Carol Anstey

“This bill promises faster approvals for major projects, but it will not work. The one-year timeline has too many loopholes and delays. To actually get projects built and keep workers from leaving my province, the government must approve the 500 stalled projects, scrap its bad energy laws, and end the industrial carbon tax. We must also let union workers speak to a committee about the labour changes in this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House, on behalf of the incredible people of Long Range Mountains and as the shadow minister for energy and natural resources, to speak to Bill C-39. I think most Canadians would agree on one thing, which is that we need to get this country building. We need mines, pipelines, LNG facilities, transmission lines, ports and the infrastructure that would allow Canadian resources to get to market. Canada has the resources, workers and expertise the world needs, but for the past 11 years, major projects have been stalled and delayed by an uncertain federal regulatory system, driving investment out of Canada and, in too many cases, leaving projects abandoned altogether. That is really what I want to focus on today, along with another part of this bill, which is the changes to the Canada Labour Code. We have heard promises about faster approvals before. When Bill C-5 was introduced, Canadians were told the federal government was going to speed up major projects and give proponents more certainty. Conservatives supported that goal of getting projects moving, because we have been calling for faster approval for years. The Liberal government then created the Major Projects Office and said it would help coordinate projects and provide proponents with a clearer path through the federal system. More than a year later, we are back here in the House, debating yet another bill that is supposed to make it easier to build. I think the question most Canadians are asking is quite simple: Will this actually help to get major projects built? Given the track record of the Liberal government for the last 11 years, Canadians are certainly not going to measure success by how many offices are created or how many announcements are made. They are going to measure success by whether projects actually move forward, whether investment comes back or stays in Canada, whether shovels are in the ground and whether people actually get hired. This is especially important for resource-rich provinces like mine, Newfoundland and Labrador. I know the importance of responsible resource development and what it means for our communities. It means good jobs and profitable local businesses but, more importantly, it means the ability to live and thrive at home. For generations, too many of our young people have had to leave home to find work somewhere else. Families watch their children finish school and learn a trade or earn a degree, only to leave because the opportunities they are looking for are somewhere else. I know that experience personally, because I had to leave the province I love under those exact circumstances, just as my parents did when I was a young girl. Now I look at my four children and all of the young people in the communities I represent who want the opportunity to stay home. That is why this issue is especially important to me, to the people I represent and to Canadians right across this country. Even small projects can transform communities. A mine, a sawmill expansion, an energy project or a major piece of infrastructure can mean that a young person can stay home, start a small business, build a career, raise a family and stay in the community they grew up in. These projects provide work for local contractors and suppliers and investment in communities that already have the people, the resources and the experience to contribute to Canada’s economy, which is exactly why Conservatives have been calling on the Prime Minister to approve the 500 projects that are caught up in federal review. Population growth and workforce retention are such important issues in my province, where we have a declining population and high levels of out-migration, but those challenges cannot be overcome and opportunities cannot become reality if any project, big or small, spends years sitting in the federal process waiting for approval. Bill C-39 is the government’s newest answer to years of Liberal delays in the federal permitting system. The government is presenting this legislation as a one-year timeline, but let us break that down. The clock would only begin once all of the required information and studies have been provided and accepted. That is not the same thing as saying a project would receive a federal decision one year after it first enters the process. This is simply because there is no limit