“I agree with my colleague. The government is giving itself too much power without enough oversight. People should be able to bring complaints to the ombudsperson. This bill does not hold the government accountable to Parliament.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an excellent point. As I said in my speech on Bill C-40, it is as if the government is building an oligarchy. There should be accountability. There should be a way to bring forward challenges to the ombudsperson. Absolutely, I agree with him. This bill, soon to be replaced by Bill C-40, has a complete lack of accountability back to Parliament.”

“The government's deficits grow every year, and prices keep going up. After ten years of Liberal promises, Canadians have nothing to show for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, year after year, the budget deficits grow and Canadians continue to pay higher prices. After a decade of promises from the Liberal government, what do Canadians have to show for them?”

“The government is spending lots of money on defence, but mostly giving us announcements instead of real results. We are not replacing old military planes in time, and that puts our country's safety at risk.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent work in this House. He asks what Canadians have to show for them. Well, there are some projects that are signed, and some are going to be completed and delivered, but they are few and far between. While I remain loyal to this country, it is my job to ask challenging questions. I know it is uncomfortable for the members opposite, because they like to revert to slogans, but I offer challenging questions to point out that for the amount of money being spent, the majority of what we are getting is announcements. As I said very clearly, this is putting the defence of Canada’s sovereignty at risk, as we see that aircraft are not replacing ones that are soon to be expired, and that is unacceptable.”

“I oppose this bill and the bill meant to replace it. They lack accountability. They fail our military equipment purchases and hurt Canada's sovereignty.”

“Mr. Speaker, fortunately, I am not really concerned about what the member opposite thinks is right or wrong. I suggest that he read the bill closely with a lens of accountability. He will find that there is a lack of accountability there. Despite what spin the member decides to put on the bill, I have read it closely. I understand the industry and understand defence procurement, and this bill, as well as the follow-on replacement bill, Bill C-40, is clearly failing Canada. It is failing our defence procurement and ultimately the sovereignty of our country, something that should be as important to the member opposite as it is to me.”

“The Prime Minister says housing gets more affordable every month. But Statistics Canada says rent in Newfoundland and Labrador went up nine percent. I want the member to explain this.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member opposite made reference to housing and housing affordability. In fact, the Prime Minister has told Canadians that housing affordability has improved every single month since his government has been in office. I am just wondering how the member opposite squares that with a recent report released by Statistics Canada. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there has been a 9% increase in the average rent cost in our province. What is the member’s response to that and to the Prime Minister’s claim that affordability has gotten better every single month?”

