House of Commons Hansard #44 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was multiculturalism.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act Second reading of Bill C-245. The bill seeks to exclude Quebec from Canadian multiculturalism so Quebec can apply its own integration model. The Bloc Québécois argues multiculturalism has never worked for Quebec, which is a distinct nation. Liberals and Conservatives oppose, stating the Act already recognizes that reality, promotes inclusion, and is complementary to Quebec's model, celebrating Canada's diversity and equal opportunities for all. 8100 words, 1 hour.
Citizenship Act Report stage of Bill C-3. The bill amends the Citizenship Act to restore citizenship to individuals who lost status due to a 2009 limit and establish a framework for citizenship by descent. While the government proposes a cumulative 1,095-day physical presence for parents, Conservatives and Bloc Québécois advocate for additional amendments. These include requiring the 1,095 days within a five-year period, language proficiency, a knowledge test, and security assessments, arguing this ensures a substantial connection to Canada and prevents "Canadians of convenience." Liberals view these amendments as undermining the bill's intent and potentially creating new injustices. 18400 words, 2 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics Members debate the third report of the Ethics Committee, which proposes a review of the Conflict of Interest Act to enhance transparency and prevent conflicts. Conservatives and Bloc members highlight concerns over the Prime Minister's alleged "unprecedented extent of corporate and shareholding interests", the effectiveness of "blind trusts", and the regulation of "tax havens". Liberals question the timing, accusing the opposition of "character assassination" and delaying other legislation, while the opposition asserts the review is legally required for "restoring public confidence" in institutions. 23600 words, 3 hours.
Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the amendment.
If a member participating in person wishes that the amendment be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Access to Information, Privacy and EthicsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Tuesday, October 28, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of citizens of Saskatoon West, particularly residents of Fairhaven, Meadowgreen, Parkridge and Confederation in Saskatoon who have faced significant challenges with crime.
Violent crime was up 10% in 2024, with an increase in assault, murders and robberies. Saskatoon has had 14 homicides in 2024, an almost 15% increase over the number in 2023. Saskatoon residents feel unsafe in their houses and on the streets.
The undersigned petitioners call for the government to do the following: one, reform the catch-and-release bail system to prevent dangerous repeat violent offenders from serving their sentences in the community; two, establish new indictable offences, reporting obligations and limitations on weapons possession for previous offenders who break conditions; and three, pass legislation in which an accused charged more than twice with certain indictable offences must be detained in custody while subject to summons, appearance notice or release order.
I stand with the residents of Saskatoon West.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to table a petition on a very sombre subject, which is the ongoing youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment is approaching 15%. More than 460,000 young people aged 15 to 24 are out of work.
The petitioners highlight that youth unemployment is alarmingly high across Canada. They note that the current situation leaves many Canadians in these critical formative years unable to secure stable, full-time employment, despite having education and the skills and being ready to work. They also highlight that training and skill development programs have not kept pace with the realities of Canada's labour market, and that many young people are left without the skills that align with what employers are looking for. The petitioners raise concerns as well about how immigration policy is impacting the youth unemployment crisis, and how immigration policies have not been well aligned with our labour market needs. Further, the rising cost of living makes it harder for young people to afford housing near or where available jobs are and for businesses to attract and retain employees.
Persistent youth unemployment weakens Canada's economy and social well-being. The petitioners want the Government of Canada to do what Conservatives have already done, which is to present a clear plan to reduce youth unemployment developed in consultation with young Canadians, employers and educators. Conservatives have already done that through the Conservative youth jobs plan. They want to see the government develop a plan and report to Parliament on progress towards job creation, training alignment and youth labour market participation.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, the next petition I would like to table highlights and raises concern about human rights abuses in North Korea.
The petitioners identify a number of aspects of this worsening human rights situation: the prioritization of food distribution to those considered useful to the existing regime; the vast security apparatus that suppresses dissent through coercion, surveillance, fear and punishment; the public executions; and the state-sponsored abductions of citizens of other nations. The petitioners further draw attention to human rights abuses involved in the rendition of North Korean refugees from the People's Republic of China, despite the human rights abuses they are subject to.
