and sacrifices of a life of service. Improved compensation also strengthens recruitment and retention, reinforces readiness and gives members in uniform greater certainty as they serve. The estimates also include $274.9 million for CAF recruitment and training. This will help update processes and systems to improve the applicant experience and grow the pool of prospective members. It will also modernize training so new members can get up to speed quickly and start contributing sooner in the roles they signed up for. There is also $274.5 million for Canadian Forces health services to care for our people serving across Canada and overseas. Compensation, benefits, health care and predictable support are all necessary to support military readiness.

Equally necessary are the capabilities to defend Canada, support North American security and contribute to peace and stability with our allies and partners. The CAF must be prepared to operate at home and abroad, defend Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, strengthen continental security through NORAD operations, contribute to collective defence through NATO and support other missions that enhance global peace and regional stability. These estimates include funding for those operations, as well as contribution funding for military training and capacity-building activities. They also include $7.3 billion for in-service support to ensure the availability, reliability and long-term sustainability of military equipment. We are also requesting $1.2 billion for fleet equipment readiness to give the defence team the direction and resources needed to adapt and respond to a more dynamic and complex security environment.

Canada also needs to make major investments in future capabilities. That is why we have included $12.8 billion for multi-stage procurements that will allow the CAF to operate effectively now and for decades to come: river-class destroyers, joint support ships, Canadian multi-mission aircraft and other major equipment and infrastructure investments. These will strengthen Canada's sovereignty in the north, protect maritime approaches, support deployed operations, contribute to continental defence and operate alongside allies.

The Canadian Coast Guard is also part of the national defence main estimates. The $4 billion we have included for the Coast Guard will go toward capital funding, operating funding and grants and contributions. The Canadian Coast Guard will continue to deliver its critical missions of search and rescue, icebreaking, environmental response, safe navigation and ocean science. However, as part of National Defence, it will now play a greater role in Canada's security, collaborating with security and defence partners to share information, coordinate activities and enhance training, strategic planning and innovation, because in a country with three oceans and the world's longest coastline, the Coast Guard's maritime expertise is a national asset, and it is one of great pride.

All of these investments are necessary to boost Canada's preparedness in a precarious world. We need to plan, be strategic and maintain the discipline required to focus our resources where they deliver the greatest value.

We know, too, that we cannot do this alone. Defending Canada and contributing to global stability is a national effort that demands strong partnerships across the government, industry and academia and with our allies. That is why National Defence's grants and contributions have increased significantly, with $3.3 billion in the main estimates to support programs, organizations and recipients whose activities advance Canada's defence mandate. A large part of this funding supports Ukraine through the military training and co-operation program. It includes contributions to NATO initiatives that benefit all allies while strengthening Canada's access to shared decision‑making, intelligence, capabilities and interoperability.

We are also strengthening Canada's defence industrial base. That includes establishing a new Canadian defence industry resilience program. These estimates include initial investments for this program, which will strengthen Canadian sovereignty and increase production capacity for Canadian defence businesses. It will also support Canada's ability to produce nitrocellulose, which is a critical, high-demand, energetic material for artillery.

We are collaborating with innovators, academics, defence and security experts and other partners through programs such as IDEaS, innovation for defence excellence and security, and MINDS, mobilizing insights in defence and security. All of these partnerships help turn Canadian expertise into defence capability. They support innovation, domestic capacity and Canada's ability to contribute to allied security with greater resilience and independence.

In conclusion, Canadians expect their government to protect the country, support the people who serve and manage public funds responsibly. We want to reassure them that National Defence continues to find savings through the comprehensive expenditure review.

The departmental plan outlines approximately $460 million in operating cost reductions, beginning in 2026‑27 and continuing through to 2028‑29. These measures include continuing the fleet divestment strategy, streamlining the real property portfolio, expanding energy performance contracts and modernizing project approvals and internal business processes. That work reinforces the same principle that runs through these estimates. We are spending with purpose, focusing our resources and delivering better value for the defence team, for CAF members and for Canadians. We are investing in people. We are investing in preparedness. We are investing in partnerships.

The 2026‑27 main estimates support Canada's path towards NATO's new defence investment pledge and they reflect this government's commitment to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces.

The world has changed, and Canada's defence investments are changing with it.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, while we debate billions in government spending, Canadians and Windsorites learned today about the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, and from Michigan officials, no less. This government is still silent about it. This project, as my colleague knows, is years behind schedule and nearly half a billion dollars over budget.

If the government cannot even tell us clearly about one of the largest infrastructure projects in our country's history, which Canadians paid for, by the way, how can Canadians have confidence in the government that it can properly manage the billions of dollars the government is asking us to approve today?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague knows this project began under former prime minister Stephen Harper. I will also point out that it is a partnership with another country, to the south of us, which has not been entirely co-operative throughout the process.

I am confident that my colleague and this House will hear good news soon on the project.

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

Mr. Speaker, with regard to defence spending, what has been done over the past few months is pretty spectacular. The government has invested an additional $60 billion in the space of 10 months.

What I have to point out is that Canada was a laggard and had not been doing its part since 2014. Our fear is that one big push can come with certain risks, such as the risk of abuse, the risk that the money will be invested unwisely.

Is my colleague willing to acknowledge that Canada was dragging its feet and that it only woke up when global instability spiked?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out the great strides our government has made in spending recently, including reaching NATO's 2% defence spending target five years ahead of schedule, as well as the incredible, unprecedented pay raise for every member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Yesterday was the Canadian Armed Forces national appreciation day. I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude and appreciation on behalf of every member of this House, I am sure, for our Canadian Armed Forces and our men and women serving in uniform to keep us safe.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague outlined a lot of the investments in defence that our government is making, but there are also job impacts and positive impacts for the economy. Could she talk a bit about how these defence investments may impact those?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, when the government invests in defence, it invests in people. It invests in Canadians. I am sure that all of us can go out into our ridings and talk to different businesses that have a role to play in the defence sector. There are many more in my riding than I even realized, now that I have been going out and talking about the great investments our government has been making.

I am confident that we are going to see a real, positive upswing in the number of people and businesses coming forward that are able to play a role in, contribute to and benefit from this great investment our government has made.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, under international space law, Canada is the launching state and carries the full weight of legal and financial liability for any launch-related disasters. Why are Canadian taxpayers being forced to socialize the risk of a catastrophic failure, while the potential financial gains are privatized for the benefit of corporate lobbyists and shareholders?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what a disappointment that question was from my colleague.

Today, in the gallery, we had Colonel Jeremy Hansen, who is the pride of the Canadian Space Agency and the first Canadian to venture beyond the moon. The investments we make in space and innovation to establish Canada's role in this new and growing sector are absolutely critical and pivotal to making our place in the world.

I hope all members in this chamber will support our astronauts and innovation in the space sector.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a project earlier that we support. It involves setting up a reserve unit in the northern part of the Lac-Saint-Jean region. Right now, the Department of National Defence is looking to spend more money and recruit more people.

If I pass the file on to my colleague, could she put in a good word for me and lend her support to the reserve unit project in Saint‑Félicien?

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how much clout I would have as a humble backbencher at this point, but I am certainly happy to explore any suggestions my hon. colleagues send over to me, and I'm happy to discuss them at any time. Our government is about collaboration and building Canada strong with the help of all members of this House.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

I rise in strong support of the amendment put forward by my colleague, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to stop the payment of 20 million tax dollars that would otherwise flow to Maritime Launch Services, pursuant to the government's main estimates.

These 20 million tax dollars are part of the 10-year, $200-million lease the Liberals entered into with Maritime Launch Services to lease land that consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. “Do not worry,” say the Liberals. “It is not just any gravel parking lot. It is not just any concrete slab. It is the site of Canada's new sovereign spaceport.”

Needless to say, there are all sorts of questions surrounding this $200-million lease. They are questions that the Liberals have refused to be transparent about. In fact, the Liberals, at virtually every turn, have obstructed and refused to answer the most basic of questions. It is not only that. They have hidden the lease from Canadians. They do not want Canadians to know where 200 million tax dollars are going.

