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

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

Liberal
“Our government helps seniors pay for dental care. The Conservatives voted against this program and want to cancel it. This will hurt seniors on fixed incomes. I want the Conservatives to change their minds.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member did not refer to the second question I asked. The core of the motion today is the issue of affordability. The federal government has initiated, under the Prime Minister’s leadership, numerous affordability programs, one of which is supporting our seniors, particularly seniors on fixed incomes, with dental support. However, the Conservatives voted against it. Not only did they vote against it, but they are saying they are going to take the program away. That would have an impact on seniors on fixed incomes. Will the Conservatives reverse that policy?

Brad Vis, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford

Conservative
“The government only offers these benefits because its bad policies made food and dental care too expensive for Canadians. People need good jobs and strong pensions so they can afford these things on their own again.”
  • 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, in the history of Canada, there has been one government that has had to make policy decisions to feed Canadians. That is the current Liberal government. The government is extending many benefits to Canadians because it made so many horrible errors over the last 10 years that put dental care and affordable, healthy groceries out of reach for so many in our communities. I believe that we can get our country back to where Canadians can afford those goods and services with a good job and a strong pension in retirement. However, the government, through the extremist socialist policies of Justin Trudeau, took away the ability of Canadians to do those things.

Rhonda Kirkland, Oshawa

Conservative
“I want the House to pass this Conservative motion. It admits that Canada is in a cost-of-living crisis. The Prime Minister says things are affordable, but in my town of Oshawa, families cannot afford food, seniors cannot afford medicine, and auto workers are worried about losing their jobs. After 11 years of Liberal government, people are worse off.”
  • A repeated line

    “Canada is officially in an affordability crisis.”

