House Publications

    Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to very briefly add to the submissions made by my colleague, the member for Thornhill, on the question of privilege she raised last Friday.

    I wish to add that the member for Edmonton Griesbach was among the NDP MPs who participated in the anti-Israel demonstration. My staff observed the member among the protesters as they blocked the driveway in front of the Confederation Building.

    Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas.

     Today, we will talk about the SDTC and some of the actions that happened. It can be a bit technical, but in essence it is a horrendous but fairly simple scandal. It is involves the formation of an organization, a company on the behest of the government, and it had a laudable objective.

    We are suffering through a productivity crisis. Our productivity is among the lowest of advanced economies. We would rank at the bottom probably in the G7 and as one of the lower performers in the OECD. Productivity sounds like working hard and all those good things, but that is not substantially what productivity gets a lift by. We can work as hard as we want, but if we do not have the appropriate innovation and technology, we simply will not get ahead as a company or, in this case, as a country.

    This example is obviously an exaggeration but does well to show an example. If we are tasked with digging a hole, perhaps a foundation for a house or a building, and if our only technology is a shovel, we will be there for a long time. Even if we have the best workers in the world, we will not be able to compete with someone who has an excavator. Unfortunately, this is too often the case, granted that is exaggerated.

     Our machinery, our systems, our technology are often five, or 10 or 15 years behind most of our competition. One of the most significant competitors is right across the border, in the United States of America. Its equipment will often be five to 10 years, on average, younger than ours. If we have an older car, as I do, it does not operate as efficiently or as effectively as a brand-new car, or if it is an older refrigerator, it does not operate as well as a brand-new one. Since we are using older machinery and equipment, we are falling further and further behind.

    This brings me to the SDTC, which its laudable objective was to help cure this problem by stimulating the economy, by improving productivity through investments by the government, investments in the economy and in innovation particularly. The idea was that if we innovated, if we came up with some absolutely amazing ideas that we could grow into machinery, we could increase productivity. Productivity, when it is increased, affects nearly all of us. A rising tide lifts all boats.

    The idea was to make some investments into these important innovations and technologies to help the Canadian economy and all Canadians. It is a laudable objective. In fact, past governments have even participated and agreed with this. There is some debate on whether a government can do this effectively or not. In this case, we really did not get the opportunity to see whether it could be effective or not. That was because instead of making those investments into equipment, technology and innovation that would help our economy, unfortunately, Liberal cronyism and corruption got the best of this organization.

    What happened was the government, with taxpayer dollars, funded $400 million. This is a fiduciary duty. The government was collecting from Canadians from coast to coast, taking that $400 million, putting it into a pot and giving these individuals, the members of the board of the SDTC, the responsibility of finding some of the best innovation to invest in so we can lift the entire standard of living for Canadians from coast to coast.

    These people were given a tremendous responsibility, a real fiduciary responsibility. They were giving other people's money to invest on their behalf for the hopeful return of improving the standard of living for all. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth of what happened. We had $400 million, which were basically spent in corruption and given to Liberal insiders instead of actually helping innovation.

     There are a number of different facets, including over $50 million given to ineligible contracts. This is just saying that what we are going to do is design a framework to give this $400 million away and in that framework, we are hopefully going to capture and design it well enough so that we are going to get those great companies, those great individuals who have those ideas that can help the productivity issue. They did come up with that framework. Then they decided to take $50 million and not put it within that framework, making it totally ineligible.

    The most troubling part of this is that, of that $400 million, tens of millions of dollars were given away in conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest can sound a bit fancy, but what does that all mean?

     Let us go back to that pot of money that was been gathered from coast to coast through income tax, sales tax and through the carbon tax. All of this money was taken, put into this pot and SDTC was given the responsibility to administrate and to award these monies. We have this $400 million and then we have this group of people who have to decide where that money goes. Unfortunately, tens of millions of dollars of that went to people who were supposed to objectively decide where that money would go.

    In some cases, this is how it would work. There would be an application and then that application would come before these individuals who would be the arbiters of where that money would go. What would happen? One board of directors or one of the members would say that they had a conflict of interest. That is company A. Therefore, that individual would walk out of the room, all the while knowing that they would hear from an individual who had ownership or who had an interest in company B, which was next in line with an application.

    We have an interest in company B and we are looking at the grant for company A, knowing full well that in the next half an hour, they are going to decide whether we get the money. The idea that this would not bias someone is just this side of absurd. Hundreds of millions of dollars have gone out the door.

    It is important to note, and this is the part that is really under-reported and really not expressed enough, that this money does not come from the Prime Minister's trust fund. That money does not emerge from ether. The is pulled from the hands of hard-working Canadians. It is taken from a single mom. In fact, a single mom earning $40,000 or $50,000 can face a marginal effective tax rate as high as 40%, 50%, even 60%. With the clawbacks and with income tax, that is absolutely what they pay. We can look it up at the Fraser Institute or we can look at C.D. Howe, which has written numerous papers on it. I trust the members to look at this and review it, because that is the reality of it. This money that is being taken from hard-working Canadians is then funnelled, in buckets full, to Liberal insiders.

    I want to give one example of where that $400 million could have been spent and where that $400 million could have done, in my estimation, a great deal of good. I have the privilege of being the shadow minister for transportation. In the last couple of transportation committee meetings, we have been discussing and studying the “big dock”. Not many of us will know what the “big dock” is and that is fine. The “big dock” is located in Fort Chipewyan in northern Alberta.

    There are two first nations groups and also Métis people that utilize the “big dock”, in addition to a rural municipality. The “big dock” is the centre of activity. It is where children learn to swim. It is often the time where children might throw in their first line to catch that fish. I can remember my son actually catching his first fish. It is such an exciting moment. This is the centre of community. Also, the only way people can get in and out of the community during the summer is through this big dock or wharf. At the transport committee, we learned that this dock and the vicinity was contaminated and that Transport Canada knew about this since 1997.

    Most recently, a report in 2017 said there were hydrocarbons, arsenic, and other heavy metals and contaminants that I certainly would not want my children, or anyone's children, to swim or play in. There are even older reports that show there is perhaps radiation surrounding this dock. Transport Canada knew about this.

    In the 2017 report, which there was an obligation under the environmental assessment to disclose, the government said it was looking at divesting this. It sent two out of the three indigenous groups this in a package of due diligence. It was a huge package. Those who have practised law know what due diligence can look like. It can be tens of thousands of documents at a time.

    The Liberals, through Transport Canada, said it was good enough because they disclosed it. They did not disclose it. They kept it a secret. Since 2017, they knew it was contaminated. Worse, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming. We actually found out about it because the chiefs at the time realized the dock was actually getting covered as the water levels were declining, because sediment was building up around the dock. They needed to dredge it. It was not purely for recreation; as I said, it is the only way out of the community.

    When the wildfires struck the area, the communities had difficulty evacuating. They asked in 2023 and again in 2024 to have the area dredged. Transport Canada was reluctant. The communities did not know why, but they knew that if another wildfire hit, the people may not be able to get out. They might literally burn to death. They said, “We are going to do it, whether you want it or not.” What was the response from Transport Canada? “You will be put in jail. If you go ahead and dredge this, you will go to jail.”

    The communities were then left in the terrible position of letting their people down by not dredging it, meaning the next wildfire could very well be the end of their people, or they could go to jail. They actually took what I thought was a brilliant course of action. They hired their own toxicologist. They wanted to find out what was going on. They found out a couple of things: first, it was contaminated; second, after the contamination was discovered, the government did not bother to study it for the effect on human health.

    The Liberal government, through its agency Transport Canada, knew it was contaminated. The next logical step from a professional toxicologist was to look at the effect of that contamination on human health. Instead of doing that to find out if it would have an impact and what that impact would be, the communities decided to keep this as a commercial port, even though anyone who has been to the big dock would easily say it is much more than an area, a barge dock, where we ship off supplies.

    The big dock is a community hub. This is where children swim and fish. The Liberals chose to turn a blind eye to this. That is what they did. It was not until the indigenous people chose to hire their own toxicologist that they found out about the contamination. Here we are now, still dragging the Liberals kicking and streaming. The communities asked for $25 million, which is a fair amount of money. Goodness sakes, for folks in my community, $25 million sounds like a lot of money. However, the government spent $400 million to achieve nothing but padding the pockets of Liberal insiders, and for less than 10% of that investment, we could have cleaned up and remediated the entire area around the big dock.

    The government could have built a brand new dock so there was an area for children to swim and fish in and enjoy again, an area where the first peoples, the Chipewyan nation, could evacuate effectively. It could have done that for less than 10% of what it wasted padding the pockets of Liberal insiders.

     I have been trying to speak to this in a way I hope most folks can understand when we hear the number $400 million. With the billions the government has spent, we do not know what the deficit is because it will not even tell us. Its public accounts are due by September at the very latest. We are now in December. We still do not know effectively what the deficit is. We will hear criticisms, mostly from that side of the aisle and the folks on the other side of the aisle who support them, that sometimes we ask questions that are too aggressive or even seem petty. However, I have heard the Leader of the Opposition ask this completely substantial and reasonable question: What is the deficit? What type of government does not respond to that type of question six months after it is supposed to have published it?

     Do members know what would happen in a private business if a CEO refused to tell people what its losses, revenue and costs were for this long a time? I can tell them exactly what would happen. They would be fired and would go to jail. There is a duty on all of us, as it is not the government's money it is administering or negotiating; it is not the Prime Minister's money. It is that of the people of Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Orono, Cramahe and Brighton, who work day in and day out for it. These are dollars they were hoping to utilize for their children's education. For many of them, their children's education is so far off that they just want to make sure their kids can eat at the end of the week.

    Instead of that money going where it can best be spent by the people who earned it, it is sent here, to the ivory white towers, where these folks will tell them they know better. The Liberals will make sure those people do not just spend their money on beer and popcorn; rather, they will take that money and invest it for them because they know better. Well, we have clearly seen that they do not and that the money belongs in the hands of the hard-working people who earned it. It belongs in the hands of our indigenous communities. It belongs in the hands of our farmers, business owners and job creators, because they earned it, they value it and they know where best to spend it.

    The next time members hear some story about this great Liberal program that is going to come out and revolutionize the world, I want them to think about the single mother who is putting water in the milk to make sure her child has enough to get through the end of the week. Is it worth taking another $20 or $30 from her for this great imaginary program that will never do anything but build bureaucracy?

    We need to return to being the freest country in the world. We need to return to being a country where everyone has opportunities, where it does not matter who they are or where they came from, but how hard they work, what they want to accomplish and who they want to be.

    It has been a privilege to rise.

    Mr. Speaker, I find it quite interesting to hear my colleague across the way make all these comments this morning. We both sit on the transport committee and he did a great job playing with the facts. He said we have turned a blind eye, but I would like to remind him that when the Conservatives, under Stephen Harper, found out about this contamination, they not only turned a blind eye but completely shut off their ears because they did not want to know anything about it. Moreover, they were ready to sell it.

    Can the member explain why there was inaction in those years and why the Conservative government was trying to get rid of this problem and sell it off?

     Mr. Speaker, there is an epidemic on this side of the aisle. It is called “whataboutism”. The Liberals refuse to accept accountability or responsibility for anything. Quite frankly, I do not care if the contamination can be traced back to John A. Macdonald. The fact is, over the last nine years, the government knew about it and did nothing.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

     The hon. member for Alfred-Pellan already had an opportunity to speak. If he wishes to have the floor again, he can rise to be recognized by the Chair.

    The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

    Mr. Speaker, the measure that the Conservatives put forward this morning is fairly interesting.

    However, does my colleague not think that it is incomplete and that there are other more worthwhile measures that could be put in place, for example, a regular, ongoing investment by the federal government in social and affordable housing, since it is urgent that we reduce the imbalance between supply and demand on the market?

    Mr. Speaker, this is not exactly what my speech was on, but I am happy to answer the question. The reality is that we have a supply and demand issue. The government benches have one solution: building bureaucracy. We have another solution: building houses. According to experts, the leader's plan of just removing the GST would create over 30,000 home builds. The more homes we build, the less houses cost and the more chances we have for folks to walk across that threshold and enjoy the dream of home ownership.

    Mr. Speaker, I attended the transport committee with the member for Northumberland—Peterborough South. During the meeting that he spoke about regarding the big dock, the director for the contaminated sites division from the Government of Canada informed the committee that there is a list of 24,000 contaminated sites across this country, with only 238 being monitored by the government. Will the member promise that, if he becomes part of the government, he will commit to cleaning up these sites and managing all new sites in a fast and effective way?

    Mr. Speaker, I am proud to serve with the hon. member. That was actually in response to my question with respect to the contaminated sites. There are 24,000 of them, and $400 million would not have cleaned up those 24,000 sites, but it sure as hell would have been a lot more effective than the $400 million that was spent to pad Liberal insiders' pockets.

     Mr. Speaker, while Conservatives are focused on axing the tax, building the homes, fixing the budget and stopping the crime, Liberals are trying to distract with their temporary tax trick. The member has a background of immense experience in supporting small business owners and understanding legal technicalities that impact businesses. One thing we have been hearing about is the administrative and compliance costs associated with how the government is going to be switching the rules around GST back and forth; this is going to create an immense burden for small business owners. Rather than our proposal for eliminating the carbon tax everywhere and for good, which is clear and simple, what the Liberals are doing imposes a major burden on small business owners. Would the member share a bit about that?

    Mr. Speaker, I am just going to spend a little time quickly talking about efficiency and how an economy works. We can think of capitalism as the allocation of resources based on consumer demands; what consumers want, they will get through a system of purchases and otherwise. The more efficient that is, the more those goods get out effectively and the wealthier everyone is. Every time the government puts in a regulation, it makes the system less efficient. Some of the regulations the government puts in are needed, so members should not take me the wrong way. This means that there will be more money going to Ottawa and less money going to Canadians. Particularly where the regulations create temporary, short-term distortions, they can actually do a lot of permanent harm to the economy. This is because they disrupt the efficiency of the economy, and the buy-and-sell signals that exist in a capitalist economy are distorted. I would love to believe that this had a good intention, but I can almost guarantee that the outcome will be negative for most Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague is a hard-working MP, and I appreciate that. However, I have to be honest. I am surprised that the Conservatives decided to talk about housing today, especially when their leader has clearly indicated that he intends to cut the accelerator program, as well as the housing infrastructure program. The accelerator program is going to build over 750,000 homes in the next decade. That is quite impressive.

    Canadians can see what is happening. There is a trend. The Conservatives are now voting against many great programs, including the school food program, the child care program, the dental program and the pharmacare program. Canadians know where the Conservatives would make their cuts.

    Is the member one of the MPs who has the gag order or has been silenced regarding speaking about all the good things the accelerator program has brought and will bring to Canadians?

    Mr. Speaker, I actually had the opportunity to ask the Minister of Housing about houses. This is a question I put to him. I was in a committee, the Minister of Housing was right there in front of me, and I asked him how many houses the accelerator would build. He said none, that it would not build any houses. We can hear the tape. In fact, if anyone has seen our commercials, they probably have seen it, but the reality is it does not build any houses. It builds bureaucracy, as opposed to our housing plan, which is the removal of GST; the Liberals' own housing expert says that it will build over 30,000 homes. We can decide between zero and 30,000.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend for his speech. I serve with him on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities.

    I also want to thank him for his introductory course on how we can build a Canadian economy that revolves around small businesses. I like how he said that his selection criteria were based on permanent or long-term measures, rather than on measures that are not good and that last only for two months, like the GST holiday. Why, then, did my opposition colleague vote against permanent measures like the Canada child benefit, the school food program and housing measures?

    These are long-term decisions. Why did my colleague vote against them?

    Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have a very different view and vision. The Liberals want to build bureaucracy. We want to axe the tax, fix the budget, build the homes and stop the crime. We look forward to that, and I believe fundamentally that a dollar in the pocket of a Canadian goes a hell of a lot farther than a dollar in the pocket of a bureaucrat.

     Mr. Speaker, the member has talked specifically about this program that we are debating today, SDTC, and about how it actually functioned for about 20 years with no issues. It is only in the last few years that some insider appointments by the current Liberal government have created this problem. Could he just elaborate on the damage the government has done to this program?

     Mr. Speaker, the corruption and rot of the government have destroyed many institutions, including SDTC.

    Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be changing the channel on the Conservative speeches that the House has been stuck with for the last two months.

    For the benefit of my constituents in the great riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, I will note that the House of Commons has been held up since the end of September because of an ongoing argument over a House order to produce documents from Sustainable Development Technology Canada. That order was made by the House back in June; of course, because the government has not complied with it, we are faced with a motion of privilege. Basically, a privilege motion is brought forward by any member who feels that their personal rights as an MP of the House or the rights of the House as a collectivity have been breached. In this case, it was brought forward by the Conservatives.

    The original motion that we are dealing with is very simple, and I will read it out for the record: “That the government's failure of fully providing documents, as ordered by the House on June 10, 2024, be hereby referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs”. The Conservatives, throughout the last couple of months, have been putting forward different variations of amendments and subamendments, but I will just stick to debate on the motion because I think that is an order with language that people can clearly understand.

     On the face of it, it seems simple enough. The unfortunate thing is that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives have found a way out of the mess that we are currently in. However, because both of these parties have abdicated their responsibility and are basically stuck in a playground fight with one another, all business of the House of Commons has come to a complete standstill. That is a problem. It costs a lot of money to run this place each and every day. We not only have the sitting members of Parliament, who are collecting their salaries, but we also have an extensive House of Commons administration, which is here to make sure that this place runs as smoothly as possible. I think Canadians would be quite full of regret if they were to see how their taxpayer dollars are being wasted in this frivolous debate, which has been going on for over two months now.

    We have incredibly important bills and business of the House that could have been discussed, but instead, day after day, we are just treated to a litany of Conservative MPs, who keep on talking about the same old thing. However, I will say this for the record: I firmly believe that the House absolutely has a constitutionally protected right to send for persons and papers. The House can make an order, which is an important function of Parliament, to send for papers, and those papers could be documents of any kind, physical copies or electronic copies, but really the only limits are that they need to exist and they need to be within Canada. This is an unfettered right; it has been upheld again and again by the parliamentary counsel in rulings. Not only you, Mr. Speaker, but also previous occupants of the chair have reaffirmed that this right exists. Therefore, from the outset, I want to state clearly that I agree with the main thrust of what we are trying to achieve here, which is that the House wants to see all of those documents in their unredacted form.