What sorts of questions are there in relation to this $200-million lease? To begin with, the government could acquire land for the site of the spaceport in the Canso area for approximately $2.5 million, but instead, the government is leasing land for $20 million a year at a cost of 200 million tax dollars over the span of 10 years. How does that make sense?

For Maritime Launch Services, it is a pretty good deal. Guess why. It does not own the land. It leases the land from the Province of Nova Scotia for $13,500 a year and then flips it to Ottawa at a 1,300% profit. It must be nice to be Maritime Launch Services. It is not so nice for everyday taxpayers.

One might say Maritime Launch Services brings a certain level of sophistication and a certain level of expertise in developing Canada's supposedly first sovereign spaceport, but then the question becomes, “What is Maritime Launch Services?” It turns out that Maritime Launch Services is nothing more than a two-bit, six-person company. Despite its name, Maritime Launch Services does not have a history of launching much of anything. It has been in business for 10 years now and it has launched precisely nothing, zilch, into space.

To be kind to Maritime Launch Services, in the span of two years, it has had two suborbital rocket launches, one of which was a model rocket from York University's model rocket club. Again, it was a model rocket from a university's model rocket club. This is the company the Liberals are entrusting to develop Canada's first sovereign spaceport. They have to be kidding.

The chair of the board is Sasha Jacob. He has a history, and it is not a pretty history, of securities infractions. Indeed, he has the dubious distinction of being fined $100,000 for securities infractions and securities irregularities. That is not good, to say the least. It begs the question: Why are the Liberals doing business with and handing $200 million to a company whose chair was fined $100,000 for securities infractions?

Given that the scope of the business of Maritime Launch Services involves collaborating with university model rocket clubs, it is no surprise, perhaps, that Maritime Launch Services has not exactly been the most successful company and not the most successful business. In fact, their 2025 financial statements report a massive loss of $47 million and revenue under $15,000. In fact, the independent auditor's report stated that “material uncertainty [exists] that may cast significant doubt as to whether the Company will have the ability to continue as a going concern.”

In other words, Maritime Launch Services was on the verge of bankruptcy, that is, until the Liberals bailed it out with this sweetheart $200-million 10-year lease on land that Maritime Launch Services does not even own. It really begs the question: How is it possible that a company that has six employees, that has not launched anything into space, that has a chair of the board with securities infractions and that was on the verge of bankruptcy managed to land a $200-million lease with the federal government on land that they do not even own and which consists of a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot?

The answer to that, of course, with the Liberals, is that Maritime Launch Services is comfortably associated with none other than Liberal insiders. The chair of the board who I referenced, Mr. Jacob, is associated with major Liberal insider Gerald Butts. There is then Stephen McNeil, the former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia, who conveniently sits on the advisory board of Maritime Launch Services.

There is the chief lobbyist for Maritime Launch Services, who is none other than a former senior staffer to the Minister of Justice, whose riding happens to be situated next to the launch site. Perhaps that explains how Maritime Launch Services got this sweetheart lease.

The lease is not about developing Canada's first sovereign spaceport. It is about Liberal insiders getting rich while taxpayers foot the bill. That is precisely what has happened up until now. I say that because another question is that the subject lease, even though it was entered into on April 1 of this year, was backdated to April 1, 2025.

Why was the lease backdated to 2025? The effect of backdating was for the Liberals to then immediately funnel $20 million to Maritime Launch Services, to bail out the nearly bankrupt company.

Guess what happened? The chair of the board, Mr. Jacob, immediately turned around and sold $3 million of previously worthless shares, pocketing a cool $1.8 million. It must be nice to be Mr. Jacob. It must be nice to be a Liberal insider. It sounds like one big pump and dump scheme to me.

Given the questions and the cloud that hangs over Maritime Launch Services, and the Liberals' complete lack of transparency, it is important that $20 million of hard-earned tax dollars do not go to Maritime Launch Services until those basic questions are answered and the air—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, if we listen to the Conservatives, we would think that it is all about raw land, which is not the case. I do not know what it is they have against the Maritimes having a launch pad. It is in a naturally good position because of the ocean, which is a very important aspect to it. It is not just the raw land. We have to build the launch pad and the infrastructure, 90% of which will be built by Canadians.

The Conservatives try to give this impression that there is $200 million just going for x when it actually does a lot more than that. I wonder if the member would concede that it is more than just a piece of raw land that is being leased.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at what has happened since the lease was entered into. There has been no rocket launch and no construction. All there is is a concrete slab and a gravel parking lot. However, someone got rich, and it happens to be Mr. Jacob, who sold three million shares, walking away with $1.8 million.

Why did the Liberals not, for example, insist upon a lock-up agreement, which would be the standard practice, instead of allowing the chair of a nearly bankrupt company to walk away with $1.8 million?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, whom I hold in high regard and who, I would point out, knows his figures. Whenever he looks closely at public finances, we can always be sure that he will uncover wasteful spending by this federal government, as he demonstrated in his speech.

One of the most glaring examples of wasteful government spending was when the federal government used the money from the carbon tax, which it had scrapped, to issue a rebate. Quebec had paid for that, but it never received anything in return.

Does my colleague agree that providing a rebate of a tax that was never paid is a clear example of wasting public funds? I would like my colleague to answer this very specific question.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the issue the member has raised. It underscores what a debacle and poorly thought-out policy the carbon tax was from start to finish that the Liberal government kept in place for years, which Conservatives called on it to abolish. Of course, it technically has scrapped the consumer carbon tax, but has maintained a hidden industrial carbon tax that is increasing the cost of everything. Therefore, yes, I agree that it underscores total Liberal incompetence and mismanagement.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals talk about the Maritime Launch Services lease they say it is an investment, that somehow it is giving us space sovereignty within Canada.

When Norway sought to create its own spaceport, it partnered with the private sector. However, for approximately $60 million of today's Canadian dollars it was able to own 90% of the asset and partner with a private sector proponent.

What we are saying here is that the $200 million going to an asset that we will never own, and for which 60% of the shares are unaccounted for as we do not know who owns them, is a big mistake. It is not a solution, but a bad deal for taxpayers.

What does the member have to say with respect to that?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the Liberals say that it is an investment, it is indeed an investment. It is an investment in Liberal insiders, and Mr. Jacob made off like a bandit in a matter of weeks upon the Liberals entering this lease.

Why Maritime Launch Services? That is the central question. Only the Liberals could manage to spend $20 million a year on land that is already owned by taxpayers, but that is what we have with this lease. There is a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there usually is fire.

Instead of providing answers and clarity, we have seen nothing but obfuscation. That is why the amendment brought forward by the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes is necessary, to put a halt on directing more taxpayer dollars to this questionable company until those questions are answered.

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

Mr. Speaker, “to infinity and beyond”. Am I talking about a space program or our deficit? Perhaps I am talking about both. Kids all over Canada look up to Buzz Lightyear and Chris Hadfield about the stars and what is beyond them. Whether they are real astronauts or fictional astronauts, Canadians look up to these role models.

Canada has a great history being a part of our space exploration, such as the Alouette I, which was launched under former Conservative Prime Minister Diefenbaker, making Canada the third country to design and build a satellite; and the Canadarm, an impressive robotic arm used in the space shuttle and the International Space Station. Even Elon Musk, the founder of SpaceX, was educated right here in Canada.

We have a lot of achievements to be proud of and Canada is certainly swinging well above its weight, including Newfoundland and Labrador. In my riding, in the town of St. Lawrence, we actually have a launch pad. We have the NordSpace launch pad. Last year, many Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and scientists from around the world gathered in St. Lawrence to watch NordSpace have its first test launch. The best part is the inauguration mission was called “Getting Screeched In”.

NordSpace is a 100% Canadian-owned company, investing in our province and defence, with a planned expansion opening a new office in St. John's for mission controls. This is good because Canada needs a strong space force. GPS, Internet, communications and many essential components of society and our military are in space. We need to have the ability to provide those services and protect those services for Canadians. Space is no longer just about exploration and discovery. It is about national security, economic growth, scientific advancement and innovation.

