Marc Dalton

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit discouraging to be having this debate now in the House of Commons. Why? It is because we already passed a similar bill barely 18 months ago. The Conservatives voted in favour of it because the Prime Minister said that those projects would be fast-tracked at unimaginable speeds. The result is that 500 projects are currently stalled. We are not seeing any progress at all. Can the member tell me whether we will see another bill like this one 18 months down the line?

Mr. Speaker, I am listening to the Liberal member, and the words are great. I can say amen to a lot of what he is saying, but the problem is that the Liberals have been in power for 11 years. He said that Canada has no shortage of opportunities and huge potential. Well, why are things not happening? We have had 500 projects, actually way more than that, bogged down. The Liberals claim that part 1 of the bill sets a one-year decision timeline, but the fine print reveals that the clock only starts after proponents submit every single study requested. Is this not just a shell game that leaves years of regulatory delays untouched?

Madam Speaker, I hardly agree with the parliamentary secretary about this being good from an economic perspective, but I guess it is good from the economic perspective of bureaucrats and bloated government. I wonder if he is aware of the six separate entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure treaty implementation. He can nod if he knows these ones: the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implications office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy ministers' oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat. I am wondering if the member could elaborate on these other aspects that are about doing the same job.

Madam Speaker, it has been an honour to serve the residents of Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and now Mission for going on seven years. I appreciate this role and take my responsibilities seriously. Today is the first day of a fall session. I was a teacher for many years prior to being elected, and September is the start of a new school year, not only in elementary and high schools but also on campuses, with new sports programs, dance classes and many other activities. There is a sense of excitement among many students at the beginning of something new and getting involved. I want to wish students and teachers a successful and fulfilling year. I have a confession to make. As we enter this fall session, I do not have the same excitement. As a matter of fact, I have a bit of a heavy heart over what has been happening in our beautiful country of Canada for the past years under the Liberal government and, I would also add, in my province of British Columbia under the NDP government. Millions of Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. They are feeling the cost of living squeeze at the grocery stores and gas pumps. Small business owners tell me they feel that the government is, in many respects, warring against them to make them unprofitable and increase regulatory and tax burdens. Canada has dropped like a rock in our ranking in per capita income compared to the rest of the world. I will not talk about crime in our communities or drugs on the streets. However, I must give credit to the Liberals where credit is due. They are master illusionists. Has anyone ever seen a magician saw an attractive assistant in two, only for the assistant to appear whole, with the wave of a wand and the swoosh of a cape? How do magicians do it? It is a little easier now with AI to find out their secrets. The Liberals are masters of illusion. They give the appearance of doing things, tricking our eyes and minds, but it is an illusion. One and a half years ago, the Prime Minister talked about moving Canada forward at unimaginable speed on major infrastructure and economic projects and about the need to rapidly diversify. Things have been pretty stagnant on that front. They may be able to point to one or two different projects, but it has been very sluggish. They said lots of good-sounding words and talked about doubling housing that is going the wrong direction. I asked my parliamentary assistant how many new bureaucracies and offices the Liberals have they formed since they have been in government, and he sent me a list. It came to almost 50. There are 48 announced to be funded and formed, layers and layers of bureaucracies weighing down taxpayers with more debt, more regulations, more paper shuffling and more delays. Therefore, when the Liberal government tells me that Bill C-10 will fix its relationship with indigenous peoples by adding a new bureaucracy, I have to ask a simple question: With what? When we open the box, there is nothing inside. We have tried this before. As I asked in my question to the parliamentary secretary moments ago, between 2015 and 2017, the government created the modern treaty implementation office, the assessment of modern treaty implementation office, the performance management framework, the modern treaty management environment, the deputy minister's oversight committee and the reconciliation secretariat, six separate entities specifically designed to monitor, support and ensure treaty implementation. At this