    However, we are at an obvious impasse. The government is unwilling to budge, and the Conservatives are unwilling to stand down. As a result, we are not going anywhere in the House, and important issues in foreign affairs, economic policy, health policy and all the things that Canadians elected us as MPs to come here and deliberate about on their behalf are not getting dealt with. In fact, the only recourse we have as members of Parliament right now is to bring up the occasional concurrence debate on a committee report that has already been tabled. It is not much of a debate because, of course, those committees have already agreed to those reports by majority vote, and they have been duly tabled. Therefore, we are left with the only option of spending three hours here and three hours there debating a report that has already been deliberated in thoroughness at its respective committee.

    However, because that is the only avenue we have available to us, that is the only way that we have been able to bring forward important subjects on foreign affairs, on health, on economic policy and, again, on what Canadians are expecting us to do. As we are at an impasse, we have to look at this and try to be the adults in the room.

     I will remind people that the Conservatives are filibustering their own motion right now. The motion they have brought forward is to bring this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That is a very important committee. That committee not only determines the membership of other standing committees, but it deals with all of these really important issues. If the House is at an impasse, it falls to that committee to deliberate and find a way forward. If we were to arrive at a space where we could send this motion, again, a Conservative motion that they brought forward and are filibustering, if we could find some way to bring this to the procedure and House affairs committee, so that that committee could deliberate on the way forward, then it would allow this House of Commons to get back to the business of debating the issues that matter to Canadians.

     Now there are a few things I want to raise, because I have listened to Conservative speech after Conservative speech on this matter and it is unclear exactly what details they are looking for. On one hand, there are major problems with how this funding was allocated. The Auditor General observed that and the committee in its investigation observed that there were obviously major problems. Were they criminal? That is not for me to say. Obviously, there was some gross mishandling of taxpayer dollars and people absolutely need to be held accountable for that, but it is not up to us to determine whether this is a criminal matter. That falls on the independence of the RCMP and also our criminal prosecution services. They are the only ones who can decide whether this proceeds in a criminal way.

    There have been some arguments back and forth on whether the House of Commons is within its rights to hand these documents over to the RCMP or whether that would constitute interference in an independent investigation. Again, this is not a question that I am best equipped to answer, nor the House as a collective body. I have repeatedly asked Conservative MPs after their speeches, because there is this uncertainty about what role the RCMP should play in this, if it would not be best to refer this to the PROC committee, call the commissioner of the RCMP forward as a witness and get best guidance from the top RCMP official in the land. I take this very seriously because at two standing committees I serve on, public safety and justice, I can say that I have dealt with this subject matter quite a bit. I have a lot of respect for the work that our police do.

     Again, in an effort to find a reasonable and adult way forward, could we not just break this impasse to find a way for the RCMP to appear at that committee to find a way forward? If the procedure and House affairs committee recommends a path forward, then if the House is still not satisfied, we can again continue this privilege debate. However, I think it is sincerely unfair that debating this now very frivolous motion has held up the business of the House for more than two months. I lay the blame equally on both the Conservatives and the Liberals. They have obviously been unable to find a way forward.

     What I would say is that a lot of the Conservatives' speeches these days seem to have to fit several criteria, as set out by their leader: They have to be full of hyperbole, they have to fit on a bumper sticker and often they have to rhyme. I think we are lowering the quality of the debate that could be had in this place. I do not think this House as a whole is rising up to the expectations that Canadians have at this moment.

     Over the last two and a half months, all I have been witness to, from both the Liberals and the Conservatives, has been Liberal and Conservative members pointing to each other saying they are not as bad as the other when they were in government. To borrow from Tommy Douglas's fable on Mouseland, it is like the mice are being asked to choose between the blue cats and the red cats. At the end of the day, they are all cats and they are all bad for mice. We are not in a good situation.

     We are in a cost of living crisis right now. I would much rather spend my time in this House talking about how, over the last 40 years of Conservative and Liberal governments, we have developed a culture in Ottawa that is full of corporate deference. We have seen our corporate tax rates slashed to one of the lowest in the G7. We have seen policies enacted by both Liberals and Conservatives that have allowed mergers and acquisitions to result in the concentrated corporate power we see in so many of our sectors right now, whether it is telecommunications, grocery retail, or even oil and gas.

    We keep hearing arguments from the Liberals saying that they have done so much, and that we should look at what they have done and that ask why Canadians are not happy with what they have done. They are obviously missing the mark. They are out of tune. They are led by someone I once described as radioactive. I hope the Liberals understand that they are not going anywhere with the current Prime Minister as their leader.

    However, the Conservatives are not doing any better because those bumper sticker slogans full of hyperbole and rhyming are just cheapening the debate. I do not see a very real offer coming from them, especially when their leader is fighting against a system in which he has been a member of Parliament for quite some time now. He was first elected in this place in 2004. I am the same age as the leader of the Conservatives, so when he was first elected, he was 25 years old. At that time, I was out in the wilds of British Columbia, breaking my back as a tree planter. For him to fight against the system that he is so clearly a part of and offer himself as something new is a complete and total joke.

    Let us face it. He gets his politics from the time he was Stephen Harper's favourite attack dog. I can say that it was people like him who inspired me to run in this place. I remember when I first saw the Leader of the Opposition on TV and could not believe someone could be elected who was so arrogant, so full of spite and just downright nasty. It is quite obvious from the antics he displays here now that he has not changed his ways. I will always be inspired to run against that kind of politics and against the politics of the Liberals, who believe they are God's gift to Canada and wonder why everyone cannot just be happy with the incredible work they are doing. The Liberals have let people down. They are not doing enough. The Conservatives are going to bring in the exact same types of policies the Harper government was tossed out of office for in 2015, and that is a fact.

     The other thing is that the Conservatives stand here and talk about affordability issues when we know the leader of the Conservative Party has already started his fundraising circuit and is going to be frequented by the exact corporate executives who are jacking up prices everywhere and taking Canadians' hard-earned money. Many Canadians would agree with me that billionaires do not need more relief, the working class does, and yet, because of the corporate deference policies that we have seen from these two parties over 40 years, we are at the natural result of those policies. They are, number one, many corporate sectors have seen record profits and, number two, those record profits are happening at a time when Canadians are suffering.

    It is not a hard stretch of the imagination to link the fact that in 2023, the corporate grocery retail, five companies that control 80% of the market combined, saw profits of over $6 billion. At the same time, we have a record number of Canadians having to visit food banks. The math is simple. I would agree with my friends that I would rather see the dollars in the pockets of my constituents, but it is not the government removing those dollars, it is corporate profits. More and more of Canadians' net incomes are being spent on the essentials of life: heating, fuel, transportation, housing and food. That is not the government's fault, it is the fault of corporations that have been unfairly jacking up prices. They are acting like a vacuum cleaner, sucking up the hard-earned net dollars of my constituents to pad CEO bonuses, stock buybacks and dividend payouts.

     It is a system that needs to be changed. It needs a wholesale cleanup, and we cannot trust the two parties that have built this system. It is not New Democrats, the Green Party or the Bloc Québécois. It is Liberal and Conservative federal governments trading places. Canadians need to realize these two parties, at their core, are but two sides of the same coin. They may quibble over the big partisan talking points of the day, but these two parties are two different sides of the same coin. They fundamentally believe in that neo-liberal economic policy, which over the last 40 years, especially since the greed of the 1980s, has led to deregulation, mergers, acquisitions and unrivalled corporate power that has put Canadians in the economic situation they are in today.

    I want to talk briefly about some of the other things that have been held up. I will be personal here. I have a private member's bill, Bill C-277, which was voted on unanimously by the House of Commons at second reading in May. It sailed through the Standing Committee on Health, with some minor amendments, but again, it was unanimously adopted by the Standing Committee on Health and reported back to the House. It is being held up by this filibuster.

    There are even good Conservative bills that are being held up by this filibuster, some of the Conservatives' own legislation. There are some good bills from the government that, in those rare occurrences, we can find all-party agreement on, but we are again in a situation now where these are being held up.

    Going back to my particular bill, the brain injury community has been without hope for a long time. Bill C-277, is designed to set up a national strategy on brain injuries. I have received compliments from Conservative and Liberal MPs across the political spectrum. They have told me that this is a good bill and this is what is needed. The brain injury community's hopes are being dashed right now because of this filibuster.

    Just last week, because of the support this bill has, I sought unanimous consent to see it reported, go through report stage, through third reading and be sent off to the Senate. This was denied by the Conservatives. I have been trying to find ways we can get good legislation through this impasse, but we are at a stage right now, this last week of sitting, where the partisan emotions are so high that we are unable to see past each other's talking points, especially the Liberals and the Conservatives, to find a way to let good legislation go through. This is not only a shame on us as an institution, but it is a shame for Canadians.

    With the new incoming Trump administration, the way Canadians are falling behind in the cost of living crisis and what we are going to do with the future of our foreign policy, it is a dangerous world out there. It is not good for Canadians within our borders. We are stuck in this stasis field of continuous filibustering, and the House is not living up to the expectations of Canadians. I urge my fellow parliamentarians to reach for the spirit of Christmas, if they need to, but we need to find a way to break this impasse. We need to find a way to live up to the expectations of our constituents.

    I will conclude with the following. I fully agree with the unfettered right of the House of Commons to send for papers. The Liberals have some explaining to do. They need to answer why they are not releasing all of those documents and why some of those documents were redacted. However, I am not going to absolve the Conservatives of responsibility on this either. They are the ones who are putting up speaker after speaker. They are the ones who are preventing us from voting on their motion—

     On a point of order, the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

     Mr. Speaker, I am rising to provide additional information to you, as Speaker, on the deliberate matter of privilege that was raised on Friday morning by the Conservative deputy leader, the member for Thornhill.

    As the Conservative deputy whip said at the time, “a personal first-hand account is very much part of the information that the Speaker must hear.” Given that I was named by the member for Thornhill, it is only right that I be given the opportunity to respond. The member for Thornhill made a number of wildly misleading accusations of increasing seriousness and severity. She began by saying that the protesters at the Confederation Building lobby on Tuesday morning were organized and supported by me. The accusations grew into talk about NDP-organized protesters.

    Her colleague, the member for South Shore—St. Margarets, spoke of NDP complicity and said that the “illegal protest” was assisted by me. In the member for Thornhill's intervention, she stated, in her third paragraph, “The demonstration started around 8:45 a.m. The protesters said they would allow MPs with offices in the building to pass through the crowd”.

    I think it important to provide my own account, given that, on personal attacks being made or members' motives being maligned, the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, chapter 13, states:

    I should share with you that, like all members on the Hill, at 8:45 a.m., I received a situation advisory update on my cellphone, which is customary. That identified a peaceful sit-in at the Confederation Building. That day, in fact, that entire week, we had our constituency assistants from across the country here in Ottawa for training. That is why my staff were with me on that particular day.

    A press conference will bear out that I had the role of introducing our Speaker at a press conference shortly after this advisory was sent. At 8:45 a.m., while attending to my responsibilities at the Wellington Building, I did come across an action that was happening, with people in front of the Confederation Building who were demanding for an arms embargo and an end to the Israeli genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

    Mr. Speaker, you may know this, and some members may know this, but I would doubt that many Conservatives would know this. As was witnessed last week, the leader of the Conservative Party called a picket line a rally for striking workers. As Canada's only labour party, we have a long-held tradition of not crossing picket lines. We view this action in the lobby of Confederation to be very much in keeping with a picket line.

    While the member for Thornhill was correct that this was an action of maybe a hundred, and the member said that it was perhaps 130, people, led by many Jews against genocide, to suggest that this was somehow an NDP-organized action does not just denigrate the spirit of our parliamentary privileges but also takes away the agency of the tens of thousands of progressive Jews against genocide, and the agency of those who took it upon themselves, as referenced by the member for Thornhill, to be present in the lobby. They would allow people to pass, provided that they heard the message.

     I rise on this question of privilege because the hypocrisy coming out of the Conservative caucus would be laughable if it were not so offensive. The actions here between January 22 and February 23, 2022, known as the convoy, shut down this entire precinct's operations, not for 45 minutes, as this action did, but for an entire month.

    As is tradition with New Democrats attending picket lines, I went inside the Confederation Building. I stood in the corridor of the doorway so as to not cross what I considered an action demanding MPs to hear the voices of the 100-plus progressive Jews against genocide. I would like to report to the House what I did hear. I heard a call for a motion passed sometime back in March on an opposition day for a full embargo, calls for an end to the genocide and a beautiful expression of Judaism with the blowing of the shofar, the recitation of the Torah and the singing of songs in the Jewish tradition that go back to time immemorial in solidarity with basic notions of justice and peace.

     Evidence will show that, through a video that was posted, when I arrived, I was confronted by a PPS officer at the door. I immediately identified myself as a member of Parliament. Despite the wildly inaccurate accusations by the member for Thornhill, I actually stated in that video exchange, which you can certainly take into your consideration, that I was there to bear witness. I was there to observe what was happening with those citizens, Jewish people of conscience who want to end the genocide and are calling for the arms embargo. I also witnessed a highly organized liaison process between PPS and the organizers. PPS, I think, given the sheer number of people, accorded itself in a very professional way to negotiate the protesters' peaceful removal and retreat from the Confederation Building, which did happen and was also recorded on video. Their own organizers said that they were slowly going to leave and that they were going to retreat.

    It should be noted that, in comparison, if this is what we are doing here today, photos from the convoy include the former Speaker, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle; the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster; the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan; and the member for Saskatoon—Grasswood. In fact, the leader of the official opposition was in a photo with the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake and convoy supporters. This week, we will finally be tabling the final report on the Emergencies Act review, but it was the OPP that compiled a report on February 6, 2022, more than a week after the Conservative-supported convoy demonstrators first arrived in the national capital region, that became evidence to the public inquiry on the Emergencies Act.

    The vexatious comments made by the member for Thornhill are trying to impugn the NDP for standing up and bearing witness to what was otherwise a very brief and beautiful act of what, perhaps, could be called civil disobedience there in the lobby, which will be borne out by whatever processes take place. However, a very quickly negotiated retreat happened well before most people would be coming and going from the building. I can say that I quite readily watched PPS escort many MPs in and out of that particular building.

    As we can see, the accusations that we somehow organized this protest to intentionally disrupt or obstruct Conservative members from participating in Parliament are completely fabricated and misleading.

    However, the Conservatives did not stop there. They could not help themselves from linking this protest to “mobs [that] target Jewish neighbourhoods, firebomb Jewish schools, obstruct synagogues and wreak havoc”. This is a shameful way to characterize Jewish people of this country in their civil disobedience to genocide. To characterize Jewish people in this way, in my estimation, is a form of anti-Semitism, and it is a disgusting allegation to make. To liken a group of Jewish protesters to anti-Semitic mobs is beneath contempt. Linking members of Parliament, by extension, to such disgusting acts itself can be considered a form of a prime facie breach of our privilege.

    Those are my remarks. I am glad that I had an opportunity to finally put that on the record and clear the air on this particular matter.

     Mr. Speaker, I also would like to take a moment to share some of my thoughts on the matter of privilege which was raised on Friday morning by the Conservative Party deputy leader, the member for Thornhill. As the Conservative deputy whip said at the time, “a personal first-hand account is very much part of the information that the Speaker must [have]” to make a decision on the matter, and I would like the opportunity to be able to respond.

    It is up to the Speaker to determine whether the action amounted to a violation of privilege of the individual member. I want to make it very clear that, from my perspective, for my part, I did not experience any violation of my privilege as a member of Parliament. I was able to access my office without problem, using the entrance. I was able to have my scheduled meetings in my office without any interruption, and my staff were also able to access their office.

     I will say that the meeting I had that day had nothing to do with what was happening in the foyer. I was able, with my staff, to get to my office. My guest was able to access my office and we were able to have our meeting. Then my guest was actually able to leave as well.

     I want to challenge some of what was said by the member for Thornhill and her Conservative colleagues as they made extreme and misleading allegations that impugned me and my colleagues. She suggested that the action was “aided by New Democrat MPs”, that it was “NDP-organized” and that NDP MPs were “part of this protest, in an effort to impede and obstruct the work of fellow parliamentarians”. Frankly, that is just completely false. I had no knowledge of the protest action; I learned about it from the PPS email that was sent to all members.

     I did stop to listen to the protesters on my way in and out of the building, which is where my colleagues and I were photographed listening. This is part of our job. I am not from Israel. I am not from Palestine. I am not Jewish. I am not Muslim. I am not Arab. I require the perspectives of other people to inform the decisions I make as a member of Parliament. Frankly, for me, being in the Confederation Building and seeing people standing up against a genocide happening against children was a moment I will remember for a very long time.

     It is part of our job to listen. It is part of our job to understand what is being said by Canadians. I understand that the protest action was organized by a coalition called Jews Say No To Genocide. Something that I have noted that none of the Conservatives have raised is that the issue the protesters, many of whom were Jewish Canadian, were speaking out against is a genocide that has been identified as happening in Gaza and in which Canada has complicity, particularly in arms transfers to Israel.

     The protesters were saying, “not in our name”. It is well known that New Democrats are deeply upset with the Canadian government's position and Canada's complicity in the genocide. However, whether or not a parliamentarian agrees with the argument, or whether they are uncomfortable or comfortable with the argument, is irrelevant to the question of privilege. For my part, I believe it is important to hear from Canadians, given the tens of thousands of people who have been killed, especially children, with Canadians' tacit support.

    This is why I stopped to give a few minutes of my time to the group. However, to suggest that NDP MPs organized or were part of the protest is entirely false. For my part, I saw a peaceful and very short sit-in. I heard singing. I heard a rabbi speaking to the group about peace. I heard peaceful calls for Canada to end its complicity in a genocide. I believe that the protest action was over within an hour.

    It was very, very different from some of the protests on Parliament Hill that have lasted for weeks and weeks, the same protests in which white supremacy symbols were shown and the same protests that my racialized staff had to cross to get to my office. However, that does not have to do with the current question of privilege.

