Business of Supply

A Conservative opposition day motion asking the House to recognize that the Liberals have been in power for 11 years and that Canada is in an affordability crisis, with the Prime Minister urged to take responsibility. Conservatives said housing, food, and fuel costs are out of reach, taxes and fuel costs are driving up prices for farmers and families, and young people cannot afford homes or find work. Liberals pointed to government affordability measures such as child care, dental care for seniors, home energy retrofits, and housing projects, and said global factors like wars and U.S. tariffs are also driving prices, with no need for austerity. The Bloc Québécois criticized government deficits and spending on an oil pipeline and promoted a bill to extend a 10% Old Age Security pension increase to seniors aged 65 to 74, while the NDP supported the motion but pressed the Conservatives to bring forward concrete proposals to vote on. Some time went to exchanges over whether members would say directly whether an affordability crisis exists, and to questions about temporary foreign workers and Canadian steel procurement.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

105 statements

Grant Jackson, Brandon—Souris

Conservative
“Life has become too expensive under the Liberal government. Young people cannot afford to buy homes, and millions of Canadians are struggling to buy food. The government has failed to build the houses it promised, and its taxes are driving up the cost of farming and food. I want the House to pass this motion, and I want the government to admit there is a crisis and help us fix it.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canadians are struggling to put food on the table.”