rate, I have to ask: How many government offices does it take to change a light bulb? Apparently, it is six, or I guess seven now. After six offices and committees and layers of bureaucracy, the light bulb is still out. It is a bureaucracy and a government that have run amok. In 2024, the Auditor General again reported that the federal system remains fragmented, bureaucratic and unaccountable. Responsibility is scattered across Indigenous Services Canada, Crown-Indigenous Relations, Justice Canada and the Treasury Board. When commitments go unfulfilled, no one is accountable, not politically, not financially, not morally. It is like it is their fault. Adding a commissioner does not change culture or performance. Only enforcement, accountability and clear expectations can. The government's response is what we have in the bill, to create yet another agency to monitor implementation. Success should not be measured in bureaucratic reports. It should be measured in results on the ground, homes, water, policing, infrastructure, governance and economic opportunities. A commissioner will not build a house. A commissioner will not hire a police officer. A commissioner will not deliver clean water. The Liberal philosophy is that Ottawa always knows best, that Ottawa must monitor, that Ottawa must supervise. The Liberals want to teach from above instead of supporting from beside. Bill C-10 is the purest expression of that instinct. Indigenous communities do not need a commissioner. The government needs a mirror. Its record is damning. The government has had 11 years to act. In that time, how many new modern treaties has it delivered? The answer is zero. That is a fact. In contrast, the Conservative government, under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, without all these extra bureaucracies, produced five modern treaties in six years. This is not a question of capacity or goodwill. It can be done and it has to be done. The government knows it has failed indigenous people, and it knows that the Auditor General has told it so, not once, not twice, but repeatedly. There is the 2005 report on treaty land entitlements, the 2006 report on the B.C. treaty process, the 2013 audit of modern treaty implementation, the 2016 report on the Labrador and Inuit Land Claims Agreement. There have been more than 14 reports since 2015, covering housing, clean water and treaty implementation, more than two decades of road maps. Instead of following the map, the government got lost in its own maze of offices, titles and press conferences. While it wandered in the wilderness, communities have suffered. Treaty rights have not been honoured. Fiscal transfers have been delayed. Infrastructure has crumbled. Policing was underfunded and housing has been inadequate. In 2023, the government even proposed a collaborative modern treaty implementation policy. That sounded like progress, especially with 70 treaty negotiations bogged down. Two years later, nothing has been implemented. We do not need another report telling us that the government has failed. We already know that. I ask the House how a future commissioner of modern treaty implementation would magically motivate the government to finish the work. It would not. The problem has never been a lack of oversight. The problem is a lack of execution, a lack of political will and a lack of ministerial accountability. There are some alternatives. I will maybe get to that in my responses to some questions. I will say that we already have the courts. We have the Auditor General. We already have parliamentary committees, deputy ministers, performance frameworks and internal audits. The government does not need another reminder that it is failing to do its job. Over 100,000 public servants have been added since 2015, with $20 billion a year spent on external consultants. We have a public service that is larger than ever, a public service more ineffective in every respect. Faced with that failure, the Liberal answer is always the same, one more office, just one more commissioner and just one more structure. Actually, it is not just one more. The Liberals are going a dime a dozen. It is the illusion of action.

Madam Speaker, certainly we support auditors general and different agencies, but we do not need half a dozen or a dozen agents doing the same exact work or with a slight modification. A key aspect is just to hold ministers accountable. Every minister should report to Parliament on treaty implementation. If an obligation is unfulfilled, this is not a bureaucratic problem. It is a leadership failure and there must be consequences. We need to reduce government. We need to reduce bureaucracy instead of expanding it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc member. I agree with him. I say yes to an office, a commissioner, but no to six different ways of doing the same thing. I think that is important. I fully agree that the government has a responsibility to fulfill its duty and do its job.

Madam Speaker, yes, working together with the different levels of government and not duplicating is key, just to become effective. Conservatives believe in prosperity for all Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous, and so we need to get things moving and not just paper shuffling, which is what the Liberals are great at doing.