     The member for Thornhill stated, “It is not only my privilege that is breached, but it is everybody who has an office in the Confederation Building and those who try to access the parliamentary precinct.” I disagree. As I mentioned earlier, I had a meeting in my office in the Confederation Building for an unrelated issue, and I got in and out of the building with great ease, as did my guest and my staff. My parliamentary work was unobstructed.

    For my part, PPS staff were helpful in ensuring that my colleagues and I got to work without a problem. I would like to take a moment to thank them for the work they do and for their professionalism.

     I do want to give additional information for you to consider, Mr. Speaker, in response to the speeches made by Conservative members on Friday. First, the term “occupation” was used. It was not an occupation by any means; it was a peaceful and very short sit-in. I want to give some new information on the context of the action, as the Conservatives' choice of words is really very misleading.

     Peaceful sit-ins are a common feature of peace movements and civil rights movements. From the Woolworth's lunch counter protests during the civil rights era to women's suffrage movements and peace movements, peaceful sit-ins are a standard tactic of non-violent protest.

     In July, 400 people with Jewish Voice for Peace held a sit-in in the atrium of the United States Congress to protest the United States' support for the genocide in Gaza. There was a similar sit-in protest last year at the Alberta legislature, without incident, again protesting Canada's complicity in the horror in Gaza. At the legislature in Texas, there have been a number of peaceful sit-ins over recent years on issues ranging from sanctuary cities to human rights. Other provincial and state legislatures have also had sit-in protests on a range of social justice issues. All of these people have been continuing the non-violent tradition of temporarily taking up public space to protest injustice, and Canadians certainly have the right to protest.

     The issue, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, is not the merits of the protest at the Confederation Building and what it is called, but whether it infringed on the individual member's privilege. To this I would say again that the second access to the building was open, and I personally had no challenges or issues whatsoever accessing my office. A protest's making members uncomfortable is not the same as impeding their work.

     The member for Battlefords—Lloydminster said she felt unsafe, but feeling unsafe is not the same as being unsafe. What I saw was a peaceful protest with singing, with chanting in Hebrew, and with seniors and young people united together. I do not quite understand how a person could see this group, which included a rabbi and elders, and feel unsafe.

    One might feel uncomfortable maybe, because it should make any person question their thinking about a genocide. We should all feel uncomfortable about our country's complicity in the killing and maiming of children in Gaza, but we should not feel unsafe. It is a case where MPs could have taken a minute to listen to protesters' concerns and hear these Canadians out.

     Finally, we want to address a comment by the MP for Thornhill that I find especially troubling: “This is also a continuation of the very tactics that we have seen on our streets from unhinged mobs that think that their petty grievances allow them to target Jewish neighbourhoods, firebomb Jewish schools, obstruct synagogues and wreak havoc on our Canadian values, while abiding and abetting groups that are designated as terrorists in this country.”

     There is no question that incidents of anti-Semitism have increased in Canada, and this must be condemned by every member of Parliament in the House. Like all Canadians, Jewish Canadians deserve the right to feel safe in their communities, but the protest was led by Jewish Canadians who are advocating for peace, for human rights and for Canada to uphold its obligations under international law. To suggest that these Jewish Canadians are responsible for anti-Semitic attacks is, in my view, deeply offensive. To suggest that the protesters are part of an “unhinged” mob with “petty grievances” is offensive.

    The member for Thornhill can disagree with the protesters, but to insult these people who are protesting the killing of children, the maiming of children and the starving of children is wrong. To suggest that these Jewish protesters who called for peace are aiding terrorism is offensive, and I would ask the member to consider withdrawing the comments.

    The protest that happened last Tuesday was a peaceful sit-in. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation to listen to Canadians. As parliamentarians and legislators, we should be doing everything we can to amplify their voices. I would like that to be considered as part of the deliberations.

    The hon. for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising. As the Chair has heard very complete points on the issue last week, I am looking for something new and succinct.

     Actually, Mr. Speaker, I will be rising tomorrow on the question of privilege.

    You will recall that on Friday, the Conservatives took over an hour and a half on this question of privilege with false allegations. We want to ensure that we have the time to respond. False allegations were levelled against a number of our members, so we want to set the record straight. There is no doubt that the question of privilege, which I believe is frivolous, requires a more in-depth response.

    Unlike the Conservatives, who tried in a very childish way to disrupt the speech of our leader on Friday, our opposition day, I want to assure members that we will allow the full speaking spot for the Conservatives today on their opposition day, a courtesy they did not extend to us. We believe, in Parliament, that one party needs to step up and be adults. The Conservatives clearly did not do that on Friday. They were childish and disruptive, and we intend to respond to the frivolous question of privilege tomorrow.

    We thank you for hearing the interventions today.

    I thank the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

     It being 12:20 p.m., pursuant to the ruling of Monday, December 2, the House will now proceed to the business of supply.

     moved:

    She said: Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know that I am going to split this time.

    Today we are here, once again, to discuss the economic vandalism of the Prime Minister and his Liberal-NDP partners and what they have inflicted upon Canadians. Nowhere is that vandalism clearer than in the housing crisis today in this country. All we have to do is look at a real estate listing or talk to someone with a mortgage to realize that, after nine years of the government, the dream of home ownership in this country is simply dead.

    My parents came to this country looking for opportunity and they found it. They worked hard. They made countless sacrifices. They saved up. They were eventually able to buy a home for about $150,000 in the place that I grew up, in Thornhill. That was on a taxi driver's salary. Today, a house in that same neighbourhood is selling for close to $2 million, but one could get a deal at $1.5 million, a more than tenfold increase. I can assure members now that taxi drivers, small business owners and nearly everyone else who works for a living is not earning a tenfold increase in salary to match that tenfold increase in housing prices.

    Because my parents had an affordable place to live in a safe neighbourhood, they could raise a family. They could start a business. They could live the life they dreamed of after fleeing one that we would never know. That dream is being cruelly taken away from too many in this country.

    In Toronto, it used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it could take more than 30 years to save up for a down payment. The average salary needed to afford the average home in this city is $263,300. That is not a mansion or a palace, but an average home, a bungalow, in a place like Scarborough.

    Who makes $263,000 a year? It is certainly not most people in Toronto, where the average salary is $60,000 a year. It is certainly not a new immigrant to this country who is coming here to look for a fresh start and to forge new horizons. It is certainly not new graduates, looking for a place to start their careers and thinking that maybe they will be able to start a family. It is not even a parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Housing.

    The Liberals have made this country so unaffordable that even their own MPs could not afford a home in the place where they came from or in our nation's capital. That is not a knock on them, but a reality that their boss has inflicted upon Canadians right across the country. That is not just in Toronto. It is in Brampton, where home prices are up 139% in just 10 years, in Burlington, where they are up 101%, and in rural places like Prince Edward County, where prices are up 211%. In fact, 24 out of 28 areas in Ontario, as defined by the Canadian Real Estate Association, have seen price increases over 100% in the last 10 years alone.

    I also want to tell members that it is not just in Ontario. In Prince Edward Island, housing prices are up 137% right across the province. In British Columbia, they are up 90%. Even in Quebec, which used to have some of the country's most affordable homes, they are up 81%.

    Actions have consequences and the Liberal-NDP government is certainly finding that out now as the results of its economic vandalism become clearer and clearer. This is what happens when we pump a half-a-trillion dollars of inflationary spending into the Canadian economy, disproportionately benefiting asset holders and not the people who are looking for somewhere to call home. This is what happens when we ship billions of dollars off to municipalities with no strings attached to how that money is used or what it goes to. The government sent $471 million to Toronto, but since then housing starts are down 40% and, get this, development charges are up 42%.

    That is what happens when our immigration system is broken by a government that cannot do the simple math. In 2022, we accepted 437,000 new citizens and 607,000 permanent residents, but we only built 219,000 new homes. Anybody who would do the basic math on this could have anticipated what would happen next.

    However, the Minister of Immigration at the time did not. In fact, he ignored the recommendations from his own department that warned about a housing shortage. This guy is now the Minister of Housing. The man who helped break the immigration system, in addition to losing track of all of the people that he let in, is now responsible for fixing housing in this country. It is going exactly how we might expect. Housing prices continue to rise and housing starts continue to go down.

    We know the Liberals try to distract Canadians with what is happening in other countries as a way to somehow minimize the valid concerns of the people in our own country, so let us talk about some of these foreign countries for just a moment. Housing in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal was deemed much more unaffordable than cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York. Toronto and Vancouver were also deemed “impossibly unaffordable” when compared to Australia, China, Ireland, New Zealand, Singapore, the U.K. and the U.S.

    What do we do about all of this? The Liberal answer is to continue to keep funnelling money into an accelerator fund that has built exactly zero homes and to keep shovelling cash into the infrastructure bank, which has completed exactly the same number of projects. They are doubling down on the same approach that got us here and are not willing or are unable to make new housing available while, at the same time, continuing to mess with the immigration system, a mess that has the weak Prime Minister staring down the barrel of a 25%-tariff threat from the U.S.

    Common-sense Conservatives have a different approach. We are going to cut the GST on new housing construction so it is cheaper, not more expensive, to build the units Canadians need. We are going to make life more affordable by increasing the supply and availability of places to live from coast to coast.

    The current Liberal housing minister loves the photo ops. Most of his job is big, fancy photo ops but no meaningful results, because we cannot argue with the facts. We are going to quit the photo ops and the posturing and replace them with actual negotiation that ties the number of infrastructure dollars that cities receive to the number of homes they build. We will make sure that high-density housing gets built near critical infrastructure like public transit.

    It is a common-sense approach. What we incentivize, we get. The government incentivizes inaction and delay, and that is what they are getting. We will incentivize results for Canadians so they can achieve the dream of home ownership.

    Even Liberals approve of the plan, Liberals like the Prime Minister's adviser, Mike Moffatt, who called it “bold”. He said he was a big fan of the idea. He knows that it is time for real action, as do most other Canadians. It seems like everyone except the ones who sit on the other side of the House know exactly what the solution is. Conservatives are going to axe the tax, build homes and finally bring home a country where hard work pays off once again and where affordable housing gives way to that Canadian dream.

    There is much more I can talk about. I could go on about the lowest projected growth among advanced economies, the 1.5 million Canadians seeking work who cannot find it, the rapid growth of our bureaucracy and the red tape here in Ottawa, the impending quadrupling of a carbon tax that will delete more than $30 billion from our GDP or the new capital gains tax, which will send all that money down south.

    I could go on and on. Unfortunately, I will run out of time. I would much rather have four years to come up with the solutions to address the problems created by the Liberals and the NDP instead of the 10 minutes that this debate affords.

    All Canadians needed a carbon tax election yesterday, which is what we are hearing right across the country, so we can have a common-sense Conservative majority government led by the member for Carleton, who will fix this mess, axe the tax, build homes, fix the budget and stop crime. It is within our reach. We are going to build homes that Canadians can actually afford. We are going to bring it home after the next election, after we have a Conservative majority government in this place, led by the member for Carleton.

     Madam Speaker, I come from the riding of Saint John—Rothesay, which has benefited greatly from programs we have brought forward, such as the coinvestment fund, the rapid housing initiative and the housing accelerator fund.

    One thing I noticed over the last few weeks was the Leader of the Opposition calling mayors across this country “incompetent”. Does the member opposite agree with calling mayors across this country incompetent, and will she get behind the housing accelerator fund, which is helping to transform communities and setting the table to build houses across this country?

    Madam Speaker, first of all, the member should remember that the accelerator builds exactly zero homes, and that is an admission by the Liberals' own housing minister.

    The second thing I would ask him is this: What kind of city takes $470 million from the federal government only to see housing starts fall by 40% and development costs go up by 42%?

    We believe that money belongs in the pockets of Canadians rather than in big bureaucracies. That is exactly what we are going to do after Canadians elect a new government, after throwing out the most unpopular government in my lifetime.

    Madam Speaker, the Conservatives want to eliminate sales tax on new builds, and they are also calling on Quebec and the provinces to do the same, in other words, eliminate tax on new homes.

    Does our esteemed member realize that that in no way concerns Parliament, much less the Conservatives? It is a provincial jurisdiction.

     Madam Speaker, what we are talking about here is taking the tax off of homes under $1 million for individuals right across the country. Not only will that spur a tremendous amount of housing construction around the country, which this government has failed to do. It has seen housing starts right across the country go down in municipalities in which it has pumped millions and millions of dollars, and it has seen development costs go up.

    I think that is a responsibility of the federal government, one that this federal government has failed Canadians on over the last 10 years, which is why we are in this crisis, but we are going to fix it.

    Madam Speaker, I am a bit concerned that, in all of the slogans and the one-liners, we are missing quite a lot of detail in terms of the Conservative plan. I am concerned that, when the Conservatives are talking about taking the GST off of homes under $1 million, in one breath they are talking about that and in another breath, when we have tried to reduce the GST off of some home essentials, they call it inflationary.

    I am concerned that people would be confused in terms of that double standard or that hypocrisy, and I would love to hear the hon. member address that.

    Madam Speaker, nobody is confused about any of the hypocrisy here. What they are confused about is the hypocrisy from the NDP, which continues to vote with the Liberal government to raise taxes for all Canadians on everything.

    Our solution is pretty simple. We are going to take the tax off of everything, for good, for everyone. The member from the NDP can go back to her people and have a carbon tax election, where one option is that she can continue supporting the government of the day, like she has, being another part of the Liberal Party, which she was not elected to do, or she can offer a permanent tax cut on everything for everyone.

    Madam Speaker, some of us were concerned that the member was not going to get her stars because she was not using the slogans, but she caught it at the very end.

    It is amazing. When we talk about housing, the gentleman she is sitting beside, the leader of the Conservative Party, was the worst minister of housing in history, well, at least since World War II anyway. Six homes is how many houses he built. Now the Conservatives say, “We got an idea. We're going to dump all over affordable housing”, and that is for sure.

    How can the member say with a straight face that the accelerator fund is not doing anything to construct new homes? That is absolutely ridiculous. Does she not understand the principles of infrastructure?

    Madam Speaker, I am glad that the member opposite is concerned about my career trajectory, but I am not going to take lessons from him.

    What I will say is that, for $89 billion in an accelerator fund on housing, the government has doubled the price of a home in 10 years, doubled the price of rent and doubled the price of a mortgage everywhere right across the country. That is awesome.

    Madam Speaker, we just learned that the Minister of Finance will finally present her economic statement on December 16. This will be the first time in the history of our country that the fall economic statement is presented so late. The government dragged its feet because it wants to avoid revealing that this Prime Minister is weak and has lost control of spending, deficits, taxes and the cost of living.

    We have one message. We are asking for only one thing in this economic statement. We want the government to stop its inflationary spending that is driving up the cost of living, stop its job-killing tax hikes, stop putting Canadians in debt and stop threatening our social programs by making irresponsible decisions. That is what the Conservatives are asking for.

    We rise today to call on the government to eliminate the taxes on houses and condos. The bulk of housing costs for Canadians are not incurred to pay carpenters, materials or land. It is the taxes and red tape from all three levels of government that increase housing costs and make it impossible for young people to purchase a home. That is why common-sense Conservatives will get rid of the GST on new homes and save Quebec families up to $50,000 when they buy a nice home.

    This is where we differ from the other parties. They believe that the government should take the money and give it to next level of government, which would give it to yet another level of government, which would, in turn, give it to the bureaucrats, who, in the end, would approve the housing. We feel that there is a faster route between two points, and that is a straight line. That is why we propose putting the money straight into the pockets of homebuyers by lowering their taxes.

    Based on the data published by the government about the GST exemption for rental property, we estimate that our proposed measure would help build 30,000 more homes per year. Lower taxes on housing means more home construction. This is the solution that will really deliver results for ordinary Canadians.

    The part I am most proud of is that we will do away with the housing accelerator fund, because this program actually slows down the construction of housing. I am very proud to announce that we will eliminate this program and save the $8 billion the Liberal government is planning to pump into it, because this Liberal program will only increase bureaucracy and give more money to greedy politicians. I find it a bit pathetic that the Minister of Housing is calling mayors to tell them he has sent them big cheques. He is telling them they must send a letter asking for his program to remain in place, even though it has slowed down housing construction. Obviously, these politicians are agreeing to this because they want taxpayer money. Politicians want money, but we are not here to work for other politicians. We are here to work for taxpayers and for young people who want to buy a home.

    That is why I will be very proud to cut these programs. That is not because these programs do not help. It would be incorrect to say that, because, in fact, the programs actually cause harm. Every time that bureaucracies receive money, the problem is not that they do not help. The problem is that they cause harm. Multi-layered bureaucracies prevent the building of new homes. We know this because, in the past 20 years, municipal revenues have ballooned twice as fast as inflation and population growth combined. If giving more money to municipalities was enough to speed up the construction of affordable homes, we would have the most affordable housing in the world. That is not the solution.

    The solution is to get rid of the bureaucracy, cut taxes and leave money in the pockets of the people actually doing the building and buying the homes. That is what we intend to do by cutting the GST on new homes sold, which will help every Canadian family save up to $50,000.

    We now learn that the Minister of Finance is finally going to introduce her fall economic update on December 16. She calls it a “fall update”. Santa Claus will already have been preparing to lift off from the North Pole and the snow will have been falling. The leaves have long disappeared into the earth, they have disintegrated and biodegraded because it has been so long since those leaves fell, yet we are waiting until December 16 because she wants to hide that the weak Prime Minister has lost control of deficits, spending and our economy. We will see if she keeps her solemn commitment to a $40-billion deficit or if that promise will also go by the wayside.

    That is why we have only one request: stop, just stop, in the name of God. The Liberals can stop the inflationary spending, stop doubling debt and stop driving up taxes on starving Canadians. They can stop everything they are doing until we have a carbon tax election, at which time common-sense Conservatives can axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. Also, they can stop taxing new homes. That is why common-sense Conservatives are proposing to get rid of the GST on new homes to save up to $50,000 on a home for a young family trying to start out. After the Liberal government doubled the cost, it is the least we could do.

