Kelly Block

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“Setting up a defence agency can work, and other countries do it. But we need to look closely at this government. They take too much power and hide what they are doing. The problem is not the agency. The problem is the people running it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would have to say this: No one is questioning the creation of a defence agency, as other countries also use this model. However, as usual, the government’s overreach and willingness to remove transparency and accountability from the process really do need to be examined. Of course, single sourcing and Crown corporations have been used and proven successful when appropriate safeguards or regulations are in place. However, I would say the tools are not the problem. Those wielding the tools are the problem.”

• 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 Linda Lapointe

“The government is using misleading math to meet its military spending goal. It counts things like veterans' pensions, transport planes, and the coast guard as military spending when they are not. Meanwhile, our armed forces face more budget cuts. This proves the Liberals are not serious about defence.”

“Mr. Speaker, after all is said and done, more is always said than done with the Liberal government. This is not the first time that the government has used creative accounting. We have seen this time and time again with the government including items that have not been considered for defence spending, including veterans’ pensions and Transport Canada airplanes, as well as the entire Canadian Coast Guard budget, in order to get to our 2% NATO commitment. If we put that together with recent reports that the Canadian Armed Forces are facing another round of internal belt tightening, the Liberals are proving once again that they are not serious about defence.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 39 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. It creates another layer of government that fails to get our military the equipment it needs. It also removes oversight from Parliament, which allows for waste and political interference with tax dollars.”

