Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition concerning Canada student grant eligibility for registered massage therapy students in British Columbia. The petitioners are concerned that restricting eligibility would make it more difficult for students to access training for an in-demand health care profession. At a time when British Columbians need more RMTs, the petitioners do not want new financial barriers to be put in the way of students pursuing this regulated health care profession. The petitioners are calling on the government to maintain Canada student grant eligibility for provincially regulated RMT programs in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from the communities of Abbotsford, Chilliwack—Hope, Merritt and Princeton calling for stronger, more resilient infrastructure along Canada's critical trade corridors in British Columbia. The devastating floods of 2021 showed how important these routes are to our communities and to our national economy. They are essential for public safety, food security and emergency response. The petitioners are calling on the government to recognize the West Coast Corridor Resiliency Partnership as a strategic partner and to support long-term investments in transportation, flood mitigation and critical infrastructure necessary to move goods in our country. They are asking for a commitment for long-term investments that strengthen our infrastructure to allow Canada to trade.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for agreeing to bring forward Bill C-38. Thanks to relentless pressure from the Conservatives, we have some taxation relief today. The finance minister outlined a series of other measures related to affordability. We should note in the House of Commons today that the government is doing better on its finances because of the high price of oil. Much of that oil actually flows through my riding; 37% of all oil from the Trans Mountain pipeline goes right through the Sumas Prairie where we had the big flood in 2021. That area is very vulnerable. In the MOU signed between the federal government and the Province of B.C. this summer, they committed to providing $20 million for funding the study, but there was no final commitment to put in the pump station to protect the most agriculturally significant lands in the province, the Trans Mountain pipeline and where they wanted to build a new pipeline. Would the finance minister be able to outline to the House whether the government will fund a new pump station to protect future investments in the Trans Mountain pipeline corridor, British Columbia's most significant agricultural lands and—

Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hard-working small business owners in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford and across Canada. This is a group of Canadians that is facing more pressure than the average person. They are faced with the same stressors, such as food prices that are making it difficult to feed their families and skyrocketing rent that is consuming more of their earnings, while they are also trying to keep their businesses afloat. It is clear the government agrees with Conservatives that Canadians and small business owners cannot afford an increase in gas prices anytime soon. This is a good thing because we tried to do this a few months ago and it was rejected by the government at that time. The Liberals' failure to deliver the economic certainty they promised has piled even more uncertainty onto small businesses, and Canadians across the board are paying the price right now. When businesses pay more to make, move and sell the things people need, these costs show up in the prices consumers pay. This is at a time when 49% of people, almost half of working Canadians, feel less financially secure than they did a year ago. Any relief for working people is good news, but a modest extension of the Liberals' current plan will not be enough for Canadians already squeezed by higher costs. I have risen many times in this chamber since the last election, quoting studies and statistics reflecting the abysmal state of small businesses and the health of small businesses in our country. Let me give a few more examples. In April, a record high of 74% of small business owners reported fuel as an input cost causing difficulties. Nationally, seven in 10 businesses impacted by fuel cost pressures report absorbing increases through lower profits, half have increased prices charged to customers, one-third have delayed planned investments and close to one in five has cancelled investments altogether. Six in 10 small businesses cite fuel costs as one of the biggest challenges, ahead of taxes, labour and economic uncertainty. The concerns with this tax are not in isolation. They are spurred on by the affordability crisis and the trade war with the United States. Canadians have enough on their plate. A hastily reintroduced fuel tax before the end of the trade war will only harm already struggling small businesses and the people who buy from them. This is particularly true in rural communities, such as the one I represent. For example, recent changes by the Canada Border Services Agency at the Abbotsford-Huntingdon crossing are creating serious challenges for local businesses. After 8 p.m., drivers must now commute to alternate crossings, one 20 kilometres away and the other almost 40 kilometres away. Companies facing this choice certainly cannot afford to pay a reinstated excise taxes on that extra 20 to 40 kilometres next year. Why would the Liberals continue to entertain half measures when keeping fuel taxes low has proven to provide the relief Canadians need? The Business Council of British Columbia is in Ottawa this week, meeting with MPs and reinforcing a simple message, which is that we need real regulatory reform, and right now, the government is not doing enough to get rid of red tape. Under the leadership of the government, Canada, in many respects, has become hostile toward entrepreneurs. Statistics Canada documented the impacts of a 37% rise in federal regulatory restrictions between 2006 and 2021. This surge was directly associated with a 1.7 percentage point decline in GDP growth, alongside drops in business investment, productivity, employment, and the rate of new business formation. In 2000, self-employment in Canada accounted for roughly 16.1% of total employment. By 2025, that share had fallen to 12.9%, the lowest in decades. A report from the Montreal Economic Institute notes, “The decline in entrepreneurship became more pronounced after 2018, coinciding with a series of federal tax changes that raised costs and showed hostility toward entrepreneurs.” As a result of this economic hostility created by the Liberals, Canada is losing talent and capital to the United States, with 40% of established businesses considering leaving Canada, and too many of our brightest graduates leaving even before they get started. According to a TD Economics report, “graduates in mathematics, computer science, and engineering are less likely to remain in Canada than non STEM graduates, even among Canadian citizens. Doctoral [students] and graduates from highly ranked universities have the lowest retention rates, particularly in the first five years after graduation.” University of Waterloo data shows “that the highest-performing students are the most likely to leave Canada after graduation.” Among Canadian-born students, exit rates at the top of the skill distribution are roughly double those at the bottom. It is fundamental that a new grad sees Canada as more advantageous from both a tax regulatory perspective and a competitiveness perspective to start a business here or to work for a Canadian business, but over decades of federal mismanagement, we have moved away from that. At a time when Canadian businesses are already facing tariffs and uncertainty accessing U.S. markets, the last thing they need is higher domestic input costs. New estimates reveal that 53,112 businesses are directly impacted by either U.S. tariffs, Canadian countertariffs or, in some cases, both. Small businesses across Canada will bear the brunt of unjustified American tariffs, with 77% of affected exporters expecting revenue losses. While the Government of Canada responds with countervailing tariffs, it must learn from the challenges that businesses faced during previous rounds of retaliatory action. Many small businesses did not receive the support needed under earlier measures due to complicated administrative processes. The regional tariff response initiative saw an extremely low uptake, with fewer than 1% of small businesses applying and four in five being unaware that the program existed. As a result, firms most affected by tariffs and countertariffs were left without access to support. According to the CFIB, the most recently announced federal tariff support programs continued “to exclude about half of the small business community”. Earlier this month, on a call with members of Parliament—

Mr. Speaker, the last key point I would like to make with respect to the state of small business in Canada today comes from the president of PacifiCan, who, on a call with members of Parliament in British Columbia earlier this summer, stated that her department was not meeting the outlined time frame for delivering tariff rebates to the companies that had applied for those funds. As the government consistently states, we are in an economic war with the United States. I would hope that a key measure announced to support Canadian businesses during this time would be treated with more severity than we have seen. I would encourage the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, who has responsibility for PacifiCan, to look closely at those programs and do better. All of us in the House have to stand up for Canada. We need to stand up for Canada because our businesses are suffering. There is going to be a lot of new legislation put forward, and I implore the government to consider small businesses. The information coming from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business is not good. The loss of confidence and the departure of our brightest young Canadians who feel they have a better future in the United States is not the Canadian way. I know that collectively, in the House, we do not want to see that happen, but it will take hard work and more collaboration by the government, and listening to Conservative ideas, to improve that competitiveness and to bring in those structural reforms that are needed so young people, when they graduate from university, say that their best opportunity in life is to start a business in Canada. I believe we can get there. I will be focusing in this session, with the mandate that I have been given, on pointing out where the government is not doing enough to support our entrepreneurs. Let us work together. Let us build Canada up. Let us stand up for our entrepreneurs and do better for the people who pay our salaries, who pay taxes and who do not demand a lot and often give more.

Mr. Speaker, just today, the B.C. business council and, I believe, the Manitoba business council and the Alberta and Saskatchewan business councils were in Ottawa. They spoke about the need to do more for our small businesses to reduce the regulatory burden. With respect to the programs outlined by the member for Winnipeg North, the Red Seal trades program announced by the government, for some reason, excluded aviation. That is an area where we could work together, to ensure that those dollars from ESDC go to the aviation sector, which I know is very important in his riding, as it is in mine. There are common-sense things we are not doing today that we have to do for small businesses: regulatory reform and improving programs to meet the actual needs.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that many of the measures being put in by the Liberals right now are actually Conservative ideas, and I am glad to see some of those things being adopted, because they will make some improvements. What is happening right now is that the government is in a process of erasing the most socialist policies of Justin Trudeau, and I am glad to see that erasure take place, but we have seen a lot of damage. I will conclude by noting that we need more emphasis by the government on maintaining market access in the United States. Those business councils, the ones from Manitoba, talked about the existing trade relationships with the United States that need to be upheld. We need to see more from the government on that. That is where small businesses do business. We have to support them.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely support Bill C-38, and I will be voting in favour of it. I will note that when we tried to do the same thing last spring, the government rejected our proposal. I am glad that its members have listened to their voters and to Canadians, understanding that what the Conservatives were proposing was a positive step forward to support our businesses. My only hope is that the government extends this in perpetuity. I am going to repeat this. Small businesses right now need to maintain market access to the United States. That is where the majority of our exports go. I have worked at Global Affairs, and even though I agree with expanding global markets, we cannot forgo the existing economic relationships that underpin the entirety of the Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the evening. Before I begin my comments, I will note that we have had a debate throughout the entire day on Bill C-38. Many of the things I want to say that relate to my question from June were said during the debate on Bill C-38 as well. The point I would like to make, and I hope the government side can hear it, is that even though the Prime Minister has commenced a process to erase the legacy of Justin Trudeau, to move away from his most disastrous policies, structural reforms are still needed to ensure that small businesses, the businesses that pay the majority of taxes in Canada, are made whole. We are going to see that through taxation and regulatory reform on a major scale, but we have not seen that yet. I encourage the government to heed the words that small businesses, the ones with eight to 10 employees, still need market access to the United States. These are 50-year-old relationships that are in jeopardy right now. Today, business leaders from across western Canada came to Parliament. I will acknowledge that they are happy with Bill C-39, the Liberals' big, beautiful bill. They are happy about the attack the Liberals are going to make on organized labour, even though the Conservatives are still debating it and trying to figure it out. However, they have stressed the need for regulatory reform and measures that are going to help small businesses in western Canada. In Manitoba, for example, 50% of exports go to the United States. It is higher in a lot of other provinces. We have to take that relationship seriously. In my question back in June, I highlighted that Canada has lost 100,000 entrepreneurs over the last two decades, and there has been a 19% increase in business exits since 2019. That is not acceptable. Right now, we are facing major challenges, but the government can do a couple of things better. It can look at the RTRI. Very few businesses understood what that program was, and the Minister responsible for Pacific Economic Development Canada was around nine months late in delivering it based on the timelines he stated when the program was announced. If the Liberals say we are at economic war, why would they make businesses wait nine months for a program they said they would deliver in three months? That is simply not acceptable. We need confidence that the public service, the ministers and the parliamentary secretaries are going to step up, hold their public servants to a higher standard, do things in their power and actually move at the speeds they said they would in the last election. So far, we have not seen that. It has to change. We have to stand up for Canada. The government needs to stand up for Canada, and it is not doing that in a responsible way. The final statistic I will mention is that according to a TD Economics report, graduates in mathematics, computer science and engineering are less likely to remain in Canada than non-STEM graduates. The University of Waterloo shows that the highest performing students are the most likely to leave Canada after graduation. Those are the entrepreneurs starting businesses. They are going to the United States to do that. We need to bring in the structural reforms to support small businesses and—

Mr. Speaker, I will note the point made by the parliamentary secretary in respect to global uncertainty, but I would just ask the member to acknowledge, despite their efforts and their policy of erasure in respect to Justin Trudeau, that we can do more for small businesses in Canada today through regulatory change, supporting trade resilience and actually building the major projects that we thought were going to take place this year under Bill C-5, legislation that Conservatives supported again. I understand that the first project will be approved in the coming weeks, but we need not one; we need 100. We have to move at speeds we have never seen before, and we are not seeing that from the current government, so please, stand up for Canada, get the bureaucracy out of the way and do more to support our small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, one in five small businesses are in weak or critical condition. They are calling on the government to lower costs and improve small business competitiveness. Conservatives have identified over $150 billion in savings that could lower the overall tax burden for Canadians and small businesses. To save Canadians money, will the government consider expanding its plan to cut unnecessary consultants who do not provide value for money?

Mr. Speaker, let me give an example. The women entrepreneurship loan fund was supposed to help women start and grow their businesses. After filing an ATIP that took 915 days to receive, I learned that the Women's Enterprise Organizations of Canada met only 6% of application targets and 7% of loan targets, despite receiving millions of dollars from Canadians. Canadians expect results from their taxpayer dollars, not more spending on consultants. Why will the government not cut taxes, help entrepreneurs and save money for Canadians and our small businesses?

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions to present today. The first is petition e-7198, which has 5,746 signatures. It calls upon the Minister of Fisheries to not remove the recreational access to chinook and coho salmon in the allotment of salmon allocation. The petitioners note that they want to respect the rights of first nations and the conservation policies of the government, but they would like to maintain common property resource access for recreational fishers as well. They also note that commercial interests do not supersede those recreational interests.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is with regard to the elimination of the federal apprenticeship incentive. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to reinstate the apprenticeship incentive grant for Red Seal trades, index it to inflation, link it to the successful completion of technical training and ensure timely, predictable payments to support apprentices during their training.

Mr. Speaker, the third petition I would like to present today is on nicotine pouches. This petition is being presented on behalf of small businesses, including convenience stores. The petitioners call upon the Minister of Health to remove the restrictions on the sale of nicotine pouches to only pharmacies in order to allow convenience stores to sell the product as well. The petitioners also note that the actions of the government have led to an illegal online trade and that it would be better to tax the product in Canada, versus allowing American producers to reap the economic benefits.