    Said 14 times by 12 members since April 27.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. Every decade, a new generation of young Canadians has grown up knowing what was expected of it. Over the last 11 years, however, these expectations have gone from standard practice to nearly unattainable or have come with significant strings attached. The deal that Canadians had has been broken. Now, families struggling with home ownership also have to contend with record grocery prices that have sent millions of Canadians to food banks. Instead of stepping in to help, the Liberal government has tuned out the concerns of Canadians. It wants them to forget the past and pretend they have never had it so good. Those expectations are reinforced in the news we read, the media we consume and the footsteps of family members and peers around us. Canadians go to school, get an education and gain work experience, all with the goal of finding a good-paying job so they can support themselves. They may not know exactly what they want to do, but they know the direction they are supposed to go in. After years of working, they buy a home and start a family, and thus the cycle begins again. Not everyone gets the same opportunities or follows the same path, but everyone has the opportunity to work towards this overarching goal, or at least they should. However, since the election of Justin Trudeau, and of many of the Liberals who still sit on the other side of the aisle, by the way, the promise of home ownership for young Canadians has been pushed farther out of reach. Not only are Canadians farther away from home ownership, but millions are now struggling to afford even the basics. The housing and food affordability crisis has left many young Canadians and families feeling hopeless about their futures. To get out of this mess that the Liberals created, young Canadians need a marked departure from the policy practices of the last 11 years. They need a government that will work for them, not one that will tell them that they have never had it so good. Young Canadians have every right to be frustrated by the hand the Liberal government has dealt them. A new survey by Remax found that the sacrifices Canadians are willing to make just to afford a home, and the numbers, tell an incredibly disappointing story. Sixty-five per cent of Canadians said they would have to make at least one compromise in order to afford a larger home or one that better suits the needs of their family. Starting a family often requires more space. This is a simple truth, but the survey from Remax shows that to achieve that level of home ownership, Canadians are having to uproot their life and move away from the community and support structures they are part of, just to have their foot in the door. Others are taking a second job or turning to family for financial help in order to sacrifice savings down the road to get into the home that their family needs to get by. These are difficult choices, and at a time when Canadians are forced to make these types of sacrifices, the Liberals continue to run massive inflationary deficits, piling onto our national debt and the billions of dollars spent every year going to bondholders to service it. This is not just abstract policy. It has consequences for the government’s financial and fiscal ability to address the challenges that Canadians are facing. While Canadians’ picture of buying a home has gone from bad to worse, more and more are turning to their parents just to make ends meet. In a September survey by RBC, more than half of parents with adult children said that they had provided financial support to their kids in the last year. Among those providing support, more than half helped with groceries, while nearly a quarter helped with rent. Almost one-third of parents said that their adult children are not financially independent. The vice-president of client segments at RBC, Lucianna Adragna, pointed to the rising cost of living and the affordability crisis as part of why we are seeing this trend. Her remarks sum up the situation perfectly: “Financial independence used to feel like a finish line where you graduate, get a job, move out and start paying your own bills. For many families, that path is no longer as linear.” This is the reality that faces young Canadians. Even after finding employment, many are unable to afford a place to live. Those who do move out are increasingly coming back to their aging parents to help cover their bills. These are not people who are not working. These are people who are working one and sometimes two jobs, and they still cannot get ahead. What is the Liberals’ solution? They claimed they would build housing at speeds and scales not seen in generations, but over the last 18 months, what have they actually done? They have built another housing bureaucracy, which is step one in any Liberal problem-solving plan, and then they have recycled announcements that they were using going all the way back to Justin Trudeau’s first term. The Liberals claim to have 19,000 homes under way through this new agency, but the minister recently admitted that only 2,000 are actually under construction. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Grant Jackson: Mr. Speaker, I am not done, as the member for Winnipeg North is heckling me. I am not sure there are any started in Winnipeg, by the way, but just 2,000 have shovels in the ground getting started after 18 months of the minister and his failed new bureaucracy. Even CMHC data shows that housing starts are projected to fall to 203,000 by 2028. That level is less than half of what we need to restore housing affordability to the levels and prices we had in 2019, despite millions and millions of dollars, press conferences and sod-turning ceremonies for projects that never actually go anywhere. This is the cost of Liberal inaction and broken promises: Canadians fall further and further behind. Sadly, the affordability crisis does not end at housing. Families are struggling to put food on the table. The cost of everyday necessities is forcing Canadians to change how they spend. Parents are helping their adult children pay for groceries. Young families who should be saving for their first home are watching more of their paycheques disappear at the grocery store. In fact, a recent Telus Health survey found that almost 40% of working Canadians described themselves as food-insecure. Ahead of Thanksgiving, the outlook from Dalhousie University’s Agri-Food Analytics Lab is not encouraging. The cost of a family’s Thanksgiving dinner is going up. A turkey dinner is $35 and a ham dinner is $36. Rising diesel prices are now adding another cost to the food Canadians rely on. In southwestern Manitoba, farmers are facing an especially difficult harvest. Wet weather has made an already challenging season harder, and rising diesel prices are adding costs that they cannot control. Fuel and fertilizer are not luxuries in agriculture; they are essential inputs. Farmers cannot control the weather or the price at the pump, but the federal government does control how much it taxes the industries that create these products. We put forward a plan to remove these costs, and yesterday the Liberals voted it down. When it comes to housing, Conservatives have answers. When it comes to affordable food, Conservatives have solutions. For the last 11 years, we have served in opposition, but we have also put forward measures designed to help struggling Canadians. We proposed removing the GST on new homes up to $1.3 million, saving homebuyers $65,000. When it comes to putting food on the table, Conservatives have proposed practical measures to provide relief from rising diesel costs and strengthen Canadian domestic production. These are measures aimed at reducing costs for Canadians and making life easier for young families. Families want to put food on the table, and they want to know that the work they put in today will allow them to build a better future tomorrow. These should not be unreasonable expectations in a country like Canada. The next generation deserves the same opportunity to build the life that previous generations worked toward. It is time for a government that understands that responsibility and is prepared to act. It starts with the Liberals admitting that there is a crisis that they created. It is happening today. They need to get on board, vote in favour of this motion and then work to fix the problems they started.

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“Raising a family costs a lot. We cut the sales tax on new homes under $1 million. We also brought in child benefit payments, $10-a-day child care, and school food programs. The Conservatives voted against all three. I want to know how they can claim to care about high costs.”
  • A repeated line

    “Is it the national school food program?”