“I do not want this budget bill to pass. It hides a rule that lets the government back up to $1 trillion in risky mortgages. That puts taxpayers on the hook if people cannot pay their loans. Giving out more debt just drives home prices up without building new houses. The government is not meeting its promise to build 500,000 homes a year. We should focus on building more homes by opening federal land, lowering taxes, and speeding up building permits. I want the government to explain why they put this loan limit in the bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-31, the second part of the budget implementation act of 2025. I am sure everyone watching at home would agree that this is a little bit ridiculous, given that budget 2026 is coming out on Thursday. They would agree even more strongly if someone forced them to read Bill C-31, as it is 350 pages of mishmashed measures, many of which do not immediately seem to pertain to the budget at all. For instance, division 13 of the act before us would end automatic, mandatory, periodic re-evaluations of pesticides; division 12 would reduce mandatory review of the Tobacco Act from every five years to every two years; and division 10 would abolish the deputy chief commissioner position at the Human Rights Commission. It is, of course, a pleasure and a privilege to stand in this House and debate the budget implementation act from last year, two days before the new budget comes out, which does not have much to do with the budget, actually, but gosh, allow me to remark, this is a strange place. This is not what I thought I would be doing when I came here. I have reviewed the 350 pages of the budget implementation act because I think that is what the people of Kitchener South—Hespeler expect of me, to see if there was anything sneaky or dangerous pertaining to the nation’s finance to debate with my colleagues opposite today. Many of my colleagues on the Conservative side have zeroed in on division 16 on defence procurement, which indeed is problematic, but as they have spoken so well on this issue, I would like to focus my remarks on division 7. Division 7 would increase the guaranteed loan ceiling of the Canada Housing and Mortgage Corporation to $1 trillion. It is one clause that would increase the ceiling to $1 trillion. That is an eye-popping figure. What does it mean? The CMHC guarantees mortgages. If I want to buy a home and I do not have a 20% down payment, my bank will not give me a mortgage because it is high risk and I might default. Another word for high risk in the mortgage world is sub-prime. I hope some ears are perking up at that. If I only have 10% for my down payment, CMHC can step in to say that although it knows the bank will not give me a mortgage, the Government of Canada will guarantee the mortgage. That means if I default on my mortgage, the bank will not take the haircut, but the taxpayers of Canada will. Division 7 of this bill would allow CMHC to put taxpayers on the hook for $1 trillion of relatively high-risk mortgage. This is on the same order as the national debt, which stands at $1.4 trillion. I would ask the Liberal members, is this prudent? Is this the direction Canada’s housing policy should go in? Is this the direction they meant to take it in? Canadians have been clear for a decade: We need housing. There is a housing crisis. The Liberals promised to build Canada strong, to build at speeds not seen at generations and to get homebuilding starts up to 500,000 units per year. They have failed in each of these promises. Housing starts are down this year from last year. They are going nowhere near 500,000. CMHC, the agency under question, in fact projects that they will continue to go down. Now, having failed all of these promises, their reaction is to raise the mortgage debt ceiling. We wanted houses and they have brought us more housing debt. The distinction here is between demand-side measures and supply-side measures. Imagine a town where 12 families want to buy a home, but there are only 10 homes available. If the Government of Canada swoops in and provides cheap financing to all 12 families, they will be able to bid more for a home. The price of homes will go up, but two families will still be left out in the cold, frozen out of the Canadian dream. That is a demand-side measure. That is almost entirely what Liberals have been up to with respect to their housing policy for the last 11 years. The Prime Minister, compared to Justin Trudeau, I will concede, is able to use more sophisticated language to hide the financialization of our housing market that he is perpetrating. He is able to blow more hot air, and hotter air, into the housing balloon, but it is just hot air and not houses that he is generating. The numbers do not lie. Again, I say housing starts are down this year compared to last. At every turn, the Prime Minister and his housing minister favour bigwig bureaucrats, high-flying bankers and fat-cat condo developers in Vancouver, with giant bailouts and other forms of gravy on the public dime. All of these demand-side measures have the effect of increasing asset prices and inflating investor portfolios, instead of putting dollars into the pockets of construction workers, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, electricians, stonemasons, drywallers, roofers, and my friends and neighbours in Kitchener South—Hespeler, and it does not put houses on the streets of our cities and towns. Our Conservative plan is focused on supply-side measures. I do not have time to review them all in this speech, but our every effort would be focused on building houses so that all 12 families would be able to bid on 12 homes at a fair price and no one would get left out. I often think of housing policy like the board game Monopoly. That is why the inventors of that board game created it. There are only so many properties on the Monopoly board. Once a group of players has bought up St. James Place, Boardwalk and Park Place, injecting more cash into the system by handing out $200 just because they passed Go allows the four players to bid up the price of each other’s homes. If a fifth player joins the game in progress, they will not be able to afford anything. This is the situation Canadians under 40 find themselves in today. The game of Monopoly has been going on too long with no new or sufficient properties being brought to the market. They have been frozen out of a game of Monopoly that has not been fair to new players since the 1990s. The Conservative supply-side plan is to put another fresh board into play by opening up federal lands to development, reducing taxes and increasing permitting. The Liberals know that what they are doing has failed. I have searched the Hansards. I think that is why none of them have ever mentioned division 7 in this House. Can members imagine that a clause that increases the ceiling to $1 trillion was snuck into a 350-page document that none of them have had the time to mention? We have been debating this bill for a year. They have not had the good graces to even mention in the people’s House this sneaky clause that puts the people on the hook for $1 trillion of high-risk mortgage debt. As my time is coming to an end, I very much look forward to hearing the Liberals finally speak about this clause. Maybe they could start by explaining to Canadians why they failed to mention it in the first place. Why is it hidden in an omnibus bill? Then perhaps they could explain to Canadians whether this is really prudent. Is $1 trillion of mortgage debt, inflating the cost of our houses, not building any homes and failing on their housing promises the direction they meant to take our housing market in? I am listening.”