“Mr. Speaker, it truly is a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-40, the defence and national security production and procurement act. In the wake of the tragic events at CFB Wainwright just over a week ago and the launch of the Royal Canadian Legion’s national poppy campaign this past weekend, we are reminded of the service and sacrifice of our Canadian Armed Forces, both past and present, and the importance of the debate we are having here today. Turning to the bill, it pains me to say that here we go again. This is the Liberal government’s third attempt to deliver defence equipment to our Canadian Armed Forces in an efficient and timely way. Perhaps three times is the charm. It was just one short year ago that I spoke to the Liberal government’s budget implementation act, Bill C-31, when the government made the case that its recently created Defence Investment Agency needed to become a stand-alone entity outside of both the departments of PSPC and National Defence. Bill C-40 proposes to turn the Defence Investment Agency into the Canadian corporation for defence investment. The Defence Investment Agency was launched to accelerate defence procurement, but it has failed to deliver a single piece of new equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. Instead, the government points to signing ceremonies and preferred partnership announcements, pretending that this is the same as actually delivering. After a decade of neglect, what our sailors, soldiers and aviators need is a procurement process that equips them for the modern threats we face today. The brave men and women of our armed forces deserve the equipment they need to defend Canada and keep Canadians safe. Above all, they should be able to count on procurement processes that are efficient and accountable. As I was contemplating my remarks for today’s debate, I reflected on the question of accountability and trust: Do I trust the tired old Liberal government to do the right thing with respect to defence procurement? Let us look at its track record. One’s trust would be misplaced on so many fronts, but it is especially the case when it comes to trusting the Liberal government to do the right thing on procurement. I have had the honour of serving in this place for almost two decades, so I want to remind some of my colleagues who have not been here that long of a very sad saga. Canada joined the joint strike fighter program under the former Liberal government in 1997. That is almost 30 years ago. In 2010, under the leadership of a Conservative government, Canada finally selected the F-35, a fifth-generation fighter jet, to replace our aging fleet of CF-18s. Then, in a twist of overt political opportunism, former Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau, at the time the leader, campaigned on a promise to never purchase the F-35. This kicked off approximately seven years of Liberal stonewalling, obstructionism, foot-dragging and delays. The Liberals even concocted the silly idea of buying old jets from Australia. Then, in 2022, the same old Liberal government ended up choosing the F-35 as the CF-18’s replacement. I guess we can always count on a Liberal government to break a promise. However, this saga did not end there. In 2025, the same Liberal government once again put the F-35 procurement under review. Military procurement should be in the best interests of the Canadian Armed Forces and Canada’s national security and should not be politicized, which leads me to another area of concern with this proposed legislation, that being the potential erosion of parliamentary oversight and transparency. This seems to be a pattern for the Liberal government. In order to fix and speed up the broken defence procurement system, the Liberals created a special agency and appointed the Prime Minister’s friend Doug Guzman, who has no background in national defence but asked for a job. He was handed the position of the first CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, with a salary greater than the highest paid federal public servants on the payroll. Four months later, the government announced the need for the agency to be a stand-alone entity, and before that could happen, it introduced legislation to convert the DIA into a Crown corporation, overseen by an associate minister with unprecedented powers. The changes contained in Bill C-40 could remove much-needed parliamentary oversight from the DIA, creating the inevitable mismanagement of taxpayer dollars and waste the government is known for. With billions of tax dollars at stake, Conservatives have serious concerns that the Liberals are increasing the opportunity for political interference and decreasing accountability. I am sure members will recall the revelation of a potential conflict of interest, which still exists, surrounding the Liberal government’s Alto rail boondoggle and the finance minister. The prospect of the finance minister making decisions as part of the federal government’s budgetary process, which presents distinct benefits and advantages for his partner and her employer, and acting and voting in Parliament to give those effect, is deeply troubling. We can consider the Prime Minister’s most recent pre-Thanksgiving announcement to subsidize heat pumps. Brookfield has a big stake in the retrofit and heat pump business via Enercare and Trane, and the Prime Minister has a lot of deferred shares, options and carried interest. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that the DIA or the Liberals themselves may have already decided on Saab’s GlobalEye as the preferred supplier for the airborne early warning and control platform without proper consideration or consultation with the Royal Canadian Air Force. Political interference seems to be second nature for the government. I raise these examples to remind Canadians why we cannot simply trust this Liberal government and to make the case for the need to ensure strong oversight and transparency. To be clear, Conservatives are on the record. We support one point of accountability for defence procurement, not adding layers of bureaucracy to an already bureaucratic system. This is why the rules around sole-source procurement and other reporting requirements must be strong. Conservatives believe that the powers conferred to the CEO by the new associate minister should be scaled back when it comes to decisions to sole-source a procurement, and the government should be required to disclose when it uses national security exceptions to allow for sole-sourcing procurements, including which subsection was supplied. This is not currently a requirement in Bill C-40. I am concerned that the measures proposed in the bill are not strong enough. Instead of taking the politics out of procurement, the bill would ensure that Liberal insiders would benefit from contracts with no transparency, accountability, Treasury Board oversight or sufficient reporting to Parliament. In conclusion, this tired Liberal government’s first and second attempts to reform defence procurement have not proven successful. Like Build Canada Homes or the Major Projects Office, the DIA is just the latest new Liberal bureaucracy delivering bottlenecks instead of progress. As a result, it is only logical that members of Parliament should have concerns about this third attempt to fix defence procurement. Defence procurement is a matter at the heart of our sovereignty and our security, but after a decade of Liberal neglect, our military has been left unprepared for the threats we face. The world is changing. Symbolic announcements do not build or buy the equipment the Canadian Armed Forces require. Faster procurement does not require less accountability. The CAF needs swift action to procure equipment, and Canadian taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability for those expenses. These two requirements are not in conflict, even though it seems like the government wants to promote that view. As a result, my concern is that the lack of transparency in the process being proposed by this bill is a design feature, not an unintended flaw. Bill C-40 would not deliver the equipment our forces desperately need, nor would it protect taxpayers from Liberal corruption. Conservatives will be opposing Bill C-40.”

• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “After more than a decade of Liberal government.”

  Said 13 times by 11 members since May 7.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Rhéal Éloi Fortin

“I want the House to pass my bill. It copies the minimum fines we already have for damaging war memorials. It also makes it easier to punish people who damage religious property, because police will not have to prove the crime was motivated by hate.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to expand on the remarks related to mandatory minimum punishment prescribed in Bill C-255. First of all, my bill simply mirrors the mandatory minimum fines that already exist in the Criminal Code in regard to war memorials. I mentioned I was glad that the provisions in the Criminal Code that address hate-motivated crimes still exist, but the changes I am proposing in this bill do not require law enforcement and the courts to prove that hate was a motivating factor when the perpetrator committed the crime.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I want the House to pass my bill. It makes changes to the law that religious groups support, and other bills did not include these changes.”

“Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, my private member’s bill was already being drafted when Bill C-9 was first introduced. Without repeating everything I said in my remarks or going through a chronology of the changes that occurred to Bill C-9, I would respectfully submit to the member that Bill C-255 proposes a change to the Criminal Code that was not contemplated in Bill C-9 and does not currently exist. My objective is simply to put forward that the changes proposed in Bill C-255 are important amendments to the Criminal Code that would provide clarity and are supported by faith communities across the country, and I believe this bill should be adopted.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass my bill to protect places of worship from vandalism. Attacks on churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues have risen sharply over the last ten years. Right now, police must prove an attacker was motivated by hate to get a conviction under the law. My bill removes that requirement, so it is easier to convict vandals. It also forces vandals to pay at least $1,000 to the owner to fix the damage, and it adds mandatory jail time for repeat offenders.”

“moved that Bill C-255, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (mischief—religious property), be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Mr. Speaker, having served in this place over numerous Parliaments, I know what an honour it is to have the opportunity not only to introduce a private member’s bill but to have it debated at second reading. I am very pleased to be able to rise today and speak to Bill C-255, the protecting Canada’s places of worship act. Over the past three years, the Holy Rosary Church in Edmonton, Alberta, was the target of three acts of vandalism. On December 23, 2023, a nativity scene in front of the church was set on fire. On September 18, 2024, two individuals spray-painted a church security camera before being startled and running away. On September 20, 2024, a man was filmed spray-painting the church’s statue of Pope John Paul II. Last year, the Ar-Rehman Islamic Centre in Mississauga, Ontario, was vandalized when an individual with a skateboard smashed the front glass doors of the building. In January 2023, the Shri Gauri Shankar Mandir temple in Brampton, Ontario, was defaced when someone spray-painted anti-Hindu messaging on its exterior walls. In April 2025, the Khalsa Diwan Society gurdwara in Vancouver, B.C., was targeted by vandals who spray-painted exterior walls and parking lot perimeters with graffiti. On August 2, 2025, a man wrote anti-Semitic messages on the Congregation Emanu-El synagogue in Victoria, B.C. Sadly, I could go on and on with more examples. In 2015, Statistics Canada reported that there were 66 cases of hate-motivated mischief relating to property used by identifiable groups. In 2025, there were 263. The current peak was in 2024, when there were 274 incidents. This represents a more than 300% increase over the past 10 years. In light of this trend, I introduced Bill C-255, which would amend the Criminal Code as it relates to mischief to religious property. As I began to develop this bill, I discussed with my caucus colleagues and subsequently every stakeholder I met with how my sole purpose in introducing this bill was to provide additional tools to protect faith communities across Canada. I was, and remain, convinced that this is not a partisan issue, and that this bill and the broader issue of protecting places of worship in Canada are things that members of Parliament on both sides of this place can and should support. The freedom of religion and belief is an important fundamental freedom. It is one that the authors of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms understood. All across our nation, places of worship, including synagogues, temples, gurdwaras, mosques, churches and many more, serve as vital centres in our communities. They are gathering places that provide hope and solace, a sense of meaning and a place of belonging for millions of Canadians. Many of us regularly attend a place of worship and gather with our fellow adherents for fellowship, to worship and to practise our faith. Both as a Canadian and as a Christian, it distresses me to see a gurdwara, temple, mosque or synagogue vandalized just as much as it does when a church is vandalized. As a person whose faith is an integral part of who I am, I understand the fear and the feeling of vulnerability that would grip someone whose place of worship has been defaced. Finally, as a parliamentarian, I believe I owe it to Canadians, Canadian families and our communities to defend the protection of our freedom to worship in our own way. By amending the Criminal Code to enhance the protection of places of worship, we send a clear message to faith communities and, indeed, all Canadians that we value this freedom and that vandalizing places of worship is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Let me outline how the protecting Canada’s places of worship act proposes to change the Criminal Code of Canada. First, and I think most consequentially, the bill proposes to eliminate the need for police and prosecutors to prove that a crime of mischief committed against a place of worship was motivated by hate. Section 430 of the Criminal Code addresses crimes of mischief. While subsection 430(4.1) addresses crimes of mischief relating to religious property, educational institutions and other properties, it applies only to the commission of mischief if it is motivated by bias, prejudice or hate. Bill C-255 would not eliminate any of these sections; rather, it would add new subsection 430(4.12) to address mischief relating to places of worship that does not require proof that the vandalism was hate motivated. It is structured this way for two reasons. First, there is no reason or need to remove the crime of hate-motivated mischief directed against religious property. Second, mostly by way of background, I was working with the legislative drafters throughout the summer and early fall of 2025 to develop a bill to address this issue. When Bill C-9 was first introduced in this place on September 19, 2025, it proposed repealing subsections 430(4.1) and (4.101) of the Criminal Code, which I was