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I asked a Liberal member a very simple question: Could he confirm or deny the rumours in British Columbia that, under the new security partnership between Canada and China and the government's desire to sell federal airport assets, Chinese companies would be able to buy those assets? He could not answer that question. Does the Bloc Québécois agree that Chinese companies buying Canadian airports would pose security threats to Canada's security intelligence regime?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of Mel Zajac, a remarkable British Columbian whose compassion and generosity left an enduring imprint. Mel's life was marked by a profound tragedy that ultimately inspired a legacy of extraordinary philanthropy. In July 1986, he lost his son Mel Jr. in a tragic accident on the Chilliwack River. Just eight months later, his son Marty was killed in an avalanche near Blue River in the Cariboo. In their memory, Mel founded The Mel Jr. and Marty Zajac Foundation in 1987, dedicating himself to helping others. Through his work, including the creation of Zajac Ranch, he ensured that children of all abilities could experience the joy, inclusion and confidence that come from summer camp. Because of his vision, countless children and families, many of whom face major medical challenges, have been given opportunities that might otherwise have been out of reach. At the age of 98, we have lost a truly extraordinary Canadian. I extend my sincere condolences to the Zajac family and to all those who mourn Mel's passing while celebrating his remarkable legacy.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Eglinton—Lawrence badgered the CFIB as to why his own government's policies were not reaching Canadian small businesses. The CFIB says three in four entrepreneurs do not feel supported by the government, and many would not start a business today. Why will the government not lower costs and give small businesses a real chance to compete, so we do not continue losing capital to other countries?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present my first petition on behalf of the petitioners in Mission who are concerned about the proposed telecommunications tower at 32935 Cameron Avenue. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to review the proposed location and work with the proponents and relevant authorities to identify alternative sites that better reflect community interests and appropriate land use.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my formal remarks, I want to outline that the City of Abbotsford is launching its consultations this June on the Sumas River watershed flood mitigation plan. Earlier this month, the cities of Princeton, Merritt, Hope, Chilliwack and Abbotsford launched the west coast corridor resiliency partnership. Excuse my skepticism today, but with the bill before us, Bill C‑26, and the corresponding programming motion, we would essentially be granting, without any parliamentary oversight, $1.7 billion to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to fund certain projects at their discretion without any parliamentary oversight. That is what we are debating today. I would encourage the minister to consider Abbotsford and the 2021 floods we had. When a minister takes action like this, I know that we can do the same for a region of British Columbia that is essential for the government to meet its own export and infrastructure goals. Bill C‑26 is two paragraphs long. It basically would grant the minister unfettered spending abilities with $1.7 billion. Forgive my skepticism, but I do not want to authorize and will not support another dollar of taxpayer money's going to a government that has so resoundingly failed on the housing platform, starting in 2016, so with my time today, I am going to share a few remarks about fiscal accountability. I am going to outline some of the most egregious examples of how the government has mismanaged money. I am going to talk about flood infrastructure in the Fraser Valley. If the government can take quick action like this, why can it not take quick action on a project of national interest with clear accountability metrics? Then I am going to go over the national housing strategy the Liberals launched in 2016, the National Housing Strategy Act, what they said at the time about these bills and what they hoped to accomplish. I look forward to reviewing federal program spending on housing affordability dating back to 2019 with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I will have some other comments tying all those points together. Finally, I might even bring a motion forward to amend the programming motion before us today. Let us start with fiscal accountability. I want to start by speaking about a cornerstone of our democratic system, parliamentary accountability, specifically how it operates in the context of federal spending legislation in Canada. At its heart, parliamentary accountability ensures that the government, which exercises the power to tax and spend, remains answerable to the elected representatives of the people of the House. That duty goes to the very heart of our parliamentary system and why we are here. The power of the purse is one of the oldest and most fundamental principles of Westminster democracy. It was hard fought over for centuries, from the struggles between Parliament and the Crown in the United Kingdom to the evolution of responsible government here in Canada. The principle is simple: Governments may propose spending, but only Parliament can authorize it, and that authorization must be informed, transparent and accountable. This is not a ceremonial role. It is not a rubber stamp. It is a safeguard on behalf of taxpayers. At first glance, the bill appears straightforward. It would authorize $1.7 billion in payments to provinces and territories to address housing supply, but as parliamentarians, our responsibility does not end with the stated intent of a bill or the comments from one of the ministers responsible, during his remarks in the House. Our duty is to examine how public money is authorized, how it is spent and whether it is subject to meaningful oversight. In Canada, this principle is embedded in our Constitution and operationalized through the financial procedures of Parliament. The House of Commons plays a central role in reviewing and approving federal expenditures. Standing committees examine departmental estimates and call ministers and officials to testify and justify their spending plans in detail, at least in an ideal world. However, accountability does not end once funds are approved. In fact, it continues through the fiscal cycle. Mechanisms such as the Public Accounts of Canada and reports from the Auditor General provide retrospective oversight, enabling Parliament to assess whether funds were spent as intended and whether value for money was achieved. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts then reviews these findings, further reinforcing accountability. Despite this robust framework, obvious challenges remain. One persistent concern is the complexity and timing of financial documents. Parliamentarians are often tasked with reviewing information within a limited time frame and with limited information. This task constrains effective scrutiny and at times shifts the balance of power to the executive branch from the legislative branch. We have seen the consequences of that in recent years, and it is only heightened now through the fabricated majority of the Prime Minister. The current government has overseen a significant expansion in federal spending, accompanied by rising deficits and growing public debt. While some of that spending occurred during extraordinary circumstances, the pattern has continued well beyond those moments. Nowhere is that more evident than in housing. The government has announced and re‑announced billions of dollars in housing initiatives over the past decade. Despite these commitments, housing affordability has deteriorated. The cost of buying a home has risen dramatically, rents have increased and supply has not kept pace with demand. If Parliament had been provided with clear metrics, stronger oversight tools and more transparent reporting, we might better understand where these programs fell short. Instead we are left with repeated announcements, escalating costs and performative motions such as the one before us today on more money. A culture of accountability must be maintained and strengthened in the House. This is not solely about rules and procedures; it is also about a shared commitment to transparency, responsibility and respect for Parliament's role. Parliamentary accountability in federal spending is not an abstract concept. It is a living practice that underpins public trust in our institutions, which is diminishing. Each vote on estimates, each committee hearing and each audit contributes to ensuring that all Canadians have trust in the process, which right now they do not. In 2017, the government unveiled Canada's national housing strategy. The initial investment was $40 billion over 10 years to tackle homelessness and housing supply through redesigned and expanded federal programs. At the time, former minister of fisheries, and member, Bernadette Jordan said that through these investments, “we will reduce chronic homelessness by 50%.” In 2017, the estimated number of chronically homeless shelter users was 28,900, according to Statistics Canada. In 2024, that number rose to an estimated 36,058 people experiencing chronic homelessness. The government made a promise to learn from the past, act with foresight and deliver real solutions, but nearly a decade later, the results tell a different story. In October, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that an average home costs 34% more than what an average-income household can afford. CMHC's latest outlook projects that homebuilding could drop by as much as 18.1% over the next three years and forecasts that housing starts will be 55% below CMHC's own target to restore affordability. The federal housing advocate, and this is wild, reported that it would take more than 1,000 years to restore housing affordability under the current plan. This is a systemic failure. One of the clearest constraints that do not get enough attention in the House is infrastructure. While the minister did outline a few projects about improving infrastructure for housing supply, the scale of the problem is much greater than the one-off announcements he has made. More than 11% of Canada's water infrastructure and waste-water infrastructure is in poor condition, with an estimated more than $100 billion in upgrades needed, according to Statistics Canada. Mike Moffatt, founding director of the Missing Middle Initiative, said, “communities simply don't open land for development at all because they know infrastructure cannot support it.” While Canadians are told more housing is coming, the foundation required to build it is missing. Either it is outdated, or current systems and approaches cannot accommodate it. The government cannot deliver housing, partly because it cannot deliver infrastructure. Its track record proves it cannot manage large-scale investments at all. Let us look at some examples. In the last Parliament, Conservatives were upheld in a Speaker's ruling on Sustainable Development Technology Canada. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie held a beneficial interest in Cycle Capital, a Quebec-based venture capital firm that received tens of millions of dollars in SDTC grants without any checks and balances. A recording of a senior civil servant slammed the outright incompetence of the Trudeau government, which had inappropriately given 123 million dollars' worth of contracts to companies such as Cycle Capital. It was so bad, so egregious, that the former speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer, essentially shut parliamentary procedures down for almost a year. The Auditor General found the SDTC fund did not follow conflict of interest policies in 90 cases. It spent nearly $76 million on projects connected to Liberal friends and appointees to run SDTC. It spent $59 million on projects that were not allowed to have been awarded any money. It spent $12 million on projects that were both in a conflict of interest and ineligible for funding. In one instance, Trudeau's hand-picked SDTC chair, Annette Verschuren, syphoned off $217,000 to her own company. The Liberal government has a history of very poor decision-making. Other members of the House and members of the public have described it as corruption. The former speaker shut down Parliament for almost a year because the government at the time refused to comply with basic financial transparency and then tried to make the superfluous argument that it was a charter violation for the Conservatives to refer this information to the RCMP. What did the Liberals do? They prorogued Parliament, and Justin Trudeau is no longer prime minister. The second example is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. With great fanfare, in 2017, the CIB was given $35 billion in federal financing intended to attract private sector investment into infrastructure. The government plan indicated that the Canada Infrastructure Bank would be responsible for delivering the capital over an 11-year period. Global News reported in 2021 that the CIB had committed over $4 billion for projects, but none involved funding from private investors, which was the original intent of the fund: public-private partnerships using federal dollars to scale private sector investment. It just was not happening. In July 2025, the PBO reported that the Infrastructure Bank was not on track to spend its sector-specific funding amounts by 2027-28. In other words, it was projecting complete failure. A third example is electric batteries. This one really grinds my gears. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer's estimates, the total cost of government support for EV investments in Canada was earmarked at $52.5 billion between October 2020 and April 2024, including the strategic innovation fund and special production subsidies for Stellantis, Volkswagen, Honda and Northvolt. Despite funding commitments, many federally backed auto sector projects have been delayed or have fallen apart altogether. Stellantis shifted Jeep Compass production from Brampton, Ontario, to Illinois; Honda's $15-billion EV supply chain project in Alliston is delayed; Volkswagen has deferred its production schedule in St. Thomas; Northvolt is slower than expected in its rollout in Quebec; and General Motors' termination of BrightDrop EV van production has taken place in Ingersoll. To make matters even worse, despite significant promises, hours of debate and promises from the government that it was going to create an EV ecosystem like nothing we have ever seen before in Canada, taking advantage of our critical minerals, the advanced manufacturing in Ontario, new opportunities for mining in the Ring of Fire and new export opportunities, all through these investments that were so necessary, the Prime Minister just recently handed 30% of our electric vehicle market to China without guardrails. This is the very country that he said, just a year ago in the election, was the greatest threat to Canadian democracy. What in the world is this? Example number four is ArriveCAN, which was originally budgeted at only $80,000 but ballooned to cost Canadians approximately $60 million. A year ago tomorrow, the Auditor General confirmed that GC Strategies, a dodgy IT firm that does not do IT work and is now under RCMP investigation for ArriveCAN, was awarded 106 contracts worth nearly $100 million under the Liberals. Despite the firm already receiving $64.5 million from the government, the Auditor General found that in 46% of cases, there was little or no evidence that work was actually performed. The Auditor General called the government bookkeeping for the project the worst she had ever seen. In an extraordinary, rare step, the contractor was formally censured in Parliament for its conduct, which is something almost never seen in federal procurement, underscoring just how serious and egregious these failures were. Example five, another one that hits close to home, because I represent a sizable indigenous population, is the indigenous procurement policy. In August 2024, Global News reported that through the procurement strategy for indigenous businesses, the government awarded billions of dollars in contracts earmarked for indigenous enterprises without always requiring bidders to prove they were first nations, Métis or Inuit. Contracts awarded to indigenous businesses skyrocketed from $100 million in 2018 to $1.6 billion, which is 6.3% of all eligible federal spending at the time. Thawennontie Thomas, co-founder of LaFlesche, a plastics manufacturing company near Montreal, “said it's 'commonly known' among Indigenous executives that non-Indigenous businesses [were] taking advantage” of the procurement policies. Example number six is a recent one, PrescribeIT. The Liberals spent nearly $300 million over a decade on prescribing software. The CEO of Canada Health Infoway was paid nearly $900,000 a year while the program failed across most of Canada. The agency has still not complied with a parliamentary request to provide unredacted documents on its PrescribeIT failure. Nearly $100 million went to Telus Health as the primary technology vendor, with unanswered questions about who owns the taxpayer-funded intellectual property. What a disgrace. We have just learned that the Minister of Health has now cancelled the program in disgrace despite repeated attempts for more transparency by Conservatives at the health committee, which were blocked by the Liberal members. Example number seven is COVID-19 loans and the Canada emergency business account program. This is a big one. A 2024 Auditor General report estimated that $3.5 billion went to ineligible businesses. The Department of Finance Canada and Global Affairs Canada, according to the Auditor General, did not provide effective oversight to ensure that the CEBA program was managed with due regard for value for money. Export Development Canada notes that the Auditor General failed to exercise basic controls in contract management, such as monitoring that the amounts paid aligned with the work performed. This meant that the value for money was compromised. Example number eight was a big one in the 2021 election, the WE Charity. It seems like ages ago. In June 2020, the WE Charity was chosen to administer the Canada student service grant, a $912-million program introduced by Justin Trudeau to provide financial relief for students during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to a report to Parliament's ethics committee, Trudeau family members were paid more than $217,000 for speaking engagements and reimbursed $210,000, which included flights and hotels—