    Said 6 times by 4 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague’s speech. I know that he is aware that it costs a lot to raise a family. I agree with him. I have children and grandchildren. It is very challenging. What does my colleague think about our measure to eliminate the GST on the purchase of new homes worth up to $1 million? I do not understand why the Conservatives voted against the Canada child benefit, which is a big help for families across the country. They also voted against $10-a-day child care. Quebec has had a program like that for over 30 years, and we know that it increases women’s labour force participation. The Conservatives also voted against that. There is also the national school food program. The Conservatives voted against that too. How can our colleague claim to be concerned about affordability?

Grant Jackson, Brandon—Souris

Conservative
“The government's plans do not do enough. Every month, 2.5 million Canadians still have to use food banks. The government needs to fix this cost-of-living crisis so families can afford their own food.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to unpack in that question, but the main point is that none of those initiatives go far enough, because there are still 2.5 million Canadians at food banks every month. The Liberals are wandering around with a “mission accomplished” banner, saying that everything is great, while we have families and children lined up at food banks. What does the member have to say to that? Obviously, what they have done is not enough. Why are they waving the “mission accomplished” banner? They need to get to work, solve the affordability crisis, put food back on the table in homes, not just in schools, and get people out of food bank lines.

Patrick Bonin, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“High oil prices and climate change drive up grocery costs. Building another pipeline will not lower costs in Quebec. Charging an electric car is much cheaper than buying gas. The Conservatives should support helping people switch to electric vehicles and heat.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to look at things from a slightly broader perspective because, clearly, one of the biggest factors affecting the price of groceries right now is the high cost of oil, of course, but more importantly, it is our dependence on oil. Building another pipeline will not bring down the cost of oil in Quebec. One way to reduce transport costs in Quebec would be to invest in the electrification of transportation. For an individual, it is about eight times cheaper to charge an electric vehicle than to fill up with gas. If we also look at the rising cost of groceries, which is clearly due to droughts and floods, why would my colleague not propose helping people electrify their vehicles and their homes, as the Quebec government wants to do?

Grant Jackson, Brandon—Souris

Conservative
“We need to bring down the cost of diesel fuel. Farmers and truckers still rely on diesel because electric farm equipment and big trucks are not ready yet. High diesel prices make groceries cost more for everyone.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the technical nature of the member’s question. To be quite honest with him, though, most people are not driving diesel vehicles. The cost of diesel prices going up is impacting farmers, whose equipment runs on diesel, and the truckers who ship the food. There are examples of semi-tractor-trailers that are running on batteries, but the range is limited. I have yet to see a combine or tractor in the field running on batteries. When the technology gets there, that will be great. Maybe someday that will happen, but in the meantime, tractors and combines have to run on diesel fuel. We need to bring the cost of diesel fuel down so that food costs less at the grocery store in the member’s constituency and everybody else’s constituencies.

Scot Davidson, York—South Simcoe

Conservative
“I want a direct yes-or-no answer from the member for Brandon—Souris. Does he believe there is an affordability crisis in Canada?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 31 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
  • A repeated line

    “Does he believe there is an affordability crisis in Canada?”

    Said 5 times by 2 members since October 8.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I asked the member for Toronto—St. Paul’s a simple question, and she really struggled to answer it, so I will also ask it of the member for Brandon—Souris. Does he believe there is an affordability crisis in Canada, yes or no?

Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Moncton—Dieppe

Liberal
“We never said our work was done. We keep working to help Canadians. Why does the opposition keep voting against our plans to make life more affordable?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the opposite side indicated a “mission accomplished” banner. On this side of the House, we have never said such a thing, because we always want to put forward more measures to support Canadians. I am wondering why the member opposite’s party is always voting against the affordability measures that this government has brought forward.

Grant Jackson, Brandon—Souris

Conservative

Linked statement

“We vote against the government's budgets because they spend too much money in the wrong places. This high spending makes everyday life even more expensive. We will only vote for a budget if it is balanced and helps lower the costs of food and fuel.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think the member needs to check with her colleague, who listed all of the things she believes have solved the affordability crisis in her previous question. I will let the two of them on that side sort that out. They can check Hansard and figure it out. The reason we vote against the Liberals’ budgets is that they are massively overspending in areas that do not matter and are not providing real relief to Canadians. In fact, because of the inflationary nature of them, they are actually causing the affordability crisis to get worse. If the member and her government are capable of bringing forward a balanced budget that makes targeted investments to bring the cost of food, diesel and other items down, we would consider voting in favour of it, but until they get their spending under control, they are making the problem worse, not better.

