Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, coincidentally, during the constituency week, I toured a prefab housing factory in my riding that is gearing up for production. People there are really excited about the federal investment in prefabricated housing, because they see it as a way, once those factories are at scale, to produce much-higher-quality housing at a lower production rate versus doing it on site. Most countries across the world, including in Europe, have gone in that direction. It is a tremendous opportunity not only for businesses and industry but also for homebuyers, at the end of the day.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I appreciate the comments from the member for Newmarket—Aurora. I genuinely appreciate the experience that she brings to the House. The member spoke about productivity, competitiveness and the need for economic growth, which we are very much aligned on, and also the need to work together and the importance of our Canadian democratic institutions. My question to the member is on the global context of things that are going on in the world right now. Where does she see that continuous collaboration and constructive criticism fitting into Canada's place in the world?

Mr. Speaker, for a moment there, I thought I was back on Hamilton city council on the planning committee. Every single time a project comes forward, we hear the exact same rhetoric from retail politicians who want to stand in the way because it is politically expedient. Every single industrialized economy in the world, except for maybe the U.S., whether it is Europe, China or Japan, has a high-speed rail network that brings their country together as an alternative to air travel. Why not take a leadership role to make this project the best that it can be for one's community, instead of just taking the easy way out to say one is opposed and get in the way?

Mr. Speaker, I think if Canadians wanted to understand exactly why the Conservative Party lost a 25-point lead in the last election, they could look at the member's speech here this afternoon. Even in Alberta, recent polling is showing a tightening and Liberals being competitive in ridings such as the riding of the member opposite. I do not know if there is anything that they will bring to the table that is new. That is really unfortunate, because we just heard members opposite being collaborative and willing to work together for the betterment of Canadians. Frankly, it is embarrassing, this kind of rhetoric in the House of Commons. It is nothing but a word salad of catchphrases and Conservative talking points.

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the general acknowledgement that high-speed rail is a positive thing for Canada as a nation-building exercise, as a transportation corridor and as an economic building opportunity to use Canadian steel, Canadian labour and Canadian skilled trades. I really take to heart his comments about the impacts on the communities he represents. I have worked in construction for 20 years. I have been a part of the planning process at the municipal level. What it really comes down to is building trust with communities in the proponent and also ensuring that, when there are mitigation measures that come forward, they are actually implemented and taken seriously. How can we help the member make sure that this happens in his community?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member opposite raised the need for Canada to engage in nation-to-nation consultation, or duty to consult with indigenous nations. She spoke about pipelines and other projects. The Prime Minister and our government have been clear that we need consultation and a better relationship with indigenous nations. Her leader has stood in the House and said that the federal government should basically override indigenous rights. Would the member not agree that a stronger, closer relationship between indigenous rights holders and the federal government is necessary?

Madam Speaker, it is very good this morning to hear the comments from the members opposite and their new-found respect for treaties and also for reconciliation. I am just wondering how the member opposite would reconcile that with the comments from her leader that the federal government should override indigenous rights in order to get pipelines built, regardless of the objection of those rights holders.

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of interesting points made by the member opposite. In particular, I take her point about property rights and economic stability. She noted, at the beginning of her comments, that the bill on the commissioner for modern treaties was built and developed with the support of, and in consultation with, indigenous rights holders and indigenous communities across Canada. I wonder how she would respond to them, in that the bill would implement specifically what they have been asking for.

Madam Speaker, with respect to projects of national interest, we heard over and again from the many witnesses at the natural resources committee that the path forward for Canada is working in reconciliation with indigenous rights holders to get projects built and to share that economic prosperity. Can the member opposite comment on his leader's opinion that the federal government should override those rights in order to build pipelines?