planning to amend. Therefore, I rescued the definition of a place of worship from subsection 430(4.101) as the drafters and I had every reason to believe it was being eliminated through the government’s bill. As we are all aware, over time, Bill C-9 was amended, and subsections 430(4.1) and (4.101) remained in place. I am glad they did, as I believe they provide much-needed protection to property used by identifiable groups. While there are similarities between what is proposed in this bill and what remains in the Criminal Code after Bill C-9 was eventually adopted, the differences are consequential and clear. Removing the requirement that police and prosecutors prove that a crime of mischief was hate motivated would make it easier for police and prosecutors to obtain convictions. Bias, prejudice or hate can be difficult to prove. A video camera can capture the evidence to prove who did it, but what it cannot capture is motivation. In my opinion, it should not matter what motivated the act. The impact on the victim is still the same. In fact, I would argue that the victims of these crimes would find it more reassuring that someone has been charged and convicted for the offence than they would if they were told the perpetrator was not charged because the police could not prove the suspect’s motivation. The second change this bill proposes to make to the Criminal Code is to implement new penalties for mischief directed at places of worship. Similar to the provision in the Criminal Code that outlines punishments for mischief directed at war memorials, this bill proposes mandatory compensation to the victim for the first offence and mandatory minimal jail time, as well as compensation to the victim, for subsequent offences. I want to state up front that I am aware that the concept of compensation to the property owner, which I am proposing to add, is novel. The Criminal Code includes provisions which mandate fines. However, fines are paid to the Crown, and in cases of mischief committed against places of worship, the Crown is not the victim. The Criminal Code also extends discretion to judges to impose restitution in their sentencing decisions. So as not to conflate a judge’s discretionary restitution with a mandatory requirement, with the assistance of our amazing legislative drafters, I termed the monetary penalty proposed in the bill as compensation to “the property owner”. This is not a duplication but an intentional differentiation. Practically, the process of compensating the property owner would function the same as or similar to the process followed by the courts when a judge imposes a sentence of restitution. I would now like to address how I arrived at the amount of $1,000 for mandatory compensation. First, this amount aligns with the $1,000 fine imposed in subsection 430(4.11) of the Criminal Code, dealing with mischief directed at war memorials. Second, the cost to the victim to professionally remove spray paint or replace broken windows or a door is very likely to be at least $1,000, if not more. It is my belief that a minimum of $1,000 is reasonable and would not be unduly punitive to the perpetrator of the crime. Lastly, the wording in the bill states that compensation is to be “not less than $1,000”, which is again consistent with subsection 430(4.11). This means that a judge would have the discretion to impose a greater amount of compensation to the property owner should it be reasonable, given all of the extenuating circumstances. To wrap up this portion of my remarks addressing the proposed changes within Bill C-255, I would like to highlight the recent coming into force of Bill C-16. Setting aside my personal views and lack of support for that bill, its passage, I believe, has eliminated the need to defend the mandatory minimums as prescribed in Bill C-255. In closing, I hope my fellow parliamentarians from all parties will support Bill C-255. Reports of places of worship being vandalized have become all too frequent. They are so frequent that they have become commonplace. It is critical that we address this issue. Regardless of whether or not we are part of a faith-based community, I believe we should not ignore the increase in cases of mischief directed at places of worship. As parliamentarians, the ability to amend legislation is one of our primary tools to improve the safety, security and, ultimately, lives of Canadians. By passing this bill, we would be signalling to criminals that their actions have real consequences. We would be signalling to victims that we recognize that acts of mischief are deeply hurtful, fear-inducing and costly. We would also be signalling to Canadians that we continue to value our fundamental freedom of religion or belief. Finally, we would be providing law enforcement with a new tool that would make their job of protecting society easier. On that important note, I am pleased to advise my colleagues in this place that the Canadian Police Association, which represents 60,000 frontline civilian and sworn police personnel across Canada, stated in a recent letter that it supports the objectives of Bill C-255. It said Bill C-255 reflects an important principle. Offences involving religious property should be treated seriously. Those responsible should be held meaningfully accountable, and the people and organizations left to repair the damage should not be forgotten. The association particularly welcomes the bill’s emphasis on compensation for the property owners, as well as stronger consequences for repeat offenders. I have met with organizations across the spectrum of faiths in Canada and from different regions, and to date, everyone I have met with has supported this bill. Between now and the second hour of debate, I encourage all members to meet with faith communities in their riding to talk about the measures proposed in this bill. As I mentioned earlier, I believe this issue is not a partisan one. I believe it is a small but important change to the Criminal Code that could make a big difference. I look forward to the debate and to any suggestions about how this bill might be improved upon. I understand that sometimes compromise is necessary to make progress. I thank members for their time and attention, and I look forward to answering any questions my colleagues might have.”