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“I want everyone to know that our government is helping families, workers, and seniors with the cost of living. We created grocery payments, lowered income taxes, cut gas taxes, and made child care cheaper. We also expanded dental care and are helping feed kids at school. These programs are making life more affordable, and we will keep supporting them.”
  • A repeated line

    “Is it the national school food program?”

    Said 6 times by 4 members since April 23.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise and speak today. I am going to talk about measures that directly affect families, workers and seniors in my riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. As a reminder, my riding covers Saint-Eustache, Deux-Montagnes, Boisbriand and Rosemère, in the Lower Laurentians, north of Montreal. When I am in my riding, people talk to me about very practical issues. They talk to me about the cost of groceries, the price of gas, their mortgage or their rent. Parents talk to me about the cost of buying clothes at the beginning of the school year, about sports and packed lunches. Workers tell me that they are watching every dollar they spend. I want to start by making one thing clear: I know that many families are finding things difficult at the moment, and I would never suggest otherwise. Our job, as a government, is to listen to them and help ease some of the pressure. That is what we are doing. Let us talk about groceries. As members are aware, groceries are getting more and more expensive. A family with two or three children sees this right away when they get to the cash register. That is why our government created the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. The people who are entitled to it received a payment this week. This benefit is now helping more than 12 million Canadians. Twelve million Canadians is a lot. This year, an eligible family of four can receive up to $1,900. A single person is entitled to receive up to $950. In July, the regular benefits increased by 25%. In practical terms, a family in Saint‑Eustache or Deux‑Montagnes can use this money to buy milk, fruit, vegetables or meat. It is up to them. It can also be used to pay for household essentials. It can make it possible to buy groceries without constantly having to take things out of the cart. I used to own a grocery store. Seeing people having to put items back when they get to the register because they cannot afford them is heartbreaking. It will not fix everything, but we will keep going. It will help. When a family is counting every penny at the end of the month, this support really makes a difference. There is another measure, the Canada child benefit. I want to mention it because it is likely one of the most important measures that our government put in place in 2016. This tax-free payment is deposited into the parents’ bank account every month. Right now, an eligible family can receive up to $1,800 per year for a child under the age of six. For children aged six to 17, the maximum is $6,900. Believe me, this measure makes a big difference for families in Rivière-des-Milles-Îles. In Quebec alone, nearly 892 families are receiving the Canada child benefit. Think about what that means in everyday life. It helps parents buy shoes when children grow too quickly. It helps them buy winter clothes. Winter is just around the corner. It helps pay for activities, fill the fridge or cover back-to-school expenses. It also helps the families who need it most. Since the Canada child benefit was introduced, we have seen a significant decline in child poverty. Between 2015 and 2021 alone, at least 650,000 children were living below the poverty line. This is important because behind these numbers are children and families. There is a parent who might be sleeping a little better at night because they know they will be able to buy what their children need. To me, that is exactly what a government should do. We also need to talk about children arriving at school in the morning. A child who is hungry will not be able to pay attention to what the teacher is trying to explain. It is as simple as that. We have also implemented another measure, and it is a big one. It is the $10 child care program. I am from Quebec, and I was fortunate enough to take advantage of child care services there. Back then, they cost $5, but today they cost $10. Now they are available across the country, and we continue to invest in them. This has a significant impact on women’s labour force participation and makes everything much easier. There is a big difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada when it comes to child care services