Mr. Speaker, I see that the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong has certainly been drinking the Liberal Kool‑Aid, with her jargon, “build Canada strong” and “investment”. One important industry she did not really refer to is the automobile industry and how it has dropped from over 2.5 million units to, now, under one million. There has been a free fall there. That is one sector. There is also EV manufacturing. I think of the different companies. Honda's $15‑billion EV and battery complex has been scrapped. Northvolt has been cut. It has been a free fall. I wonder if the member would agree with me that these Liberal investments have actually been very dubious and unfruitful.

Mr. Speaker, crime has gone out of control under the Liberals with violent crime, extortion and those out on bail. They make it seem as if they are the bearers of truth and justice and getting things done when they are the reason we are in the situation we are now. They are closing down debate. We have a role to play. I am sure the Liberals would prefer there not be an opposition. We have a responsibility to bring forward amendments as the opposition on behalf of Canadians, because almost all the time the Liberals get it wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the life of an extraordinary British Columbian philanthropist and community builder, Mel Zajac, who passed away at the age of 98. I had the privilege of knowing Mel and visited Zajac Ranch in Mission on several occasions, including just last month. It is an amazing place, and it is constantly improving. What always struck me was that, right to the very end, Mel remained passionately committed to helping youth with disabilities. After the heartbreaking loss of two sons, Mel transformed personal tragedy into a remarkable legacy of hope. His vision gave life to Zajac Ranch, which is a fully accessible camp where children and young adults with complex medical conditions can experience joy, friendship, confidence and the sense of belonging that every child needs. Over the decades, thousands have been touched by Mel and Wendy's belief that barriers should never prevent a child from thriving. Mel Zajac leaves behind a legacy of philanthropy and compassion. On behalf of the House, I extend my deepest condolences to Wendy, his family and the entire Zajac community.