The countries that lead in space will help shape the future. Canada was and always should be among those leaders. Our engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs have demonstrated time and time again that they can compete with the best in the world. However, what they need is a government that supports innovation responsibly, spends taxpayer dollars wisely and ensures that invested dollars provide value for Canadians.

I have spent a few days researching NordSpace, its company and business models. It seems that it received a mere $10 million. With that money, it built a nice road, a nice spaceport, developed its technology and even had a test launch. Let us compare that to the spaceport on everyone's mind: Nova Scotia's Maritime Launch Services.

Maritime Launch Services was incorporated in 2016, but things did not get spicy until this year and Canadians are concerned. We have heard that there is a $200-million deal with Maritime Launch Services, but we seem to have very little detail on what that includes. So far, all that seems to be included in this $200-million deal is a concrete pad in the middle of a gravel pit.

Being the inquisitive man that I am, I got on a plane and went to Canso, Nova Scotia, to see this launch pad for myself. After a short three‑kilometre walk, it was easy to see some of the concerns. Being only three kilometres away from the town, I could actually see homes from the launch pad. I can see why the people of the town of Canso are raising concerns. There were signs all over town petitioning against the construction of this launch pad so close to their homes.

In addition, there was not much there. It was an underwhelming experience. There was a sea can, a work trailer and a small concrete pad. Honestly, it was no larger than my driveway. It is not much of a piece of land. It sure seems to be an expensive piece of land at that. The company is renting the land from Nova Scotia for less than $15,000 per year and then it seems like it is billing the Department of National Defence $20 million a year and National Defence will not even own it when it is completed.

To add fuel to this rocket, I am hearing that the federal government backdated this lease for a full year. How does that happen? I would be the happiest landlord in the world if I had tenants who said, “I will backdate my lease and pay for a full year before I move in.” That would be fantastic.

Coincidentally, this lucrative lease came just in time to save the day. It is rumoured that this company was on the verge of bankruptcy before receiving this deal. If that is not bad enough, as soon as the deal got signed, some shareholders cashed out and dumped that stock at a ballooned price. Not only did they get bailed out, but they also got rich. They got rich off Canadian taxpayer dollars, and that is exactly why transparency matters.

Canadians are not opposed to investing in infrastructure. Canadians are not opposed to investing in innovation. Canadians are not opposed to building a stronger space industry, but Canadians are opposed to writing a blank cheque without being told where the money is going.

When governments spend public money, they have a duty to show their work. They have a duty to explain the costs, justify their decisions and demonstrate the results. If this project is truly in the best interest of Canadians, the government should have no problem releasing the details of that lease and letting the facts speak for themselves.

I am not here just to complain and point fingers. I am here to ask questions, to raise the issue, to get to the bottom of this for Canadians. Really, I am standing here to give the Liberals a chance to explain themselves, a chance to release the lease, a chance to release the details of this funding, to explain to Canadians how they can justify spending over $200 million on a space pad in Nova Scotia while a nearly identical one was built in Newfoundland for only 5% of the cost.

Canadians have a right to know. These are large amounts of money we are talking about here. This is not a $16 orange juice or even a $200,000 luxury airplane room service for the Prime Minister's private jet. This is $200 million, million with a capital M. This spaceport is costing Canadians over $54,000 a day for the next 10 years, and $54,000 is more than what an average Canadian makes in a year. The median salary for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is less than $35,000 a year.

Conservatives know that Canadians have a right to transparency, a right to know how the Liberal government is spending their dollars. I am sincerely hoping the Liberals can stand up and tell Canadians, convince Canadians, show Canadians that this is not another Liberal green slush fund or another Liberal WE scandal, where Liberal insiders and Trudeau's family receive millions of taxpayer dollars.

However, so far, from this side of the House, things are looking pretty fishy. Many Canadians would even argue that this entire spending is a waste. Why should the Canadian taxpayer pay for a second launch pad in Atlantic Canada, when there is a perfectly functional and nearly identical launch pad already constructed and used in Atlantic Canada? Certainly, it would cost much less than $200 million to transport those rockets to the spaceport in my riding.

These are the questions, the simple questions Canadians are asking, and we want to hear good answers, so let us hear it. If there is a sound business case, let us see it. If this is truly a wise investment, then release the details to allow Canadians to judge for themselves. Until then, Canadians will continue to wonder why so much money is being spent with so few answers being provided.

Unfortunately, rockets are not the only thing going to infinity and beyond. It is also Canada's deficit. We spend more money on interest payments than the federal government spends in health care payments. We spend more money servicing the deficit than we receive in GST. This means the 5% we all spend on everything at the store goes straight to the bankers.

The Prime Minister's budget has generational debt. By 2029, over 12% of our budget will be used to service the debt. For every eight dollars we take in, a dollar will be used to service the debt. This is massive. Debt is looming over the next generation of Canadians, risking our entire economy's future, and it is not because Canadians are not paying taxes. We are paying way more than enough taxes. It is because the taxes are not being used wisely.

This, my friends, is why this economy is not flying. It is simply falling with style.

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

Mr. Speaker, Magellan Aerospace in Winnipeg makes satellites and buses for satellites. Having the ability to have sovereignty in space, where Canada is able to use it not only for national use but also potentially for international use, and to expand our aerospace and space industries as a direct result, I think, is something the members opposite are really overlooking.

One of the biggest advocates for this project, by the way, is the progressive Conservative premier of Nova Scotia. He understands the benefits for the aerospace industry. The last time I looked, he was not a Liberal.

At the end of the day, would the member not recognize that, while he might not like the project, it is an overall—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just gave the Liberals a chance to get up and explain. I just asked all the questions on Canadians' minds. I gave them the opportunity on a golden platter, and the member got up on the offence, attacking me as if I do not support the space industry as well, as if I do not support Canadian sovereignty, and as if Conservatives do not support Canadian sovereignty in space. I do not know why the Liberals just never took the opportunity to explain to Canadians what this money was used for and how they are going to actually improve Canadian sovereignty in space.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what I see when it comes to these investments is that there is a significant gap. The Liberals constantly claim that they are there for Canadians. It reached a point where it was comical. I remember the former prime minister saying that the government was there to help and would continue to help in order to help. He seemed to be talking in circles.

Quebec has made certain demands. During the last campaign, the Prime Minister gave a lot of money to communities in western Canada as a rebate for a carbon tax that was never paid in the first place. That payment was made using Quebeckers' tax money, yet Quebec did not get a penny. According to our estimates, Quebec is owed $814 million.

The federal government ignored that demand, but we did not let that deter us. We also asked for help for seniors, who worked hard all their lives. The federal government refuses to budge and is maintaining the two classes of seniors.

What is my colleague's view on this? Should the Liberal government not show a bit more respect for taxpayers?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think what my friend across the way was describing is almost the same situation, where the Liberal government takes taxpayers' money, uses it in a way that Canadians do not want it to be used and picks favourites. In this case the member across the way claims that the government took taxpayer dollars from Quebec and then gave that money to Anglo-Canada instead. I think we are on the same page. The member is agreeing that the Liberal government takes money from everybody and then distributes it to its chosen people. It is, quite frankly, very frustrating.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to be proud of our history when we talk about aerospace, because, as my colleague highlighted, we were the fourth country to have a satellite, Alouette I, in 1962, and we were the people who built it.

We built the lunar modules' landing gear in Longueuil, Quebec. Six lunar modules are still up there, each resting on four legs that were made in Longueuil. We should be proud of Canada's aerospace history and legacy.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the following. How is it that, this year, the federal government is unfortunately misspending $200 million on Canada's aerospace industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree. Quebec especially has been a leader in the aerospace industry, with Bombardier's building airplanes. It has been amazing, what we have done in Canada. We have so much to be proud of. Again, I do not think the mistake is investing. I think the mistake is wasting that money. We built a launch pad that is almost identical to the pictures I have seen and to what I have seen when I have been there. It is an almost identical launch pad, for 5% of the price, in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is not about what we are spending money on. It is how you are wasting the money, giving it to Liberal insiders.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. It was not you who wasted the money. It was the Liberals. I made a mistake.