    Liberals would rather have the money go to bureaucrats. They believe in trickle-down government. They take from the people and give it to one government, which gives it to another government that gives it to a third government that gives it to some bureaucrats. These bureaucrats, apparently, are going to start shuffling papers more quickly to eventually approve some homes. It is not that the housing accelerator program, which I plan, with delight, to get rid of, has not helped; it is that it has made the problem so much worse. When more money is given to bureaucrats, it is not that they do not do helpful things; it is that they stand in the way and cause even more harm.

    One developer said just the other day, “Over the last 10 years, the list of application requirements has increased exponentially, and so has the number of bureaucrats looking at your application. And there’s often a pattern of staff waiting till the last day — say on Day 29 of 30 — they write back with a comment (pertaining to) something minor, which triggers another cycle. Imagine three or four such review cycles.”

    The more of these bureaucrats, the more layers and the more delay. By getting rid of this program alone and doing nothing else, we will speed up housing construction. Yes, there will be greedy, fat-cat, big-city politicians who will whine and complain because they had expected to have that money to build their empires. My message to them is, “Go on whining and complaining because I am not here to build your empire. I am here to build homes for Canadians.”

    That will be the choice in a housing tax election: either the NDP-Liberals, who fund local bureaucracies, or common-sense Conservatives, who axe the tax to build the homes.

     Madam Speaker, as I say often, I am from the beautiful riding of Saint John—Rothesay, where the Leader of the Opposition has frequently visited recently. One thing I want to talk about is the pride I have in our programs, like the housing accelerator, the rapid housing initiative, the national housing co-investment fund, that have benefited my riding greatly. One thing that has certainly come to notice of late is the Leader of the Opposition calling mayors across this country “incompetent”, among other things.

    Will the Leader of the Opposition stop calling mayors across this country incompetent? Is the mayor of my riding of Saint John incompetent?

    Madam Speaker, I do not know the member's mayor, so I cannot comment on that, but I know that his mayor's MP is incompetent. We know that because since he became the MP, housing costs have doubled in Saint John. He was not able to get the Energy East pipeline approved. He squeals away that he does not like the carbon tax but then votes to quadruple that same tax. I do not know if that is duplicity or incompetence, but it is probably a combination of the two.

    One mayor was complaining the other day. The mayor in Aurora said he wants me to give the GST from new homes to him. Can members imagine that? He said to do away with this idea of axing the GST on new homes and just give him the money. Every time someone buys a home in Aurora, the GST would go to the mayor instead.

    If that was going to help build homes, it already would have. His revenues are up 192% while population growth and inflation have been 62% in the last 15 years. What has that done? It has driven up housing costs. We need less money for politicians and fewer taxes for home buyers.

    Madam Speaker, I find it very sad that the Leader of the Opposition would stoop so low as take cheap shots at the Liberal member.

    I would like to remind him that there is no proof that eliminating the 5% GST will reduce house prices. For example, since September 2023, there has been no GST on the construction of rental housing, and this has had no measurable impact on house prices.

    Madam Speaker, he says that eliminating the GST on apartments has not yet reduced the cost of houses.

    That is because houses are not apartments. There is a difference between an apartment and a house. Eliminating taxes on apartments is about reducing the cost of apartments. Eliminating the GST on houses is about reducing the cost of houses.

    Does that help the member?

     Madam Speaker, last week, the leader of the Conservative Party actually told on himself. He stood up and he called a picket line a rally for striking workers, and yet he cosplays as though he is a working-class hero.

    My question to him is quite simple. Is the leader of the official opposition still adamant about turning back our labour laws and making Canada a right-to-work nation, or will he stand with New Democrats and force the Liberals to end the section 107 ministerial directions that undermine charter rights and privileges for unions and workers?

    Madam Speaker, I will answer the member's questions very directly. We are not going to be bringing in a right-to-work law.

    The second question is whether we will stand with the New Democrats for unions. That is exactly what I am asking him to do today. We have a motion in the House of Commons today that condemns the government for robbing workers of the right to strike and votes non-confidence in the government that the NDP leader has said is greedy, corporate-driven and anti-worker.

    We are ready to stand up today on that vote. The question is whether the NDP will stand by its own words, stand by workers, or will it sell out once again for the Prime Minister?

    Madam Speaker, I am glad we are having a debate on a substantive motion, and I will talk a little more about it. I will be splitting my time on this important issue with the hon. member for Kings—Hants.

    I am glad we are having a debate on the substantive issue of how we build more homes in Canada. We have that challenge because of the fact that Canada is growing in size. We are at 40 million people, and it is a good thing that we are growing as a country. We have an aging population and we need to ensure that we have more young people who are working and are able to populate our country from coast to coast to coast.

    However, that comes with challenges on the infrastructure. We obviously have to keep pace with the growing population. We have to build more homes. We have to build more roads and public transit. We need to ensure that the infrastructure necessary to serve these homes, like water and sewer and electricity, is there as well. Of course, all of it costs money and it takes time to build.

     How we go about doing that is a really important question. That is what we are debating through this opposition day motion. I will put aside all the name-calling and the personal insults, which is beneath this place and beneath all of us. I want to give credit where credit is due. For the very first time, the Conservative Party, on this substantive issue, has put forward a policy idea. Whether we agree or disagree is obviously up to all of us. However, I am glad to see that the Conservatives have put forward the idea of eliminating GST from home purchases under a million dollars. This idea merits a debate, but from my perspective, it is really not going to help build more homes. Therefore, I will be voting against this motion, and I will lay out my reasons for that.

     As I see it, what is being proposed is basically to cut 5% of the GST from all new homes that are being built at a million dollars or less. According to the Conservative math that would save about $5,000, but it does not create any incentive whatsoever to build more homes, whether they are homes are to own or to rent.

     It definitely does not create any incentive whatsoever to build homes that are affordable for people who are not able to rent or own a home and who need some sort of subsidy or support to have a roof over their heads. That particular element is missing. In fact, what we have just heard from the Leader of the Opposition is that the Conservatives would cancel all existing programs, all kinds of existing supports and funding that would help build affordable homes across the country. In a very quick moment, I will speak to affordable housing that is being built in my community of Ottawa Centre alone.

     The Conservative proposal would basically cut the GST and at the same time cut all programs that allow municipalities to build the necessary infrastructure like water, sewer and electricity, all those things that are necessary to then ensure that people can live in these homes. It is hard to make a house a home without plumbing or electricity. That is a very significant challenge. This is why we are seeing other levels of government, provinces and municipalities, which play a bigger role in building homes, opposing the Conservative idea. They do not support it because they see the challenges it would cause.

    The Leader of the Opposition can make it all about how he does not want to support politicians creating empires, etc, but he, as we know, has no experience in building anything. When he was the minister of housing, I think he was able to build six affordable homes, and that is not a record of which to be extremely proud.

    However, if we talk to mayors like here in the City of Ottawa, who are responsible for the rules and all the work that happens to build homes, they will tell me that a simple cut in the GST is not sufficient to build the kinds of homes we need. If it were sufficient, this idea would have been implemented some time ago. This it not to mention the hypocrisy we are seeing from the Conservatives.

    The member from the Bloc mentioned earlier that when we as a government brought in getting rid of GST from purpose-built rentals, the Conservatives voted against that idea. Therefore, they cannot be speaking out of both sides of their mouths. On one hand, they thought that was not good enough, that we should not be cutting GST from purpose-built rental. Now they think that they have the best idea in place and that everybody should align behind it.

    We are trying to do a mix of both those ideas. On one hand, we have cut GST from purpose-built rentals so that we can induce more building of rental properties, and we are seeing the result of that. We are seeing rent coming down across the country. At the same time, we are creating incentives for municipalities to build more homes, and that is the essence of the housing accelerator fund.

     We have done two things through that fund.

     First, we have been using the money to build more affordable housing in our communities and municipalities. We know that about 15 or 16 Conservative MPs have lobbied the Minister of Housing over time. I can give the full list, if anyone wants me to, but I do not want to take away from my important time. Those members have written letters to the Minister of Housing asking that money be given to their municipalities, because they need those dollars to build more affordable housing in their respective communities.

    In Ottawa, for example, if we look at my community of Ottawa Centre, we see affordable housing being built at Rochester Heights, which is maybe a 10-minute drive from here. We are seeing a whole new village being build, the Gladstone Village. We are starting to develop it, and it is being supported through the housing accelerator fund. Most recently, we made an announcement at LeBreton Flats called Dream LeBreton Flats, with the Multifaith Housing Initiative, where affordable housing along with for-profit housing will be built.

     In my riding alone, we are talking 1,000 affordable units that are starting to be built because of the housing accelerator fund. That would have not happened without the fund. These are homes for real people, people who can afford market rent and people who cannot afford market rent. These people will be able to call downtown Ottawa their home. However, that would have not have happened if we had not given $176 million to the City of Ottawa.

     The second thing we are doing through the housing accelerator fund is saying to cities and municipalities that if they want that money, they need to change their rules to allow for more density. They need to get rid of rules that say, “Not in my backyard.” We need for them to allow for at least four units per lot, for example.

    We are the federal government, so we do not have any authority. The provinces have the authority to change their planning acts. As the federal government, we do not have any authority to change municipal rules as to how much housing they should allow for. However, through the housing accelerator fund, we have created that incentive for municipalities to change the rules to allow for more density. That is exactly what we are seeing right now.

     Not only are we able to build more affordable homes, but we there are for developers. Builders and developers like more density, so we have required municipalities to change their rules so that they can create and build more housing. That is smart policy. That is why the approach we have put forward is paying dividends. We are starting to see more housing starts as a result. We are starting to see more affordable housing being built as a result.

     The solution that is being put forward is worthy of debate. I am glad that the Conservatives have finally put an idea together, but it will not solve the problem of housing. It is a great slogan. It is great for the Leader of the Opposition to give fiery speeches and do his really bad acting, and he needs to get some lessons, but it is will not build the kind of housing nor the magnitude of housing we need. For that reason, I will be voting against the motion.

    Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the parliamentary secretary. He told a much different story than what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. The Leader of the Opposition is being very accusatory, saying that bureaucracy and red tape at city halls are preventing building from occurring, and nobody is really denying that. He gave the example of a developer and a planning application being be reviewed and then reviewed again. Nobody is denying that.

     We are saying that the housing accelerator fund is specifically designed. I know that in Kingston, the money that was given to the municipality was tied to reducing that red tape to ensure that more houses would get built quicker and to reduce exactly those kinds of problems that the Leader of the Opposition indicated.

     I am wonder if the parliamentary secretary can provide some of his thoughts on that, and why it is so important. More important, over 15 Conservatives want this and have been advocating for this money for their ridings. Clearly, the Conservatives must see that it works. At least, the correspondence that they sent to the minister indicated that they thought the money would work for the intended purpose. Otherwise, why would they be asking for it?

     Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands is absolutely right, and he cited Kingston as an example. I can cite Ottawa as an example. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Carleton, and I share the same city as home. I wonder whether he has spoken with our mayor, Mark Sutcliffe, about this issue and what the mayor's response would be. A very small part of the money that we have given is going toward streamlining the entire process for approving projects, which builders and developers want. They want a simpler process. We are able to use that money to create that incentive to change the bylaws to build more density, so not just one house goes up but up to four houses go up by default, as well as even higher density on bigger sites, so builders can leverage the infrastructure that is available. Then a larger proportion of that money is going toward building affordable housing.

     That is the point. We are able to accomplish both. What the Leader of the Opposition would be doing, essentially, by cutting the GST only is raising the margin of profit for developers because they would not pass those savings to the consumers.

    Madam Speaker, I have two quick questions and a comment for the member opposite. He was expounding on the importance of the housing accelerator fund. It is supposed to be an equitable fund for all ridings across the country.

     First, I would like the member to name one Conservative-held riding in Ontario that got a single penny of the housing accelerator fund. Second, because he thinks this is such a great fund, how many houses have been built in his riding with the housing accelerator fund?

     My last point is a comment. The member mentioned that the Leader of the Opposition's proposal would save $5,000 on a million dollar house. Five per cent of $1 million is $50,000, not $5,000.

    Madam Speaker, I enjoy working with the member opposite, and I appreciate his public service. There are a lot of examples, and I can take him on a tour of my riding one of these weekends, if he likes. I mentioned Gladstone Village, which is right at Somerset and Preston. We can see that the cranes are up. That affordable housing is being build because of the housing accelerator fund.

     We can go to Rochester Street and Gladstone Avenue by Adult High School and see housing being built. Phase 1 is already up and phase 2 is going up now. That is because of the housing accelerator fund. I can take the member to LeBreton Flats, just down the road. Two cranes are up right now and two towers are going up. That is called Dream LeBreton Flats, and Multifaith Housing Initiative is the not-for-profit housing provider. That is because of the housing accelerator fund.

     If the member opposite would like, I can go through many other lists of actual housing, and I will get him a list of all the Conservative ridings that are benefiting from the housing accelerator fund as well.

    Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are currently proposing to eliminate the goods and services tax, or GST, on the construction of new houses and condos. The question now becomes, will this actually do anything to address the skyrocketing demand for social housing?

    The Liberal Party touts its various programs, including the housing accelerator fund and the public lands acquisition fund. Many programs are also available through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. However, one of the problems with these programs is that the results are so hard to gauge because these things take such a long time and because, when the federal government does decide to invest, it attaches 56,000 conditions, even though housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and its municipalities.

    How can my colleague say that the Liberal government's strategies are more effective than a proposal like cutting the GST?

    Madam Speaker, I will say that we have a big challenge right now in terms of building housing across this country, and we need all three orders of government working together.

    The hon. member is absolutely right, of course. Rules around how housing is built, the actual housing, are a provincial and municipal issue, but we are working with provincial and municipal governments to create those incentives so that we can increase the supply to reduce the demand on housing.

     Madam Speaker, we are here today to discuss an opposition day motion from the Conservative Party in relation to housing. I welcome the opportunity to rise in this place and talk about the importance of housing, because this is a national conversation right now.

    I want to give some context from my own riding of Kings—Hants. I was elected in 2019. I remember going to communities, particularly in rural parts of my riding, in Hants County and Kings County, and we would have conversations. We would knock on the door, and people would say they were worried that they would not be able to actually sell their home. It had been on the market for a year or two, and no one seemed to want to buy it.

    Fortunately, that is no longer a problem in Nova Scotia, at least in the Annapolis Valley and in Hants County. There has been a growth and an interest from people who want to live in rural Nova Scotia and, I would say, also rural Atlantic Canada. Particularly during the height of the pandemic and afterward, we saw large migrations across Canada. People from Ontario and western Canada wanted to come live in Nova Scotia for the quality of life our communities offer. This is a very good thing because, for years, our province has been chasing, desiring and wanting to welcome newcomers.

    It may sound like a very modest number, but we just eclipsed a million people about a year and a half ago in our province. This was a number that came after projections showed that our population was going to decrease. As Nova Scotians, we should be welcoming the fact that people want to live in our communities. I live in East Hants, one of the fastest-growing municipalities in Atlantic Canada.

    At the same time, we need to make sure that we have the proper housing, infrastructure and social services to keep pace. This is what the conversation is about today. The Conservatives have put on the table a suggestion that the government should move forward with a GST cut for newbuild homes in the country up to a million dollars. I will be honest; in and of itself, that idea is not a terrible one. The catch is the fine print that the Conservatives do not put in the opposition day motion, which they have said outside this place. That is the way they would go about paying for that type of expenditure, which would be to cut the programs that are driving supply.

    It is extremely important for Canadians at home to understand that, when we rob Peter to pay Paul, that is not getting us any further ahead. In fact, it is actually narrowing the portion of Canadians who could benefit from a housing initiative. I am one of the younger members of Parliament in the House. There are a lot of people in my age bracket who are looking to buy their first home, looking to get in and start a family. They may not be in a position to purchase a brand new, just-built home.

    One thing I have not heard the Conservatives address so far in the debate is why we are going so narrow on just newly built homes. Why is this not an affordability measure that is extended all the way across? Why are they proposing to get rid of the programs that are increasing supply, which could help support this initiative in the first place? By stunting the ability to build the supply, they are narrowing the benefit they would even be offering as part of their public policy choice to Canadians.

    First and foremost, the Conservatives have to be clear on why they are cutting the programs that are important for the supply that is needed. We have heard premiers and, frankly, all members of Parliament on all sides of the House say that we need more supply in this country. I agree. Why are we taking away the programs that are giving us just that?

    This gives us an opportunity to examine the programs the government has put out. I am not the housing minister, but I would suggest that the government has four different cadres of initiatives. We have put out support directly to developers to build, whether that is in very low-cost financing for developers to be able to build either new homes or new rental units, or whether it is in money given directly to the provinces to support public housing.

    Part of the reason we are in this situation is that, for 35 years, starting with the Chrétien government, there was an exodus of federal involvement in social and public housing. I have a lot of respect for Mr. Chrétien. His government was good for this country. However, it is the current government that has sought to actually return these things. These things do not turn around overnight. This is part of the reason we find ourselves in the situation that we do.

     The third element is working directly with municipalities, whether that is providing the infrastructure needed for housing or putting money on the table that is tied to incentives. We have heard a lot that the Conservatives want to sit down and negotiate with the municipalities and withhold federal funding. On the positive side of the stick, that is exactly what the government is doing. It is sitting down with municipalities and putting in funding that is conditional on homes getting built in their local area. It is not pulling back federal funding if they do not hit a 15% target. I will get into more of what the member for Carleton's plan entails; experts have said that it would build less housing in this country, not more, and it is actually a very benign policy.

    Finally, we are also working directly with the people who would buy the homes, primarily young Canadians, via the first home savings account. There are a number of initiatives to try to help support young Canadians in getting into a home, with ways they can save up tax-free to do just that.

    What is the evidence of our plan working? In Nova Scotia, we have good news. In 2023, Nova Scotia had the most housing starts since 1940. I want to repeat that. By virtue of federal leadership on this file, our province of Nova Scotia had the most housing of the last 83 years. Even better news is that Nova Scotia is actually on pace to exceed that this year.

    I can see concretely, in my own backyard, the work that the federal program is doing to increase supply. We know it cannot just be supply. Yes, that is important and that, in and of itself, will create more of an affordability context for Canadians, but we have targeted programs to actually help with affordable housing units. What the Conservative Party is offering my constituents is to cut the programs that are promising to help deliver almost 5,000 new housing units in Kings—Hants over the next decade.

