House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-237, a questionable bill that would have devastating impacts on fisheries in all of Atlantic Canada and Quebec. This bill does not aim to amend a policy or regulation at DFO; instead, it seeks to amend the Fisheries Act, which is the law that governs every fishery in Canadian waters.

    Let me be clear: Changing the Fisheries Act is consequential. This bill would hurt all fisheries classified as groundfish, not just cod and certainly not just the food fishery in Newfoundland. The bill would eliminate regional fish stocks and treat them all as one species. That means that whether someone is fishing cod in P.E.I. or Newfoundland, it would all be treated the exact same way. All openings and closures would be the same, which means that no matter the weather or migration of fish in a region, that would be the season.

    All fisheries should be based on local stock health. Once the local stock is assessed, the commercial total allowable catch, the bycatch limit and the recreational quota are divided based on the health of the stock. By changing to species-based management, this bill would throw that all out. By treating different stocks all as one species, this risks the bycatch and the commercial TAC for commercial fisheries, the lifeblood of many of our communities. Since the bill is directed at all of Atlantic, not just Newfoundland and Labrador, it would threaten every commercial fishery in Atlantic Canada and Quebec.

    I cannot accept that this poorly written bill would threaten the livelihoods of harvesters and their families in my community. When the bill was first debated, I asked the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas which fishing associations he had consulted. His response was that he had only spoken with people in his riding about the food fishery. Since this bill would impact all of Atlantic Canada and Quebec, it is not good enough that he did not do any proper consultation before putting forward this piece of significant legislation.

    Consultation requires that all parties that would be impacted by a change to a law be heard before moving forward, which includes all fleets that fish groundfish or have groundfish as part of their catch. These are fisheries that bring hundreds of millions of dollars to coastal communities across Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec, which would be impacted without having their say on these changes.

    When government proposes changes to an industry, especially an industry as essential as the fishery, it needs to be done with clarity and transparency. With this bill, the Conservative Party has done neither. We know this for several reasons. First, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas told the House that he did not engage with anyone beyond his community. Second, the member for Central Newfoundland tried to stop me from asking industry representatives at the fishery committee about this bill and the proposed changes. Third, we heard nothing but opposition and concern on this bill from industry representatives when we heard from them.

    At the fishery committee, I asked industry representatives whether they had been consulted by the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas on this bill. Representatives from the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters' Federation, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the Canadian Association of Prawn Producers and the Unified Fisheries Conservation Alliance all told the committee that they had not been consulted. Some of these industry representatives also shared concerns with what the bill intended to do. The member for Central Newfoundland tried to stop me from asking these key industry representatives about the bill. I would like to also note that the committee has since concluded its meetings on the Fisheries Act review, and the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas did not join to bring up his bill, nor did any other Conservative member, nor did they invite any witnesses to testify in support of the bill.

    Industry has been reaching out to the Minister of Fisheries directly to share its opposition to this bill. The Atlantic Groundfish Council, the Atlantic Fixed-Gear Council, the Groundfish ITQ Association and the Atlantic Halibut Council wrote a joint letter expressing their opposition to this bill. It includes representatives from the offshore fleet in all Atlantic provinces, including the member's home province. Victoria Co-operative Fisheries Limited, the Association of Seafood Producers, and fisheries processors from Nova Scotia and, importantly, Newfoundland and Labrador are also against this bill.

     At the inshore level, the Grand Manan Fishermen's Association, the Fundy North Fishermen's Association, the Cape Breton Fish Harvesters Association, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the Coopérative des Capitaines Propriétaires de la Gaspésie and the PEIFA from my home province have all written to the Minister of Fisheries, opposing this bill. These organizations represent thousands of independent harvesters from across Quebec and the Maritimes.

    Lastly, for the member in particular, most importantly, the Fish, Food and Allied Workers, the FFAW, the union that represents inshore independent harvesters and many plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, has also written to the minister, sharing its concern for this bill. For those listening at home today, in that member's own province, the inshore fleet, the offshore fleet, the processors and ENGOs are all against this bill. Harvesters in Quebec are against this bill. Harvesters and processors in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador are also against this bill. They are against it because it is reckless. The bill ignores science, it ignores consultation, and it ignores the thousands of people, including in the member's own province, who depend on the fishery. The member has made no effort to engage with the sector that is vital not just to his own province but to the provinces of his colleagues and the entire region we both call home.

    It will be no surprise to anybody in the House that, given the fact that I represent a province and a region that depend heavily on the fishery, I must vote no on Bill C-237. I call on all members who care about our fisheries to do the same. With that, I conclude my comments.

    Madam Speaker, I am rising today at second reading of Bill C-237.

    At first reading last October, the Bloc Québécois indicated that we were open to this bill. At that time, we had already found some problems with the bill, but we were willing to analyze it, hear the arguments and look at the actual impacts it would have.

    Since then, we have worked hard to do just that. We have listened to Quebeckers. We have heard from the community. We have spoken to local fishers. We have heard from regional associations and departmental representatives. Whether it be in the Gaspé, Quebec's maritime regions, the Lower St. Lawrence or the north shore, the response on the ground is clear. People are opposed to this bill.

    The Coopérative des capitaines-propriétaires de la Gaspésie has warned that this approach could lead to a significant reduction in activity and have a domino effect on the region's entire maritime supply chain. When those who make a living from the sea tell us that a bill could weaken their sector, we need to listen to them.

    In light of this, our position has changed. The Bloc Québécois will therefore be voting against Bill C-237, and I will explain why.

    Modern management uses a stock-based approach. Migrations differ, spawning periods vary and environmental conditions are not the same everywhere. Standardization for the sake of simplification may seem appealing to Ottawa, but it removes flexibility for those on the water. Given that climate change is already altering species dynamics, that flexibility is essential.

    There is also the issue of scientific data. Take cod for example, where recreational catches in 2024 were estimated at approximately 2,700 tonnes, but actual landings were not directly measured. These figures are based on models. Before tightening regulations across the Atlantic, lawmakers must ensure that the data is complete and robust enough to justify such a reform. We believe in science, but science requires a solid foundation.

    It is also important to remember the economic importance of this sector. In some regions of maritime Quebec, fishing and processing account for up to 30% of jobs. These are not abstract statistics; entire communities depend on this industry.

    I want to talk about the issue of mandatory registration for recreational fishing. Currently, recreational groundfish fishing is regulated by daily limits restricted to open fishing seasons, as managed by fisheries officers. The bill would impose a system to record the number of fish caught, the location and the time of capture. In practical terms, this means that recreational fishers would have to fill out a logbook every time they go out. No one in Quebec is asking for that. Regulations must be proportionate to the problem they seek to solve. We are not opposed to collecting data. We are opposed to imposing poorly targeted regulations that are not backed by clear necessity, especially since data collection tools, such as electronic logbooks, already exist in the commercial sector. Before creating a new regime for recreational fishing, we should first optimize those already in place.

    Next comes the issue of seasonal uniformity. The bill calls for the harmonization of open and close times across the entire Atlantic area. Fisheries management, however, cannot be limited to a one-size-fits-all calendar covering every corner of the territory. Beyond the issue of recreational seasons, the real strategic issue facing the fisheries exceeds the scope of this bill. We export the bulk of our catch and we import the bulk of the seafood products we consume. That deserves a broader debate than the one being proposed now.

    We understand that this bill addresses genuine frustrations felt in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, without minimizing that reality, a regional demand should not automatically result in a change that applies to the entire Atlantic area. The Quebec fishing community is not calling for this kind of reform and it has concerns about its consequences. Essentially, our decision should be guided by three questions. Is it proportionate? Is it scientifically justified? Is it economically responsible? At this stage, the answers are not persuasive. A one-size-fits-all calendar is not the right way to manage the fisheries. Such management has to be based on the locality, on fish stocks and on the communities that depend on them.

    Although the bill may streamline federal administration, it complicates regional realities. The Bloc Québécois will therefore vote against Bill C-237 at second reading.

     Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-237, an act to amend the Fisheries Act as it relates to Atlantic groundfish fisheries.

    I would like to begin by thanking my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador, the member for Central Newfoundland and the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, for showing leadership on the issue, and by acknowledging the work in bringing the bill forward.

    The bill speaks to an issue rooted in the communities of Newfoundland and Labrador, and it reflects the voices of coastal and rural communities across the province that rely on fair and reasonable access to the sea, which is why I really hope the other members from Newfoundland and Labrador will vote in favour of the bill. In coastal communities across Newfoundland and Labrador, including throughout my riding of Long Range Mountains, the fishery is a part of our history and our local economy, and decisions made in the House on the issue are especially important to the people I represent. I hear about the issue consistently.

    Let me begin by saying that the bill speaks first and foremost to fairness in how recreational fisheries are managed, specifically as it relates to when people can fish and how rules are applied right across Atlantic Canada. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians deserve the same access as the rest of Atlantic Canada. For many people in Newfoundland and Labrador, there is a clear sense of inequity in how access to the recreational groundfish fishery is managed. They see different rules applied to different Atlantic provinces, despite shared waters and shared stocks, and they question why fairness is not applied consistently.

    This concern has been raised repeatedly by residents across my riding and across the province, and it is reflected in the strong public response that we have seen. A petition our office circulated locally received 1,053 responses, highlighting how deeply this matters to families and communities across Long Range Mountains.

    In Newfoundland and Labrador, the fishery is personal. It is cultural. It has deep historical roots. It is economic, but it is also deeply emotional. For decades, families have fought to keep that heritage alive. The cod moratorium of 1992 remains one of the most painful chapters in our province's history, a time that I will certainly never forget. It was a national tragedy that displaced more than 30,000 people and left a lasting mark on communities across Newfoundland and Labrador. Entire communities were hollowed out, and that loss is still felt today, not just in economic terms but also in identity and trust.

    I reflect on a conversation with a community member who remembers their parents' carpet business shutting down overnight because of the moratorium. The impact of that decision was felt far beyond the industry directly and into every corner of community life. When the recreational food fishery reopened, it was about a return to tradition, about passing skills and values from one generation to the next.

     In recent years, access has remained limited. In 2025, the recreational groundfish food fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador operated for roughly 45 days, with most openings limited to weekends and only a short, continuous window later in the season. In the rest of Atlantic Canada, however, the public can fish seven days a week throughout the open season. Ottawa's weekend-only rule for Newfoundland and Labrador makes no biological sense, as cod stocks swim across these borders.

    Weather and safety must also be considered, because 45 open days on paper does not mean 45 days safe on the water. Fog, wind and sea conditions regularly cancel out opportunities, particularly for seniors and families, who rely on calm windows to fish safely. I hear this consistently in places like Hampden, Cox's Cove, Isle aux Morts and Englee.

    Someone really has to experience this tradition to truly understand what it means to a community. While visiting Englee this past summer, my family and I went cod jigging with a local family. It is a day I will not forget. Our children took part, and we enjoyed the experience as a family, wondering who would have the biggest catch. At the end of our time on the water, we all gathered at the fishing stage with other community members, helping to gut and fillet the fish. We talked about the best parts to eat, from cod tongues and cheeks to pan fried fillets and fish cakes. We stood there breathing in the sharp scent of the salt water as the sun sank down towards the horizon.

    The kids skipped rocks across the water and asked questions about the fishery, the boats tied up along the wharf and the lobster traps stacked nearby. In that moment, more than anything, I realized how this was about the children truly connecting with what it means to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian. That connection to place, water, tradition, history and community is something common among people from our province. It is a part of who we are. That is why proposals that aim to strengthen the recreational fishery must be grounded in care.

    The legislation would emphasize the importance of stability and predictability for individuals engaged in recreational groundfish fishing. It would mandate the harmonization of close times for groundfish across the Atlantic provinces, ensuring that seasonal closures would be determined based on species-specific spawning periods. This measure aims to create a more uniform and science-based regulatory environment for coastal communities that are dependent on recreational and small-scale fisheries.

     Bill C-237 would also enhance reporting requirements, compelling the Minister of Fisheries to table an annual report to Parliament on the administration and enforcement of the Fisheries Act. Additionally, it would require the public disclosure of any new close times or fishing quotas on the website of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans at least two months prior to their implementation, improving public access to regulatory changes.

     It is also important to note that recreational removals represent only a small fraction of overall harvest levels. In recent seasons, recreational food fisheries have accounted for only a few thousand tonnes annually compared to commercial quotas, which have reached tens of thousands of tonnes as stocks have rebuilt. This is not to mention the seals, which are estimated to be eating 9.7 billion tonnes of fish a year, but that is for another day.

    At the same time, the recreational groundfish fishery contributes millions of dollars to the local economy each year through bait, fuel, gear, tourism and community events. In many rural outports, the fishery is the only meaningful link left between young families and the ocean.

    The members opposite have criticized us for lack of consultation with stakeholders. I would like to paraphrase the sentiment of a group from my riding that has been active on this issue for many years, as well its feedback on the government's attempt to gain insight on the issue. The people remind us that for many in Newfoundland and Labrador, this is not a recreational fishery; it is a cod food fishery, rooted in history, culture and the long-standing right to harvest from the land and water to feed one's family.

    The people in the group are now concerned that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' survey appears designed to advance a tags and licensing program. In particular, they point to the question that asks whether respondents support the current season with no tags, or a season with tags extended. There is no option to extend the season without tags, including for safety reasons. They argue that limiting the food fishery to weekends does not reflect the realities of Newfoundland and Labrador weather and may push people to take unnecessary risks.

    A healthy fishery depends on getting the balance right between access and conservation, and between science and lived experience. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians understand conservation because we have lived through the consequences of the devastating impacts of a collapsed cod fishery. We also believe in fairness and expect it from our federal institutions.

    We must also be careful not to frame this debate as one group versus another. Recreational fishers and commercial harvesters are not opponents; they are neighbours, family members and often the same people at different times of the year. This cannot be an us or them conversation.

     As the bill moves forward, our work should be guided by the principles of fairness, stability, predictability and clear communication, but most importantly, respect for the people whose lives, history, pride of place and heritage are tied to the sea.

    Madam Speaker, it is an honour to once again rise here in the people's House, this time in support of the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas's bill, Bill C-237, which brings to the floor of the House a concern that originated in a local community. The rural parts of this country are the often overlooked regions that far too often get neglected when it comes to policy considerations, including the formation of policies around fisheries.

    Too many times decisions have been made that have had devastating consequences for local communities and those communities where livelihoods depend upon access to stable resources and fisheries. They have been willing to make sacrifices to conserve the species that were at risk, and they have proven that. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have proven that time and time again. They have paid a huge personal price to protect the species that are risk, including, and namely, cod.

    We are in a circumstance where this is coming from those very communities that are very much connected to the waters. Many that are connected to the commercial fishery are on those waters, and they recognize when stocks are rebounding. They know when stock quotas are improving, when the health of a certain stock of fish is coming into a better zone and when there are more plentiful resources available to people.

    They want to be able to enjoy that resource again. It is a part of their way of life. It is a part of what they have done as families for years. Not only have they made their livings off the water, but it has also become a means of food security for many families. They want to be able to gain meaningful access again.

    What they are asking for is not something that is unreasonable. They want to be put on par with other Atlantic Canadian provinces. There is a huge disparity. When Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have different sets of rules than Newfoundland and Labrador, that is an inequity that needs to be addressed, and it should be addressed expeditiously. This bill goes toward that. It is to restore fairness when it comes to the recreational fishery and obtaining access to the cod that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians so love and are most acquainted with.

    If there is a group of Canadians that is fully invested in the health of the stocks of cod, it would be Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. If those who are most affected by this are feeling that this is something important to them and would be good because it would put more people on the water and allow them to regularly monitor the health of those stocks and how they are doing, that would be a good thing. It could unify the region. It would cause a ceasing of the disparity between one Atlantic province and another.

    This bill would go a long way to levelling that playing field, and we should pursue it. I commend my colleague, the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas for his hard work on this. He worked with his colleagues, the members for Long Range Mountains and Central Nova, to make sure that this is a reflection of what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want. It would behoove those who represent Canadians from all parts of the country, from coast to coast to coast, to do our due diligence and listen to those voices that would be most affected by this bill.

    Those who would be most impacted are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and they are saying that they would love to see this bill enacted. They want it brought in. They want fairness restored. They want access to a fishery that was a tremendously overwhelming part of their lives and heritage for a long time.

    It is only right that we, as the people's representatives here in the House, listen to those in Newfoundland and Labrador who are saying, “Pass this bill. Allow us to gain access to this fishery. Let us do what we enjoy doing.” They are, trust me, more invested in the health of the cod stocks than any of us in this room. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are passionate about making sure that the cod fishery is sustainable and endures for as long as Canada does. We want this to be not only a part of Canadian heritage but also a part of Canada's future. That happens by taking this step, bringing this bill to committee, letting us study it and getting to the bottom of it.

    It does get a bit rich when I hear the opponents of this bill stand up to talk about how we have to protect the resource and how these families going out to fish five cod a day would be detrimental to the health of the cod stocks. It gets really rich when, for the last 11 years, the government has done absolutely nothing about the biggest predator, the overwhelming risk to the health of the cod stocks for years, which is the explosion of the pinniped population in that part of our country.

    There has been study after study. I have been on the fisheries committee, and I have heard the fish harvesters who have come in. They have given testimony about what is quite literally the elephant in the waters, and that needs to be addressed if we want to protect all kinds of fish stocks and their futures. The government has not done anything about that for 11 years, but it would single out recreational fishers who want to recapture part of their way of life. I think it is a misplaced priority. In fact, I know it is a misplaced priority.

    Let us get back to common sense. Let us allow this bill to get to committee to have that discussion. Let us talk about the future of the cod fishery. Let us talk about the health of the cod stocks, and let us hear from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, those who live in our coastal and rural communities who are most affected by these types of decisions.

    Let us give this bill a chance and get it to committee. That way, we would bring cohesion to Atlantic provinces, so we would not be pitting one province against another, having one set of rules for Prince Edward Islanders, another set for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, another set for Nova Scotians and another one for New Brunswickers. No, let us make sure that they come into the equation and that there is consistency. This bill would go a long way to establishing that.

    I want to commend my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador for listening to their people, those who are most impacted by this decision. It takes a member of Parliament who is connected to his or her region to make sure that those concerns get brought to this floor and are debated.

    I know these colleagues well. This young man would not have brought this bill forward if he did not feel this was important to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let us listen to what they are saying, hear their concerns, support this bill and get it to committee. I appreciate the members' time and attention.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Brunswick who just spoke, as well as my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, who introduced this bill on recreational fishing. The bill is very limited in scope. It specifically concerns Newfoundland. I thank my colleague, however, because this is a topic that almost never gets talked about in the House of Commons.

    My riding is right next door to Labrador. Our ridings are connected by a ferry. The issue of recreational fishing in general comes up every time I go out and talk to the public. My riding has 1,300 or 1,400 kilometres of coastline. All of my constituents, or almost all, have access to the sea. We often have the impression that the sea does not belong to us. The sea is a border, a boundary that cannot be crossed, except perhaps by commercial fishing, which is extremely important in my riding as well. However, I believe it is also vital to discuss recreational fishing. There is the whole issue of commercial fishing, but as my colleague mentioned earlier, people live on the coast.