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

Mr. Speaker, given that no one else wants to stand up, I am more than happy to share some thoughts in regard to the estimates. Let me start off by providing comments, because we have heard them from Conservative after Conservative. Quite frankly, I am very disappointed that the Conservatives want to play the political corruption game when, in fact, they cannot substantiate it. Rather, they put on tin hats and start conspiracy theories.

At the end of the day, take a look in terms of the opportunity that is before Canada. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that as a nation, we want to build a stronger and healthier economy, as I said earlier today. If we were to take a look at our aerospace industry, we would see, in many ways, that the Government of Canada has recognized how important that industry is, and has directly and indirectly supported it.

Take a look in terms of what the actual results have been and the types of things we are talking about. Do members want to talk about the space industry and its potential? Take a look at what is happening in some European countries as they have recognized the value of looking at the space industry and how much that has impacted their economies. I believe that we can have a space agency and an aerospace industry that can work hand in hand and ultimately build a stronger, healthier country, because when we talk about direct and indirect jobs going into the future, some have estimated that there will be over 200,000 good-quality jobs. These are the types of initiatives we should be taking a serious look at, as the government is doing. It is not only looking but also taking tangible actions.

If we talk about the launch pad that is being, if I can say—

[Some hon. members]

Say it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure my words are parliamentary.

If we talk about the launch pad that is being put down by the Conservative Party, let us be very clear. I made the statement earlier, when I put a question to the previous speaker, that we have the Progressive Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia as one of the biggest advocates for this particular project. As I said in my question, he is not a Liberal, yet the Conservative Party has a narrative that it wants to stick to no matter what. They do not let the facts get in the way or enable economic opportunities for the province of Nova Scotia, and it is not just Nova Scotia that will benefit from this project.

When I look at it, having this world-class launch site located in Nova Scotia, it is the right place to locate it.

[An hon. member]

It's a parking lot.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a parking lot.

Members need to understand what is being proposed. This $200 million is not just for the raw land, which is the impression the Conservatives try to give people. It includes the infrastructure, building a launch pad that is going to elevate Canada's status so that other countries in the world will look to Canada as a way to get their satellites into orbit. It is about sovereignty.

Do members support Canadian sovereignty? Do members believe that Elon Musk should have the priority to say, “No, I have other things that I have to launch that are more important than what Canada wants to launch, so I am going to stick with those?” Are the Conservatives prepared to surrender our sovereignty on space and satellites to Elon Musk? That is what it sounds like, because what is their answer? They are not talking about an alternative or giving criticism in terms of why it is that Canada should not have a space launch pad.

I like the idea. Come to Winnipeg and take the tour of Magellan Aerospace. There are first-class, hard workers of all different ethnic groups who are, in fact, working there every day of the week, and they are building Manitoba's aerospace industry. There is a very strong space component to it. Members can see that in the city of Winnipeg, we are manufacturing satellites. We have satellites that were manufactured in Winnipeg that are circling in orbit today. They are there. It is real. It means jobs.

I can tell members that every member of the national Liberal caucus understands the value of having a launch pad in Nova Scotia. I say shame on my colleagues across the way who do not support the initiative of having it in Nova Scotia.

[An hon. member]

How about Manitoba?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Manitoba has opportunities, but there is no ocean beside Manitoba.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we finally have a government that is actually looking at expanding the port of Churchill, and there are opportunities there, possibly for rockets. Maybe we can talk about that. I do not want to talk too much about it, because the Conservatives will start criticizing it. There are all sorts of opportunities within our aerospace industry. In terms of Nova Scotia, I know my colleagues understand the true value and the investments that the government is putting into our aerospace industry and our space industry.

We can think of it in terms of our military's having the capability to work through contracts to have a satellite, and the Canadian government's being able to say, “Okay, this satellite is a priority and is going to be launched.” That is what sovereignty in space is about. It allows the national government to not have to rely on other governments, or on Elon Musk, in order to launch a Canadian satellite or to put things into orbit. Why would the Conservatives not join the Progressive Conservative Premier of Nova Scotia? By the way, the Government of Nova Scotia has actually approved the location.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one member said that it is a bad location. The provincial government does not seem to think that. It is just the federal Conservatives who want to dump on the province of Nova Scotia, it would appear.

We can look at what we have done over the last year, with a new government of just over a year and a new Prime Minister, in terms of what we have actually brought through: budgetary measures, supporting our space agency and our aerospace industry, and things like investing in our Canadian Forces, for which we hit 2% funding before the end of last year. The current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table when the Conservatives could not even get 1%, yet we got 2% before the end of the year, within months of the last federal election.

Whether it is those budgetary measures or it is legislative measures, we have already introduced to the House of Commons the measures necessary to ensure that we can move forward with the launch pad. Conservatives voted against it, unfortunately, but the point is that it has already been moved, and we are moving forward. Despite the opposition we are getting on this initiative, we will continue to move forward with it, because it is the right thing to do. We could apply that principle to many aspects of the budget.

We are talking about the main estimates, the business of supply, and there are a number of initiatives within the budget that I truly wish the Conservatives would reverse their attitude on. As opposed to looking at the glass as always half empty, there is another way of looking at it. In other words, have a positive attitude. It does not hurt. Members can still be party of an opposition party and have a positive attitude, which is lacking from the Conservative Party.

Let us take a look at major projects as an example. Yes, the space launch site is going to cost money, but I believe the investment will pay off in great dividends, not only in terms of sovereignty but also in jobs and so many other things, including benefits for our aerospace and space agencies.

There are many other things through major projects that will have an equally very positive outcome for Canadians, virtually from coast to coast to coast. Earlier today, as an example, I talked about the potential of wind and current energies in Atlantic Canada. The federal government is investing in energy development in Atlantic Canada today through major projects. Earlier today I talked about the port of Montreal and the potential of the port not only to create thousands of jobs for the city of Montreal and the people of Quebec but also to increase the opportunity for us to export. That will have opportunities for all of Canada.

Earlier today I made reference to the province of Ontario and major projects. The first one that comes to my mind is in the area of nuclear energy opportunities. The Prime Minister talks about making Canada an energy superpower, and we are serious about that. We are dead serious on the issue. We recognize the issue of sustainable development, and that is why we continue to work with provinces, indigenous communities, municipalities and the many other stakeholders. We realize that for these megaprojects to work, we need to appreciate and understand the importance of sustainable development. Nuclear energy is something very real and tangible, and through major projects, the Prime Minister and the government are getting behind it.

There are other countries around the world that are looking at nuclear energy, and Canada has a role to play in that. I cited the Philippines as an example. There are discussions that are ongoing with Canada, particularly with the Province of Ontario and Ontario Hydro, from what I understand, in terms of how they can take advantage of the expertise that Canada has to offer on nuclear energy.

Let us move on from Ontario to Manitoba. Whether it is mining or the port of Churchill, for the first time in Manitoba, we have an alignment to have the port of Churchill developed and be able to export all forms of different products, from the potential of LNG to some minerals that are being mined and to other types of exports. These are the types—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member opposite is not being relevant, neither he personally nor with respect to anything in particular regarding the motion. I would ask that he come to order and maybe talk about Maritime Launch Services, the lease, and the Department of National Defence—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have heard enough. There is broad latitude, particularly when we are on topics such as the estimates.

I will just ask the member to return to the topic at hand.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member has not hurt my feelings. It is fine. If he is not following the debate this evening, that is fine, but I hope time was not deducted for the point of order, because I have a lot more to say.

Building big and building projects is important to Canada, and the space project is equally important to Canada. If the member was listening earlier, he would know that some speeches did not even mention the word “space”, but I appreciate that he is giving some attention to what I am saying. I ask him to follow along.

I will continue with major projects. Manitoba at one time did launch rockets. There are opportunities in the future to have something of that nature once again. However, Canada does not today have a space pad that has the capability of launching things like satellites into orbit, which is why we need to work toward it.