to the number of things that the bureaucracy would consider and ask for before a project was approved and the time actually starts. In addition, the process could be delayed, extended or suspended; and, if the government misses its timeline, it is only required to give an explanation and a new proposed timeline. A company deciding to invest billions of dollars in Canada needs to know with certainty how long the process will take from start to finish, especially given the track record of the current Liberal government. That certainty matters even more when cabinet retains the ability to extend or suspend the process, not to mention that workers want to know when the projects will begin and communities want to know when the jobs and investment will follow. I want to bring some real-life context to this and explain why this is so important. During one of my commutes back and forth to Ottawa, I spoke to a young man named Justin. Justin is a dad of three and a tradesperson working in Ontario. He told me, “I just want to work close to my family so I can pick up my kids after school and take them to hockey. If we could get some work in Newfoundland, I could do that.” Justin is one of the people I think about when we talk about getting projects moving. Trades NL states that currently the unemployment rate among its members is about 70% and people are looking for work everywhere across the country except in the province. That is why we need these projects now, not when Justin’s kids are grown up and that opportunity no longer exists for him. That is why the timelines in this legislation matter so much. What Canada needs is a system in which proponents know what is expected of them; from the start, the process is clear; and government’s decisions are made within a reasonable time frame. Timelines are only a part of the problem. The government keeps making changes around the edges while refusing to address the root of the problem: the regulatory and tax policies that continue to hold projects and investment back. Conservatives have consistently called for the repeal of antidevelopment laws like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 because Canada needs a regulatory system that gives investors certainty across the board, not a government deciding project by project which ones get special treatment. We have called to remove the federal industrial carbon tax to make Canada more competitive and bring investment back. There are roughly 500 projects waiting in the federal approval system. Conservatives have called on the Liberal government to approve them, remove the barriers holding back investment and give investors the certainty that they need to put their capital to work in Canada. Newfoundland and Labrador has tremendous offshore energy, hydroelectricity, mining and critical minerals potential. Those resources should be creating well-paying jobs, attracting private investment and giving young people a reason to build their future at home. The same is true across Canada where our energy and natural resources are in demand around the world, but having those resources means very little if the regulatory system makes it unnecessarily difficult to develop them and get them to market. The answer cannot be to leave those laws in place and then have Ottawa decide which individual projects deserve an accelerated path. While much of this bill deals with major projects and approvals, it also would make significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. I recently met with the Newfoundland and Labrador regional representative of the Canadian Labour Congress. We had a good discussion about the issues facing workers in organized labour and their deep concerns with this legislation. One of the things that I took away from that conversation was how important it is that the workers who would be affected by these changes have a meaningful opportunity to come before Parliament and explain their concerns. There would be substantial changes to federal labour law and they should not be rushed through simply because they are part of a much larger bill. Union members should have enough time to appear before a committee and make their case for why they believe the changes being made are a problem. Canada is not short on potential. We have the resources, the skilled workers and the communities ready to build. What Canada needs is the certainty to turn that potential into projects, investment and well-paying jobs. Business managers need certainty about the rules and the timelines, workers need confidence that they will be heard and provincial leaders need to know that their jurisdiction will be respected. Canadians should be able to expect that when Ottawa promises faster approvals, those promises lead to projects moving forward.”