Mr. Speaker, these are only a few examples of how the government creates these big blocks of money without any accountability or transparency. What is the point of scrutiny when the Liberals are just going to turn a blind eye again and again to mismanagement? This is one of the most dangerous things Parliament can do: grant billions of dollars without any metrics of success, without any capacity to see how the money is being used. This is not the way our democracy or public accountability is supposed to work. When we hear promises of new spending, new funds, new programs and new announcements, I am required to ask, will it be any different this time? In my riding of Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, these failures are not theoretical. They touch very close to home. In 2021, we experienced massive flooding that became one of the most expensive natural disasters in Canada. Later that year, Lytton, British Columbia, in my riding, was burned to the ground. No riding in Canada has ever faced devastation like Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon did in 2021. The CN Rail line was washed out throughout the province. The CP Rail line was washed out all across the province. The Trans-Canada Highway was washed out and flooded. The Duffey, which connects Whistler and Pemberton to Lillooet, was washed out. The Lougheed Highway was washed out. The Southern Railway line was washed out. The port of metro Vancouver was completely shut off from the rest of Canada. We had to bring in military assistance from Quebec because there was no equipment cache in British Columbia to deal with the devastation we faced. The Sumas Prairie was flooded, compromising B.C.'s food supply. Homes were lost. People died. Our infrastructure failed. I remember walking up to the Sir John A. Macdonald Building. It was at the time when the senator from Saskatchewan was kicked out of the Conservative caucus for a while, when Erin O'Toole was our leader, and some journalist asked me, “What do you think about this?” I had just come from a meeting with Bill Blair, now the high commissioner to the U.K. I said, “I can't believe you're asking me this. British Columbia is cut off from the rest of Canada, the port of metro Vancouver can't move any goods, and you're asking me about a senator?” B.C. is often overlooked in this chamber. It is not an understood place. Since 2021, I have stood in this chamber and in committees and pleaded with ministers of housing and infrastructure to help British Columbia, to help our farmers and to help the government achieve its own objectives of doubling exports to Asia-Pacific markets. None of that can happen unless the government pays attention to my riding. Most members in this chamber do not know that 37% of the oil from Trans Mountain goes through the Sumas transfer station in my community to the United States. Without that money, the Government of Canada would be bankrupt. Most members do not know that the Enbridge expansion and the Huntingdon transfer station are right in my riding. Canada cannot function without Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. My riding has one of the highest farm gates in all of Canada, and we are a key producer of berries, poultry, dairy and vegetables, on less than 1% of the land in B.C. We are an agricultural powerhouse, and we are also the confluence of the Trans Mountain pipeline, the Enbridge pipeline, the Trans‑Canada Highway, all three major rail lines in Canada, a border crossing and an international airport where the government just announced it is going to build Canada's new firefighting fleet through one of the best companies in Canada, Conair. There is so much happening in Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford and in the Fraser Valley that is essential to what the government needs to do to complete its objectives. I ask the government when the dollars that Justin Trudeau promised at the photo ops in Abbotsford, in 2021, will come to fruition. I saw the high commissioner at the airport last week. I said, “Bill, I am still fighting.” He said to keep fighting, because they did not fulfill their promises to Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford. My number one duty in the House is to get that member who spoke before me to come clean and support my community, to support Canada, to support our export objectives and to support renewed interest in supply chains. The Prime Minister went to New York and talked about looking to the future, about Canada's place in the global economy. We can agree that our future is not just a new trade agreement with the United States and Mexico. It is westbound, through British Columbia, because the next chapter of Canada's prosperity will be written in our relationships with the Asia‑Pacific markets, which are growing faster and demanding more food, more energy and a more reliable trading partner with expertise in engineering and services, with one of the most educated workforces in the entire world. We cannot do any of that if we do not take the $3.83 billion in national economic activity through agriculture in my riding, the role of our international airport, the site of our firefighting fleet, the Enbridge pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline, our international border crossing, the major arterial roads that connect British Columbia with all of Canada, our rail lines to the south, our rail lines to the port, and the breadbasket of British Columbia in my riding. Every container heading to Asia, every shipment of agricultural product and every export moving through our Pacific gateway depends on the strength and reliability of the supply chains in the Fraser Valley. If Canada wants to be a serious player in the Indo‑Pacific and if we want to seize the opportunities of growing global demand, we must ensure that our gateways work. I am going to repeat this time and time again. The government cannot accomplish its goal to double our exports abroad if it does not protect and maintain this critical infrastructure, not just on sunny days but in the face of floods, extreme weather and these growing infrastructure pressures. It is worth noting that our competitors are not standing still. Other countries are investing heavily in trade routes and in climate‑resilient infrastructure. We are seeing it in Washington state, where they are going to start exporting more potash and other goods that Canada has, because we are not moving fast enough. Canada has to do the same. The question before us is simple: Are we prepared to invest in the infrastructure that will define Canada's future, or are we willing to leave one of our most critical trade corridors vulnerable at the very moment the world is looking to Canada and the Pacific to provide some stability in light of global conflicts? The Fraser Valley is not just about the past. It is about the future that the Prime Minister spoke about in his remarks in New York. It is about a future where Canada can feed global markets, power economies with responsibly developed energy and strengthen its place as a reliable trading nation. Everything the Prime Minister wants to do happens in the Fraser Valley. However, to my key point, none of this is possible without resilient infrastructure, without protected corridors, without a federal government willing to act with urgency and ambition in a way it has not done yet. Yes, let us build homes, but let us also build the foundation of a country that can compete, that can trade and that can lead. When we invest in the Fraser Valley, it is not just about investing in a region. We are investing in Canada's future on the world stage. This is an odd bill. It was not in the budget, and it does not appear to be part of a coherent plan based on the information before the House today. It feels more like a last-minute talking point, so the Liberals can say that the Conservatives voted against housing, rather than a serious effort to address the legitimate things the minister is trying to solve. Canadians do want to see investment in housing and infrastructure, but they also want to see improved processes, because what I will outline in the coming hours will show that the Liberals have not done that to date. Before I do that, I would be remiss if I did not cover, just to reiterate the point, some of the comments that my constituents made in a recent mailer about what happened to them in the flood. Sometimes in this House, we need to bring in that personal perspective. These people matter, and they pay a lot of taxes. Their voice needs to be heard. I am going to refer to them just by their initials to protect their confidentiality. J. and T. wrote me and said the following: “Our family was seriously impacted when the dikes of Sumas River blew out in 2021. This flooded the Sumas Prairie where we live on a five-acre hay farm. We lost everything in our home. We had to rebuild the entire inside of the house, from floor to ceiling, including all appliances, windows, doors, furniture, flooring and personal items. We lost three vehicles, tools and equipment for the farm. Federal help is needed to deal with international disaster with the floodwaters.” This is a funny one. P. in Abbotsford wrote, “Instead of wasting time trying to get the Liberals to do something for the west coast, why not build a berm along the border? They can keep their water.” That is fair. D.S. wrote, “It appears to me the federal government is not taking the flooding issue seriously. Merritt, Princeton, Sumas Prairie, all their constituencies are not listened to by the Liberal government. Is it because they don't have their party's MPs in these ridings? Five hundred pages of reposting is not sufficient to approve funding for flood-stricken families? We pay equally into the tax system in Canada. Citizens should be first.” C. in Abbotsford wrote, “In 2021, our property flooded. We had a foot of water on the main floor of our house. We were displaced for six months from our home while we let it dry out. Gutted the main floor and renovated. We also have a barn, so animals, goats, horses and chickens, were relocated for a while. My husband has a landscaping business and his shop flooded, ruining equipment and storage areas. It has taken years to rebuild.” C. from Abbotsford wrote, “I was unable to get to my workplace during the floods. My church took the opportunity to help Ripples Estate with their restoration, and the devastation to their land was exceptional. In a documentary recap I filmed, one of the owners makes the comment that, 'We receive alert messages all the time on our iPhones. How is it possible that there is a failure to use this kind of method to warn about the potential weather impact of flooding?'” R. from Abbotsford wrote, “My wife with extreme Parkinson's and myself were evacuated for three weeks. We went to our son's in Calgary. I live in Sumas Prairie, where the dike broke. I helped move my neighbour as his barn flooded, as well as two homes past the bridge on Sumas River, which had to be replaced. My wife recently passed. This was an extremely difficult time. During the flood in 2025, I was stranded for three days, because all the roads around me were flooded. In this day and age, this problem must be resolved. Government, change. We need proper dyking in Sumas, Washington, and pump stations on Sumas River at Barrowtown.” N. and L. wrote, “Our family has lived on this property since 1957, which my father and mother moved to because of the high location of the property. They lived in a lower area when they migrated here in the 1930s. They went through the 1948 flood threat and realized the situation back then, so until November 2021, our family felt confident that we did not have to worry, but to our amazement the dyke on the Sumas River breached, and that was that. We suffered water flooding in our basement, costing us over $8,000 and time away from home. At that time, I was suffering from cancer, which was very difficult.” D. from Abbotsford wrote, “I used to live in Sumas Prairie in the flood zone, and the threat of flooding was a constant concern, so we moved to the Bradner area of Abbotsford, out of the flood zone. Our old house was badly damaged in 2021. The Canadian government must pressure the U.S. government to dredge out the Nooksack River to prevent flooding again. That is one of the only solutions, as I see it.” R. from Abbotsford wrote, “Both the 2021 and 2025 floods cut off use of Highway 1 to the interior for a month. I lost access to my cabin at Hope, and what about the promised infrastructure? How come it is not happening? Let's get it done. Let's get it right this time. We can't go on like this.” O. from Abbotsford wrote, “Yes, I saw many affected residents from the floods. We have to find a way to fix this from happening again by all means.” E. from Abbotsford said, “We need the federal government to work constructively on the Sumas River watershed coalition and to work with our American partners to fix this issue. Where is the federal leadership?” B. in Mission wrote, “I lived in Agassiz in 2021, near the fairgrounds. My crawlspace flooded. I had huge personal and material losses. I spent months sorting and paying for things that could not be saved.” J. in Mission wrote, “Infrastructure needs to be built to stop this from happening again. We can't go on.” T. in Abbotsford wrote, “I don't live on the Sumas flood plain, but do live on the hill above it. My lower level floods on occasion when our storm drainage system can't handle the extra water, because it has nowhere to go when the plains flood. When the freeway is flooded, my daughter can't go to work in Chilliwack.” R. in Abbotsford wrote, “Thanks for pushing this, Brad. My friend's family's cattle were heavily impacted by the 2021 floods. There was incredible destruction and loss around Sumas Prairie.” He mentions the cattle, and in fact one of the few things people from outside the region remember is the cows swimming in the water during the floods. G. and P. in Abbotsford wrote, “In addition to being cut off from the rest of Canada by the flooding in 2021, our region had to rely on shipments being rerouted through the U.S., Washington state, and then back into B.C. Given the trade tensions with the U.S. and our country's resolve to become less dependent on the U.S., do we really want to find ourselves in that position again when the flooding reoccurs? Please get the flood mitigation assistance that was promised in November 2021.” S. H. from Abbotsford wrote, “We had to be evacuated in the middle of the night. We had to relocate our livestock. We missed work. Our property was damaged. The Trans-Canada Highway was flooded and closed. There was poor communication on road closures. We lost a lot of livestock due to the flood.” S. in Abbotsford wrote, “While my property was not flooded, my friends had just recovered from the previous flood disaster. To have two floods so close together stinks of neglect and disinterest for the people of the Fraser Valley.” R. in Abbotsford wrote, “The recent flood disrupted my work for most of a week. I head up construction for farmers, fresh mushrooms, these last 12 years. My work stopped because I had no access to gravel on Sumas Mountain. Three of my crew lost a week's worth of work, because all the roads were cut off.” J. in Abbotsford wrote, “I don't live in the flood plain, but a percentage of our city does. It is terribly disruptive when the floods take place. I am only inconvenienced, but there are people in our city fighting for their homes, land and way of life. Do we have to have another fatality for Ottawa to notice? Thank you for your efforts.” D. in Abbotsford wrote, “Again, Brad, you're looking out for your people. Thank you. Not impacted by the flood except by higher prices and groceries and other necessities because freight was held up. The poor farmers affected have been most heartbreaking. We knew the prime minister at the time, Justin Trudeau, would not keep his promise to help. He gave hope in one hand and snatched it up with the other hand. Typical of him. Also, go very hard on SOGI in our schools. God continue to give you strength.” M. in Abbotsford wrote, “I haven't been affected personally, but my uncle was flooded in the 1975 flood. It has only gotten worse in the 1990s and in the 2020s. My dad had a friend who was a diking commissioner in the Nooksack in the nineties. He was hamstrung by bureaucracies there. It was an international problem that affects the local Americans as well. It missed federal government action on both sides of the border. The Nooksack needs dredging, and we need to improve our dikes. I agree. This problem can only be fixed if the federal government gets involved.” P. from Abbotsford is a professor at the university, and she said they had to cancel exams and that the university was shut for a week because of the floods. She encourages the federal government to take leadership and dredge the Nooksack. K. from Mission wrote, “I'm going to be 85 this spring. I have a caring heart. We've got to get this fixed. This is not acceptable.” B. from Abbotsford wrote, “I received your letter, ‘Fix the Flooding Failure, Hold Ottawa Accountable’, in the mail this week.” This was a few months ago. “You asked how the 2021 and most recent flooding have affected our lives. Well, the Sumas Prairie flood was truly an experience for us. After spending the evening of November 15, 2021, and well into the morning moving files from our office into the shop and into the house, we tried to save our daughter's art studio, furniture and artwork, our other daughter's piano studio, located by the back of our garage, and anything we could from the basement by moving it to the main floor. We never expected the water to rise as much as it did. “We moved items and mopped up water for 26 hours straight. By 4:30 a.m. on November 16, we were completely exhausted and cold. We rested until 6:30 a.m., when we heard police telling us to evacuate. In that short time, the water had rushed in and was already four feet deep in the basement. We couldn't reach the breaker panel or turn off the water or gas. We had only minutes to leave. The water continued rising faster. “We waded through dirty, freezing water to reach our truck on the road. The road had disappeared, and the surrounding area looked like we were in the middle of a lake. Water was entering the cab of the truck. We were very fortunate to get out when we did. Trying to drive when no road is visible and avoiding deep farm ditches was extremely challenging. “We headed south along the mountain, driving through the mudslides and downed branches, and made our way to Chilliwack. With the flooding and landslides, it felt like we were in a movie. “Cold and wet, we were instructed to register with emergency evacuation services in Chilliwack. Our two daughters had stayed at their grandparents the night before because they couldn't make it home once flooding began at Whatcom Road. My husband and I ended up in Chilliwack. “Chilliwack became chaotic as people panicked to get gas and food. Gas stations ran out of fuel, and fights were starting because of the long, frantic lineups. We were able to get clothes and food at Superstore since we had left many essentials at home, but later the store closed as shelves were emptied. “Sumas Prairie and Highway No. 1 were closed, as were Highway No. 1 East past the Agassiz exit and Highway 7 due to mudslides. Exhausted and considering sleeping in the back of the truck, we searched for a place to stay, but nothing was available. It was November, and daytime temperatures were around five degrees. Thankfully, my mum made some calls, and we ended up staying with a distant relative. “On Thursday, November 19, we were finally able to head back to Abbotsford via Highway No. 7. It took three hours, but we still couldn't reach our house. Flooding was everywhere, even though the water had receded three feet. “By Sunday, we were able to pull up to our home and assess the damage. Wearing boots, we entered the house and quickly packed what we could from the main and upper floors. The smell permeated everything. Clothing and bedding that could be washed were washed, but it took a lot to remove the odour. We lost all of our office equipment and furniture, the furniture and appliances in our basement and anything we had placed on our shelves, thinking the water wouldn't reach the ceiling. “We lost all our RV, our chickens and both coops, the art studio, the piano studio and four vehicles. Our business trailers were flooded, and we worked with ICBC to have them repaired. “Seeing the damage was tough, but we had to move forward and do the hard work to get back to normal. We gutted, dried out and repaired our shop. We bought new tools and threw out damaged equipment. Our construction company's head office had to be relocated off the property. “With the help of family and friends, the cleanup began. We ended up with six and a half feet of water, contaminated water containing septic waste, manure, chemicals, oils and gas. Anything touched by it had to be thrown out. Our house needed to be rebuilt, so we lived elsewhere for two and a half years. “We are still dealing with the aftermath. Damage to the outbuildings is yet to be repaired because our focus and finances had to go towards the house and shop. Our older farmhouse had water up to the main floorboards, and after sitting in water for almost a week, the mould and structural damage made rebuilding necessary. “Unfortunately, we had no insurance coverage for overland flooding. Intact Insurance had sent us a letter a year earlier stating that due to failing infrastructure, they would no longer cover floods. I tried to get insurance elsewhere for this, but no one would offer it. “The recent flooding only affected our backyard field and ditches.” That's the one last year. “The house was spared this time. My daughter and I were evacuated at 12:30 a.m. but returned in the morning before Vye Road flooded. Our daughter had recently undergone surgery and was still using a hospital bed, so staying elsewhere was impossible. My husband remained at the house. The stress was still there, knowing how easily it could happen again. “One of our neighbours completely emptied their house, appliances and all, fearing a repeat of 2021. We monitored the water constantly to see how quickly the yard was filling. We were still able to reach Chilliwack via back roads but were cut off from Abbotsford due to closures at Vye Road, Whatcom Road and Whatcom Road to Highway No. 1 from our work. “In 2021, when our dike filled, we realized most of the water that flooded our home came from that failure. This time, we watched the direction of the water from the Nooksack, which has flooded before and follows the same path towards Highway No. 1. “As landowners in the Sumas Prairie, it is deeply concerning that so little has been addressed since 2021. Thank you for taking the time to read our story and share our concerns.” C. from Abbotsford wrote, “In 2021, we were greatly impacted by the flood. We lost many of our belongings and animals. We never received any relief funding or even dump fees waived because we were not put on alert. Our house was completely surrounded by water, but because it sits up high enough, we were able to stay. Not once did any first responders or law enforcement ever come to check on us. We continue to flood every winter, but the city refuses to help us in any way.” R. and D. in Mission wrote, “I can't access the Fraser River from the Barrowtown boat launch anymore due to the level of gravel flowing through the Vedder Canal. The Chilliwack Lake watershed was overlogged decades ago but perhaps has recovered by now. However, the canal needs to be dredged. It's got nothing to do with the so-called climate change, as some try to suggest.” I could go on, but those testaments are clear. My constituents have not received the type of federal support they deserve. They have not received the type of flexibility that the government is showing in Bill C-26 and in this programming motion to accomplish its goals. It has not done anything for the Fraser Valley region, which is integral to maintaining Canada's supply chains in 2026. In my next hour, I am going to look a little more closely at what the government has done on housing since it was elected. It starts with the national housing strategy, which came out in 2016 or 2017. The member for Québec Centre wrote a message as the minister of families, children and social development. He stated: It is my great honour and pleasure to present Canada's first ever National Housing Strategy (NHS), an ambitious $40-billion plan to help ensure that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and that they can afford. Bringing this Strategy to life has been a priority for the Government of Canada for the past 18 months. We are making historic investments in housing—and planning for transformational change—because we understand the value of home. Safe, affordable housing is a launch-pad for better socio-economic outcomes for our citizens, a more inclusive society where everyone has the opportunity to be well and to succeed, a stronger economy and a cleaner environment. But for too many Canadian families, a decent home is simply not affordable. Across Canada, 1.7 million people are in housing need, living in homes that are inadequate or unaffordable. Another 25,000 Canadians are chronically homeless. This needs to change. Building on investments announced in Budgets 2016 and 2017, [this strategy] signals a meaningful re-engagement by the federal government in housing. It is a key element of our Government's plan to help strengthen the middle class, promote growth for everyone, and lift more Canadians out of poverty. Important learnings emerged from last year’s Let's Talk Housing consultations, and our Strategy is stronger for it. Now the work of implementing these ideas begins. He continued: We have set clear goals for the [national housing strategy], including removing 530,000 Canadian families from housing need and reducing chronic homelessness by half over the next decade. We will track and report on our success, and adapt our approach as needed as the Strategy unfolds. Our primary focus will be on meeting the needs of vulnerable populations, such as women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, Indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues, veterans and young adults. The release of the [national housing strategy] marks the beginning of a new era for housing in Canada. We have a Strategy that all Canadians can be proud of and support. I encourage you to become part of this nation-wide effort to ensure that all Canadians have the safe and affordable housing they need and deserve. I consider the member to be an honourable one, but I will note that every metric and group outlined in his introductory letter to the national housing strategy has failed, every single one. Not one thing has been done as they said it would be done when the plan was announced. The first-ever national housing strategy went on: The Government of Canada believes every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable home. Affordable housing is a cornerstone of inclusive communities.... Canada’s first ever National Housing Strategy is a 10-year, $40-billion plan that will give more Canadians a place to call home. Canada’s National Housing Strategy sets ambitious targets to ensure that unprecedented investments and new programming deliver results. This will include a 50% reduction in chronic homelessness, and as many as 530,000 households being taken out of housing need. The National Housing Strategy will result in up to 100,000 new housing units and 300,000 repaired or renewed housing units Through new initiatives like the National Housing Co-Investment Fund and the Canada Community Housing Initiative, the National Housing Strategy will create a new generation of housing in Canada. None of that has taken place. Our plan will promote diverse communities. It will build housing that is sustainable, accessible, mixed-income, and mixed-use. We will build housing that is fully integrated into the community—close to transit, close to work, and close to public services. Expanded and reformed federal homelessness programming, a new Canada Housing Benefit, and a rights-based approach to housing will ensure that the National Housing Strategy prioritizes the most vulnerable Canadians including women and children fleeing [from] violence.... I will note that since this strategy was implemented, violence against women in Canada has more than doubled. Cases of sexual assault and intimate partner violence have skyrocketed under the government. The Liberals said housing would fix it. They were wrong. They misled Canada. They misled our entire nation. The statement continues: The National Housing Strategy is truly a national project, built by and for Canadians. The success of our plan requires collaboration from many partners. The National Housing Strategy invests in the provinces and territories, so all regions can achieve better and more affordable housing. It invests in municipalities, to empower communities to lead the fight against homelessness. It also creates new opportunities for the federal government to innovate through [community] partnerships.... I could go on. Page 5 of the report is about “A vision for housing in Canada”. It reads: Canadians have housing that meets their needs and they can afford. That vision has failed. Affordable housing is a cornerstone of sustainable, inclusive communities and a Canadian economy where we can prosper and thrive. I agree with that. The government has done the opposite. The government notes in its strategy on page 5 that: Housing is more than just a roof over our heads It says: Every Canadian deserves a safe and affordable home I agree. They have not done it. Housing investments must prioritize those most in need, including: women and children fleeing family violence; seniors; Indigenous peoples... I might read, later on, the Auditor General's report on the state of housing on first nations reserves. It is complete failure, again. Housing policy should be grounded in the principles of inclusion, participation, accountability, and non-discrimination I agree, but the government has completely failed on that, too. Housing programs should align with public investments in job creation, skills training, transit, early learning, healthcare, and cultural and recreational infrastructure I wish that were the case. It has not happened. Housing investments should support Canada’s climate change agenda and commitment to accessible communities I agree, but with regard to the impacts of natural disasters and what the government scientists have said about climate change in Canada and in my riding, there was never that alignment or prioritization, as I have outlined in the last hour. That is another big fail. Communities should be empowered to develop and implement local solutions to housing challenges I agree. I do not think it is happening, though. Page 6 of the strategy outlines some targets, including “530,000 households removed from housing need”, “385,000 community housing units protected and another 50,000 units created through an expansion of community housing”, a “50% reduction in estimated number of chronically homeless shelter users”, “300,000 existing housing units repaired and renewed”, “100,000 new housing units created” and “300,000 households provided with affordability support through the Canada Housing Benefit”. I do not think they have succeeded in any of those metrics. On page 7, it says the $40-billion initial investment, which has since doubled, will be a “Once-in-a-Generation Joint Investment”. I find it sad that the government has spent so much money and has so little to show for what it said it wanted to do. In chapter 1, the strategy outlines that: Housing Rights Are Human Rights Canadians deserve safe and affordable housing. That is why the federal government is taking these additional steps to progressively implement the right of every Canadian to access adequate housing. Our plan is grounded in the principles of inclusion, accountability, participation and non-discrimination.... None of that has taken place. The plan talks about new legislation, the National Housing Strategy Act, which I will get to in just a minute, and a new federal housing advocate. I will note, on a positive note, that at least the federal housing advocate has been willing to call out the government accordingly and hold it to account for some of its failures, like the 1,000-year statistic I gave earlier, which outlines that the plan is a complete failure. The plan created a new national housing council, new initiatives, new public campaigns, new legislation and all sorts of new agencies and councils. None of it has made a difference. None of the metrics were met. Chapter 2 talks about “Federal Re-Engagement Through the National Housing Co-Investment Fund”. I do not know what to say. It talked about 60,000 new units and new shelter spaces. Poverty in Canada has grown at such an exponential rate under the government over the last 10 years that even where the government might have made an incremental improvement, the foundation of our economy, our socio-economic status and the erosion of civil society that we have witnessed over the last 10 years have eroded any good that any of these policies could have completed. While more money was pumped, fewer results were achieved. The plan talks about “Making Federal Lands Available for Affordable Housing”. The government is still talking about that. It still has not done anything. I do not think it has made any measurable difference. The only success we have seen on