Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me for a moment, as Sunday is Father's Day, I would like to thank my father for his love and support to me and my three brothers, for the life lessons he taught us and for his humour, his compassion, his very practical common sense and his love of nature: happy Father's Day to Dad. Let me get back to the matter at hand, which is Bill C-26, the so-called improving housing supply act. Before discussing the details of this legislation, it is important to recognize why housing remains one of the most pressing issues facing Canadians. For generations, home ownership was part of the Canadian promise. If someone worked hard, saved responsibly and played by the rules, they could reasonably expect to purchase a home, raise a family and build a future in the community they loved. Today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. Young Canadians who have done everything right are finding themselves locked out of the housing market. Many are delaying major life decisions. They are postponing marriage, postponing starting a family and postponing putting down roots in their communities because the cost of housing continues to rise faster than their ability to save. According to the OECD, approximately 35% of low-income Canadian households are cost-overburdened, meaning they spend more than 40% of their disposable income just on housing. Renters are watching an ever-larger share of their income disappear each month, making it even more difficult to save for a down payment. The average rent on a two-bedroom purpose-built apartment in Canada rose 5.1% to $1,550 per month in 2025, and that is if one is lucky. In my home community of Hamilton, the 2025 average rent was over $1,600 per month. Under the Harper Conservative government in 2015, the national average was just $942 per month. Increasingly, it has become a question of whether future generations will enjoy the same opportunities that previous generations of Canadians took somewhat for granted. That is why all members of this House should be focused on one goal: building more homes. Unfortunately, while there is broad agreement on the problem, there is far less agreement on how to solve it. Bill C-26 is presented as a measure to improve housing supply. The legislation itself is relatively short. It is only two paragraphs. In essence, it would authorize the Minister of Finance, with a giant blank cheque, to make payments to the provinces and territories up to a maximum of $1.713 billion for the purpose of improving housing supply. It is a lot of money, and there is not a lot of indication as to whether there would be results. At first glance, that sounds like a big number and maybe that would achieve something. Canadians do want more homes built. The Conservatives certainly want more homes built. The question is whether the legislation would actually accomplish that objective. That is where concerns begin to emerge. When Parliament is asked to approve $1.7 billion in spending authority, Canadians certainly have the right to expect a clear plan. They have the right to expect measurable objectives. They have the right to expect accountability. Yet, when members examine Bill C-26, they will find very little detail about what success looks like. How many homes would be built? How many housing starts would result from this spending? What benchmarks would be used to determine whether the money was spent effectively? What reporting requirements would exist to ensure that taxpayers could evaluate the results? This legislation provides few answers. Instead, Parliament is being asked to approve a substantial amount of public spending while placing considerable discretion in the hands of the Minister of Finance. If a municipality came before taxpayers asking for $1.7 billion, citizens would expect a plan. If a private company sought $1.7 billion from investors, shareholders would expect measurable outcomes. Surely Canadians deserve no less when it comes to federal spending. Let me be clear. Conservatives support working with the provinces to increase housing supply. We support reducing the tax burden on new homes. We support measures that make it easier to build. The partnership with the Province of Ontario promises funding over a 10-year period to boost housing supply. However, in the announcement, there are no clear benchmarks on how many houses would be built. In fact, buyers, home builders and even the Government of Ontario are still unclear as to how this rebate would be implemented. In question period today, the Liberal government gave no clear answer to the question from our shadow minister of housing about when the rebate would be implemented. Time and again, Canadians hear announcements. Time and again, Canadians hear promises. Time and again, Canadians are told that relief is just around the corner, yet housing affordability continues to worsen. The reality is that after Liberal housing programs over the past number of years, with billions of dollars spent and countless announcements, Canadians are still asking a simple question: Where are the homes? The CMHC cautions that Canada needs 430,000 to 480,000 new homes per year through 2035 to restore affordability to pre-COVID levels. The government frequently talks about ambition, but Canadians are looking for results. The government frequently talks about investments, but Canadians are looking for homes. The government frequently announces new programs, but Canadians are asking why housing remains less affordable today than it was a decade ago. One of the most notable aspects of Bill C-26 is the government's agreement with Ontario regarding the decision to remove the HST from eligible new homes. Conservatives have long argued that taxes imposed on home construction ultimately make housing more expensive. That is why we support lowering taxes on housing. However, we also believe that Canadians deserve something better than temporary measures and complicated rebate programs. Our position has been consistent: We would permanently remove the GST on new homes under $1.3 million. That would be permanent, not a one-year fix. The Canadian Home Builders' Association agrees with our vision. It too would like relief on taxes to be made permanent. A permanent GST cut would provide certainty for homebuyers, builders and the housing market. It would reduce costs while encouraging the construction of additional housing supply. That is the difference between a measure designed to generate headlines and a measure designed to generate the building of homes. Another concern is the government's continued focus on creating programs and bureaucracies instead of a focus on outcomes. Canadians do not measure success by the number of announcements issued by governments. They measure success by whether they can afford a home, whether housing starts are increasing and whether their children have a realistic path to home ownership. Those are the metrics that matter. Canadians understand that housing affordability will not improve because government creates another program, fund or bureaucracy. After the introduction of the bill in March, between the months of April and May, housing starts decreased by 6%. That is not progress. Housing affordability improves when homes are built. That means reducing delays, accelerating approvals and ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with growth. Conservatives believe that federal funding should be tied to those outcomes, and that is what we have proposed. Municipalities that increase housing construction should be rewarded. Municipalities that continue to block growth should expect that taxpayers will not subsidize that failure. The objective should be simple: more homes built every year, not more paperwork, bureaucracy or announcements but more homes. Canada already has the workers, materials, expertise and entrepreneurial spirit needed to address the housing crisis. What is missing is a federal government willing to focus on results instead of process. Canadians are tired of hearing that help is coming. They want to see the homes being built and families getting a key in the door of the home they can actually afford. That is the standard by which the bill should be judged. Conservatives continue to advocate for policies to get homes built. We continue to push for lower taxes on housing. We continue fighting to remove barriers to construction. We will continue standing up for young Canadians, families and workers who simply want the opportunity to own a home and build a future in this country. Canadians deserve those results, they deserve accountability for $1.7 billion, and most importantly, they deserve a government focused on building homes instead of building bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about reality in his question to the previous speaker. Let me get to that in a moment, but the Province of Ontario, the government itself, home builders and buyers are waiting to see this program actually be implemented. They do not understand how this rebate is going to actually happen. That is one thing. Here is the reality faced by Ontarians, Canadians and young Canadians in particular. Before these Liberals, 11 years ago, because of the taxes and bureaucracy they support, the average monthly mortgage payment in this country was $1,432. The average rent was $943. People could afford to buy a home. Now, a third of the cost of building a home is government, and this is symptomatic of the problem of the current government.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's point is valid. It is not the spending, whether it is increasing or decreasing, and we have debated that, that is resulting in the construction of homes. We need builders to have confidence. We need an economy that is, as it was 11 years ago, the strongest-performing economy in the G7, the strongest-performing economy in the OECD, not the only economy in the G20 that is in recession. That is what is going to help build homes and ensure that they are affordable for young Canadians to actually enter the market.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We were asked to approve, with this bill, a $1.7-billion blank cheque with no idea as to how many homes are going to be built with that. In fact, we do not even know from the Province of Ontario when that is actually going to be implemented, or how that is going to result in homebuilding. This question was asked in question period. We received no answer. The question was asked in this debate so far this evening. We received no answer, so we have no idea how many homes are going to be built for the giant cheque of $1.7 billion. We should be incentivizing builders to build by cutting the third of the cost of a home that is government, which is fees, taxes and all of the roadblocks at the municipal level that we Conservatives have proposed to help remove.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia raises a question about what the outcomes are for $1.7 billion in funding that we are supposed to approve in the House, based on a two-paragraph bill. Did the hon. member find in any place in the bill, or in what she has read about it, any sort of targets in terms of the housing, whether it is deeply affordable housing or otherwise, that would be built with the $1.7 billion?