The petitioners call on the House to take action on this. They want to see the government table regular reports in the House on the human rights situation in North Korea, including to highlight a number of prison camps, like Kwan-li-so and Kyo-hwa-so, which they would like us to pay particular attention to.
The petitioners want the government to advocate for North Korean defectors and refugees so their rights are protected and so they are allowed safe passage to South Korea, where they will be able to live and be recognized as citizens. They want us to promote human rights in North Korea and engage internationally and work collaboratively with other countries and bodies to promote political freedoms for the people of North Korea.
I commend this petition to members for their consideration.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, if members want more petitions, please ask, but the final petition I will table this evening deals with the issue of euthanasia.
The petitioners are concerned in particular about the adverse effects of the current euthanasia regime on people with disabilities. They note that allowing so-called medical assistance in dying for those with disabilities or chronic illness devalues their lives, tacitly endorsing the notion that life with disability is optional and by extension dispensable.
The petitioners highlight concerns about how offering euthanasia as a “solution” for disability or chronic illness reduces incentives to improve the treatment and care of people with those conditions. The petitioners say that Canadians do not want an ableist health care system where the lives of those with disabilities are seen as not worth living.
The petitioners propose, in this case, that the government protect all Canadians whose natural death is not reasonably foreseeable by prohibiting euthanasia for those whose prognosis for natural death is more than six months.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025), as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I first want to talk about what Canadian citizenship is. It is not merely a piece of paper or a legal status; it is a solemn promise. It is a bond of belonging that unites generations who built this country through hard work, sacrifice and shared purpose, a shared purpose that has been eroding under the divisive rhetoric of the Liberal government over the last decade.
Canadian citizenship is one of the most precious in the world. It carries with it not just rights but also profound responsibilities to our history, our institutions and our communities, and to one another. For generations, people around the world looked to Canada as a model of how to build a nation rooted in fairness, freedom, democracy and the rule of law, things that have come under attack since the Liberals took power a decade ago. People around the world admired not only our prosperity but also our values, and they aspired to join the Canadian family.
Citizenship must mean something. It must be earned and respected, and it must never be cheapened by Liberal ideology. A decade of Liberal neglect and mismanagement has weakened the value of citizenship in the eyes of many Canadians. It is not because of immigrants and newcomers who come here in good faith to work, contribute and build a better life, but because of a Liberal government that has turned our immigration system into a chaotic, unfair and unsustainable mess. Hard-working, law-abiding immigrants who are pursuing the Canadian dream are not to blame. The blame lies with the Liberals who broke our cherished system.
Bill C-3, in the form in which it was introduced by the Liberals in the spring, goes too far and abandons a core principle that Conservatives put in place: the first-generation limit. That safeguard was implemented for one simple reason: to stop the spread of Canadians of convenience, to stop citizenship from being passed down indefinitely to people who have never lived here, never contributed here or never built any connection to Canada whatsoever.
However, the Liberals do not seem care. Their initial Bill C-3 would abolish that intended safeguard and then recklessly replace it with a hollow substantial connection test that would amount to little more than a box-checking exercise. This Liberal loophole would create an open-ended system that would allow individuals who have never lived here, and whose parents may have visited only briefly decades ago, to automatically acquire citizenship.
A parent who has spent a mere 1,095 non-consecutive days, without even passing a criminal background check, could confer citizenship on a child who has never set foot in this country. Think about that. That is not nation-building; that is legislating the devaluation of our heritage and what it means to be a Canadian citizen. It would set a dangerous precedent that would undermine the integrity of our national identity and our reputation in the world.
Conservatives support restoring citizenship to lost Canadians but will not stand idly by while the Liberals take advantage of the situation to further their ideological agenda.
Hard-working immigrants who come to Canada today spend years building their lives here. Those who come through the proper channels must meet strict residency requirements, learn our language, study our history, pass a test, obey the law and prove their loyalty and commitment to this country. They do what it takes to earn their place in the Canadian family, including people in my beautiful riding of Richmond Hill South, where most people were born outside Canada but have earned their citizenship and cherish being Canadian every single day.
The Liberal Bill C-3, without the Conservative amendments adopted in committee, would create a two-tier system, one tier in which foreign-born individuals who have never lived here could receive all the rights of citizenship simply because of ancestry and bloodlines, and another in which those who obeyed the rules, contributed to our society and paid their taxes and their dues have to wait long in line under a back-logged immigration system that was broken by the Liberals.