    The leader of the official opposition stands up and calls mayors incompetent. Does that extend to Mayor Dave Corkum in Kings County? Does that include the warden, Eleanor Roulston, in East Hants? Is he going to come into the place and tell her that she is incompetent? How about Mayor Abraham Zebian in Windsor-West Hants? Is he incompetent? How about his council? How about the Conservative candidate in Kings—Hants who was a municipal councillor? Is the leader of the official opposition suggesting that he is incompetent as well? I would like to know the answer on that because, of course, he was part of the Kings County council that welcomed the federal investment in housing to build more housing in Kings—Hants.

    It is not constructive to have someone who wants to be the prime minister of this country going around trying to beat up every other level of government. That is not the type of leadership we should expect in this country. It is not the way we should be going about it.

    I want to get to the leader's plan and talk about the ridiculousness of his plan. His private member's bill, which has been widely critiqued by housing advocates in this country as being ineffectual compared with the government programs, actually proposes that if municipalities do not build 15% more housing, then they do not get federal funds. There is irony in that.

    We may have a municipality that is doing very well, working in a pro-development way to build new housing. Let us say it built 100 houses this year. Under the leader of the official opposition's program, if it did not build 115 next year, he would not give the municipality any federal money to help support the continued growth.

    However, what if a municipality was perhaps underperforming, doing terribly and standing in the way? With the big bureaucracy that the leader screams against, if it built five houses, it would only have to build one more in order to get his 15% funding on the Government of Canada side. It makes absolutely no sense, and it is the result of policy and slogans being written on the back of a napkin. It is not good public policy.

    I welcome a conversation on housing, as the member for Ottawa Centre said, but let us have a conversation about concrete ways to get out of this situation. It is not going to be by cutting programs that are helping to build more housing in this country. It is not by cutting programs that are helping with affordable housing units. The Conservatives suggest that they will cut funding to municipalities that, in many cases, need the critical infrastructure to build out. It is easy to say that we want to build a house, but if we do not have the waste water and water infrastructure to do it, it is not going to happen.

    Madam Speaker, the member made some good points, but after nine years, there have been too few homes built in Canada to come anywhere close to keeping pace with the need.

    It is very obvious in the fact that the only thing that has happened is that rents, mortgages and housing costs have doubled. However, the Liberals do not think that taking the GST off any homes built below a million dollars would be helpful. It certainly would be to the young people I speak to.

    Can the member for Kings—Hants indicate why the Liberals have not been anywhere near successful in meeting the demand?

    Mr. Speaker, I actually think the proposal as is would be helpful. My speech gave another level of nuance. I hope the member for Brandon—Souris can have a conversation with the leader of the official opposition to say that it is fine if we want to have this policy, but it should not be on the back of actually cutting the federal funding. The funding is helping to build the homes that would be necessary for people to take advantage of the tax credit that we are putting in place or the GST relief.

    We have built 500,000 homes in this country. There are a lot of good initiatives. There are issues in western liberal democracies right now around homebuilding. A lot of them came on the back of the pandemic, when we did not have supply by virtue of almost 30 years of governments of Canada, successive Liberal and Conservative governments, getting out of the space of federal housing at a time when interest rates from the central banks were very low. Housing prices took off because of the fact that mortgage lending space opened up and there was not enough supply. However, the way to get where we want to go is not by actually cutting the programs that build the supply for the homes we need.

    Madam Speaker, essentially, that is a way for the Conservatives to pass the cost on to the provinces and to Quebec.

    With $18 billion in projected housing starts, the same amount it will cost the government in taxes could help build roughly 20,000 social housing units.

    I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

    Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I missed part of my hon. colleague's question. However, I completely agree that it is important to invest in social housing.

    The reason we are having this problem is that for 30 years, the federal Conservative government—but also the federal Liberal government—moved away from investing in non-profit organizations and the provinces for building social housing.

     Madam Speaker, I share my colleagues' concerns with some of the language that is being used by the Conservative leader. I look at Mayor Scott Goodmanson of Langford, Mayor Michelle Staples of Duncan, Mayor Rob Douglas of North Cowichan and Mayor Tim McGonigle of Lake Cowichan. These individuals and their councillors are people whom I value incredibly, and we have a great working relationship.

    Another province that is doing great work, of course, is British Columbia, with the BC NDP. Our housing starts right now are 40% higher than they were under the previous government. We are leading the way on tax measures designed to clamp down on speculation, and the province has stepped in to change the zoning laws where some municipalities are not keeping up with the demand.

    I am just wondering if my colleague thinks that maybe there are additional measures; maybe we need to look to our past for examples. During and immediately following the Second World War, the federal government stepped in with the creation of a Crown corporation to deal with returning veterans and the influx of workers, who were helping with the war effort, to our cities.

    Does he think that such a measure might be beneficial here and now or that it is at least an idea to be considered, given the housing crunch that we are currently facing and the fact that the market has not met the demand?

    Madam Speaker, I agree. We should be concerned when there is criticism of our local mayors and the people who step up to serve our communities. The member for Carleton should actually stand in this place and start naming them. Are they my mayors? Are they the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford's mayors? Who is the member talking about? He likes the bogeyman, but these are people trying to serve their communities. As federal representatives, we should be trying to provide support to build the housing that is needed.

     In relation to the question around a Crown corporation and whether we should create another Crown agency, I do not know. However, I like that the Minister of Housing has put out the idea of using federal lands and federal resources in a public sense to try to build more housing. We have to utilize all tools at our disposal.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the Conservatives' motion on housing. Many, if not all, of the members of the House give genuine priority to housing. However, although everyone here sincerely prioritizes housing, their solutions can vary. One person who genuinely puts a lot of effort into the housing file and will be enlightening us on the subject is the legendary member from Jonquière, who is renowned for his verve and punchy delivery. He will follow up on my speech, so I will be sharing my time with him.

    The Bloc Québécois agrees with the motion in principle, but we have a major problem with how it is drafted, in particular its proposal to have the provinces eliminate the provincial sales tax. The Conservatives are calling on Quebec to eliminate the tax on new housing units. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebec and the provinces what to do, especially in these desperate times, when we are facing a fiscal imbalance.

    A few days ago we saw a perfect example of the fact we are facing a fiscal imbalance. The Prime Minister announced that he wanted to grant a three-month GST holiday on a package of goods—here we could have at least discussed what type of goods would be included—and give a $250 cheque to everyone with a net income of $150,000 or less a year, which is a ridiculous measure. That same day, the Quebec finance minister regretfully announced that there was not enough money to maintain the health care and education systems and that he was forced to demand that his various departments stay strictly within their budgets because the books had to balanced at the end of the month. We saw both of these things on the same day: Santa Claus giving out presents, while the provinces tightened their belts. That actually happens every day. That is Canada in 2024, and that has been our reality for a long time now. We would like to see things change in 2025.

    That said, the federal government has no business telling Quebec what to do, but the federal government could decide to remove the GST on the construction of new housing, and we think that could be a positive thing. However, it is important to remember that new housing represents only 30% of the market, so this measure will have a limited impact on the market. It is also important to remember that, in general, the real estate market in Quebec and Canada is overheating. There is not enough supply to meet the demand.

    Inflation has caused housing prices to skyrocket. We are talking about a 68% increase over the past three years in Quebec. Where did that inflation come from? It came from the fact that every time a house goes on the market, there are 22 potential buyers. Buyers know when they make an offer that they will not be the only ones doing so. That creates a bidding war and drives up housing prices. The value of such transactions affects the value of future transactions. That is a really big problem.

    Removing the GST from housing construction could allow for some breathing room, but we are concerned that this 5% will simply end up in the pockets of developers and sellers. We are concerned about that, but we cannot be against a good thing or against a measure that makes it easier to buy housing. That is why we will be supporting this motion. However, since we have serious concerns, I think it would be a good idea to amend that part of today's motion.

    We need a lot of housing units. Let us talk percentages. The Liberal government has implemented various programs to facilitate access to housing. The leader of the Conservative Party says he would eliminate these programs at the earliest opportunity to finance his tax cuts. I am not sure that that is the way to go.

    Quebec is already not receiving its share of these programs. Quebec represents 22% of the population of Canada, but it has received only 14% of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's housing accelerator fund. Quebec has received only 6.2% of the budget for the affordable housing fund, even though it represents 22% of the population of Canada. These percentages are bad enough, but it gets worse. CMHC says that 31% of Canada's housing needs are in Quebec. That is strange, because Quebec is expected to pay more for programs in other provinces with smaller populations because the goal is to provide uniform services across the country, yet when Quebec should be getting more than the percentage of the population that it represents, not only does is it not get 31%, it does not even get 22%. It gets 14% and 6%. That is preposterous.

    At the same time, Quebec is left waiting for funding for its projects, because the federal government's funding always comes with strings attached and specific expectations. It wants to negotiate with Quebec, but this is Quebeckers' own money that it is sending back to them. This money is not a gift from the federal government. It comes from the sales tax and income tax that Quebeckers have paid throughout the year. Quebec should not have to beg for it.

    Consider the last round of negotiations on the affordable housing program. It took three years for the federal government to loosen its purse strings and transfer the funds to Quebec. There were three long years of negotiations. The projects could and should have started in 2017. The housing crisis might be less serious today if we had started earlier. However, because of the negotiations, the projects did not start until 2020. That is the story of housing in Quebec and Canada. If anyone is looking for arguments to support Quebec's political independence, it is not hard to find them in the House. Every day of the week, we find good reasons for Quebec to become independent.

    The Liberals make all kinds of promises and come up with wishy-washy programs that do not amount to much. The Conservatives want to replace them and say that they are going to get rid of everything. There will no longer be any taxes, and the invisible hand of supply and demand will balance out the market. They are day and night, but they both look similar at dawn. They are like two different shades of grey, and both are unsatisfactory for Quebeckers. We need clear, drastic measures on housing.

    In the last minute that I have left, I will cite some of the things that the Bloc Québécois proposed in its last platform. We proposed putting 1% of the federal government's revenues into social, community and truly affordable housing. That is another topic that cannot be resolved in 10 minutes. When the so-called affordable housing is not affordable in real life because it is too expensive, then we need to have another look at the criteria. We need to recalculate everything. We also proposed that all of the federal government's surplus properties be prioritized for housing development. We proposed charging a tax on real estate speculation to stop people from moving too often or from flipping homes for profit. We proposed a change to the home buyers' plan. We proposed creating an acquisition fund to help first-time buyers come up with a down payment. We also proposed transfers to Quebec with no strings attached. I will close on that.

    I have a message for all the federalist political parties: The best way to increase the housing supply is to transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces. They will figure it out with the municipalities. The federal government has no business telling the municipalities and provinces what to do.

    Madam Speaker, I have to say that my colleague made some good points.

    He recognized that a combination of measures is needed to achieve the objective of addressing the housing crisis. Let us not forget that the Conservative Party members are saying that they have the best strategy. They are going to get rid of all the other strategies that we proposed and that are on the table today. However, the mayors are thanking us for introducing them. I recognize the jurisdictional issue, but a Canadian is a Canadian. To keep from wasting time, they need to work closely with the federal and provincial governments to achieve the goal of building housing quickly.

    Does my colleague agree that the Conservative Party members should not be muzzled? We know that they are not allowed to talk about this.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the parliamentary secretary agrees with my entire speech. I am very pleased to hear that.

    Of course I want members to have freedom of speech. It is more than a little worrisome to find out that some political parties forbid their members from speaking out. Even more serious is the fact that members are forbidden from promoting programs that could provide money for their constituents.

    Our primary task, ahead of representing any political party, and ahead of serving as a parliamentary secretary, a minister or a member of the shadow cabinet, is to represent the people who elected us and put their interests first, ahead of our own views. I do think that is a very serious problem.

    Madam Speaker, in 1992, the Liberals pulled out of the national housing strategy at a time when we were building 25,000 non-market housing units a year.

    An hon. member: Where were you?

    Mr. Gord Johns: Madam Speaker, I grew up in co-op housing, to answer my colleague who just heckled me. Thirty-two years without building those 25,000 units has obviously left us in a huge deficit. In fact, right now we are the lowest in the OECD in non-market housing, at 3.5%. We can look to the Netherlands, where it is at 34%; Denmark, where it is at 21%; or France, where it is at 17% and its goal is 20%.

    Does my colleague believe that maybe it would be better if we took the GST and returned it to communities where it was collected to build non-market housing? He talked about not telling communities what to do, but how about putting it back in the hands of communities for non-market housing so we could scale up? Maybe he could speak to the importance of that.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great question, and yes, that would be wonderful.

    What I want, as I said in my speech earlier, is for the federal government to stop imposing conditions. The member has suggested taking the equivalent of the money collected for the GST and returning it to the communities to fund non-market housing, in other words, community or affordable housing. I applaud and would welcome that.

    The problem my colleague raised in his question goes deeper than that. He mentioned the housing deficit. Our governments are too focused on short-term action, on four-year horizons, to win votes. The $250 cheque is a good example of that. Such measures are hogwash.

    We need to think about the long term. We should not be having a housing crisis. Long-term plans should have been made ages ago. There is a labour shortage. I taught my high school students about this in the 1990s. I told them there would be a labour shortage if nothing was done to prevent it. I cannot believe that I knew that, but our leaders did not. There are no long-term measures.

    It is important to look ahead to the future.

    Madam Speaker, I am really glad to see that my colleague from Quebec agrees with me in regard to our Conservative idea of taking some of the government buildings we have and turning them into affordable housing. I think affordable housing has proven to be the area of most need in Canada.

    I wonder if he could expand on anything else, besides using those buildings for affordable housing, he thinks would be of benefit to those who cannot afford a home today, and what he thinks of the idea of taking the GST off of homes built by anyone, but particularly younger people in Canada, that are under a million dollars.

    Madam Speaker, I do agree. We support any measure that can significantly improve access to housing.

    My colleague asked me whether I had any other ideas. We have plenty, but since I have only 30 seconds to speak, I will simply reiterate our main proposal. Money must be invested regularly over the long term for affordable, social and community housing. We must think outside the box in terms of transforming existing buildings and prioritize the co-operative model. There are many things we can do, and we must act in a non-partisan manner.

    Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the motion the House is taking up today is not a motion of non-confidence. I thought the Conservatives had said they were going to take advantage of every opposition day to try and topple the government. I do not know what is going on, but it does seem like part of a pattern, because today's motion strikes me as typical of the tactics employed by the member for Carleton. I call this the Carleton method.

    What does this method look like? It often involves focusing on populist proposals based on simplistic notions in response to complex problems. Every time I see a Conservative motion, that is what it looks like. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said earlier that the Bloc Québécois was going to vote in favour of this motion. However, we are doing so somewhat reluctantly, because the motion contains a trap. Reducing taxes may stimulate housing construction, but we need to go a little further.

    That is why I think we need to ditch the Carleton method, which consists of overly simplistic proposals that often take the form of political rhetoric and catchy sound bytes. It seems to me that, during their last leadership race, the Conservatives chose a leader who would be better suited for an advertising agency than for the job of prime minister. I say this without rancor. He is great at coming up with slogans, but as for innovative solutions, I have yet to see any.

    It is symptomatic of what we have been seeing in the House for a while now. For the Conservatives, politics seems to be boil down to chanting slogans. Some of my colleagues may have seen groups of people laying hands, chanting and expecting results. That is what I think of when I hear the Conservatives. Some of my colleagues may be familiar with the Conservative Party's chants: axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget. I do not know whether they intend to use a drill and a screwdriver, but they want to fix the budget and stop the crime.

    Every time I hear the leader of the Conservative Party, all of those chants make me think about François Truffaut's films, of which I am a fan. It makes me think of the film The 400 Blows, as well as the sequel, Stolen Kisses. There is an interesting character in these films called Antoine Doinel. To illustrate his lust for Fabienne Tabard, Truffaut shows him in front of a mirror for a long time compulsively repeating the name Fabienne Tabard. He thinks he will get somewhere if he just keeps repeating it, but in the end, his lecherous desire will go unrequited. I feel like I am watching a cheap new version of a Truffaut film when I hear the leader of the official opposition repeat his political rhetoric and formulas ad nauseum.

    The solution put forward in this political rhetoric is fundamentally cosmetic. When faced with complex political problems, one needs structuring measures. I will explain why I believe the Conservatives' proposal is not a structuring measure, even though we will be voting for it.

    First, I listened to the leader of the official opposition's speech earlier. He clearly said that we needed to end bureaucracy. The most populist discourse is the one that accuses politicians of taking money away from workers, wanting to steal from them and rob them of what is theirs. They forget to mention that we also collect sales tax and income tax to be able to offer services. The leader of the official opposition is very careful not to mention that we collect sales tax and income tax to be able to offer services. In his speech, he said he wanted to take money away from the politicians and give it directly back to citizens, to workers.

    I have a different interpretation of what he is proposing. I get the impression that the leader of the official opposition is funding a populist measure on the backs of the provinces. We see at the end of the motion that the member for Carleton clearly intends to ensure that the provincial premiers also remove the sales tax on new construction. In Quebec's case, that would be the QST.

    That is quite problematic because, as my colleague indicated earlier, in Quebec's case, the forecast for housing starts next year is $18 billion. Removing the QST would mean a $1.8-billion shortfall for Quebec. The leader of the official opposition is not saying so, but in his motion he is asking the Quebec government to forgo $1.8 billion when Quebec's deficit is nearly $13 billion. Any reasonable person would understand that Quebec cannot agree to that.

    There is a relatively simple notion in the Canadian federation, and that is fiscal imbalance. What does the federal government always do when it needs to tighten its belt? It cuts transfer payments and transfers the tax burden of its policies onto the provinces. That is the oldest trick in the book. Even Jean Chrétien said that it was the best thing since sliced bread, because that means there is no political price to pay. When the leader of the official opposition says that he will put more in workers' pockets, he means that he will get the money from the provinces, like Quebec, that are already having difficulty carrying out their responsibilities in education and health care. My colleagues know as well as I do that health care and child care in Quebec is chronically underfunded. If $1.8 billion is cut from Quebec and the deficit increases, that would once more compromise Quebec's mission, which is to put in place the social safety net that is helping families who are already having a hard time. Eliminating a service on the one hand and allowing them to save on the purchase of a house on the other is not a structuring measure. In my opinion, it does nothing to solve the fiscal imbalance. Let us take this a bit further. A quick calculation shows that, with this $1.8 billion, Quebec could finance almost 20,000 social housing units. In some way, the leader of the official opposition would deprive Quebec of 20,000 social housing units. For these reasons, the motion put forward by our Conservative colleagues could benefit from an amendment. I will get back to that later.