“I want my colleague to talk about what happens when the government hand-picks projects to speed up, instead of making clear rules that work for everyone.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague would like to comment on the implications of the government hand-picking projects for fast-tracking as opposed to opening up and providing certainty with a clear regulatory system for everyone.”

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“We should judge our success by how many homes actually get built, not by spending announcements or more government workers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I understand the frustration. We have to measure success by results, not by funding announcements, bureaucracies or another conversation to get some more advice that does not actually lead to more homes being built.”

In response to a question from Kurt Holman

“Young people suffer the most when prices go up, especially if they want to buy a home. High rent makes it too hard for them to save for a down payment and build wealth. We are failing the next generation by not taking the housing crisis seriously.”

“Mr. Speaker, when the cost of everything increases, the people who suffer the most are the young people, especially the ones who want to enter the housing market. As housing prices increase, rent prices also increase. This means that everything costs more. They cannot save for a down payment, and they feel like they are consistently on this hamster wheel. When they do not enter home ownership at a younger age, they cannot start to build assets around them. This is another reason why we are failing the next generation, by not being more serious about our approach to solve this housing crisis.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Laila Goodridge

“Growing the government and spending more money causes inflation and makes building homes cost more. We should let private companies build homes instead, so costs go down and more people can afford to buy a house.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, who has strong ties to Newfoundland and Labrador, for that question. When we build out government bureaucracy, we build out the size of government and we increase government spending, which drives up inflation, which drives up the cost of everything, including the cost of homebuilding. That is not the answer. We want to unleash the private sector to be able to reduce those costs, so that we can spur on home construction. This would make a meaningful difference. As I said, in rural Canada, home ownership levels are very high. They never want to talk about what the pressure is on social housing, but it is that we are driving affordability out of reach and putting more people into a situation where they cannot afford home ownership. That is what we want to correct.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I do not support this bill. We should trust private businesses to solve the housing crisis, not create another government agency. Housing experts tell us this bill is not what they need.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if there was a question in there. Conservatives believe in Canadians and in the private sector. Conservatives do not believe that we need another bureaucracy to solve the housing crisis in this country. We regularly talk to stakeholders, experts in this space, and they tell us what they need. This is not the legislation they are asking for.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 38 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“I oppose this bill. It wastes billions of dollars on another government office that has no clear targets and will barely build any homes. To make housing affordable, the government should cut taxes for builders, remove the sales tax on new homes, and push cities to approve more building permits.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time tonight with my friend and colleague, the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake. It is a pleasure to rise today, as it always is, to speak on behalf of the hard-working people of Long Range Mountains on a topic that I am passionate about, and that is housing. Before entering politics, I spent almost 20 years in the real estate industry as an agent, broker and real estate coach. My husband is a builder, and my daughter is a sales agent. I have watched markets right across the country, as well as in my own province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I intimately understand the current pressures and frustrations around housing supply and home ownership. I have watched the changes in the market, and I am extremely concerned not just for the young person looking to enter the market but also the senior looking to downsize, which would create inventory for another family. I am concerned for those who currently own homes but have dreams of building another home that suits their needs, and for move-up buyers who, again, create movement and space for others to enter the market. In today’s market, we see historically low inventory and upward pressure on pricing as a result, and little to no movement for others to enter the market. In addition, construction costs are high and markets are strained, even in areas of the country where there have typically been stable markets and a balance between supply and demand. Rural Canada is a perfect example, but now housing affordability even in these markets is being compromised. Housing affordability is a defining characteristic of rural Canada, and we cannot allow home ownership to become unaffordable, especially in these areas. The Newfoundland and Labrador Association of Realtors says it best: “Home ownership is the cornerstone of community stability, economic prosperity, and personal security. In Newfoundland and Labrador, this aspiration has long been within reach, with our province consistently reporting some of the highest rates of home ownership in Canada. It’s a reflection of our deep-rooted values: self-reliance, pride of place, and long-term investment in our families and neighbourhoods. But today, that dream is under growing threat. Challenges around housing supply, rising costs, and affordability are eroding access to ownership for many hard-working residents. If we wish to preserve this legacy and ensure future generations can share in the security and opportunity of owning a home, decisive action is needed”. However, the saddest housing statistic in this country is that the median age of first-time homebuyers in Ontario is 40 because of affordability, higher carrying costs, longer renting phases and delayed household formation. This means Canadians are not building equity around them until much later in life, and the dream of home ownership is slipping further and further away from young people. The Liberals’ response to a strained housing market is the legislation that we are discussing today, Bill C-20, but instead of a real plan to build homes, the Liberals have continued in the same direction and delivered their fourth costly Liberal housing bureaucracy, far from building