Mr. Speaker, the debate is on the Standing Orders, but we are also discussing parliamentary procedure in general, which I am doing. As I was saying, Hamilton is a rough place to be an elected representative, and I am rather used to some rough treatment. I am very proud to say I have served two terms. Before that, I worked for 20 years in heavy civil construction as a structural engineer. In total, that is 27 years working as a professional and being accountable, publicly and privately, for what I said, what I wrote and how I presented myself, in an environment where making a false or defamatory statement would quickly result in a lawsuit. Now, I understand the history of parliamentary privilege and why it exists. Without it, MPs could be under the threat of silence through frivolous lawsuits, and courts could be second-guessing parliamentary debate, but again I go back to my initial point that, at the municipal level, municipalities across Canada have wide-ranging democratic debates without parliamentary privilege protecting members from lawsuits. What it comes down to is that it really only works when members of Parliament approach this role in good faith. People have often asked me what the biggest difference is that I have seen between working at the municipal level and working at the federal level, and it is the hyperbole, nonsense and expanding the truth that we see rather routinely in this chamber, which is at times, I would submit, rampant abuse of parliamentary privilege. How I am seeing parliamentary privilege being used here, and this is my observation, is that there will be false, defamatory, over-the-top hyperbole or a statement made in the House that is clipped and shared on social media, and then there are legions of followers, trolls and alternative news sources that then share and promote it as if it is true. It is an intentional strategy that builds anger and creates division and an entire industry of political grift. I would be really interested to test this theory: In the House we are protected by parliamentary privilege, but if a member shares a false or defamatory statement on social media, are they still protected by parliamentary privilege when they are publishing false and defamatory statements outside of the House? As far as I know, the courts have not tested that. I am not a lawyer, but I would love to investigate that further. That brings me to a point about the need for a strong and robust mainstream media, such as the CBC, because legitimate journalists are bound by a code of ethics and the threat of lawsuits. They do not generally re-publish false and defamatory materials. Standing Order 18 on parliamentary privilege does prohibit personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, and disrespect toward Parliament, the Crown or members. As a member, I cannot say that a member is lying, even when it is a blatant lie, and that is kind of bizarre if we think about it. I can use all kinds of euphemisms. I can say it is misleading, it is misinformation or the member did not understand, but I cannot straight up say it is a lie and the member is lying. That may be something that needs to change. Technically, the Speaker, under Standing Order 16 on decorum and Standing Order 18 on parliamentary language, can intervene to correct statements such as that, misinformation or lies. Maybe we need to encourage the Speaker and the party whips to be a little more aggressive and use formal points of order to correct blatant lies that are put on the record. I will make a couple of comments on dress and decorum. The Standing Orders require members to be properly attired in the chamber. Of course, for men, that means wearing a tie. I am strongly in favour of maintaining those provisions. I think losing the tie is the thin end of the wedge to hoodies and track suits in the House of Commons. We have an obligation to Canadians to be professional in our role and project that to the public. I welcome any questions.

I appreciate the reminder, Mr. Speaker. That is actually an important point among the points that I am making this afternoon. As I was saying, some of the biggest risks that we are facing as a country are extremist movements, extremist ideologies and the politics of division, anger, resentment and hatred being directly imported from the United States. That is not on one side of the spectrum; that is on the extremes of both sides. It is damaging to our democracy and it is undermining the public's confidence in our democratic institutions, which brings me to the issue of parliamentary privilege. In the House, MPs cannot be sued or prosecuted for things that they say in the chamber, in committee or in official parliamentary proceedings. In itself, this is not a standing order. This is an inherent feature of the Westminster system of government, but, interestingly, it does not exist at the municipal level. I am obviously rather new to this role, but I did spend seven years as a municipal councillor in Hamilton, Canada's 10th-largest city, with 650,000 people and a $2-billion annual budget. I was the chair of the planning committee, the budget and the public works. I served as deputy mayor. In that span, I probably chaired hundreds, if not thousands, of meetings. Local politics in Hamilton are fairly ruthless, cutthroat—