right now, but we are working to make it available to everyone. There is also the national school food program. We signed an agreement with the Quebec government to ensure that funds are paid directly to schools in order to guarantee that children in Quebec can have breakfast. The program is delivered through the Breakfast Club. We are investing $65 million over three years so that Quebec schools can provide breakfast. In Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, organizations such as the Breakfast Club are already doing fantastic work. Getting up early in the morning to pack the kids’ lunches can be a real struggle. Parents have to get ready for work, drop some kids off at school and take some to day care. If we want children to start the day off right, we need to make sure their bellies are full. This is also an affordability measure. Now I would like to talk about workers, because affordability is not just about providing support for children. It also means making sure that going to work is always worthwhile. The Canada workers benefit is a measure that provides additional support to workers who earn a more modest income. Every job is important in our society, which is why it is so important to ensure that people living on lower incomes can make ends meet. This year, an eligible individual can receive up to $1,665. For an eligible family, it can be as much as $2,870. The measures that I have been talking about all add up. This assistance is not just paid out after an eligible recipient files a tax return. Part of it is paid out in advance during the year. This measure will help people like retail workers at a store in Boisbriand, restaurant employees in Saint-Eustache, or single mothers who work full time. People work hard; they get up, pay their bills and contribute to our economy. If they earn a lower income, it makes sense for our tax system to lend them a hand. We have also reduced income tax. The lowest federal income tax rate was cut from 15% to 14%. Twenty-two million Canadians are benefiting from this tax cut. For a two-income household, this can mean up to $840 in savings a year. Again, that $840 is on top of everything else I listed earlier. This could pay for several months of electricity bills. Sometimes the car needs repairs. Vehicles can break down out of nowhere. Then there are expenses like grocery bills spread out over several weeks or a child’s sports registration fees. Families know all about these expenses. We have also taken action on gas prices. I think this is particularly important for the people of Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. People would love to be able to take public transit everywhere all the time, but the fact is that many residents of the Lower Laurentians need their cars to get to work, pick up the kids, drive a parent to an appointment and go grocery shopping. It is hard for folks who live in the suburbs to get by without a car. We have also temporarily suspended the excise tax on gasoline, reducing the price by 10¢ per litre until January 31 of next year. After that, the tax will be 50% of the regular rate until the end of March. For people who have to fill up their tank every week, that makes a real difference. I am thinking of seniors. Lots of seniors in Boisbriand, Rosemère and Saint‑Eustache have worked their entire lives and want to live with dignity. We continue to support low-income seniors through the guaranteed income supplement. We have introduced another measure that is making a real difference in people’s lives, and that is the Canadian dental care plan. Older Canadians in particular have benefited significantly from it. Dental care is very expensive. No one in Canada should have to live with a toothache simply because they cannot afford to see a dentist. Today, millions of Canadians have access to this coverage. That means hundreds of dollars staying in the pockets of hundreds of Canadians. I would like to move on to housing and support for first-time homebuyers. We have also proposed measures to lower banking fees, and we have eliminated the GST on the purchase of a new home. We are delivering. To conclude my speech, in the long term, the best way to improve Canadians’ standard of living is to have a strong economy and good jobs. However, families need support now while we work to build that economy. Our government is stepping up. I will always be proud to champion measures that make a real difference in the lives of my constituents. At the end of the day, they are the reason I am here. They are the ones I represent. We will continue to work for the people of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Marc Dalton, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge

Conservative
“The high cost of living is the biggest concern for Canadians, and things are getting worse. Liberal programs are not helping. I want the government to take responsibility for making life more expensive.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the number one concern among Canadians, from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, is the cost of living. That is the reason why the Conservative Party has brought in this motion about the affordability crisis. I was just appointed to the indigenous and northern affairs committee, which is hearing testimony from businesses, NGOs and others about the cost of living and the struggles they are having. It is getting very difficult. We asked if things are getting better and they said no. Things are getting worse. I appreciate all the programs the Liberals say they are bringing in, but they are putting Canada in a worse position. Will the member not recognize that and take responsibility for plunging Canada into this situation?

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“People in Nunavut face hard challenges. But high prices are caused by world problems, like wars and United States tariffs, not just our government. Making our national economy stronger will help everyone.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the north. This summer, I had the opportunity to go to Nunavut. The people there are indeed facing difficult challenges that we must address. However, as we know, the world is changing rapidly. What is happening with the tariffs in the United States and the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East is not helping. It is driving global inflation. We, on the government side, believe that the stronger our country and our economy are, the better off all Canadians will be.

Patrick Bonin, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“The government spent 43 billion dollars on an oil pipeline, but ended funding to help people buy electric trucks. Quebec companies build these clean trucks, but they are getting no help. I want the member to explain why the government funds oil in the west instead of clean transport here.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the fact that the government has money for all sorts of things, including a $43-billion oil pipeline, but has decided not to extend the federal incentives for medium- and heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles, a program aimed at electrifying those vehicles. Since March 31, there has been no more money to help reduce the use of diesel in the vehicles on our roads. Companies like Paccar manufacture electric heavy-duty vehicles right in Quebec, but there is no longer any support for those companies. How is it that the government has money to invest in a pipeline that will benefit western Canada and the oil companies, but it has no money left to electrify transportation and support Quebec companies?

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“We sell our oil to the United States for less than it is worth because we have no other buyers. US tariffs are also hurting us. We need to find new places to sell our oil so our economy can get more money. Also, the electric car program my colleague mentioned is still in place.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about pipelines. We currently export oil at a discount to the United States. That is the only avenue for our oil, a natural resource. That is why it is important to find new markets and make sure we do so in the best possible way. We also need to make Canada’s economy as strong as possible. We know that the Americans are not helping us right now with the tariffs they are imposing on us. That does not help us at all. If we can export our goods, diversify our markets and get more money, I think, like everyone else, that we will make Canada even stronger and our economy will be even better. All Canadians will benefit. As for the measure my colleague was talking about, it definitely still exists for cars.

Judy A. Sgro, Humber River—Black Creek

Liberal
“I want my colleague to tell the House more about Canada's success in trading with new countries.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my colleague, who also sits on the trade committee, would like to tell the House a little more about some of the successful issues with diversification that we know the department and the minister have been working very actively on, and what those countries are. Would she like to elaborate?

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“We are working to sell Canadian goods to more countries beyond the United States. We are making trade deals in South America, Asia, and Europe, and it is working. Our sales to these other countries have gone up.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague, who chairs the Standing Committee on International Trade. It is a very interesting committee. As we seek to diversify our export markets, we are negotiating agreements with other countries. It is working. We have traditionally maintained very close ties with the United States, but we are diversifying our economy and it is working. We are currently looking to Mercosur, which includes Paraguay, Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil. There are opportunities to forge new ties, sell our products and share Canadian expertise in those markets. Beyond that, there is the whole of Asia, including countries such as the Philippines, India, China and Japan. We are working hard there. We are also continuing to work closely with our European partners and allies. I can assure members that these efforts are paying off. We have increased our exports to non-U.S. markets.

Brad Vis, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford

Conservative
“The government says it wants to support Canadian workers, but it is buying steel from China for a major gas project and having our ferries built there too. Its programs to help our businesses deal with foreign tariffs are moving too slowly. I want ministers to update this House on those programs, change our tax rules to help local investment, and commit to using Canadian steel on Canadian projects.”
  • Speech on a motion