    There used to be no borders at sea. Over 60 years ago, back in the 19th century, in fact, when certain communities of fishers from the island of Jersey settled in the area where I now live, there were no borders. People lived off the sea. They could also fish recreationally. Now, I am not talking about sport fishing, because those two concepts are sometimes confused. I am really talking about recreational fishing for personal purposes, simply catching enough to eat. In some respects, it could be called subsistence fishing.

    This is a topic that is extremely important to me, especially since, as someone mentioned earlier, the rules are different out west, in British Columbia, than in Atlantic Canada. I know Quebec was not mentioned earlier, but we do share the same territory, namely the Gulf of St. Lawrence. No one is talking about that. The rules are different, and the species fished in western and eastern Canada are not the same. We cannot have the exact same rules, but we would like there to be fairness for the public, who say that the cost of groceries is high, as is often mentioned in the House.

    There are people in my riding who cannot afford to eat the very crab and lobster that they catch. Take a club sandwich for example. It would cost $60 to take the family out for a lobster or crab dinner, so what do we do? We export them, even though they are right there at our feet. Climate change is causing lobster stocks to rise in my region, the north shore. There is an abundance of lobster in our waters, enough for the north shore fishery, of course. However, the locals do not have access to it. I am talking about a commercial species here, but earlier I mentioned opening up fishing to other non-commercial species. Halibut and cod were mentioned.

    Traditionally, people living on the north shore did not think about whether they were fishing a certain commercial fish stock versus one that was not commercial. It did not work like that. People had access to the land and access to the river. The river provided whatever people wanted. I will give a very specific example, one that gives an idea of how things were. People eat what is known as a periwinkle, a type of mollusk commonly used to make soup. It is not a commercial species. It is not an endangered species. That is not at all the case. People do not have access to it. I believe that certain things need to be done that obviously go beyond the scope of my colleague's bill. As I said earlier, I find it very interesting that he is raising this issue.

    I will give another example. I talked about the 1,400 kilometres of coastline in my region. Some places are very sparsely populated. There are no sewers and there is no pollution, but people are not allowed to harvest clams. People think, come on, we have 1,400 kilometres of coastline right at our feet, and we have virtually free access to this organic, healthy food, and yet we are not allowed to harvest it, simply because it is not on people's radar and not part of the plan. The government is saying there are not enough fisheries officers and that pollution is a problem.

    I know that all of the mayors and reeves in my riding would be willing to contribute from their own budgets so that this option was available to people. We are not even talking about the federal level here. There are people at the municipal level who really want to discuss this issue and provide resources and funding so that we can use what we have in the river, the estuary and the gulf. This is something that is very important in my riding and it is set up differently depending on the area. For me, and perhaps for my colleague as well, the real question is, who does this resource belong to?

    We do not want to do anything to harm the commercial fisheries or the local fishers who support communities and villages. The fishery is a pillar of my riding. Over 25% of Quebec's landings occur in my region, so the fishery is very important. However, we know that there are other options, such as opening recreational fishing up a bit more than it is now, for example by issuing more licences and licences for other species. That could be good for scientists because we would be able to gather more data and more accurate data than what we have now. We would have people on the ground who would make this possible. It is the same thing for water, for example. This could also be good from an economic standpoint because we are trying to expand the tourism industry.

    Many small coastal fishing communities are trying to diversify by creating recreational fishing opportunities, including for tourists, similar to what is being done in northern Europe. I am talking about the north because I live in a northern region. This is being done elsewhere, in smaller jurisdictions, such as in coastal communities in countries like Norway or Iceland. In my riding, we have 1,400 km of coastline, yet we cannot do this. Other places are making this happen and bringing in tourists. Something really needs to be done, but we need to think outside the box. Unfortunately, that is not the mandate of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. DFO is focused on stock management. That is their mandate, among other things, and recreational fishing is something else entirely.

    Before my colleague arrived in the House, I had been hoping to raise this issue at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans so that we could study it, or at least so that the matter would be on the record and a plan could be developed that would be broader than a local plan. In his bill, the member talks about inequity. I agree with him entirely. As far as the wishes of his constituents go, I also agree with him. However, the issue demands broader consideration. These waters belong to Quebeckers, to Newfoundlanders and to Canadians. Are they entitled to access their own waters and their own resources?

    I would like us to discuss the question of recreational fishing even more broadly. I have noticed that this conversation can be a little disconcerting for the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, not because of my colleagues, but because of a taboo that does not necessarily exist in our communities. Both indigenous communities and other north shore communities know full well that my purpose in talking about recreational fishing is not to destroy commercial fishing. That is not it at all. The point is not that everyone should get to catch a lobster and leave nothing behind for the fishing companies and then everyone will be happy. The point is that we want access to the water too, for different reasons. I also mentioned economic development.

    I have spoken on this issue at length, but I believe that if my constituents were here in the House of Commons, they would continue to speak about it, because this is something they have been calling for repeatedly for several years now. These folks believe they are being treated unjustly and unfairly when they have food right in front of them that is accessible and has been available to them for decades. However, their rights have been slowly and gradually eroded. I wish members were more open to having a broader discussion than what is provided for in my colleague's bill, although I understand why it is as it is.

    I know that I am running out of time, but this is all to say that we in the Bloc Québécois have some serious concerns about the bill at this time, for reasons based on science. However, we do want to start a conversation on the issue of recreational fishing, in a respectful way and getting everyone involved. I represent individuals and a riding that are simply asking for access to their own resources.

    Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to get up and speak to my colleague's private member's bill, Bill C-237, an act to amend the Fisheries Act.

    It is probably a little surprising to some of my colleagues that a member of Parliament from southern Alberta would get up to speak to a bill on Canada's Fisheries Act. Many people in the House may be surprised to learn that my riding, in southwest Alberta, is one of the top destinations in North America for fly fishing. I want to compare the issues we are facing in southern Alberta to what my colleague is trying to raise here in the House with his private member's bill.

     In fact, southern Alberta is one of the top destinations in North America for fly fishing. Whether it is the Bow River, the Highwood, the Sheep or the Oldman River in the very southern part of my riding, tens of thousands of people come from all over the world to experience fly fishing in southern Alberta. I know how important this industry has become to my constituency and the businesses in my riding. More than 4,000 people are employed in the fishing industry in southern Alberta.

    A number of very successful businesses rely on the tourists who come to southern Alberta as part of the fishing industry. I think of Flys Etc. in High River and Oldman guiding down in Crowsnest Pass. Many of these businesses have become successful by attracting fishermen from across North America to come and experience western Canadian hospitality. That is why it is important to talk about the impact that the recreational fishing industry has on small rural communities like mine and certainly like those in Newfoundland and Labrador that my great colleague represents as well.

     I was doing a bit of research on some updated numbers about the impact that the fishing industry has had in Alberta. We are talking about more than $250 million in revenue just from the fly fishing industry in Alberta. I know that is very similar to Newfoundland and Labrador. There are almost 6,000 businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador that are reliant on recreational and commercial fishing. That is a huge part of their economics and certainly of their rural community economy as well. All my colleague is asking for is to expand the opportunities for the growth of recreational fishing in Newfoundland and Labrador.

     I found it interesting that my colleague from Prince Edward Island talked about the importance of enforcement. The Liberal government has had more than a decade to follow through on enforcement on fisheries right across this country. In fact, a previous Liberal fisheries minister lost her job because she failed so miserably in enforcing the laws around the Fisheries Act.

    I will just briefly touch on the elver fishery issue in Nova Scotia, which has ripped communities apart. All that has been asked for is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Liberal government, stand up and enforce the rules that are in place, something it has failed to do for more than a decade.

     In contrast, my colleague has gone from one community to another in his riding, consulting with commercial and recreational fishers, asking them what they need to grow this industry. All he is asking for in this bill is some flexibility. I have travelled across Alberta and into Saskatchewan and B.C. to do some fishing, which I enjoy. I know I would be extremely disappointed if I had travelled all the way to Newfoundland and Labrador to go fishing on one of the designated days as a recreational fisher when I can go out onto the water, to find out that the water was too rough, or there was a storm blowing in, and it was just unsafe. However, I would not have been able to postpone my trip until the next day because of some arbitrary rules around opening the recreational fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.

    The amount that we are talking about here is, in the larger scheme of things, really quite insignificant. We are not asking for those recreational fishers to be able to take more fish out of the water. We are just asking for more flexibility around the days they could go out on the water. We would still have accountability and transparency, while enforcing the rules. There is some enforcement as part of this bill. That is something the Liberals have failed to do in the more than a decade they have been in government, despite the engagement and cries for action from fishers from coast to coast to coast.

     Overall, Bill C-237 would just expand and strengthen the overall management framework for Atlantic fisheries in Canada. Some great points were made by my colleague from New Brunswick, the member for Tobique—Mactaquac, and my other colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador has talked about this extensively as well. We talk about the amount of fish that the seal herds in Atlantic Canada are consuming compared with what we are asking for as part of this bill.

    The seal population has grown so out of control that it is consuming more fish than the entire Atlantic commercial and recreational fishing industries combined. When we compare some of these things, we really have to look at what the source of the fish population concerns may be. It is certainly not a handful of recreational fishers who are looking to fish only on a Tuesday or a Wednesday rather than adhering to these very arbitrary numbers. I find the Liberals' inability to enforce the rules that are already in place frustrating.

    I am going to compare that to something we are dealing with. I talked about the seal population being out of control. We are dealing with something very similar in western Canada, in the Prairies, with the Richardson's ground squirrel. The population has grown so out of control that many farmers in Alberta and Saskatchewan are seeing upward of a 20% yield loss in their crops and, even more so, damage being done to native grazing land and grassland where cattle are being raised and finished. We have asked the Liberal government to support an emergency application for the use of strychnine that was brought forward by Alberta and Saskatchewan. The agriculture minister promised he would support those applications that came in early October, but now we are told that the agriculture minister has changed his mind. He has broken yet another promise to Canadian prairie farmers with the government not supporting the emergency use of strychnine to deal with the overpopulation of Richardson's ground squirrels. There are no other options, and the consequences of that are putting our food security and the economic viability of many prairie farmers at risk.

    I compare that to a similar situation with this private member's bill. Instead of dealing with the root cause of the problems, which would be an overpopulation of seals, or enforcing the rules that are in place, whether that is in commercial fishing in Newfoundland Labrador or the elvers fishery in Nova Scotia, the Liberal government seems to put its head in the sand and hope that it will all take care of itself. We have seen that is certainly not the case, and these things do not take care of themselves. They require a stiff spine and tough decisions by the government, and certainly a minister, whether that is the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to show some intestinal fortitude and ensure that the rules are being followed. That is what we are asking the government to do on many of these types of issues, and certainly this one is no different. What my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador is asking for is some stability and predictability for individuals who would come to Newfoundland and Labrador to participate in the recreational fishing industry.

    I want to conclude with this. We cannot underestimate the value of this industry to provinces and territories right across this country. As I highlighted, many people would be surprised by the impact the fly fishing industry has in southern Alberta. It is probably one of my riding's most critical industries. The same can be said, if not more, for Newfoundland and Labrador. All we are asking for is some flexibility to grow what could be an impactful industry, which would have a very low impact on the environment and climate but a very high impact on the local economy in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why I would encourage my colleagues in the House to at least send Bill C-237 to committee so it can be studied further.

     Madam Speaker, this is an important bill. I know the importance of the cod fishery to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, in particular the food fishery and the commercial fishery. Balancing those two is challenging, and my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, is doing a good job in this very challenging portfolio. The food fishery and the economy is an important balance.

    We have seen, because of the scientific-based management of our cod fishery, our commercial fishery reopen this past year. This was significant. There are communities in my riding with fishers who rely on this income. They rely on the commercial fishery to make a living and to sustain their families and communities.

    One of the biggest challenges with this bill, as I see it, is the fees that it would put on the people in our province taking part in the food fishery. I want to remind individuals that last year there was no licence requirement, no licensing fee and no reporting requirement for the food fishery. The individuals were to follow the rules, be safe and fish for food.

    Under this Conservative tax-on-food bill, we would see a forced mandatory licence. It is written right into the bill. Individuals would have to pay a fee to cover the cost of this bill and to report every fish they catch. We hear Conservatives talking about the boogeyman, the unseen tax on food. This would put a tax on food by the requirements outlined in the bill itself.

    Meanwhile, our government is providing tax relief for individuals across the country while looking to grow our economy. The commercial fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador is vital to the economy of Newfoundland and Labrador.

    I hear my constituents talk about changes in the food fishery and how they would like to see greater access. They would like to see real consultation, because this bill had no consultation. I have not heard anybody in my riding talk about wanting this bill. In fact, it is quite the opposite. People in my riding, commercial fishers, have said they are very concerned about this bill.

    Real consultation is what the Minister of Fisheries has done in opening up a consultation process on what the future of the food fishery looks like. She has heard from almost 10,000 people and received submissions from people in Newfoundland and Labrador, who put forward their thoughts and recommendations for what the food fishery should look like. That is consultation. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador were not consulted about this bill. Commercial fishers are very concerned about this.

    Instead of looking at cod as a species, this bill would treat the fishery differently and as a one-size-fits-all, which is dangerous. We finally have our commercial fishery reopened, and it is because of sound management of the fishery and of our fish stocks. We cannot go backward. We cannot risk the commercial fishery for the generations of the future.

    The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas has the floor for his right of reply.

     Madam Speaker, it is so uplifting to have the support of my Conservative colleagues on the bill, especially my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador.

    We understand that this is something that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want, and we are hoping that our Liberal colleagues will recognize that and vote for the bill, so it can go to committee. That is what Newfoundlanders want. They want us, Liberals and Conservatives, to work together, not to pit commercial fishermen against recreational fishermen but to work together to make our province better, to feed our families and to be able to fish seven days a week.

    Fish stocks are rising, but unfortunately food insecurity is rising even faster. I have a good solution for food insecurity in our province. We can fill our boats to fill our bellies. For hundreds of years, we have turned to the ocean to feed our families. As my colleague from Long Range Mountains said today, being limited to fishing on weekends results in a massive safety barrier due to high winds and stormy conditions.

    If we could fish seven days a week, there would be days with better weather, allowing more Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, seniors and families with smaller boats to be able to access this fishery, feeding the families who need it the most. I am sure this is something that all MPs from Newfoundland and Labrador will support and understand.

    Let us talk about the cod stocks. During the last debate on the bill, I sat in the House and heard a Liberal MP talk about how different parts of Atlantic Canada have different schools of fish and that populations may vary. He then went on to talk about how cod stocks in some parts of Atlantic Canada are not as strong as the cod stocks in Newfoundland. That only proves my point. If cod stocks in the Maritimes are low and they can fish seven days a week, why on earth, or perhaps why on the ocean, can Newfoundlanders and Labradorians not fish seven days a week like the rest of Atlantic Canada, when our stocks are much healthier?

    Additionally, every fisherman and fisherwoman knows that the biggest factor in the country affecting fish stocks is the massive overpopulation of seals. It is estimated that seals eat more fish than all of Atlantic Canada catches in the commercial fishery.

    My colleagues spoke about tourism. They understand how essential it is to our economy. With the new opportunities to go deep-sea fishing throughout the week, come from aways and people coming back home will spend thousands of dollars on hotels, meals, gas and other tourism activities. The economic benefit to the province will be in the millions.

    I have no doubt that the fisheries minister from Newfoundland and Labrador knows that opening the recreational food fishery seven days a week would significantly boost tourism in rural Newfoundland, an industry that so many people are dependent on. I hope that the minister and all my Newfoundland and Labrador colleagues do the right thing and vote for the bill.

    The member for Long Range Mountains spoke about her beautiful family. She talked about how some of her family's greatest memories are the times they spent together participating in the recreational food fishery. That is what it is all about. It is not about the money. It is not about the jobs. It is not about the rat race. Life is about spending time with family, doing the things we love and making memories. This is what the recreational food fishery does for our province. It brings families and friends together. This is why all parties, especially the members from Newfoundland and Labrador, should vote for the bill: to allow people, families and friends to fish together seven days a week.

     I would like to talk about consultation. Some of our critics and members from the other side of the aisle wrongfully state that we never did any consultation. To that I will say this. In addition to the hard work of our shadow minister and the member for Central Newfoundland, I spent months travelling from wharf to wharf in my district. I spoke with hundreds of recreational food fishers. The verdict was clear: They want to be able to fish seven days a week.

     I even went to commercial fishermen and fisherwomen with small enterprises in my riding. I asked them what their concerns were. Their concern was with enforcement, enforcement that the Liberal government has never done over the past decade. Their only issue, which I heard repeatedly, is that they do not want the few bad apples, the very few, to go out, fill their boats and sell it on the black market. That is enforcement that should have already been done and that needed to continue to be done over the past 10 years.

    There is another thing. There was a crazy statement that happened in the House today, one I could not understand, saying that the bill would create fees and a tax on food. It is not in the bill anywhere. There are no fees. That is only an imaginary tax. It is not in there. There are no fees. That is all there is.

    The bill is not partisan. It is practical. It respects science. It respects enforcement. I would like to request a vote in the House so we can have a formal vote.

    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 invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

     Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded vote on the bill.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 25, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

     moved that Bill C-20, An Act respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

     He said: Madam Speaker, the Build Canada Homes act would establish Canada as an affordable housing builder. The Build Canada Homes act is landmark legislation that would establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation with a mandate to deliver affordable housing at scale. The work Build Canada Homes would do is essential to the federal government's ability to build the affordable homes Canadians need and would initiate a new phase of transformative growth in Canada's economy.

    The legislation would provide Build Canada Homes with operational independence and flexibility. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would have the powers, functions and new tools it needs to deliver on its mandate. Equipped with these new tools, it would be able to act nimbly as a developer, financier, convenor and innovation driver in the housing sector. As I said, with this legislation Build Canada Homes would become a Crown corporation focused on building affordable housing in communities right across the country. This is important, essential and meaningful work, and it would tackle something even bigger than just the crisis that is facing our housing sector, because investing in building the affordable housing that Canada needs would in turn help grow our country's economy and strengthen our industries.

     We know that housing is not simply about having a roof over one's head. The stability that a home provides builds the foundation for mental and physical health, for community involvement and for personal success. Everyone in Canada deserves a safe home, a place where stability takes root so opportunity can blossom.

    I will put the housing crisis in context.

    Even though some progress has been made, many Canadians still struggle to find affordable housing. The pandemic complicated things by disrupting the supply chain, and tensions with the United States have added further challenges.

    This pressure is being felt across the country, in big cities and small communities alike. Canadians are experiencing rising prices, a lack of supply, and greater inequality. That is why our new government is working to make housing more affordable, to offer more options and to help every Canadian have a place to call home.

    Budget 2025 includes generational investments of $25 billion over five years for housing. This strategic investment will build homes and create lasting prosperity, empowering Canadians to get ahead.

     Solving Canada's housing crisis requires immediate action to build homes that meet Canadians' needs: homes they can afford, built as soon as possible. That is why, in September 2025, our government launched Build Canada Homes as a special operating agency within the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, with an initial investment of $13 billion. Build Canada Homes is part of a broader set of measures by our government to accelerate housing construction, restore housing affordability and reduce homelessness.