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Waterdown, Ontario, celebrated its annual “remember everyone deployed Friday”, better known as RED Friday, which was hosted by the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 551 in the core of Waterdown. On RED Friday, we wore red to show appreciation for veterans, active military and first responders and their families. This year, Waterdown saw a record crowd, with live music, activities and displays featuring first responder and military vehicles. The Waterdown Museum of Hope was also open. The museum hosts some amazing displays, showcasing Canadian heroes and peacekeepers, narrated by students from the Waterdown District High School. The event would not have been possible without the leadership of Sheila Latner, president of the Waterdown Legion, and event co-hosts Bob Thomas and Judi Partridge. I thank all who have served our country and all who continue to serve for their service. I thank them for keeping Canada strong and free.

Mr. Speaker, we know that the Alto high‑speed rail project, which will be completed toward the end of the next decade, 2040, already has 13 vice‑presidents at that agency who are already receiving bonuses, with not an inch of track being laid. The hon. member described Build Canada Homes as an arm's-length federal agency. How many vice‑presidents will there be, and are they going to be receiving bonuses already?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for a strong grasp of the numbers and the facts. I would note that 11 years ago, the average monthly mortgage payment was $1,432. The average monthly rent payment was $973 a month after 10 years of Conservative government. Maybe the hon. member can reflect on the fact that now in Canada, a third of the cost of building a home is government taxes, fees, levies, delays and permits. In my community of Hamilton, Ontario it is actually 36%. This is driving up the cost of housing and it is preventing young people from entering the market.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Instead he delivered the only recession in the G7. He promised growth. Canada lost more than 112,000 jobs in just three months. He promised investment. Business investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters. He promised prosperity. Today, one in four Canadians faces food insecurity. The recession is real. I hear it from families and seniors every day. It is real for families struggling to afford groceries. It is real for workers coming home from work and telling their kids they no longer have a job and that they are going to have to sell the house. It is real for Canadians watching their savings disappear while costs continue to rise. The Leader of the Opposition has called upon the Prime Minister to hold an emergency debate to explain the plan to reverse the recession the Liberals have created, because Canadians deserve answers. Canadians deserve a plan, and Canadians deserve a government that will unleash Canada's economy once again.

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, the front page of The New York Times declared Canada as having the richest, most prosperous middle class in the world. Eleven years after the Liberals took office, as my colleague mentioned in his speech, there is record household debt and delinquency, and the middle class is suffering. How is this possible in a country that is so blessed with the resources that Canada has?

Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech. Eleven years ago, Canada had the best-performing economy in the G7 and the OECD. After 11 years of the Liberals and their disastrous policies, we are the only G7 country in recession, and we have the lowest private sector investment of any economy in the OECD. What would Conservatives do to close the gap the member talked about, in terms of the immense resource wealth we have, and the smart people, yet poor results?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the transport and infrastructure committee for his excellent speech. As we have mentioned in committee, and as he has mentioned many times in committee, we are pointing out the lack of transparency with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the many connections to Liberal insiders that seem to be at play and, of course, the very favourable terms that are given to projects of those insiders. Does he worry that, with the sovereign debt fund, we are going down that exact same road? Can he elaborate more on that?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lakeland is exactly right. Eleven years ago, we had the richest, most prosperous middle class in the world here in Canada, but we have moved a long way from that. Canada has the lowest private sector investment in our economy of all the OECD countries because of the regulatory and tax burden that is choking and chasing away investment. I would like the member to comment on the fact that it has been nine months since the Major Projects Office was approved in legislation, and zero shovels are in the ground, yet Germany built an LNG intake facility in 6.5 months, the Netherlands in six months and Finland in four months.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday's statement proved nothing has changed: more debt, more costs, more spending, more taxes, more of the same. Canada has the worst housing costs, worst growth and worse food inflation in the G7. As The Globe and Mail said, “This 'New Government' has no interest in arresting our economic decline”. Why have the Liberals doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit and doubled down on costly credit card budgeting, forcing Canadians to pay more for gas, groceries and housing?

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the great people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North. There are some subjects that still have the power to inspire wonder, and certainly space is one of them. For generations, it has sparked curiosity, discovery and the belief that the next great breakthrough may still be ahead of us. It reminds us that progress is not automatic but must be chosen, must be built and must be earned. Canada has long had the talent, the ingenuity and the industrial capacity to contribute to the space economy. Our laws have not kept pace with the opportunities before us. Canada is not a stranger to excellence in space, far from it. We gave the world the Canadarm. We became leaders in robotics, satellite technology, remote sensing, communications and advanced aerospace engineering. Canadian innovators have helped shape missions that reached orbit, the International Space Station, Mars and beyond. Our workers, engineers, technicians, researchers and manufacturers have earned global respect, and just recently, Canadians had another reason to feel proud: Commander Jeremy Hansen from southwestern Ontario, a Canadian astronaut, recently returned home as part of the Artemis II mission. That mission carried humans to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years and farther from earth than any people in human history. Think about that. A Canadian helping lead humanity's return to deep space exploration is not only symbolic. It is a reminder that Canadian talent belongs at the front edge of great endeavours. The question before us is simple: Will our laws, policies and economic climate allow Canada to participate fully in the next era of space development, or will we once again watch opportunity leave our shores, as has happened too often after 10 years of the Liberals? The global space economy is no longer theoretical. It is real, and it is growing rapidly. It includes launch services, satellite deployment, communications, earth observation, defence applications, navigation, research, manufacturing, data services and technologies that we have not yet even imagined. The global space economy is expected to contribute in excess of a trillion dollars in just a few years and $1.8 trillion within a decade. It is an industry growing at nearly 10% a year. Countries around the world understand this, and they are competing for this investment. They are building launch capacity, they are creating clear regulatory pathways and they are moving with urgency. Canada also possesses natural advantages that many other countries do not. We are a vast nation with northern geography; we have access to remote corridors, coastal opportunities, strong aerospace clusters and world‑class research institutions such as universities that have been mentioned in the debate thus far; and we have the ingredients many countries would envy. The question is whether we have the policy environment to make use of them. Canada must understand this as well. When investors face uncertainty, as my colleague from Northumberland—Clarke just talked about, they go elsewhere. When approvals take too long, they go elsewhere. If governments confuse announcements with outcomes, they also go elsewhere. That is why regulatory certainty matters, and that is why it is puzzling that Bill C-28 would give the Liberal minister all the power to make decisions on what goes into space from behind closed doors. This would undermine transparency, and Parliament has every reason to be concerned. However, there are certainly positive elements in Bill C-28. It recognizes that launch and re-entry activities require a dedicated framework. What we are asking for is a draft of those details around that. The bill would address safety, liability, site certification and emergency powers, but legislation is only a beginning, and that is where there are gaping holes. The true test is execution, and that is a concern when the legislation would give all the power to one individual, the minister. Where is the regulatory framework? Can Canada approve projects in a timely manner? Can we attract private capital? Can we ensure public confidence? Can Canada build a reputation for competence and reliability? Those questions remain unanswered by the legislation. Another principle that must guide us from the beginning is transparency. Whenever governments are involved in strategically emerging sectors, and whenever public funds, public lands or public approvals are at stake, Canadians must know that decisions are being made fairly, openly and on merit. That principle matters all the more when recent contracts and infrastructure decisions have raised legitimate concerns, and when political connections and insider proximity to power seem to have trumped a framework brought about by professionals. Canadians are ambitious people. They support private sector growth, they support innovation and they do not want favouritism. A new industry must not become an old story. If Canada is serious about building leadership in the space economy, then procurement must be clean, selection processes must be credible and accountability must be absolute. Conservatives are in favour of enhancing Canada's sovereignty and space capabilities, but we are not in favour of any framework that could become a blank cheque for Liberal insiders or foreign agents. Canadians have recently seen major public decisions raise legitimate questions. In Nova Scotia, the government announced a $200‑million agreement tied to the planned spaceport project, but it should be noted that the project's proponent has publicly listed former Nova Scotia Liberal premier Stephen McNeil on its advisory board. At the transport committee, we also examined the Canada Infrastructure Bank loan connected to the Mersey River wind project and the concerns surrounding that process and its uneasy connection to Liberal insiders. These examples are exactly why emerging strategic sectors must begin the right way. Canadians should be confident that contracts are awarded on merit, public money is protected and proximity to power never outweighs public interest. This debate is also about something larger. It is about national confidence. Too often, Canada has grown comfortable thinking small. We should be a country that builds major projects, and certainly notwithstanding the record of the Liberal government, so let us not allow Bill C-28 to become a missed opportunity because it is too dependent on political will and not proper regulatory processes, administrative tribunals and the needed oversights. We should be a country that has the tax regulatory climate to set up a healthy private sector that invests in advanced industries. We should be a country that rewards innovators, engineers, tradespeople, entrepreneurs and workers who turn ideas into reality. We should be a country that looks forward. In communities like mine, we know what advanced industry looks like. We know the value of steel, precision manufacturing, logistics, defence, engineering and skilled trades. Those same capabilities can and should help power Canada's next growth sectors, including aerospace and space technologies. That applies to ports, transportation corridors, energy and manufacturing as well. Bill C-28 now comes before Parliament with its gaping holes. It deserves careful study and thoughtful consideration at committee, because it needs much more detail. It deserves witness testimony from industry, regulators, legal experts, security experts, provincial partners and innovators on the ground. We should examine competitiveness. We should examine liability exposure. We should examine timelines. We should examine transparency safeguards. We should ensure that the final product would help Canada succeed in practice, not merely in press releases. Canada has the people, Canada has the talent, Canada has the geography, Canada has the industrial base and Canada has the history. What we need now is the seriousness to match it. I look forward to seeing the bill studied at committee, strengthened and judged by whether it helps Canada compete, build and lead in the years ahead.