    Said 8 times by 7 members since October 8.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Oshawa in support of our Conservative motion, which asks the House something simple: to recognize these facts. The Liberals have been in power for 11 years and Canada is in an affordability crisis, yet in March of this year the Prime Minister stood in this very House and claimed, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” I would invite the Prime Minister to come to Oshawa and tell that to my neighbours, where Canada’s affordability crisis is their everyday reality. It is the young Canadian working full time who cannot afford to move out of their parents’ home, the mother putting groceries back on the shelf because she cannot afford everything in her cart, the senior choosing between rent and medication and the auto worker wondering whether their job will still be there tomorrow. When hard-working Canadians cannot afford life’s basics, the Liberal government is completely disconnected from reality. A generation of Canadians are doing everything right and still cannot afford the opportunities their parents and grandparents enjoyed. After 11 years, the government must answer for that reality Remember, just last spring, the Prime Minister stood up in the House and said, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” Tell that to the food banks in Oshawa. I recently heard from Tiffany Kift at Simcoe Hall Settlement House, an extraordinary organization serving vulnerable families in Oshawa. What she shared with me was heartbreaking. Simcoe Hall is now serving more than 3,600 people every month and they have been forced to cap food bank visits to 70 households per day, not because fewer people need help but because they simply do not have the resources to help everyone who does. Every day they sadly have to turn people away. Who is walking through their doors? Seniors, young adults, parents and even families with two incomes are walking through their doors. Tiffany described a growing group of Canadians as the working poor. These are Canadians who get up every morning, work hard, earn a paycheque and still cannot afford groceries. Imagine both parents working, doing everything they can to provide for their children and still having to visit a food bank. When two incomes are no longer enough to put food on the table, the Liberal government is out of touch with the struggles of working Canadians. What Tiffany told me about children in Oshawa was even more heartbreaking. Simcoe Hall staff are sending children home with food because, for some, it may be the only food they eat that day. Feeding children dinner is not even a mandatory part of their after-school programming, but staff do it as much as they can anyway because those children need to eat. The Liberal government would promote its national school food program, yet frontline workers at Simcoe Hall report that some of Oshawa’s most vulnerable children are still not consistently receiving completely nutritious meals at school or at home. When school closes for the summer, demand for food assistance grows even greater. Where do they get their lunches then? When children are going hungry while the government announces one program or another intended to feed them, there is a serious disconnect between the Liberal promises and what families are experiencing. Last spring, the Prime Minister said, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” Our seniors are also struggling. Tell them that. Recently, my office heard from Clifford, a senior in Oshawa who is living on a fixed income, of course. Clifford is struggling to pay his rent, afford his groceries and, most concerning of all, purchase the medication he needs. Tiffany tells me that Simcoe Hall has even introduced a program called Dinner for One to provide prepared meals for seniors who are struggling to feed themselves. A lifetime of hard work should not end with a trip to the food bank. When seniors cannot afford groceries or medication, the Liberal government is out of touch with the struggles that Canadians face in everyday life. While demand for food assistance continues to grow, donations are declining. Simcoe Hall’s financial donations are down approximately 33% this year, while community food drives are bringing in only a third of what they would normally expect. More people need help while fewer people can afford to give it. Canadians should not have to depend on food banks or government grocery rebates simply to put dinner on the table. They should be able to afford groceries with the money they earn. I want to thank Tiffany and everyone at Simcoe Hall for their extraordinary service to Oshawa. I will remind members that the Prime Minister said affordability is the best it has been in a decade. I encourage Canadians not to believe the gaslighting coming from the Liberal government. Nowhere is the connection between jobs and affordability clearer than in Oshawa’s automotive industry. For generations, our auto workers have helped build Canada’s economy, but Oshawa has faced some of the highest unemployment rates among Canada’s major urban centres. Whenever I meet with local auto workers and their families, I hear the same message: protect our jobs. I think about Todd, an Oshawa auto worker. Todd worked for an automotive supplier supporting GM’s Oshawa assembly plant, and when job cuts were looming, he faced the possibility of leaving the city where he was born and raised and where his children and grandchildren live. When Canadian auto workers fear losing their livelihoods, they need a government focused on protecting their jobs, not simply managing the consequences of losing them. The Liberal government has spent so much attention on working to manage decline with supports and programs that are simply not working. The Prime Minister campaigned on his ability to negotiate with the United States, and auto workers were promised a trade deal by July 2025. That deadline came and went without the promised deal. There is that old saying, “underpromise and over-deliver”, but the government consistently does the opposite, making ambitious promises, creating illusions, missing deadlines and asking Canadians to keep waiting. Recently, I asked the Liberal member for Whitby about Clifford’s affordability struggles. In his response to this senior’s struggle, he spoke about opportunities for workers who may need to transition away from our auto plants. I found that deeply concerning on two levels. One, the question was about seniors, and two, while Oshawa auto workers are asking the government to protect their jobs, a Liberal member from the Durham region is talking about opportunities to leave those jobs behind. Is that the government’s plan for Oshawa? Our auto workers are not asking the government to find them another career. They are asking the government to fight for the careers they already have. The Prime Minister campaigned on his economic credentials and his ability to deliver change, promising to move at unimaginable speeds and telling Canadians it is time to build now. Well, Canadians are entitled to ask what those promises have delivered. Where are the affordable homes for young Canadians that they can actually move into? Where are the completed projects? Where are the results families can see in their own lives? An announcement is not a completed home. A press conference is not a paycheque, and a promise does not automatically mean results. For the government, it means an illusion and more gaslighting. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister said in the House, “I just got here.” He did not just get here. He has been the Prime Minister for 19 months. We are coming close to two years now, and before becoming Prime Minister, he was advising Justin Trudeau and the Liberals for five years, yet he refuses to be held accountable. Of course, international trade disputes and global economic pressures are real, but those challenges do not erase the responsibility of successive Liberal governments for decisions made here at home. The Prime Minister cannot ask Canadians to judge him by his experience when he campaigns but disregard that experience when they question his record. I invite him to come to Oshawa and speak with Clifford, Todd, the families visiting Simcoe Hall, our small business owners and the auto workers worried about their jobs and ask them one simple question: Are they better off today than they were 10 years ago? We know the answer is no. That is the question that matters. It is not how many announcements the government has made, but whether Canadians can afford the necessities of life. Conservatives have put forward solutions to address these challenges. We believe responsible spending, lower costs and good-paying jobs are essential for restoring affordability, because Canadians deserve more than announcements and promises; they deserve results. They deserve to keep more of what they earn, afford the necessities of life and have the opportunity to build a better future for themselves and their families. That is why I will be voting, of course, in favour of our Conservative opposition day motion to recognize what Canadians across Oshawa and the country are experiencing. After 11 years of Liberal government, Canada is in an affordability crisis, and it is not the most affordable it has been over the last 10 years.

