“The government's new housing program is too vague. We supported the bill because we thought there was a deal with Quebec. Now it looks like the plan might build only 2,000 homes instead of 19,000, and women's shelters say they have heard nothing about it. When will the government give us clear details?”

“Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked a lot about housing. I am vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, which is the committee that studied the Build Canada Homes Act, among other things. The reason we let that bill pass was that there was apparently an agreement with Quebec. I say “apparently” because we are now hearing a lot of questions from a lot of different people. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has expressed concerns. The term “empty shell” was even used somewhere. The target was 19,000 housing units, but apparently there is really only going to be 2,000. I, too, am coming back with figures based on what I heard in committee. Just today, I met with representatives from Women’s Shelters Canada, an organization supporting women who are victims of violence. They told me that they had not heard anything from Build Canada Homes as to whether it would actually meet their needs. With all of that in mind, when will we get a few more details about Build Canada Homes, since the information we have about this program is still extremely vague?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since May 4.

  Every time it was said →

“Climate change, wildfires, and other disasters make life more expensive. I want to know if the member thinks we should consider these climate costs when we try to make life more affordable.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know one thing. Unaffordability is caused in part by climate change and the huge costs of wildfires and all the other ecological disasters. Does my colleague think we should take climate change and the associated costs into account as we address unaffordability?”

“Rising costs hurt seniors the most. The government gave more money to seniors 75 and older, but left out those aged 65 to 74. That is unfair. Our bill gives that money to all seniors and lets working seniors keep their benefits. Will the member vote for it?”

“Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the affordability crisis, if there is one segment of the population that has been affected by the never-ending increases in the cost of living since 2020, it is seniors. However, the government decided to increase the guaranteed income supplement for seniors aged 75 and over, but not for those aged 65 to 74. It is discriminating between seniors. These people are being discriminated against. The bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois, Bill C‑261, which we have introduced several times and which the government keeps rejecting, has two parts. First, it seeks to increase the guaranteed income supplement to stop this discrimination. Second, it would allow seniors who wish to continue working to do so without having their guaranteed income supplement reduced. Does the member agree with these measures, and will she vote in favour of Bill C‑261?”

“The natural health products sector is an important part of our economy. The Minister of Health meets with drug companies, but she refuses to meet with people from the natural health sector. I want to know what my colleague thinks about the Liberals ignoring this group.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I was particularly interested in the part of his speech that addressed natural health products. It is true that this is part of the economy. I have met with people from the sector on a few occasions. My colleague, the member for Montcalm, worked on the bill in the Standing Committee on Health. Unfortunately, the Liberals seem reluctant to engage fully on this issue. Although the Minister of Health has met with the pharmaceutical industry, she does not appear to have made the same effort to understand the challenges facing the natural health products sector. She has not even attempted to meet with representatives from this sector to gain a full appreciation of the complexity of the issue. What does my colleague make of the Liberals’ closed-minded attitude toward this association?”

“The government still treats seniors aged 65 to 74 unfairly during this affordability crisis. My party has always stood up for them. Will the member vote for this bill?”

“Mr. Speaker, I too wanted to tell the member for Mount Royal that I came to the House at the same time as he did. I dare say that, in December 2024, when the Liberals were facing the prospect of being reduced to just 25 seats, he was not nearly as enthusiastic as he was at the beginning of his speech today. I would therefore encourage him to demonstrate a little more humility in his speeches because he is bound to find himself on this side of the House someday. The fact remains that, over the past 11 years, the Bloc Québécois has stood up for affordability, particularly for seniors, while his government has stubbornly refused to end the discrimination against seniors aged 65 to 74. These seniors are grappling with this affordability crisis, but the government is doing nothing to end that discrimination. Will he vote in favour of Bill C‑261?”