This is, as I said, about building projects. In the province of Manitoba, the premier and many community leaders are working with the Government of Canada on ways in which we can expand the opportunity for Canada to have yet another port, a viable and strong port.

I am hoping the Conservatives will not adopt for the province of Manitoba the same attitude that they have for Nova Scotia . At the end of the day, if they had representation in Nova Scotia, they might actually be a little more sympathetic to what the Progressive Conservative premier is saying about Nova Scotia, as well as my colleagues within the Liberal caucus.

I will move on to the province of Saskatchewan and major projects. Think about what is being proposed to deal with things such as copper mines. Look at what is happening with canola, potash and some of the other projects being considered in the city of Calgary, where the Major Projects Office is actually located.

I move on to the province of Alberta and thinking in terms of an energy superpower and being more sovereign. Sovereignty matters to our government. I will get on to that right away as one of the other things we are doing. Not only do we have a memorandum of understanding with the progressive Conservative Premier of Alberta, but we now have an implementation strategy, an implementation plan, actually in progress that is expanding opportunities to become that energy superpower.

Take a look at British Columbia. Whether it is the mining of copper, or it is, again, LNG, we will find that these things are part of the major projects.

I will talk about the north. The Prime Minister was in Yellowknife not that long ago and talked about the importance of northern sovereignty. As a government, we are looking at over $30 billion in order to build and strengthen Canadian sovereignty up north. These are substantial commitments, because we have a government that sees the value of investing in Canadians and in the projects that are going to help ensure that Canada becomes the strongest country in the G7 and the fastest-growing on a per capita basis.

The results are already starting to be realized in different ways, whether it is in constructions or in jobs, with 88,000 jobs announced just last week for the month of May. In the last year, there has been a net increase of well over 100,000 jobs. I believe it is just over 150,000. There are many indicators of this, such as with investments. Foreign investment in Canada, on a per capita basis, is greater than in any of the G20 countries. Arguably, it might even be the best in the world.

These are the types of things that the Conservatives consistently overlook. They have adopted this attitude that Canada is broken, and they have to pump that message out, inside and outside the chamber, whether it is accurate or not, and it is not. That is the message they want to get out.

I think they need to turn the page and recognize what the Government of Canada is doing, and that is working collaboratively with the stakeholders, the provinces, indigenous people and a wide spectrum of individuals who are providing us with the opportunity to build a stronger and healthier economy, and a healthier society, an economy that works for all Canadians. That is our objective.

That is why we brought forward legislation to establish a space opportunity and space sovereignty. We understand and appreciate the valuable contributions that, in particular, the province of Nova Scotia can make in being able to establish that industry here in Canada. It is something that we should be proud of and be promoting. At the end of the day, it means improving the quality of life for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my loquacious colleague. He is very eloquent. He always has something to say, even when he has nothing to say.

The reason we have concerns about this is that $200 million is being spent in a very unusual way on a place that is not developed at all. It has been like that for years now.

Does he think that the $200 million spent on what has been done so far should be commended, or would he say, conversely, that we are off to a bad start? Out of respect for the Canadian aerospace industry, which has roots in our country dating back 60 years and which is part of the future of Canada's economic development, does he think that the site in Nova Scotia is off to a good start?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a part of the future for Canada and our economy. As I said, it is estimated that in terms of direct jobs, we could be looking at somewhere in the neighbourhood of 225,000, if we can do this right. I believe we will get it right.

As for the $200 million that keeps on being brought up, it is not for the raw land. The company has to build the infrastructure that enables us to ultimately see satellites put into orbit. That is what it is when we talk about the $200 million. It enables Canada to be able to say, “This is an important satellite, and we want it launched as a priority.” Right now, we do not have that capability. Many would argue that that is not right. That is why we have to continue to push this thing forward. It is about sovereignty.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to my colleague, I can hear how enthusiastic he is about his government's budget measures. I am listening to him tell us how great things are going and how wonderful life is.

However, there is one thing I do not understand, so maybe my colleague can explain it to me. If his government is having so much success with the economy, why is it happening at our seniors' expense? Why did the Liberal government decide a few years ago that seniors aged 65 to 74 should be treated less well than those aged 75 and over? It would not cost a fortune to fix this. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for a fix for years.

As a gesture of solidarity, could this government recognize how much these seniors have contributed to the Canadian economy and boost their purchasing power to match that of seniors aged 75 and over? Could it increase old age security at the same time? The Bloc Québécois has been calling for seniors' pensions to be increased by 10%, which is not that much.

I would love to hear my colleague's thoughts. Can he tell me why the government did that?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's former prime minister Justin Trudeau made a commitment, an election platform commitment, that we were going to increase OAS for those individuals aged 75 and over. We fulfilled that commitment. The argument that was used was that as people age, generally speaking, they use up their retirement funds and their medical costs continue to go up. There are other issues there.

The idea of having a significant increase for those who are 75 and above was justified to the degree that Justin Trudeau made the commitment during an election, in an election platform. The member is criticizing Justin Trudeau and the government at the time for fulfilling an election platform issue. Whenever possible, we should try to live up to election platform commitments.

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the Conservatives have brought this amendment to talk about the launching of these rockets from Nova Scotia and from Newfoundland and Labrador. My understanding is that those are the only two locations in Canada that would be acceptable for this purpose, and it is critical for our sovereignty.

I wonder if the member could talk about the importance of things that matter for Canadian sovereignty.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if only the Conservatives had a member of Parliament from Nova Scotia, I suspect it might actually change their opinions on this issue.

The hon. member is right in her overall assessment.

My plea to members of the Conservative Party of Canada is that they look at it as an Atlantic Canada initiative. It is the best place to have a launch pad because the Atlantic Ocean is right there, which would be great to have for re-entry and so forth. This $200 million is not just for raw land.

As I indicated earlier, one of the biggest supporters, alongside my colleague, is the Premier of Nova Scotia, who happens to be a Progressive Conservative.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to look at Maritime Launch Services' financials. I think this is very revealing because its condition appeared to be extremely weak before the government's injection of money. In its 2025 financial statements, the company had $47 million in losses, $14,980 in revenue and approximately $70,000 in cash on hand at the end of 2024. We have heard numerous times tonight that a shareholder actually cashed in what were effectively worthless shares after the $20-million injection, which gave him $1.8 million.

Is it not true that the government effectively rescued a failing company and subsidized an enterprise on the verge of bankruptcy?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member opposite to, maybe, write that question and see how the Premier of Nova Scotia would respond to it.

Here is an opportunity. Maritime Launch Services can provide, through a contract, a service that would provide Canada the opportunity to have space sovereignty. It is a viable opportunity that we are working on with the province of Manitoba and other stakeholders that is going to enhance our industry here in Canada to the benefit of all Canadians. I see that as a positive thing.

The member should write the premier.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the opposite side of the House comes from a city that is home to the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, which is an extraordinary museum, by the way.

The problem is that, in the 2023 budget, this government announced its intention to introduce much tougher anti-forced labour legislation. That same intention was included in the 2024 budget, but, suddenly, since the new Prime Minister took office, this intention does not appear in the 2025 budget. It has been abandoned. That means that today, we are voting on appropriations that do not include funds earmarked for strengthening anti-forced labour legislation.

How can my colleague, who has the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in his own city, accept such an about-face by his government?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister supports and advocates for human rights on virtually a daily basis.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go and see how we can work collaboratively in Houston with our own astronaut Jeremy Hansen.

The member mentioned this in his speech, but I would like it if he could comment, perhaps, as to why we need the independent capability to launch, to work on research and development and to have access to space, as well as working collaboratively with other countries across the world.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question, because it is a great way to, hopefully, end the discussion on this particular issue. We have a choice. That is, do we rely on Elon Musk to establish Canadian priorities in sending satellites into orbit, or should Canada have its own space sovereignty, where the Government of Canada can establish the priorities and, at the same time, build on industries, whether it is our aerospace or space industry, which generates hundreds of thousands of direct and indirect jobs? I choose the latter.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

First of all, let me say what a thrill it was to meet Kevin White's brother-in-law today, astronaut Jeremy Hansen, here on Parliament Hill. Kevin White is the fire chief in the city of Barrie, and he is married to Jeremy's sister. I thought I would mention that for Kevin's benefit.