    As a lean, purpose-built entity, Build Canada Homes would leverage public lands, deploy flexible financial tools and promote modern methods of construction, like factory-built housing components. These new approaches would allow us to accelerate construction timelines, improve productivity and support a more productive homebuilding sector.

     Build Canada Homes would fund multi-year agreements, providing increased certainty for housing providers, builders and manufacturers. In the immediate term, Build Canada Homes is prioritizing shovel-ready projects. Over time, Build Canada Homes would shift to funding large-scale, portfolio-based projects, delivering measurable impacts to Canada's supply of affordable housing, which brings us here today.

    This legislation would provide Build Canada Homes with the tools and authorities of a Crown corporation to deploy capital at scale, partner in greater capacity and make investments in new and more productive approaches to housing construction. This is how we would expedite the delivery of more affordable homes on public lands and in communities across Canada.

    As a special operating agency, Build Canada Homes has already launched the initial phase of work to build thousands of homes on federal lands in six communities across Canada, and we are getting shovels in the ground this year on those projects. In Ottawa, we would build approximately 1,100 homes just 20 minutes from the downtown core. We would deploy the same rapid approach across the country, in Dartmouth, Edmonton, Longueuil, Toronto and Winnipeg, to get homes built for Canadians as quickly as possible on these lands.

    The bill authorizes the transfer of just over $1.5 billion from the Canada Lands Company to Build Canada Homes, once the agency is established, to ensure that this capital is ready to unlock construction on these sites. This is just the beginning. The Build Canada Homes act represents a major step forward in strengthening the federal government's ability to respond to Canada's housing crisis.

    This legislation makes it clear that Build Canada Homes would be Canada's affordable housing builder going forward. As such, as a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes' mandate would be to build affordable housing across Canada while modernizing the homebuilding sector.

    By focusing on modern construction methods like prefabricated housing and the use of lumber, Build Canada Homes will stimulate a homebuilding industry that is more innovative, resilient and productive. Off-site construction will extend the construction season year-round, creating a steady supply of factory-produced housing components and quality year-round jobs. Over time, this will speed up project delivery, reduce costs and improve sustainability.

    With manufactured panels and prefabricated components produced off-site, construction teams can work faster while minimizing waste, noise and required labour.

    With the trade tensions hitting our industries such as steel and softwood, we have to be our own best customer. Mass timber, as an example, has tremendous potential for supporting greater densification. Mass-timber designs, especially those incorporating prefabrication and modular components, can accelerate the construction of multi-unit residential structures. The wood construction also provides natural insulation that reduces heat loss, increasing energy efficiency.

     The carbon capture by mass timber can also be significant, especially in taller wood buildings. When used as a substitute for or complement to concrete and steel, mass timber delivers significant climate benefits, cutting embodied emissions in buildings by as much as 25%.

    Canada has the third-most extensive forested area on earth. If we manage our forests sustainably, our country has a significant supply of timber available to meet the growing demand for building with wood and mass timber. Greater demand can strengthen Canada's softwood lumber industry while helping to reduce reliance on our southern neighbour and reducing the climate pollution caused by the embodied carbon and building materials.

     I want to talk about core partnerships next. Build Canada Homes has already formed key partnerships with provinces, territories, indigenous partners and local governments. Notably, we are forging commitments to ensure that supportive and transitional housing is matched with the wraparound services residents need.

    For example, these partnerships would support the creation of 30 supportive and transitional homes announced in Nova Scotia and 54 at Dunn House phase 2 in the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park's riding in Toronto, with further negotiations under way to ensure critical services to the most vulnerable Canadians. Just last week, we announced a partnership with the B.C. government in Victoria to build 700 supportive and transitional homes, setting a new bar for the scale of the supportive and transitional homes that are needed to tackle homelessness.

    Build Canada Homes is also committed to building indigenous partnerships that further self-determination and contribute meaningfully to meeting the needs of indigenous communities. Through Build Canada Homes, the governments of Canada, Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated reached an agreement in principle to support the development of 750 homes for non-market housing in Nunavut. These homes will be designed and delivered in collaboration with Inuit, for Inuit.

     The Build Canada Homes act would establish a Crown corporation with a legislative mandate to engage with partners and deliver on projects that meet the needs of the communities they serve. As with Inuit, we look forward to strong partnerships with first nations and with Métis as well. The act would unlock the tools for Build Canada Homes to forge these new strategic relationships that would drive coordinated action and establish modern development models that could scale affordable housing like never before. This is how we move from the incremental progress we have seen in recent years to transformative progress.

     By changing how Canada builds, Build Canada Homes would be delivering speed, scale and innovation. Communities across Canada are ready to work with us. Since releasing our investment policy framework and launching our national submission portal in late November, we have seen very strong interest nationwide. Proposals have come in from every province and territory. Many are under review, and hundreds more are in progress right now, building a robust pipeline of projects ready to break ground this year. These partnerships are central to Build Canada Homes' strategy to grow community housing and ensure long-term affordability. We will do this while growing our economy and making it more resilient and stronger.

     Build Canada Homes would implement the Government of Canada's buy Canadian policy by prioritizing projects that use Canadian materials, strengthen our domestic supply chains and create good jobs. From softwood lumber in B.C. and New Brunswick to steel in Ontario and aluminum in Quebec, homebuilding connects Canadian materials to Canadian jobs. This is exactly why the government's approach to buy Canadian is exactly what it is about: becoming our own best customer.

    It is also about shockproofing our economy. Buying and building domestically strengthens Canadian industries, supports Canadian workers and creates a stronger and more dynamic economy. The buy Canadian policy announced in December 2025 fundamentally changes how the federal government purchases goods and services. It prioritizes Canadian suppliers and requires the use of Canadian-produced steel, aluminum and wood in large federal projects so the dollars we invest drive demand here at home, strengthen our supply chains and support our workers and communities. That is how we move from reliance to resilience in a world where trade uncertainty is real.

    This bill is about more than just building more housing. It focuses on something even more important. It is a key element of how we are retooling Canada's economy. When we invest in Canada, we are not just creating jobs. We are also strengthening domestic supply chains, reducing our dependence on foreign markets and ensuring that Canada remains competitive in a global economy where instability in international trade has become the new normal.

     For workers, this would mean increasing economic security and opportunity. For businesses, it would mean demand and predictability. For our country, it would be another step in a nation-building strategy that invests in Canadian industries and communities. We are prioritizing Canadian content in major procurements, building with Canadian materials and partnering across the country to strengthen our supply chains and keep people working.

    Build Canada Homes would finance and build housing, which would drive demand for Canadian lumber and steel, encourage innovation in the construction sector and make investments that directly support Canadian workers and businesses. It is a model for how we build homes, infrastructure and prosperity using Canadian materials, creating jobs today and laying down the foundation for long-term economic growth.

    As for measurable results, since its launch, Build Canada Homes has moved quickly to get housing projects off the ground. I identified public lands that are being converted into housing right now. We have partnered with local governments to cut red tape, waive fees and fast-track approvals as well. This means up to 3,000 new homes right here in Ottawa and up to 1,430 homes in Nova Scotia, and recently we signed a partnership with Quebec to accelerate approvals and identify even more housing projects in the province. In total, nine Build Canada Homes deals are now in place and are expected to deliver nearly 9,000 new homes. There are many more projects coming in the months ahead. With private, public and government partners all showing up, we are ready to build.

    There is lots more work to do, but the progress we have seen in just a few short months gives me confidence that we are moving in the right direction. Build Canada Homes has already demonstrated what is possible when we combine speed, innovation and collaboration to get homes built for Canadians. With the passage of the Build Canada Homes act, we would have the flexibility, autonomy and accountability we need to deliver more affordable homes. We would have the tools and authorities of a Crown corporation to scale our progress even further, move faster, partner more effectively and deliver more affordable homes on federal lands and in communities across the country. This is a pivotal step that would transform our early momentum into long-term capacity.

    That is exactly what the Build Canada Homes act is designed to deliver. The act is a major milestone in the government's plan to build more homes faster and help ensure that every Canadian has an affordable place to live. It is about building more homes now, but it is also about reshaping the future for Canadians, making sure the next generation can make choices about the communities they want to live in. It is about giving families stability and supporting Canadian manufacturers and supply chains to grow Canada's economy strong. It is about creating new careers and giving communities the tools to grow sustainably.

    In conclusion, with this legislation, we are marking a new chapter in Canada's history. We are transforming the housing system with intent. We are building the right partnerships and innovative financing models by design. We are shaping Canada's future to create communities that are stronger, fairer and leave no one behind. Much like the Major Projects Office, Build Canada Homes would enable nation-building housing projects that would help make our country's economy the fastest-growing in the G7. We are investing in Canadian workers, Canadian jobs and Canadian industries.

    The Build Canada Homes act is a milestone step that would strengthen Canada's self-reliance and resilience. It would empower Canadians with more opportunities to get ahead and build the life they want, where they want, in a home they can afford.

    Madam Speaker, I can confirm that housing affordability is a major concern for young people. I have spent a lot of time over the last eight months speaking to young people on university campuses, many of whom fear that their life will be worse than that of their parents, owing largely to concerns about accessing homes and jobs.

    One of the big issues, we know, in housing construction over the last 10 years under the Liberals, when housing prices have more than doubled, has been the proliferation of bureaucracy. The high cost of government is getting in the way of the construction that needs to happen in order to keep up with the needs of Canadians. The approach of the government is to create more bureaucracy: to add another arm to the federal government, yet another Crown corporation. It is proposing to continually expand bureaucracy, when actually we need a plan to reduce bureaucracy.

    I wonder if the member can explain why, under 10 years of Liberal government, there has been such dramatic growth in the price of housing and why, rather than address the problem of out-of-control bureaucracy preventing housing construction, the Liberals are proposing to add to housing bureaucracy rather than reduce it.

    Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his concerns. First and foremost, to speak to the challenge that young Canadians face with housing, that is clearly a focus of Build Canada Homes: to ensure we are building affordable homes for the next generation. Many of us who sit in the House have children or grandchildren and have great concerns about the escalation of homebuilding costs and the price of housing across Canada.

     We have seen the focus of the investments over the last few years into housing and affordable housing starting to bear fruit as the market pressures are easing. We have seen prices come down for several quarters in a row. We have seen rents come down. That does not mean we slow down. In fact, it means we need to step up efforts. The Build Canada Homes act is all about stepping up those efforts to build more affordable housing and to make sure housing is suitable for the next generation, including student housing and housing for young people who are looking for their first homes. It is complementary to the tax break for first-time homebuyers that the House is bringing forward.

    We need to have a number of tools. Build Canada Homes is streamlining the process of moving affordable housing forward for Canada with a lean and nimble agency that will deliver that.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. minister for laying out exactly what Canadians have been talking about for quite some time. He talked about the wraparound services and cities like London, Ontario, where we have benefited from funding through the national housing strategy. I was recently at a location where we had funded wraparound services. I want to share with the minister the dignity I saw in the people who lived there. An event had been created and I was invited to speak to them. I am thinking about where they were five years ago and where they are today, with the dignity and the humanity to now be able to think past their problems.

    I think about cities like Vancouver and London, where we see a lot of homelessness and people experiencing addiction because they do not have wraparound services. Could the minister talk a bit more about the wraparound services in the Build Canada Homes act?

     Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her concern for those most vulnerable. The importance of supportive and transitional housing cannot be understated. It is a best practice, as part of a housing-first initiative, to make sure that people who are at risk of homelessness or are currently homeless have an opportunity to get into housing that has wraparound health and social supports so they can find stability in their lives and then transition to other housing opportunities successfully.

    We have seen great examples of this. I mentioned that Dunn House, in the member for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park's riding, is really a social medicine example that is proving to save taxpayer dollars. We had people who were spending a lot of time in hospitals and emergency rooms or in jail within the justice system. The cost of all that has been reduced. Those people are rebuilding their lives with great success. We have seen that success in B.C. with the supportive housing I was involved with when I was the mayor of Vancouver.

     It is a best practice. We have a billion dollars dedicated toward that. We are looking for the operating funding from the provinces and territories to go forward and build thousands of supportive transitional homes. We will need that support from the leadership at the provincial level in particular. We have had early examples of that in Nova Scotia, Ontario and B.C. We need to scale that up. It is a big part of our work.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for introducing the bill. I really appreciate it.

    I have spent a lot of time since I came to Parliament visiting my riding and speaking with constituents about their circumstances. The cost of living is palpable across the country, and not just in my home province. A big part of the cost of living crisis is related to the affordability of homes. I do not hear much in the bill's introduction related to affordability, except for the title. There is little substance, other than maybe the monopolization of entry-level housing construction across the country.

     I understand this is transformation with intent, as the member has spoken to directly. I wonder if he could comment on how the government intends to eliminate or bring down the cost of housing with respect to municipal fees, taxes, delays, the time it takes to acquire a permit and all the stuff related to building new construction. I do not see any of those benefits in this legislation. I just see additional bureaucracy.

    Madam Speaker, I spoke briefly to the impact we have already had in terms of reducing approval times, red tape and the costs related to both of those with the City of Ottawa. We have an agreement in place with the City of Ottawa to build about 3,000 homes. The homes will be expedited through the city's system and that is a good example of how Build Canada Homes, by bringing new tools to the table, which this act would enable, has the opportunity to leverage that acceleration with city governments, which are responsible for those approvals and for reducing those costs.

    There will be other approaches with infrastructure investments that reduce development cost charges, which we will be bringing forward in the weeks and months ahead. With Build Canada Homes in particular, we have that leverage point. What will be really critical for us going forward is also having the tools to crank up the supply of more affordable housing. We can invest, at Build Canada Homes, in affordable housing projects that leverage a range of deeper affordability right to the middle market, like housing for young people that is lower rent. There are opportunities for attainable home ownership as well.

    We look forward, at Build Canada Homes, to being able to focus on scaling those opportunities.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question, one that I often hear when I travel around my riding. There is concern that some smaller communities, which do not have the resources of cities like Toronto or Longueuil, may not be able to access the opportunities provided by this program. Not every town needs 400 housing units. Some communities may need only four or six. The mayors and reeves in my riding are concerned about this.

     I would like to hear the minister tell us whether all communities, regardless of size, will have access to the program. They do not have the same resources as larger cities. At the press conference announcing the agreement with Quebec City, there was some talk of competition. It feels a bit like David versus Goliath, so I hope they will also have access to it.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for her question.

    We are focused on communities of all shapes and sizes. That is part of Build Canada Homes. The act would enable this new, lean, efficient agency to deliver both large-scale projects with larger communities and cities, and smaller projects in smaller and rural communities. We anticipate it being a measure of the impact within the community. In a small community, a small project would have a significant impact. We need to be able to fund and advance those projects in all sizes of communities.

    Madam Speaker, just before my formal remarks, I would like to take one moment to mention that two weeks ago today, I was able to stand in the House and congratulate Megan Oldham from Parry Sound on a bronze medal win at the Olympics in Milan.

    I am excited to report that, a week ago today, I had the immense privilege of standing at the bottom of the hill and watching her win gold in the big air event. I had never been to the Olympics before, and I have to say that watching a constituent and family friend win gold is a pretty exciting experience. I just want to report that we are obviously immensely proud of Megan in Parry Sound—Muskoka and all across Canada. The town of Parry Sound is actually planning a fairly large community celebration this Saturday, and I will be there. Singing O Canada as a constituent wins gold at the Olympics is something I will never forget.

    I will move on to the debate today:

     The warning President John F. Kennedy delivered at the Yale commencement in 1962 is the warning that we need to hear today. President Kennedy knew that nations could drift because of the comfort of assumptions, systems and myths.

     Today, Canada is living a myth. The myth is that we can solve a housing crisis by expanding bureaucracy, that another agency will compensate for a system that is designed to delay, and that process is the same as decision. The truth is much harder. The problem in this country is not a shortage of process. It is a shortage of permission. Until we confront that truth honestly, housing affordability will not return.

     Canada's housing crisis did not appear suddenly overnight. It was constructed, layer by layer, over years, over decades, with one additional approval, one new study, one longer consultation, one more appeal mechanism and one more condition layered onto an already complex process. Each individual decision seemed reasonable and each safeguard seemed maybe defensible, yet layered together they produced delay.

     Delay is not neutral. Delay is a decision and it has a cost. When approvals stretch from months into years, capital sits idle, risk increases and projects that once made economic sense no longer do. As time expands, costs explode, and either those costs are embedded into the final price or the homes are just simply never built. That is not ideological rhetoric. It is simple math. This paralysis by process is measurable in months, in dollars and in lost opportunity.

    The CMHC estimates that Canada must build between 430,000 and 500,000 homes per year for a sustained period to restore affordability. We are nowhere near that pace. In recent years, housing starts have fallen well below that level. Meanwhile, population growth accelerated. Between 2019 and 2024, for every 100-person increase in the adult population, only a small fraction of ownership housing was added. That imbalance compounds annually. Home ownership among Canadians aged 30 to 34 has declined sharply, rents have risen and carrying costs have increased dramatically. Now, nearly nine in 10 Canadians express concern about housing affordability. This is not some cyclical downturn that will just reset itself. It is structural and it is pervasive.

     That is not just my diagnosis. I am not just griping as a partisan here. The warnings are everywhere. The OECD has repeatedly identified restrictive zoning, prolonged permitting and fragmented approval systems across levels of government as principal constraints on housing supply in Canada. It has called for as-of-right zoning, predictable and shortened approval timelines, reduced regulatory overlap and alignment between infrastructure funding and housing approvals. Its conclusion is clear: Canada's housing challenge is not primarily a financing issue; it is a supply and regulatory issue.

    The International Monetary Fund has gone even further. In its article IV consultation, it has warned that housing supply constraints in Canada now represent a macroeconomic risk. They are not simply a social issue, but a macroeconomic risk.

    Housing shortages fuel inflation, restrict labour mobility, suppress productivity growth and elevate financial vulnerability. When workers cannot move to opportunity, productivity declines. When productivity declines, growth slows, and when growth slows, fiscal capacity weakens. This paralysis by process in housing becomes paralysis in economic growth, so when international institutions flag housing supply as a growth constraint, it is wise for us to listen. Canada does not lack capital, talent or expertise; what Canada lacks is permission.

    Prime Minister Lester Pearson believed that governments reveal their priorities not through their rhetoric but through what they make it easy to do and what they make it hard to do. In Canada today, it is easier to create a new program than to reform a process, it is easier to announce than to approve, and it is easier to expand bureaucracy than to shorten timelines. That imbalance is not limited to housing, although housing is where its consequences are most visible, which brings us to Bill C-20.

    Bill C-20 would create the Build Canada Homes corporation, the fourth federal housing bureaucracy and another governance framework and layer of administration. Let us apply the Pearson test. Would it shorten municipal timelines or eliminate duplication or endless review? Would it impose service standards or reduce the tax burden on housing? The answer is quite simply no, it would not. It would reorganize, but it would not reform, and that matters because the crisis we face is not a shortage of institutions; it is an accumulation of delay.

    Build Canada Homes would not change zoning law, eliminate discretionary rezoning, impose firm timelines on reviews, reduce development or remove environmental duplication charges. It would add a new entity; it would not remove a barrier. If we do not fix time, we do not fix cost; if we do not fix cost, we do not fix affordability.