Mark Gerretsen, Kingston and the Islands

Liberal
“The member says she cares about hungry children, but she voted against the national school food program. This program feeds kids in our communities, and Canada was the last G7 country to create one. I want her to explain why she voted against it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member’s intervention, and the member spoke about children needing food, but I will reflect on the fact that she voted against the national school food program. I know that in Kingston, the national school food program funds the Food Sharing Project, which gives food to children in school. In Oshawa, it is Durham’s Child Nutrition Project that does the same work. Why did she vote against that? Before she goes to the default Conservative argument that if we had not created the situation, they would not need it, she should be reminded of the fact that Canada was the last of the G7 countries to adopt a national school food program. Even the United States of America has a national school food program. I am wondering if she can explain why she voted against it when this project was before the House, given her great concern for children getting access to food.

Rhonda Kirkland, Oshawa

Conservative
“I was not elected yet when the House voted on the school food program, so I did not vote against it. I voted against the last budget because it drives up costs. A local group told me the school food program is not working, and no schools in my area even have it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member knows well that when that was voted on, I was not elected as a member of the House. It is so interesting that he stands here and says that I voted against it. On this, I want to be clear. I voted against the last budget because it was inflationary and was going to make things worse. They know it. We know it. Canadians need to understand that as well. The other thing is this. When I spoke with folks at Simcoe Hall about the school lunch program, they said that it sounded good in theory, but clearly it is not working because we have children who are starving. They could not even identify one school in my area that has that program.

Marc Dalton, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge

Conservative
“Parents need good jobs so they can provide for their families. Young people cannot even find entry-level jobs like fast food anymore because businesses hire temporary foreign workers instead. I want the member to comment on this issue.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, parents want the ability to provide for their families. Yes, it is great to have school lunch programs, but the real issue is having good jobs. It is becoming more and more difficult to have a good job. Beyond that, having any job is difficult. I talk to young people, and they are having challenges getting work, even in fast food industries. Last week, I talked to one young lady in her early twenties. McDonald’s and other places used to be the place for young people to get experience and get a job, but they cannot find one because of temporary foreign workers in places where there are many people looking for jobs. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Rhonda Kirkland, Oshawa

Conservative
“Young people in Oshawa cannot find work, buy homes, or start families. The Liberal government caused this problem over the last 11 years. They need to admit they failed before they can fix it.”
  • A repeated line

    “Buy a home and start a family.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since September 22.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is true in Oshawa as well. Young people are having a harder and harder time finding work. They want the promise that they were promised. They want to work hard, earn an income, own a home and start a family, but 11 years of failures from the Liberal government and the Prime Minister, who for the last seven years was an adviser before he became Prime Minister 19 months ago, are resulting in Canadians and young people suffering. It is about time the Liberal government admitted it, because we all know the truth. If we want to fix a problem, the first step to doing that is admitting we have one, and I have yet to see the government do that.

Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Moncton—Dieppe

Liberal
“Hundreds of seniors in my riding tell me our dental care program helps them. I want the member to explain why her party voted against it.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Clarity 49 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was listening attentively to my colleague’s statement in the House today, and I could not help but think that when I am in my riding of Moncton—Dieppe, I receive an awful lot of phone calls from seniors who are very pleased with respect to the dental care program that our government put in place. I hear from hundreds of seniors who say that this program has made a real difference. The member may not have been in the House when we voted on the program, but when she mentions Clifford, how does she explain to Clifford that the party she belongs to voted against a dental care program that is making a huge difference in the lives of seniors?