During World War II, when Allied aircraft would be flying over the targets, ready to bomb, they would be hit with flak. In this place, we know we are over the target when Liberals start justifying and making excuses for things that absolutely make no sense, and they speak in a louder tone to try to make their point. What is important about this debate tonight is that Canadians are watching the government spend $200 million on a politically connected spaceport project in rural Nova Scotia. The more we learn about it, the less sense it makes.

As the finance minister suggested in committee of the whole two weeks ago, this is not a story about innovation or economic stewardship. It is a story, in fact, about Liberal insiders, political connections, well-connected insiders and taxpayers who, once again, are being asked to foot the bill for a project that should have never received this level of government backing in the first place. Canadians are effectively paying $50,000 every single day for this project.

What exactly are they getting for that money? They are getting a gravel road, two sea cans and a concrete slab that has launched exactly two rockets, neither of which have reached space. One of those launches was conducted by a York University student rocketry club. Canadians are effectively paying $50,000 a day for what amounts to be the most expensive science fair project in the country, and yet somehow, despite this lack of infrastructure, lack of revenue, lack of launches and lack of any proven commercial success, the federal government decided to give this company $20 million a year for the next 10 years.

The debate and argument tonight is that Canadians deserve to know why the numbers alone make absolutely no sense. Maritime Launch Services reported less than $15,000 in annual revenue. At the same time, the company reported tens of millions of dollars in losses and had only about $70,000 in cash on hand. Independent auditors openly warned that there was material uncertainty about whether the company could even continue operating. In plain English, this company was on the verge of financial collapse. Instead of walking away, what the Liberal government did was attach itself to this project even more aggressively. Canadians have seen this pattern before. When ordinary Canadians struggle financially, the Liberals tell them to budget better, but when politically connected companies struggle financially, the Liberals suddenly open up their wallets.

The insider connections surrounding this project are impossible to ignore. Former Liberal premier Stephen McNeil publicly supported the project before the environmental review had even been completed. Then later, after championing the project politically, he conveniently joined the company's advisory board. Canadians are tired of this revolving door where Liberal politicians help projects while in office and then later somehow attach themselves to the same companies benefiting from that government support.

MLS's chief lobbyist was reportedly a former senior staffer to the justice minister, and the company reportedly lobbied the justice minister 14 separate times, more than the current or former local MP for the area. Canadians do not need a conspiracy theory to see what is happening. The pattern is clear. Former Liberal politicians, former Liberal staffers and well-connected political insiders are all orbiting around a company that is now receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer support.

Despite all of these political connections, the project itself still makes no practical sense. The original business model was based around launching the Cyclone-4M rocket. The problem is that the rocket has never actually been built. Imagine spending $200 million to build an airport for planes that do not exist yet.

Canadians would never, ever tolerate that level of incompetence in any other sector, yet somehow the government saw no proven rocket, no proven market, no regulatory framework, no meaningful revenue and massive financial instability and still thought this is exactly where 200 million hard-earned taxpayer dollars should go.

The government did not just ignore the warning signs. It practically sprinted past them.

The company's founding partner became tied to a NASA false claims case involving allegations of false billing and ignored safety protocols. The chair of the board faced sanctions from Canada's investment regulator over failures involving compliance and supervision. The Ukrainian aerospace partner behind the project had already been surrounded by allegations of corruption, failed international projects and major financial disputes. Any one of these should have triggered caution, but instead, Liberal insiders continued to attach themselves to this project.

The most unbelievable part of it all is the land arrangement that is in place. Maritime Launch Services does not even own the land. It leases Crown land from the Province of Nova Scotia for less than $13,000 a year, and somehow, through this federal government agreement, taxpayers are paying massively inflated amounts connected to the exact same land, resulting in a 1,300% profit margin.

Canadians are struggling. They cannot get mortgages approved. Young people cannot afford homes, families are cutting back on groceries and seniors are struggling with bills, but somehow, the Liberal government found a way to guarantee politically connected insiders with what appears to be a 1,300% return tied to publicly owned land. That is not to mention that effectively worthless shares of what was an effectively bankrupt company were sold for a profit of $1.8 million. That is not economic development, nor is it innovation, as the finance minister would say. It is absolute cronyism.

Why is the federal government attaching itself so aggressively to a project that still lacks even the most basic foundations for success? Canada does not even have a fully developed regulatory framework for commercial orbital launches. The environmental assessment was minimal. The project dramatically changed its entire business model. The site itself is underdeveloped. There were two launches, and both were unsuccessful. Still, the government wants to invest $200 million in it.

At some point, Canadians will stop seeing this as a business decision and start seeing it for what it looks like: a politically protected project kept alive by well-connected Liberal insiders using taxpayer money. Canadians deserve governments that invest based on merit, viability and public interest, not on who knows which minister, former premier or Liberal staffer. Right now, Canadians are paying $50,000 a day for a failed science fair, while the only things truly taking off appear to be the profits and connections of Liberal insiders.

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

Mr. Speaker, I often wonder if there is someone in the Conservative backroom who gives out a gold star every time someone on the other side mentions the word “corruption”. The Conservatives consistently try to incorporate that word into every speech they give.

My question for the member opposite is this: Does he believe that the Premier of Nova Scotia, who is, as I pointed out, a Progressive Conservative, is wrong in supporting this project too?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason corruption, cronyism, well-connected Liberal insiders and well-connected lobbyists come up all the time is that we see them all the time, and they benefit while Canadians are suffering at great cost because of the Liberal government. This is why they are brought up all the time.

The second part of the member's question was on the support of this project. What Conservatives are looking for, and I think what most Canadians would want, are some accountability and transparency over this project. As I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of questions that need to be raised. We are trying to highlight some of those concerns, not just to make Canadians more aware, but also to make sure that we are providing accountability and transparency on this project.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my colleague was here earlier when I asked my question about businesses, but the Bloc Québécois believes that small businesses in Quebec and, of course, across the rest of Canada need direct, rapid, effective support to avoid going under.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen furniture businesses closing down. I mentioned earlier that a very happy event took place this morning in Berthier—Maskinongé. The Duchesne et Fils plant in Yamachiche reopened after the company sought protection under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of elected officials, we succeeded in applying pressure and making sure the company that took over had favourable conditions to make it work. I want to take this opportunity to recognize them and thank them again, along with the people at the business support centre, who had a major impact on this file.

We succeeded in saving one business, but we are worried about other businesses that are closing down and about businesses that have not gone under yet but that are struggling. I would like to know whether my colleague supports our proposal for a wage subsidy to keep the economic fabric of our regions from unravelling.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding is in the same boat. Many businesses are suffering right now because of the tariffs, but also because of the rules and laws imposed during this Liberal government's 11 years in power. I think we should support businesses.

We need to support businesses in our ridings. There is no question about it. One of the ways we can greatly support businesses is by ensuring that with much of the legislation, many of those regulations and policies that are in place right now and the red tape that exists among businesses, we get the government out of the way and let these businesses flourish on their own.

Of course, we should always be there to support businesses as well, but the government creates the environment for success. It does not actually create that success—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, $200 million is what we are talking about with this launch pad. In my riding, a sawmill was recently shut down, with 190 jobs lost. That $200 million would have gone a long way there.

The member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park and I were debating this earlier, and he talked about how we needed a Canadian Cape Canaveral. I wonder if the hon. member could do a bit of a comparison between Maritime Launch Services and Cape Canaveral.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is really not much to compare, because we have, as I said, a gravel road with a concrete pad. Compare that to Cape Canaveral. Members can see it if they fly over it. If anybody has been there, it is very well established. There is no question about it.