Mr. Speaker, to start my remarks, I want to thank my family: my wife Dawn, daughter Sadie and son Isaac; our three cats, Tinkerbell, Luna and Max; and our dog Duke. One of the interesting parliamentary rules of order is that if my daughter Sadie happened to be in the gallery today, I would not be able to acknowledge her and say, “Hi, sweetie. Thanks for coming and seeing Dad at work.” I am just going to quickly pose for the camera here. I am on that camera, but I am wondering if we could switch to this one, because I have a way better background. There we go. That brings me to my first point, which is that this entire room here is a television studio, which in many ways encourages performance. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that there is no actual prohibition of using a cellphone to record ourselves to take photos and videos. Maybe that is something that we should consider adding to the Standing Orders, to make a formal restriction, because the last thing that we want is a continuation of “like and subscribe for more great content” and actually bringing that into the House of Commons. I am going to take a moment to reflect on the current Liberal caucus. The Prime Minister is a world-renowned economist with a lifetime of leadership on the global stage, and we have a really extraordinary set of ministers with decades of experience. In our caucus, we have former provincial legislators and council leaders. We have over 30 former municipal councillors and former provincial elected officials in our caucus, which is amazing, along with a number of doctors, lawyers, always tons of lawyers, engineers, farmers, business executives, labour and social justice advocates, indigenous leaders, women and diversity. We have people who reflect the entire spectrum of the Canadian population, which is amazing. It is an absolutely amazing group of people to work with each and every day, and I am so grateful that the residents of Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas have given me that opportunity. That reflects the outcomes of the last election, in which Canadians clearly wanted to elect a government with serious representatives and competent representation. There are very serious issues facing Canada at the moment, which have intensified since the last election. There is the U.S.'s hostile government and the deliberate destruction of the global allegiances and stability that our country has relied on. We have the Conservative Party of Canada's own Unity Mitford, who is attempting to freelance negotiations with the American President right now. There are separatist movements—

Madam Speaker, as Monica said, “Rules help control the fun.” As someone who has chaired hundreds, if not thousands, of meetings, of course I very much value the rules that control and direct debate to ensure that everybody has a fair opportunity to contribute. With respect to taking photos or selfies in the chambers or the standing committees, as I said in my speech, I do not believe there is actually a restriction on that. Rather, it falls under a Speaker's ruling, and we should consider adding that as a Standing Order.

Madam Speaker, question period is its own thing. As others have mentioned, such as my colleague from Calgary, when we have students here observing question period, it is a bit of a shock. Personally, I would like to see a more forceful intervention from the Speaker in question period. My experience, again working at the municipal level, is that questions have to be on specific topics. I think that is worthwhile to include in our question period, that we stay on the topic of the day and have more robust and truthful answers.

Madam Speaker, that is a difficult question, because what is a lie is very subjective, and I think the last thing we want to have is the Speaker being a fact-checker. We need to have robust debates. We are going to have different political opinions on things, and statistics or certain facts may be interpreted differently. However, what I would like to see, when it is a blatant lie or an attack against an identifiable person or organization, is that the Speaker becomes more involved and steps in to ask the member to withdraw statements that are clearly false and defamatory.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's mentioning the RCMP. My father-in-law, Mike Renchko, is a very proud retired RCMP member. Of course, the protecting victims act we are debating today is about protecting people against gender-based violence and intimate partner violence, protecting children from predators, strengthening victims' rights and addressing court delays. If there is anything before the House that the members opposite should support, it is this. However, with our anti-crime bills, strengthening sentencing, bail reform, the anti-hate act, and protecting women and children, when these bills go to committee, they are actively blocked over and over again by the members opposite. Why is that? It is so the members opposite can stand up in the House and continue to grandstand and to fundraise off their actions. When will the members opposite stop the excuses and support the anti-crime legislation that is before the House right now?