    The minister said that we do not need to predict how this new agency is going to work; we already have some evidence. Those first six housing projects on federal lands announced by Build Canada Homes were presented as proof of momentum. They were proof that the new Crown corporation was hitting the ground running and already delivering, yet we know that those lands were already well under development through the Canada Lands Company, an existing federal Crown corporation. The sites had already been identified, transferred and prepared; planning work was already under way; municipal engagement had already begun, and in some cases, approvals were already advancing. Build Canada Homes did not unlock those sites; it inherited them.

    We all know that rebranding does not increase supply, shorten approvals or break the chains of our process. If greater authority was required, it could have granted that to Canada Lands Company. Instead, the government has layered on another structure, while the underlying approvals system, with all its delays and costs, remains unchanged.

    We have seen this pattern before from the Liberal government. The housing accelerator fund was introduced with similar language, such as urgency, speed and transformation. Billions were allocated, planning studies were funded, consultants were hired and zoning frameworks were reviewed, but did it eliminate discretionary rezonings, impose binding approval timelines or remove duplication? In many cases, it simply funded more planning. It did not remove process. Money was layered on top of delay and actually subsidized the paralysis.

    Even the CMHC is not immune. Developers across the country report prolonged underwriting reviews, repeated revisions and changing requirements mid-process. The financing designed to accelerate housing is slowed by administration.

    With every new agency or program, the signal from the government is very clear: The system is not optimized for speed; it is optimized for review. Review without discipline becomes delay, and delay without reform feeds the paralysis.

    I find it interesting that when the government seeks to assist the auto sector, as an example, it works directly with the producers. It tries to strengthen their competitiveness; it secures investment for them and works to improve their supply chains. When the government wants to support farmers, it does not create some federal body that plants crops and raises cows. It backs producers, reduces risk and tries to expand markets. However, in housing, instead of empowering builders by reducing delays and costs, the government has created a new bureaucracy. Homes are built by builders, not by boards.

    At the end of the Second World War, Canada faced a severe housing emergency as well. Nearly one million veterans returned home. Ten years of depression and six years of war had nearly halted construction. By 1946, the country was short more than 200,000 homes. Families were living in temporary huts and converted barracks. The crisis was immediate, yet Canada mobilized. Financing expanded, land was serviced, approvals were streamlined and authority was clear. Housing production increased dramatically through the late 1940s and early 1050s, and within a decade, that shortage was largely overcome. That is not nostalgia; it is a very clear example of urgency a time when the government treated time as the enemy.

    It is easy for us today to frame this housing crisis as only about young Canadians. It is about young Canadians, but it is important to point out that scarcity affects every generation, because housing supply affects retirement security. When young families cannot afford homes, household formation slows. When household formation slows, economic growth slows. When that growth slows, pension sustainability weakens. When housing markets become distorted by undersupply, volatility increases, and volatility affects home equity. Home equity affects retirement planning. Reduced labour mobility reduces productivity, and that reduced productivity affects tax revenues, those same tax revenues that fund health care and pensions.

    Housing supply is not a generational wedge issue; it is an issue of national stability. Boomers should care, mid-career Canadians should care and young Canadians already do care. Housing supply is tied to our nation's fiscal health. It is tied to productivity, and that scarcity harms us all. We know this is true because residential construction represents roughly 7% of Canada's GDP. With related industries included, nearly one-fifth of economic activity is connected to housing. When housing slows, construction employment declines, material production declines, mortgage lending slows, and retail contracts and government revenues shrink. Housing anchors fiscal health at every level, so when supply fails, the economic ripple is national.

    We know that real reform is not about announcing new funds or new agencies. It is about removing friction: expanding as-of-right zoning, imposing building review timelines, aligning infrastructure funding with housing results, reducing the onerous tax burden, coordination across jurisdictions and holding departments accountable for time. None of that requires yet another Crown corporation. It requires government reforming itself at all levels. Following the same playbook of the last 10 years simply will not work.

    President Kennedy warned about myths: the myth that comfort can replace courage, that process can replace decision and that more administration equals more results. Canada is living that myth right now. As we are trapped in that myth, prices rise, supply continues to fall, opportunity continues to narrow, growth continues to weaken and confidence continues to erode.

    Prime Minister Pearson believed governments are judged by what they make easy and what they make hard. By that measure, we are failing. It is easy to announce, reorganize and create new agencies, yet it remains hard to approve housing, shorten timelines and remove duplication. It is hard to say “yes”, and Canadians are paying the price for that imbalance.

    They see it in the cost of every home, the rent paid each month, delayed family plans and slower growth that affects retirement security and public finances alike. That is not abstract. It is absolutely measurable and absolutely reversible. We have built at scale before. We have mobilized nationally before. We have delivered transformative projects before, but the question before this House is not whether Canada can build; it is whether we are prepared to do it again, because when government makes it too hard to build homes, it weakens economic security across all generations for all Canadians. Canada does not lack builders, Canada does not lack capital and Canada does not lack the skill. Canada lacks permission.

     We must restore urgency. We must restore accountability for time and restore clarity of purpose, and then supply will follow. Canada can build again, but not if we continue pretending that more bureaucracy is actual reform, and not if we continue layering announcements on top of delay.

    For 10 years, Canadians have been promised strategies, funds, frameworks and agencies, and for 10 long years, affordability has moved further and further out of reach for every Canadian. Home ownership has fallen, rents have risen and starts have slowed. The crisis has deepened. This is not a failure of messaging or announcements; it is a failure of government. Repeating the same formula, another agency, another announcement, another layer, will not produce a different result; it will produce more of the same.

    If we are serious about restoring affordability, then we must confront the truth. The obstacle is not a lack of government; it is too much government standing in the way. The answer is not a fourth housing bureaucracy; it is the courage to reform the system that created the delays in the first place.

    Let us choose reform over reorganization. Let us choose timelines over talking points. Let us choose permission over paralysis. Canada can build again, but only if we stop repeating the costly errors of the past and start removing the barriers that caused this crisis and continue to make it worse.

     Canadians deserve this level of urgency, this level of honesty. This nation has done it before, and we can do it again, but Canadians are running out of time. We must do it now.

    Madam Speaker, I agree that we need better timelines. I agree that we need reform, but the way to do that is through partnership, including with municipalities. As a former municipal leader, I think that our colleague across the floor would believe in that as well.

    The statement from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities welcomes the federal government's Build Canada Homes initiative as a strong signal of leadership on the housing crisis. This announcement shows a clear commitment to working in partnership with municipalities as well as provinces, territories, indigenous governments, housing providers, non-profits and developers to deliver practical, results-driven solutions that meet the urgent housing needs of Canadians.

    I truly believe in partnership. I believe in partnership with municipal and provincial governments. I wonder how the member feels we should move forward in that spirit of partnership, because many of his comments were really talking about overriding the powers and responsibilities of municipal government.

    Madam Speaker, I suppose the FCM can be forgiven for thinking that there may be some results coming from this government after 10 years, but the fact of the matter remains that the Liberals have created a fourth federal housing bureaucracy. There is the department; there is CMHC, a Crown corporation that has existed since just after the war; there is the Canada Lands Company, which is already developing these projects they announced; and now we have Build Canada Homes, which, by the way, is now responsible for one of the other Crown corporations.

     My question for the hon. parliamentary secretary is this: How many bureaucracies will we need to solve this crisis? Is it maybe one more? What if this one does not achieve what we want it to do? Will we build another one?

    The solution is not more bureaucracy; it is about getting the bureaucracy out of the way. I wish this government would simply understand that and help us get the bureaucracy out of the way.

    Madam Speaker, we completely agree that this just adds more bureaucracy, that it adds a new structure. They already had the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, but now they are adding Build Canada Homes instead of optimizing what is already in place.

    I would like to know if we can agree that this is another attempt by the federal government to interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, including in housing. In Quebec, we already have the Société d'habitation du Québec.

    I would like to know if my colleague agrees that Quebec should ask for the right to opt out with full compensation for anything having to do with federal housing projects.

    Madam Speaker, I will tell the member right now that, in fact, Quebec is one of the provinces that actually has done fairly well on housing.

    There is no question that partnerships between the federal level and the provincial level are important. I would simply argue that those partnerships should focus on getting provinces to reduce the burden of endless reviews and consultants' reports. We have to speed up the process required to get things approved in this country. All that time adds cost, and until we reduce that time, we are not going to reduce the cost. This government could do that in partnership with Quebec, as with every other province.

    Madam Speaker, that was one of the best speeches I have heard in my time here. Another piece to this conversation is home ownership, and I wonder if the member would like to expand on the Conservative approach to home ownership versus the piece of legislation in front of us and how it would not really address or further expand the dream of home ownership for Canadians.

    Madam Speaker, that is a very important point, and I probably should have spoken about it more in my speech. I listened to the minister, and I heard all about these new projects. They are all focused on rentals, and there is clearly no question that there is a need for rentals in Canada. It was the first Trudeau prime minister who cancelled the incentivization of building purpose-built rentals, and we see the implications of that today. However, what the government seems to forget is that home ownership is still, in fact, the dream of young people in this country, and until we reduce the cost of new homes, we are just not going to make that a reality.

    The Liberals will talk about how they have removed the GST on new homes, but only for first-time homebuyers. The problem with that, particularly in the markets where housing is really in crisis, the largest markets in the country, is that the first-time homebuyers do not make up enough of the market of new homes for builders to break ground. As such, it is not enough to actually stimulate the market. Builders are laying people off as we speak, and they are not starting any new projects.

    We have to reduce the cost overall so that we can get builders building again, and the government is not doing that. This is putting home ownership further and further out of reach. The Conservatives have a plan to actually make home ownership a reality again for Canadians by reducing the cost overall, which includes fees and time.

    Madam Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in the member's argument, and all one needs to do is take a look at the contrast and compare today's minister to the leader of the Conservative Party when he was the minister responsible for housing, which reflects the Conservative Party's policy. He constructed six houses while he was the minister of housing. The fundamental difference is that a Liberal government, under this Prime Minister and this minister, recognizes that the Government of Canada has a role to play. That is what the legislation would do. It would reinforce that role.

     We can complement that, with our working with provincial and municipal governments and our recognizing that housing is something in which the federal government has an important role to play, and the Conservative right, not the red Tories, disagrees fundamentally with the federal government in housing. Why is that?

    Madam Speaker, as usual, there is a fundamental flaw with that member's line of argument. I honestly do not understand what he is talking about. There is no question that the federal government has a role. I think I have talked about that many times. He is just not paying attention. That is fine. I do not really expect him to pay attention.

    The fact of the matter is that, as Conservatives, we would much prefer that Canadians have the opportunity to own their own home rather than rent from the government. It is great that the member wants to build lots of government homes, but Canadians do not want to live in those homes; they want to live in one they own. That is the promise that we would restore.

    Madam Speaker, my question is very simple. Why would the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure think it responsible to develop a new government agency, with the use of taxpayer dollars, without set targets and timelines to outline to Canadians how many homes would actually be built?

    Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the new Crown corporations talk to the other Crown corporations, but the CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, is the first housing Crown corporation of the government, and it is talking about making sure we build between 430,000 and 500,000 homes a year for the next several years to restore affordability. However, instead of engaging CMHC to help with this project, and instead of engaging Canada Lands Company, the other federal Crown corporation responsible for housing, the government is creating a third one, and it does not have any targets.

     The government has let the first corporation talk about targets, and it let the newest one take over one of them. Honestly, it makes zero sense to create yet another corporation. The first one has told us what its targets are, and the government would create a new one without targets. It would just be more bureaucracy, and I do not foresee any results coming out of it.

    Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his excellent work on this important issue.

    I will go to the people affected by these policies. I speak often to young people, and I know the member does as well. Comparing their concerns today with where we were 10 years ago, many young people fear they will be worse off than their parents, and their top concerns are access to jobs and access to homes. Those are pretty fundamental things in life for starting a family, having kids and pursuing a positive future. Can they afford a place to live and find a job, and is that job going to allow them to pay for basics, including, most essentially, a home? Many young people, after 10 years of the Liberal government, have started to lose hope that that is even possible.

    I wonder if the member could share a bit about the conversations he is having with young people, but also offer them a sense that something is possible if we change direction in terms of public policy.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work with young people. He focuses a lot on youth employment and unemployment, as it were, and he is quite correct. I have talked to young people all across the country and in my own community, even before I came to this place. Young people hope to own a home. This is something my generation and previous generations simply took for granted. The reality is that we have done it before. It is only over the last 40 years that we have made it so expensive and so hard to get permission to build a home. The way to fix that is to make it easier, and Conservatives would do that.

    Madam Speaker, today, we are discussing Bill C-20, which seeks to establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation to build affordable housing. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is in favour of that.

    The budget, which is currently being debated as part of Bill C-15, provides for $13 billion over the next four years, until 2030, and gives the government and the Crown corporation the power to build so-called affordable homes.

    For several years now, we have been experiencing a major housing crisis. The Bloc Québécois is pleased that the government and the minister, whom I commend, are taking steps to expedite efforts to build affordable housing, but why are we in the midst of a housing crisis to begin with? Why are young people no longer able to buy a home, since prices have skyrocketed in recent years? Why are people who are struggling to make ends meet no longer able to find a place to rent? Why are they no longer able to move, to find a new place to live at a price that does not force them to make sacrifices when it comes to putting food on the table or buying other basic necessities?

    That is the housing crisis we are facing today. I must remind the House that the housing crisis was caused, in part, by Justin Trudeau's government, in other words, by the Liberals sitting here today, through the Century Initiative, which planned to increase Canada's population to 100 million people by the end of the century. The immigration floodgates were opened. The Bloc Québécois supports immigration, but the government must ensure it can meet its ambitious goals. Increasing immigration to such a level, which no other OECD country has done in terms of immigration, was very risky. Neither McKinsey nor the government even thought about implementing measures to support this sudden spike in immigration. Such support would include schools and hospitals and, of course, housing. That played a major part in the situation we are now in.

    Of course, one of the problems related to the housing crisis concerns the financialization of housing. Rather than investing in shares in companies that produce goods and services and then receiving a portion of the profits, some people are relying on the housing market's tendency to rise in value and buying a condo or house without necessarily intending to reside there, but rather to put it back on the market in a few years and make a profit. This is another major problem. Justin Trudeau's government and his finance minister Chrystia Freeland put a few measures in place to mitigate that. For example, there was the anti-flipping measure, which required a certain amount of time to pass before someone who bought a house could resell it. There was that too. There is also the fact that a lot of people are living in increasingly larger spaces, which leaves less space available, in terms of housing stock, for people who need it.

    Now the government is putting its shoulder to the wheel and finally making a major effort, which we applaud. It is going to invest $13 billion over the next four years, with the possibility of more to come later on.

    Housing essentially falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec. We in the Bloc Québécois are concerned when we see that Ottawa wants to bypass the provinces and Quebec to tackle the housing issue. Yes, we are happy that the government is putting money on the table. Why is the government putting money on the table? It is because it can afford to do so. Why can it afford to do so? It is because of the fiscal imbalance, which is thoroughly documented in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's annual reports. These reports point out that, when taxpayers pay their taxes, about half of the revenue goes to the federal government while the other half stays in the provinces. However, the expenses that the provinces have to cover in order to deliver services in areas under their jurisdiction, such as education, health care, roads and so on, are much higher than those incurred by the federal government in meeting its responsibilities, which essentially consist of transferring funds to either the provinces or to individuals. Examples include EI and OAS. The federal government has fewer exclusive jurisdictions. National defence is one, although the government made a significant shift in this area in its most recent budget. The fiscal imbalance means that Ottawa does have some flexibility, as documented every year by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

    The government sees the crisis that it helped to create, and it is saying that it will do its part and take decisive action. We welcome this gesture, but we are concerned about jurisdiction. Why? Up until the late 1980s, there used to be many partnerships between Quebec and Ottawa in the area of social housing, such as low-income housing, for example. Then, all of a sudden, the federal government decided that it was no longer interested and was abandoning the whole thing. All of a sudden, Ottawa, which had been involved in an area of provincial jurisdiction, changed its policy and left people in poverty. In other parts of Canada, this was a real disaster, a real dismantling of social and affordable housing. In Quebec, because we care, we decided that we could not let that happen. The Government of Quebec came to the rescue and saved the day by taking over the federal government's share. Then a few decades went by without Ottawa putting any money back into social housing, and that was a serious problem.

    Over the past 10 years, under Justin Trudeau, there has been a renewed focus on affordable housing, and even some social housing programs, which we welcomed. However, it has been a pittance given the housing shortage and skyrocketing housing costs. That is our concern.

    Now, all of a sudden, Ottawa is getting on board and creating a Crown corporation. It is putting money in the budget that will be transferred to the new Crown corporation. Yes, but what will happen in four years, six years, eight years, ten years? Will organizations and people who want to submit projects then have to go to the federal government, continue to work with the SHQ or turn to the Quebec government? We shall see, and I will come back to that since it is not specified in Bill C‑20, which establishes the Crown corporation.

    However, an agreement, a memorandum of understanding, was signed between Quebec and Ottawa in that regard. We need access to that document, but we do not have it. Why? This is not unusual. Ottawa waits until it has signed agreements with all of the provinces before disclosing the content of those agreements. Why? The reason is that, often, Quebec manages to negotiate a little more autonomy than the other provinces, and Ottawa does not want the other provinces to follow Quebec's lead. That is why Ottawa generally tends to sign agreements with Quebec last. However, in this case, it seems that the federal government was in a rush to reach an agreement. The agreement was signed and my riding neighbour, Caroline Proulx, the Quebec housing minister, praised this agreement and said that the MOU respected Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. We find that reassuring and it encourages us to support the principle of this bill, but, obviously, we will have to look at the specifics of the MOU.

    Bill C-20, however, leaves much to be desired. The bill establishes the Crown corporation and gives it a plethora of possible tools. The corporation can do great things, but the House has no control over it. The Crown corporation and the government have a great deal of power to develop affordable housing, but, after that, there is no accountability.

    For example, the government's definition of affordable housing can be found on the website for Build Canada Homes, which was initially mistranslated in French as “Bâtir Maisons Canada”. That definition states that affordable housing should cost 30% of the median income of the neighbourhood or region, so we are not talking about an individual's ability to pay. A person living in poverty has an income below the median income of their neighbourhood. This is completely different from social housing, which is based on ability to pay and is set at 30% of the income of the person or household living in the dwelling, rather than on the median income of the neighbourhood. Meanwhile, this definition is nowhere to be found in Bill C-20. It is only found on the Build Canada Homes website, not in the legislation.

    If we can trust the government when it says that it will build affordable housing, then that is great. However, the bill provides no guarantee that the housing will actually be affordable. We have no guarantee that any of the funding will go to social housing. That is really worrying.

    Social housing, whether it is co-operatives, low-income housing or housing from other organizations, is based on the ability of households, as I was saying, of individuals, to pay based on their income. That is what we need to focus on. Bill C‑20, the Build Canada Homes act, allows for that. However, if Build Canada Homes did not build any social housing at all, it would still be within its framework or mission. That is a serious concern.

    The same is true for energy efficiency standards, for example. The government says it needs to make an effort to fight climate change and set higher standards. That is set out in a document online stating that, yes, efforts must be made in that direction, but it is not in the bill and it is not in the mission. Build Canada Homes is not required to ensure that environmental standards are in place for the projects it will support.