Rhonda Kirkland, Oshawa

Conservative
“Most calls to my office about the government's dental program are complaints. Eligible seniors cannot get care, the system is poorly run, and dental offices are struggling. This program is a failure, despite what the government claims.”
  • 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 answer is very plain and simple. I have had phone calls at my office about the dental program, and I can tell the House with full confidence that the majority of those phone calls are negative about the dental program. There are seniors who cannot get access to it who should have access to it. It is a mess of a problem in terms of the logistics and administration of it. Dental offices are struggling. This program is meant to manage the decline of affordability in this country, and once again, it is a failed program that is not working for seniors in the way the government tries to gaslight Canadians into thinking it does.

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal

Linked statement

“I know Canadians are struggling with the cost of groceries, gas, and housing. Our government is taking action to help. We are increasing competition in cellphones, internet, and banking to lower prices. We are cutting taxes for businesses that invest here, and we are saving 60 billion dollars over five years by spending less on government operations. Canada's economy is growing, and we will keep working to make life more affordable.”
  • A repeated line

    “Beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services.”

    Said 6 times by 5 members since May 5.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the important issue of the cost of living. It is of course a major concern to many Canadians across the country. They are having a tough time budget-wise, and our government is well aware of this unfortunate reality. We know that fuel, groceries and housing cost more. Clearly, times are hard for many households. Our government understands this reality. That is why we have already brought in countless measures to help Canadians make ends meet. For example, our government is bringing in measures to encourage competition in the private sector in hopes of lowering prices for certain services. It is important to understand that competition is essential to productivity and innovation. What is more, it makes the cost of living more affordable. The lack of competition in some sectors leads to unacceptably high prices, and we are doing something about that. In budget 2025, our government announced concrete measures to increase competition in the telecommunications sector, with a view to lowering the cost of services for Canadians. This includes measures to reduce the regulatory burden associated with the development of telecommunications infrastructure. These measures will make it easier to renew or switch between home Internet, home phone and cellphone plans, providing consumers with greater choice. We are also implementing measures to increase competition in Canada’s financial sector. This includes helping smaller financial institutions invest, expand and compete. Naturally, this would benefit Canadian consumers. We are also moving forward with measures to make the economy stronger and more productive. We want to attract more investment to Canada so that our businesses can produce, innovate and grow right here at home. Of course, consumers will benefit from this. One way of achieving this is by making Canada the most competitive country in the G7 for new business investment. It is important to understand that a favourable tax environment also acts as a catalyst for economic growth. In the 2025 budget, we announced the productivity superdeduction, which provided immediate expensing to about 15% of investment in capital assets. In September, we announced the productivity mega deduction, which permanently extends immediate expensing to a broader range of assets and expenses. This will encourage Canadian businesses to invest more in their future growth and prosperity. It is clear that Canada is a safe bet. We recently welcomed investors from around the world to the first-ever Canada investment summit. That summit resulted in $500 billion in investment commitments for new funding and capital from pension funds, banks and other major institutional investors. The message is clear: Canada is an attractive destination for investment, and that is something all Canadians can be proud of. I would like to emphasize that our government fully understands the importance of fiscal discipline in protecting Canadians from inflation. The government is on track to balance the operating budget in 2027‑28, a year ahead of schedule. We are continuing our efforts to rigorously implement the efficiency measures set out in budget 2025. This includes the comprehensive expenditure review, which, combined with other measures in budget 2025, will deliver $60 billion in savings and revenue over five years. The comprehensive expenditure review is also enabling us to reduce the size of the public service to a more sustainable level through early retirement incentives, workforce adjustments and natural attrition. With implementation well under way, the focus is now turning towards targeted, ongoing horizontal reviews, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services. These challenging but necessary actions will continue to support the government’s objective of spending less to invest more in Canada and Canadians. In doing so, we will help maintain economic stability and protect Canadians’ purchasing power. In closing, I want to note that Canada’s economy remains strong and resilient. For more than a year, the global economy has been going through a period of profound upheaval. Economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition have taken on new significance in guiding decisions around investment, trade and finance around the world. The conflict in the Middle East has disrupted key shipping routes, damaged critical energy infrastructure and driven up energy prices. Taken all together, these events underscore the fragility of global supply chains and add to an unfortunately already high level of uncertainty. Canada is not immune to these challenges, nor is any other trading nation. As all Canadians fully understand, we have been dealing with global uncertainty and trade tensions for over a year now. Although these challenges persist, Canadians and Canadian businesses have continued to adapt with remarkable resilience. Canada’s economic growth bounced back in the second quarter. Real gross domestic product grew by 3.3%. Business investment increased at an annualized rate of 8.9%, making it clear that Canadian businesses are investing, expanding and planning for future growth. It is also interesting to note that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is predicting that Canada will have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 in 2027. Our economy is doing comparatively well, despite our strained relationship with our largest trading partner and closest neighbour. Although our economy is doing well, we understand that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. As Canadians continue feel the effects of a global context marked by uncertainty, our government is taking action to help them. We are acting responsibly to protect families’ purchasing power, support businesses and enhance our prosperity as a country. We will continue to act responsibly to support Canadians and build a stronger, more resilient economy.