“The member did not listen to me. I am not against CMHC mortgages. I am against the government sneaking in a $1-trillion increase to total allowed mortgage debt, which breaks their campaign promise.”

“Mr. Speaker, once again my friend from Winnipeg North did not listen at all to what I said. I did not say that I am against CMHC mortgages. I am against the Liberals sneaking a $1-trillion increase in the total mortgage debt allowed in this country in contravention of their stated campaign promise—”

“I made a mistake. The Liberals did not promise to increase debt to one trillion dollars. Still, the member should focus on policy instead of arguing about words. He also needs to stop bringing up Stephen Harper. That was over ten years ago, and I am not here to defend him.”

“Mr. Speaker, I misspoke. An increase to $1 trillion is not the direction the Liberals promised to take Canadians in. I wish the member would spend less time on semantics and more on policy and the general direction. The other thing the member for Winnipeg North does with literally half the speeches I have ever given in this House is stand up and say, “but Stephen Harper...”. Stephen Harper was my dad’s prime minister. I think I was 18 when he became prime minister. I did not come here to defend the record of Stephen Harper. I like him. We are talking about 11 years ago. I do not take the criticism at all.”

“Young people are losing hope of owning a home, and the high cost of goods and services makes building houses even harder. I want the member to explain more about how our Conservative plan helps the next generation buy homes.”

“Mr. Speaker, housing is extremely important to this country. I would absolutely agree that we have a generation of young people who are losing the hope of home ownership in this country. The member talked about our Conservative approach with respect to increasing supply. One of the things I think is also important within the context of that conversation is how much goods and services in this country cost right now, which is also adding stress on the construction side of new housing. I wonder if the member would like to expand on why our approach restores the dream of home ownership for the next generation.”

“The government should remove the sales tax on new homes up to $1.3 million, as Conservatives want. The Liberals only took half-steps. Prices and housing costs are rising because the government runs large deficits and spends too much money. They are also using accounting tricks to hide how much they spend.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think I am picking up what the hon. member put down regarding goods and services. A cornerstone of the Conservative plan has been the elimination of the GST on new homes up to $1.3 million, GST, of course, being the goods and services tax. As usual, the Liberals have sort of done a half-measure to meet us halfway on that part. Half measures only work by half. Then, to the member’s larger point about the price of everything going up, housing just being the most extreme, and perhaps important and close-to-home example, the price of everything continues to go up, because the Liberals keep printing money in the form of deficits. I imagine, on Thursday, we will find out that the deficit is even more out of control than they promised. The Liberals will continue their weird accounting tricks about operating versus capital, putting what are obviously operating expenditures into the capital budget. I think the phrase is, “Micturating on someone’s leg and telling them it is raining.””

“This bill is a mix of unrelated things. The government could have used it to protect people's privacy and rights, but they will not. They keep taking away our privacy online and hurting our civil liberties.”

“Mr. Speaker, the list of things the Liberals could have done in Bill C-31 is literally endless. As I explained, it is a mishmash of totally unrelated measures. I cannot find any thread that connects them. If the question is whether they would they do that, the answer is obviously not. The Liberals have taken steps again and again in this House and in forthcoming bills to restrict privacy rights of Canadians on the Internet and otherwise. They have taken actions related to the Emergencies Act in the last Parliament that obviously were against our civil liberties. If the question is whether they could, the answer is yes, of course they could improve our civil liberties and privacy rights. If the question is would they, the answer is no, they have not. The leopard does not change its spots.”