    Once again, we are supposed to just trust the government. Once Bill C‑15, the budget implementation bill, is passed, the government and the Crown corporation will no longer be accountable to the House. We are being asked to trust the government, and this raises concerns.

    It is the same thing with local materials. Obviously, when people buy two-by-fours or two-by-sixes, they do not import them from the U.S. or Europe. We make enough of those products here in Canada. However, the government has said that people need to maximize local benefits, make efforts to ensure that the materials purchased are produced locally and drive Canada's economy. That is all well and good, and we welcome that. However, that is also in a schedule that is neither on the website, nor in the bill. The government has made a commitment, but what kind of accountability mechanisms will there be? Once again, it is not within the Crown corporation's mission, and it is not in the bill. We have to trust the government, which will not be required to keep its commitments afterwards.

     I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance prior to the last election. The committee heard from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC. In fact, the committee heard from a great CMHC economist who had done the study the committee was discussing. He told the committee that at the rate things were going with the Century Initiative, which was a major factor, rents and home prices were going to double between 2019, the base year he was using, and 2030. That is deeply concerning.

    When CMHC officials appeared before the committee, they presented some tables that the committee had requested showing the various CMHC affordable housing programs. The committee found that standardizing programs, such as the rapid housing initiative, ensured each province and each territory received its fair share on a per capita basis. Quebec would receive its share. As for the rest of the programs that were not standardized, Quebec did not receive its fair share.

    Again, the Build Canada Homes website states that the government would aim for regional fairness, but this is not in the bill. What does regional fairness mean? There are no standards or obligations. Build Canada Homes will not be required to say that each province will have its share. What we have learned over the past years is that when this standard is not included, Quebec does not get its share. This is a matter of great concern for us. It is a question of fairness. When there is no standard, Quebec does not get its share. There is no standard here. I will say it again: We have some real concerns.

    As I said a few moments ago, Build Canada Homes is structurally very flexible. It allows for partnerships, it allows for funding to be transferred directly to the provinces, and so on. Build Canada Homes has considerable latitude to do great things. However, depending on the government's goodwill, it also makes it possible for housing projects intended for social housing or transitional housing to be converted into housing projects that would not really be affordable. There are no restrictions in this regard. That is obviously a serious concern.

    Yes, the government said so. Yes, it was in the presentations last fall. Yes, the Build Canada Homes website says there will be money for transitional housing for people trying to get out of homelessness. The government says that funds will be allocated and that there will be partnerships with the provinces. That is what we want, so we welcome that. There will be opportunities to fund co-ops, social housing and low-income housing. We welcome that, too. However, there are no guarantees in this bill, so that is a concern.

    I would like to mention a tenant advocacy organization in Quebec, the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, which is located in Montreal. After reading an interview published by The Canadian Press on February 7, members of FRAPRU publicly expressed their concern that Build Canada Homes could be used to financialize housing. They said, and I quote, “The cat is out of the bag. After promising to build affordable housing through Build Canada Homes, the...government's new strategy is becoming clear. Build Canada Homes will be nothing more than an investment bank”.

    These people, who are on the ground fighting for tenants' rights so that we have social housing and so that people can live with dignity, had a lot more to say. Given what the minister has said in media interviews, FRAPRU is now concerned because the Build Canada Homes tool box comes with financial levers that the government can use to have the private sector develop housing. Some of that housing could be considered affordable, but there are no guarantees. Organizations like FRAPRU believe that this will undermine the mission of Build Canada Homes.

    Are we talking about projects where support or subsidies will be granted to construction companies or real estate developers to build more housing, or will the spirit of the bill truly prevail, meaning that more affordable housing will be built? Supply and demand dictates that if there is more housing overall, prices will tend to fall. However, the members of the Bloc Québécois are asking for more than that, as is FRAPRU.

    We do not just want more housing. We want more truly affordable housing, which ideally means more social housing. We would have liked to see a guarantees regarding social housing in this bill. We would have liked to see guarantees for local purchasing in construction and for environmental standards. We would have liked to see guarantees for transitional housing to lift people out of homelessness. We would have liked to see a standard that ensures fairness between the provinces to make sure that Quebec gets its fair share.

    As I said at the beginning of my speech, Ottawa has a record of doing some great things on social housing, but overnight, the government changed priorities and left things in a state of ruin. Quebec had to step in to clean things up, and I am genuinely concerned that with the latest intrusion into an area that falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, the same thing will happen in a few years' time. When this issue is no longer fashionable, when it is no longer in vogue, the government will slash the whole program, and Quebec will once again have to pick up the pieces and go back to the drawing board.

    If my party has to vote on the bill as it stands, we would have some reservations. We support the principle of social housing, but the bill falls far short of the government's commitments. There are far fewer guarantees. We are not prepared to sign a blank cheque for the government and say we trust it and we know it will do a great job. We will not do that because we want the government to be held accountable. We want guarantees to ensure that taxpayer dollars, money from the people we represent, is invested properly and is not diverted. In the meantime, we remain extremely concerned.

    However, Ottawa has signed a memorandum of understanding with Quebec. As I said, Quebec was the first province to sign on, which is quite rare and exceptional. Caroline Proulx, the minister in Quebec City, and my friend, whom I wish to acknowledge, noted in a press release that “the agreement announced today is a major step forward in housing. It is significant and fully respects Quebec's jurisdiction, priorities, and legislative framework.” This gives us enough assurance, even though we have not yet seen the document, to say that we will support the bill at this stage. I have no doubt the committee will find ways to improve it. We will work on that. We also really need to have access to the text of the agreement to make sure Ottawa fully complies with all of the Quebec government's priorities.

    In closing, I would just like to remind the House that the bill gives the Crown corporation Build Canada Homes the status of agent of the Crown, which gives it the powers of the government, including the power to expropriate land, the power to avoid paying municipal taxes and the power to get around Quebec's laws and municipal bylaws. We were told that this was not the government's intention and that the issue will be corrected in the agreement, but we are keeping an eye on that.

    Madam Speaker, I always appreciate hearing what my colleague from Joliette—Manawan has to say. His speeches are always insightful and well thought out.

    I wanted to start with a question, but I will just make a comment instead because I think my friend has clearly explained the connection between the bill, which has a specific objective, and his desire for the wording of the bill to be more precise. In my opinion, the agreement that he described at the end of his speech between the Canadian government and the Government of Quebec shows that federalism works. It shows the link between a bill and a good agreement, as he was the first to point out.

    I would therefore like to better understand how this agreement can promote the interests of Quebec and my colleague's riding.

    Madam Speaker, it is not complicated. We have been in a housing crisis for several years now. Housing prices have skyrocketed, and people no longer have access to home ownership. There are not enough condos, apartments or houses. More importantly, there is a huge shortage of social housing. The most vulnerable people are making immense sacrifices to find housing, often in unacceptable conditions.

    Ottawa is providing $13 billion over four years, and everyone welcomes that. Finally, Ottawa is fully acknowledging the current crisis, and the government is introducing a bill and allocating $13 billion in the budget to address it. We are very pleased about that.

    However, as I was saying, this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction. Ottawa has been known to bring in projects and then pull out of them overnight, leaving a mess. That is what worries us here. If there is good co-operation between Ottawa and Quebec on this issue, then that is perfect. However, we would like the bill to be more detailed and include more guarantees to ensure that the government continues to report on the appropriate use of funds.

    We would also like to have access to the memorandum of understanding in order to confirm that that is the case, but we have been told that we cannot currently read it. The bill makes the Crown corporation an agent of the Crown. As such, it is given full powers and would not have to comply with any municipal bylaw. Again, we are being asked to blindly trust the government, but we are not prepared to do that.

    Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's statement and thoughtful words.

     Could the member comment on the notion that, just like the magic of compound interest, we have what seems to be compound bureaucracy, where we get bureaucracy upon bureaucracy that just gums up the works and makes matters worse? Could the member also comment on how the system could become more efficient to reduce the bureaucratic, administrative and regulatory loads to get homes built faster and more affordably for Canadians?

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment and question. In the most recent budget, the government committed to keep the deficit at just $78 billion this year. That is double Justin Trudeau's deficits and makes him look positively frugal. The government is saying that it is going to make cuts to the public service, that it is going to cut 40,000 jobs, which is huge. We are still waiting and we are interested to see that. We have been told that those jobs may be replaced by AI. We will see.

    What we do know is that the government is putting a new program in place to try to simplify the task for organizations and stakeholders. We will see if it succeeds. In our opinion, the simplest solution would be to pay out the $13 billion, to transfer Quebec's share to the Government of Quebec and entrust it to build social and affordable housing. That would eliminate an administrative level and a ton of red tape and paperwork for everyone. The money could be sent directly to where it is needed and housing could be built a lot faster. That is what we want and that is what we are calling for.

    Madam Speaker, we agree that this is not a matter of jurisdiction or an ideological fight. When Quebec families are struggling to put a roof over their heads, our duty is to take action, not to debate about jurisdictions. We just need to house Quebeckers. People want solutions, not jurisdictional bickering.

    Can my colleague provide more clarity for Quebeckers?

    Madam Speaker, the need is great. There is a crisis, so yes, urgent action is needed. We are asking the federal government and the Quebec government to come to an agreement. They signed an MOU. They seem to be in agreement. I want to make sure that the areas of jurisdiction are respected.

    Why? It is because we want the federal government to do a good job in its own areas of jurisdiction, which it is not currently doing. Take the Cúram software, for example. The government is unable to properly pay out OAS benefits. Development costs for this software have skyrocketed. In terms of EI, the government is unable to make reforms because the software is faulty. It is unable to care for veterans or fund health care. The federal government is having a hard time carrying out its core missions, and yet it is always sticking its nose into the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces to get some some visibility.

    There is a housing crisis. We applaud the fact that funds are being allocated to address it. Ideally, we would have preferred that the money be transferred. As I was saying, my fear and the fear of the Bloc Québécois is that this is a priority for the government now, but will it still be a priority in four years?

    In recent decades, we have witnessed the federal government in Ottawa disengage from social housing and low-income housing overnight, leaving a path of destruction in its wake, and yet, social housing is not its jurisdiction. It skipped town, dropped everything and left families and people in need of low-cost housing to cope with the disaster. We do not want that to happen again. That is why respecting jurisdictions is important.

    Madam Speaker, I have a question about urgency. People talk about the urgent need for housing and social housing. The Fédération québécoise des municipalités, or FQM, and the Union des municipalités du Québec, or UMQ, have levelled some criticism at the government for causing housing construction delays.

    I would like to hear my colleague briefly address that issue.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend for her question. This is an ongoing issue. We have seen it. In this case, we are talking about Build Canada Homes. What will the delays be? The government must take quick action, in collaboration with Quebec through a memorandum of understanding, so that every dollar voted in the budget gets out the door as quickly as possible.

    We know that the cost of building housing is skyrocketing. A one-year delay represents a very significant percentage increase, and it is even worse for a two- or three-year delay. What we have seen in recent years is that, for Quebec, federal programs administered through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation take years to make an impact. A dollar voted in year one could end up only getting out the door in year three, four or even five.

    However, the same dollar that was invested in year one will buy much less lumber and fewer doors and windows in years three, four or five. That money will therefore build far fewer homes, all because an agreement had to be reached, details needed to be negotiated and so on. Plus, there is the issue of red tape. That is why the Bloc Québécois has always said that areas of jurisdiction must be respected. When a dollar is earmarked for something, it must be sent directly to the provinces so that it can be put to use as quickly as possible.

    The need is there. With prices rising sharply due to inflation, the faster the dollar is spent, the more we get for our money. I would like to thank my colleague once again for her insightful remarks highlighting the needs of the FQM and the UMQ.

    Madam Speaker, I ask colleagues to look at what, essentially, this bill is doing. It would create a fourth housing bureaucracy. We already have a ministry of housing, the CMHC and the Canada Lands Company, which is based in the great riding of York Centre. Now the Liberal government is saying that we need another layer, a fourth layer of bureaucracy, to build homes in Canada, which is the primary purpose of the legislation we are debating.

    I am wondering where the Bloc stands on that. Will the Bloc support the Conservative suggestion that we do not need a fourth housing bureaucracy to build homes?

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his insightful comments. The government's intention is to create a new structure to reduce red tape and bureaucracy and to consolidate services that were scattered across various departments and agencies. Like my colleague, I am cautious. Will the government really succeed in simplifying the process and reducing bureaucracy? That remains to be seen.

    Given that housing and affordable housing are provincial responsibilities, what we are asking is that the funds be transferred directly to the provincial governments so that the money gets out the door faster and more housing can be built more quickly, as I have said several times.

    Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park.

    I appreciate the opportunity to appear here today to speak in support of the Build Canada Homes act. This landmark legislation would establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation dedicated to building and expanding access to more affordable homes in Canada.

     Over time, Canada's housing needs have evolved. While federal efforts have been delivered through a range of departments, agencies and programs, there is an opportunity to strengthen coordination and impact. Traditional construction and funding approaches alone are not meeting the scale and speed Canadians need, which is why we are moving forward with a new and innovative approach. All Canadians deserve an affordable place to call home. Housing is a fundamental need and growing demand for housing across the country requires urgent action.

     Build Canada Homes was created to act quickly and efficiently. This legislation would give Build Canada Homes the flexibility and operational autonomy to deliver on its mandate. It would streamline federal housing efforts by bringing these roles under one umbrella. At the same time, it would maintain a clear accountability framework to government and would strengthen collaboration across the housing sector to deliver the affordable housing at a scale and pace that Canadians need. Build Canada Homes would act as a developer, a financier, a coordinator and a catalyst for innovation in the housing sector.

    I would like to use my time today to speak about the importance of partnerships. Build Canada Homes has a central position in forging strong partnerships across all levels of government and with indigenous communities. It works with non-profit agencies, as well as key stakeholders in the housing industry, to drive the development of affordable housing across Canada. This includes private developers and community organizations.

    Build Canada Homes cannot act alone. The success of its achievements lies in its partnerships. Stronger collaboration across all levels of government and with key partners is essential to tackling the housing challenges facing Canadians.

     Build Canada Homes streamlines and accelerates the launch of affordable housing projects. The agency attracts public, private and philanthropic investment, maximizing impact. The Build Canada Homes act would make it easier to develop partnerships across the entire housing ecosystem to bring together the right financing and the right projects. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would combine access to federal lands, development expertise and flexible financial tools under one roof. It would accelerate the delivery of affordable housing, working with non-profits, indigenous organizations and all orders of government. This approach would reduce risk, address barriers and guide projects through the development process.

     Build Canada Homes would also work in close partnership with developers, investors and manufacturers to get housing financed and built. It would work directly with builders and housing providers who are focused on long-term affordability. This includes non-profits, co-operatives, community housing providers or organizations that promote a variety of housing options for Canadians. These strategic partnerships would create homes that are affordable for a range of households across the income spectrum.

     Build Canada Homes would be well equipped to collaborate with all levels of government and community partners through agreements, financial support, joint ventures and shared development initiatives. It would look for strong collaboration and coordination with provinces and territories who would help advance priority projects. This could include providing land, accelerating the approval process and waiving applicable fees.

     Indigenous peoples face unique housing challenges. Build Canada Homes would collaborate on proposals that would deliver shared housing outcomes with first nations, Inuit and Métis governments, indigenous housing providers, and urban indigenous organizations. The housing needs of indigenous communities would be met in the spirit of collaboration. The Government of Canada respects indigenous sovereignty and supports self-determined housing solutions that are designed and delivered with an indigenous-led perspective. Our indigenous partners know how to incorporate indigenous knowledge and culture and adopt housing solutions in a way that enables their communities to thrive. Build Canada Homes is committed to building in full partnership with indigenous peoples and advancing indigenous housing priorities.

    We are also working very closely with our provincial partners. Since its launch, Build Canada Homes has moved quickly to get housing projects off the ground. The Government of Canada has identified public lands that can be converted into housing. We have partnered with local governments to cut the red tape and to fast-track approvals.

    In January alone, we moved forward with two major points of progress through Build Canada Homes. The Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated have signed an agreement in principle. It would deliver up to 750 much-needed homes across the territory, including public, affordable and supportive housing. Through the agreement, Build Canada Homes would provide up to $250 million towards this investment.

    Importantly, as part of this new partnership, up to 30% of units would be built using innovative, factory-built components. Using off-site, factory-built components would help reduce delays and deliver homes faster. The first units are expected to be completed in the very near future.

    As well, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have signed a memorandum of agreement to guide their collaboration on Build Canada Homes projects. This partnership would accelerate approvals and help to identify additional housing projects across Quebec. It would also be critical for unlocking funding for affordable housing to be invested in communities across the province.

    Through Build Canada Homes, all levels of government are coming together to address the housing crisis. We would increase the supply of affordable housing and reduce the barriers to construction through a structured and collaborative approach. With private, public and government partners showing up at the table, we would get housing built. Growing and strengthening partnerships is an integral aspect of building homes for Canadians. By combining resources and finding innovative solutions alongside its partners, Build Canada Homes is laying the groundwork for lasting solutions.

     The Build Canada Homes act would formally establish Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation with a clear mandate. As a Crown corporation, Build Canada Homes would have the operational independence, governance and flexibility needed to deliver affordable housing at scale. The legislation would allow Build Canada Homes to operate at arm's length from government, manage assets and innovative financial tools, and make long-term investment decisions more efficiently. This structure would also enable Build Canada Homes to enter into partnerships that would expand housing supply. This would include partnerships with non-profits, private developers and all orders of government, including indigenous communities.

    It would reinforce Build Canada Homes's role as a permanent, delivery-focused institution rather than a time-limited program. The Build Canada Homes act would strengthen Build Canada Homes' ability to establish and maintain strong relationships across the housing ecosystem. This is the power of partnership: implementing lasting change. We are working together to build a strong and more unified approach to housing across the country.

     Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's sense of commitment, realizing that the federal government does have a role to play. I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts and the government's perspective in terms of the importance of working with other levels of government. I think of Winnipeg's mayor and the Province of Manitoba's premier, all of whom seem to be very supportive of our Prime Minister and the federal government's approach to dealing with the housing situation.

    Can the member provide her thoughts in regard to how important it is that the federal government work with our partners?

     Madam Speaker, importantly, we realize that municipalities are our partners and that we need to work together to advance housing in municipalities from coast to coast to coast. We have exciting partnerships under way, including right here in Ottawa. Canada's new government has secured a new partnership with the City of Ottawa to build 3,000 mixed income and affordable housing units across the city beginning this year. We have innovative partnerships under way with Nova Scotia and with Quebec.

    We are working from coast to coast to coast to find those partners that are committed to building housing at a pace and scale that has never been seen before. I will give an example of how it can be done. For supportive housing, municipal partners can bring forward the land, we can bring forward the capital and the provinces can bring forward that important operational funding.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague is a former deputy mayor of the city of Toronto, which is one of the most expensive cities in the country to build a home in. I am sure she is quite familiar with how much cost the local government and the city add to the cost of every new home. I am wondering if she might be able to speak to the cost of government, particularly at the local level, and if she sees a way for the government to do things like reducing the cost of government on the cost of a new home.

    Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak to my previous role as deputy mayor in the city of Toronto. Working alongside partners, we passed an ambitious plan for affordable housing in the city of Toronto. We also passed rules to allow multiplexes across the city and multitenant homes. We cut down on red tape. We improved zoning so that it made it easier to build. We also transformed the way we do processes so permits and approvals can be done faster.

    We have shown what can be possible. We are rolling that out in agreements from municipality to municipality from coast to coast to coast, and I look forward to working with all our municipal partners in that regard.

    Madam Speaker, we are experiencing the worst housing crisis in decades, and the government is boasting that it is going to create a new entity called Build Canada Homes.

    The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that Build Canada Homes will create a mere 26,000 new homes, when 690,000 are needed. Does anyone on that side of the House know how to count? I thought the Prime Minister was supposed to be a financial expert.

    The government is not even addressing 5% of the crisis. Is there any plan to even pretend that the government is working on the crisis, or is the plan more to manipulate public opinion into believing that the Liberals are really good?

    Madam Speaker, establishing Build Canada Homes as a Crown corporation provides the legal and operational flexibility and autonomy needed to deliver on its mandate while maintaining a clear accountability framework to government. It allows Build Canada Homes to hold assets independently, to invest and to engage in complex financial transactions.

    Build Canada Homes is designed to do more than just fund individual projects; it is a new way of doing business. Its goal is to unlock opportunities across the country by partnering with the market to identify and develop high-impact housing solutions.

    Madam Speaker, I know the Liberal government is talking about Build Canada Homes, but one of the problems with the program is that there is actually no allocation for funding reserved for housing that has rent geared to income. On one hand the Liberals complain about encampments, but then they leave the most marginalized people, the ones who are in the most need of housing and who are the most housing-insecure, out of the program.

    I am wondering if my hon. colleague can explain why the government made that omission.

    Madam Speaker, we are very much committed to transitional and supportive housing. There is a $1-billion allocation through Build Canada Homes in that regard. We look forward to partners bringing forward land. We will bring forward capital, and we need to rely on the provinces for that much-needed operational support.

    Madam Speaker, I am delighted to speak on behalf of and in support of the bill, which is already delivering results in my riding of Taiaiko'n—Parkdale—High Park. I want to speak specifically about the Parkdale neighbourhood in my riding, an area that has welcomed newcomers, including people fleeing persecution and violence, and people who have mental health challenges, for decades. It is a place that used to host the more wealthy residents of downtown Toronto when it was a country retreat, and then it became a place to welcome people from around the world. Parkdale is a little corner of the community, bordered by Dufferin Street, Roncesvalles, Queen Street and King Street.

    The population of the Parkdale neighbourhood of our community actually went down between 2016 and 2021. This is because we had areas of the neighbourhood in particular, such as larger mansions that had been multiresident residences, that were being turned into single-family homes. That, combined with the health needs, the needs of immigrants and refugees, and the needs of artists in our community, really created a challenge for the people in our riding, including the people in Parkdale. Government working side by side with the social sector in the kind of partnership my colleague mentioned has delivered and is delivering results.

    I just want to mention a few projects that are happening right now and are funded right now thanks to Build Canada Homes and the other programs that are in place thanks to the current government. Dunn House, which my colleague, the Minister of Housing, already mentioned, has 51 rent-geared-to-income units; there is $14 million through the rapid housing initiative, with Fred Victor and University Health Network as partners. It is changing the lives of 51 residents who have health needs and complex needs, delivering wraparound housing supports and health care supports.

    We are already building another project right around the corner at 11 Brock Avenue, which has 42 rent-geared-to-income units and $21.6 million with the Parkdale Activity-Recreation Centre as the delivery partner through federal government funding. There is Green Phoenix II, also in Parkdale, with 92 new affordable units, with $14.6 million and Parkdale United Church Foundation as a partner. I announced just last month with my colleagues the second edition of Dunn House in the same neighbourhood in Parkdale as Dunn House phase one, with 54 rent-geared-to-income units focused on seniors who have complex health needs, at $21.6 million, with the University Health Network.

    These are projects that are happening through a multiplicity of funds and a number of initiatives. Dunn House phase two is a project of Build Canada Homes. When I hear from the other side that there is too much bureaucracy, I say come to Parkdale and see the progress we are making right now with these institutions and with these different kinds of funds. When I hear from the other side that we are not going fast enough, I say come to Parkdale and see the housing that is being built now, is under construction, as well as the housing that is being promised.

    When I hear that this kind of format is about bureaucracy, I say come to Parkdale. Come and learn from the residents of Dunn House, who have experienced a 52% reduction in emergency department visits and a 79% drop in hospital bed days. There is $2.1 million in projected annual cost savings. Come to Parkdale; come and meet the residents of these facilities, of these dignified housing opportunities, which bring housing, health care and food, with the whole community in support.

    Build Canada Homes is building Parkdale strong. Parkdale is an integral part of our community. I am very much looking forward to the new projects that are being proposed within my community all along Queen West and the Queensway, such as the Parkdale People's Place project, the Parkdale Queen West Community Health Centre project and the Swansea Mews project. All these housing projects are being developed right now to provide the kind of housing we need in our community, in Parkdale, to bring a dignified life, economic opportunity and jobs.

    When I hear that there is something wrong about this approach of a new institution, I say come to Parkdale; come see how the funds are flowing right now in our community and are building housing, bringing jobs, bringing dignity and connecting people to the services they need. Come see how the whole community, inspired by and being able to access these funds, is using the funds and the opportunities to build housing, to help people build new lives for each other, and to bring the kind of safety and security that all of us in our neighbourhoods and communities need.

    Madam Speaker, the government is saying that it wants to solve crises. However, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the crisis will not be solved because the government's actions are inadequate.

    The government wants to build 26,000 new housing units although we need 690,000. Allow me to explain it to my colleagues who are good at math on the other side. This means that it is addressing only 5% of the crisis. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the contribution of Build Canada Homes will be modest.

    Is my colleague really interested in solving the crisis, or is he just doing PR?

    Madam Speaker, this will change lives. For instance, there will be 51 homes that are part of the Dunn House project, 42 homes at 11 Brock Avenue and 92 homes that are part of the Green Phoenix II project. That is not a story. It is not PR. Lives are being changed.

    I think that every member of the House has a duty to stand up for their community and to ensure that the funds allocated to Build Canada Homes in the budget go to their community.

    Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the member could speak to the importance of partnership. Dunn House is a beautiful example of partnership, with different governments and agencies coming together. We heard comments earlier from the opposition that talked about overriding the rights and responsibilities of municipalities.

    I am wondering if the member can speak to the importance of partnership.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent work in setting up the partnership that we have with the City of Toronto. Because we had Dunn House, the second edition of Dunn House, which had Build Canada Homes funding announced in our community just nine months after the election, has been able to attract provincial government funding for the health care supports we need.

    A last piece of partnership that is really important, which we sometimes take a bit for granted, is the partnership of the community, of the neighbours. We build housing in a context of neighbourhoods, histories and people who have different connections to the neighbourhood, sometimes long-established and sometimes as newcomers. The community came together with the residents of Dunn House and its partners, the University Health Network, Fred Victor Centre, West Neighbourhood House, United Way and others, which is the kind of thing that allows this housing to successfully land in communities. It is really the partnership of those institutions and neighbours working together with health care workers and residents that makes these institutions and these housing opportunities possible.

    Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague said that if we want to see how it is working, we should go to his riding. I would like him to come to my riding of Winnipeg Centre on Selkirk Avenue, ground zero for missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people, where we are trying to get support for the North End Women's Centre. Funding this would save lives. The Liberal government has not committed to funding this. What does it mean? It means it will continue to be ground zero, where indigenous women will continue to go missing and be murdered.

    I am wondering if my hon. colleague can tell me if he is really serious about his housing plan, if the Liberals will do anything to change the fact that their government put zero dollars toward addressing the ongoing genocide of indigenous women and girls, and if they will get serious and fund the North End Women's Centre.

    Madam Speaker, I know the Winnipeg members on this side of the House are very active in their support of projects, especially housing projects in Winnipeg. The next time I am in the area, I would be delighted to have a conversation with my colleague and the Winnipeg MPs on this side of the aisle about some of the needs that exist.

    I know that in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, in particular, in the Parkdale neighbourhood, the kinds of needs that the hon. member mentioned are being attended to, in part, through the housing projects I described.

    Madam Speaker, I have been here for almost nine months now, and this is at least the third time I have risen in the chamber to speak about housing.

    I cannot believe how much hot air the Liberals put up in this place. It is almost enough to launch the Remax hot air balloon, yet availability and affordability of housing are going down across the country. The talking points are endless. The press conferences are polished. The announcements are flashy movie sets that are quickly deconstructed afterwards.

     Back home in Newfoundland and Labrador, the tents are real, the wait-lists are real and homelessness is real. Hundreds of men, women and even children are experiencing homelessness in my province. Hundreds of youth are on the waiting list for emergency shelters, and the emergency shelters are full. That is not just a statistic. That is a failure, and that failure belongs to this government. After eight years, after billions announced, after strategy upon strategy, housing is less affordable, less attainable and less available than when the Liberals took office.

     In my province, young families are not asking for luxury condos. They are asking for a modest starter home, a place to raise their kids and a place to build a life. Instead, they are competing against inflation, bureaucracy, gatekeeping and federal policies that drive up the cost of living and the cost of building at every single stage. The Liberals say they are investing, but if we invest billions and the homelessness rises, it is not investment. It is incompetence.

     I have learned in my last nine months here in Ottawa that the Liberals love picking winners and losers. Their favourite movie must be Pinocchio, because all they want to do is to pull the strings in almost every aspect of Canadians' daily lives.

     In my riding, we have business owners applying for federal funding to build low-income housing. That may sound great, but it creates so much bureaucracy, red tape and inequality. For example, two businessmen in neighbouring communities both apply for funding for, say, 10 units at nearly $50,000 a unit. Talk about an awesome gift from the feds. I am starting to think the Liberals like the colour red, because it reminds them that they can put on their coats and pretend to be Santa Claus.

    However, here is the problem: One of those businessmen did not get funding, and now all 10 of those units are going to a neighbouring community, leaving none for that businessman and his community. Why did both applicants not get five units each? The transparency of these application processes is so low. Perhaps the only way to be accepted is to be a Liberal insider or a Liberal donor.

    We Conservatives, time after time, have fought for transparency and fairness, one of the biggest being the Federal Accountability Act of 2006. We fight for policies and platforms that incentivize everybody equally, instead of picking winners and losers and only choosing a select few to get incentives. We want to work with provinces to reduce the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million. These are policies that benefit all Canadians: no applications, no selection processes and no favouritism.

    We have lots of land in Canada. We have high unemployment and a huge demand for housing. When we ask home builders what the problem is, they always say that there is too much red tape and bureaucracy. Developers spend years and thousands of dollars trying to acquire land, permits, developmental fees and approvals, oftentimes having to deal with three levels of government. They want government and the bureaucracies to simply get out of the way, but the Liberal government wants to do the opposite. Every solution it proposes adds to the problem by creating more bureaucracy.

     Justin Trudeau's government implemented the national housing strategy. It did not work. Home prices continued to soar at rates much higher than our neighbouring economy, the United States. The Liberals came back to the House, after campaigning in the election that they would be a completely different government, and decided they wanted to continue to do the same. This led to the creation of private member's bill, Bill C-227, which would create more red tape.

    That was not enough. Now we are here today discussing Bill C-20, which once again builds more bureaucracy. If the Liberals are going to come into the House with their smoke and mirrors and repackage the same bills over and again, I have no choice but to give the same speech, but just in a different font.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue my speech, but I will be splitting my time with another member afterward.

    The Liberals are introducing this new bill to give the illusion that they are directly involved in trying to put out the fire they started. In 2017, the Liberals launched the national housing strategy, administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. If they already have the solution, why do they need to repackage the same old plan? They spent $150 billion to build only 170,000 homes. That works out to $676,000 per home. The money was wasted on bureaucracy. Now they want to create a new Crown corporation to physically build the homes, creating even more involvement and more strings for them to pull. Here is the kicker: They already have a Crown corporation that does this.

    All the bill does is merge the failed national housing strategy and the failed Canada Lands Company into one corporation. That is Liberal math: Take two failing things, put them together and pretend it works. In reality, it is like they are trying to build a motorcycle with two flat tires. Can members imagine how many homes could have been built if the Liberals had worked with the Conservatives to remove the GST on new home builds?

    Mr. Speaker, the hero I want to recognize today would look to most like an ordinary person with success in his professional life. He was instrumental in bringing the real estate association and the multiple listing service to St. John's. He served as president of the board and was its longest-serving member at 56 years.

    He also served as a director for the Canadian Real Estate Association and as a city councillor in St. John's, and he was sworn in and served as a Canadian citizenship judge. He was the recipient of an organ donation and survived cancer, although that is back. However, these things are not what makes him a hero.

    He has been the soulmate to his wife of 64 years and a loving father and grandfather. His cape has been wrapped around his family. He is our hero. My dad's journey with his family is meaningful, and even though he has health challenges, he has the strength and smile of a hero.

    Mr. Speaker, today, words travel farther and faster than ever, allowing them to outlive the moment. What comes out of a person's mouth has immediate impact, and those words are not harmless, but we all have said something we regret.

    Our words create momentum for good or destruction. We think strength is proven by being blunt, direct or unfiltered. Proverbs 18 tells us, “The tongue has the power of life and death,” to build up or tear down. Angry words are sharp, prideful words are dismissive, and fearful words are defensive.

    Wisdom produces measured, purposeful, helpful words, and understands that restraint or silence is not weakness. Deliberate words carry authority because they are chosen, not impulsive. Leadership is not volume; it is direction. A wise person uses their tongue to bring clarity, courage, correction and hope. They understand that speaking truth requires both conviction and care.

    In this place and always, may our words express life.

    Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to attend the Quantum Days conference, where researchers, entrepreneurs and industry leaders from across Canada came together to showcase the very best of Canadian innovation.

    Canada is a global leader in quantum research, and that leadership matters. Quantum technologies will shape the future of secure communications, advanced computing, sensing and materials. They are critical to our economic growth, our defence industrial strategy and the protection of our national security.

    By investing in Canadian talent, supporting homegrown companies and strengthening partnerships between academia, industry and government, we are ensuring that Canada develops and retains the capabilities needed to protect our data, secure our infrastructure and remain competitive.

    Canada's quantum future is bright, and we will continue working to ensure that it is built here at home.

     Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to salute Peter Turkstra, a leader, builder and community philanthropist. Last week, I attended the industry luncheon of the West End Home Builders Association in Hamilton, where Peter Turkstra was inducted into its hall of fame for his decades of leadership and service.

    Turkstra Lumber is an institution in the construction industry. This honour was very well deserved. However, Peter's acceptance speech raised loud and clear alarm bells of an industry in crisis. He called out the excessive taxes and bureaucracy from the federal Liberals, as well as the provinces and municipalities, that are decimating homebuilding in Canada.

    It hurts Peter's soul to lay off experienced and loyal tradespeople because of this crisis. This is at a time when young people have given up on the dream of home ownership in record numbers. How sad. This is not a demand problem; this is an overtaxation problem.

    Let us heed Peter's call, cut the HST on all new homes, reduce development charges and cut the red tape.

    I congratulate and thank Peter.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour a few of the Black and African-Canadian cultural trailblazers of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park.

    Dr. Rita Cox served as the head of the Parkdale branch of the Toronto Public Library for decades, and created the Black and Caribbean Heritage Collection there with more than 16,000 items. She continues to connect us to literature and learning, including as the namesake for a school on Jameson Avenue.

    Black visual art will soon be on display at the new home of the BAND gallery on Brock Avenue in Parkdale, Canada's only Black-run, Black-focused art gallery. I toured it last week. With funding from this government's cultural spaces fund, it will become a community-focused, fully accessible, museum-grade space.

    The project is the brainchild of a powerful group of women, including Karen Carter, Claudia Pensa Bowen and Joséphine Denis. During renovations, people can check out A Kind of Order, curated by Joséphine Denis, at Toronto's Union Station, which includes work by Timothy Yanick Hunter, a member of our riding's community.

    On this 30th Black History Month in Canada, it is Black storytelling that brings Black culture to life.

     Mr. Speaker, this Saturday is the annual Coldest Night of the Year fundraising walk. In communities across Canada, participants will be walking in the cold and the snow to support those experiencing hurt, hunger and homelessness.

    This year, I look forward to walking in St. Marys in support of the St. Marys Nourish Market and community outreach worker. In Stratford, funds will be raised to support Shelterlink Youth Services and the Stratford Connection Centre. In North Perth, they are supporting North Perth Housing/Homelessness Action through the United Way. Finally, in Minto-Mapleton, they will be supporting the work of the Community Resource Centre of North Wellington and Centre Wellington. Across these four events, over 850 participants have already raised over $250,000.

     With the national housing crisis preventing so many Canadians from finding a safe, affordable place to live, the need is greater than ever. We thank all who have signed up and donated. I look forward to seeing everyone this Saturday, wearing their warm toques.

     Mr. Speaker, Michael Kieran was a man of faith and a man of science, brilliant and yet humble.

     Educated in nuclear physics, he devoted his professional life to dealing in the complexities of large transportation systems, first as a partner in KPMG, then for many years at Canadian Pacific Railway, and later as a consultant on special transportation projects.

     A man for others, Michael was a stalwart of Montreal's English-speaking Catholic community, serving on the board of directors of the Pillars Trust for 19 years, including nine years as its president. Michael's community engagement also extended to politics.

    He was active in party politics and twice served in the crucial role of official agent for the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

     Michael's kind manner and life and business experience drew others to him in search of wise counsel.

    To his wife Shirley, daughter Melissa and son Philip, and to the grandchildren of whom he was so very proud, we offer our deepest condolences.

     Mr. Speaker, every winter, tens of thousands of Canadians travel to Mexico to escape from the cold and make lifelong memories with their loved ones. Yesterday, in Jalisco state, including in and around Guadalajara and Puerto Vallarta, the normal beach-filled activities of Canadians travelling in Mexico turned to fear and anxiety as violence erupted throughout the region.

    The House is holding all Canadians in Mexico in our thoughts and prayers, and we will all work for their safe return home. As a former diplomat, I know the hard work our local consular officers are doing right now, and I ask the government to continue to provide the necessary resources and assistance required on the ground.

    To Canadians in Mexico, please register with the registration of Canadians abroad and follow the advice of local authorities. I pray for peace, stability and safety for all in Mexico.

    [Member spoke in Spanish]

    Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about the attacks being perpetrated by a drug cartel in Puerto Vallarta and the Jalisco region. Our hearts go out to the people of Mexico, who once again find themselves caught in the crossfire.

    However, we are obviously concerned for the thousands of Quebeckers and Canadians who are being forced to shelter in place in their hotels or homes to escape violence. With roads blocked and airspace closed, the Bloc Québécois also urges tourists and citizens to exercise the utmost caution and follow the instructions of local authorities.

    However, that is not enough for these people and their families. They want to know when they will be able to return home, and they want to know what their government is doing to make sure that that happens. It is not enough to hope that the situation will calm down in the coming days. We have no control over that. We need an action plan in collaboration with Mexico to bring our people home as soon as possible. To that end, the minister can count on our full co-operation.