Mr. Speaker, the member for Newmarket—Aurora gave a thoughtful speech. She has genuine concern for the families, parents and seniors who are facing affordability issues in their communities. In the city of Hamilton, the average family income is significantly lower than other parts of the province, so this issue is particularly acute in the areas that I represent. A credit of $7,500 over five years is substantial assistance, but the member talked about the need for long-term measures to decrease food prices. In this bill, there are measures for the strategic response fund and the food security program, as well as funding for increasing the domestic production of food. I am wondering what other recommendations might be brought forward if this were to proceed to committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to remember Private Mark Anthony Graham and to honour the 40,000 Canadians who fought with NATO in Afghanistan. Following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States of America invoked NATO's article 5 for the first time in history, calling America's allies to their collective defence. Canada answered that call. Private Mark Anthony Graham was a Canadian soldier. He was an Olympic athlete, a graduate of Sir Allan MacNab Secondary School in my riding, and a role model to young Canadians. On September 4, 2006, Private Graham was killed fighting on the front line with NATO during Operation Medusa in Afghanistan. The recent comments by the American President claiming NATO forces were not on the front lines dishonour the memory of Canadians like Private Graham who gave their lives in defence of our American allies. We owe it to our veterans to speak the truth and to honour their service with respect and remembrance.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all agree it is a priority for Canada to diversify our economy and increase trade. It was good to hear that tacit support and offer of collaboration from the member opposite. Having greater Canadian access to the eighth-largest economy in the world, certainly on agriculture, seafood and lumber, is great news for Canadians. Focusing in on Ontario, looking at opportunities for aerospace, clean technology, advanced manufacturing, minerals, mining and energy, I wonder if the member opposite sees any particular benefits for Ontario in this trade deal.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of areas on which the member and I largely agree, which is really good to hear. I really appreciated his discussion of the need for investment in ports, trade corridors and infrastructure, which is, of course, an important part of budget 2025. In particular, the port of Hamilton has direct access to the Atlantic through the St. Lawrence Seaway, a key export hub for Ontario, along with Hamilton airport, which is the busiest overnight cargo airport in the entire country. I want to ask the member about this new approach to collaboration and good faith, whether that will extend to committees, and how long we can expect it to last.

Madam Speaker, following the member's speech, I am trying to understand what it is that the Conservative Party actually stands for. In her speech, she started with anti-immigration conspiracy theories, which undoubtedly will be used to grift and fundraise. Then she blamed immigrants for destroying Canada's social fabric, which frankly is straight-up racist. Then she went into some MAGA-theory talking points about immigrants and migrants. This rhetoric is damaging. It is damaging to our democracy. It is damaging to Canadians. Just last month, we had anti-immigration rallies in Hamilton, which were roundly denounced by Hamilton leaders, as they should be. Is the member from Oklahoma representing Canadians or just the MAGA White House?

Madam Speaker, it is good to get the member opposite's perspective. He has been an environmental leader for many years. There are a couple of important things that he mentioned. The first was that becoming an energy superpower includes all forms of energy and that we need to invest in clean energy and invest in jobs in clean energy, because that is where the jobs of the future are. Thinking about the global transition toward electric vehicles and transportation, electric heating and cooling, electric industrial processes and electric computing and data centres, would he agree it is pragmatic to provide paths forward for natural resources where the market exists and also to invest heavily in electric production and transmission throughout Canada?

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a strong advocate for P.E.I. and Atlantic Canada. When I was raising my family, I would very much have appreciated the government's programs, especially the national child care program, which is a huge support for young families. I want to draw on the member's experience at the provincial level and ask how important it is to have a federal government that is fully engaged in redefining Canada's economy and investing in provinces, especially smaller provinces like P.E.I.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for working Justin Trudeau and Fidel Castro into his speech. I am sure his “freedom convoy” supporters absolutely love that kind of nonsense. I should be shocked, but am not, by the continuing lack of integrity and by the cowardice shown by the Conservative members opposite. We are inside the House, where they are protected by parliamentary privilege from personal liability, and where they continually spread misinformation and make false and defamatory statements. It is nonsense that is then amplified by their propaganda networks and foreign actors. Will the member opposite acknowledge that this nonsense is embarrassing, damaging to our democracy and the reason his party was rejected by voters in the last election?