Mr. Speaker, we agree. There is incredible economic opportunity in the space economy and in sectors related to it. Conservatives have always agreed with that. I know that my colleague from Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna identified in his thoughts in the House, going back to Diefenbaker, Mulroney and Harper, how we have helped advance that. What we are saying and have said consistently in only the first two hours of debate on this piece of legislation is that there are the gaping holes in Bill C-28 that would rest all the power with the minister to make those decisions. That causes grave concerns around Liberal insider access. It certainly is not a matter of transparency. Where are the rules, where—

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the vice-chair of the transport, infrastructure and communities committee, for his great work on this project and on so many others. The member raises excellent points. The CSA is not the expert on defence, and that is why we need to hear from experts at committee, such as CSIS, as the member mentioned, and others, that can address it. If we are going to invest this kind of money into a project such as the one that is being proposed, where are the safeguards against foreign interference? Where are the safeguards against influence by others? Those questions have not been asked, nor does the legislation address how that would happen.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is the crux of this. Why would all the liability be on the taxpayer if things do not go right? Those are the questions we want to ask as the bill is studied at committee. Those are the oversights, rules and transparency that need to be added. Do not get me wrong; there is obviously a role for the private sector. Conservatives have always believed there is a great role for the private sector. That has certainly been proven in the space economy throughout the years and in our leadership on the Canadarm and so many other programs, but there needs to be an equal weighting because the private sector will invest where there is certainty and regulatory oversight. That is what needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about transforming the great potential of the space economy into action. One of the things that we as Conservatives believe is that this bill has massive, gaping holes, in terms of no regulatory framework. It is certainly a blank cheque to the minister to make decisions. That lack of regulatory certainty is going to drive private sector investment in the space economy away. How do we attract private sector investment when there is no certainty? The private sector needs regulatory certainty in order to invest. Would the member care to comment on that?

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague from British Columbia has really hit the nail on the head. We all stood in this place in support of Bill C-5, the major projects bill. That was more than eight months ago. We know that Germany was able to build an LNG facility in less than seven months; the Netherlands in six months; and Finland in four months. We have had MOUs. We have had photo ops. We have had press releases. However, we have had no shovels in the ground and no results. My colleague has outlined a number of practical actions that we can take to make sure our economy is ready to take advantage of the fact that Canada does have everything the world wants. Maybe the member can elaborate a bit more on that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Manning for his excellent remarks, which started before question period, and for raising the issue about the British pensioners and his knowledge on that. It was surprising to hear that is a $470-million cost to Canada. Why does the hon. member believe that the government was unsuccessful in so many missed opportunities to remedy that issue? Is it lack of will or laziness? What is the reason?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona's excellent speech gave some excellent examples from the people of Winnipeg. This is in contrast to the speech of the speaker previous. Let me ask a follow-up to the question my colleague was just asked, because we know that the Prime Minister was very clear that Canadians should judge him on the cost of groceries at the grocery store, and we now know that Canada is the food inflation capital of the G7. I want to give my colleague a chance to elaborate a bit more, because as he indicated, we know 70% of the food is produced right here, and we know that 90% of agribusinesses have said that the industrial carbon tax and the Liberal bureaucracy are things that are adding to the cost of food and making those grocery prices higher. Maybe he can comment more on that.