In response to a question from Dan Muys

“Homes cost too much for young Canadians to buy. The government is wasting time setting up new agencies instead of getting more homes built.”

“Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague probably has a much better grasp on the numbers than I do. I would simply say this. I am a mom of four adult children who have recently bought homes, trying to get into home ownership, and the cost to do that is incredible. We know it is still the dream of young Canadians to one day own a home, and we know the government is losing valuable time by creating bureaucracies instead of actually doing something different and addressing the issue to get more homes built for our young people.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 16 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 →
• Vague
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Clarity 0 of 100

  Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Sherry Romanado

“The Auditor General reported that the government is not being honest about its housing numbers. The government hides details about the kinds of homes it builds and whether they help families.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest this: My hon. colleague does not need to take my word for it. She does not need to take the word of my colleagues on this side of the House. Maybe she should go back and look at the Auditor General’s report or the PBO’s report that was tabled last fall. In her report last year, the Auditor General found a clear lack of transparency in reporting numbers on the government’s housing initiatives, which further undermines the trust Canadians have in the government’s ability to address the housing crisis. Under its own definition of housing units, the government refuses to be transparent with the kinds of housing it is building and whether it will meet the needs of families. I would remind the member that she needs to also take a look at what others are saying about this crisis and how they are doing.”

In response to a question from Bardish Chagger

“I do not want this bill to pass. It creates another government agency instead of helping private builders build homes. Adding more rules and bureaucracy will only slow things down and make homes more expensive.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-20, an act that seeks to establish the Build Canada Homes bureaucracy, at third reading. As I mentioned during the debate at second reading, this bill is the latest attempt by the Liberals to solve a problem they created. Unfortunately, their solution is to create yet another Crown corporation, which they promise will deal with their housing issue. It is their third Crown corporation, no less. Over the last 10 years, our young people have watched rents and the prices of homes double. Inflation has soared and swallowed up their ability to save for the future, and the prospect of owning a home has slipped away. We all remember the promise the Prime Minister made during the last election to build at speeds not seen in a generation. This generation is losing out. He has invoked grand speeches since, reminding Canadians that for much of our history, our country was able to build vital projects and the housing it needed. I am deliberately saying “for much of our history”, because over the past 10 years under the Liberals, companies have been forced to downsize and lay off workers, businesses have had to shut their doors and our builders have been unable to build because of increasing costs and regulatory burdens. After promising to deliver 500,000 new homes every year, the PBO estimates that Canada’s housing completions will average only 222,000 per year, which is well below the number needed and the number promised. However, rather than delivering on their promise to build these homes, the Liberals are building yet another bureaucracy. This makes it their fourth attempt at using bureaucracy to try to fix the housing crisis they have created. While the Liberal government continues to tell young Canadians that solutions are on their way, it is going to deliver and all it needs is more time, our young people are waking up each morning with less hope of making a down payment on a home, landing a career that will meet their needs or starting a family. After 10 years of getting it wrong, just how much time do the Liberals need to get it right? Now we find out that their grand plan is to build yet another bureaucracy. It is completely out of touch to believe that doing the same thing over and again will somehow produce a different result. Rather than repeal overburdensome regulations or legislation, the Liberals’ plan is to create yet another massive, multi-billion dollar Crown corporation to do what the private sector already does, except it would move slower, cost more and require more red tape. The Liberals’ record of overseeing Crown corporations is not stellar either. Let us consider Canada Post. This Crown corporation became insolvent under the government and has received not one but two $1-billion loans that taxpayers are on the hook for. This is all because the Liberals failed to act and approve its strategic plan for five years. The Canada Infrastructure Bank, which is another Crown corporation, handed out a $1-billion loan to a Chinese shipbuilding company, instead of giving that work to capable, hard-working Canadians in B.C. As for the Canada Lands Company, its responsibility to develop federal properties and convert them into housing units will now become the responsibility of Build Canada Homes. The six projects that were announced, as my colleague pointed out