The issues here are transparency, accountability and the fact that so many taxpayer dollars were given to this company that was on the verge of bankruptcy. There are a lot more questions than we are getting answers to right now. We need to keep pushing on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is our role here as elected officials? We have a legislative role when it comes to bills. We must ensure the sound management of public finances. We represent the people of our ridings. We are the eyes, voice and ears of the people.

Earlier, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House said that we were against the development of the aerospace industry. We are not against the development of the aerospace industry; we are against the mismanagement of public finances. We are dealing a financial scandal involving Maritime Launch Services, a private company that leases 135 hectares of land from the Nova Scotia provincial government. This private company took its contract and decided to lease the land to the federal Liberal government for $20 million a year for 10 years, for a total of $200 million.

My question for the Liberal government is simple. If it had been their own money, would they have signed this contract? The answer is clear. Of course, no one here would have done that. No Canadian would have signed a contract like that. Why did the Liberal government sign a contract like that? The Maritime Launch Services site is on a gravel road. There are two shipping containers and a concrete pad measuring 25 feet by 35 feet. That is the infrastructure that the government is renting for $20 million a year for the next 10 years.

Over the past few days, I asked the Minister of Finance some questions. Who signed the contract? Who read the contract? When was the minister informed of this contract? I asked him if he had met with officials from Maritime Launch Services. He did not recall. I reminded him of the exact date he met with them. I asked him if his chief of staff had ever met with officials from Maritime Launch Services. He did not know. When he was industry minister, his chief of staff met with them 14 times, seven times in 2023 and seven times in 2024. Again, he met with them 14 times. How is it possible that the minister does not remember that he had these important meetings with his chief of staff?

The minister is currently taking Canadians' concerns so lightly that he offered to introduce me to some astronauts. I do not want to meet astronauts. I want to meet with experienced stewards who will sign contracts that meet the expectations of Canadians, the people who elected us to ensure the sound management of public finances. This is unacceptable to us. Canadians work hard every day to earn a living, to be able to pay for a place to live, a vehicle to drive and food to eat. They send a portion of their wages to us here as taxes. Our role is to be good stewards and to serve Canadians. That is our role. It is to be good stewards.

Right now, the federal government is being a very poor steward. This is just one example. Then people wonder why the country's deficit, which was $700 billion when the Liberals took office 10 years ago, is now at $1.4 trillion. Bad decisions like this add up. I can say that Canadians are extremely frustrated right now.

A lot of people are telling me that. Frédéric told me that the government never answers questions and that I will definitely never get any answers. Nathalie wonders why they do not answer and adds that ministers are all the same when they have to be accountable. Mathieu says it is not easy to answer such a simple question.

Stéphane says that he has rarely seen someone dodge such a simple question. Patrick says that he cannot get over how some people never answer questions. Sébastien says that the minister never manages to answer and that he always runs out the clock. Guylaine said that he stalls for time and never answers my questions. Sylvie says that his total disregard for us and the way he treats us like idiots is unbelievable. This is what people are writing to tell me about this matter. Faced with such a case, how are Canadians supposed to trust a Liberal government?

On August 13, 2024, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue met with representatives of Maritime Launch Services. The former Nova Scotia Liberal minister sits on the advisory board of Maritime Launch Services. I remember that Maritime Launch Services had signed an agreement with the Nova Scotia provincial government and, lo and behold, the former premier of Nova Scotia also sits on its advisory board.

According to the Halifax Examiner, the former premier of Nova Scotia had written a letter of support on the company's behalf even before the project had been submitted for an environmental assessment. Mr. McNeil was appointed to the Maritime Launch Services advisory board in 2023 after announcing his resignation in 2021.

It is only natural to ask questions. How can anyone agree to a deal like that? Who signed that agreement? Someone accepted it; someone put their signature to it. There had to have been a point when the minister knew this agreement was going to be signed. When was he made aware of it? As MPs who are mandated to be the eyes, voice and ears of our constituents, we cannot accept this situation. It is our role to strongly call this out.

What would make me happy is if the Liberal MPs who also just found out about this in recent weeks were as outraged as we are and said that this is unacceptable. After all, this money is coming from their constituents too, and they are suffering as a result. Canadians have worked hard for the money they send to us. They want us to recognize the value of every single dollar they send to us. The minister finds this funny.

The minister just walked into the House and he finds this funny. We are talking about a land lease, minister, which you arranged for $20 million a year—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. Members are not to speak directly to the minister or other members. They must address the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, can you tell the minister, who just entered the House laughing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Members cannot do directly what they cannot do indirectly. They cannot refer to the presence or absence of a member. That applies to ministers as well.

I will allow the hon. member to finish his comments. He has one minute.

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

Personally, Mr. Speaker, I do not see the humour in the situation.

What is funny, however, is that the site is located in a Liberal riding. The former aide to the Minister of Justice was a lobbyist for the project. The former Liberal premier of Nova Scotia sits on the advisory board. Furthermore, the president of the Canadian Space Agency has stated that she was never consulted about the choice of site.

The minister told me this week that he wanted to introduce me to some astronauts so that I could understand why he had chosen this site. The president of the Canadian Space Agency was not consulted. I think that says it all. Everything is in place. This is a financial scandal, and on this side of the House, we will stand up for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member seems a little upset that it is in a Liberal riding. All the ridings in Nova Scotia are Liberal. The Premier of Nova Scotia is actually a Progressive Conservative.

What we are seeing is a federal government working in collaboration with a Progressive Conservative government in Nova Scotia to have a space launch sector. There is value in that in terms of the potential of creating jobs. It will have an impact not only in Nova Scotia, but also in my city of Winnipeg where they manufacture satellites and want Canadian sovereignty in allowing Canada to be able to launch these satellites.

If you are so much against Nova Scotia, what province would you prefer to see the launch pad in?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I would remind the parliamentary secretary that I cannot answer these questions, but I will ask the member for Richmond—Arthabaska to answer them.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is pathetic to hear the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader speak. The parliamentary secretary is doing the Liberal government's dirty work, which is indefensible. It is indefensible.

We are not against aerospace development. We are against financial scandals. Now the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is trying to defend them. I commend the parliamentary secretary for courageously doing his party's dirty work. That is to his credit, but it does not reflect well on his party because, right now, this is a financial scandal, and we are going to stand up for our constituents.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague said something that resonates with me because it is something I have felt as well.

According to feedback from the public, when they saw the exchange between my colleague and the Minister of Finance, they did not understand why the minister was not answering. I must admit that, over the past year, this is one of the things I have noticed that really amazes me. When we go to a committee meeting and ask questions, it seems as though the government's primary goal is to avoid answering questions and just run out the clock. I really do not understand what the point of that is.

Does my colleague have any explanation or possible theories to share?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, whom I hold in particularly high regard and who lives in an incredible part of the country.

This is sad. It is something we often say, for example during oral question period, which is aptly named. It is a question period, not an answer period. It is the same in committee. We ask questions, and sadly, we get no answers. There are Canadians who listen to question period and committee hearings. Unfortunately, all this does is fuel their cynicism about politics. People can clearly see that we are not getting any answers from the government. This applies even more in the case of financial scandals like this one.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some things are indeed ridiculous. Public funds are being wasted and there are financial scandals with this government. It never ends.

One of the things that the leader of my colleague's party has said is that he is against corporate welfare. This was in response to a question from my colleague from Jonquière ahout whether the government should stop subsidizing the oil and gas industry, which is getting $14 billion this year. The Conservative leader agreed and said that we need to fight corporate welfare.

Will my colleague proclaim loud and clear, like his leader, that one of the current government's worst financial scandals in the estimates we are voting on is that there is a subsidy of $14 billion that is coming out of taxpayers' pockets and going directly into the pockets of those who are making the biggest record profits, namely oil and gas companies?

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada's greatest wealth is its natural resources. We have a duty to exploit them.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 10 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Call in the members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—The Government's Fiscal Policies

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The first question is on the opposition motion relating to the business of supply.

The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #138

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion defeated.

The House resumed consideration of Motion No. 1.