Scot Davidson, York—South Simcoe

Conservative
“I want the member to give me a yes or no answer. Is there an affordability crisis in Canada?”
  • 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 have just a simple question for my colleague. It frustrates Canadians when they cannot get a simple answer, so I am going to give my colleague an opportunity. The member for Toronto—St. Paul’s struggled with answering the question, so I have a simple one: Is there an affordability crisis in Canada, yes or no?

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal
“People are struggling with the cost of living. We have introduced programs to help, but the Conservatives keep voting against them. They should vote with us instead.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 45 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is at the forefront of every conversation at every kitchen table, among our colleagues and when people approach our offices, the offices of members of Parliament. We are struggling as a society, and as I explained in my speech, it is very much due to external factors as well. We cannot ignore these, so we are presenting programs over and over that the Conservatives keep voting against. Maybe if they started voting with us to help Canadians, that would help affordability issues.

Eric St-Pierre, Honoré-Mercier

Liberal
“The Prime Minister just announced $2 billion to help 820,000 homes buy heat pumps. I want the member to say how this helps with the cost of living.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, an hour ago, the Prime Minister was in the Eastern Townships, where he made a very important announcement about affordability. He announced $2 billion to improve energy efficiency for 820,000 Canadian households, in the form of $10,000 subsidies for heat pumps. Are you excited about this announcement on energy efficiency? Can you comment on how that relates to affordability?

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal
“I support our government's announcement today. It will help lower everyday costs for Canadians, grow the economy, and keep our country strong.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 27 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, of course, if we work together to support the economy, then we are helping Canadians. Today’s announcement will really help us in terms of affordability, and it will increase our opportunities to grow our economy even further and keep us strong and resilient in the face of everything that is happening in the world.

Marc Dalton, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge

Conservative
“The cost of living is high, and Canada's economy is doing worse than other rich nations. A weak economy hurts our dollar, raises the price of imported goods, and hurts jobs. I want the member to admit that failing to support resource development has hurt Canadians' quality of life.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the cost of living is a concern for Canadians. That is clear. Canada ranks at the bottom of the list of the 38 OECD countries. Does my colleague agree that a strong economy is a major factor for affordability and jobs? Does she realize that having an economy as weak as ours is right now lowers the value of the Canadian dollar, which increases the price of imports? Does she agree that the feeble efforts to promote resource development have lowered Canadians’ quality of life? She can choose which question she would like to answer.

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal
“I do not have time to answer all of the member's questions. Getting allied countries to invest in Canada will make life more affordable and build a stronger economy.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 48 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 29 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised a number of questions, and unfortunately my time is limited. If we want to address issues like quality of life and affordability, it is clear to me that attracting investment from our allies will help us build an economy that can support Canadians. During these difficult times, this will really help us to build a stronger country.