    Respect 96 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “in cahoots with socialist extremist Premier David Eby”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the good people of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. I had some remarks prepared, but I have to respond to the previous member, who talked about diversification, pivoting and innovating. Many of these terms are referenced in the briefing members of Parliament received from Pacific Economic Development Canada last month. It talked about the regional tariff response initiative, the strategic response fund and the need for Canadian businesses, with support from the government, to diversify, pivot and innovate. We are not seeing that action, though. Let me give members an example. Just a week or two ago, the Prime Minister went to British Columbia and talked about expanding the LNG terminal in northern B.C. It is a major investment. We learned that the Liberals will be using Chinese steel to build it. The Government of Canada said this is a major investment for our country and it is going to help us be better and more economically competitive. In response to the U.S. tariffs, the government set up all of these new funds I just mentioned, the regional tariff response initiative, the strategic response fund and the Canada diversification fund, and it was all to help Canadian businesses buy Canadian. There are specific funds for steel and aluminum to help them innovate, pivot to new businesses and do business in Canada, yet on the biggest announcement the government has made since the last election 18 months ago, the government is buying China. This is the same government that is in cahoots with socialist extremist Premier David Eby and thought it was in the interests of British Columbia and Canada to build our ferries in China. BC Ferries is a cornerstone of our national transportation infrastructure network, and the ferries will be built in China. We have shipyards in Canada. I would much rather have them built in north Vancouver or at the Davie shipyard in Quebec, but no. The government chose China. On the one hand, the Government of Canada is spending billions of dollars to supposedly support the forestry sector and the steel and aluminum sectors, but when it has a big, beautiful, massive project right in front of it, it goes to China. I believe that if the government wanted to help steel and aluminum companies pivot, like it said it did in the information members of Parliament received, and it wanted to help them innovate, it should have said it knows it does not have the capacity right now, but in the strategic interests of Canada, it will help those companies innovate and meet the demands of Canada’s energy infrastructure. It had that opportunity, but it did not pivot. It cowered in the face of adversity at the expense of Canadian workers. I want Canadian workers building LNG to the fullest possible capacity, but the Liberals decided to stick with their old processes, which do not uplift Canadian workers and do not stand up for Canada. I said in this House earlier this week that the government needs to work with the Conservatives to stand up for Canada and bring in the structural reforms to our economy that will make us stronger in the long term. In fact, the government’s tariff response initiative talks about that very point. We need to stand up for Canada and we need to help Canadian businesses do more work here, yet the government is not willing to do that. Earlier today, I met with members of the community of Kingston who talked about capital gains rollovers on major investments in Canada. There is another major policy change that the government could be making in our taxation system to help Canadian businesses invest right here in Canada. Again, I encourage the member of Parliament for Kingston to hear the pleas of businesses in his own riding that are saying we need to bring in a structural taxation reform to do things better. Now, let us go back to the steel and aluminum tariff program. Make no mistake, Canadian businesses are suffering. I met with probably over 100 businesses over the last four months when Parliament was not sitting, and they are scared. I am not saying everything the Government of Canada is doing is not working, but what was most alarming is that Naina Sloan, President of PacifiCan, acknowledged to members of Parliament that the government is not meeting its own timelines. There were announcements made in August on the tariff response initiative, many of those applications were made nine months earlier and the government has been slow in its response. We want Canada to be more affordable, and the government and the ministers responsible need to work with Canadians to stand up for Canada, give us better responses, and demand better operational processes to ensure that programs are working effectively, because right now they are not. My encouragement to the Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry is to come forward and give this House an update, today, on how the tariff response initiative is going. The president of PacifiCan said that they are not meeting their own standards. It takes a lot of courage for a senior public servant to admit that, but she made those remarks because she is a true leader. She knows that we need to stand by our businesses right now. However, she is not getting that oversight from the minister responsible, and that is not okay. I am aware of companies in the Fraser Valley that, because the government has not reached a deal with the United States, are still looking at moving their operations because they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. These are long-standing employers in aerospace and advanced manufacturing that are hit on both sides, by the American tariffs, the unjustified American tax increases through those tariffs and Canada’s tariff responses. Some of these companies, although they have major global impact, are not very large. They kind of fall in the middle. They do not feel the government has been quick enough to help them and to work alongside them. Again, I would encourage the Government of Canada to work with those medium-sized enterprises that make up such an important part of our economy and to hear from them about how those tariffs are impacting them. In conclusion, affordability is getting much worse. It is getting really bad, and no other statistic outlines that better than our birthrate stats. In 2015, Canada’s fertility rate dropped from 1.6 to 1.26. In B.C., it has dropped to 1.04. People are not having kids in Canada anymore because it is too expensive. So many young families come to me to relay the lack of child care, the broken promises of the government and the cost of housing in British Columbia, and they say it just does not work. Kids costs a lot of money. People want to have more children, but our economy is not set up in a way that allows for that. Just before I finish up, I will be splitting my time with a member from Oshawa. My encouragement to the government today is to come clean about the tariff response initiative, to come clean about the true cost of living crisis that we are facing, to come clean about the deals it is doing with China at the expense of Canadian workers and businesses, and to pivot, just like the government documents say, to provide resiliency for Canadian companies and to provide new opportunities for steel and aluminum manufacturers to build LNG Canada phase two. We can do it. I believe in our economy. I believe that the government wants to do the right thing, but it needs to step up, grow up and do what is required to use Canadian steel on a Canadian project.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The member opposes natural gas projects and hides why steel is coming from China. Conservatives say they care about making life affordable, but they voted against dental care for seniors and want to cancel it. That does not make sense.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the reality is the member who just spoke would ensure that LNG does not take off. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in his comments and him not being able to acknowledge the modules and the reason that steel is coming from China. Shame on him for not being more transparent on that issue. My question to the member is related specifically to the motion we have before us. The Conservatives talk about affordability, but when they have the chance, for example, to provide dental assistance to seniors who are on fixed incomes, they vote no. In fact, they are telling those seniors that they are going to get rid of the program. Does the member not see any inconsistency when the Conservatives talk about affordability, but they say they are not going to increase the disposable income of seniors on fixed incomes?