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are a bit disappointed that the Liberals voted against some of our amendments. I think that will affect how we will vote. I would like to know what the Bloc Québécois member thinks of some of these amendments, particularly those aimed at strengthening the security of ballot boxes, as well as the measures designed to close loopholes that allow third parties to advertise on behalf of one party or another.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-267, an act to establish a national framework to promote the durability of electronic products and essential home appliances. The legislation proposes a federal framework to improve product durability, repairability and transparency for consumers. It sounds really good. Everyone has stories about appliances and their longevity, or the lack thereof. I bought a second-hand freezer 35 years ago. It is still humming away in our basement. It needs some defrosting. It has almost become a member of the family. I do not know how many more years it has, but it will probably outlive us. There is also my microwave. It is 23 years old today. It celebrated its birthday. About 10 years ago, it had a little problem. It started sparking. My wife, whom I have been pretty impressed with, has come up with some fixes for our dryer and our microwave, and we did a little patch. Guess what? They are still working after all these years. Those are some good stories about appliances, but not all appliances in our household have happy stories. Take our stove. It did not have a knob, like they used to. I guess some of them still do, but the one we had did not. It had a plastic top. Anyway, one of the little plastic pieces behind broke. It was about 50¢ for the piece, so I thought it would be no problem to get this little repair job done. I thought it was going to keep up with my freezer, but it apparently needed a whole new control panel. They did not make the replacement for that little piece, and a new control panel would have cost almost the same as buying a new a stove. That was a frustrating and expensive experience. Toasters nowadays seem to be just as useless, compared to half a century ago. The list goes on and on. There is a history of planned obsolescence. Have members ever heard about the Phoebus cartel? I had never heard about the Phoebus cartel before I did the preparation for this speech. It was made up of the world's major light bulb manufacturers. In 1924, we had Osram, which I had never heard of, and Philips, which I have heard of, as well as GE and others. These companies secretly agreed to cap bulb lifespans at about 1,000 hours. They were at about 2,500 hours at that time. They fined members whose bulbs lasted too long. They saw, rightly, that having bulbs that never went out was not good for business. There is a light bulb in my riding. It was part of the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford's riding until the last election. It is in the Ruskin Dam. That light bulb is almost 100 years old. It has not gone out in 100 years. That is amazing. If we had light bulbs like that, we could almost put them in our will. Planned obsolescence is not new. In the 1920s, GM introduced the annual model year. Alfred Sloan pioneered dynamic obsolescence. He restyled the cars every year so that the previous year looked aged. This is what happened to the Model T. That sank it for Ford and the Model T. It was about fashion. We see present-day obsolescence in software updates, incompatible chargers, glued-in batteries and printer cartridges with kill chips. This is frustrating. I would agree that the industry can do better. We can get products that last. Canadians would welcome this. I just ordered a fourth shaver a couple days ago from Amazon. They used to last a decade or more. This is what we are seeing. We need to dig a little deeper into this bill. What would it actually do? It would force the minister to make a bureaucracy. It would force the minister to make a national framework. Liberals love the words “national framework”. The framework must address the minimum useful life and labelling, the repair via accessible parts, tools and information, replacement part availability periods, technical documentation, software support duration, consumer education and the responsibilities of manufacturers, importers and distributors. It is a massive bureaucratic undertaking. I can see the Liberals being gleeful about this bureaucracy. Frameworks are nebulous and vaporous. What does it mean to have a national framework? It means 50 full-time bureaucrats talking and talking. Maybe it is 500 or 5,000. I do not know. The minister must confer with the provinces on possible future legislation, industry obligations, inspections and penalties every 18 months and must report to Parliament. There would be report after report, more bureaucracy and more expense to the taxpayer. We have seen this playing out over and over again. We were recently discussing Build Canada Homes, which is a fourth bureaucracy. The Liberals have a terrible record. My staff tell me how hard it is becoming to deal with the Canada Revenue Agency, immigration and the government. It is getting slower and slower. It is hard. We need to also consider the prices for appliances that were stable and have been declining for many years. It is true that refrigerators, washers and dryers were simpler and easier to repair, and parts were more robust and less dependent on electronics. They were also heavier, with more metal components. Now, electronic control boards, sensors, touch screens and smart features introduce more failure points. Manufacturers are also feeling the pressure to keep prices competitive, which leads to lighter construction and lower-cost components. Before we run headlong into bureaucracy and regulations, we need to also recognize that modern appliances use much less electricity and water. That is a significant cost savings. They have more features and conveniences, and they meet stricter environmental standards. The trade-off has been lower purchase prices and better efficiency versus durability and ease of repair. This is another issue to keep in mind. Canada is a small market, compared to Europe and the United States. As it was mentioned previously by my colleague from British Columbia, most of the manufacturing is done in other countries. That is a problem, because they are not going to bend for Canada. Basically, what will end up happening is there will be a reduction in the number of products for Canadians. This will certainly increase costs for Canadian consumers, who the Liberals are saying they are trying to help. At the same time, the Internet has made it easier than ever for consumers to see how long things last, based on honest reviews. They may be honest. We may have to pick through them. The Conservatives are opposing this bill. Why? It is because it moves away from previous Conservative-supported right-to-repair measures. Bill C-294, which we supported, would have made it easier for Canadian businesses and innovators to create products that work with existing technologies, giving consumers more choice and encouraging competition. It was a common-sense measure that would have supported innovation, helped grow our economy and benefited Canadians without taking away copyright protections. This bill, despite its title, does not display common sense. This bill would present risks around federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Liberals do not have a problem with that. It would introduce the potential for increased regulatory burden on businesses. The Liberals do not have a problem with that, either. It would risk consumer choice by reducing lower-cost product options and discouraging manufacturers from offering certain products in the Canadian market. It sounds like a great idea, but there are a lot of problems and pitfalls in this bill. The Conservatives will be voting against it, and I encourage the government to go back to the table and follow the Conservatives' plan.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his passionate speech and for his very clearly thought-out presentation and understanding of the bill. I certainly hope that the Liberals will follow through with his amendment. My wife and I received a call a couple of days ago from a relative of the pastor of the church I have been going to for about 25 years. She was very upset about this bill. I wanted to soothe her, so I told her, “I do not believe they are going to be taking people in the next few days or few weeks and bringing them to prison.” I was just trying to calm her down. At the same time, I said, “This is leading somewhere. We do not know where it is going to go. It is going to be interpreted.” I wonder if the member could tell us how this would impact the human rights courts—