    Mr. Speaker, students in Mississauga—Erin Mills are clear: Doug Ford's decision to slash OSAP grants and increase student loans is devastating. This change will affect hundreds of thousands of students who rely on OSAP for post-secondary education and equality of opportunity.

     Yesterday, a health sciences student, not a so-called basket weaver, from my Mississauga—Erin Mills youth council shared how she now expects over $10,000 in additional debt, forcing her to delay her graduate studies and rethink her path. These policies push students deeper into debt and make it harder for them to build the skills that our economy needs.

     The federal government puts in 60% for OSAP loans, and that part is not impacted, but the Ontario government needs to understand that supporting youth means supporting our economy. Students deserve opportunity, not obstacles.

     Today, I call on Doug Ford to do the right thing and reverse the proposed measures so our youth can have that equality of opportunity.

    Mr. Speaker, 21 years ago, residents of Kitchener, Ontario, were shocked to hear of a mass murder in our community. Self-described Satanist Michael Sirois rang the doorbell of 87-year-old Verna, whom he once knew from church. He stabbed her and 47-year-old Randy 27 times, including through both eyes.

    Danny Penner is the brother of Randy. He shared with me the incredible trauma these murders continue to cause in his family to this day. Out of respect for his brother's memory, he has resolved time and again to speak at Michael Sirois's parole hearings. Last week, Danny had flights booked to attend the scheduled hearing, only for it to be cancelled at the last minute out of respect for the psychotic mass murderer's mental health.

    The justice system is not delivering justice. Parole should not even be a question for this crime. Why will the Liberals not reform the parole system to respect the bereaved family's trauma rather than the so-called mental health of a psychotic killer?

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to Scout Week 2026, which was celebrated across the country from February 16 to 22. This year's theme was “Scouting, a source of unifying pride”.

    For generations, the movement has helped shape committed, responsible and caring young people through outdoor activities, volunteerism and community projects. It develops leadership, resilience and teamwork, qualities that are essential to building the Canada of tomorrow. The end of this week coincides with Founder's Day, which pays tribute to Robert and Olave Baden-Powell, who played a key role in the development of the Girl Guides and in bringing young girls into the movement.

    I want to thank the volunteers and leaders who support our young people with such dedication. Together, let us continue to build a strong Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister, food prices have skyrocketed by 7.3%. Canada is now the food inflation capital of the G7.

    This is a made-in-Canada problem. Seventy per cent of all food is produced domestically. We produce 80% of our processed foods.

    Conservatives have a food affordability plan to remove hidden Liberal taxes on food, such as the industrial carbon tax on farm equipment, fertilizer and food processors. Let us get rid of the fuel standard tax on farmers, truckers and those who bring our food. Let us dump the food packaging tax, which costs Canadians $1.3 billion annually. Our plan reduces taxes affecting the price of food. It restores nutritious, affordable meals for Canadians.

    Will the Prime Minister work with us to achieve this goal? Canadians want to know.

     Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, a community gathered to pay tribute to the life and legacy of Arnold Sylliboy, who passed away a year ago.

    Arnold enjoyed bringing people together for a good cause and good times. He competed with determination in any sport or contest, and at the same time, had the ability to bring joy and laughter to every situation. Arnold was a caring leader, a natural athlete and a committed volunteer, who will be fondly remembered for his great empathy and ability to listen to others. This naturally made him great at his work as a youth worker, a social worker, a barber and a staff member for this MP. A more loyal wingman in life one will not find.

    His loved ones held a bowling tournament in his honour to raise money for his community and a local high school scholarship to honour his legacy.

    There are no words for goodbye in the Mi'kmaq language, only “we will see you again”.

     [Member spoke in Mi'kmaq and provided the following text:]

    N'multisnen ap Nitap. Kesalulek.

     [Member provided the following translation:]

    We will see you again, friend. We love you.

[English]

    Mr. Speaker, rejected asylum claimants should not be receiving better health care than Canadians who have paid into a system their entire lives. It makes common sense.

    At a time when six million Canadians cannot afford a family doctor and are waiting for care, it is unacceptable that bogus asylum seekers are receiving better health care than Canadians. When over 13,000 residents in Niagara Falls are forced to use a food bank, and when our homeless shelter, the Coronation Centre, is bursting at the seams, why is the government providing better health care services to non-Canadians than to citizens who are desperately in need?

    Conservatives discovered this health care mess, and we proposed solutions, including removing federal benefits from ineligible claimants, except for emergency health care. Conservatives will make sure that there are enough jobs, houses and health care for Canadians before bringing in new immigrants, and we will restore compassion and fairness to Canada's broken and abused asylum system.

     Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour and recognize an extraordinary act of courage and compassion by a private citizen in the face of grave danger on Highway 401 near Trenton in my riding of the Bay of Quinte, a gentleman I welcomed here in Ottawa today, Isik.

    During a recent snowstorm, in a multivehicle crash on one of Canada's busiest highways, this individual did not hesitate to put others before himself. Amidst whiteout conditions, he stopped his own car and raced from vehicle to vehicle, checking on motorists, urging them to remain safe and calm. Witnesses say he returned repeatedly to harm's way to carry out trapped and injured passengers, including pulling a woman from a burning vehicle and helping another man to safety, acts that emergency officials say undoubtedly saved lives on that day. Isik himself has humbly downplayed his actions, saying he does not consider himself a hero, but a hero he is indeed.

     I invite all members to join me in thanking Isik for his courage and his bravery on that day.

     Mr. Speaker, over the last decade, the Liberals have enabled hundreds of thousands of bogus refugee claims. Liberals' failures on immigration like this one mean billions of tax dollars have been spent on hotels and social welfare for false refugee claimants, all while Canadians struggle to access health care and while legitimate refugees languish. This has to stop.

     Will the Liberals support our constructive motion to restore fairness and prioritize Canadians who pay for the health care system over fake refugees?

    Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member to this important discussion. We have already introduced and made changes to the interim federal health program that will considerably reduce the costs. We are also making significant changes and have introduced Bill C-12, which would curb the misuse of asylum. We will control costs and we will truly protect those who are vulnerable, in line with our international and humanitarian obligations.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have not been able to get hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of pandemic scam fraud returned to them, so I highly doubt they will be able to get fake refugees on deportation orders to pay back their health care. This is something that needs to end.

     I will ask the minister again. This is a common-sense motion. Literally everybody agrees with it. Will the minister support our constructive motion to ensure that Canadians who pay for our health system are given better access than fake refugees?

    Mr. Speaker, to keep our program sustainable, we have made and are making measured changes to the health coverage. We have already introduced copay to the system. We are already curbing the misuse. We have introduced a lot of integrity measures. Bill C-12 is currently in front of us, and I thank the Conservatives for supporting that. That would also reduce misuse of the system. We also have international obligations that Canada will continue to honour, particularly for those who are in need, and most of them are children.

     Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer revealed that the interim federal health program will cost taxpayers over $1.5 billion a year. The Liberals expanded this program to provide deluxe health benefits like physiotherapy and home care to bogus asylum claimants whose phony claims have been rejected. Canadians are not entitled to them, but rejected asylum claimants are.

     Why are the Liberals giving bogus asylum seekers better health care than Canadians who fund the system?

    Mr. Speaker, to speak to the PBO report, those are projections in that report. They do not take into account the changes that would come in Bill C-12, nor do they take into account the interim health measures that we have introduced, including copay and other provisions, so I look forward to that.

     Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals defend deluxe health benefits for bogus asylum claimants, millions of Canadians are waiting in line for care. There are Canadians in this country who cannot get health care they need because the wait-list is too long. Ahead of them on that wait-list are people who filed fake refugee claims that were rejected by the government's own refugee board.

     Will the minister explain to Canadians why bogus asylum seekers are ahead of them in line?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to point this out to the member, who I respect quite a bit; last session we were on the same committee. In 2014, it was a Conservative government, and the Supreme Court ruled that its changes were unconstitutional. It took away health care coverage for the most vulnerable, including children. This is not something we will do on this side of the House. Again, we are curbing misuse. We have introduced changes by introducing copay. Asylum claims are down by a third under the current government—

    The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

    Mr. Speaker, after 10 years of this Liberal government, our once exemplary immigration system is now in shambles. At the Standing Committee on Health, we found out that health care providers are charging taxpayers up to five times the provincial rates for illegal asylum seekers. Meanwhile, six million Canadians do not have a family doctor. It is an insult to Canadians who have paid taxes their whole lives. A bogus asylum claimant receives better health benefits than a Canadian citizen.

    Will the government finally support our motion to restore fairness and put Canadians' health first?

    Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are working hard to ensure that our system integrates asylum seekers. We have reduced asylum claims by a third. We also introduced Bill C‑12. I want to thank my colleagues for helping us with this bill.

    The good news is that asylum claims are down by a third and we are making adjustments to our program to keep it sustainable. We will continue to work hard.

    Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report is scathing. The soaring costs of the interim federal health program prove that the Liberals have lost control. The system is broken.

    We will have no choice but to cut federal benefits for ineligible asylum seekers, except in cases of emergency. Furthermore, we must ensure that Canada has the housing and health care capacity to welcome newcomers before they arrive. Will you finally guarantee that non-residents will not receive better health care than our own citizens?

    I am not in a position to give any guarantees. However, the hon. minister may respond.

    Mr. Speaker, the figures cited by the member are projections. They are not actual figures. They are projections that do not take into account the changes made to the program or the significant improvements we are making to the asylum system in Bill C‑12. This work is already well under way. We are reducing costs and we will protect vulnerable people.

    Mr. Speaker, the Cúram fiasco has been costly.

    We were wondering where Quebeckers' money was going, and then we got our answer when we learned that the cost of the software had risen from $1.75 billion to $6.6 billion, a cost overrun of nearly $5 billion. Quebeckers' money is going into the pockets of private companies. Of the total bill of $6.6 billion, $3.4 billion, or more than half, is going to the private sector. Worse still, we do not even really know what this money is being used for because the government refuses to disclose its contracts to either the media or elected officials.

    When will there be a public and independent investigation?

     Mr. Speaker, Bloc members say they do not know what the money is being used for, but they were on the committees that approved the spending. They know that this money has been used to complete the transformation of a 60-year-old system. If we had let that system stand, people would not be getting their benefits. This program is not costed in a cost-overrun situation, as they would assert. This has cost just over $1.4 billion, and the OAS conversion is now complete. The amount they are talking about is a theoretical approval for a possible four-system transformation. This OAS system is now complete, people are being transitioned, and there are no cost overruns.

    Mr. Speaker, there are so few cost overruns that when asked about Cúram, the government's response is that cost overruns are “common practice”. That is the problem.

    There were problems with ArriveCan and there were problems with Phoenix, but that is okay. It happens all the time. In fact, as early as 2023, the Auditor General warned the government about the risks of “[taking] shortcuts...as happened with the Phoenix pay system.” Clearly, no one listened to her because we are now looking at $5 billion in cost overruns for software that is causing problems for 85,000 pensioners.

    Again, when will there be a public and independent investigation?

    Mr. Speaker, funding for a project of this magnitude involves incremental allocations, not a lump sum payment. The program's initial $1.7 billion in funding was to launch the first phase of the project; it was never intended to cover the complete restructuring of multiple benefits systems. This investment is going to generate efficiency and reliability gains for years to come.

    Mr. Speaker, 85,000 pensioners are having problems with their OAS pension because of the Cúram software, which has chalked up $5 billion in cost overruns to date.

    What are the people responsible doing? They are paying themselves bonuses. In 2024‑25, senior officials at Employment and Social Development Canada received bonuses amounting to more than $15 million. When 85,000 pensioners are having problems because of the federal government and when taxpayers are on the hook for more than $5 billion in cost overruns, why in the world should the people responsible be rewarded for their “good” work?

    Again, Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle know there are no cost overruns. This was a planned, phased project. Just over $1.4 billion has been spent and the OAS project is completed. If there are individuals who are having problems getting payments on time, we invite them to contact us, and we would like them to do so. Those numbers will go down as Canadians transition to an online system. We would really like them to transition to the online system, and this will speed things up.

     Mr. Speaker, six million Canadians do not have access to a family doctor, and it takes 30 weeks for the average Canadian to see a specialist. However, the Liberals use Canadian taxpayer dollars to fund a Cadillac health care system for asylum claimants, including free access to glasses and contact lenses, physiotherapy, nursing homes and hearing aids. These are free benefits that regular citizens do not get and this does not come cheap. It cost nearly $1 billion this year.

     Will the Liberals support our motion and ensure that asylum claimants do not get better health care than regular Canadians?

     Mr. Speaker, the first thing I would say is that the Conservatives call them “bogus” asylum claimants. There are actually a great number, in fact millions, of legitimate asylum claimants all over the world. Our country has distinguished itself over its history as being a welcoming place for legitimate asylum claimants, and we will always be a welcoming place. When people arrive here from war-torn areas or children are in need of health services, every single Canadian I know would insist that we provide those health services to that person. That is what we are going to continue to do. Enough of the—

     The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

    Mr. Speaker, it does not change the fact that the Liberals have created a two-tier health care system that disadvantages ordinary Canadians. The Liberals continue to betray Canadians, putting bogus asylum claimants first by giving them access to health care benefits that regular citizens do not get. We just learned that the government automatically gives residency to refugees from North Korea, Afghanistan and Yemen without even talking to them. Instead of an in-person interview, these Liberals are blindly granting residency, all while giving generous health care benefits.

    Therefore, I ask again: Will the Liberals support our motion and ensure that asylum claimants do not get better health care than regular Canadians?

     Mr. Speaker, in addition to our humanitarian obligations, in many cases treaty obligations, as Mr. Harper found out when the Supreme Court ordered him to restore health benefits to asylum claimants for their well-being, in our case, we have managed the number of asylum claimants down. We have passed a law in the House to move that number down, and we are about to pass a law to take benefits down for this category of person. We will continue to manage this carefully.

     Mr. Speaker, thousands of people in B.C. cannot see a family doctor, yet the Liberals now provide deluxe health care benefits to rejected asylum claimants at taxpayers' expense. The PBO has shown that the interim federal health program has skyrocketed in costs to almost $1 billion.

    Will the Liberals support our motion and ensure that rejected asylum claimants do not get better health care than Canadians?

     Mr. Speaker, asylum seekers who come to this country who are legitimate ones, those who are found to be—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. There is a certain ambient noise in question period that is totally acceptable in the atmosphere of debate, but when it gets a little past a certain threshold, I have to ask the respondent to start again.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all Canadians that asylum seekers who come to this country are judged for their legitimacy. If they are found to be legitimate refugees and asylum seekers, as in all compassionate countries and all signatories to international agreements, they are permitted to stay. Those who are not found to have respected those criteria are asked to leave.

     The government has made very tough measures in Bill C-12, currently before the Senate, to make sure that we can continue to get that number down.

     Mr. Speaker, what the member did not mention is that Liberals at the health committee are currently filibustering any attempt to even study this program. That does not sound like they are trying to fix anything. They want a cover-up.

    Conservatives are clear on the solution: no more physio or vision care for rejected asylum claimants. Will the Liberals support our motion and ensure that rejected asylum claimants do not get health care benefits that are superior to those of Canadians?

     Mr. Speaker, it is really unfortunate that we have this kind of conversation, where we are talking about the health of Canadians and asylum seekers. The reality is that those people are in the country. We have an agreement, and the health system is a compassionate system. What we are saying is that those people need to have access to health. We are also working closely with provinces and territories to get more access for Canadian people.

     Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that the interim federal health program will cost nearly $1.5 billion a year to cover health care for fraudulent asylum claimants. This program gives anyone claiming asylum better health care than the Canadians who pay for it. Even if these claims are denied, as wait times grow and health care access shrinks for citizens, the Liberals prioritize a growing list of bogus refugees over Canadians.

    Will the government support our Conservative motion to stop criminal claimants from receiving superior health benefits at Canadian taxpayers' expense?

     Mr. Speaker, I would put more credence in my hon. colleague's argument if he or his party actually had a record of defending better health care for Canadians. Think about the record they have demonstrated over the time I have been a member of Parliament. They have opposed the largest transfer to provincial health care systems. They have opposed dental coverage for Canadians. They have opposed birth care and other essential medicines that Canadians need. This is not about the quality of health care that Canadians need. The only solution they are putting forward is to deny the children of refugees dental care. Frankly, this is disgusting, un-Canadian and beneath the House.

     Mr. Speaker, too many people in Niagara cannot find a family doctor. Right now, taxpayers are being charged up to five times the provincial rates to provide health care to rejected asylum claimants. Families have waited long enough and our failed asylum system is making them wait even longer. Conservatives have proposed common-sense solutions to address this horrible situation. It is time for the government to remove benefits for bogus claimants.

    Will the government support our motion and ensure that non-citizens and non-permanent residents do not get health care superior to that of Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, do we know what happens to failed asylum seekers? They are removed. Last year, we removed over 22,000 individuals who were inadmissible. We as a government are ensuring—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I need to hear the questions and answers so I can tell if any rules are being broken.

     The hon. Minister of Public Safety, from the top, please.

     Mr. Speaker, do we know what happens to failed asylum seekers? They are removed.

    Last year, we removed over 22,000 inadmissible individuals from Canada. This year, through the strengthening Canada's immigration system act, Bill C-12, which is now going through the Senate, we will be removing more individuals. More will be ineligible to seek asylum. We are hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers, the first cohort of which is graduating this Friday. We are strengthening our border and ensuring that those who are inadmissible do not remain here.

    Mr. Speaker, that minister knows very well that he has lost 32,000 people who have been ordered deported.

    As a physician, as the son of a refugee to Canada, this issue is very close to my heart. I wish we were speaking about health care today, but instead we must speak about health care fraud. We are talking about people who claim refugee status only after they are investigated or arrested for crimes like terrorism or extortion. We need to talk about such people because they are receiving better health benefits than ordinary tax-paying Canadians. When seniors in Kitchener cannot find family doctors and cannot afford their medicines, how on earth does the Liberal government—

    The hon. Minister of Jobs and Families.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not think that member was around when the opposition party voted time and again against the investments that provinces and territories had been asking us to make in strengthening our universal health care system. That is how we build a health care system that everybody is proud of. It is something we built on the foundations of our forefathers and mothers in this place, to ensure that people can access quality, affordable health care across this country. It is not by tearing down different groups of people.

    Mr. Speaker, the federal government's loss of control during the Roxham Road crisis is worse than we feared. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, when the federal government was overwhelmed by too many refugee claims, it scaled back its assessments.

    Between 2019 and 2023, 25,000 people were accepted as refugees without being interviewed. These are 25,000 refugees who were accepted, many of them in Quebec, and nobody even met with them to double-check their statements. We learned in committee this morning that this approach is still being used today.

    When will the government take action?

    Mr. Speaker, the safety of Canadians and Quebeckers is our priority. Officers carefully review each refugee claim before referring it to the Immigration and Refugee Board. Ineligible claims are not referred.

    Under our government, the number of refugee claims has dropped by a third. With Bill C-12, we will be able to do even more to prevent sudden surges.

    Mr. Speaker, when the federal government was swamped with asylum claims at Roxham Road, its solution was to accept refugees indiscriminately in order to speed up the process. Ottawa drew up a list of countries whose applicants were automatically accepted without any questions asked. Those countries included Russia, Afghanistan, Iran and many others that are currently problematic. As a result, at the height of the Roxham Road crisis, the acceptance rate for asylum claims rose from 65% to 80%.

