Ryan Turnbull

“We have already studied this bill in committee. I want the Conservatives to explain why they are delaying economic help for Canadians and stopping police from getting the tools they need to fight organized crime.”

“Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the components of Bill C‑22 were in a previous bill that was debated in committee and studied, just as Bill C‑22 was, which was also studied for at least eight or nine hours in committee. As I have mentioned in the House today, I have not gotten one clear answer from any Conservative on why they chose to filibuster a spring economic update implementation act, Bill C‑30, which includes key economic measures, at a time when Canadians need the tax deductions and the support. Why would the Conservatives hold up progress on the economy to block a bill that would give police officers and law enforcement agencies the tools they have been asking for to crack down on organized crime? It does not make any sense to me. Maybe the member can enlighten me.”

In response to a question from John Brassard

“The member is not saying what I actually said.”

“Madam Speaker, on a point of order, that is not what I said. With all due respect to the member, whom I greatly respect—”

“Police in my area and across Canada asked for this bill so they can do their jobs. The Conservatives are blocking it just to waste time.”

“Madam Speaker, I know the member. She and I share a border, being from Oshawa and Durham region, respectively. I know that our chief of police and the Durham Regional Police Service have been asking for lawful access. This is a tool that our government was elected to give police officers, police forces and law enforcement agencies across Canada to be able to do the investigative work they need to do. If the member opposite is truly tough on crime and listens to our police force and law enforcement, then what I want to say is that obstruction is not the same as scrutiny. What we have seen from the Conservative Party is obstruction. I witnessed it on the finance committee just last week, with 25 hours of time wasted, only to be told that it was really about another bill in another committee. The Conservatives held us hostage for ransom. If the member opposite was so concerned about time for debate, then what does she have to say about the waste of time that her colleagues have perpetrated in other committees? Some hon. members: Oh, oh!”

“Police in my area support our public safety bills, including this one. But the Conservatives wasted 25 hours in committee trying to block it, which also delayed help for the economy. Can the member talk about how the Conservatives are blocking our work?”

“Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the police chief of Durham Regional Police Service, as well as to members of the association that represents the frontline officers, and they have all supported our government’s legislative agenda on public safety, including lawful access, bail reform, combatting hate, the protecting victims act and more. The member has pointed to all those bills. What I find really challenging is that members of the Conservative Party on the finance committee wasted 25 hours of committee resources to block key economic measures that Canadians are relying on us to deliver. By their own admission, they did it to block lawful access. They admitted that on camera, on the record. Can the member speak to the obstruction that we have seen in the House by the Conservative Party?”

“This bill does not hurt religious freedom. It protects communities and makes sure people can practice their religion safely. Can the member give an example of someone using a religious defence when charged with a hate crime?”

“Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of legal experts who say this bill would not do what the member opposite claims, such as chipping away at religious freedoms or others. In fact, this bill would step up, and the government is acting to enhance the Criminal Code to ensure that communities are safe, to ensure that people can express, can worship the way they choose to in their communities. This is exactly what I have heard in my community. I understand that we may disagree on this fundamentally, but what I want to know is, can the member cite an example of the religious defence being used in a case where an individual was accused or charged with a hate-motivated crime?”

“Police have asked us for better tools. Conservatives usually say we need tougher laws to fix crime, but now they act like tougher laws do not matter. I want to know if the member thinks tougher penalties matter or not.”

“Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member opposite for his years of dedication and service. My father was a police officer for Peel Regional Police for 30 years, and I deeply respect our members of all police forces. The law enforcement leaders in our communities on the front lines have been asking us for additional tools. The tough-on-crime agenda the Conservatives purport to support every single day in this House is all predicated on this idea that if only we had tougher laws and tougher penalties for serious crimes, everything would get better. The member opposite seems to lay blame at the feet of the forces that he was once a part of. It sounds to me like he does not care about changing the law and thinks that having tougher penalties does not matter. Can he speak to whether he thinks—”

“I want this bill passed to help stop hate crimes. People in my town have faced attacks and hateful symbols, and many communities asked us for this law. Does the member agree that we need to pass it quickly?”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague’s support of this bill. I know that all members on this side of the House take this bill very seriously. In my community of Whitby, we have seen acts of hate, including a swastika burned into the playground lawn in a local park behind a school. We saw a woman wearing a hijab almost get set on fire in a local library. These acts of hate are things that our government is seeking to address through this important legislation. Definitely, we had requests from the Jewish community at the outset, but also from many other communities that are impacted by hate. Could the member opposite speak to how important it is to get this legislation done?”