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of Liberal inflation and economic mismanagement, Canadians are the ones who are paying the price. A new United Way survey found that 60% of them are anxious about their finances and 40% are losing sleep trying to make ends meet. More than two million Canadians relied on food banks every month last year, and in Maple Ridge, food bank use has doubled in the past five years. How much worse must it get before the Liberal Prime Minister reverses the costly policies driving Canadians into hardship?

Madam Speaker, I was an MLA in British Columbia in the years coinciding with when the Conservatives were in power under former prime minister Stephen Harper. Those were the years when Canada, and more specifically B.C., was moving forward. Projects were getting built under a free enterprise provincial and federal government. In my riding, there is the Golden Ears Bridge, the Pitt River Bridge, the Port Mann Bridge and the expansion of the Trans-Canada Highway. The highway that used to go between Vancouver and Squamish was called the highway of death because of all the fatalities there. That was expanded. There is Kicking Horse Pass. The Olympics happened. There is the Canada Line, the convention centre and a new stadium, new hospitals and new schools. All throughout British Columbia there was tremendous progress, and I know that this was the same throughout the country. The New York Times, during that period, said that Canada had the richest middle class in the world. We had a dollar at par with the American dollar. I would talk to Americans and others visiting Canada and visiting Victoria, where I often was for my government work. They were amazed by the prosperity they saw in British Columbia and in Canada. Let us keep in mind that between 2007 and mid-2009, the world underwent the great global recession. It was the most severe economic and financial meltdown since the Great Depression in the late twenties and the thirties, impacting housing significantly. Canada weathered this storm very well, and we were number one in growth. Between 2006 and 2015, under Stephen Harper, there were two million housing starts in Canada, while the population growth was about 3.2 million. Using household sizes, those starts were enough to accommodate more people than the population during that period. Canada fared the best in the G7. We were a prosperous nation going from strength to strength. Fast-forward to 2026. After 11 long years under the Liberal government and under two Liberal prime ministers, we have gone from boom to gloom and from first to worst. There has been economic stagnation and decline under the Liberals. In three of the last four quarters, we have shrunk. We are in a recession. We are the only country in the G20 with an economy that is shrinking. The G20 includes nations such as Argentina, which was an economic basket case not so long ago; Australia; Brazil; China; France; Germany; India; Indonesia; Italy; Japan; Mexico, whose number one trading partner is the U.S., as it is for Canada; Russia; Saudi Arabia; South Africa; South Korea; Turkey; the United Kingdom and the United States. I know that the Liberals would like to blame the U.S. for all the problems Canada faces, but all these countries are impacted by U.S. tariffs, and some are in war zones. However, credit must be given where credit is deserved. The Liberals excel, get an A, for building bureaucracy, increasing red tape and doling out money to friends, family and themselves. Since I was elected to the House of Commons in 2019, it has been one scandal after another. We get numb after a while. The Conservatives had their scandals also. One lady, a cabinet minister, resigned for having a $16 glass of orange juice. The Prime Minister promised to double housing construction to half a million homes a year and to move at speeds we have not seen in generations. How has that turned out? More than one year in, the result is the exact opposite: fewer permits, fewer starts, and a housing crisis that keeps getting worse. For example, Toronto has experienced a major housing construction downturn, a crash. Starts are down more than 50% in the last three years. New condo sales in the GTA collapsed to 1,599 units in 2025, the lowest annual total in 35 years and 91% less than the 10-year average. However, this must be kept in context. Canada's population has increased by 2.5 million people in the last three years alone, under the Liberals' chaotic handling of immigration. Construction should be skyrocketing, not plummeting. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation says that we need to build 480,000 homes a year for the next decade. We are expected to build only half of that this year and only 212,000 units by 2028. Meanwhile, 131,000 Canadians who used to work in construction are unemployed as of April, and half of home builders and contractors are reporting layoffs in the first quarter of this year. Maybe there is a strategy under this political madness. Maybe the intention is to make things so bad that when there is a change, and I think there was some positive news with the numbers today, the Liberals will blow the trumpets, bang on the drums and say how they have turned things around, how marvellous things have become. However, this is a fail. It is not a new day. It is not a new government. It is the same old, same old. Instead of a plan to build homes, the Liberals would deliver a fourth housing bureaucracy. Far from building at generational speeds, they have taken a year to introduce legislation that still builds no homes. Even when homes start getting built, the Parliamentary Budget Officer found, Build Canada Homes would add just 5,000 homes per year, 1% of what the Liberals promised. We can do the math on how much is being invested right there and what that equates to as far as cost per unit. It is more bureaucracy, more red tape and more cost. I recently held a round table with builders and developers. They are asking for less government in the homebuilding process, not more. Ever-increasing regulations are killing the market and driving up construction costs. Federal, provincial and municipal regulations and taxes are all adding costs, not just for the builder but also for the home purchaser. If we are to make housing affordable for Canadians, we need to cut the cost of building and to build more, faster. Bill C‑20 would not build, and it would not cut costs for builders. What would it do? It would build a fourth government bureaucracy. That is an F, for “fail”. I was a teacher. We can see the stats here very clearly. Canadians used to be able to buy their first home in their twenties or early thirties. Realtors in Vancouver tell me that it is now an anomaly for new homebuyers to purchase a place without getting significant financial help from their family. This is building a sharp divide in Canadian society between the haves and the have-nots. This is not good. It is becoming dependent upon generational wealth rather than on someone's being able to make it on their own, even with a supposedly great salary. Conservatives have a plan: Cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000 and unleashing new building; tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, with municipalities having to permit at least 15% more homebuilding each year to get things done; cut development charges by 50%, because the number one cost of construction is all the regulations and permitting; and end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in new housing in Canada and unlock billions of dollars of investment in the country's homebuilding sector. Canadians should be able to earn a strong paycheque in a thriving economy to buy an affordable home. It used to be this way, and it can be this way again.