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

Liberal
“Conservatives say they care about how much life costs. But they vote against our programs that help Canadians with those costs. I want the member to explain this contradiction.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my friend really tries to set an example in terms of the types of things the government is actually doing. There does seem to be a contradiction coming from the Conservatives. On the one hand, they talk about affordability issues, but on the other hand, when the government provides policies to support Canadians on affordability, they vote against them. I would like get the member’s thoughts on the issue of consistency in supporting good affordability programs.

Anju Dhillon, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle

Liberal
“Conservatives call our school food program garbage, but it feeds over 400,000 children each year. I want them to vote for our programs and work with us to help Canadians.”
  • A repeated line

    “Such as the national school food program.”

    Said 4 times by 4 members since June 8.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that every time we have brought a program, such as the national school food program, it has been called garbage by Conservatives. It is horrific to hear this. The school food program has helped over 400,000 children each year. I would love for some of my Conservative colleagues to speak up, vote for the programs we are putting up and work together for all Canadians.

Heather McPherson, Edmonton Strathcona

NDP
“Life is unaffordable because wages and pensions are not keeping up with costs. To fix this, we need stronger unions, better pay, and higher benefits for seniors. The government also failed to protect hundreds of steelworkers in Ontario when a foreign buyer broke its promise to keep their jobs. We need to help those workers now and protect good jobs across the country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that I have an opportunity today to talk about the opposition day motion on affordability. I want to bring up the point that affordability is not just about prices or lowering the cost of living. It is also about whether people have enough income security and bargaining power to afford a decent life. Right now, Canadians cannot afford life. They cannot afford their life when wages and income are not keeping up with the cost of living. The reality is that people in my community of Edmonton Strathcona and across this country are struggling with the cost of groceries, rent, mortgage, utilities and transportation, those basic necessities that all Canadians need in order to survive. We often talk about making this or that cheaper. These are important discussions that parliamentarians should be having, but for me, the bigger impact is the discrepancy between the cost of living and wages, as well as the support that workers have been getting from both the current government and previous administrations. The National Advisory Council on Poverty heard directly from Canadians that wages and government benefits have not kept pace with inflation and that people working full-time are still struggling to meet their basic needs. Let us talk a bit today about wages. Let us talk about whether a person who works hard can afford a home, raise a family, retire with dignity and weather an emergency if that happens in their life. This is why affordability policy has to also be about good, strong union jobs, with workers having the power to negotiate better wages. Affordability is not just about what things cost. It is also about whether or not working people can afford to purchase them. Good union jobs is an affordability policy. It is one of the most effective affordability measures we can put in place. The difference between people simply having a job and having a job they can build a life around is important to recognize. Permanent union jobs with good wages, pension, benefits and collective bargaining give workers economic security. Unions provide those benefits not just for workers in their unions. Unions also allow for those benefits to be across the entire sectors so working conditions across the economy improve and working wages improve. Therefore, it is vital that governments do more to support the right to organize. We have been speaking a lot in the House about Bill C-39, which would take away the ability of workers to strike. It would hurt the ability of workers to have collective bargaining. I am bringing forward a private member’s bill for a vote very shortly, Bill C-259, the fair representation act, which would make sure that unions represent only the workers they are supposed to represent, not corporations, business or other interests. We need to make it easier to join a union. We need to stop employers from using precarious work to undermine wages. We need to protect Canadian industrial capacity. We need to use investment to create not just jobs but good jobs. If we want to make life more affordable, we need to make good jobs more available. I am going to bring up an example of this. Stelco is the perfect example of what happens when we allow good Canadian jobs and industrial capacity to be treated as disposable. Cleveland-Cliffs announced the indefinite idling of Stelco’s Hamilton steel plant, which will affect 350 members