Mr. Speaker, I will note upfront that I will be splitting my time. It is always an honour, of course, to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the great people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North. At second reading of this bill, I spoke about affordability, housing, groceries and mortgages, but this afternoon I want to speak about something deeper, the foundation beneath it all: our economy. If a country cannot build, cannot attract investment, cannot grow productivity, then everything else becomes harder. That is exactly where Canada finds itself today. Budget 2025 would add $321 billion to the national debt over the next five years. It would spend $55.6 billion on debt interest next year alone, which is more than we spend on health transfers to the provinces and more than the GST revenue collected. For all of this spending, Canada's GDP growth is projected at just 1.1%, the second-lowest in the G7. That is according to the OECD. Canada is on track to have the worst economic growth of all 38 advanced economies through 2060. It is dead last. Canada's business investment per worker remains significantly below those of its peer OECD economies, and the gap is widening. Canadian firms invest less in machinery, technology and innovation per employee than their counterparts in other advanced economies. At the same time, new capital per worker in Canada is only about 66¢ for every dollar seen by workers in other OECD economies, a stark symptom of weaker long-term competitiveness. This is not just a blip. It is a structural decline, and budgets like this do nothing to reverse it. Eight months ago, Parliament passed Bill C-5. As a member of the transport and infrastructure committee, I stood in the House three times and spoke in support of it. It was sold to Canadians as nation building, a turning point, a faster approvals regime and a new era of major projects, but eight months later what has actually been built? What major project has broken ground because of Bill C-5? What strategic corridor has been accelerated? What transformational piece of infrastructure is visibly under way? Canadians are still waiting. Meanwhile, in Europe, when governments decided energy security was a national priority, Germany built a major LNG terminal in roughly seven months, Italy built the Genoa bridge in just over a year, Finland completed construction of its Inco facility in about four months, and the Netherlands brought its Eemshaven LNG terminal online in about six months. When these countries decided something mattered, they built it. Here in Canada, we pass bills, we hold press conferences, we have photo ops, and we announce frameworks, but we have not built anything. Eight months after passing Bill C-5, Canadians are still waiting. In 2023, members of the transport and infrastructure committee conducted a national study on large port infrastructure expansion projects. We toured ports from coast to coast, and we heard clearly that we need faster approvals, greater financial flexibility and the removal of structural bottlenecks. That was three years ago. Today, we are hearing the same complaints. Nothing has changed. The Canada port authorities model is supposed to provide operational independence, yet federal constraints limit agility and competitiveness. They limit the ability to respond to global trade shifts, and we cannot move goods efficiently through our ports if we cannot compete. The budget talks about investing in infrastructure, including ports and economic corridors, but the actual legislation before us contains no specific reforms to enable Canada's port authorities to operate with true agility or competitiveness. It does not remove constraints, modernize governance or give them new tools to respond faster to shifts in global trade. Even as the government talks about nation building, the bill does nothing to unlock the capacity of our ports. Let me also talk about steel. Steel is not abstract. Steel is Hamilton. Steel is jobs. Steel is national capacity. In 2024, I filed an Order Paper question asking how much of the federally funded infrastructure in Canada uses Canadian steel. The response came back, and I was astonished to learn that the government did not even track that data. The government could not tell us how much of our own infrastructure spending was using Canadian steel production. That is billions of dollars with no central tracking. If we do not measure it, we cannot manage it. Unsatisfied with this answer, I took it to committee. I asked the president of Alto how much Canadian steel was going to be used if the project were to proceed. Would it be tracked? Would it be reported? The answer was that it could result in 600,000 tonnes of steel, but we do not produce the right type of steel in Canada. That should not be foreign steel. I asked the transportation minister if he would make the same commitment, to track not just steel but any Canadian content in all projects under his department. To his credit, he said that he would commit to reporting the volumes, the value and the origin of Canadian materials used in future projects and report that back publicly to Parliament. However, here is the problem. Why did it take pressure through Order Paper questions and committee hearings to get there? Why are we not tracking Canadian content as a standard practice? If we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure, Canadian workers should be part of that story. Let me offer a contrast. The Hamilton International Airport, which is located in my constituency, is a success story. It is now Canada's largest overnight express cargo airport. In 2024, it handled over 750,000 kilograms of cargo. As a result of private sector commitment to that airport, it was able to secure a long-term investment. It continues to grow. It supports jobs, it strengthens supply chains, and it connects southern Ontario to global markets. In fact, to give an example, DHL Express operates cargo across the world. Hamilton airport is its fourth-largest-volume facility in the entire world. The largest is in Hong Kong, then Leipzig, Germany, then Cincinnati, Ohio, and then Hamilton, Ontario. That is the result when there is a positive private sector investment that actually creates jobs and success. Completed in 2021, that particular facility met its five-year volumes in one year. That is what trade-enabling infrastructure looks like. It is succeeding in spite of the endless red tape. Imagine a national infrastructure system that worked with the same real urgency. Imagine if approvals were predictable, if capital felt welcomed, if projects moved from announcement to construction to completion. That is how we reverse this productivity decline in our economy, how we attract investment and how we grow our economy. Canada should be the easiest place in the world to build responsibly. We have skilled workers. We have resources. We have stable institutions. What we lack is urgency. The budget continues the pattern: high spending, high debt, low growth and no structural reform. Nearly a year after the government was elected, Canadians still do not see the breakthrough that was promised. As long as investment lags, approvals stall and productivity falls, living standards will continue to erode. Canadians are not asking for miracles. They are asking for a government that understands that prosperity comes from building, producing and competing, not just borrowing and hoping. Conservatives believe in clearing the bureaucracy that blocks projects, ensuring Canadian workers benefit from Canadian infrastructure, strengthening our ports and trade corridors, restoring fiscal discipline so capital flows back to Canada and rebuilding confidence that this country can once again get things done. On every one of those measures, the budget comes up short. Ten years ago, Canada was described as having the richest middle class in the world. In fact, commentators noted that in 2014 the Canadian dream had replaced the American dream, after 10 years of Conservative government and strong fiscal management. That was not an accident. That was a result of discipline, investment and policies that rewarded work and encouraged growth. Today, the middle class is feeling squeezed. Stagnation should not be a destiny. With the right leadership, fiscal discipline and a government that understands that prosperity comes from building, Canada can again have the richest middle class in the world. With a new government, it will.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak on behalf of my colleague. What I will note, as I said in my speech, is that we had the richest middle class in the world 10 years ago, when we had an economy that was attracting investment from around the world. Prosperity is the answer to all of our issues. The member opposite is part of a government that said no to Germany and Japan when they came for Canadian LNG. Germany built the facility, as I said in my speech, in seven months, and we lost the opportunity to diversify our trade, create those jobs and steal other jobs for all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should create prosperity for young Canadians so they can actually have jobs. That is what Canadians had 10 years ago. After 10 years of a Conservative government, youth unemployment was not at the skyrocketing levels we are seeing now, and that is not fair. As well, 10 years ago, the average monthly mortgage payment on the average house in Canada was $1,432. The average rent was $973. Young people could go to school, save up, buy a home and start a family. That was the Canadian dream. That is why we were the envy of the world and had the richest middle class. That does not exist anymore after 10 years of the Liberals. Conservatives will work to restore that dream and that promise.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because that is the point. The reason we are now among the worst-performing economies in the G7 and the OECD, which we were not 10 years ago, is that we have the lowest private sector investment in our economy in the world. When we do not create the conditions for the private sector to invest here, investment will elsewhere. Capital is global, and we have seen that time and time again. If we want to make sure we have opportunities for Canadians, we can do better than having one in four working for the government. We can provide excellent opportunities in the private sector so Canadians can prosper, save up, buy a home and live the Canadian dream.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's excellent analysis on the ROI of the high-speed rail, and particularly the passenger levels, which are unrealistic, and of the fact that there is a lack of a business case here. Obviously, this is one of the major projects that have been designated. When we were at committee, and we supported Bill C-5 with strong Conservative amendments to improve the bill and pass it through, we heard from a witness who said that if we actually want to increase our GDP, the fastest and best way to do that is to build pipelines to tidewater and get our energy resources to tidewater. In contrast to this investment that is proposed, which would benefit very few people, what are the member's thoughts on that?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to salute Peter Turkstra, a leader, builder and community philanthropist. Last week, I attended the industry luncheon of the West End Home Builders Association in Hamilton, where Peter Turkstra was inducted into its hall of fame for his decades of leadership and service. Turkstra Lumber is an institution in the construction industry. This honour was very well deserved. However, Peter's acceptance speech raised loud and clear alarm bells of an industry in crisis. He called out the excessive taxes and bureaucracy from the federal Liberals, as well as the provinces and municipalities, that are decimating homebuilding in Canada. It hurts Peter's soul to lay off experienced and loyal tradespeople because of this crisis. This is at a time when young people have given up on the dream of home ownership in record numbers. How sad. This is not a demand problem; this is an overtaxation problem. Let us heed Peter's call, cut the HST on all new homes, reduce development charges and cut the red tape. I congratulate and thank Peter.