That is unfair to newcomers who play by the rules and are working hard to meet the requirements, as well as to taxpayers who sustain our public services. It would strain the very systems communities rely on, from health care to housing, pensions or consular services, by conferring citizenship on people with no connection and no contribution. Our public services would face new pressures, compounding those caused by existing Liberal mismanagement.
Citizenship must never become a passport of convenience. It must remain a bond of loyalty, or else faith in our system and once-great institutions will continue to erode. When citizenship loses its meaning, so does the sense of shared nationhood that sustains our democracy.
Conservatives did not merely criticize. We worked hard when the Liberals were asleep at the wheel while trying to ram through Bill C-3. At committee, we fought tooth and nail and secured common-sense amendments to restore some fairness and integrity to the deeply flawed Liberal bill. Our common-sense Conservative changes require that anyone seeking citizenship by descent or adoption meets the same core expectations as those who earn citizenship through naturalization for elements such as residency, language, knowledge and security screening.
Conservatives strengthened the residency requirements for citizenship by descent or by adoption by now requiring that a parent has been physically present for at least 1,095 days within any five-year period before the child's birth or adoption. This tightened up the previously much looser requirements.
Next, Conservatives strengthened the language and knowledge requirements so that persons aged 18 to 54 must have adequate knowledge in at least one official language, including a demonstration of adequate knowledge of Canada and the responsibilities and privileges associated with citizenship. This is important, as we know that the Liberals have been busy erasing Canada's heritage at every opportunity over the last decade. Remember how they removed a prized Canadian icon, Terry Fox, from our passports?
Lastly, Conservatives strengthened the security screening so that citizens by descent or adoption must undergo a security assessment. This is important, as we know that the Liberals have let countless convicted criminals into our country under their watch.
As many as 17,600 foreign immigration applicants with prior criminal convictions were approved in the past 11 years and the Liberals let them in. These changes ensure equal treatment, equal responsibility and equal respect for the value of citizenship, principles that the Liberals have little regard for.
Conservatives also required reporting and transparency so that Parliament, and therefore Canadians, will know how many citizenships are granted, at what times, under what circumstances and with what exemptions. Accountability is not an obstacle to compassion. It is a safeguard for our democracy. These amendments honour lost Canadians while protecting the value of our prized citizenship.
The heart of citizenship is belonging, not on paper but in spirit, identity and duty. Our country is more than its borders. It is a shared story, a shared responsibility and a shared destiny. When citizenship is diluted, national identity and our sense of pride erodes. When standards disappear, our trust in one another and in institutions collapses. When Parliament treats citizenship carelessly, Canadians lose faith that their country is something worth sacrificing for. Of course, the Liberals demand that Canadians of all generations continue to sacrifice for their Liberal failures.
I know that Halloween is around the corner, but the Liberals seem keen to hand out passports like candy on Halloween night. Canadians will not be tricked. Standing up against handing out automatic citizenships like participation trophies is not about exclusion. It is about fairness, coherence and pride.
Canadians, including millions of law-abiding immigrants and newcomers who aspire to become permanent residents and citizens, want a system rooted in rules, responsibility and reciprocity. It is not xenophobia. It is nationhood.
Today, the Liberal government has a choice. It can stand by its public commitments to accept constructive amendments and respect the integrity of citizenship, or it can bow to the NDP and undo the common-sense work achieved at committee. If it chooses the latter, it will do more than weaken a bill. It will weaken the value of Canadian citizenship itself.
The House must send this message to Canadians and to the world: We cherish our citizenship, and we will safeguard it. We will not hand it out without connection, contribution and commitment. Let us honour those lost Canadians without creating a future of mistrust.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, there was a report that came out when Stephen Harper was in government.
A committee, during the time of the Harper government, made a recommendation beginning, “Background checks are only appropriate for candidates seeking a grant of citizenship as opposed to those for whom citizenship is a birthright.”
I am wondering if the hon. member would say that—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The hon. member for Richmond Hill South has time for a very brief answer.