Concurrence in Vote 5—Department of National Defence

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The next question is on the amendment. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment 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.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #139

Main Estimates, 2026-27

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the amendment defeated.

The next question is on Motion No. 1.

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.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be carried on division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Motion No. 1 agreed to)

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

moved:

That the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I request that the motion be carried on division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Motion agreed to)

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

moved that Bill C-32, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, be read the first time and printed.

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

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

moved that the bill be read the second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be carried on division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to a committee of the whole.

(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Tom Kmiec in the chair)

(On clause 2)

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Chair, can the President of the Treasury Board confirm to the House that the bill as presented is in its usual form?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Chair, the form of this bill is the same as the one that passed in the previous supply period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Shall clause 3 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 3 agreed to)

Shall clause 4 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 4 agreed to)

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 5 agreed to)

Shall schedule 1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Schedule 1 agreed to)

Shall schedule 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Schedule 2 agreed to)

Shall clause 1, the short title, carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall the preamble carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Preamble agreed to)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Title agreed to)

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Bill agreed to)

Shall I rise and report the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Bill reported)

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

[An hon. member]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be carried on division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Motion agreed to)

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried on division.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Supplementary Estimates (A), 2026‑27

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

moved:

That the Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Motion agreed to)

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

moved that Bill C‑33, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, be read the first time and printed.

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

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

moved that the bill be read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried on division.

(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee of the whole thereon, Tom Kmiec in the chair)

(On clause 2)

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Chair, would the President of the Treasury Board advise the House that the bill as presented is in its usual form?

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Chair, the form of this bill is the same as that passed in the previous supply period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

Shall clause 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 2 agreed to)

Shall clause 3 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 3 agreed to)

Shall clause 4 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 4 agreed to)

Shall clause 5 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 5 agreed to)

Shall clause 6 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 6 agreed to)

Shall schedule 1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Schedule 1 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

Shall schedule 2 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Schedule 2 agreed to)

Shall clause 1 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall the preamble carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Preamble agreed to)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Title agreed to)

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Bill agreed to)

Shall I rise and report the bill?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

(Bill reported)

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

(Motion agreed to)

[Shafqat Ali, Liberal, Brampton—Chinguacousy Park, ON]

moved that the bill be read a third time and passed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to apply the results from the last vote to this vote, with Liberal members voting yes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with Conservatives voting against.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote in favour.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote, with Greens voting in favour.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees to apply the vote, with the NDP voting in favour.

[Alexandre Boulerice, Independent, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the vote and I will be voting in favour.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #140

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Health

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to be here at the late show.

Canadians across the country are demanding that the health committee investigate the Liberals' $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. When Conservatives called on the Auditor General to investigate, the Liberal Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health moved to turn off the committee cameras. Since then, she has refused to explain herself to the committee. She has refused to explain herself to Parliament. She has refused to explain herself to the media. She has refused to explain herself to her constituents, and she has refused to explain herself to Canadians.

Now the Liberals are pulling an even more disgusting political stunt. They are using Canadians suffering with HIV as an excuse to bury the truth. They are hiding behind an HIV study, a study that Conservatives have publicly agreed to support, to stop the health committee from working and to block an investigation into PrescribeIT. Even HIV organizations are now calling out the Liberals for politicizing this issue. Let us think about that. The Liberals are so desperate to cover up $300 million in wasted taxpayers' money that they are using Canadians suffering with HIV as a political shield.

My question is simple. Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health commit today to supporting a full investigation into the PrescribeIT scandal, yes or no?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, our government did the responsible thing by announcing the end of the federal funding for PrescribeIT because the plan was always for the provinces and territories to pay their own way once we got the system up and running. Since we made that decision, we have already seen the Province of Quebec come to the table and sign an agreement to pay to use PrescribeIT across pharmacies in Quebec. With Quebec on board, we are hopeful that other provinces will soon want to follow suit.

For the past month, the Conservatives have been blocking the health committee from discussing issues that matter to Canadians, like the public health emergency that has been declared in that member's home province of Manitoba because of the sharp rise in HIV infections. It is disgraceful behaviour by the members opposite who have been engaged in this endless obstruction. The member for Kitchener South—Hespeler on the health committee openly stated that he did not believe we could take any actions as parliamentarians to help Manitoba.

Well, I am sorry, but when a public emergency has been declared, on this side of the House we are all hands on deck, while the members opposite are busy making clips for their social media.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple question. Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health support investigating the $300 million spent on PrescribeIT, yes or no?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservatives would rather obstruct the health committee and block our motion to study the public health emergency in the member's home province of Manitoba than help Canadians.

The member opposite claims we are blocking the work of committee. This is quite rich, considering that a Conservative committee member was filibustering by making a speech about the Magna Carta and described the public health emergency in Manitoba as a facade.

Canadians elected our new government to focus on resolving the challenges our country faces. I invite the members opposite to put down their phone, join us and get to work.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to be here so late. I am hoping that if some of the Liberals get sleepy enough, perhaps they will accidentally answer the questions and provide some light on what has gone on at PrescribeIT.

We are here for this particular adjournment proceeding question because, on May 28, I pointed out to the health minister that she said in the House that she had spoken to the board of Canada Health Infoway, and subsequently that caused its million‑dollar CEO, Michael Green, to be fired. The only problem is that the chairman of that board said that the Minister of Health had never spoken to the board, so there was a clear discrepancy. We raised as a question of privilege at the committee that somebody was clearly not telling the truth.

The minister responded during that question period, saying she meant that she had spoken with her representative on the board, so in a follow-up question, I asked if her representative had spoken to the chairman of the board. She said she was “not going to get into who said what”. Well, why on earth not? This matters. It is important, because it has to do with how the organization is governed.

The next thing the minister said during that question period was that “Canada Health Infoway is a separate entity from the government.” Is that true? How can it possibly be true? If the minister appoints the board chair, subsequently appoints a direct representative of herself on the board and then gives instructions to that representative to fire the CEO, how on earth can the organization be said to be independent?

I think, honestly, that this is how organizations come to be poorly governed. This is how they come to blow $300 million on a program that did not work but that should have been billed successfully for $5 million.

The minister is making a Schrödinger’s cat out of responsibility. If she does something good, such as fire the million‑dollar CEO, that is because she is in charge, but if the organization does something bad, then suddenly it is at arm's length and she has no control over it. This cannot go on. Is she responsible for what goes on at Canada Health Infoway, or is she not? Is she responsible for how it spends taxpayers' money, or is she not? Does she have the power to fire the CEO, or does she not?

I will tell the House who has the power to fire all of us: the taxpayer. Why will the minister not say who said what in the chamber, so the taxpayers can make a decision about who needs to be fired? Why will she not come to committee to answer these questions instead of sending attachés who, frankly, do not answer these questions when we ask? However, I am hopeful tonight, so here we go.

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister has stated, any future funding must align with Canada Health Infoway's mandate and deliver value for Canadians. That means supporting the modernization of Canada's health care system and improving how health information is shared across the country.

Our government will remain focused on making sure Canadians have access to a modern, connected health care system that works for them.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I asked several very specific questions. I asked whether Canada Health Infoway is independent or not. I asked whether the Minister of Health has oversight on its funding or not. I asked whether the Minister of Health has the power to fire the CEO of Canada Health Infoway or not. I have asked whether the minister would come to health committee to explain these things in more detail. The member did not answer even one of those questions.

It is 11 p.m. It costs money to keep the chamber open. Tens of thousands of people voted for me so I could ask these questions. Tens of thousands of people voted for the member so she could answer these questions. Why will she not just answer them and respect the House, respect the Speaker and respect the mace?

[Maggie Chi, Liberal, Don Valley North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do want to remind folks again that the member opposite continued to obstruct our health committee on the very important study on HIV in Manitoba, the member's colleague's own province. He openly stated that he did not believe that we can take any action as parliamentarians to help Manitobans. That is, frankly, just disgraceful. It is shameful.

On this side of the House, we will always work to improve the health of Canadians. We will always take a public health crisis as urgent.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:21 p.m.)