Mr. Speaker, under the Prime Minister, food prices have jumped 7.3% and are rising twice as fast as those of other goods, making Canada the food inflation capital of the G7. This is a made-in-Canada problem; 70% of our food production is right here at home, yet nearly 90% of agribusinesses say Liberal red tape is putting them at risk. Punishing regulations and the industrial carbon tax are driving up costs. Just how much higher must grocery bills climb before the Liberals stop strangling Canadian food production with red tape and punishing taxes?

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is on behalf of Canadians who are concerned about the persecution of Falun Gong by the Chinese Communist Party. Falun Gong practitioners have endured human rights abuses, torture, imprisonment and forced organ harvesting. Petitioners ask that the Government of Canada call upon the Chinese Communist Party to end its persecution and that those officials of the Chinese Communist Party who are responsible for these acts be held accountable.

Mr. Speaker, a new report from the Missing Middle Initiative warns of a lost decade for home ownership. For every 100 new adults, there will be only 12 housing starts intended for ownership. Nearly half of young Canadians say they have considered leaving their city or province because of housing costs. Now the market is seizing up. New home sales in the GTA have hit a 45-year low, putting 100,000 jobs at risk. Builders are laying off workers, and they fear they may not survive. When will the Liberals adopt our plan to get their bureaucracy out of the way so young Canadians can buy—

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and to present a petition on behalf of residents of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North who write in support of Bill C-218, an excellent bill by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City, which seeks to stop the expansion of medical assistance in dying to people with mental illness. We believe that it would be an egregious expansion; that there should be supports offered to people who have mental illness, such as suicide prevention and other supports; and that it is not necessary to make that expansion. It is an honour to present the petition from constituents on that issue.

Mr. Speaker, Feed Ontario's “Hunger Report 2025” came out in recent days, and the numbers were very shocking. We saw an increase in the number of seniors, working people and people with disabilities accessing food banks. I have a question for my colleague, who cited some of the disparities in the savings on taxes within this bill for single seniors and single parents. The bill is called the making life more affordable for Canadians act. Does it accomplish that at all? What should have been done differently?