of United Steelworkers, with another 40 layoffs expected at Lake Erie Works in Nanticoke. It is appalling that these workers are going to lose their jobs and that the company is blaming trade disruptions, weak demands and tariffs. However, here is the contradiction: Cleveland-Cliff’s CEO has publicly supported U.S. tariffs on Canadian steel. USW has pointed out that the company cannot champion those tariffs and then use the resulting trade environment as a justification for walking away from Canadian workers. Marty Warren, the national director of United Steelworkers, said, “Cleveland-Cliffs cannot champion those tariffs and then invoke them to walk away from commitments to Canadian workers”. What is in the Investment Canada Act agreement? Why are we not defending that? This is not an abstract economic debate either. We throw things around in this place, but these are people. These are people with mortgages and families, people with pensions, and they have invested decades into their communities. I was happy to see the Minister of Industry write to Stelco steel, but it was too late. It was too late. Those layoff notices went out today. Those workers are getting laid off this week. We needed the minister to advocate for those workers. Canada approved the Cleveland-Cliffs acquisition of Stelco in 2024 under the Investment Canada Act, and the approval came with commitments around maintaining unionized employment. Now that workers are already being laid off, now the minister is threatening legal action. It is too late. Once people are laid off, it is so much harder. We needed a government that was standing up sooner. Workers should not have to lose their jobs before the government decides to enforce the conditions attached to a foreign takeover. The government should be asking why the Investment Canada Act commitments were not enforced earlier, what penalties Cleveland-Cliffs will face, how the government will ensure that production stays in Canada and what immediate supports will keep workers attached to their jobs. USW is explicitly calling for emergency worker retention and wage supports and for stronger protection of Canada’s steel market. Again, I will go back to the premise of this speech. We cannot have affordability or affordable communities without a productive economy that provides well-paid jobs. Steel is not just one plant. It feeds automotive, machinery, construction, appliance and other manufacturing. Experts have warned about the domino effects of tariffs through supply chains, with impacts extending well beyond the directly affected steelworkers. USW has argued that this crisis reflects decades of trade policy that has left Canadian producers vulnerable to unfair trade excesses. Canadian jobs should always come with conditions attached. If the government wants public support, there should be strings attached so jobs are protected. Those jobs should be protected throughout, not once the layoffs have started and people have already been let go. We need to also have domestic capacity. We need to develop a national steel strategy. Affordability and industrial policy are connected. That is important. I am going to talk very quickly about another issue that is important when we talk about affordability in our communities, and this has been raised in the House this afternoon. Seniors in our communities are dealing with a cost of living crisis as well. Seniors who have spent their lives working should not be forced to choose between groceries, rent, medication and keeping the heat on. The national advisory council on poverty reports that unattached seniors had a poverty rate of 11.5% in 2023. The amount that seniors receive in OAS has not been changed to reflect inflation. The GIS has not been changed to reflect the increase in the cost of living. Seniors in our communities are struggling. For too long, affordability has been treated by the government as a communication problem, but it is not. It is an economic problem. It is a wage problem. It is a housing problem. It is a retirement security problem. It is a disability income problem. It is a workers’ rights problem. Liberals like to talk about affordability, while workers lose good union jobs, companies receive approvals and make commitments, and workers are left behind. As we sit in the House and talk about affordability today, I would really like us to remember the other side of that, which is the protection of workers’ rights and workers’ wages.

Eric St-Pierre, Honoré-Mercier

Liberal
“The government is spending two billion dollars to help people make their homes more energy-efficient and afford heat pumps. This cuts pollution and makes homes more comfortable. I want to know if the member agrees that this help is good for Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member’s comments on affordability. About an hour ago, the Prime Minister made an announcement on energy efficiency in my home province of Quebec, announcing $2 billion to retrofit 820,000 homes, with low-income Canadians getting up to $10,000 for heat pumps. This is going to be a reduction in emissions of 25 megatonnes, and it is going to increase the comfort in homes. I am curious. Does the member for Edmonton Strathcona think heat pump subsidies are good for Canadians and good for her constituents in Edmonton?

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