at what they call generational speeds. In fact, the Liberal government’s own housing advocate stated that at the current pace of building affordable homes, it would take over 1,000 years to restore housing affordability for the poorest Canadians. Let us look closely at the facts. During the last election, the Liberal Prime Minister went across the country promising to double housing construction and deliver 500,000 new homes every single year. He promised to move at speeds we have not seen since the Second World War, yet over a year into the Liberal Prime Minister’s mandate, we see the exact opposite. There are fewer permits, fewer starts and, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, national housing starts are projected to fall as low as 212,000 per year by 2028. That is an 18.1% decline over the next two years. The CMHC explicitly stated that we need to build somewhere between 430,000 and 480,000 homes a year up to 2035 just to restore basic affordability. What about this new $13-billion Liberal Crown corporation being created under Bill C-20? The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the Liberals have no real plan to build the 500,000 homes they promised and will only add 5,200 homes per year. That is a mere 1% of what they promised the Canadian people. However, it gets worse. When the housing minister was asked about the metrics for the $13-billion new agency, he openly admitted, “There aren’t top-line targets set for the number of homes to build”. Mike Moffatt testified at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, stating clearly about this piece of legislation, “[Build Canada Homes] lacks a clear goal, lacks targets and lacks key performance indicators and accountability measures. The public has not been told how many homes the program will complete, what types of homes, what the rents or prices will be, and over what time frame.” The witness went on to say, “I can’t tell you, five years from now, whether or not [Build Canada Homes] has been working, as there are no benchmarks for success. That’s a problem.” We have watched this movie before: announce billions of dollars, build a brand new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy and never set targets or deliver tangible results for the hard-working, everyday Canadians who pay the bills. Anyone in the private sector knows that if they endeavour to do a large project and do not set targets or key performance indicators, they are unequivocally setting themselves up for failure. At a critical time when we need more supply and builders are asking for less government, the Liberals are focusing on building a new bureaucracy that is simply an expensive exercise in rebranding. Just weeks ago, a report from the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy showed that in the first three months of 2026, consumer insolvencies rose 8.5% compared to last year. Canadians seeking help under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act have reached levels not seen since the 2009 great recession. Today, the average Canadian owes $1.77 in debt for every dollar they earn. For the bottom 20% of earners, the very people the Liberals claim they want to help with non-market housing, that debt-to-income ratio skyrockets to an astronomical 430%. More than four in 10 Canadians are now just $200 or less away from insolvency each month. They have exhausted their savings, maxed out their credit cards and refinanced their homes just to keep up with food inflation, rising rents and soaring mortgage payments. Clearly, the plan is not working. Conservatives believe in restoring the dream of home ownership and empowering the private sector to deliver the homes Canadians need, because we know we have the workers. In Canada, we have over 131,000 people with construction experience who are currently unemployed. We have 127,000 Canadians already trained with a trade certificate or diploma who are without work. We have the skilled tradespeople, we have the lumber and we have the land. What we do not have is a plan from the federal government that will empower the private sector and let builders build, especially given that 95% of supply currently comes from market housing. Do not take it from me. A witness from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association testified, “As the industry association representing home builders...we know that builders are the experts and the ones who are best suited to construct the homes we need, not the government” and “the path forward is not for government to step into the role of the builder but for it to enable those who already do this work every day to do it better, faster and at greater scale.” Conservatives do not support adding more Liberal bureaucratic red tape to the housing sector. Builders across this country are begging for less Liberal intervention, not more. Again I will point out that 95% of housing in Canada is delivered through the private market. We need to bring prices down by increasing supply, and we do that by cutting the costs of construction. If the Liberals truly want to solve this crisis, they should stop building expensive, unaccountable bureaucracy that drives up costs and instead adopt our plan. We want to restore the dream of home ownership and empower the private sector to restore balance in the market by cutting the GST on all new homes sold under $1.3 million. This single measure would save Canadian families up to $65,000 on a new home and immediately unleash a massive wave of new residential building across the nation. Conservatives know applying this only to first-time homebuyers is not sufficient to get things moving in a way that would meaningfully make a difference. We also understand that many first-time homebuyers in many markets cannot afford to build. We also know that seniors looking to downsize in new construction could free up much-needed inventory for a growing family that needs square footage. Therefore, limiting this to first-time homebuyers is not the right approach. We would tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding. When this incentive is in place, municipalities, large and small, start to develop plans for growing their communities and enabling development. A Conservative government would require major municipalities to increase the number of housing permits they issue by at least 15% each year to receive their federal funds. There is a clear difference here: a Liberal government that believes the solution to every problem is more spending, more deficits, taxes and a fourth expensive housing bureaucracy with no targets that is not delivering for Canadians; or Conservatives, who believe in the power of Canadian workers, builders and local communities. We want to empower the private sector to increase supply and restore balance by removing the taxes and lowering construction costs so our young people can afford a place to call their own. For these reasons, I cannot support Bill C-20.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “Clearly, the plan is not working.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since May 8.