    Why do I say this is not a structuring measure? It is because I feel that my Conservative Party colleagues never tackle the real problems. What brought on the housing crisis in Quebec? Immigration is responsible for much of it. I have never seen my Conservative colleagues hold an opposition day to oppose the Century Initiative, the Liberals' political commitment to act in such a way as to ensure that Quebec loses all control over immigration and that unprecedented pressure is exerted on the various services. I have never heard the Conservatives talk about that. They are not tackling a central problem, namely immigration. They have only started doing that recently.

    Another problem they have been silent on is the one raised by the the Canadian Construction Association. The people in this association have made it clear to us, in numerous meetings, that home construction and housing cannot be considered in a vacuum. It takes infrastructure, but the municipalities' infrastructure deficit is so high that it might well take $128 billion to build this infrastructure.

    I will close by discussing the TECQ program, or the gas tax and Quebec's contribution. If we want better municipal infrastructure, it is inevitable that the municipalities must have access to the funding they need. Unfortunately, however, the government did not renew the TECQ.

    I move the following amendment: That the motion be amended by deleting the words “and call on the provincial premiers to match this proposal”.

    It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion. If the sponsor is not present, the House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party may give or refuse consent on the sponsor's behalf.

    Since none of them are present in the House to give consent, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

     Madam Speaker, one of the things that I have found disrespectful, coming from the official opposition, is the fact that the Conservatives are completely ignoring and, I would suggest, abusing other levels of government.

    The current leader of the Conservative Party is likely the worst-ever minister of housing since World War II and even pre-World War II. At the same time, he is now downplaying the importance of the accelerator fund, even though some of his own Conservative members are writing in support of the fund.

    I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to the fact that, when governments work together, they can in fact get more accomplished, and that the accelerator fund is something that is good for all regions of the country.

    Madam Speaker, I rarely agree with the member for Winnipeg North. I am not trying to be unkind, but for once he said something that made sense, and I completely agree with him.

    It is not by calling the mayors of Quebec's biggest municipalities incompetent that we are going to generate more housing construction. As I was saying earlier, I call this the member for Carleton's method: He either recites slogans or hurls insults. That is what we have seen from the member for Carleton.

    I do not know whether he will be changing his ways any time soon. I would encourage him to do so and to, for once, propose policy directions that get away from the unbridled populism that does not in any way serve the interests of any segment of our society.

    Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed my colleague's reference to the “Carleton method”, which in some quarters of Ottawa is also known as the “Stornoway method.”

    I would caution him on repeating Conservative slogans, because otherwise the Conservative whip's office might come and give him a gold star. However, I do share his concerns that what the Conservatives are proposing these days does not have a lot of substance to it. It might look good on the surface, but I would agree with him that we need more of a wholesale structural change, because we are facing a housing policy that is in deficit from 30 years of combined Liberal and Conservative governments. That is why we are where we are today.

    Could the member offer a few more comments? Maybe he could expand on his remarks about how we need to take a deep dive into this, and how it needs to be a wholesale structural rethinking of how the federal government interacts with both the provinces and the municipalities. It cannot be a relationship based on petty insults and grievances, but one where there is collaborative working together.

    Madam Speaker, I think the most sustainable solution for Quebec in the long term is independence, but I will not play partisan politics.

    We definitely need more autonomy. Who knows about housing needs? I will be frank, it is not the federal government. It is the municipalities and the Quebec government that know what they need in terms of infrastructure to build more housing units. Yet that is completely the opposite of what the leader of the official opposition suggested earlier when he said he wanted to take money away from the politicians and give it directly to workers. Giving money directly to workers by means of a tax credit is one thing, but if we do not have the infrastructure to build housing units, we are no further ahead. That looks suspiciously like the member from Carleton's usual populist approach. It is not a structuring measure, but a good political pitch. It comes back to what I was saying earlier.

    Madam Speaker, at least the motion addresses housing and the housing crisis we are currently experiencing. However, I am not sure that this measure aimed at eliminating the GST will mean more housing units, and especially not social housing units.

    The Liberals are happy to argue with the Conservatives, because their own strategy does not work. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

    Recently, in response to the homelessness crisis, the government decided to invest another $250 million in the Reaching Home program, except there are bloody strings attached. As a condition, Quebec would have to submit all of its projects. We do not need to submit any projects. The tents we all see on the streets speak for themselves.

    I would like to hear the comments—

    The hon. member for Jonquière has time for a short response.

    Madam Speaker, my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville is absolutely right. She asked the question and actually gave the answer too. The Liberal government is adding conditions to most of these issues, without taking into account the jurisdictions of the provinces and cities. The Conservatives are trying to starve the provinces and Quebec by passing on part of the cost and calling mayors—

     I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.

    Resuming debate, the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

    Madam Speaker, since I only have a few minutes of speaking time, I will start by saying that the Conservative Party, which imposed the GST on new homes, is now proposing to eliminate the GST that the party itself imposed. It just goes to show how insincere the Conservatives are on this issue.

    It should also be said that the mover of the motion is not present in the House right now, so the amendment just moved by the Bloc Québécois could not be moved. I, of course—

     Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the NDP member fully understands that he cannot refer to a person's presence in the chamber.

     I am sorry; I was not paying attention as I was listening to advice. However, the hon. member knows that we cannot refer to presences or absences in the House.

     The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby has the floor.

     Madam Speaker, I found it sad that the amendment was not able to be proposed. I will be proposing another one in two minutes. I would expect the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the Conservative Party to be here. If they take this motion seriously, that is how—

     Again, the hon. member knows that we cannot mention presences or absences in the House. The hon. member can say that they would accept or not.

     Madam Speaker, I am just repeating your words, which were in order, which is why I am going to be proposing the motion.

    However, the fact that the Conservatives imposed the GST on new homes and now they are proposing to take it off is a bit passing strange. The Conservatives have never apologized for doing that, neither have they apologized for refusing to support what the NDP has been pushing, which is taking the GST off family essentials, telecom, home heating and all of those things. Conservatives say they are concerned about the cost of living, but aside from 12 words they use in their multiple slogans, they have not shown sincerity in any of these cases and in actually doing something that would help people.

    Of course with the NDP, Conservative constituents have gotten dental care, and they are getting pharmacare, anti-scab legislation and affordable housing. The NDP has proposed, and Conservatives will be voting on it shortly, to ensure that the GST be taken off family essentials. The NDP wants to make it permanent, and the Conservatives will be judged on how they vote.

    Without further ado, I would like to amend the motion in the following way, seconded by the terrific member for London—Fanshawe. I move that the motion be amended by replacing the word “homes” with the words “principal residences”.

    I am moving this amendment because this motion is unclear. It should specify whether it applies to housing or to homes. The French version is not clear.

     It is my duty to inform hon. members that an amendment to an opposition motion may be moved only with the consent of the sponsor of the motion, or in the case that he or she is not present, consent may be given or denied by the House leader, the deputy House leader, the whip or the deputy whip of the sponsor's party. Since none of these members has risen in the chamber to give their consent, the amendment cannot be moved at this time.

     Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition's proposal to remove the GST on home sales has been universally accepted as a good plan, a plan that puts money back in the pockets of potential homeowners. Does the hon. member not agree that this would be a good plan to put money back in the pockets of people who are buying homes, so they can afford them?

    Mr. Speaker, the problem is that the Conservatives did this in the first place. They imposed the GST on new homes. Now Conservatives are saying they made a mistake. The NDP certainly agrees. The Conservatives have made a hell of a lot of mistakes; this is only one of so many they have made.

    The fact that a number of amendments have been moved in good faith by a number of parties, including the Bloc and the NDP, and not a single Conservative proposer or House leader, deputy House leader, whip or deputy whip has been in the House shows how seriously Conservatives take the motion before us today.

     Mr. Speaker, on November 13, Somaliland held its presidential election. I extend my congratulations to President-elect Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi, Irro, for his landside victory. It is a testament to the trust and confidence the people of Somaliland have placed in his leadership.

    I want to recognize the outgoing president, Muse Bihi Abdi, and thank him for his service. I also congratulate the KAAH party on winning to become one of the three officially recognized political parties.

    We are in a world where elections are often disputed, as recently witnessed in a couple of countries in Europe. The use of biometric voter identification and the peaceful transfer of power are not just a triumph for Somaliland but also a powerful inspiration to Africa and to democratic countries around the world.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour the Elves Special Needs Society, an organization that has made a profound impact on so many people in Edmonton. We are fortunate to have many charities and not-for-profits that serve Edmonton, and Elves stands out as truly one of the best.

    Recently celebrating its 50th anniversary, Elves, named for its benefactor, Milton Elves, and not for the North Pole elves, began with just three staff members and seven children. Over the years, it has grown to a vital service, supporting over 400 learners with severe disabilities and special needs. Now with two facilities, Elves provides personalized education and day programs that significantly enhance the lives of individuals and their families. With more than 200 dedicated staff now, Elves continues to offer inclusive, family-centred services.

    For five decades, Elves has remained true to its commitment to service, continually adapting and evolving to the needs of our community. Elves provides hope, love, dignity and opportunity to the people who need it the most.

    Mr. Speaker, I say this every year, but I cannot believe it is December already. When I was a young girl, Christmas was a time of magic, lights, foods that we rarely got to taste, the school nativity program, and early Christmas morning mass when I really wanted to be home with my toys. Then and now it was a time of joy, new beginnings and peace, and a season to remember acts of kindness.

    I thank all the frontline and essential workers for all they do. To the many volunteers who work tirelessly for a more equitable society, I say thank you. I thank my constituents for their ongoing support. To my family, with love, I say thank you, and to the members visiting today, I say that I love them; I could not do this without their support.

    I wish my colleagues and all in the House a Merry Christmas.

    Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to celebrate this year in Berthier—Maskinongé, where three community organizations are marking their 30th anniversary. What an amazing milestone.

    The Réseau des aidants naturels d'Autray has made it its mission to improve the quality of life of caregivers by providing them with services and a place to meet other caregivers in order to break their isolation.

    The Maison des jeunes Le Gros Orteil in Saint‑Jean‑de‑Matha is a place where local youth can participate in wholesome activities and work on their social skills in a safe environment.

    Lastly, the Centre L'Étape du bassin de Maskinongé welcomes people struggling with addiction in a supportive, judgment-free environment. Its activities are focused on intervention, prevention and awareness.

    The people who operate these three organizations are making a real difference in the community. They are changing and saving lives. I congratulate them on reaching 30 years and thank them for what they do. Long may they continue.

    Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of Commons of Canada that, at a ceremony held in New York in November, the International Federation of Accountants honoured Sheila Fraser, FCPA, as the 2024 recipient of its Global Leadership Award.

    Originally from Quebec, Ms. Fraser was Canada's first auditor general, a position she held from 2001 to 2011. She has received multiple honours, including the CA Émérite award and the designation “fellow” from both the Ordre des comptables agréés du Québec and the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, in addition to several honorary degrees. Ms. Fraser has been a tireless advocate for transparency and good governance in the private and public sectors. Her career has been a shining example of integrity and accountability.

    Congratulations to Sheila Fraser, a fellow CPA.

    Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about my friend, the Hon. John McDermid. He was the member of Parliament for Brampton—Georgetown from 1979 to 1993 and a cabinet minister in the Mulroney government from 1988 to 1993, when he retired.

    John generously gave of his time in the community. He was an honorary colonel in the Lorne Scots. He was the chair of our local hospital board.

    I met John in 1988, when I was 17 years old, and I volunteered on his campaign. John returned that favour in spades in 2019 when he helped me get re-elected. Over the five years that followed, John became a mentor and a friend, and he shared so many amazing anecdotes from his time in Brian Mulroney's government.

    On Thursday night, I had the opportunity to give John a King Charles III Coronation Medal in his hospital room, surrounded by many of his closest friends. On Friday night, John passed away, surrounded by his family.

    John was a true gentleman. He was a patriot. He served his country with honour and distinction. Godspeed, John. God bless him and his family.

     Mr. Speaker, on November 12, the 28th annual holiday heroes toy and food drive was officially kicked off by York Regional Police. Over the years, it has helped over 100,000 Canadians in need by collecting donations of cash, gift cards, toys, non-perishable food items and children's clothing.

    I thank the Newmarket Soccer Club for hosting, and I thank the York Regional Police. I thank the partners, the Salvation Army and Victim Services of York Region, which play a key role in distributing these items throughout the community. I thank, also, our community. We live in a place I am proud to call home. I am proud of how we support each other and of our willingness to give.

    To quote Dr. Seuss, “Christmas Day will always be just as long as we have we”.

     Mr. Speaker, the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims is a harsh reality in many parts of the world, where they face violence, discrimination, and the denial of their basic rights simply for practising their faith. This injustice highlights the importance of religious freedom. Here in Canada, we are fortunate to live in a society that values and upholds this freedom. Every individual has the right to worship without fear of persecution. I am proud that many in the Ahmadiyya community, under the leadership of national president Lal Khan Malik, have chosen Humber River—Black Creek to call their home.

    Our community is undoubtedly better for having the Ahmadiyya community among us, as they inspire us with their values of peace, tolerance and community service. As Canadians, we must appreciate and protect religious freedom for all, ensuring a world where respect, understanding and inclusion flourish.

    Love for all, hatred for none.

     Mr. Speaker, will the NDP leader stand by his words or is he just a walking, talking pile of contradictions? Do members remember when the NDP leader said he was going to rip up his supply and confidence deal? That was just a stunt for the Elmwood—Transcona by-election.

    As it turns out, the Prime Minister names the tune, and the NDP leader is happy to sing along. The NDP leader was happy to sing along to the tune of doubling housing costs. The NDP leader was happy to sing along to letting dangerous criminals out on bail. The NDP leader was happy to sing along to the tune of driving food bank use to an all-time high, leading to two million visits in just one month. The NDP leader is going to sing along to the tune of quadrupling the carbon tax, which will drive up the cost of gas, groceries and home heating.

    Will the NDP leader start singing his own tune and finally vote non-confidence so that Conservatives can axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime, or will the NDP leader sing along with the Liberals, so that the Prime Minister gets the power, he gets his pension and Canadians get the bill?

    Mr. Speaker, it is with profound sadness that I rise today to pay tribute to renowned Franco-Ontarian journalist and columnist Denis Gratton, who left us on December 7. A native of Vanier, Mr. Gratton was a towering voice for the Ottawa—Vanier community and for Ontario's francophones.

    A veteran scribe for the daily newspaper Le Droit, he not only wrote about the realities of everyday life but also gave a voice to the voiceless. His courage left an indelible mark, including the time in 1993 he accompanied Canadian peacekeepers in war-torn Bosnia. He played a key role at historic moments, such as when he supported the fight for Hôpital Montfort's survival. His commitment to the francophonie, his humanity and his ability to make us think, laugh and cry touched an entire community.

    Denis was much more than a journalist. He was an ambassador for our culture and our rights. My thoughts are with his family. I am grateful to Denis for all that he did.

     Mr. Speaker, the leader of the NDP will get his $2.2-million pension while Canadians get the misery and the bill. The leader of the NDP continues to keep a prime minister in power who has doubled the cost of housing, doubled rent, and created record-high usage of food banks and record-high increases in child poverty.

     Why have we not had an election? It is because the leader of the NDP continues to keep the Prime Minister in power. He told Canadians he was ripping up the supply and confidence agreement, yet here we are again. Members do not need to take my word for it. I will quote the leader of the NDP. Here are his exact words: “The fact is, the Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people”.

     There is only one person responsible for keeping the Prime Minister in power despite the genuine suffering and misery of Canadians, and that is the leader of the NDP.

    Mr. Speaker, fall economic statements were introduced by Liberal finance minister Paul Martin in order to combat the deficit. Mr. Martin's legacy seems to have been tarnished by the new practices of this incompetent Liberal government. The $40‑billion deficit target seems to have been exceeded, and then some.

    The Parliamentary Budget Officer now forecasts a 2024-25 federal deficit of $46.4 billion, exceeding the already astronomical targets. Canadians are calling the government to account and demanding that it immediately reveal the true size of the deficit, whose consequences will be borne by future generations.

    A Conservative government will fix the budget by enacting a dollar-for-dollar law that requires all new spending be offset with an equal amount of savings. That is how Canadian families manage their finances and make it through to the end of the month. This is how a responsible Conservative government will fix the budget.

    Mr. Speaker, a tax cut for Canadians is exactly what this government is going forward with, beginning on December 14 and carrying through to February. We have heard from Canadians. We know the challenges they have been through in previous years. During the pandemic, we stood with Canadians, and into the modern day, we stand with them. I have stood with my constituents during this time.

     I know what this will mean for them, this lifting of the GST and HST off of the cost of groceries and off of the cost of a night out for a meal for a family of four. Members can imagine what that will do at a family restaurant and what that will do for the entrepreneurs of those restaurants. It is no surprise that restaurant owners across the country, including restaurant associations, are completely behind this measure. I also think about the young families looking forward to bringing a new little boy or girl into the household. Those car seats are expensive. I have personal experience with that. Lifting tax on that is going to go a long way.

    That is why we did it. We are going to continue to stand there for the people of this country.

     Mr. Speaker, I stand with all postal workers across Canada and in my riding of North Island—Powell River. Can members imagine being paid so little that they could not afford the very basics for living while their bosses were making hundreds of thousands of dollars every year? Why is it that management feels comfortable padding its pockets and then points the blame at those who strike? They are people brave enough to put themselves in a place where they are not getting paid, and they have now have lost their benefits. I say shame on them.

    I have stood on the picket line with some of these folks, and when I get home, I will join them again if they are still not able to do the jobs they desperately want to do. The Conservatives will never stand on the picket line, fighting alongside those brave union members, who have made this country better for every single Canadian with their actions. The Liberals need to stop interrupting the process and allow for fair negotiations.

    I thank the postal workers who are still collecting letters for Santa and delivering, in some cases without pay, cheques to the most vulnerable. I stand in solidarity with them.