Vincent Ho Conservative Richmond Hill South, ON
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do not believe in two-tier citizenship. We believe all people applying to become a citizen should be treated equally. That includes things such as a security assessment, language—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
The member will have a full four and a half minutes for questions and comments when the House next takes up this matter.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to try to get a more expansive answer on a question I asked in question period a couple of weeks ago. I asked the member from northern Saskatchewan about the spike in food bank usage in Saskatchewan, where 35% of children are food insecure and over 30% of households are food insecure. I found the answer the member gave me lacking. He went on some rant about nothing that was even close to the question I asked about food banks.
Since I asked that question, new numbers have come out. For the first time, there have been over four million visits to food banks in Toronto. The numbers are quite staggering. I will read some into the record. Canada food inflation is nearly double the Bank of Canada targets and food prices have been rising 40% faster in Canada than in the U.S.A. Quite often, our friends across the way want to make this a global issue, but the food price increases are hitting Canada particularly harder than many of our G7 partner countries.
The question is, what is happening in Canada that is not happening in other parts of the world? Conservatives have asked this question time and time again, and the member for Whitby went on a rant about there being no hidden food taxes, but that could not be further from the truth. Some of the policies the Liberals have implemented over the last 10 years have led to so many Canadians being food insecure.
Nearly one in five food bank clients are employed but still cannot make ends meet. Ten years ago, that was not the case. Those who had jobs in Canada were able to put food on the table for their families. That is not the case anymore. The HungerCount food report that just came out says, “It took decades to reach one million visits in a month, and it has now taken half a decade to double that.”
We hear a lot from those on the other side, but one thing they trot out as their showpiece is the school lunch program. One thing I cannot figure out is, after 10 years, why the Liberals are proud that they are handing out food stamps. That is not an endorsement of their policies. That is an indictment of them. Parents want to be able to feed their own children. What the Liberal government has done under Justin Trudeau and now the current Prime Minister is strip that ability away.
Canadians now pay more in taxes than they do in food, clothing and shelter for their families. That is what the Liberal government has done with its reckless spending and continued increases in taxes on Canadians. They still stand to say they took 22 million Canadians off the tax rolls. Yes, that saved them nine dollars a month. The fact that parents now drive past the grocery store to go to the food bank is an indictment on how bad the Liberal government has handled the finances of our country over the past 10 years. Inflation continues to spiral out of control, and food prices continue to go up.
Do the Liberals realize that having a food program in school is an indictment of the government and not a showpiece? Parents would love to have the ability to feed their own kids. They do not want food stamps. They want good jobs on safe streets in the country they love.
Wade Grant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my speech with the facts: There is no food packaging tax. Industrial carbon pricing is not applied at the grocery store checkout. It is applied to large industrial emitters, the biggest polluters in Canada, and is structured in a way that ensures Canadian industries remain competitive while cutting emissions at the lowest possible cost.
Canada's pricing system gives companies flexibility. They can cut emissions through innovation, buy credits from innovators or invest in cleaner processes. This is not a cost imposed on families; it is a policy that holds polluters accountable while encouraging investment and growth.
There is also no food tax. The evidence is clear: Inflationary pressures on food have been driven by global supply chain shocks, the war in Ukraine and energy price volatility, not by Canada's carbon pricing policies.
On plastics, the hon. member suggests that reducing single-use plastics is a tax on food. That is false. The single-use plastics prohibition regulations are not taxes; they are important regulations designed to prevent harmful plastics from polluting our rivers, lakes and oceans. They target items like checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and certain types of food service ware made from hard-to-recycle plastics.
It is estimated that these regulations will prevent over 1.3 million tonnes of the plastic waste and 22,000 tonnes of the plastic pollution that will occur from the continued use of single-use plastics between 2023 and 2032 without the regulations. Alternatives are already available. Canadian businesses across the country are making the transition successfully and are saving money by moving to reusable and recyclable options.
I have come to understand that when the hon. member refers to a second carbon tax, that is code for the clean fuel regulations. What the member's argument fails to recognize is that the CFR actually creates economic benefits for farmers by creating demand for agricultural feedstocks for biofuels, a market mechanism that both benefits the climate and benefits our important farming sector.
Eliminating industrial carbon pricing and the clean fuel regulations, as the member opposite proposes, would undermine investment, cost jobs, increase pollution and isolate Canada from global markets. These measures are not about rising costs; they are about protecting Canadians from the higher costs of climate change and pollution.