“The member is talking about a different bill that has nothing to do with this one.”

“Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand the relevance of the member’s speaking to a completely different bill, which has nothing to do with Bill C‑9.”

“Jewish people in my community and major Jewish groups support this bill. They have faced hate, and this bill will help keep them safe when they go to their places of worship.”

“Mr. Speaker, I come from a community in the Durham region, which has Chabad, a Jewish community centre. It has active members of the Jewish community who exercise their faith, go to their synagogue and have their own community centres and places of worship. They have asked for this legislation. In fact, they have supported it from day one, because they have experienced acts of hate in our community throughout the Durham region. They have asked the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to offer more protections so that they can express themselves, worship the way they choose to worship in their community and feel protected and safe. We also have CIJA, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and B’nai Brith Canada, which have all supported this legislation. I can read the quotes. Does the member opposite not believe that anything those organizations—”

“This bill creates a separate crime for hate. I want to know if the member thinks someone should get a harsher punishment if they commit a crime because of hate.”

“Madam Speaker, although I disagree with much of the speech of the member opposite, what I wanted to know from her is, since this bill proposes a stand-alone hate offence in the Criminal Code, which essentially doubles up on other offences, if someone in her community were to commit a theft, for example, of a convenience store, but they did it based on a hate motivation, does she believe that person should have a tougher sentence? This is what I want to know from the member. Is she tough on crime? Does she believe a hate-motivated crime should be a tougher offence?”

“I want the House to pass this bill to fight hate. Hate stops people from speaking and practicing their religion freely. I do not understand why the Conservatives oppose this bill.”

“Madam Speaker, who here does not believe that all Canadians should live free of hate? I cannot fathom how the Conservatives cannot support this legislation, how they can position freedom of expression and freedom of religion against combatting hate, as if this bill would not defend and protect people’s charter-protected rights to freely express themselves. Hate is the very thing that has people afraid to express themselves, to worship the way they choose to worship. It is unfathomable to me that the Conservatives have taken the position that they have, that they are somehow opposed to combatting hate. It is just deplorable I wonder if my colleague, who made a great intervention in the House, would speak to just how shocking and appalling it is.”

In response to a question from Marilyn Gladu

“We know tariffs have cost people their jobs. That is why our government is giving aid to those industries while we try to reach a deal with the United States.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is great to have my colleague aboard the team asking so many good-faith questions in the House. As I responded to the previous member’s question, our government has stepped up. We do recognize that tariff-impacted industries are where the concentration of job losses has been most persistent. That is why we have stepped up with supports and packages, while we are in ongoing engagement and negotiations with the United States, with the hope that we will eventually have a deal.”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“Our government has repeatedly supported industries hurt by tariffs. We have helped businesses adapt, diversified our trade, and built needed infrastructure. We spend money responsibly, we have the strongest economy in the G7, and I disagree with the member across the way.”

“Mr. Speaker, we have stepped up time and time again to offer packages of support for tariff-impacted industries, whether it is with liquidity or for companies to pivot, change direction and modify their business models to essentially still thrive in the economy. We have offered support. We have diversified our trade. We are building the infrastructure we need to ensure those industries can survive and thrive in the future. I do not agree with the member opposite. Yes, I am combative sometimes because I have a meter for things that are untrue. I like to call members out when I have the chance, and that is what this place should be about. God help us if we ever lose the pursuit of truth in the House of Commons and in our Parliament. Our government has stepped up time and time again. We have offered immediate support and been fiscally responsible. We have the strongest balance sheet in the G7, and we are using it to make strategic investments, including our national food security strategy.”