Mr. Speaker, our new government has taken immediate action to improve public safety, to stop crime and to hold criminals responsible. We have added much stricter penalties for gun crime, gang crime and violent crime. We are strengthening bail to ensure that criminals are not released from jail. We are strengthening anti-hate laws to protect vulnerable populations from targeted harassment. We are protecting women from violence and exploitation. We are giving police the modern tools they need to infiltrate criminal networks, to investigate, and to stop crimes before they happen. This was done in close collaboration with police chiefs, frontline officers, legal experts, community partners and victims' organizations to prevent crime, to hold criminals responsible and to keep our communities safe. However, progress on these important public safety measures is being delayed by partisan Conservative obstruction. Public safety is not a partisan issue. Canadians deserve action, not political stunts, so let us work together to keep Canadians safe.

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is no Doug Ford with his folksy witticisms. I am continually amazed that members are conveniently confusing capital investment and operational expenses. Businesses, municipalities, families and farmers understand the difference, but there is no acknowledgement of the reality of the trade war that we are currently facing with the United States. The whole point of this budget is investing in Canada to build our economy, and to invest in our country. Can the member opposite explain the difference between a capital investment and an operating expense?

Mr. Speaker, the people of Hamilton know that Canadian steel is an integral part of building a secure, sovereign Canada. Everything from homes to defence requires a strong industrial steel sector. With the announcement yesterday, it is clear that our government is focused on building Canada strong, with Canadian steel to build Canadian products, building the strongest economy in the G7. Can the Minister of Jobs and Families—

Mr. Speaker, the people of Hamilton know that Canadian steel is an integral part of building a secure, sovereign Canada. Everything from homes to defence requires a strong industrial steel sector. With the announcement yesterday, it is clear that our government is focused on building Canada strong, with Canadian steel to build Canadian products, building the strongest economy in the G7. Can the Minister of Jobs and Families—