    Mr. Speaker, today I want to highlight the 75th anniversary of Club Richelieu Verdun.

    In my riding, the people who volunteer on behalf of this club work hard to promote the francophonie and improve the lives of people in our community through a host of charitable activities, in keeping with the club's motto, which is “peace and fraternity”.

    Club members are tireless at holding fundraisers that squeeze the wealthy for all they are worth for the greater good of the young and the less fortunate. Examples include the club's past poker tournaments, silent auctions and dinners. Since 1949, the club has raised funds for a long list of causes like the Harmonie Richelieu Verdun choir, the Ancre des jeunes, Camp Richelieu St‑Côme, Petits Renards and Toujours ensemble, not to mention its support for the Société Saint-Vincent-de-Paul.

    While this may not ring a bell for my colleagues, its meaning rings loud and clear to the people of Verdun. We who live in the southwest are a tightly knit bunch, and that is a beautiful thing.

    Long live Club Richelieu Verdun.

    Mr. Speaker, common-sense Conservatives have one simple request for the Prime Minister, which is to please just stop: stop the tax hikes, especially the job-killing carbon tax; stop fuelling inflation by cutting inflationary spending and axing the sales tax on homes so homebuyers can save up to $50,000; stop adding debt by confirming that the deficit has not risen above the $40-billion guardrail promised by the Prime Minister.

    Never before has so much been spent to achieve so little. The Prime Minister has spent so much, he has added more debt than every other prime minister in Canadian history combined. Even former finance minister Bill Morneau agrees that inflationary spending has driven up the cost of everything.

     There is an old adage that once one has dug oneself into a hole, it is time to stop digging. It is time for a carbon tax election so common-sense Conservatives can axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.

    Mr. Speaker, we all know that, when the Conservatives hit the campaign trail, they talk a line of tax savings, but when it comes right down to it, what are their actions on the floor of the House? When it came time to give a tax break to Canada's middle class, they voted no.

     Let me pose a question. How would one define hypocrisy? The Conservatives all campaigned on giving a GST holiday in the last election, including the leader of the Conservative Party. When we brought forward a tax holiday on the GST, what did members of the Conservative Party do? They voted against tax relief for the holiday season. Talk about the leader being a grinch.

    At the end of the day, we cannot trust the Conservatives. If people want a tax break, they need to vote for the Liberal Party.

    Mr. Speaker, just before Christmas, under a blanket of snow, the minister is finally going to present her economic update. She will do so after this Prime Minister has doubled the national debt, adding more debt than all other previous prime ministers combined. He has doubled the cost of housing and created more bureaucracy, which prevents housing construction. He has doubled the number of people using food banks because of taxes on food.

    We are asking for just one thing: stop raising taxes, stop the inflationary spending and stop putting Canadians in debt.

    Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of our economic record, which we will present to the House next week, on December 16. We will be presenting our economic record. The inflation rate has remained within the Bank of Canada's target range for several months now. The Bank of Canada has cut its key interest rate four times in a row to date.

    That is our economic record, and we are very proud of it.

    Mr. Speaker, he is so proud of an update that his government wants to bury in the snow.

    We want the government to stop taxing people. Eliminating the GST on new homes would be one way to end the inflationary taxes that have driven up the cost of living.

    We also want the government to keep its promises. The minister said that the deficit would not exceed $40 billion. Will she keep that promise?

    Mr. Speaker, we know that housing is too expensive. That is why we eliminated the sales tax on new apartment complexes.

    Today, Canada is building housing faster than it ever has. We are building more homes than they did when the Conservative leader was the minister responsible for housing. We are seeing the results: Rents have come down this year in big cities like Montreal. The Conservative leader wants to bring back the tax on building rental properties. His plan would drive up the cost of housing.

    Mr. Speaker, after doubling the debt with inflationary spending, doubling the cost of housing with more bureaucracy that blocks building, doubling the number of people using food banks with carbon taxes on farmers and truckers who bring us our food, finally the Liberals are planning a fall update but will do it in the snow on December 16. Our message is “stop”: Stop the inflationary spending; stop the tax increases on food and homes; stop indebting Canadians. Will they please just stop?

    Mr. Speaker, on December 16, we will present our economic record in this chamber and we will talk about the fall economic statement. I anticipate that we are going to hear a lot about the economic record that we have amassed. One thing I anticipate we will hear about is what we have done with respect to child care. With respect to child care and the economic affordability model, we have brought it down to $10 a day in eight provinces. That has resulted in 110,000 women joining the workplace. What is that record? Eighty-five per cent of women are now participating in the workforce in Canada. That is a record high. That is what we stand behind on this side of the House.

     Mr. Speaker, what the Liberals have amassed is a lot of debt. In fact, they have doubled the debt. This Prime Minister has added more debt than all prior prime ministers combined, which has caused the worst inflation in 40 years, and is now rising as the debt is rising. The finance minister said that she had a guardrail for the deficit; it would not go beyond $40 billion. If the Liberals go up to $40 billion, that means they have hit the guardrail. If they go higher than $40 billion, they have gone through the guardrail. What is on the other side of a guardrail? It is a cliff. Is this minister leading us off a cliff?

    Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the spending that our government is doing. Let us talk about what observers are observing. Tiff Macklem, and I am pretty sure the Leader of the Opposition knows who that is, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, says, “We're no longer trying to get inflation down. Government spending is not pushing against us getting inflation down, we've got it down.” Let us talk about David Dodge, the former Bank of Canada governor, who was in place when that member was in cabinet. He said that “because it was obsessively focused on reducing the federal deficit over fiscal years 2011-12 through 2015-16, the Harper government unnecessarily contributed to a slower, rather more muted recovery....” We are not going to follow that playbook, because it did not work.

     Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of non-partisanship, we have put forward a motion inspired by the leader of the NDP. He has said that the Prime Minister is “weak”, greedy, “selfish and...beholden to corporate interests”. He has pointed out that the Prime Minister has violated the rights of workers. We took the NDP leader's words and put them in a motion that includes non-confidence.

    Will the Prime Minister allow the NDP leader a free vote so that he can vote non-confidence?

    That is stretching the limits of questions dealing with the administration of government, but I see that the hon. government House leader is on her feet.

    Mr. Speaker, one thing we know is that the Leader of the Opposition certainly does not allow any free votes for his members of Parliament. We also know that he does not allow them to speak for themselves. What we do know is that when they try to advocate for their communities, what does he say? “No, do not do that, because I do not think it is politically expedient for me.”

    He muzzles his own MPs, does not allow them to have free votes and keeps them from standing up for their communities.

    Mr. Speaker, Saint‑Maxime school has made the news with prayers in class, homophobic comments and students resisting sex education.

    The Government of Quebec has had enough of attacks on secularism. It is calling on Ottawa to repeal the religious exemption in the Criminal Code and wants to strengthen Bill 21 on secularism.

    In Ottawa, it is the exact opposite. The federal government is challenging Bill 21. It is waffling when it comes to the religious exemption. First it is going to get rid of it, and then it is not going to get rid of it. Ottawa is doing nothing at all to defend state secularism.

    When will the government stop undermining secularism in Quebec?

    Mr. Speaker, as our colleague likely knows, education falls under provincial jurisdiction.

    If he wants to talk about education and how to protect children in the Quebec school system, then he should talk to the Government of Quebec. The House of Commons is not really the proper forum for talking about such issues.

    Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a welcoming society that opens its arms to those who choose to integrate.

    Successful integration is dependent on everyone sharing values that unite us and bring us closer together, such as gender equality, separation of religion and state, French as a common language and the right to love whoever we want.

    Canadian multiculturalism preaches the opposite: no need to integrate, no need to adhere to any values, no need to change.

    Does the federal government realize that multiculturalism hinders the integration of new Quebeckers and our ability to live together in harmony in Quebec?

    Mr. Speaker, unity and connection are exactly what the Canadian federation encourages. That is why in Canada, including Quebec, we are proud to be part of a united country that defends the right and freedom of each and every person to do what they think is best for them.

    Once again, the Quebec government has jurisdiction over education. I invite our colleague to ask good questions not here, but at the Quebec National Assembly.

    Mr. Speaker, imagine this: a woman in her seventies has worked her whole life, raised her kids and done everything right. Now she is retired and her pension does not go far enough and she has to skip meals.

    The Prime Minister believes that someone earning $140,000 a year deserves a cheque of $250, but she does not. Why?

    Mr. Speaker, we are going to stand by our record of defending seniors. On multiple occasions in this chamber over the last nine years, we have done things like change the retirement age from 67, as proposed by the Harper Conservatives, back down to 65; made targeted investments to improve old age security for those over the age of 75; most recently, we have put in place a dental care plan for seniors that has had, despite assertions by the Conservatives that it does not even exist, two million people sign up and over one million people actually receive services for the first time in decades. That is a record of serving seniors, assisting seniors and meeting them where they are. We will stand by that record.

    Mr. Speaker, I want seniors to pay attention to the fact that the minister did not answer the question as to why they do not deserve cheques of $250.

    Imagine someone else, someone with a disability or someone unable to make ends meet. The Prime Minister does not think this person deserves a helping hand.

    Will the Prime Minister finally see the light and include these people on the list of recipients of his $250 cheque?

    Mr. Speaker, the measures that we, on this side of the House, are taking target poverty and people with disabilities.

    As far as people with disabilities are concerned, we have introduced a benefit specifically for them already. In the past few weeks, we made a change to the GST that impacts all Canadians.

    We are always going to fight poverty. The numbers show our success when it comes to the poverty rate. It was fairly high under the Conservatives, but dropped over the past nine years with us.

     Mr. Speaker, today, the NDP leader has a chance to prove he did not sell out Canadian workers for his own pension. He famously promised Canadians that he ripped up his coalition with the Liberals, saying they were “too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people”. Conservatives agree and Canadians want a carbon tax election.

    Will the Prime Minister allow the NDP leader to vote for his own words or did the PM whip the NDP vote to block a carbon tax election?

     I am afraid that question does not, again, meet the relevance of the administration of government. I do see the government House leader rising to answer.

    Colleagues, I will point out a couple of things. First, let us make sure that, when someone has the floor, no one else is taking the floor. Second, I would hate for us to repeat what went on on Friday.

    Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, there was actually no question for the government there. If the member opposite wants to talk about pensions, he could talk about the pension of the leader of the opposition, which, because he has been here for two decades, is estimated at being about $2 million. If he wants to talk about muzzling of members of Parliament, he should probably pose the question to the leader of his own party, who does not like MPs who do not ask the questions he wants them to ask. In fact, we see all of them around the outskirts of the Conservative area in the House of Commons.

     Mr. Speaker, it looks like the Prime Minister has lost control of everything, except his control over the NDP. According to the NDP leader's own words, “You're never going to count on us if you're going to take away the rights of the workers. Never.” We have seen that the Prime Minister has done just that, ordering binding arbitration.

    What has the Prime Minister promised to the NDP in exchange for their support for his failing government and his failed carbon tax?

     Again, that is not relevant to the administration of government. The Chair will have something to say about this at the end of question period. I do see that the hon. minister is rising; I do not know if he wants to respond.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Speaker: I see no minister rising.

    The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

     Mr. Speaker, every time there is a ruling about the government on this issue, there is an absolutely material question. The NDP members say one thing over and over again, and then come in and support the Liberals. What have the Liberals promised the NDP in favour of their support? After time and time again saying all of these things, they keep supporting the government.

    What has the government promised the NDP to avoid a carbon tax election?

     I am going to be offering a ruling at the end of question period. Perhaps I wish I could have done that earlier, but I see that the hon. minister is rising to her feet to answer.

    The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

     Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the member's question, which, as I think we all know, does not actually have to do with government business. However, the member opposite and in fact most of the Conservative caucus know a thing or two about saying one thing and doing the opposite. They have been talking about cutting taxes, but at the first opportunity to cut taxes for Canadians, they said no.

     Conservatives talk about standing up on behalf of their constituents, but when they try to do that, the Leader of the Opposition takes away their ability to pose questions in this place. If they do not repeat the slogans ad nauseam of the Leader of the Opposition, they are simply not allowed to speak. They are pretty good at saying one thing and doing another.

    Mr. Speaker, to be very clear, the leader of the NDP has gotten up and railed against the Liberals for the GST measures, for being against workers, for every possible thing. The NDP has said the government is incompetent. New Democrats have said they cannot vote for it, yet every time there is a confidence motion, New Democrats stand up and do what? They vote for the government, so it is the business of this place.

    How much is this costing Canadians? What has the administration promised the NDP to get its members to vote against their leader's own words?

     Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows something about railing against a leader, but one question she might want to ask the leader of her party is why he will not get a security clearance. I believe last week at committee we heard from another Conservative leadership contestant about alleged interference by India in the Conservative leadership race. However, the Leader of the Opposition refuses to get a security clearance to actually learn about what happened. He should put the security interests of Canadians ahead of his own personal interests.

    Mr. Speaker, on September 4, every Canadian saw the NDP leader put on a big show of tearing up the agreement with this Liberal government.

    He was really convincing at the time. He said that “the Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people.” That was true on September 4. However, we want to know if the Prime Minister will let the NDP leader vote for his own words.

    If, by some misfortune, the NDP leader votes against his own words, how much will it cost Canadians?

    The Chair is once again in an unenviable position, because this matter is not directly relevant to the administration of government, but I see that the minister is rising.

    The hon. Minister of Public Services and Procurement.

    Mr. Speaker, the question was indeed irrelevant, but here is one that is relevant. Why does the member not speak for himself? Why does he not speak for his constituents and for the other Conservative members from Quebec?

    The Conservative leader claims that the affordable housing being built in his riding and in other Conservative ridings does not exist. He says that housing projects do not exist, and yet several hundred affordable housing units are currently being built in the ridings of Conservative members.

    Mr. Speaker, the question was extremely simple. How much will it cost Canadians? No minister can answer that. None of them know how to count. However, they know how to spend a lot.

    The problem is that the NDP doubled down with that infamous statement. The NDP leader said, “the Liberal government will always cave to corporate greed, and always step in to make sure the unions have no power”. That is our motion, word for word.

    What does he think of a leader who could end up voting against his own words, this Prime Minister who never kept his budget deficit promise even though he predicted and told Canadians that we would have a balanced budget by 2019?

     Mr. Speaker, knowing how to count helps. One, two, three, four, five, six affordable housing units; that is all the Conservative leader built across the country during his entire career as minister responsible for housing.

    There are 8,000 affordable housing units being built right now in Quebec thanks to the $2-billion agreement we have with the Quebec government. Several hundred of those affordable housing units are in Conservative ridings.

    We have built 50,000 affordable housing units across the country in recent years.

    Mr. Speaker, the problems with the CARM app is yet another fiasco for the CBSA. The app, which took 14 years to develop and cost taxpayers $556 million, crashed 22 times in one month. We are talking about half a million dollars, which was a 50% cost overrun, not to mention the fact that the CBSA hid important documents from parliamentarians.

    Today, the Standing Committee on International Trade voted unanimously to ask the Auditor General to investigate this latest Liberal fiasco. Will the government support our audit request?

    Mr. Speaker, our colleague is well aware that the government does not give instructions to the Auditor General. We respect the freedom of committees to study what they want and to invite the Auditor General to look at issues that are important to Canadians.

    The CARM replaced a 36-year-old system that was likely to fail. We understand the concerns of businesses and the private sector. I have full confidence that we will be able to quickly address those concerns.

    Mr. Speaker, there is a real cost to the CBSA's fiasco with CARM. The cost to taxpayers is $556 million, but there is a cost to business people as well. Their imports are stuck at the border. They have to cope with billing mistakes, automatic withdrawals made twice and endless delays. There is no client service when CARM crashes. It takes weeks for the CBSA to fix these mistakes.

    What is the government doing to stop making businesses pay for its fiasco?

    Mr. Speaker, again, we obviously share our colleague's concerns.

    We want to support Canadian businesses and ensure that their payments are accurate and efficient. We want to avoid extra costs for these businesses. That was the point of modernizing this technology, a process, I would remind my colleagues, that began in 2010. It is not just one government that made the decision to take on this modernization. Two governments decided to improve a system not only in terms of ease of access, but also of duties that have to be paid.

    We will address all these issues.

    Mr. Speaker, the fiasco with the CARM app is not a first for the Canada Border Services Agency. The CBSA was also responsible for the ArriveCAN app, which was supposed to cost $80,000 and ended up costing $60 million. Clearly, there is a fundamental problem at CBSA when it comes to being transparent, tracking expenses and staying on budget.

    The Bloc Québécois and the Standing Committee on International Trade have asked the Auditor General to investigate. The government cannot afford to wait for another fiasco before taking action. Will it put the CBSA under administrative supervision?

    Mr. Speaker, here in the House, we have repeatedly talked about the how important the work of our border services officers is. They keep our country safe, process immigration cases when necessary and prevent drugs like fentanyl from crossing our borders. CBSA officers do important work for our country every day. We have full confidence in that work.

    We are going to invest more to support their important work. That is exactly what we are going to do.

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader continues to hold the country hostage, playing political hokey-pokey to secure his pension by February. First, he put himself in a coalition agreement with the Liberals, and then he took himself out, ripping up the agreement while shaking his fist all about. Now he has put himself back in, taping the agreement together and turning himself around after saying he would vote no confidence.

    What deal did the Prime Minister make with the leader of the NDP to secure his vote of confidence, and how much will it cost Canadians?

    Some hon. member: Oh, oh!

     In the opinion of the Chair, this question is pertinent to the administration of government.

    The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

     Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the Conservative members of Parliament, all they do is say one thing and do another. They are pretending to support workers' rights when, in reality, it is the Leader of the Opposition who brought forward some of the most draconian anti-worker legislation in this country's history.

    We are going to continue to stand up for workers right across this country. It is a record we are proud of. It is not something that Conservatives can say they have ever done.

    Mr. Speaker, words matter. The leader of the NDP said he ripped up his supply and confidence agreement with the Liberals, saying the Liberals are “too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people”. Speaking to poor workers, before the Liberals violated their right to strike, he said, “If there is any vote in Parliament that in any way impacts your rights...I can tell you right now, we'll vote no. Whether that vote is a confidence vote or not”.