  Every time it was said →

“How many homes will be built through this program over the next year?”

“Mr. Speaker, I just have a very simple question: What are the targets for the next 12 months on how many homes will be completed through Build Canada Homes?”

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“Rural Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador have great potential, but government rules and high taxes are hurting natural resource projects and small businesses. Conservatives would cut these rules and taxes to help rural economies grow.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the member. Rural Canada and rural Newfoundland and Labrador have so much untapped potential and opportunity. Newfoundland and Labrador is a natural resource-based economy, but there are so many projects that are caught up in regulatory red tape. There are so many small and medium-sized business owners who have a taxation burden. They also have a regulatory burden that they cannot get out from underneath. This is what fuels rural economies all over Canada, but especially in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are the solutions that Conservatives would bring forward to unleash opportunity in rural Canada and especially in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Sherry Romanado

“Trained tradespeople will leave Newfoundland and Labrador if there are no good jobs for them. Investment in offshore oil and gas has dropped by 40 percent in the last decade, and that fails our young people.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for visiting my beautiful province. My response is that if we do not have an economy that has opportunity for our tradespeople, we can train them all we want, but they are not going to stay in the province if they do not have those good-paying jobs. We have an offshore oil and gas sector that has watched investment completely flee the province, with a 40% reduction in investment over the last decade. This is an example of how we are failing the young people in Newfoundland and Labrador.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I support this Conservative motion. Liberal spending and taxes have put Canada into a recession and made life too expensive for everyday families. The government needs to cap spending, end the carbon tax, and cut rules so businesses can grow.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Long Range Mountains in Newfoundland and Labrador, some of the most industrious and self-reliant individuals, who are asking for fairness and economic stability, not just for themselves and this generation, but also for their children and grandchildren so they can thrive at home. I rise today to speak in support of our Conservative opposition day motion, which addresses the cold, hard reality facing our nation. The Liberals have officially driven Canada into a recession, and the latest data shows that for everyday Canadians, it is only going to get worse. The Liberal Prime Minister is the only leader in the G7 and the wider G20 to plunge his country into a recession, after driving the Canadian economy into decline in three of the last four quarters. The Liberals want to label this a technical recession, but there is nothing technical about an empty stomach or someone coming home from work and telling their kids they no longer have a job. Hard-working, everyday Canadians are being forced to pay the price. This means that, in communities across my province, families are making choices they never imagined they would have to make. They are putting groceries on credit cards. They are postponing starting a family, delaying retirement and wondering whether they can afford to keep the house they worked so hard to buy. The Liberals love to blame global factors for Canada’s economic misery. They point to international tariffs and to geopolitical conflict, but every single country in the G7 faces those exact same global headwinds, international tariffs and global challenges, yet none of them, not one, is in a recession, only Canada. Under this Prime Minister’s watch, his inflationary spending, his layers of red tape and his antidevelopment laws, our economy has stalled and Canadian productivity has been choked out. Canada now officially holds the highest household debt in the G7, the worst housing costs in the G7 and the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7. This is not a sign of success, and Canadians are not doing well as a result. Affordability has deteriorated so badly that working families are falling behind. What frustrates people back home is hearing Liberal ministers stand in the House and tell them that this is affordability, not loose slogans. They hear them say that government programs are working, that announcements are resonating and that Canadians are better off because of Liberal policies, but families back home are asking me a very simple question: If things are going so well, why are so many people struggling? The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that the likelihood of this costly Liberal government meeting its own fiscal anchor to reduce the deficit-to-GDP ratio is less than 1%. Worse yet, the Liberals are already borrowing way over their own budget. In their spring economic update, they claimed the deficit would be $65.3 billion this year, but the PBO predicts a deficit of $71.8 billion. Where does that leave the taxpayers? It leaves them buried under mountains of Liberal debt. Federal debt charges are projected to skyrocket by 46%. By 2030-31, 13.1¢ of every single dollar of federal revenue will go directly to pay the interest charges on this costly credit card Liberal government. While everyday Canadians are being forced to tighten their belt and make sacrifices, the devastating impacts are evident. Consumer insolvencies across Canada have reached their highest levels since 2009. Newfoundland and Labrador continues to see rising insolvencies, and behind every insolvency is a family that has reached its breaking point. These are Canadians who worked hard, paid their bills and tried to get ahead, but they are falling behind because groceries cost more, fuel costs more, home heating oil costs more, housing costs more, rent costs more, and this has increased the pressure on household budgets in a way many families simply cannot absorb. While