Brad Vis, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford

Conservative
“Canada should use its own steel and workers to build the next phase of the gas project. We have the skills and technology to do it here. We should not send this work to China.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, on the very first point, 15 years ago, Canada did not have the capacity to build naval warships, but it built that capacity. I believe we have the most educated workforce in the world. We have all the talent right here and the technology to do what is required to build LNG phase two with Canadian steel. The government talks about diversifying, pivoting and innovating. This is the chance to innovate. This is the chance to stand up for Canadian workers and, by extension, stand up for our country at a critical juncture. It is not going to be easy, but exporting that work to China is not the answer. The government needs to do better on that front, and I believe Canada can.

Patrick Bonin, Repentigny

Bloc Québécois
“Many oil, gas, and natural gas projects in Canada are owned by foreign companies. The government is giving these foreign-owned projects big tax breaks and public money. I want to know if the member supports the government helping foreign companies own our energy projects.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know my colleague’s thoughts about the fact that oil, gas and LNG projects in this country are often majority foreign-owned. For example, LNG Canada phase 2 is 100% owned by foreign companies, including Shell from the U.K., Petronas from Malaysia and PetroChina from China, along with Mitsubishi and KOGAS. Another LNG project in Quebec is owned by Marinvest, a European company. The government created tax superdeductions for these projects in the last budget. They will probably also receive substantial government investment. Does my colleague support the government’s decision to encourage foreign ownership of projects here in Canada and in Quebec?

Brad Vis, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford

Conservative
“I support free trade. Foreign companies investing responsibly in Canada is good for our country. We should encourage investment with rules that make sure it helps Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member raises a good point about the role of foreign capital in the Canadian economy. I believe in free trade, and I believe that if companies invest responsibly in Canada, that is a good thing for Canada. Others might disagree with me, but I ultimately believe that, as a free market society, we need to encourage investment in a regulated environment that makes sure that it is a win-win deal for Canada.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 148

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 105 statements
  2. Government Orders Business of Supply 8 statements
  3. Statements by Members Latin American and Hispanic Day on the Hill 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 5 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 13 statements
  8. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Housing 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Agriculture and Agri-Food 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions Democratic Institutions 8 statements
  15. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 6 statements
  16. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions Justice 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  21. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 4 statements
  22. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Business of the House 2 statements
  24. Government Orders Business of Supply 9 statements
  25. Private Members' Business Sergei Magnitsky International Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Act 15 statements
  26. Government Orders Business of Supply 8 statements
  27. Government Orders Business of Supply 42 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  29. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  30. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 6 statements