Mr. Speaker, last year alone, one million Ontarians needed a food bank, and that totalled 8.7 million visits, according to today's Feed Ontario hunger report. This is the highest number of visits ever recorded. Of those visitors, one in three was a child, one in three was a person with a disability, and one in four was a working Ontarian who still could not earn enough to make ends meet. Ontario had twice as many seniors turning to food banks as it did five years ago, and three in five visitors were social assistance recipients who simply cannot keep up with the cost of living. This is not normal, and it is not sustainable. After a decade of Liberal spending and broken promises, Canadians cannot afford to live. How many more warning signs will the government ignore while families, workers and seniors are being pushed to the breaking point?

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Brandon—Souris talked of record food bank use in his region. We had the Feed Ontario hunger report out today, which made some of the same observations about record food bank use, including among seniors. It says senior food bank use has doubled over the last five years. The member had, I think, in his speech that it is $50 that a single senior is going to save from this tax cut, which is 13¢ a day, yet there was another report out that states the average family is facing an $800 increase this year in the cost of food. Are Canadians continuing to pedal backwards under the Liberals?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley raises a good point. The Prime Minister said to Canadians to judge him on the price of groceries at the grocery store. We know that he has not actually visited a grocery store, but we also know that grocery price inflation is 40% higher in Canada than in the U.S. There have been multiple reports as to the food price pressures that Canadians are facing. Why does the member think that the government would not do something as straightforward as scrapping the industrial carbon tax, which we heard about in committee, as a measure for increasing affordability?

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the member opposite that Calgary is indeed an ambitious city, having lived there for 10 years of my life and having a wife from Calgary. Will the parliamentary secretary say on behalf of his government when an energy pipeline will be built to tidewater, whether it is an oil pipeline to the B.C. coast or something like the former energy east program to the Atlantic provinces? If we want to increase the GDP significantly, the fastest, best and most significant way is through private sector investment in an energy pipeline.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague from Edmonton Southeast for his excellent speech and his passion in fighting for his constituents. The Prime Minister said that he should be judged by the price of groceries in the grocery aisles, while we know he does not actually go to any grocery stores. We do know that grocery price inflation is growing 40% faster in Canada than it is in the U.S. There was the shocking study out of Dalhousie University last week that said that 80.6% of Canadians tag food costs as their number one price inflation and pressure concern in their budgets. I would like to ask my colleague whether he is hearing that from his constituents in Edmonton. What is his reaction to the budget and its lack of ability to address that affordability challenge?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I would disagree, and I will tell members why for the next 10 minutes. The first budget presented by the new finance minister promised discipline, responsibility and a new direction. However, every single one of those promises was broken. Six months ago, the minister promised Canadians a deficit of $62 billion. In the budget that was presented a couple of weeks ago, it was $78 billion. He promised a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but it is rising. In fact, Fitch, the government's own credit rating agency, and the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer, until he is replaced because the Prime Minister does not like to hear challenges to his authority, have warned of credit downgrades. This would add billions more in interest costs. This is alarming. He promised to spend less and, instead, the budget spends $90 billion more. That is $5,400 of extra inflationary spending per household, and that has consequences. He promised help for municipalities, to get Ottawa support in cutting the homebuilding taxes in half. Instead, that promise is gone, and higher housing costs for young people desperate to enter the market are the price of the Prime Minister. He promised more investment, but the budget itself admits the truth, that private sector investment in Canada is collapsing. The most alarming number of all is that Canada will spend $55.6 billion on interest on the debt next year. That is more than all the transfers from the federal government to the provinces for health and more than is collected in GST by the government. To put that in perspective, every single dollar of GST paid by Canadians is not going to doctors, to nurses or to hospitals; it is going to bankers and bondholders. This is not fiscal responsibility. This is not economic leadership. It is certainly not what the Prime Minister promised Canadians. When I first rose in the House four years ago to speak on the fall economic statement of 2021, I warned about the dangerous trend that was already appearing: declining investment, falling productivity and a shrinking standard of living. Every year since, when I have spoken on the budget, usually in the spring, I have raised the same warnings. Every year, under the Liberal government, the situation has gotten worse. Today, Canada's standard of living is in its steepest decline in 40 years. According to the OECD, Canada is on track to have the worst economic growth of all 38 advanced economies over the next four decades, right through to 2060. The productivity gap with the United States is now at its widest since the 1950s, and business investment per worker has fallen to half of what it currently is in the U.S. Since 2014, business investment in Canada has dropped 20%, while in the United States, it has grown by over 70%. This is not a momentary blip. It is a structural decline that is directly tied to policy choices made by the Liberals over the past decade. I will talk about what this means to the people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, who live in the fast-growing suburban communities of Paris, St. George, Waterdown, Binbrook and Mount Hope. Families are already struggling to make ends meet because they have seen their mortgages increase as they go to renew them. The Bank of Canada has warned that with millions of mortgages still coming due in 2025 and 2026, some people are facing a 20%, 30% or even 60% increase in payments. That can be $1,000 or $1,500 added on to a mortgage payment each month in our region and across Canada. That is really a gut punch to household budgets. The other thing that they are being squeezed with is grocery prices. They remain painfully expensive. In fact, there was a report last week out of Dalhousie University, which said that 80.6% of Canadians, that is four in five, identify food as the biggest, most pressing expense they are facing. This is in a country where we grow so much food and can export it around the world. Of course, if we had trade deals with certain countries and were not facing the impediments that have resulted since the Prime Minister took office, we would export more. How sad is that? We know that gas and home heating are still higher because the industrial carbon tax remains. We also know that Canadians are working harder but are falling further behind. Affordability is not just a talking point; it is a crisis at kitchen tables. What worries me are the long-term consequences of this budget, because the finance minister would add $321.7 billion to the national debt over the next five years. This is more than double what his predecessor would have added, and it would add $10 million to our debt every hour. These costs are being passed on to Canadian taxpayers, and this inflationary pressure is causing grocery prices to rise and the interest rates on mortgages to be impacted. The federal debt is now $1.35 trillion, and what do Canadians get for all of this? It is a GDP growth of 1.1%, which is the second-lowest in the G7. Ten years ago, at the end of a decade of Conservative government, we were the best-performing economy in the G7, but we are no longer today. Unemployment is rising an average of 6.4%. Investments are falling, and as a result, living standards are declining. This is not a plan for prosperity; this budget gambles away Canadian futures. Across the great riding of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, there are four fall fairs and there are two summer festivals. I had a booth at each of them this year, as I do every year. My team and I spoke to thousands of people over the course of the 24 days of those fairs and festivals, and two themes were entirely consistent and top of mind among constituents. One was affordability, and the second was the increasing concern that a middle-class life in Canada is no longer possible. I assured them it was not this way 10 years ago, and it will not be this way once the government is replaced It does not have to be this way. My parents came as the children of immigrants to Canada. They worked hard. They saved up. They had the belief that every generation should get more and should be stronger. We were not born with a silver spoon in our mouths, but they passed on the middle-class dream of Canada to my brothers and me. Owning a home was an achievable goal. Building a future was achievable, but for young people today, it is simply out of reach after 10 years of Liberal budgets. Families are feeling squeezed. Young people see no path to home ownership. Entrepreneurs are facing barriers at every turn, and seniors worry about the price of groceries. A senior came into my constituency office during the break week and said they no longer buy beef because it was out of reach for them at the current price. This is someone who had a reasonable pension income from their work in the private sector previously. Canada should be a place where hard work is rewarded, investment is welcomed and opportunity is rising, not shrinking. Canadians are not asking for perfection, but they are desperately asking for affordability and for a plan that respects their sacrifices, and this budget does not meet that expectation. That is why Conservatives will oppose this costly, reckless budget if the government will not deliver a budget that helps Canadians. Conservatives will continue to champion letting workers keep more of every dollar of their paycheque by cutting taxes, making homes affordable by clearing the bureaucracy that blocks building, bringing down food prices by cutting hidden taxes, restoring fiscal responsibility that reins in runaway deficits and rebuilding confidence in our economy so we are attracting investment and rewarding innovators in the Canadian economy. We would open Canada up to those economic opportunities again, not choke it with red tape and debt, as the government has been doing for 10 years. We would build a positive, hopeful future for every Canadian. Budget 2025 does not meet the moment. It raises the deficit, it raises the debt, it raises inflation, it raises the cost of living on every household in the country, it ignores warnings and it leaves Canadians paying more and getting less. Canadians deserve better than this. They deserve leadership that respects their struggles, listens to their concerns and delivers real results. We will continue to fight for accountability, and we will continue to fight for affordability.

Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record. The budget was balanced in 2015. We were the strongest-performing economy in the G7 and in the OECD at that time, and we were increasing health care transfers to the provinces year over year. Let me answer the question. I talked about this quite a bit during the election. Canada has everything the world wants. Canada has everything the U.S. wants. We have oil, gas, forests, expertise and smart people. The second-largest nuclear plant in the world is just down the highway from where I live. We have people working in that supply chain. We also have potash and uranium. It has been eight months since the Prime Minister formed government, and in that time, what has been accomplished? There has been a lot of travel and a lot of talk, but no shovels in the ground. When former prime minister Trudeau said no to Germany when it wanted liquefied natural gas from us, Germany went to Qatar and built an import facility in 190 days. That is longer than the Prime Minister has been office, and—

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton for that excellent point. We are spending more on the interest on the debt than we are on health care. That makes no sense. That was not the case 10 years ago when health care transfers were increasing year after year and we were the best-performing economy in the G7. Having recently spent some time in a hospital, a couple of days on a stretcher in a hallway, I can say that a lot needs to be done in the health care system. Money is being spent because the Liberals cannot rein in the billions of dollars going to their consultant friends. They cannot produce a fiscally responsible budget. It should be going to health care, and it is a shame that it is not.

Mr. Speaker, I sit on the transport and infrastructure committee. We worked with the government on the amendments to Bill C-5 to get it passed, and we made it better. It was a tiny, baby step forward. Of course, we want to see these projects get done, but right now, there are a lot of announcements, a lot of paper, a lot of press releases and a lot of flash, but no projects on the ground. By the way, the nuclear project on the first list was already being supported by the Government of Ontario. It was not new in any way. It was just more paper, announcements and optics from the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's costly credit card budget piles today's reckless spending on tomorrow's taxpayers, and the warnings keep getting louder. Fitch, the government's own credit rater, says that the Liberals routinely blow through their fiscal anchors and that federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration. Now the budget watchdog is sounding the alarm, noting that the government has abandoned its debt-to-GDP anchor, which is the very metric the Liberals said was key to protecting the AAA rating. No wonder the Prime Minister wants to fire him. How many more damning watchdog reports will it take for the Prime Minister to rein in spending?