everyday Canadians are struggling, the Prime Minister’s luxury inflight catering costs reached nearly $195,000 for just three trips, including premium meals and expensive hospitality at taxpayers’ expense. The Liberal environment minister took a recent trip to Brazil and burned through $467,000 on luxury accommodations and another $650,000 just to rent, design and operate a single promotional pavilion. That is over $1 million spent on a single overseas trip for Liberal elites. This is all occurring under a Prime Minister who recently stated in New York that “a country that cannot feed, fuel, or defend itself is not truly sovereign”, yet he has created a reality where millions of hard-working, everyday Canadians are relying on food banks while he dines on luxury catering in the clouds and his minister stays in luxury accommodations. We cannot run an economy on expensive Liberal bureaucrats and elite menus; we need real private sector growth. Under the Liberal Prime Minister, we are in an entrepreneurial drought, with more small businesses closing than starting up. Business investment has dropped for five consecutive quarters. Capital investment fell by another 0.7% in the first quarter of this year alone, and over $20 billion in net investment has fled our economy since the Liberal Prime Minister took office. When capital flees, productivity dies. Labour productivity has fallen in three of the four quarters, and this directly impacts our labour market. The PBO noted, “The labour market has softened in line with the broader slowdown.” In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have the highest provincial rate of unemployment in the entire country. In the first three months of this year, 1.5 million Canadians missed a debt payment, while mortgage delinquency rates climbed 32% year over year. These numbers represent real human suffering. Consistently, I hear from people right across Long Range Mountains who are telling us heartbreaking stories. Clayton from Corner Brook reached out to our office. He is a senior and requires home care but is considering cancelling because, with the rising cost of heating, rent and food, he just cannot afford it anymore. I consistently hear about young people leaving. For generations, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians have watched sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and friends leave home for opportunity elsewhere in Canada. We know the pain of saying goodbye at the airport. We know what it means to miss birthdays, anniversaries, Christmas dinners and family milestones because opportunity exists somewhere else. A recent study examining migration patterns across Canada found that Newfoundland and Labrador experienced the highest rate of net out-migration in the country, losing the equivalent of more than 10% of our population to other provinces. No province in Canada lost more people proportionally than Newfoundland and Labrador. We are the only province in Canada to experience a net migration loss to every other province in the country. Among young adults aged 18 to 24, Newfoundland and Labrador experienced net losses equivalent to nearly our entire current population in that age group over the last three decades. When our young people believe they can build a better life somewhere else, they move. When the Liberals fail to create the conditions for growth, investment and opportunity, families make difficult choices, and this has been the heartbreaking reality in Newfoundland and Labrador, a province rich in natural resources and untapped potential and opportunity. Squashed opportunity is not the only pressure. Grocery costs are up year over year, and 53% of employed Canadians report that food affordability has drastically worsened over the past year. More than one in three employed Canadians are now forced to use debt just to buy groceries. Some families are spending an unbelievable 120% of their total income on food and rent alone. Food bank demand nationwide has doubled since 2019, reaching a heartbreaking record of 2.2 million monthly visits. More than 137,000 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians live in food-insecure households. More than one-third of children in our province live in households struggling to consistently put food on the table. That is not a statistic that should exist in a country as prosperous as Canada. We cannot borrow our way out of a Liberal debt crisis. We cannot tax our way into economic prosperity, and we certainly cannot spend our way out of a recession that was manufactured by out-of-touch Liberal spending in the first place. For months, Conservatives have warned that this inflationary agenda would weaken growth, drive out business investment and leave working families to hold the bag and pay the bill. Today, the data has proven us right. The people of Long Range Mountains and all Canadians deserve an immediate turnaround. They deserve a Prime Minister who will tell them the truth and present a real plan to reverse these failed Liberal policies. It is time to end the Liberal recession. It is time to cap costly Liberal spending, scrap the inflationary Liberal carbon tax, cut the red tape and unleash the potential of our natural resources and our workforce. Conservatives understand the immense pressure that everyday Canadians are under, and we will continue to stand with them to rebuild hope, reward hard work, restore the dream of home ownership and empower the private sector to grow and thrive so Canadians can once again believe in the future of this great country.”

• Echo ×15

  A repeated line

  “The highest housing costs and the second-highest unemployment in the G7.”

  Said 15 times by 12 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“Canadians are struggling to afford food and going bankrupt. I want to know if the member tells people in his riding that the country is on the right track.”

“Mr. Speaker, when the member opposite is in his riding and he is talking to the Canadians standing in food bank lineups, facing consumer insolvency and struggling to afford groceries, I wonder if the response he gives Canadians is that we are 100% on the right track. Are these the statistics he gives them? Is this acceptable to the Canadians who live in his riding? It is sure not acceptable in my riding, when I talk to people who are struggling.”