that is when we removed all federal barriers and granted federal lands to indigenous people, to the outcry of many residents in Vancouver. We have seen massive new housing developments take place. It is only when the federal government is not involved that we see results. Chapter 3 talks about “Maintaining a Resilient Community Housing Sector”. I do not know what that means. I do not think it has made a difference. Chapter 4 talks about “A New Canada Housing Benefit” for low-income people. The government is removing that benefit now. Chapter 5 talks about “Progress Through Partnership: Enhanced Support to Provinces and Territories”. Again, what progress have we seen? The report mentions the same statistics I read at the beginning, over and over again. Chapter 6 talks about “Letting Communities Lead”. I do not know what that means. Chapter 7 is titled “‘Nothing About Us, Without Us’”. Housing starts for first nations have only eroded under the government. Chapter 8 talks about “Evidence-Based Housing: Research, Data and Demonstrations”. They developed a research agenda around their own work. The research, as I will show, shows that the plan was an abysmal failure. Chapter 9 is about “Improving Homeownership Options for Canadians”. In some of the debates, I will talk about how, in conjunction with this plan, the government's solution for that was allowing the Government of Canada to co-invest in mortgages or have a portion of Canadians' mortgages. That plan failed drastically. Chapter 10 is about “Gender-Based Analysis Plus”. I do not know what that means or what it has done to improve housing affordability in Canada. I hope it has made some improvements but I do not think it has. Chapter 11 talks about the government's journey to reinvest in housing. Great. I could go on. There are more statistics, more failed investments, zero progress to date and a move in the complete opposite direction from the direction the strategy said it would go in. The next document I will quickly take a look at is the National Housing Strategy Act. It was very big legislation for the government at the time. I will outline what it says in the preamble: Whereas housing is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to building sustainable and inclusive communities as well as a strong national economy in which the people of Canada can prosper and thrive; Whereas access to affordable housing contributes to achieving beneficial social, economic, health and environmental outcomes; Whereas improved housing outcomes are best achieved through cooperation between governments and civil society as well as the meaningful involvement of local communities; Whereas national goals, timelines and initiatives relating to housing and homelessness are essential to improving the quality of life of the people of Canada, particularly persons in greatest need; Whereas a national housing strategy would support a common vision, key principles and a coordinated approach to achieving...housing outcomes; Whereas a national housing strategy would contribute to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations; And whereas a national housing strategy would support the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which Canada is a party; Importantly, the legislation includes a housing policy declaration. In section 4, it reads: It is declared to be the housing policy of the Government of Canada to (a) recognize that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law; (b) recognize that housing is essential to the inherent dignity and well-being of the person and to building sustainable and inclusive communities; (c) support improved housing outcomes for the people of Canada; and (d) further the progressive realization of the right to adequate housing as recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In section 5, under “National Housing Strategy”, on page 3 of the bill, it states: 5 (1) The Minister must develop and maintain a national housing strategy to further the housing policy, taking into account key principles of a human rights-based approach to housing. Content (2) The National Housing Strategy is to, among other things, (a) set out a long-term vision for housing in Canada that recognizes the importance of housing in achieving social, economic, health and environmental goals; (b) establish national goals relating to housing and homelessness and identify related priorities, initiatives, timelines and desired outcomes; (c) focus on improving housing outcomes for persons in greatest need; and (d) provide for participatory processes to ensure the ongoing inclusion and engagement of civil society, stakeholders, vulnerable groups and persons with lived experience of housing need, as well as those with lived experience of homelessness. The act sets out a national housing council. It states: 6 (1) A council, to be known as the National Housing Council, is established for the purpose of furthering the housing policy...by (a) providing advice to the Minister, on its own initiative or at the request of the Minister, including, among other things, on the effectiveness of the National Housing Strategy This sounds familiar. Is it another bureaucratic body to do the job of the minister. It talks about the membership of the council, which I will not go into, as well as ex officio members and the appointment terms. This was a very common thing under Trudeau. Every legislation had a corresponding council. The legislation created a federal housing advocate on page 6, with specific duties to do the following: (a) monitor the implementation of the housing policy and assess its impact on persons who are members of vulnerable groups, persons with lived experience of housing need and persons with lived experience of homelessness; (b) monitor progress in meeting the goals and timelines... (c) analyze and conduct research, as the Advocate sees fit, on systemic housing issues, including barriers... (d) initiate studies, as the Advocate sees fit, into economic, institutional or industry conditions... (e) consult with persons referred to in paragraph (a) and civil society organizations... (f) receive submissions with respect to systemic housing issues; (g) provide advice to the Minister; (h) submit a report to the Minister on the Advocate’s findings...and; (i) participate in the work of the National Housing Council as an ex officio member. The act established a review panel, and it goes on and on about the review panel. It talks about accountability on page 10, which states: The Minister must respond to the annual report of the Federal Housing Advocate. I would be remiss as a member of Parliament to not note that we ask general questions on the state of housing in Canada every day, and we never get clear responses. We hear only that everything is okay and Canada has never had it so good. That is essentially the strategy. During the debates, because this was part of the budget bill in April 2019, many Liberals spoke highly about what they were doing. Jennifer O'Connell, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance at the time, talked about how the Liberal approach was going to help young Canadians who “want the chance to work in a good career, buy a home and build a better future for themselves, their families and their communities.” That was never realized. She talked about their approach to housing, and stated: Many Canadians might feel that because of high house prices in some of Canada's largest cities, buying a home is increasingly out of reach. We know that young people especially are being priced out of some house and condo markets. Average home prices today are about eight times larger than the average full-time income of Canadians aged 25 to 34. That is markedly different from a few decades ago, when they were about four times larger. To address the difficulty that young families may be having in buying their first home, through Bill C‑97, budget 2019 proposes a new first‑time home buyer incentive. With this extra help in the shape of a shared equity mortgage through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Canadians can lower their monthly mortgage payments, making home ownership more affordable. I would note that the government scrapped that program pretty quickly. It was an abysmal failure. She continued: Through budget 2019 and Bill C‑97, our government is also increasing the home buyers' plan withdrawal limit for the first time in a decade. I will admit that was a good policy, but none of the Liberals' measures improved affordability. Budget 2019 talked about job experience and employer-relevant skills. None of that panned out. This is interesting: The parliamentary secretary at the time talked about attracting more foreign students to Canada by promoting Canadian educational institutions as high-caliber places to study. One of the biggest and most negative impacts on housing affordability in Canada has been the immigration policies of the current government, where demand completely outstrips supply due to unfettered immigration targets. Just a few years ago, the members opposite praised the government for increasing those numbers. What a short-sighted policy idea that was. Maryam Monsef, in May 2019, talked about more funding in budget 2019: ...we took our commitment to housing even further. We are investing an additional $10 billion in the rental construction financing initiative, which will help people who rely on rental and social housing to find more housing opportunities. We have introduced the first-time homebuyer incentive, which will help more Canadians achieve the dream of owning a home. Thanks to these and other investments, the national housing strategy is now a...$55-billion plan, and we are seeing the fruits of our commitment in new and renewed housing units across the country. Next year, the Canada housing benefit will come into effect. This is an additional $2,500 a year for low-income Canadians. It is a portable fund that will follow them wherever they choose to live to ensure they have greater access to affordable housing. She talked about the National Housing Strategy Act, which I just read from and which: ...would create a national housing council supported by CMHC, which will act as a focal point for housing policy discussions on the national housing strategy and will advise the minister on how to improve housing outcomes. With [these] amendments, we are empowering the national housing council with even more freedom to support the federal housing advocate and to report on the findings to the minister responsible. She talked about being very proud of the housing investments and about upholding the rights of Canadians. The member for Surrey Centre also spoke about the 2019 budget with respect to housing. He stated: By listening to the needs of Canadians and encouraging dialogue, I am proud to say this government has continued its commitment to improving housing affordability in this country, and this is exemplified in budget 2019.... The government is...committed to working in partnership with the province and the municipality to ensure a tri-levelled affordable housing strategy for Surrey residents. In conjunction with British Columbia's affordable...plan and Surrey's affordable housing strategy, the government's new homeowner incentive is a proactive measure to ensure that a future in Surrey is possible for young people and families. He stated in his speech: Our goal is to cut chronic homelessness in half, remove 530,000 families from housing need and invest in the construction of up to 100,000 new homes. However, our government knows that these changes cannot, unfortunately, take place overnight. This is why our government has introduced new measures in budget 2019 to help relieve the pressures on Canadians.... We will continue working hard to ensure that...middle-class Canadians [can afford a home, that] home ownership is not a pipe dream, but rather, an achievable goal. The then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Development talked about this, saying: Today in Canada, especially where my constituents live in Brampton West, once affordable properties are now out of reach due to high demand. Therefore, in budget 2016 and in budget 2017, we established Canada's first-ever housing strategy that would invest $40 billion over 10 years to build and repair affordable housing units. This gives future homeowners greater options when looking at the housing market and makes housing accessible to more people than ever before. In budget 2019, we are taking another step to support first-time homebuyers, including new immigrant families in Brampton West. To help make home ownership more affordable for first-time homebuyers, budget 2019 introduces the first-time homebuyer incentive. This incentive would allow eligible first-time homebuyers, who have the minimum down payment of an insured mortgage, to finance a portion of their home purchase through a shared equity mortgage with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Later in her speech, she says: It is unfortunate that the provincial government in Ontario is impeding the flow of federal dollars to our municipalities. This has been having a tremendous effect in my community in Brampton. We are working directly with our municipalities to ensure that essential projects move forward. I am proud to be part of a government that is working with municipalities on behalf of Canadians and delivering for them. Brampton will be receiving close to $50 million through this fund so that it can invest in services that Bramptonians rely on most, such as public transportation, recreation centres and our parks. I could go on. The member for Humber River—Black Creek, on June 4, 2019, said: We are not just talking about the homeless. We are talking about seniors who cannot sell their houses because they have nowhere to go, and they are struggling as it is. There are a lot of people who are struggling and looking for housing. I hope that the way we are doing it, under our new national housing strategy, is going to help decrease the number of homeless people. More important, it is to help people find alternative forms of housing compared to what they currently have. The member for Humber River—Black Creek went on to prop up the first-time homebuyers incentive. She said that it: will certainly help a lot of young people in their mid-thirties who are having significant difficulty just getting into the housing market. Once they can get into the housing market and stay employed, they will have lots of opportunity to build equity in that house and then can later on move into a larger house as their family grows. The then parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance, a member from Quebec, talked about many measures in budget 2019 as well. About Bill C-97, he said: In concrete terms, it will require the federal government to give priority to the housing needs of the most vulnerable Canadians. The government will also be required to report back to Parliament on the progress made in implementing the strategy and in achieving the desired results with respect to housing. These targets, such as cutting homelessness in half in this country and building 100,000 new units, as well as repairing and renovating another 300,000, will make a real difference in the lives of many Canadians.... I think it is time for the federal government to take responsibility for housing and make a bold, ambitious comeback. That is what the national housing strategy does. The Liberals' housing agenda, first articulated in 2017 through the national housing strategy, was framed as a historic and transformational shift in federal policy. The quotes I just outlined from the budget debate in 2019 reinforce that. The former minister from the Quebec region presented the strategy as a long-overdue correction to decades of federal withdrawal, promising not only significant new investment, but a reorientation of housing policy toward affordable, equitable and measurable outcomes. Housing was to be treated as a human right. Vulnerable Canadians would be prioritized, and hundreds of thousands of households would be lifted out of housing need. The rhetoric was expansive and ambitious, setting expectations for systemic change rather than incremental improvement. However, when these promises are compared to the current trajectory of housing policy, particularly as outlined in the 2025 report by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a significant gap emerges between what was promised and what is now being delivered. One of the most striking divergences lies in the trajectory of federal spending. The national housing strategy was built on the premise of sustained, long-term federal investment. In 2017, the government emphasized that consistent funding over a decade would provide stability, enable planning and ultimately improve affordability outcomes, yet according to the PBO's 2025 analysis, federal housing spending is not being sustained. It is actually declining sharply. Planned spending falls from $9.8 billion in 2025-26 to just $4.3 billion by 2028-29. It is almost as if the government is afraid to admit the fact that its strategy was not working. The implication is clear: Despite earlier commitments to long-term leadership, the federal role in housing is set to diminish precisely when demand for intervention still remains incredibly high. This decline in spending is closely tied to the exploration of key programs under the national housing strategy. This creates some structural problems. The policy architecture that supported the government's original affordability goals is being dismantled faster than a new policy can be approached. As a result, the overall footprint of federal housing policy is changing without direction. The flagship initiative under budget 2025, Build Canada Homes, exemplifies this shift. Rather than providing immediate relief to households struggling without housing costs, it focuses on financing construction, developing assets and encouraging new housing supply over time. In principle, increasing housing supply is an essential component of any housing strategy. However, the effectiveness of the shift depends on both the scale and the timing of the resulting construction. On both counts, the PBO's assessment raises concerns. The report estimates that Building Canada Homes will generate approximately 26,000 new housing units over a five‑year period. While this is not insignificant in absolute terms, it is modest relative to the scale of housing shortages. The PBO notes that this output would increase housing completions by only 2.1% and addresses just 3.7% of the projected housing gap. These figures underscore a key limitation: The program's contribution to overall supply is incremental rather than transformative. The government has also stated an ambitious goal of doubling the pace of housing construction, yet the PBO explicitly states that no detailed plan has been provided to achieve these objectives. This disconnect between stated targets and concrete policy mechanisms weakens the credibility of the government's approach and raises questions about its capacity to deliver meaningful results. The limited scale of new supply is further compounded by issues related to affordability targeting. Of the 26,000 units expected to be created under Building Canada Homes, only about 13% are projected to be affordable for low-income households. This represents a relatively small contribution in the context where millions of Canadians face affordability challenges. More concerning is the definition of affordability itself. The PBO highlights that some units classified as affordable under the program may have rents significantly higher than historical market benchmarks. For example, illustrative calculations suggest that rents deemed affordable for median-income households could be substantially higher than the national median market rent observed in previous years. This raises a critical concern: The policy risks conflating affordability with relative pricing metrics that does not reflect the lived reality of low- and moderate-income households. In effect, units may be labelled as affordable without being meaningfully accessible to those most in need. Another important aspect of the current policy direction is the trade-off between short-term support and long-term investment. By shifting resources toward capital development, the government is prioritizing supply over immediate affordability, which warrants more discussion. However, this does create a timing mismatch. Housing construction takes years to complete, and its impact on prices and rents is gradual. In contrast, affordability challenges are immediate and acute for many households. Renters facing high costs today cannot wait for long-term supply responses necessarily to materialize. It is something to consider. The reduction or expiration of direct supports, many have argued, leaves a gap in the policy framework. The PBO explicitly notes that the addition of new units will only partially offset the decline in overall affordability support. Compounding these issues are plan reductions in funding from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal agency responsible for administering many housing programs. The report identifies $2.4 billion in cuts to CMHC funding over several years. This raises concerns about the system's capacity to deliver effective housing support. Reductions in funding for programs, administration, financing tools and sector development can weaken the overall effectiveness of housing policy. Taken together, these trends point to a broader pattern, a contraction in federal housing policy combined with a reorientation toward long-term supply measures. That is not all bad, but the national housing strategy is still the official policy of the government on the books and should be taken in the context of these changed policy metrics. When viewed in the context of the government's original promises, the divergence becomes even more pronounced. In 2017, the Liberals committed to prioritizing vulnerable Canadians. These commitments implied not only increased spending but also a sustained focus on outcomes for those most affected by the housing crisis. By 2026, however, the policy framework appears to be moving away from these priorities. This does not mean that all elements of the current approach are without merit. Investments in housing supply are necessary, and efforts to modernize construction methods or leverage public land can contribute to long-term improvements. However, the scale and design of these initiatives are critical. As the PBO analysis shows, the current measures are insufficient to address the magnitude of Canada's housing challenges. Ultimately, the gap between promise and reality reflects a deeper issue in policy design. I think that warrants us to look at some of the PBO reports that have been issued by the Parliamentary Budget Officer on federal program spending on housing affordability. The first one was on June 18, 2019. The executive summary, on page 1, states: Canada’s 2017 National Housing Strategy...provided new funding for housing affordability programs over its ten-year term from 2018-19 to 2027-28. Taking into account existing and subsequent commitments, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) plans to spend an average of $2.8 billion/year on assisted housing programs over the [ten years] of the NHS. This represents a $0.4 billion/year (15%) increase in nominal spending over the 10-year historical average. Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) plans to spend $225 million/year on homelessness programs, which represents a $86 million/year (62%) increase in nominal spending over the five-year historical average. In the overall allocation of funding between CMHC’s core responsibilities, there is a $325 million/year (14%) reduction in funding for Assistance for Housing Needs programs intended to help low-income households compared with the 10-year historical average. Within the Assistance for Housing Need portfolio, there is a $167 million/year (12%) reduction in funding for transfers to the provinces and territories and a $175 million/year (30%) reduction in funding for federal community housing. These reductions are partially offset by $200 million/year in new spending on rent subsidies. The decline in funding for Assistance for Housing Needs programs is offset, in terms of aggregate spending, by a $664 million/year increase in funding for Financing for Housing programs which are not necessarily targeted to low-income households. It is not clear that the National Housing Strategy will reduce the prevalence of housing need relative to 2017 levels. Overall, Canada’s National Housing Strategy largely maintains current funding levels for current activities and slightly reduces targeted funding for households in core housing need. CMHC’s assumptions regarding the impact of NHS outputs on housing need do not reflect the likely impact of those programs on the prevalence of housing need. From chapter 1, the introduction, under “Purpose of Report”: This report is intended to help parliamentarians understand federal spending on affordable housing and the results that spending is likely to achieve. [The] report is undertaken under the Parliamentary Budget Officers’ mandate to prepare reports concerning the government’s budget and estimates. It was also undertaken under the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s mandate to estimate the financial cost of a proposal over which Parliament has jurisdiction upon requests from a parliamentarian. In this case, a Member of Parliament requested an estimate of the incremental [financing] costs arising from Canada’s National Housing Strategy and the cost to achieve the targets of that strategy. Then, under “Scope of Report”, it states: The National Housing Strategy was announced in Budget 2017 and elaborated upon in a subsequent policy document. This is something I have already read. It was presented as an “ambitious $40-billion plan to help ensure that Canadians have access to housing that meets their needs and that they can afford” by making “unprecedented investments” in housing. The National Housing Strategy Act, found in clause 313 of the 2019 Budget Implementation Act...would require the government to maintain similar strategies and national goals. The National Housing Strategy focuses on program expenditures by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). CMHC administers most program expenditures relating to housing affordability, while ESDC provides transfers to communities and service providers to help address homelessness. The focus of this report is direct federal expenditures by these two organizations outlined in the Strategy. This report does not include federal tax expenditures. Details regarding federal tax expenditures related to housing can be found in the Department of Finance’s Report on Federal Tax Expenditures. Expenditures by Indigenous Services Canada and Crown Indigenous-Relations and Northern Affairs Canada are not covered in this report. Expenditures of Infrastructure Canada were not examined since it does not provide significant funding for housing Chapter 2 is called “How Much Does Canada Spend on Housing Affordability?” It states: From 2008-09 to 2017-18, CMHC spent [on] average...$2.4 billion/year on the activities now included in its “Assisted Housing” business segment. From 2018 to 2027-28, CMHC plans to spend $2.8 billion/year on these same activities. Under “National Housing Strategy Breakdown”, the chapter continues: As noted previously, the National Housing Strategy was marketed as a “$40- billion plan” or as a “$40-billion federal investment”. In reality, the Strategy committed...$16.1 billion in new federal planned spending.... As shown in Figure 2-4— This is on page 6 of the 2019 “Federal Program Spending on Housing Affordability” report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. —the “$40 billion” headline commitment in the National Housing Strategy policy document includes...loans..., new loans..., existing planned spending...and required Provincial‑Territorial cost matching.... Together with the $16.1 billion in new planned spending, this exceeds the “$40 billion” headline commitment. A full breakdown is attached as Appendix A.... CMHC’s total planned spending from 2018‑19 to 2027‑28 is $27.9 billion. As we will note in future reports, it has gone up significantly since then, but in the interest of time, and having so many of these reports to get to, I am going to jump ahead to some of the findings they found in 2019. Under “What will the [national housing strategy] achieve?”, the report states: The primary outcome target of the National Housing Strategy is “530,000 households removed from housing need” or “up to 50% reduction in the housing need of renters.” However, it is not clear that the National Housing Strategy will reduce the prevalence of housing need relative to 2017 levels. As shown above, the [national housing strategy] largely maintains current funding levels for current activities in nominal term and slightly reduces targeted funding for households in core housing need. Furthermore, CMHC’s assumptions regarding the impact of [the national housing strategy] outputs on housing need [to] reflect the likely impact of those programs on the prevalence of housing need. This is something the report aptly does. On to the report “Federal Program Spending on Housing Affordability in 2021”, this is a continuation of the review of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's assessment of the national housing strategy. It reads: The Government of Canada’s current plan to address housing affordability is the 2017 National Housing Strategy (NHS), which runs from 2018‑19 to 2027‑28. This plan is primarily administered by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) and Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC). These department’s planned spending under the National Housing Strategy is $3.7 billion each year. As we have noted, it has gone up from $2.8 billion in the 2019 examination already. Average planned spending is driven up by time-limited programs implemented in response to COVID‑19, like the Rapid Housing Initiative. Of the $3.7 billion per year in average planned spending, $221 million per year...is dedicated to indigenous housing in urban, rural and northern areas. Since [the] 2019 report...Canada’s federal government has allocated $672 million per year in additional funding to address housing...and homelessness. The report continues: First, despite the increase in overall spending, funding for CMHC’s assistance for housing need programs intended to help low‑income households increased only by $192 million per year...in nominal terms, which represents a 15% decline in the real purchasing power of federal spending. Second, a significant portion of the community housing supported under CMHC’s bilateral agreements with provinces reached the end of their operating agreements. This caused a [42%] reduction in the number of low-income community housing units supported under bilateral agreements between 2015 and the baseline established by CMHC’s new bilateral agreements. These were outlined in the National Housing Strategy Act. Third, CMHC’s capital contribution programs have faced implementation delays. Over the first three years of Canada’s National Housing Strategy, CMHC spent less than half the funding allocated for two key initiatives, the National Housing Co-Investment Fund and Rental Construction Financing Initiative. As of 30 October 2020, CMHC had made financial commitments towards the creation of 4,270 units of affordable housing committing [on] average [a] maximum of 52% of median market rent under the National Housing Co-Investment Fund. CMHC had made financial commitments towards the creation of 7,960 units of affordable housing committing to charge an average maximum of 72% of 30% of median household income under the Rental Construction Financing Initiative.... Finally, we project that in the absence of additional spending the number of households in housing need would have increased to approximately 1.8 million households with a $9.3 billion aggregate affordability gap by 2025‑26. Over the period of 2021 to 2025, incremental CMHC spending averages 16% of the projected affordability gap and about $63/month per household in housing need. I am going to go on to the 2024 report because I have not even gotten to my analysis yet, after I read all of these reports last night, and that is the most important part. In 2024, the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlights: Spending on programs to address housing affordability averages $6.1 billion...over the term of Canada’s 10‑year National Housing Strategy (NHS). This is a massive increase, we will note, from the 2021 numbers. This represents a 50% increase in the purchasing power of federal spending compared with the prior 10 years. Additional [housing] program spending has been primarily allocated to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporations’ Financing for Housing programs, which received a $1.3 billion per annum increase in funding. Total spending on housing affordability is estimated to be $17.5 billion annually, with 65% attributable to tax expenditures. After accounting for the impact of all relevant federal policies, [the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects] that 2.6 million households will be in housing need by 2027. This represents an increase of about 926,000 households in core housing need compared to the start of Canada’s [national housing strategy] in 2017. Already, in 2024, we saw that the strategy was not working.