    Why did the government agree to accept refugees without meeting them?

    Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. Canada has one of the most robust immigration refugee protection systems in the world. The Immigration and Refugee Board is the gold standard by which adjudications are made towards refugee protection. As a country that is a signatory to the refugee convention of 1951, it is important that we have full faith in our system. The IRB adjudicates and ensures that those who are inadmissible and those who are ineligible to seek asylum do not go forward, and that those who are deemed to be clear refugees do get asylum.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are shutting down agricultural research, and now their red tape is literally choking the life out of agri-food businesses. A survey said that 90% of agri-food business owners believe that Liberal policies are putting the future of Canadian agriculture at risk. Red tape and regulations have already increased Canadian food inflation to 7.3%, by far more than double the rate in the United States. Experts are clear: Red tape, inflationary spending and the industrial carbon tax are increasing the cost of food production.

    How expensive do groceries have to get before the Liberals stop strangling Canadian farmers?

     Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is going to continue to invest in our farmers and ranchers right across this country. We will continue to make sure that they lead the world in science, as we talked about.

    I also want to come back to the industrial carbon tax. We know that it is negligible to the cost of food in this country. However, one thing I want to say to everyone is that it is not the farmers who are making the money.

    Mr. Speaker, the minister is right: It is not the farmers who are making the money. This is why 90% of agri-food business owners say that Liberal policy is restricting their ability to be productive and grow, and 70% of Canadian farmers are telling their kids not to take over the family farm. This is devastating for the future of Canadian food production and food security. It is making Canada less productive, less competitive and less food-secure.

    Canadians are already paying among the highest grocery prices in the G7. Why is the Liberal government so determined to drown farmers in red tape and taxes and make food unaffordable for Canadians?

     Mr. Speaker, I travel around the world, and our farmers are the envy of the world for what they do here at home. They are some of the best farmers in the world, and we will continue to ensure that they continue to be that.

     Blaming farmers for the cost of food is not appropriate. We are talking about many different types of issues that defuse some of the costs around groceries and items. We will continue to support them as best we can.

    Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing from farmers and producers that Liberal red tape and taxes are choking the life out of them and threatening our food sovereignty. Nearly 90% of food businesses believe that the future of Canadian agriculture is at risk. Liberal red tape means punishing regulations, and the industrial carbon and fuel taxes are driving up the cost of production across the entire food supply chain.

    How high will grocery prices have to skyrocket before the Liberals stop strangling Canadian farmers with taxes and red tape?

    Mr. Speaker, while the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge the success of Canadian agriculture and the work of farmers, the facts speak for themselves. Our agri-food exports have reached over $100 billion. The sector supports over 2.3 million Canadians, or one in nine jobs.

    We will continue standing with our farmers as they export to countries around the world.

    Mr. Speaker, the reality is that 10 years of bad Liberal policies and hidden taxes have driven Canadian food inflation to 7.3%, which is the highest in the G7 and far more than double the rate in the U.S. This is a Liberal-led, made-in-Canada problem that is driving up food prices and driving Canadian producers right out of business.

    With 70% of all food produced domestically, including 80% of our processed foods, when will the Liberals actually take this seriously and start cutting taxes and red tape for our farmers?

    Mr. Speaker, speaking of farmers, we are listening to our farmers. In fact, in our last trip to China, we got them over $7 billion of agriculture access in canola, seafood and beef. That means good jobs for our farmers: over 200,000 jobs in the canola sector; over 250,000 jobs in the beef sector and 35,000 jobs in our seafood sector.

    That is what we are doing. We are standing with our farmers and opening new markets around the world.

    Mr. Speaker, in December, the Stoney Creek food bank saw a record 1,694 total visits, the largest number since 2022. Also in December, the Fare Share Food Bank in Oakville saw the largest number of people they have ever served, over 913 families.

    Canadians rely on food banks because food prices have skyrocketed by 7.3%. How many Canadians need to visit a food bank before the Liberals stop strangling Canadian food production with red tape and punishing taxes?

    Mr. Speaker, every step of the way, as the government works to support families in need, the Conservatives vote against it. They obstruct our budget bill in the House, money that Canadian families need for all kinds of things, including the jobs that many of our union workers are relying on. Do members know what helps with food insecurity? It is good-paying jobs.

    Here is a newsflash: The Conservatives vote against every measure that actually creates good-paying jobs. Whether it is helping hungry people or helping hard-working Canadians, they are opposed. What is it going to take?

     Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected a new government with a mandate to build Canada strong. This means investing in our workers, our industries and our supply chains by unlocking new opportunities and investing in our sovereignty. This also means investing in the brave men and women who are members of our Canadian Armed Forces.

    Can the Minister of National Defence provide an update on what we are doing to build Canada's defence industry while supporting our Canadian Armed Forces?

    Mr. Speaker, last week, we launched Canada's first-ever defence industrial strategy. It is a plan that provides a signal to industry, allies, partners, the Canadian Armed Forces and Canadians alike that we are moving forward quickly and with purpose.

    We are building. We are partnering. We are buying Canadian. We are strengthening our relationship with our partners. We are transforming procurement. We are investing in results. That is what our new strategy is all about.

    Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to turn to page 54 of the Liberal election platform, where it says, “The federal government has been spending too much.”

    When the Liberals came to power, the debt was $700 billion. After 10 years of Liberal management, it is $1.4 trillion, including $78 billion for this year alone. Next, in their platform, they talk to us about “efficiency” and “performance”. Those are the words the Liberals use in their platform.

    A Cúram computer system that goes from $1.6 billion to $6.6 billion and 85,000 seniors waiting for their benefits, is that what Liberal efficiency looks like?

    Mr. Speaker, I know that it is Monday and my colleague wanted some good news. Well, I have some for him. Canada has the second-fastest-growing economy in the G7. That is the Liberal plan. That is the Prime Minister's plan. It is to grow the Canadian economy.

    Instead of speaking against the economy, my colleague should be proud. We are attracting talent. We are building ships. We are building automobiles. We are building aircraft. We have critical minerals. We have energy. We are the only G7 country to have a free trade agreement with every G7 country. We are building Canada strong together.

    Mr. Speaker, is this how the minister shows respect for our seniors? I am talking about 85,000 seniors who are waiting for their cheques, and he is talking to me about Canada's economic development. There are 85,000 seniors waiting.

    Is that his answer to our seniors, the people who built our country?

    Mr. Speaker, that is political grandstanding, plain and simple.

    We made the transition from an outdated system dating back to the 1970s and modernized it. There were no cost overruns. The computer system was updated. Yes, there have been a few cases, cases that the member opposite has been slow to bring up. If the member knows of people who are affected by this situation, he should let us know and we will resolve these cases. However, until then, this is good news for Canada.

    I would like to make a brief reminder to everyone. Even though members can sometimes get passionate, please avoid banging too hard on the podium because it can be dangerous for the interpreters.

    The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

    Mr. Speaker, following the Phoenix disaster, now we have Cúram ruining the lives of our seniors. It was initially expected to cost $1.75 billion, but the price tag has now ballooned to $6.6 billion. That is four times more. While the Liberals waste taxpayers' money, our seniors have been waiting for their pension cheques for nine months.

    My questions are very simple. The first is this: Why do the Liberals' programs always go way over budget? The second is this: Why should seniors have to pay the price for the federal Liberals' incompetence with yet another failed software program?

    Mr. Speaker, the conversion to the new OAS payment system is complete. It came in under budget. More than seven million seniors are currently receiving their benefits on time thanks to a modern system. The total cost of Cúram is meant to cover separate projects. The $6.6 billion is the amount planned and approved for the lifespan of the project.

    Mr. Speaker, same government, same old Liberal habits: Once again, consulting firms are getting rich. Since the Liberals took office, they have awarded $26 billion in outside contracts. With Cúram—a project that is totalling $6.6 billion, half of which is going to private companies—history is repeating itself. In the meantime, 85,000 pensioners are suffering due to late pension payments or endless administrative errors.

    Why do seniors have to pay the price for Liberal incompetence?

     Mr. Speaker, over seven million Canadians benefit from the OAS and have never had any problem with the new, modernized system.

    Obviously, a few glitches are to be expected when transitioning from 60-year-old software to a modern system. There are glitches and we are fixing them. The number of glitches is going down every day. When glitches happen, we encourage people to contact Service Canada or even their MP, and we will fix them.

    Mr. Speaker, $5 billion is appalling. That is how much more Cúram is going to cost taxpayers. For the Liberals, that is perfectly normal. Worse still, it is impossible to get information on the private external consultants to whom most of this money is being paid. This lack of transparency has become the norm over the past 10 years. This is the federal version of the SAAQclic fiasco, except that it is costing five times more.

    Why should seniors and taxpayers pay the price for this catastrophic mismanagement?

     Mr. Speaker, it is not true what the opposition is saying. The initial program authority of $1.7 billion was intended to be used to kick-start the first phase. In fact, the program is under budget. The great news is that 7 million Canadians have transitioned to this new system. The previous system was 60 years old. Can members imagine the paper applications that were being filed, with lots of mistakes? This is going to make life easier for all seniors going forward.

     If the member opposite has some urgent cases that they know of, I ask him to please send them our way. We are able to process those in 24 hours.

    Mr. Speaker, there is yet another scandal. Following the Phoenix fiasco, Liberal incompetence has reached new heights with the Cúram software, a federal version of SAAQclic. The price tag for this IT project has risen to $6.6 billion, and more than half of that money will go to consultants who are racking up delays, failures and cost overruns with impunity. While Canadians are struggling, public money is being thrown out the window.

    Why are cost overruns in the Liberals' DNA?

    Mr. Speaker, aside from being entertaining, this question has been asked and answered many times. It is about modernizing the system, and there are no cost overruns. More than seven million Canadians are benefiting from it. It is a success story.

    Mr. Speaker, we thought we had seen it all with Phoenix and ArriveCAN, but then Cúram came along and surpassed even Quebec's infamous SAAQclic fiasco. That says a lot.

    The Liberals said they would be responsible with taxpayers' money. Instead, we are at $6.6 billion and seniors are still waiting for their pension benefits. The worst part is that half of that money is going into the pockets of consultants.

    How can the Liberals justify this mess? Why are the Liberals continuing to make seniors pay the price for glitchy software?

    Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked many times and answered many times, but I will answer it once again. Why are they getting so worked up?

    The transformation of information technology in government is indeed complicated. However, this is a success story. We were able to replace an outdated system with an updated system that will modernize services and benefits for more than seven million Canadians.

    That is cause for celebration.

     Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government was forewarned in 2023 that its new system, intended to enhance OAS and GIS payments, was already going over budget. This project has ballooned to $6.6 billion. The taxpayer is now responsible for the failure of a system that was supposed to guarantee better access for our seniors.

    At a time when seniors are struggling to make ends meet, how does the government justify billions of wasteful spending on a broken system?

     Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to answer this question and remind the member opposite that years ago the Auditor General warned Harper's Conservatives that the old benefit payment system was outdated and at risk. That means that, under those Conservatives, people would not get their money at all. What did the Conservatives do? They did nothing. That is just their way. They get out of the way and do nothing.

    We have invested. We are modernizing the system to ensure that it serves seniors for years to come. If a problem arises, we will fix it.

     Mr. Speaker, that is just another excuse from the Liberal government. Seniors are already struggling with the cost of living, and delayed payments are causing seniors to fall behind on rent, skip groceries and worry about how they will pay for their medication.

    It is unacceptable that this project went from $1.7 billion to $6.6 billion. Who is accountable for this massive cost overrun? Who will be fired, and when will the government take responsibility for another overpriced, failed system?

     Mr. Speaker, transitioning 7 million Canadians to a system without a hitch would not be my definition of failure. Do members know what would be? It would be not investing in the modernization of systems when there was a chance to and voting against bringing all our systems up to date. Not only are we modernizing OAS, but we are also modernizing EI and CPP for all Canadians.

    Canadians ought to have systems they can use digitally. That is what we are doing. We are making sure that Canadians have state-of-the-art benefit payments.

    Mr. Speaker, the world is changing rapidly. The world order has been disrupted, and fast-paced technological advances are changing the way that Canada has to respond to threats. The new Government of Canada has to respond by reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces, by rearming them and by rebuilding them. We are already seeing results. There has been a 13% increase in CAF enlistment, and Canada is on track to meet its 2% target.

    Can the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade explain to the House how Canada's defence industrial strategy will enahance security and drive economic growth?

     Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is focusing on what we can control: building here at home, working with allies and buying what is needed. Canada's new defence industrial strategy consists of a $500-billion investment in Canadian industry, security and prosperity.

    This is just as much an employment strategy as it is a defence strategy. It represents 125,000 new careers and strengthened supply chains. In Canada, that is how we stand strong.

    Mr. Speaker, food prices have skyrocketed 7.3%, rising more than twice as fast as the price of other goods. This is not an imported problem; 70% of the food Canadians consume is produced domestically, including 80% of processed foods, yet nearly 90% of agribusinesses now say the future of Canadian ag is at risk. Why are food prices rising? Punishing regulations, inflationary spending and Liberal taxes continue to force Canadians to pay more at the store.

    How expensive does food have to get before the Liberals stop strangling farmers and get serious about bringing back affordable food?

     Mr. Speaker, we are getting very serious. It is called ensuring food security for Canadians. I am happy to share that with the member. He may want to explain it to his constituents.

    The great thing with the Canada groceries and essentials benefit is that we are helping 12 million Canadians. In addition, and I am sure he is going to tell his constituents, we are putting $500 million to help Canada have a more resilient supply chain.

    We need to grow more food in Canada. We need to have a better supply chain. We need to focus on food security. This is exactly what we are doing, and I hope the Conservative will vote in favour of the bill, because this is helping farmers.

    Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister, food prices have jumped 7.3% and are rising twice as fast as those of other goods, making Canada the food inflation capital of the G7. This is a made-in-Canada problem; 70% of our food production is right here at home, yet nearly 90% of agribusinesses say Liberal red tape is putting them at risk. Punishing regulations and the industrial carbon tax are driving up costs.

    Just how much higher must grocery bills climb before the Liberals stop strangling Canadian food production with red tape and punishing taxes?

    Mr. Speaker, it is a bit rich to listen to the Conservatives talk about Canadian farmers and agri-food businesses, when they had their chance in April 2025 and had absolutely nothing in their platform for Canadian farmers or agri-food businesses.

     We know the price of food is a major issue in this country. That is why we have introduced the groceries and essentials rebate; 12.6 million Canadians will benefit, with up to $1,900 a year. We are also introducing the national food security strategy. This is an opportunity to look at the systemic aspects of food: what we can do to help support farmers and agri-food businesses. It will not be cutting the industrial carbon price; that is not a real plan.

     Mr. Speaker, costs keep going up, but Liberals keep doing the same thing.

    This year in New Brunswick, families will spend $1,000 more on grocery bills than last year. With 70% of food produced domestically, this is a made-in-Canada problem caused by the Liberals. Food is expensive because Canadian taxes on farming, trucking and packaging keep going up. It is all paid by Canadian consumers, and rising taxes on energy means more pain is on the way. Experts are clear that punishing regulations, inflationary spending and the Liberal industrial carbon tax are the cause.

    How expensive does food have to get before the Liberals do something?

    Mr. Speaker, when it comes to fighting affordability, the member and his leader are missing in action.

    We have cut taxes for 22 million Canadians, we have cut the consumer carbon tax, we have cut the GST for first-time homebuyers, and just recently we announced a groceries and essentials benefit that will put up to $1,900 in the pockets of New Brunswick's working families.

    It is time for the member and his leader to stand up, stop the obstruction, and fight for Canadian families.

    Mr. Speaker, Build Canada Homes is Canada's affordable housing builder, and it is already delivering real results. It continues to support projects that provide Canadians with safe, stable and affordable homes, including homes coming to British Columbia through a recently announced partnership.

    Can the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure update the House on how this new partnership will help deliver much-needed housing for residents in British Columbia?

     Mr. Speaker, we have very exciting news in B.C. The Build Canada Homes partnership is set to deliver 1,100 new affordable homes. Many of these priority projects are set to break ground this year, including 700 supportive and transitional homes for people who need them the most.

    I hope that the members opposite will support the Build Canada Homes legislation rather than obstructing and preventing Canadians from getting access to affordable housing.

    Mr. Speaker, a British Columbia school board trustee was fined $750,000 for the egregious crime of saying there are two genders. These are the same kangaroo courts that the Liberals' online harms act would empower. It is the same regulation of emotion that Liberal Bill C-9 would supercharge.

    The Liberals claim they will uphold freedom of expression, but they still have not said whether they will acknowledge and accept the Federal Court of Appeal ruling that they violated the constitutional rights of Canadians by invoking the Emergencies Act.

    Will the Liberals commit now to giving up on their censorship agenda and letting Canadians live their lives and speak their minds?

    Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points.

    There is no censorship agenda. We will keep our kids safe, including safe from child pornographers.

    The convoy was an illegal occupation of the downtown of our capital that people wanted gone. The member supported it with his leader. Shame on them, bringing donuts to people occupying our nation's capital.

    Mr. Speaker, we keep asking the Liberal government when pharmacare will expand, and we cannot get a straight answer from the Minister of Health.

    British Columbia's pharmacare agreement starts next week, because New Democrats pushed for it and because the B.C. NDP moved quickly. Families in other provinces are still waiting because the Liberal government is not negotiating. This means access to life-saving medicine depends on someone's postal code.

    When will the Minister of Health finally start negotiating so Canadians can access life-saving medicine no matter where they live?

    Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, I am having conversations with each of the health ministers in the provinces and territories about pharmacare. We will let him know as soon as we are ready to move forward.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We heard some very unparliamentary language today. It was probably spoken by accident.

    I would like you to ask the member for Lakeland to withdraw the comment.

     I did not hear the language in question. I do not know if the hon. member wants to address this one way or the other. I did not hear the comment.

    The hon. member for Lakeland.

    Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my comment telling the truth, which was that the answer was bovine excrement.

    The first time, nobody heard it. The second time, unfortunately, we had to hear it.

    The hon. member for Portneuf—Jacques Cartier.

    Mr. Speaker, I believe that you have a responsibility to protect the rights of all MPs here in the House of Commons.

    During question period, I saw my colleague, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, make gestures to one of my colleagues that I will not repeat.

    I invite you to watch the video, or I would ask my colleague to apologize right now.

    I did not see the gestures in question, and I do not think that I would see them if I watched the video because the camera is focused on the person asking the question and the person answering it. However, it has been noted.

     It being 3:11 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion of the member for Kildonan—St. Paul relating to the business of supply.

    Call in the members.

    And the bells having rung:

    The Speaker: The question is as follows. Shall I dispense?

    Some hon. members: No.

    [Chair read text of motion to House]

    I declare the amendment lost.

    The next question is on the main 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.

    Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent to apply the result of the previous vote to this one, with all Liberal members voting no.

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives agree to apply the vote, with the Conservatives voting in favour.

    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting against the motion.

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP agrees with applying the vote, and we vote yea.

    Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree with the application of the results of the last vote to this vote, with Greens voting no.