Just to touch on the member's evaluation of the food program, I come from a first nation where a lot of people have lived under the poverty line for many generations, and I see kids going to school now in my community with smiles on their faces and food in their bellies, excelling in school. That is because of programs such as this. I really wanted to raise that. In first nations communities, these are very important measures.
Climate action is economic action. Our policies protect families, support workers and position Canada for long-term competitiveness.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments on the food program, because there were private food programs in place. I can think of some in my city: Chili for Children, the Nutrien food program, the Mosaic food programs and the Mother Teresa Middle School food programs for less fortunate kids.
The problem is that, while there were programs in place, the Liberals never had conversations with any of the groups delivering food programs. They just made a cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all program. I am not sure what the numbers are, but 400,000 kids are supposedly going to get food. There are over five million kids below the poverty line using food banks every week.
If the Liberals thought that was going to fix the problem, it has not. The solution is to bring back affordability, lower food prices and stop taxing parents to death. I will say it every time I am on my feet: Parents want to feed their own kids, and the government cannot help but stand in the way of that with its overburdensome regulations, red tape and taxes and terrible fiscal policies.
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, let me be perfectly clear that there is no food packaging tax in Canada. There is no industrial carbon tax on groceries. These are environmental and economic policies designed to cut pollution, protect health and support competitiveness.
Independent analysis confirms that food price inflation has been driven by global supply disruptions, not by federal climate measures. Abandoning policies would mean more pollution, more uncertainty and higher costs in the long run. Canadians deserve solutions grounded in evidence, not slogans, and that is what this government is continuing to deliver.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to rise in the House not long ago to ask the government what it was doing about what has very clearly become a crisis that has made it so that Canadians cannot afford food.
We know that food bank usage across the country is experiencing record highs. Food banks all over have huge demands, including in my riding, where the St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank will have to feed 30,000 mouths this year. This is the third straight year of record increases. I asked the government about this, and I am going to quote directly from the Secretary of State for Labour, who responded. He said, “We are going to be building. We are building homes and building projects in the national interest, with Canadian lumber, Canadian steel and Canadian unionized workers.”
I am not sure what the affordability plan for groceries is, but I do not believe Canadians are going to be eating Canadian lumber. I do not believe Canadians are going to be eating Canadian steel. I certainly hope they are not going to be eating Canadian unionized workers.
The government, in its response, did not even address groceries or food costs, and I understand why. I know full well why the government is not interested in talking about grocery prices, because it would have to acknowledge what has happened to them on the Liberal government's watch.
We know that food bank usage is up 142% since 2015. We know that grocery store food prices have risen by a staggering 40% since the Liberals took power. Now there is a report from Food Banks Canada showing that hunger is being “normalized”, which is a word from the experts. Now food bank usage for Canadian families has not become something that is an extreme situation or just a temporary stopgap; rather, it is part of what life is for them. That is a tragedy; it is a crisis, one that has been aggravated and exacerbated by Liberal government policy.
We do know, contrary to what I am sure the parliamentary secretary is going to say tonight, that there are a number of hidden taxes on food costs in this country, including the industrial carbon tax, which actually taxes the producers of food, which then trickles downstream to consumers; and regulations on plastics and packaging, which make it more expensive for producers and packagers of food, and then that gets passed along to consumers. These are hidden taxes on groceries that, along with other inflationary pressures, are driving up for Canadians the cost of buying groceries.
I have heard from constituents who have had to make difficult choices from week to week about whether they fill up their car so they can get to work or whether they buy groceries. We know that people are skipping meals because they cannot afford the grocery store hauls they used to. Is this the new normal? Is this what Canadians are going to be forced to contend with?
We have not seen from the government anything resembling a plan. In fact, when we talk about very real, very demonstrable driving factors that push up the cost of food, the Liberals try to gaslight Canadians and say they do not exist. They try to say there are no clean fuel standards that make it more costly to move goods around. They are saying there are no costs to the packaging requirements. The government is gaslighting Canadians, and in doing so, it is ignoring that it has access to mechanisms and solutions that we are happy to give them and that would make life more affordable for Canadians and reduce prices at the grocery store.