I am getting there. Do not worry. Mr. Speaker, the report goes on to say: The overall target of Canada’s NHS is to remove 530,000 households from housing need by 2027‑28. After accounting for the impact of all relevant federal policies and economic trends, we estimate that 2.4 million households are currently in core housing need and we project that, by 2027, 2.6 million households will be in core housing need. We project that by 2027, there will be about 926,000 more households in core housing need compared to the start of [the national housing strategy] in 2017. Let us go on to 2025. Then we are going to get to my speech. I have to do my research first. In 2025, in “Build Canada Homes and the Outlook for Housing Programs under Budget 2025”, the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlights that: Federal planned spending on housing programs is set to decline 56 per cent, from $9.8 billion in 2025‑26 to $4.3 billion in 2028‑29 due to the expiry of funding for existing programs and cuts set out in Budget 2025. Within this spending plan, Budget 2025 prioritizes...the construction of new housing through a new federal agency called Build Canada Homes. Build Canada Homes plans to spend $7.3 billion over 2025‑26 to 2029‑30. Here is the cliffhanger: Build Canada Homes should be expected to make a modest contribution toward housing supply and affordability within the broader context of a large decline in support for housing affordability. The report continues: Build Canada Homes is presented as part of the Government’s efforts to double the pace of housing construction over the next decade. That said, the Government has not yet laid out an overall plan to achieve this goal. Ouch. We anticipate that the contribution of Build Canada Homes will likely be modest and estimate that the program will add about 26,000 units over five years, representing a 2.1 per cent increase in housing completions relative to our baseline projection. Build Canada Homes has sufficient funding to create approximately 13,000...units of housing affordable for low‑income households. However, this occurs within a context of declining spending and a shift away from immediate affordability supports such as the Canada Housing Benefit and support for existing social housing. Let us walk through this and break down all of this important information because that was a lot of data. It even got me sweating, it was so suspenseful. I want to walk through not just what the government promised on housing but what the evidence shows. This is now a question not only of policy performance but of whether the government is delivering on its own law, the national housing strategy, and ambition in policy. As I have reiterated numerous times throughout my remarks this morning, the government promised to remove 530,000 households from housing need, cut housing need in half, create 100,000 new housing units, repair or renew 300,000 existing units, protect 385,000 community housing units and reduce chronic homelessness by 50%, a suite of commitments that the government presented as comprehensive, time‑bound and transformational under the national housing strategy in 2017. It committed to cutting housing need in half. These were not small commitments. They, in the government's own words, were meant to be transformational. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer made very clear early on that outcomes were already falling far short. As early as the first major PBO assessments of the national housing strategy, the evidence showed that the scale of program impacts was insufficient relative to the need, as the member from Winnipeg will note in my disposition of the 2019 report. Even before recent population pressures and interest rate shocks, by 2021, only a few years into its implementation, the PBO was already warning that the net reduction in core housing need was modest and that federal interventions were not on track to meeting stated targets. In other words, the warning signs were visible well before the current crisis we find ourselves in today. The strategy was underscaled from the outset, heavily relying on slow-moving capital programs and incapable of delivering the rapid affordability improvements the government promised. Rather than correcting course when this evidence emerged, the government largely stayed on the path, allowing a predictable gap between ambition and outcomes to widen year after year. The net reduction in core housing need is limited relative to the scale of the problem. That is what the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated in the 2021 analysis report. This was the first clue that something fundamental was not working, because when a plan is described as transformative, but its outcomes are described as limited, there is already a gap between promise and performance. My second point is on the National Housing Strategy Act and ambition in law. It is also important to situate this legal framework in the context of the scale of the federal investment that accompanied it. When the national housing strategy was launched, it was presented as a $40-billion plan. Over time, that figure was repeatedly increased and reframed as over $70 billion in federal commitments across grants, loans, financing tools and program spending. I believe that as of last night, it is over $80 billion in commitments. Parliament was told that this level of investment, combined with a rights-based legislative framework, as I outlined in my review of the act, would fundamentally change housing outcomes in Canada. The act was therefore never intended to operate in isolation from funding. It was meant to discipline and guide very large public expenditures toward measurable outcomes. Indeed, all of the speeches I read from concerning Bill C-97 in the 2019 debates reinforced that very point. In other words, the bargain was clear: unprecedented federal investment in exchange for clear goals, timelines, accountability and a focus on those in greatest need. That is why the failure to meet outcomes is so consequential. After years and years of record spending, program expansion and administrative growth, the evidence shows worsening housing needs rather than the progressive improvement the government labelled in its original housing strategy, as I outlined. This context matters when evaluating the current policy choices before us and this programming motion today. Bill C-26 and budget 2025 do not emerge in a vacuum. They follow a decade of escalating financial commitments that have not delivered the promised results. When the government seeks additional funds through ad hoc legislation while simultaneously reducing support under the existing strategy, it is not because housing lacked funding in the past. It is because large-scale funding, absent structural reform and accountability, has not translated into affordability or adequate supply. Seen this way, the issue before Parliament is not whether more money should be spent, but whether spending is being governed by a framework that actually works. The National Housing Strategy Act was supposed to be that framework. The fact that the government is now bypassing it after committing tens of billions of dollars without achieving its objectives underscores the depth of the policy failure we are confronting. However, this is not just a policy story. As I outlined earlier today, in 2019, Parliament passed the National Housing Strategy Act, and that changed everything because it legally requires the government, in section 5, to set out national goals, timelines and desired outcomes, and “focus on improving housing outcomes for persons in greatest need”. At its core, the act establishes not only a statement of principle, but a framework for action and accountability that is directly relevant to the government's current legislative choices, including Bill C-26. This is where the government's position becomes most revealing. The National Housing Strategy Act was designed to ensure that federal housing policy is guided by outcomes, not announcements: clear goals and timelines, a focus on those in greatest need and mechanisms to measure whether progress is actually being made. New spending under that framework is supposed to advance those objectives and be evaluated against them. Bill C-26 departs from that logic. Rather than strengthening or reforming the national housing strategy to correct its glaring shortcomings and complete failure, the government is proposing a parallel track, authorizing significant new payments for housing supply without anchoring that spending to the strategy's target or the act's obligations. There is no requirement in Bill C-26 to demonstrate how funds would reduce core housing need, no binding affordability thresholds and no alignment with the act's statutory focus on households in greatest need. In effect, the bill asks Parliament to approve new money while suspending the very accountability framework that the Liberal government put in place in 2019. That choice matters. If the strategy and the act were working, new resources would logically flow through them, reinforced by tighter targets and clearer accountability. Instead, Bill C-26 would bypass that framework altogether. This is not an accident. It reflects a tacit recognition that the existing approach cannot deliver outcomes it promised. However, rather than acknowledging that failure and proposing a redesigned strategy, the government is seeking flexibility without accountability, with more money now and fewer questions later. This approach risks repeating the same mistakes at greater cost. Untied spending may move dollars, but without discipline and without parliamentary accountability, it does not guarantee homes that are affordable, nor the intended objectives of the minister. Bill C-26 therefore represents not a course correction, but an institutional workaround, one that would allow the government to claim action on housing while avoiding a candid reckoning with why its flagship strategies have fallen apart. The National Housing Strategy Act establishes the right to adequate housing as a “fundamental human right”. These are not suggestions. They are regulatory obligations, which means that we must evaluate this policy not just politically but legally. Is it improving outcomes? Is it prioritizing Canadians most in need who are going to their local food bank and working two jobs? Is it moving things forward, as the principle that the Liberals outlined of progressive realization requires? No. Let us turn to the data we reviewed in the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that I outlined earlier. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us that housing need rose to 2.6 million households in 2024, yet only 78,000 households have been removed from need in that same 2024 report. This is not a small gap. This is a complete collapse in deliverology. The Liberals used to love talking about deliverology. That is a shortfall of more than 450,000 households. Barely one in seven who were promised relief will actually receive it. Critically, the PBO concludes that housing need is expected to increase over the projected period despite program spending. It is very clear. Program spending is not working. What the government campaigned on in the last election is not working. This is perhaps the most damning finding in my entire analysis today, because it tells us that even after billions of dollars and years of programs, the system is not improving; it is deteriorating. Public, independent evidence makes clear that this deterioration is occurring despite the creation of a large federal housing bureaucracy and tens of billions of dollars in announced spending. The Parliamentary Budget Officer is repeatedly showing us that while administrative structures, programs and reporting requirements have expanded, the measurable outcomes that matter, such as reductions in housing need, improved affordability and faster supply delivery, have not followed. In effect, the federal government has built a complex policy and administrative architecture, but that architecture has not translated into results on the ground. Rising housing need, declining affordability and missed targets demonstrate that process has outpaced performance and that the scale of bureaucracy and spending alone has not been sufficient to meet the Liberal government's stated objectives. Let us look at some of the mortgage delinquency rates that are on the rise. Mortgage delinquencies have increased significantly after nearly a decade of Liberal housing policy. CMHC reported in May 2026 that the national 90‑plus day mortgage delinquency rate rose to 0.2% in quarter four of 2025, up from 0.21% a year earlier. According to a 2026 Equifax report, the rate of delinquencies in Ontario sat at about 0.3% in the first quarter of this year, a jump of 52% year over year. In B.C., the number jumped 36% to 0.25%. Rebecca Oakes, vice‑president of advanced analytics at Equifax Canada, said, “When we look kind of at the mortgage trend, it is just a really good indication of the severity of financial stress that’s happening in a region.” Ontario is experiencing record stress. The housing crisis is no longer even about affordability alone. It is becoming a mortgage payment crisis. Equifax reported that mortgage delinquencies were up 52% year over year in Ontario during quarter one of 2026. In Toronto, mortgage delinquency rates increased by approximately 58% year over year. Data from CMHC showed that around 0.21% of homeowners in Hamilton had not made a full mortgage payment in at least three months as of late 2025, representing a 425% increase in that city's mortgage delinquency rate from mid-2022. Homeowners are carrying larger and larger debts. When borrowers fall behind today, they are falling behind on much larger mortgages. The average delinquent mortgage balance reached approximately $355,000 in quarter one of 2026, a 13.2% increase from a year earlier. Total consumer debt reached $2.66 trillion nationally. Mortgage delinquencies are often the final stage of household financial distress. The Bank of Canada found that households heading towards mortgage delinquency typically increase credit card utilization roughly two years beforehand, begin missing consumer credit payments one or two years beforehand and experience rapidly worsening financial conditions in the six months leading up to mortgage delinquency. Canada needs more homes, but the 2025 National Building Code risks making homes more expensive to build. The Canadian Home Builders' Association argues that housing affordability and supply are already in crisis and that the code changes should be evidence-based, cost-effective and implementable at scale. The CHBA has criticized the 2025 codes for insufficient consideration of their cumulative cost impacts. The costs are so significant that in a February 2026 open letter to the Prime Minister, the Canadian Home Builders' Association calls for an immediate pause to that regulatory approach. The CHBA has cited federal impact analysis showing that high-energy performance tiers could increase construction costs by more than $40,000 per home. In total, the CHBA estimates that the 2025 National Building Code could add up to $100,000 in costs to a new unit. Every policy should be tested against one question: Will it build more homes? Governments should be focused on removing barriers to construction and increasing supply. The association has warned that many regulatory responses to housing and climate objectives ultimately increase costs and reduce housing production. Let me expand on my speech on budget 2025 regarding less support, not more. One might assume that worsening outcomes could be addressed simply by expanding funding, but the evidence shows that money alone is not the binding constraint. The problem is not a lack of announcements or headline dollars. It is that the underlying policy framework has failed to translate resources into results. Structural barriers, slow approvals and misaligned incentives such as those outlined by the Canadian Home Builders' Association outline that very fact. Delayed project delivery, weak targeting and an overreliance on long-term capital programs have meant that additional funding has not produced proportional investments in affordability or a reduction in housing need. However, the PBO shows something more important: Outcomes have continued to worsen, not because funding was insufficient but because the government's approach failed to address structural constraints that determine whether homes actually get built and become affordable. Spending's falling 56% is a signal that the government itself is implicitly acknowledging that simply layering additional funding onto the existing approach has not delivered results. Rather than openly reassessing the strategy and admitting that its core design has failed, the government appears to be quietly pulling back, reducing funding while maintaining the same policy framework. This halfway acknowledgement, though, stops short of the full consideration the evidence supports, which is that the approach itself, not just its funding level, has failed to meet its objectives. I encourage everyone to look at the highlights on page 1 of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's outlook for housing programs under budget 2025. Federal plan spending on housing programs, as I just noted, is set to decline 56%, a decline that reflects more than a fiscal choice. It follows years in which the government failed to meet the core objectives it set for itself under both the national housing strategy and the strategy act. Rather than acknowledging that its approach has delivered neither the promised reduction in housing need nor improvements in affordability, the government is scaling back federal supports while leaving the underlying strategy largely intact, effectively retreating from its own commitments without admitting its failure. Let us be clear. Housing need continues to rise in Canada. Targets are being missed, and spending is being cut. This is not an adjustment. It is a quiet retreat from objectives the government has failed to meet under both the national housing strategy and the National Housing Strategy Act, an implicit acknowledgement that the approach has not worked, without the candour to admit failure or undertake a genuine course correction. If I had another couple of hours today, I would probably delve into some of the comments made by the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing on his new approach and the new bureaucracies the government is covering. I just do not have enough time to get through all that in the time I have today. I will talk about the supply strategy and Build Canada Homes for a bit. The government's response is to emphasize supply, to build more homes and to accelerate construction, but the PBO even offers a reality check where Conservatives and Liberals might agree on improving supply: “[Build Canada Homes] should be expected to make a modest contribution towards housing supply and affordability.” As I asked earlier when I read that report, what does “modest” mean in practice? It would be about 26,000 units over five years, a scale of delivery that underscores the failure of the government's current approach. Put plainly, this represents roughly 5,000 units per year nationwide, at a time when Canada is adding hundreds of thousands of new residents annually and facing a huge housing gap measured in hundreds of thousands of units. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer characterized this contribution as “modest”, estimating it would increase housing completions by only about 2.1%, relative to baseline projections. That is not transformational. It is marginal change at best. When a strategy promises to cut housing need in half but delivers a supply that addresses only a tiny fraction of that projected shortfall, this amounts to an admission that the policy levers being used are inadequate. The result is predictable: Housing needs continue to rise, affordability deteriorates, and the government declares success while the underlying problems worsen. In effect, the federal approach substitutes announcement and program branding for outcomes, producing numbers that are too small, too slow and too poorly targeted to reverse the crisis. According to the government's own independent budget officer's assessment, this level of supply cannot meet its stated objectives, confirming that the current strategy, as designed and funded, is failing to deliver the results Canada was promised. Let us delve a bit more into a structural problem in policy design. The issue is not just scale. It is design. The strategy has shifted toward financing tools and long-term capital programs. That is not all bad, but the PBO warns that “this occurs within a context of declining spending and a shift away from immediate affordability supports”. I mention that in the context, because so many more Canadians are on the verge of being homeless. Homeless numbers are actually rising, while the government said they would do the opposite. The government has failed to prioritize the people who are in greatest need. The National Housing Strategy Act requires a focus on those in greatest need, but the funding structure and approach tell a different story. Funding is being shifted from programs that provide current affordability supports toward capital contributions with benefits over many decades. I hope there are some improvements there. Let us talk about generational impact. The consequences for the government's policy failures on housing are not evenly distributed. Young Canadians are bearing the brunt. They face higher rents, delayed home ownership, delayed family formation, rising debt burdens and other postponed life decisions. Even when new units are built, the PBO cautions, the addition of these units would only partially offset the decline in overall affordability support, so even new supply is not solving the overall affordability crisis so many Canadians face today. It barely offsets worsening conditions. To add to these pressures, there is rapid population growth. Demand has surged. Supply has not kept pace, and policy failed to adjust fast enough. Over the last number of years, there have been historically low vacancy rates, rising rents and increased competition for entry-level housing. This is not an isolated policy failure. It is a system-level imbalance. It is therefore deeply ironic that the government is now taking credit for signs of easing in rental markets in some cities where rents have stabilized or grown more slowly. This change is far more plausibly explained by a reduction in housing demand, not by a sudden success of federal housing policy. Over the past year, the federal government has tightened and reduced inflows of temporary residents, including international students and temporary foreign workers, as it celebrated in the 2019 budget implementation act. That shift has had an immediate and measurable effect on rental demand, particularly in urban markets that absorbed a large number of the new arrivals. Fewer new entrants competing for the same limited stock of rental housing naturally does ease upward pressure on rents. That is basic economics. However, this is not a victory on housing policy, supply or affordability. It does not reflect new homes coming online at scale, faster approvals, lower construction costs or a more functional housing system. It reflects demand-side slowdown caused by changes in immigration and temporary resident policy, not the success of the national housing strategy. Indeed, if the government's housing strategy were working as intended, rent moderation would be driven by increased supply, improved affordability outcomes and lower usage of the food bank, especially for low and moderate-income households, not by reduced population inflows. Claiming credit for lower rent growth under these circumstances risks confusing cause and effect. Slower rent increases caused by the arrival of fewer people does not mean housing has become more affordable. It means pressure has been temporarily relieved by constraining demand. This distinction matters. A housing system that relies on dampening demand rather than expanded supply is not resilient. It does nothing to address the underlying shortage. It does not improve access for Canadians already locked out of the housing market, and it offers no assurances that affordability will be sustained if demand rises again. Without structural reform, faster approval, lower non-construction costs and a regulatory environment that enables builders to deliver housing at scale, any short-term easing driven by reduced demand will prove fragile and reversible. In short, the recent moderation in rents is not evidence that the government's housing strategy is succeeding. It is evidence that the imbalance between supply and demand remains unresolved and that the system responds more quickly to changes in population flows than to years of federal spending and bureaucracy. That reality only reinforces the conclusion that the core problem lies not with the funding levels but with the policy framework that has failed to deliver sufficient housing supply. At the same time, the government has not moved fast enough to improve the economic conditions required for private sector building. Developers have faced rising financing costs, regulatory delays, increased development charges and approval bottlenecks. In fact, I think it is worth reading the February 18, 2026, letter to the Prime Minister. It states: Dear Prime Minister... The Canadian Home Builders’ Association (CHBA) continues to support building code development where it follows principles of clear and convincing policy analysis, where evidence-based decision-making happens in public meetings and where committees emphasize cost-effective (ideally cost-neutral) acceptable solutions that equally solve the climate and housing affordability crises in Canada. We estimate that the new 2025 code will add over $100,000 to the cost of a typical new home...this is completely untenable. To that end, we cannot support the 2025 model codes or their adoption and call for an immediate pause to redo them properly CHBA has become seriously concerned over the last few years with how Canada’s new governance system for national codes and its updated code development process is neither transparent nor evidence-based anymore. These deficiencies are having a direct and negative impact on housing affordability, construction productivity, and the ability of industry stakeholders to contribute meaningfully to effective codes development and implementation while reaching your government’s priorities of additional housing supply and more climate change effective construction. Further to that, by not addressing housing affordability in the national model codes, even though most provinces and territories call it a priority, there may in fact not be harmonization—the very reason model codes exist in the first place—because provinces may rightly reviewed and accepted by the time they are published, which negates harmonization by instead increasing the likelihood of provincial variations or non-adoption. Lack of harmonization at the provincial (and municipal) level is a key barrier to industry productivity. A serious course correction is needed, and thus CHBA is urging the Government of Canada to immediately pause all changes to the National Model Construction Codes, as Australia has done with its code system. With that, and before seeking adoption of the 2025 National Construction Codes by the provinces, CHBA is calling on the government to improve the 2025 codes with the proper lenses of affordability, evidenced-based decision-making, and a view to regulations that will truly lead to the optimized outcomes that must be considered in today’s world. The 2025 codes should be paused, revisited, and re-issued once these issues are addressed, so that provinces can and should actually adopt them, and harmonization can be achieved. Here are our key reasons for pausing all construction code changes and revisiting them with proper focus: Reduced Productivity—The large amount of national priorities and the pace of developing the respective code changes leave insufficient time for proper review, simplification and resolution of outstanding constructability or affordability concerns by those who are most affected—the residential construction industry...and Canadians facing affordability challenges in trying to buy a home. The amount of new code requirements is overwhelming. Changes related to energy, greenhouse gas emissions, radon, and wind/seismic loads add significant costs and delays and will reduce the productivity of the sector, while in many cases not even delivering the right outcomes. Much better approaches to achieve these goals must be found through a revamping of the 2025 code, with timelines and solutions that support affordability. Affordability Ignored—There is no formal requirement or code objective to protect housing affordability... Again, the government's approach is not aligned with its national housing strategy or the National Housing Strategy Act. The letter continues: ...not even a principle for committees developing the national codes. Economic concerns brought forward by the construction industry are being dismissed, and cumulative costs for all changes in the 2025 codes have not been calculated by those developing the code. Ultimately, it is Canadians bearing the brunt of the added cost of these changes. All changes should be properly revisited to look at their individual cost impacts, plus the cumulative cost impacts of the full suite of changes the 2025 code will require on each home. CHBA’s initial analysis of a typical 2500 sq. ft. home estimates increased costs from the 2025 code changes to be $56,364 (see Appendix A ) without any energy efficiency compliance cost. If provinces continue to mandate the progressive energy targets from the 2020 codes from Tier 1 to Tier 5 this would double those costs, bringing full implementation of the 2020 energy targets and 2025 codes to an estimated cost of $113,930 for each home built within the next few years. CHBA’s Housing Market Index shows material costs alone for that same house have gone up $100,000 from 2025. Canada’s housing crisis cannot handle these kinds of increases. A much more reasonable approach is needed. Reduced Transparency—Recent changes to the governance and committee structure have reduced transparency and sidelined industry voices. It would be interesting to see how many members of the Canadian Home Builders' Association are on any of the councils the government created in its National Housing Strategy Act. The letter continues: Decisions are increasingly made behind closed doors, with little rationale published or meaningful engagement with those most affected—Canada’s residential construction sector. The residential construction sector...can no longer be the target of poorly thought-out policies and regulations that take away from building more supply. If all levels of government hope to achieve building 500,000 new homes per year, they need to treat the sector as a partner, and excessive and ill‑conceived regulation is a key barrier to be addressed jointly. The more I read this, the more the concerns outlined by the Canadian Home Builders' Association contradict the community-building partnership clauses of the National Housing Strategy Act. How dare they? The letter continues: Harmonization Failure—Without addressing affordability in national codes, which is a key priority for almost every province and territory, the national codes risk being not adopted, or being modified so much provincially that there isn’t in fact harmonization. To that end, the federal government should change the national code publication process such that provinces and territories have time to review a draft code for a year so they can collectively agree to a set of changes they can then adopt as fully harmonized national code at the time the code is published. Without this change, provinces will continue making their own amendments, which prevents harmonization and risks low adoption of costly changes in the 2025 codes. We are urging the federal government to take action now to avoid further fragmentation across Canada. Fragmented Interpretation—Local interpretation of building codes varies significantly from municipality to municipality—even across the same city sometimes, causing delays and extra costs for the industry. This barrier to more housing faster has not been recognized by governments. As the government continues to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers, it also needs to resolve the fragmented interpretation of building codes that not only vary from province to province but also municipality to municipality. To that end, CHBA recommends a National Code Interpretation Centre be established at the National Research Council to publish code interpretations—provinces can in turn reference those interpretations, making them binding, and helping to end the endless variations on code interpretations that are a major barrier to industry productivity. The roadblocks confronting the residential construction industry, such as rising costs, reduced transparency, and fragmented code interpretation will inevitably hinder the government’s pursuit of doubling housing starts, including affecting the government‑supported housing to be built under the Build Canada Homes initiative. Without urgent reform, these systemic issues will undermine all efforts to deliver housing Canadians can afford on the accelerated timelines needed. Facing very similar challenges, the government of Australia recently paused changes to its National Construction Code until 2029, following a report from its own Productivity Commission. The report found that frequent code changes were slowing housing delivery and increasing costs. The pause is intended to provide stability, reduce red tape, and help the industry focus on building more homes. The parallels between Australia’s housing challenges and Canada’s are extensive, making a similar move for Canada justified and essential. To that end, Canada should follow Australia’s lead and immediately stop the adoption and implementation process of the 2025 National Construction Codes, and assess them, with a plan to only put forth for adopting cost-neutral changes for housing in Part 9 of the 2025 national codes... pause all 2030 code development until critical reforms are made to the development approach, such as restoring transparency, accountability, and meaningful stakeholder engagement within the codes system adding an ex-officio seat for CHBA and other broad sector stakeholders at all CBHCC meetings (including in-camera meetings) to properly inform the development from an industry perspective reinstating a coordination committee dedicated to NBC Part 9 (which deals directly with housing) rather than spreading it across 13 committees with nonresidential construction reducing the priorities for the 2030 code cycles, focusing only on essential, cost-neutral requirements making housing affordability a core principle in code development along with a robust structured process to assess and limit individual-change and cumulative costs for each future code edition establish a National Building Code Interpretation Centre to achieve consistent local application of harmonized national construction codes, and work with the provinces to make published solutions binding. Canada must act quickly to avoid the same problems identified in Australia and ensure our codes system supports safe, affordable, and climate-resilient housing. CHBA remains committed to working with government towards a more effective and inclusive code development process. We would be happy to meet with you and your officials at your earliest convenience to continue this important conversation and inform immediate action. That was written by Kevin Lee. That letter was cc'd to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, the minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development, the Minister of Internal Trade and minister responsible for One Canadian Economy, and the president of the National Research Council of Canada. It also bears mentioning, reflecting on earlier words in the House of Commons today, that the minister responsible, when demanding $1.7 billion, unchecked, from the federal government, could not have referenced this very important letter outlined to him about what he needed to do to address housing affordability in Canada. It is from the very people the government depends on to build homes in the first place. Getting back to my speech and the failure to enable private sector construction, it is not because builders refuse to build, but because conditions made projects unviable. This point has been repeatedly underscored by the Canadian home builders, and it aligns with the broader demand-side story now being mis-characterized as policy success. Builders have consistently warned that the primary barriers to increasing housing supply are not a lack of willingness or the capacity to build, but an accumulation of policy-driven costs, delays and uncertainty that makes projects financially impossible to proceed. As Mr. Lee outlined in his remarks, just the regulatory additions from 2025 alone add over $100,000 to the cost of a 2,500-square-foot home in Canada. How is that a good thing? We have to also look at these building code requirements in the context of the rental market, which is now showing temporary easing during our reduced population inflows, but where we still need to see more rental construction. In other words, recent moderation in rents does not signal that builders suddenly found projects viable. It signals that demand pressures ease when inflows of international students and temporary workers slow. Builders have been clear that absent faster approvals, lower non‑construction costs and predictable timelines, supply will not respond at scale. Approval timelines stretching into years amplify financing risk. Development charges and levies imposed up front erode feasibility. Repeated redesigns across jurisdictions, as Mr. Lee outlined through the Canadian Home Builders' Association, add cost without adding homes. When these factors combine, projects stall or are cancelled, even as governments point to headline spending or short‑term rent data. Canadian home builders have also cautioned that subsidies layered into this environment cannot compensate for structural barriers. Supply responds to certainty, speed and predictability, not to complex program criteria or untied transfers, as we see in Bill C‑26. Without reforms that fix approvals, fees and coordination across governments, additional spending risks flowing to a narrow set of projects or even, in some cases, sitting unused. The lesson from builders is consistent: Easing rents driven by lower demand is fragile and reversible; durable affordability requires making projects viable so homes actually get built. Canadian home builders have pointed to approval timelines that stretch for years, during which carrying costs accumulate and financing risks rise. Zoning constraints, repeated designs and overlapping municipal, provincial and federal requirements add time and cost without adding homes. Development charges, parkland levies and infrastructure fees, often imposed up front, can represent a significant share of total project costs, particularly for multi-unit and purpose-built rental housing. Builders have been clear that when these charges rise faster than sale prices or rents, projects simply do not proceed. If we look back on the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 housing construction policies outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we can also draw a correlation between rental construction financing and some of these constraints faced by home builders. While intended to reduce costs and provide affordability for homeowners or renters, those costs, in fact, are so great that government financing is outweighed by the regulatory requirements that have increased the cost of home production in the first place, so financing conditions have compounded these problems. Builders have also emphasized that higher interest rates and tighter lending conditions disproportionately affect construction projects with long approval timelines. When approvals take years, interest rate risks alone can erase already thin margins, especially for rental projects where revenues are capped for affordability expectations. In that environment, even projects that align with public policy goals are delayed or cancelled because they no longer pencil out. Critically, builders have also warned that federal programs layered on top of the system do little to address these fundamentals. Subsidies and incentives cannot compensate for regulatory systems that delay projects or for cost structures that exceed what the market can bear. As builders have repeatedly argued, supply responds to certainty, speed and predictability, not program criteria or slow-moving capital contributions. Without reforms that reduce approval timelines, lower non‑construction costs and align incentives across government, additional funding risks sitting unused or flowing to a limited number of projects rather than unlocking broad‑based supply. In short, the evidence from those who actually build homes reinforces the conclusion reached by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The housing shortfall is not the result of building reluctance or market failure; it is the result of policy choices that have made building housing increasingly difficult. Until those structural barriers are addressed, no amount of new spending, whether under the national housing strategy or through ad hoc measures, such as Bill C‑26, will deliver the scale of housing supply Canadians urgently need. We now have a law requiring better outcomes, a strategy promising transformation and data showing deterioration. The PBO's conclusion remains: The impact of federal housing programs is limited relative to the scale of need. That is our reality. This is not just a policy failure. It is a failure to meet commitments, targets and statutory obligations. When the government promises to help 530,000 households in need and delivers only 78,000 units, when it plays around with its own budgets for housing and then, through Bill C‑26, asks Parliament to authorize new, untied spending for housing supply without reconnecting that spending to the outcomes, targets and timelines it established itself, it bears further scrutiny in Parliament. Bill C‑26 and the programming motion I am debating right now reveal what Bill C‑26 does not do. It authorizes billions of dollars in additional payments to provinces and territories, but it does so outside the architecture of the national housing strategy. There are no statutory outcome requirements, no ties to reductions in housing need, no clear affordability thresholds and no measurable targets aligned with the act's obligations to focus on those in greatest need. In effect, the government is asking for more money now, while simultaneously retreating from the very framework that was supposed to ensure that money produced results. This suggests a partial acknowledgement by the government that its existing approach is not working, but a willingness to go all the way in admitting failure is beyond any Liberal, in my opinion. Rather than reforming the strategy to fix its structural flaws or aligning new spending with the legal obligations Parliament enacted in 2019, the government appears to be sidestepping the problem. It is shifting away from the strategy through re-funding allocations while pursuing ad hoc spending through Bill C‑26 that is disconnected from its own commitments. This is not coherence; it is fragmentation. If the national housing strategy were working, there would be no need to bypass it. If the act's frameworks were delivering results, new spending would logically flow through it, reinforced by clear targets, timelines and accountability. Instead, we see the opposite: declining support under the strategy, combined with new spending requests that avoid its constraints. That combination strongly suggests the government knows that its current approach has failed but does not want to formally acknowledge that failure or undertake the difficult work to redesign what is necessary to help build affordable homes in Canada. The result that we have today, therefore, is the worst of both worlds. Canadians are told that housing remains a top priority, yet the strategy that was supposed to deliver results is being hollowed out. Parliament is asked to approve new funding, but without the guardrails that ensure effectiveness. The core problems, such as affordability, access to affordable homes for low-income households and the growing gap between need and supply, remain unaddressed. In short, Bill C‑26 does not represent a fix to a failing strategy. It represents a workaround. Workarounds are what governments turn to when they no longer believe their own plan can succeed. The conclusion is unavoidable: The strategy is not working, and Canadians are paying the price. In conclusion, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Canada now has approximately 2.4 million households in core housing need, and that figure is projected to rise to 2.6 million by 2027. That would mean nearly one million more households in core housing need than when the national housing strategy was launched in 2017. The very strategy that was supposed to make housing more affordable has coincided with a dramatic increase in the number of Canadians struggling to find suitable, affordable homes. The Liberals have announced program after program, funding envelope after funding envelope, yet the results continue to move in the wrong direction. The PBO found that in 2023 Canada added approximately 460,000 new households while completing only 242,000 housing units. In other words, household growth vastly outpaced housing construction. The result is exactly what Canadians have experienced: rising prices, rising rents and fewer attainable housing options. The same report estimates that Canada will require an additional 1.3 million housing units by 2030 above current projections simply to close the national housing gap. That means Canada would need, on average, roughly 436,000 completed housing units annually between 2024 and 2030, far beyond current construction levels. For renters, the situation is equally troubling. CMHC reported that affordability remains a major challenge. With turnover rents increasing by 23.5% in 2024, young Canadians, newcomers and working families are finding it increasingly difficult to secure housing they can afford. What is most concerning is not simply the scale of the crisis, but the Liberal government's record. Canadians have heard the promises before. They were promised that the national housing strategy would improve affordability. They were promised that billions of dollars in spending would deliver results, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has concluded that housing needs continue to grow despite increased federal spending. Even the government's flagship housing accelerator fund deserves scrutiny. The PBO noted that very little funding was spent in its first year and that many of the housing increases observed in participating jurisdictions may have been driven by initiatives already under way before agreements were signed. Trust is earned through results. After years of soaring home prices, rising rents, growing housing needs and repeated missed targets, Canadians have every reason to question whether the same government that helped this crisis can be trusted to solve it. Canadians do not need more announcements. Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford does not need more announcements. That is why, in the first hour of my remarks today, I related Bill C-26 to the flexibility the government was showing and the lack of action we have had in the Fraser Valley region. It bears repeating, before I conclude today, that my riding is the confluence of the Canadian Pacific Railway, the National Pacific Railway and the Southern Railway. We have a border crossing. The Government of Canada has chosen the Abbotsford International Airport and an amazing Canadian company, Conair, to build the national firefighting fleet for our entire country. Conair already hosts one of the largest fleets of any aircraft provider in the country. We are using De Havilland aircraft built in Canada to supply that fleet. We have the Trans Mountain pipeline and the Sumas transfer station, which transfers 37% of oil from the Trans Mountain pipeline to the United States. The Enbridge pipeline expansion and the Huntingdon transfer station that the government just approved are in my riding. We have the arterial road connecting British Columbia with the rest of Canada. As I outlined for over an hour in this speech, we have received no federal supports, no flexibility and no accountability from the previous prime minister, who said that he would help us. Even today, High Commissioner Bill Blair said to me the other day, “Yes, we broke the promises we made to you.” It is my responsibility to continue fighting for that and to continue saying in this House that the status quo is not okay, if the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure can come forward with Bill C-26, a two-paragraph bill, to say that he needs $1.7 billion in additional housing funding, after a fund of $80 billion over 10 years has already failed every metric pointed out in the 2019, 2021, 2024 and 2025 Parliamentary Budget Officer reports. Why can the federal government not support Abbotsford? I invite the minister to come to my community in good faith. I have never politicized this issue, because it is about Canada first, about the Government of Canada meeting its export objectives. Those export objectives run through the Fraser Valley. Canada cannot build if the Fraser Valley is not protected. We are also the breadbasket of British Columbia. We are the heartland of dairy farmers, blueberry farmers and immigrants who have built their livelihoods supplying Canada with fresh produce, fresh vegetables and the best agricultural products we can find anywhere in this province, and we need help. I plead with the government to help us. This June, we are launching the review process for the transboundary commission. The Minister of Emergency Management, in good faith, sent the parliamentary secretary to support it after I requested it. I will say that in good faith, and I invite the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure to come and hear what people have said and about the suffering we have gone through. Our only request is to help Canada build, help improve those exports and help Canada meet its objectives. We are in British Columbia. I know many Laurentian elites in Ontario and Quebec see it as just this place where they go on vacation and ski, sail and golf in a single day, but it is more than that. It is the export opportunity to the Asia-Pacific region. It is the future of Canada's economic prosperity and it completely aligns with all of the trade objectives set by the Prime Minister, so again, I plead with the government—

Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I plead with the federal government in good faith. As I mentioned, I respect the Minister of Emergency Management, who has shown up in good faith so far. I ask that she comes to our consultation periods, held in conjunction with officials from the United States, to hear what we are proposing. I ask the Minister of Infrastructure to provide the same level of flexibility he provides for the bill to the infrastructure funding commitments we need in the Fraser Valley. Canada needs this. British Columbia needs this. The Prime Minister cannot complete his objectives in the Asia-Pacific region until the problems in my riding are fixed, so to that end, I move: That the motion be amended by: (a) replacing paragraph (d) with the following: “(d) if the bill is adopted at the second reading stage, it shall stand referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.”; and (b) deleting paragraph (e). I reference this, because I want to see amendments at the committee stage that would put in flexibility for the Minister of Infrastructure and Housing to apply some of this funding—

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today on this legislation. Bill C-267 is an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. At first glance, the bill may appear straightforward. Canadians want products that last longer, they want affordable repairs and they want to get the maximum value from the products they purchase. These are reasonable goals. However, this bill represents a significant departure from the practical, targeted approach that the Conservatives and the Liberals have previously supported when it comes to consumer choice and the right to repair without imposing broad, regulatory structures. In the last Parliament, there were two bills. We had Bill C-244, from Wilson Miao, and Bill C-294, from the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley. Bill C-267, however, takes a different path. Instead of removing barriers and empowering consumers through targeted legislative changes, it proposes to create a broad national framework that would require federal intervention in product design, product durability, repairability standards, information disclosure requirements and supply chain considerations across numerous industries. The difference is significant. Bill C-294 sought to remove obstacles. Bill C-267 seeks to create a new regulatory framework. I cannot help but outline the significance this legislation would have in the context of electric vehicles, based on some of the debate that took place earlier today. Is the government really proposing to tell China how to regulate its battery production when we just conceded 30% of our market share? I do not think so. I think this bill would open up a world of unforeseen problems for Canadian manufacturers. The bill would direct the federal government to develop a framework touching on numerous aspects of product durability and repairability. While supporters may view this as a simple exercise, businesses often experience such frameworks quite differently. Frameworks frequently become regulations, and regulations create reporting requirements. For years, Canadian manufacturers have contended with the surge of low-cost imports. Rather than alleviating this imbalance, existing tariff structures have exacerbated the strain on domestic firms. Many Canadian companies are now forced to absorb things like tariff costs or share them with customers, eroding their competitiveness and limiting access to key markets. At the same time, the slowdown in the housing market is reducing domestic demand, further tightening margins for Canadian producers. The result is a concerning trend of increased import penetration, declining domestic production and the early stages of business closures across the sector. Without intervention, any future growth in the industry will likely be driven by imports, rather than by Canadian manufacturing. This is especially concerning at a time when Canadian businesses are already facing significant economic pressures. Manufacturers, distributors, retailers and small businesses are navigating inflationary pressures, labour shortages, supply chain challenges and increasing operating costs. Adding another layer of federal regulation might satisfy bureaucratic ambitions, but it would not help Canadian consumers or business competitiveness and, ultimately, I do not believe it would help the consumer. In fact, it would risk limiting consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products to the Canadian market. The Conservatives believe the government should focus on enabling competition and innovation, not expanding bureaucracy through yet another framework. Before imposing new obligations on businesses, Parliament should have clear evidence that those obligations would produce meaningful benefits that outweigh their costs. That evidence has not been demonstrated in the bill before us. Perhaps the greatest concern is the potential impact on consumer choice. Supporters of this bill argue that it would help consumers, which is the opposite of what I said. However, regulations often produce those unintended consequences. When governments impose additional requirements on products entering the marketplace, manufacturers face higher compliance costs. Some companies absorb those costs, others pass them on to the buyers, and some simply choose not to offer certain products in smaller markets. Canada is not the largest consumer market in the world. We represent a relatively small share of global demand. If regulatory requirements become too complex or too costly, some manufacturers may decide that offering particular products in Canada is no longer worthwhile. I can only imagine the number of attempts by manufacturers who might try to circumvent any new regulations in Canada as well. The result will be fewer choices for consumers, not more. The result could also be higher prices, particularly for low-cost products that many families rely upon. Canadians are already facing affordability challenges. Many families do not have the luxury of purchasing premium appliances or high-end electronics. They depend on affordable options that fit within their household budgets. If new regulatory requirements increase manufacturing, certification, distribution or compliance costs, those costs will inevitably be reflected in the price consumers pay at the checkout counter. Conservatives believe that consumers are best served by competition. Competition encourages innovation and quality. When consumers have choices, manufacturers must compete to earn their business. One of our primary concerns with this legislation is the risk of federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction as well. Consumer protection, property rights, repair services, commercial regulation and many aspects of marketplace oversight traditionally involve provincial responsibilities. Several provinces have already been examining right to repair measures and consumer protection frameworks that reflect their own economic circumstances and priorities. The federal government should be cautious before establishing a national framework that could duplicate, overlap or conflict with provincial authorities. Canadians are frustrated when governments create multiple layers of regulation that accomplish the same objective while increasing complexity and compliance costs. Unfortunately, Bill C-267 risks doing exactly that. Rather than creating another federal framework and empowering our public service with more tools to look at certain products, we should focus on policies that encourage competition, support innovation and reduce barriers for businesses operating in Canada. Finally, I think we should draw some parallels when we see the public service trying to over-regulate in the Canadian context, and that would be with natural health products. Across Canada, we have natural health food stores practically on every main street. They are a staple of Canada's economy. Small business owners across Canada, for the last number of years, have been decrying the government's desire to intrude and impose new regulatory frameworks that would push their business out of Canada and into online markets. Effectively, with natural health products, the government's approach has essentially meant that businesses are saying they do not have a future in Canada anymore. People are still going to be able to buy the products they were offering locally, when they were paying taxes in Canada, but people will have to buy the products on Amazon from an American supplier, because that is still legal to do anyway. The government needs to take another look at this legislation. It needs to find better ways of ensuring that the electronic products we use do not impact Canadians' health, and focus on those issues, but ultimately leave the choice to consumers as to whether they want to buy a certain product. Instead, this bill proposes a broad framework with uncertain implications for businesses, consumers, provincial jurisdictions and the marketplace as a whole. At a time when Canadians are concerned about affordability, Parliament should be cautious before advancing legislation that risks increasing costs and pushing business out of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House of Commons, we believe in the incredible potential of Canadian youth, yet the Bank of Canada says the surge in temporary foreign workers is driving down wages and making it harder for young Canadians to find jobs. The youth unemployment rate sits at over 14%. While Conservatives would prioritize jobs for Canadian youth, the Liberals are still flooding the labour market with temporary foreign workers when young Canadians cannot find work. Why?