earlier, had already been approved and development was well under way. Only 49% of federal land commitments from the Canada Lands Company will be built by 2028. According to the Auditor General, federal property disposals take six to eight years per property. These delays are not one-off incidents. They are slow, repeat failures that demonstrate a true lack of will to address the issue in a meaningful way. There is no reason to believe that by transferring these properties to the new bureaucracy, things will speed up or be any more effective. Reorganizing is not reform. Still, that does not seem to resonate. Believing that giving paycheques to policy advisers on bureaucratic boards will deliver results is a failure of imagination and a failure to recognize that a change in approach is needed. Getting back into the business of building cannot mean being in the business of hiring consultants or layering on more delays. A new board of directors would not fix the supply crisis the Liberals have created. What builders need is for the cost of building to come down, and that means bringing the cost of government down. It means recognizing that the cost of government is more than just the development charges and it is more than the cost of GST on the sale of a home. It is the cost hidden in the complex rules that present the first barrier to a shovel hitting the dirt. These rules drive away competition, slow progress and gradually increase cost. We do not catalyze an industry by competing with it, using $13 billion of its own tax dollars. We do not build homes by adding more process to the country’s system that already has far too much of it. For greater clarity, the OECD has identified restrictive zoning permitting and fragmented approval systems across levels of government as a principal constraint on housing supply in Canada. Build Canada Homes will not fix this, and there is a real human cost to all of this. Young Canadians are being forced to work longer in the hopes of entering the housing market later in life. We must also acknowledge the lost potential to our economy as construction workers are laid off and home builders stop building at a time when housing starts, job creation and affordability are needed the most. Building has become complex. The regulatory burden has become expansive. It is not Canadians who need to be reminded of a time when we used to build here in Canada. It is the government here in Ottawa that needs reminding that there was a time when it did not stand in the way of letting people build. If the Liberal government is serious about wanting to tackle the housing crisis our country is facing, it needs to stop blaming outside factors and rather look inward to determine a new approach, which is needed in our capital. A new approach would deliver the results Canadians need. The new is often uncomfortable. This would mean a departure from an “Ottawa knows best” mindset and a return to common sense, wherein young people are free to innovate, businesses are able to adapt and the market drives demand for growth. The government, as a customer, cannot drive demand forever, create the jobs we will need nor house every Canadian, and it should not want to. Canadians are the most capable people in the world, and the government needs to remember that. Young Canadians should not be asked to sacrifice more than they already have. They deserve a fair chance to work hard and build the homes, lives and families they choose. The 500,000 homes a year that are needed to solve this housing crisis will not be built by a fourth housing bureaucracy with red tape that prevents shovels from hitting the dirt. Boardrooms have never built homes. Builders and capable workers do. Canadians do not have to settle for a $13-billion project that will build just 5,000 homes a year. Better is possible, but it requires a change, not more of the same. The bill we are debating today is just more of the same.”

In response to a question from Martin Champoux

“I am worried about this bill and the economy. The government caused these economic problems, and its policies will not fix them.”

“Madam Speaker, that could be a very short answer if I wanted it to be. The answer is absolutely I am worried. I am worried about the fact that we have a government in power that has created the mess in our economy and then wants all Canadians to believe it has come up with the solutions and is the saviour to the problems it has created. Yes, I am worried because the government continues to introduce the same failed policies that got us to this place after 11 years. I do not see it changing, and that is deeply concerning.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 22 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 →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I oppose this budget bill. The government is still spending money it does not have, and that is hurting Canadians.”

“Madam Speaker, I believe that under way are the key words in that phrase, because the first five projects the government announced were well under way. That was more performative than anything. What I would say is that Bill C-31 is proof that in year 11, the Liberals continue to put forward legislation that keeps the same failed logic we have come to expect. Believing that an 11th try using deficits to fund jobs will bear the fruit they desire is wishful thinking. I heard someone else say the issues are real and the consequences of bad policy-making are being felt across the country by Canadians. It truly is time the government holds up its end of the deal and changes course from the reckless deficit spending it has become known for.”