Madam Speaker, I want to apologize for the fact that I will probably be too nice in my remarks to the Liberal member. This is madness, and it actually proves the point that the Liberals might see a slight change and then blow the horn about how wonderful they are. It has been a disaster, and now they are saying that immigration is down, but it is down from historic highs. The Liberals tweak it down just a little and say how great they are doing. They have made a total mess of things. Under the Conservatives, we built two and a half million homes during a time of population increase that was less than the increase over the past few years. I hold onto that F for failure for the Liberals.

Madam Speaker, how we do it is we move building more into the private sector, as opposed to keeping it in government hands and government bureaucracies, where it gives jobs to friendly insiders and goes nowhere. That is the problem. The government has just been building bureaucracy. It has become a disaster for Canada.

Madam Speaker, I did not hear my colleague's question. If he is wondering if there is a role for private companies, the answer is yes. It is important. Canada needs to be unleashed. This is what is happening. Companies, individuals, Canadians are being held back, and they need to be unleashed from all these regulations.

Madam Speaker, last year Canadians thought they were electing someone with exceptional economic skills who could strengthen our economy and quickly negotiate a deal with the United States. Well, it is becoming increasingly evident that we have been duped. Under the Liberals, Canada has the only recession in the G20. We have now suffered economic decline in three of the last four quarters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer paints a grim picture, saying there is only a 1% chance the Liberals will meet their own fiscal targets. As for businesses, they are retreating from investment amid soaring uncertainty. The Liberals claim to be cutting costs, but they plan to hike personnel expenses from $69 billion to $86 billion by 2031. Then there is the $72 billion in deficit borrowing this year alone. This is not just numbers; it is diminished paycheques, fewer jobs and strained households. Canadians deserve better than a Liberal government that has lost its way.