My question for the government is very simple: Will the Liberals stop their gaslighting and get serious about reducing costs for Canadians at the grocery store?
Wade Grant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, faced with unjustified tariffs from the U.S. and shifting global supply chains, our new government is well aware of the affordability challenges facing Canadians. Although we have begun to see encouraging signs of stabilization, housing prices have gone up in recent years; although Canada's inflation rate has been within the Bank of Canada's target for 21 consecutive months, we know that food inflation remains a concern as well.
That is why our government is taking immediate action to address this cost of living crisis. Our goal is to bring down costs so that Canadians can keep more of their paycheques and spend where it matters most to them. Budget 2025 would build upon this important work that has already been done. As we all await the tabling of that historic document, I will outline a few ways our government has already acted decisively to make life more affordable for Canadians.
Among the first pieces of legislation introduced by our new government was Bill C-4, which would deliver a middle-class tax cut to allow hard-working Canadians to keep more money in their pockets. I am proud to note that this tax cut would save a two-income family up to $840 in 2026; going forward, it is expected to deliver over $27 billion in tax savings to Canadians over the next five years. This rate reduction would benefit Canadians across the country, and the bulk of the middle-class tax cut would go to those with incomes in the two lowest tax brackets, including half to those in the first bracket, which is $57,375 and below in 2025. With this middle-class tax cut, the lowest marginal personal income tax rate would be reduced from 15% to 14%, effective July 1, 2025, and this tax cut would help hard-working Canadians keep more of their paycheques to spend where it matters most.
That is not all. This legislation, which I am happy to announce finished clause-by-clause consideration at FINA earlier today, would also eliminate the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to and under $1 million, and lower the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. Doing so would save Canadians up to $50,000, allowing more young people and families to enter the housing market and realize their dream of home ownership. Providing GST relief means Canadians would face lower upfront housing costs and keep more money in their pocket. This would also have a dynamic effect on increasing supply, spurring the construction of new homes across the country.
The bill would remove the consumer carbon tax, saving Canadians money at the pump. I am happy that all parties joined us in supporting Bill C-4. Unfortunately, that non-partisan approach to making life more affordable for Canadians has not translated elsewhere.
While the Conservatives continue to talk down the Canadian economy and Canadian workers, we are stepping up in other ways as well. We plan to spur the construction of new homes with the newly launched Build Canada Homes initiative, which will increase Canada's supply of affordable housing and play a pivotal role in the government's plan to help double the pace of housing construction over the next decade.
The Prime Minister also recently announced that we are making the national school food program permanent, to provide meals for up to 400,000 children. This program will ensure that kids are fed healthy meals at school and save families with two children $800 per year on groceries. While the Conservatives may refer to this program as “garbage”, I would like to see them say that to the families in my riding. As I said earlier, in my community of Musqueam, I see kids actually going to school with smiles on their face and food in their belly, and they are excelling in their school work as they have not done in many generations.
With these measures, we are delivering changes to cut taxes, bring down costs and put money back in the pockets of Canadians.
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. parliamentary secretary, he may have been getting his talking points mixed up. I was asking about grocery store prices. I was not asking about new home construction, which is a very important issue. If we had more time, we could talk about other areas in which the Liberal government has failed to serve the needs of Canadians. However, I was asking about food costs.
I was asking when the government is going to stop pretending that there are not regulations and taxes embedded in the prices of groceries that Canadians are forced to pay. This remains a live issue, but since the parliamentary secretary wants to talk about everything other than that, I will latch on to one thing he mentioned, which is the school food program. I agree that no family should have to go without healthy, affordable, fresh food. Why is a school food program necessary, in the government's eyes, after 10 years of the Liberals?
Wade Grant Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Mr. Speaker, as Canadians, we take care of each other. It is a promise at the heart of who we are, and it goes back generations. From universal public health care to employment insurance and strong, stable funded pensions such as the Canada pension plan, there has always been in our agreement that we will take care of our neighbours when they are in need. Our government is laser-focused on lowering costs and will continue to present serious solutions to ensure that Canadians are better off.
On November 4, our colleague, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, will present the federal budget. This budget will present the next steps in our plan to catalyze investment and build a united and strong economy, one that would create higher pay and careers, raise incomes, withstand global shocks and make us the strongest economy in the G7.