Mr. Speaker, young Canadians do appreciate the Canada summer jobs, but it does not omit the fact that this government let in over 170,000 foreign workers in the last four quarters. These programs were meant to be temporary, but under this government, they have become permanent and unchecked. The Globe and Mail calls it an “enduring problem” created by Ottawa's overreliance on foreign workers. Why has this government let the temporary foreign worker program spiral out of control, and when will it finally rein it in?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of British Columbian recreational anglers who are concerned about proposed changes to recreational access for coho and chinook salmon, specifically along the Fraser River, in a revised policy by the Government of Canada. Petitioners call upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to maintain current access for recreational fishers; to not prioritize commercial access for these two species, as is the case for other salmon species, to maintain the recreational fishing economy; and to allow all British Columbians to practice their cultural traditions of harvesting safe, beautiful food that feeds their families.

Mr. Speaker, during the amendment stage, the Conservative Party put forward CPC‑13. It would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under sections 7 and 12 by enacting the notwithstanding clause while also preventing these offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve. Does the Bloc Québécois believe that the government has done enough to prosecute individuals who look at child pornography in Canada?

Mr. Speaker, at the amendment stage, Conservatives put forward CPC-13, which would have protected child pornography possession and access offences from charter challenges under sections 7 and 12 by enacting a notwithstanding clause, while also preventing those offences from benefiting from the bill's mandatory minimum safety valve. I know the member to be an hon. member. I still cannot get around the fact that the Liberals would not support these Conservative amendments, which would have protected the most vulnerable in our society and ensured a level of justice for victims of child pornography. I still cannot get my head around the fact that the government will not support these measures.