Mr. Speaker, the people of Hamilton know that Canadian steel is an integral part of building a secure, sovereign Canada. Everything from homes to defence requires a strong industrial steel sector. With the announcement yesterday, it is clear that our government is focused on building Canada strong, with Canadian steel to build Canadian products, building the strongest economy in the G7. Can the Minister of Jobs and Families please tell this House how our government is supporting steelworkers as we transition to buy Canadian industrial self-reliance?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his ongoing advocacy and his tax credits for firefighters, for advocating for corporate responsibility and for advocating for the basic needs of everyday Canadians. However, I also want to address a growing concern for Canadians, and that is the influence of Donald Trump's White House over the Canadian Conservative Party, which is importing trends from the U.S. such as cutting funding for public education, removing environmental standards, the misogynistic manipulation of young men and the vilification of immigrants in the global south. I wonder if the member opposite has any concerns about the increasing influence of Donald Trump over the Canadian Conservative Party and Conservative movements in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today as the federal representative for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas to speak in support of the implementation of a new budget for Canada, a pivotal investment in the future of our great country. We are living through a fundamental shift in global trade, global alliances and the global economy. For decades, Canada and our democratic allies around the world relied on stable, predictable international trade partners. Today, that world no longer exists. Our largest trading partner is governed by an increasingly hostile and unpredictable administration. The Trump administration has not hesitated to illegally target Canadian industries, Canadian workers and Canada's national interests for its own short-term political gains. In a moment like this, Canada cannot afford to stand still. We must take action to defend not only our economic prosperity but also our national sovereignty and very way of life. That is why the government is taking decisive action. We are taking action to protect our economic sovereignty and way of life because we believe fundamentally in the unity and strength of the Canadian people. As the Prime Minister said, we must take control of our own destiny. This budget implementation act does exactly that. At its core, it has three clear priorities: to build, to protect and to empower. Canada's economic fundamentals remain the strongest in the G7 and in the world. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7. Employment growth remains steady, adding 67,000 new jobs in October and 60,000 the month before that. Canada continues to be one of the safest, most stable jurisdictions for business investments in the G7. The Canadian economy is well positioned for the future, but only if we act now. For the first time, the budget makes a clear, important distinction between capital and operating spending. Of course, this is how businesses operate, as well as most families. There is a family's large capital investments, like the mortgage, house or car loan, and its operational expenses, like clothing, utilities, groceries, etc. In the federal government, we are making significant capital investments in housing, infrastructure, climate adaption and defence, investments that will build a stronger Canada for decades. Operational spending is being strategically managed and will be brought back into balance within three years. That is good fiscal policy, and it is long-term nation-building. As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, I want to speak directly to what I see in the budget for Hamilton. Hamilton's infrastructure has benefited from significant levels of federal investment, but continued growth and modernization require even more. Now is the time for provincial and federal partners to build on that progress and deliver the next wave of funding to strengthen services, support housing and prepare Hamilton for the next generations to come. This budget commits $115 billion over five years toward the building and repairing of infrastructure. For Hamilton, that would mean investments in transit, drinking water, waste-water and stormwater systems, community spaces and the critical infrastructure that underpins responsible and sustainable growth. There is $25 billion over the next five years for housing, supporting and enhancing the incredible progress already being made in Hamilton through the Hamilton is Home coalition, one of the most ambitious housing initiatives in the entire country. There is $30 billion over five years for defence, supporting Canada's manufacturing sector, an area where Hamilton plays a critical role. Hamilton's steelworkers, machinists and advanced manufacturing sector are all essential to Canada's national security and NATO commitments. The government has also reaffirmed support for the Hamilton B-line LRT, the first phase of the rapid transit BLAST network that will transform the entire city. As I did when I served on Hamilton's city council, I am already looking beyond the B-line LRT toward future investment in the next phase of A-line light rail transit along the Upper James corridor, right from the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport to the port and waterfront. This is a budget that believes in Hamilton's future. However, no federal budget, no matter how ambitious, can succeed without the involvement and collaboration of all levels of government, and that includes the Province of Ontario, led by Premier Doug Ford. Federal health transfers to Ontario continue to outpace provincial spending. We urge the Province of Ontario to direct sufficient health care funding toward hospitals and emergency care to improve patient outcomes and the working conditions of doctors, nurses and health care professionals. We urge the Province of Ontario to direct sufficient health care funding toward supports for addictions and mental health, because too often, these health care issues go unresolved and often lead to homelessness. We are pleased to see that, just this week, Premier Ford is making new investments in Ontario's criminal justice system, strengthening Ontario's bail laws and adding resources to Ontario's jails and courts. The federal government is a willing partner, and we look forward to closer collaboration with the Province of Ontario. Since the COVID pandemic, affordability and the cost of living have become top of mind for families across Canada, including in Hamilton, Ancaster and Dundas. This budget would strengthen the systems families rely on. Affordable child care gives parents the ability to build careers without sacrificing family, permanent school food programs ensure that children can learn and grow without hunger, a strengthened Canada child benefit lifts hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and an increased old age security supports seniors in their retirement years. Critically, by offsetting municipal costs for infrastructure and housing, we would also reduce the pressure being placed on local municipal property taxpayers. This is about creating opportunity, good jobs, strong communities and the ability for families to build the life they deserve. The mission statement of the City of Hamilton is “To be the best place to raise a child and age successfully”, and I believe this budget would move us closer to that goal. Our government is also investing in opportunities for families to earn a secure living and afford a lifestyle they can be proud of. SEIU Healthcare, which represents 68,000 Canadian health care workers, says, “Budget 2025 will help build a stronger Canada by making life more affordable for 200,000 personal support workers...through a new tax credit.... More money in the pockets of PSWs means more care workers at the bedside of Canada’s seniors, and a stronger, more resilient public healthcare system.” LiUNA Canada, a major partner in the city of Hamilton, says, “LiUNA welcomes the government's continued commitment to apprenticeship, union-led training, and workforce development. By recognizing the essential role of union labour in constructing the infrastructure that powers our economy, this budget reinforces Canada's path to growth, stability, and long-term prosperity. Let's build.” The Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council said, “We're pleased to see the Federal Government's continued commitment to investing in Canada's workforce through this budget. Increased support for training and apprenticeships under the Union Training and Innovation Program, along with new opportunities for nation-building projects through the Major Projects Office, will help ensure skilled tradespeople can continue building the vital infrastructure Ontario and Canada rely on.” The president of Canada's Building Trades Unions says, “I also welcome the new Build Communities Strong fund, which includes a generational investment of $50 billion for local infrastructure projects, with a focus on using unionized labour and Community Employment Benefit Agreements. I’m very pleased to see the $450 million for the Strategic Response Fund, which will support tens of thousands of workers and key sectors, from lumber to steel to the auto industry.” Voters across Canada elected a government that believes in Canada, invests in Canada and trusts Canadians. This budget would build the infrastructure we need for our future and would invest in our country. The budget implementation act is about building a resilient, confident and sovereign Canada that protects our workers, supports our families, strengthens our democracy and secures our place in a rapidly changing world. It is a budget that would build, protect and empower. Finally, it is a budget that reflects the very best of who we are as Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, affordability for seniors and families is central to this budget. This budget meets a specific moment in time when we are redefining the entire Canadian economy for the next century. Those investments are critical in making sure that seniors, families and young people have the opportunities they deserve in their communities. This requires focus and investment from the federal government, and I am proud to be part of that.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this budget would strengthen the systems that families, seniors and people rely on, such as providing affordable child care, helping families enter the workforce, saving families money, making school food programs permanent, making sure that all students have the ability to learn on a full stomach and increasing old age security. My kids happen to be 17 and 19. I am very concerned about what their future will look like. I am also entering that stage when I am concerned about where my parents are going to live and about their success for years to come. This budget would set the foundation for what they need in their future.