In response to a question from Steven Bonk

“Food costs are high because of global problems like wars and oil prices, not our policies. We are helping people buy food and feed their children, but the Conservatives still complain.”

“Mr. Speaker, the cost of food is definitely something that Canadians are concerned about. The Conservatives do not seem to understand causation. They do not seem to understand how food prices are affected by global factors such as oil price shock, wars in Europe or a trade war where tariffs are being placed upon Canadian companies. What is interesting is that, when we step up to offer immediate relief and support, whether it is with the Canada child benefit to lift thousands of kids out of poverty, the national school food program to help feed hungry kids in schools, the groceries and essentials benefit to help ensure that Canadians can get by on a monthly basis or, now, a national food security strategy with $3.2 billion of investments to build a stronger food system, they are still complaining.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 94 of 100

  Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this budget bill quickly. The Conservatives are delaying it in committee. This bill makes life more affordable by giving tax breaks to greenhouse growers, giving first-time homebuyers more time to pay back their RRSPs, and lowering pension payments for workers and businesses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28. We are debating the government motion today, which is very important. It is unfortunate that we needed a government motion to program committee business to ensure that the bill gets passed, but it is the direct result of Conservatives filibustering. They moved eight subamendments, for example, on one amendment, which was their amendment. It is quite unfortunate, when we think about parliamentary procedure, that the Conservatives had amendments that did not include the subamendments that they then proposed. They then successively filibustered the committee on an aspect of Bill C-30 that they had actually advocated for, to lower CPP contributions, knowing that the pension plan was healthy. It is very unfortunate that we are here today, but I am also proud to work on behalf of Canadians and get key affordability and economic measures passed in the House before the House rises for the summer. Our government delivered the spring economic update 2026, “Canada Strong for All”, in April, as Canadians felt the too real effects of geopolitical turbulence well beyond the country’s borders. That deep uncertainty persists as the world continues to undergo a series of fundamental shifts at a speed, scope and scale not seen in generations. This fragmented world is more complex, more volatile and, for many, more costly and unpredictable. Our government continues to focus on what we can control, which is building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our trade partners abroad, delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses. Our objective is clear: to build a stronger, more resilient and more affordable country. There is no doubt that Bill C-30 is a big part of this effort. Allow me to begin with the rising cost of food, which is understandably a concern for Canadians. Our government is focused on bringing down the high food prices that are putting significant pressure on Canadian household budgets. For example, to support those most affected by food costs, in January we announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to help more than 12 million Canadians afford day-to-day essentials. On June 5, the first cheques went out to over 12 million Canadian families to help them with the cost of groceries. That is an average of $1,890 for an average family of four, which is a considerable increase from the GST rebate, which was boosted by 50% this year and 25% for another four years after. Our plan also includes immediate assistance for food banks via the local food infrastructure fund, which was boosted by our government as well. Bill C-30 is proposing additional measures to help ease the financial pressures of food bills. The passage of Bill C-30 would help growers supercharge domestic food production in Canada with temporary tax changes to allow the immediate expensing of eligible greenhouse buildings. These provisions would allow producers to fully write off the cost of building new greenhouse facilities in the year incurred rather than spreading it over time. This incentive is designed to help expand greenhouse production and strengthen Canada’s year-round domestic food supply. The measure is projected to provide $41 million in tax relief over six years. The bill has so much more in it. Bill C-30 includes a number of other measures. Before I mention those measures, I will also make mention of June 11, when the Prime Minister launched Canada’s first-ever national food security strategy. I am quite proud of this as I fed into the process. The national food security strategy will boost domestic food production and break open the market for independent food retailers in Canada. It will support resilience, regional supply chains and infrastructure that those supply chains need to thrive, and it will ultimately build a stronger, more independent, more affordable food system where there can be more competition, which we know is the key to bringing down prices. The strategy is backed by over $3 billion in investments over 10 years. To help deliver on this important objective, Bill C-30 would amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include the consideration of food security and the costs of food. To implement this change, the government proposes to provide $24 million over four years, and $9 million per year ongoing, to support Health Canada in expanding its economic analysis capacity to optimize the review processes for pest control products. These costs will be fully recovered through annual fees. The government is also working tirelessly to help address housing affordability concerns. It is clear that the high cost of housing is putting significant pressure on household budgets, especially for younger Canadians. Our government recognizes that many Canadians who have recently purchased their first home, or who are planning to do so, continue to face significant affordability challenges and could benefit from a boost to their cash flow. That is why Bill C-30 proposes extending the grace period during which homeowners are not required to start repaying their homebuyers’ plan withdrawals from their RRSPs. The proposed extension is from two to five years. This extension is designed for homebuyers making a first withdrawal between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2028. This extended grace period already applies to withdrawals made between 2022 and 2025. The bottom line is that this change would provide cash flow relief of up to $4,000 per individual, per year, for the three years over which they are not required to repay the amount into their RRSP. The passage of Bill C-30 would also make an important change to Canada pension plan contributions to ensure Canadians can keep more money that they otherwise would have been compelled to contribute to the Canada pension plan. Indeed, the CPP is foundational to Canada’s retirement income system, providing stable, predictable pension income to millions of Canadians. Considering the affordability challenges faced by so many households in Canada, Canada’s ministers of finance unanimously agreed in April to reduce the contribution rate for CPP. The change would lower the contribution rate by 40 basis points, from 9.9% to 9.5%, effective January 1, 2027. That reduction to the CPP contribution rate will translate into annual savings of about $133 for an employee earning $70,000 a year, with the equivalent savings for their employer. The change will do this while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the plan. We listened to Conservatives go on and on in committee for 10 or 11 hours about the health and sustainability of the Canada pension plan, which I recognize is a concern, but when the chief actuary has tabled a report in Parliament and has done the analysis to say that the Canada pension plan is healthy and solvent for the next 75 years, and when Conservatives have actually advocated to decrease Canada pension plan contributions themselves, decreasing it by 40 basis points, leaving a 30-basis point buffer in the plan, is certainly a smart move. It makes sense for Canadians. Considering the fact that finance ministers from our provincial and territorial counterparts across Canada all agreed to this unanimously, agreeing that it just made sense, I cannot see why Conservatives would be kicking up a fuss proposing eight subamendments in the finance committee. Anyway, tax relief has been supported by our government. We moved forward with many tax measures, including an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians, suspending the fuel excise tax over the summer until Labour Day and offering new benefits such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. We cut the consumer carbon tax. We have done many, many things to support Canadians with many of the costs that they experience. In Ontario, I am quite proud to say that the HST on new home purchases is being waived with an agreement we signed with the Ontario government. That includes up to almost $200,000 of relief. It is a 50% reduction in development charges and 13% off the purchase of a new home. That is significant support for Canadians. No one can argue otherwise. Last, I will just say that Bill C-30, as I have cited, would enhance the labour mobility tax deduction for skilled trades workers when they travel for work. As we are boosting the economy, we are seeing more construction jobs, 27,000 of them, in the last labour statistics. We can see that those skilled trades workers can have an enhanced deduction of $6,000 more —”

• Echo ×29

  A repeated line

  “We introduced the Canada groceries and essentials benefit.”

  Said 29 times by 19 members since April 23.

  Every time it was said →

“The Conservatives spent over 30 hours delaying this bill in committee. It helps Canadians with costs, like raising the tax deduction for tradespeople who travel for work from $4,000 to $10,000. They should not claim we are rushing it after wasting all that time.”

“Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the over 30 hours that the Conservative members of the finance committee spent filibustering Bill C‑30, which offers a number of affordability measures, economic measures that would help Canadians. For example, there is the labour mobility tax deduction, which is being enhanced from $4,000 to $10,000 for a skilled trades worker who would have to travel for work. Could the member speak to the fact that he is standing here in the House, claiming that we are ramming something through, when his members wasted 30 hours of parliamentary proceedings and resources at the finance committee?”