Mr. Speaker, right now in Canada, clawbacks for old age security commence at $95,000, but individuals aged 65 to 74 earning up to $152,000 and those over 75 earning up to $157,000 can still receive old age security. While I understand the intent of the legislation before us today and what the member is referring to, does she not understand that the costs for old age security would exceed $100 billion within the next five years? How are my children going to pay for this monumental expense?

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago, I asked the Prime Minister a simple question: Will the Liberal government defend the private property rights of British Columbians in response to the Cowichan decision, yes or no? The member for Vancouver Fraserview—South Burnaby said that Conservatives, myself included, were fearmongering. However, British Columbians were not imagining what was happening. Real people and real businesses are already feeling the consequences of the Cowichan decision. Real estate deals have been abandoned. The provincial government has had to backstop mortgages, and investment is draining out of British Columbia. A survey from the Business Council of British Columbia found that almost 74% of B.C. businesses plan to decrease investment due to uncertainty over DRIPA, which is the provincial equivalent of the federal UNDRIP legislation; 73% said it is harder to access external financing; and one in three respondents said they are reducing hiring plans. The CEO of Wesbild Holdings said to Global News, “If you asked us today whether we’re going to invest in land in B.C., the answer is no.” In March, the Vancouver Sun reported that property values in Richmond could decrease by up to 40%. For many families, that means their home, their biggest asset, is suddenly at risk. This is not theoretical. Business owners and homeowners are facing the consequences of the government's refusal or denial to prioritize and protect fee simple titles. Last week, the government could have made a commitment to defend private property and remove previous instructions to its lawyers. Instead, it left British Columbia in further uncertainty, sending a signal that Canada is becoming a riskier place to invest. Thankfully, the Supreme Court refused to hear the New Brunswick Wolastoqey Nation case. Conservatives will continue to push the government to pursue a policy and a legal position that protects private property rights for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his response this evening. I am glad he raised the Montrose application. What is problematic is that when the court case commenced, it was only the City of Richmond and not the Government of Canada that explicitly made arguments in favour of fee simple land. Part of the uncertainty today is because the Government of Canada did not make those arguments or use the language that even the parliamentary secretary is using this evening in favour of property rights. My hope for British Columbia is that the Government of Canada revises its legal arguments with the opportunity from the Montrose application and stands firmly in favour of private property rights to move Canada's economy forward and improve exports out of British Columbia, which are in question as a result of this case.

Mr. Speaker, in March, the government increased the temporary foreign worker program from 10% to 15% for thousands of work sites in remote and rural communities across Canada. At the same time, Canada lost 112,000 jobs in that same period of time and the youth unemployment rate was at 14.3%. Through my Order Paper question yesterday, we learned that the program for temporary foreign workers cost $1.6 billion with a net loss of $509 million. What will the government say to the hundreds of thousands of unemployed youth in this country when they are increasing the number of temporary foreign workers this year?

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I just want to say that the speech by my colleague, the member for Calgary Heritage, was so wonderful and well informed. My words tonight will not meet that threshold. What I am here to talk about is shawarma. My first introduction to Arab culture was at Mr. Falafel. It is on 10th Avenue near my old university, the University of British Columbia. I was a poor student, and I probably had enough money to eat out once a week. When I went there and got that big, juicy shawarma sandwich, it was a highlight of my week. I still love eating it. In fact I went back just a few weeks ago to visit some entrepreneurs at UBC, and I stopped by Mr. Falafel. They have been in business for 26 years now. I love that restaurant. It speaks to what many Arabs do when they come to Canada: They start small businesses. They, disproportionately, start small businesses, and they make a positive impact in Canada's economy. Another shawarma place I have been frequenting since my university days is Shawarma King. It is right up the road on Bank Street. In fact, my buddy Mo has been serving me shawarma there since about 2008, when I moved to Ottawa to do my master's degree at Carleton University. I eat there probably once a week, even to this day. It is nice going to Shawarma King, a long-established shawarma joint in Ottawa, after a long day on Parliament Hill, to talk to my buddy Mo. The food is just incredible: the eggplant, the cauliflower, the mixed beef and chicken, the tahini sauce on top and the tabbouleh salad. I love this food. I think it is the greatest food in the world. Another place is Falafel King on Denman Street in Vancouver. It serves the best carrot soup I have had in my entire life. Whenever I go to English Bay, I have to stop by Falafel King and get the carrot soup. They also put a lot of tahini on their chicken, and I can never go wrong with that dish. It is honestly one of the best meals, and it brings me joy every time I get to eat it. There is another place, a new one, and it is a good one. I went to Ajax on a small business tour a few months ago, and I went to Aleppo Kebab. The owner is a Syrian refugee. He used to have a shawarma joint in Syria that served all the tourists who would go to the Roman ruins. Unfortunately, due to all the conflict in that country, he had to come to Canada, but like many people who come from Syria and other Arab countries, he did not sit around getting welfare; he started a business. The shawarma barbecue I got at Aleppo Kebab in Ajax is the best Middle Eastern barbecue I have had in my entire life. It makes sense, as the owner's family has been doing this for generations, and he is a really good businessman. I love Middle Eastern food. I am giving these examples because they are real and people can relate to them, but they also speak to the broader impact that shawarma restaurants have had for small business in Canada. Another great example of Middle Eastern food has come from some families I have helped in my job. An Iraqi family has given me Iraqi dolma. It is wrapped in a leaf, and it is just mouth-wateringly delicious. They put some rice and lamb in a compressed pot with tomatoes and all sorts of spices. I cannot find better food than what there is in the Middle East. It just blows my mind, and it warms my heart every single time. The bill we are discussing today is about recognizing Arab contributions to Canadian society. Arab Canadians have had an outweighted impact in terms of food. Shawarma is the greatest food in the world, and I think it is the best form of fast food in the world. Every chance I get to eat it, I am going to continue doing so. I thank all the shawarma restaurants across Canada for keeping me fit and in better shape, not going for a burger or something less helpful, because their food is just so amazing. When I speak to many of the new immigrants from countries in the Middle East, they do not want to stop at shawarma restaurants. Their frustration with Canada relates to skills recognition. The reason some of these entrepreneurs are so good with their restaurants is that, in their home countries, they were running engineering firms. They were doctors at regional hospitals. They were orthopaedic surgeons. Canada must and can do a better job of admitting people and allowing for their previous work experience to be recognized in Canada. The common story that has been shared in the House of Commons thousands of times is that of a cab driver or shawarma restaurant owner who had this great career abroad. They came to Canada on the points system, not necessarily as a refugee, but as soon as they got here, they found it almost impossible to practise the profession that got them here in the very first place. The Liberal government has made commitments to improve skills recognition. I hope to see those promises fulfilled. I think that is a good thing for Canada and a good thing for our economy. Provincial governments across the board have done so as well. If we take anything from the legislation before us here today, it is that very point: We will not see the full potential of Arab citizens in Canada if we do not modernize our immigration system and our skills recognition to allow people to flourish in the way we want every new Canadian to flourish in our country. I am thankful for the time to speak today. It was wonderful to talk about amazing shawarma in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to table several petitions. Notably, on the salmon allocation policy in British Columbia, British Columbians are fearful that the Minister of Fisheries is going to take their cultural rights away through amending the Pacific salmon allocation policy and removing recreational access for coho and chinook salmon specifically. Therefore, petitioners are calling on the Minister of Fisheries to leave the current salmon allocation policy alone and uphold the cultural rights of all British Columbians to this common property resource.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is on behalf of concerned Canadians who are worried about the state of human trafficking in Canada. Human trafficking continues to rise, and too many people are being victimized as a result of our weak laws on this subject. Therefore, petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to strengthen the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act to address these shortcomings and put an end to human trafficking in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, finally, the third petition I would like to present today is on behalf of Canadian organic growers. They are specifically concerned about the policies of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and the closing of the research program at the Swift Current Research and Development Centre. If the Government of Canada truly wants to double its exports abroad, attacking the organic agricultural sector will not get it there.

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel. Before I begin, BC School Sports hosted the high schools' rugby championships in Abbotsford last week. There were thousands of young boys and girls from across the province who competed in sevens and 15s. Our very own in Abbotsford, the Yale Lions senior girls rugby team, won the provincial championships, and the Robert Bateman Timberwolves senior boys team came in second in the province. The WJ Mouat girls, the Yale boys, and the Abbotsford senior boys all did phenomenally well. We are blessed to have the infrastructure to host such an event in Abbotsford. It truly does lift up the profile of our local economy, and the ability to host major sporting events creates lasting memories for so many young athletes. As the member of Parliament for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, I give special congratulations to all the phenomenal athletes on the Yale girls team in particular. They ran an amazing game of running rugby and totally dominated their opposition. It was just a joy to watch. My plug is to the Secretary of State for Sport, who has $700 million to hand out to sporting organizations. On a per capita basis, Abbotsford produces more Olympic athletes in the sport of rugby and more national team players than any other community in this country. I hope to see some of those infrastructure dollars there to improve our aging recreational infrastructure. Now to Bill C-31, a Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association report found that in the first quarter of 2026, Canadian venture capital investing dropped to its lowest level in nearly a decade. Venture capital investment fell nearly 77% quarter over quarter. For every dollar of foreign direct investment coming into Canada, two dollars have left, the largest capital exodus in Canadian history. Since the Liberals came to power, Canada has lost $1 trillion of investment, largely into the arms of our American friends. It is very unusual for Canadian businesses to go through this significant a period of negative growth as we are experiencing right now. As we reflect on Bill C-31, why not take some actions to protect small businesses? I believe small businesses have largely been ignored by this government. Many business organizations across Canada are calling for some changes to the tax code, like the small business deduction threshold, which has been set at $500,000 since 2009. The threshold has not kept pace with inflation, rising input costs or higher interest rates. This creates a cliff effect, where growing businesses are pushed into a higher tax bracket, discouraging investment and expansion. Business organizations have requested that the government increase the small business deduction threshold to $700,000 and index it to the CPI year after year. This would allow our truly small businesses in Canada to take advantage of the 9% tax rate and really make a difference in our economy. Let us support our small businesses. Second, another thing the government could have done in the last year, which would have made a huge difference in the lives of our entrepreneurs, is that it could have addressed the small business GST threshold. This was created in 1991, and it is currently set at $30,000. It was originally designed to limit GST collection to large businesses. Over two decades later, the threshold value has been eroded by inflation, and more businesses are now required to register, collect and remit GST than originally intended. I believe the government, in the last year, could have changed its policy and increased the threshold to $60,000 to reduce red tape for truly small businesses, the ones where people go to work every day and pay lots of taxes in Canada. Including these measures in Bill C-31, along with other GST/HST adjustments, would have provided SMEs with real financial relief, yet nothing has changed in the last year. The Liberals are still looking for big headline wins, while forgetting that most people in our private sector do in fact work for small firms. They are forgetting about small businesses that do not have lawyers who can apply for complex programs. They just do not have the time to do this, because they are actually running a business. Let me give an example: the tariff rebate programs. At a time when Canadian small businesses have faced real economic pressure because of American tariffs, the government has not come forward with meaningful support to help them. It promised that the tariff revenues would be reinvested to help the sectors hit the hardest, but that promise has simply not been met. The regional tariff response initiative was supposed to be the vehicle for that support. Instead it has become a case study in poor execution. The Secretary of State for Small Business has consistently framed the program as accessible and supportive, but in reality it has created more red tape, cutting out local small businesses. In January this year, the National Post reported that 80% of businesses were not even aware that this program existed, and only 8% said they intended to apply. In British Columbia, seven out of 10 businesses were not even eligible for the program itself, despite paying those tariffs. CFIB president, Dan Kelly, called the regional tariff response initiative totally useless. The challenges facing small businesses are not unique. I heard many of the concerns from business leaders across the Fraser Valley earlier this month at the Fraser Valley Economic Summit 2026 in Abbotsford, when more than 200 leaders from business, local government, indigenous communities, educational institutions and industry came together to discuss the future of our regional economy. Throughout the summit, speakers and participants spoke about the need for transportation corridors, trade-enabling infrastructure, industrial land, workforce development, housing and energy systems. They asked how Canada can improve productivity if businesses cannot access those infrastructure dollars. The Fraser Valley is one of Canada's most important economic regions. The region is expected to grow by nearly 47% by 2050, bringing new opportunities for investment, job creation and agricultural exports in particular. Realizing that potential will require governments to focus on the practical conditions that allow communities to grow and succeed. We see this reflected across multiple sectors of the economy, including financial services. Canada benefits from having some of the largest and most stable banks in the world. However, there remains a significant gap between the country's largest financial institutions and smaller local providers. A local example is Tru Cooperative Bank, formerly First West Credit Union, which began its federal continuance process in 2018 but did not receive final approval until 2026. If Canada wants greater competition in financial services, we need to create the conditions for strong, Canadian-owned, mid-sized institutions to grow and to compete nationally. This is in line with the policies of every political party in Canada: free trade between our provinces, more economic exchange between Canadians. It took eight years to get federal approval for one of the most established cooperatives in British Columbia. That is not acceptable. If Canada wants greater competition in financial services, it needs to look at reducing red tape and prioritizing the private enterprises that are willing to take the risk and put up the capital to expand and offer better services to Canada. We could say the same thing about open banking right now as well, and the same policies apply to infrastructure. The government announced, in the budget last year, the build communities strong fund as a major investment in those fields. The program does allocate $6 billion directly for regionally significant projects, including climate adaptation and flood protection infrastructure. I implore the House of Commons not to forget Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley when they think of the allocation of that money. In my riding in the Fraser Valley, the Trans Mountain pipeline sends 37% of its oil across the flood zone into the United States. That is billions of dollars into the coffers every single year to the Government of Canada. The recent Enbridge pipeline expansion goes right through the flood zone as well. We have a major border crossing, we have an international airport, and we have a Southern Railway line that brings billions of dollars of Canadian goods into America every year, benefiting our country, yet since the floods in 2021, we have not received any infrastructure dollars to protect one of the most important economic regions in all of Canada. Again, I ask the government to not forget about the Fraser Valley. The government needs it to accomplish its goals. Canada needs our region to build up better.

Madam Speaker, indeed, the Conservatives voted in favour of removing all federal regulations on interprovincial trade, but the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister promised there would be free trade amongst the provinces in Canada. What we needed in that moment was federal leadership, for the Prime Minister to say to the provinces and territories that if they do not remove their barriers in professional services, financial services and transportation, there will be consequences. The Prime Minister was not willing to expend the necessary political capital to remove the provincially related barriers to interprovincial trade in Canada. That is a failure of his leadership, and a promise broken that he made.

Madam Speaker, the member for Mirabel needs to ask his constituents why it is easier for a small and medium-sized enterprise in his province to trade with the northeast United States. Why is it easier for a Quebec company to do business with America than with a company in British Columbia? I believe in a federation where it is easier to do trade among Canadian provinces first, before doing it with a foreign country. If the Bloc Québécois continues taking that position, it is going to minimize its economic impact and the ability of its province's enterprises to grow accordingly.

Madam Speaker, I would say that my constituents are very apprehensive right now. They have heard a lot of mixed messages from the Prime Minister. On one hand, he says that we are at economic war with the United States and will take heavy-handed language here in Canada. The next day, he goes down to America and says we need to “make America great again.” They really do not know what to make of the rhetoric. What all the businesses in my region talk about is maintaining our market access to their American partners. Canadians across this country have long-established business relationships with their American customers and partners. We need to secure that while also looking at opportunities abroad. That is a good thing, but make no mistake; we cannot replace the American relationship, and the Prime Minister needs to be clear on that point, because it is causing concern by the many Canadian businesses that are reliant on their American partners. We have to maintain that market access first and foremost, which is going to require more political leadership and the government's being transparent about what type of deals it is cutting with the American administration and whether that serves Canada's interests well.

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present today. The first one is regarding the alarming increase in repeat violent offenders being released on bail. The petitioners have witnessed a sharp increase in car theft, gang violence and drug-related deaths. In fact, one constituent warned me about a car theft at my house just this week. Violent crimes have increased by 50%. Violent gun crime has surged by 116%. In 2022, 256 Canadians were tragically killed by people out on bail, thanks to Liberal catch-and-release policies under Bill C-75. The petitioners are calling on the Minister of Justice, urgently, to reform Canada's bail laws and restore safety on our streets.

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I would like to present today is regarding the ongoing challenges British Columbians are facing regarding recreational access to coho and chinook in British Columbia. Constituents are calling in good faith on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to leave the current salmon allocation policy alone and to uphold the cultural rights and traditions of all British Columbians to access fish, especially on the Fraser River.

Mr. Speaker, the final petition I would like to present today is on behalf of Canadian organic growers who are concerned about the closure of the organic and regenerative research program at the Swift Current Research and Development Centre. Petitioners note that this was the only dedicated organic research initiative within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Therefore, they call on the government to reinstate the program and strengthen public research in organic and regenerative agriculture within Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to align with the government's own goals of increasing agricultural exports abroad.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are failing to defend Canada's system of private property rights and indefeasible title while sowing confusion and fear among homeowners about whether their land is secure. With the Cowichan decision and the Musqueam agreement raising serious and valid concerns, British Columbians are wondering whether their private property rights will be defended at all, especially after the government constrained its arguments on extinguishment. Will the Liberal government fix its litigation and negotiation policies and commit to protecting Canadians' property rights by supporting our Conservative motion today?