Mr. Speaker, certainly, there are programs in the budget that specifically address the needs of seniors. One of the issues facing seniors, especially those on a fixed income, is increasing municipal property taxes. When they are in their home and on a fixed income, they cannot afford year-over-year property tax increases. This budget would address that by directly funding municipal infrastructure, which would offset some of the costs that would otherwise be downloaded to municipalities and passed on to seniors.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech in support of the budget was excellent. I represent an urban riding in Hamilton, and there is some really exciting funding in the budget specifically for municipalities and large urban centres, with $51 billion for infrastructure and $13 billion for housing. Of course municipalities in Ontario have deliberately been chronically underfunded by the provincial government. My question to the member is this: What specific provisions in the budget does she see benefiting urban areas?

Mr. Speaker, I have heard the member opposite speak a few times. He is an excellent speaker, and I think he would make an excellent leader of the opposition. The member opposite has spoken about streamlining evaluation across jurisdictions. I think that is a very important point. He was at a Green Building event recently, speaking very highly of and advocating for green building standards. Of course, the Canadian debt is a concern, so I thank him for highlighting that. I was wondering if the member opposite could also acknowledge that, in the current geopolitical context with the United States and shifting trade alliances, we are in a different reality now, and this budget addresses some of those realities.

Mr. Speaker, a report from this summer says that Prince George saw a significant drop in crime severity, down 13.87%, the lowest point since 2020. I will note that Prince George, as well as Saskatchewan, is actually policed by the RCMP. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to the RCMP as “despicable”. Will the member opposite disavow those comments from his leader and stand up for the men and women who are keeping his community safe?

Mr. Speaker, last week, Hamilton welcomed the Minister of Public Safety and the Secretary of State for Sport to announce federal funding for the amazing new Hamilton YWCA. Then the Secretary of State for Combatting Crime joined the mayor's community safety round table to discuss federal action to stop crime. We hosted the Minister of Industry to advance our government's buy Canadian policy, meeting student leaders, workers and innovators supporting Canada's next generation of jobs. The Minister of Housing and Infrastructure also met with Hamilton housing partners to continue work making housing more affordable and to confirm Hamilton's light rail transit system remains a federal budget priority. This budget delivers billions of dollars in further investment and opportunity for Hamilton and cities across Canada. Leadership is not American-style slogans, conspiracy theories, anger and division. Effective government, real leadership, is being part of a great team that delivers results for Hamilton and all Canadians.