    What deal did the Prime Minister make with the leader of the NDP to secure his vote of confidence, and how much will it cost Canadians?

     Mr. Speaker, Bill C-377 and Bill C-525 will go down in history as some of the most oppressively anti-labour legislation ever passed in Parliament. One of the very first acts of this government was to repeal both of those pieces of legislation. The author of those pieces of legislation was none other than the Leader of the Opposition, its chief architect and chief salesman. He is the most anti-worker leader ever elected to the House of Commons.

    Mr. Speaker, the NDP leader said that he tore up the agreement with the Liberals last fall. The NDP leader said the Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests. The NDP leader also said that the Liberal government will always give in to corporate greed at the expense of workers.

    With that in mind, will the Prime Minister allow the NDP leader to vote for his own words, or will the Liberal government pressure the NDP caucus to vote against the NDP leader's words?

    Once again, I am not sure the question has anything to do with government business, but I see that the Minister of Labour and Seniors is rising to answer.

    Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑377 and Bill C‑525, some of the most anti-labour legislation in western history, passed in a previous Parliament. The spokesperson and main architect of those bills was none other than the current Leader of the Opposition. That makes him the most anti-union leader in Canadian history.

    I invite that member to explain his position.

    Mr. Speaker, Women's Shelters Canada says that the housing shortage is trapping people in abusive circumstances, especially in cities where rent is skyrocketing. In Saskatchewan, victims are fleeing to rural areas with cheaper rents but with fewer social supports and public resources, and shelters in the greater Toronto area are overwhelmed because rents are out of reach. Liberals have let people down. Survivors need affordable housing to seek safety from abusers now.

    When will the minister deliver affordable rent-geared-to-income housing to save lives?

     Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right. We do need more affordable housing in Canada. We do need more shelters in Canada, and that is why the federal government put forward the national housing strategy, which is doing just that.

    The member began her question by pointing to vulnerable women, and I sympathize. In my own community and communities across the country, it remains not just a challenge but a crisis, and that is why the housing strategy that I mentioned just now has placed a focus on ensuring women who have experienced domestic violence are housed. The rapid housing initiative is doing the same thing.

    We have more to do, and we will do that work in partnership with any interested party. I know the Conservatives will not be there.

     Mr. Speaker, families in Nanaimo—Ladysmith are trying to get by, but times are tough, with more and more people relying on food banks.

     Loaves and Fishes and its many volunteers have gone above and beyond, but they require funding to expand and meet the growing need. Despite ample attempts, the Liberals have not delivered.

    I will ask again, will the government finally provide Loaves and Fishes with the funding required so people on Vancouver Island are not left to go hungry?

     Mr. Speaker, I often take the opportunity to meet with volunteers at food banks in my community here in Ottawa and across the country. What I hear about consistently is what a difference the Canada child benefit has made for families who are relying on a food bank for service. The Canada child benefit provides monthly support for families, up to $7,800 a year per child. This is timely support that we know the Conservatives would oppose.

    Mr. Speaker, the government is introducing a two-month tax break for all Canadians. After all their talk about cutting taxes, one would expect the Conservatives to walk the walk and support this measure, but they voted against it.

    Can the Minister of Small Business speak more about what the government is doing to make life better and safer for Canadians and businesses?

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are all talk and no action.

     Starting December 14, Canadians will get a GST holiday. The Conservatives talk about axing the tax, but they voted against removing the GST from groceries and family essentials. They say they will build the homes but vow to cut the housing accelerator fund, which is helping build hundreds and thousands of homes right across the country. They say they will stop the crime, but they vote against our gun control measures.

     As Canadians can see, the Conservatives are the ones putting a stop to the measures that are helping Canadians and small businesses.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP government created a fall fiscal fiasco as it failed to table its fall economic statement. After nine years of inflationary deficits, adding more debt than every government before it combined, it has a lot to hide. Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer said this feudal finance minister blew through her own fiscal guardrail of her $40-billion deficit.

     Why does the government not just stop the economic arson, stop the tax hikes, stop the inflationary deficits, stop adding to the debt and call a carbon tax election now?

    Mr. Speaker, we know the only thing the Conservatives are serving up for Christmas dinner is stale slogans. They have been trying to change the channel.

     The Bank of Canada governor said at a Senate committee recently that government spending is not pushing against us getting inflation down. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently said the current fiscal policy in Canada is sustainable. He also said we could spend up to 1.5% more of GDP.

     What is appalling is that the Conservative Party of Canada will not step up to support a tax break with their obsession about tax cuts.

     Mr. Speaker, while the Liberals brag about turning temporary two-month tax tricks, like taking dimes off Doritos, common-sense Conservatives will axe the tax for good because the Liberal carbon tax scam is driving more than two million Canadians to a food bank in a single month and one in four to skip meals.

     If the Liberals are so sure about quadrupling their carbon tax scam, why do they not just stop breaking the country further and call a carbon tax election now, so Canadians can choose between more tax tricks or a common-sense Conservative government that will bring home lower prices and powerful paycheques?

    Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives want to talk about tax tricks, but what I think is interesting is tricking Canadians into thinking the Conservatives are actually serious about cutting taxes for Canadians. At the first opportunity they get to stand up in the House and support Canadians who they well know have been struggling through an inflationary period, the Conservatives will not. They stand up against it. They oppose the very tax cuts they campaigned on.

     A GST holiday for Canadians on essentials over the next two months is a good thing. I do not know how the Conservatives can deny the support that Canadians deserve.

     Mr. Speaker, last year the finance minister said the deficit would be less than $40.1 billion, and now Parliament is still waiting for the public accounts to confirm whether the minister kept that promise. Can the minister spare us the suspense and tell us what the deficit was for last year?

    Mr. Speaker, our government has stuck to our fiscal guardrails and that is exactly why inflation has come down for 11 months in a row. It has been within the Bank of Canada's target range for 11 months in a row. We were the first in the G7 to cut interest rates and we have had four consecutive rate cuts. We are looking forward to this Wednesday when the Bank of Canada will have another meeting. We are looking forward to its announcement.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     Colleagues, especially the hon. member for Abbotsford, please do not speak unless recognized by the Speaker.

     The hon. member for Simcoe North.

    Mr. Speaker, what is the point of making promises that the Liberals do not intend or try to even keep? In 2020, the finance minister said that when the need for stimulus was over, it would be withdrawn. The Liberals did not withdraw it. Then it was that the debt-to-GDP ratio would continue to go down, except one year later, it went up. Then she said the deficit would be less than $40.1 billion, and lo and behold, we find out she broke that promise too. When will someone at least admit these folks are committing economic vandalism and tell us what the deficit is, or are they just worried it is going to shred all the credibility she has left?

    Mr. Speaker, our government will stack up and compare our record to the Conservatives' and run on that any day of the week and twice on Sundays—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order. I am going to ask hon. members to please not have conversations, especially over those who are using devices to be able to listen to the proceedings of the House.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary, from the top, please.

    Mr. Speaker, our government will stack up and run on our record, our fiscal and economic record, against the Conservatives' any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I am happy—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

     Colleagues, the more time the Speaker has to spend on his feet, the fewer questions we have to get through in question period.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary.

    Mr. Speaker, we have an AAA credit rating, the lowest deficit and the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio. We have seen that Stats Canada has revised the forecast for Canada for the last three years up, which is significant. We are also rated by the IMF to have the strongest GDP growth in the G7. I think that economic record stands for itself.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Order please.

    The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

    Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been sounding the alarm since the safe third country agreement was renegotiated in 2023.

    There is a loophole that enables people who cross the border illegally to claim asylum after hiding for 14 days. On Friday, a CBSA report obtained by the media confirmed that, just between April and September 2023, nearly 2,000 people took advantage of that loophole and claimed asylum. According to the CBSA, the exact figures are almost certainly higher than that.

    Will the government finally take action to close this 14-day loophole?

    Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly, my colleague wants me to take immediate action here, on the floor of the House of Commons, without informing the United States.

    Of course, we are concerned about border security. We will continue to strengthen and guarantee border security.

    I hope the Bloc Québécois will support the reforms to the asylum system that we will be proposing in the near future, because the last time we proposed such reforms in May, the Bloc Québécois refused to support them and even said no, despite the Government of Quebec's pleas.

    The Bloc members need to be more consistent.

    Mr. Speaker, it is basically the minister's job to answer questions. This is question period.

    The government has known for over a year that the 14-day loophole is being exploited. The Liberals have known for over a year that thousands of people are crossing the border illegally to seek asylum. They have known for over a year that criminal smugglers are abusing vulnerable people for as much as $45,000. They have done nothing, and it is inexcusable. It is inhumane.

    Why did it take Donald Trump's threats for this government to take action against illegal immigration and organized crime, when it has known about it for a year?

    Mr. Speaker, the member seems to be forgetting recent history, and specifically the renewed visa requirements for Mexican nationals. The Bloc Québécois itself claimed victory on this issue. We have been tightening up the immigration system for the past year, and the fact is, it is working.

    It is important to note that, since November, the number of border crossers being intercepted at the north-south border has hit an all-time low. We will continue this important work to ensure our border is secure.

     Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's failure to table a timely fall economic statement goes to the core incompetency of the government. Canadians need a government to axe the carbon tax, build more homes by exempting the GST from new home construction and fix the budget by getting spending under control. Canadians are tired of waiting.

    Can the finance minister confirm whether she will keep her promise that the deficit will not exceed her $40-billion fiscal guardrail? Yes or no, please.

     Mr. Speaker, it is great to learn today that our government will announce the fall economic statement. It will be tabled on December 16, which is good news.

    What is interesting is that when the Conservatives say “fix the budget”, what they really mean to say, and what Canadians should hear as translated, is “cut programs and services Canadians rely on”. Whether it is dental care, pharmacare or early childhood education, any of the signature programs that have supported Canadians through this inflationary crisis, Conservatives are going to cut all of them.

     Mr. Speaker, it is nearly Christmas and we are still waiting for the fall economic statement and the public accounts, both of which should have been tabled in October. That is just basic management.

    Canadians need to know how much debt the government is piling on. If the government cannot even manage the basics, like giving Canadians the straight facts about the public's finances, will it call an immediate election so Canadians can elect a government that will?

    Mr. Speaker, I have been here for five years, thank God, for the people of Whitby. I have never seen the level of obstruction in the House that I have seen over the last 40-something days, when the Conservatives have continued to filibuster and block every aspect of parliamentary functioning and work. Are they standing up complaining that the fall economic statement is just a bit too late for them? Well, you have done it to yourself.

     I remind all members to make sure they pass all comments through the Chair.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Speaker: Order, please.

    The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

    Mr. Speaker, stopping tax hikes, the debt, inflation and bureaucracy seems to have no meaning for the “Liberal Bloc”. To common-sense Conservatives, all of it is essential.

    Our vision is to manage carefully and leave money in Quebeckers' pockets. The Bloc Québécois voted twice against a non-confidence motion to keep this government in power when this same government shows us how incompetent it is every day.

    When will there be an election so that Quebeckers can take home bigger paycheques?

    Mr. Speaker, our colleague talks about common sense.

    I want to talk about their nonsense. In her own riding, 100 affordable housing units are being built on Guillaume‑Couture Boulevard with the Lévis municipal housing office, the City of Lévis and Mayor Lehouillier, as well as Minister Drainville, from the Government of Quebec. They are very proud of these 100 housing units. However, she is allowing her Conservative leader to claim that these housing units do not exist and that he wants to stop the construction, to boot.

     Mr. Speaker, the government has introduced a GST tax break during the holiday season that will help Canadians keep more money in their pockets, especially families with young children who need it most. Meanwhile, the Conservative leader and his party voted against this holiday tax break, all while they keep preaching in favour of tax cuts and helping Canadians.

    Can the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion please tell us what the federal government is doing to support hard-working Canadians during the Christmas season?

    Mr. Speaker, it is indeed ironic that the Conservative leader, who loves to talk about cutting taxes, was quick to vote against the very tax cut that would put real money back in the pockets of Canadians. We have already cut taxes for the middle class and small businesses. Now, with this GST cut, we are giving even more support for families. It is too bad that the Conservatives are only allowed to serve the needs of their leader rather than their own constituents.

     Our government will continue to focus on what matters, and that is delivering for Canadians.

    Mr. Speaker, everyone is reaching the same conclusion. For the past nine years, this Liberal government has wasted money and saddled Canadians with more debt. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois has voted to keep the government in power on two occasions. I know that Quebeckers deserve better.

    This minority government is once again proving that it has lost control of finances by tabling its economic update on the eve of a House break.

    Does the most wasteful government in history have another deficit in store for us as a Christmas present?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    Before I yield the floor to the hon. minister, I remind all members not to speak unless they are recognized by the Speaker.

    The hon. Minister of Innovation.

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his question.

    I know it is Christmas. Conservatives love fairy tales and slogans, but the reality is that even the member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, for whom I have a great deal of respect, knows that we have attracted record investments. In 2023, Canada was the third largest recipient of foreign investment in the world. We are investing in Canadians. We are investing in industry. We are investing in Canadian workers.

    We should be celebrating the investments being made in Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, Harshandeep Singh was just 20 years old when he came to Canada to build a better life. He got a job, like many other students, as a security guard in Edmonton. Just three days after starting his job, he was murdered on the job. Our heartfelt condolences go out to his family and friends at this very difficult time. However, his killer was a violent criminal with past police interactions and a potentially long criminal history.

     The government changed the laws to make it easier for repeat violent offenders to roam free in our communities. When will it take the safety of our communities seriously?

     Mr. Speaker, I, like every member of Parliament, am very troubled by that story about that young man losing his life so cavalierly. Our condolences go out to his family and to his entire community.

     With respect to keeping Canadians safe is this, we are working on multiple fronts. Part of that deals with gun control, and that is assault weapons and handguns. Another part of it is the bail reform, which we implemented at the behest of the provinces. If there is more that needs to be done under the Criminal Code, we are open to that. However, we are also keen on seeing in the province of Alberta and other provinces investments being made in courtroom spaces, in police officers, in JPs and in Crown attorneys, so we can all do the work we need to keep Canadians safe.

    Mr. Speaker, violent gun crime has gone up over 100% since the Liberals have been in power. In one year, 256 Canadians were murdered by somebody who was out on bail or out on some type of condition.

     Harshandeep Singh's murder and many others cannot be accepted as just unfortunate unavoidable incidents. It is a serious systemic failure when the government allows violent criminals with long criminal records to roam freely in our communities.

     When will the NDP-Liberals stop this madness and prioritize the safety of Canadians? If they will not do it, we are ready.

    Mr. Speaker, the safety of Canadians is all of our responsibility. The tool that we have in this chamber is the Criminal Code of Canada. The tool that the provinces have is implementing the administration of criminal justice in their localities.

     What does that mean? That means hiring police officers. It means hiring Crowns to argue about bail cases. It means ensuring JPs have the training to apply the law. It means ensuring that there are detention facilities to house people who are being denied bail. These are critical facets that need to be invested in.

     We are doing the work we need to on the Criminal Code, and we will continue to do so. What we expect is co-operation from the provinces.

     Mr. Speaker, countries and businesses around the world are heavily investing in artificial intelligence. The benefits of this cutting-edge technology are already growing, finding efficiencies and spurring innovation. It is imperative that we secure the Canadian advantage.

    Could the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry update the House on how he is making sure that Canada leads the global shift to AI and that our workers, like the many AI companies in my hometown of Richmond, are the ones benefiting from the jobs and growth that come along with it?

    Mr. Speaker, AI is, in fact, the defining technology of our time. It is going to have an impact on every industry and every sector of the economy, and it is going to help with productivity.

    Just last week, we announced our Canadian sovereign AI compute strategy to help build more data centres in Canada, to build essential infrastructure and to make sure that small and medium-sized businesses can access compute capacity.

    We are going to work on this side of the House to make sure that we continue to be a leader in AI, and responsible AI, attracting investment and talent. Let us celebrate Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, with help from the Liberals and private investors, the Norgate apartments purchase has gone through. It is the biggest housing purchase in Quebec this year. Given the raging housing crisis, this news has a lot of people worried, because the Liberal government has turned its back on them.

    Montrealers cannot afford the rents they are paying now. Instead of lining the pockets of private investors, the Liberals could have ensured that those apartments remained truly affordable.

    Why put the interests of private investors ahead of the interests of Montrealers?

    Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It gives me the opportunity to tell him, in case he does not know already, that we just announced, precisely in my riding, that 720 housing units would be saved and taken off the market.

    One of the challenges we face is not only to build affordable and social housing, but also to ensure the long-term sustainability of affordable housing and to take thousands of units off the market.

    That is exactly what we are going to do.

     Mr. Speaker, the Canada Council for the Arts has not only had its funding cut in recent years, but significant inequities remain, leaving communities like mine dramatically underfunded.

     Today, MPs from four parties in the House have co-signed a letter again bringing this to the attention of the minister and calling for action.

    Will the Minister of Canadian Heritage commit to working with all interested MPs to restore federal arts funding and ensure all communities get their fair share?

     Mr. Speaker, whether it is funding for the Fringe Festival in Vancouver or the Mermaid Theatre in Kings—Hants, our government will always be there to support the arts. I want to assure the member that we will work with him and any members who are interested in ensuring long-term sustainable funding for the cultural sector in our country.

     This afternoon, I will be meeting with the CEO of the Canada Council for the Arts. We will take this conversation up as well.

    Unlike Conservatives who believe that arts are only an elite topic, our party, and on this side of the House, believes that arts are the soul of the nation, and we will be there to support artists and the culture sector at every turn.

    I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Ms. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, a joint recipient of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

     It being 3:16 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Carleton related to the Business of Supply.

    Call in the members.

    Before the taking of the vote:

    Before the House proceeds to the taking of this deferred recorded division, I wish to remind hon. members of the following passage from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 587 under the heading “Decorum During the Taking of a Vote”: “from the time the Speaker begins to put the question until the results of the vote are announced” members are not “to enter, walk out of or across the House”, nor may they “make any noise or disturbance.”

    I am sure that hon. members will follow this instruction to ensure that our work proceeds in an orderly manner.

    The question is on the motion.

    Shall I dispense?

     Some hon. members: No.

    [Chair read text of motion to House ]