Debates of Oct. 29th, 2025

Bail and Sentencing Reform Act

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Secretary of State (Combatting Crime)]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I am here today to speak about the bail and sentencing reform act, one of the most comprehensive updates to Canada's bail and sentencing laws in decades. Since 2014, crime in Canada has risen by 12%, and our violent crime severity index is now 41% higher than it was a decade ago. While 2024 saw a modest 4% decrease, people in Canada remain deeply concerned, and rightfully so. They see increases in homicides, sexual assaults, extortion, child sexual offending and violent firearms offences. They see repeat offenders cycling through our system, breaching conditions and reoffending, too often with tragic consequences. The reasons for these increases are many and complex. Criminal law reform can play an important role in addressing these disturbing trends.

People in Canada expect their communities to be safe. They expect a justice system that protects victims, supports those on the front lines and holds repeat and violent offenders to account. They expect all levels of government to take steps to ensure that these things happen.

The federal government is playing its part. The bail and sentencing reform act introduces over 80 clauses of targeted reforms to strengthen both our bail and sentencing regimes to respond to this reality.

The bill is the result of extensive engagement with provinces and territories, police, prosecutors, victims' advocates, indigenous partners and community organizations. Through these discussions, it became clear that one of the most urgent areas of reform was the bail system, particularly for cases involving repeat and violent offenders.

I will first turn to the proposed bail reforms. Over the past several years, people in Canada have seen too many headlines about violent crimes committed by individuals who are already out on bail, sometimes with a long history of prior offences. Police, mayors and victims' advocates have all told us that the bail system is not working as it should in these cases. The bail and sentencing reform act would address these criticisms head on.

First, it would make bail stricter and harder to get for repeat and violent offenders. The bill would create new reverse onus provisions, meaning that it would be up to the accused to demonstrate why they should be released, and not the other way around. In particular, the bail would create new reverse onuses for violent and organized crime-related auto theft, break and enters of a home, trafficking in persons, human smuggling, assault and sexual assault involving choking, suffocation or strangulation, and extortion involving violence. This is intended to help ensure that those who pose the greatest risk to public safety remain in custody until it is proven that they can be safely released.

The bill would offer clarity to police and courts regarding how to apply the principle of restraint. This includes clarifying that the principle does not, in fact, require release, and that the accused should not be released if their detention is justified, including for the protection and safety of the public. At the bail stage, courts would be required to consider key risk factors, such as whether the allegations involve random or unprovoked violence, and the number or seriousness of the outstanding charges that the accused has accumulated while on bail. They would also have to impose weapons prohibitions at bail for those accused of extortion and organized crime, unless it is not required for public safety reasons.

Importantly, in reverse onus cases, the accused would have to present a credible and reliable bail plan. Courts would need to closely scrutinize the plan before granting bail.

These reforms are about protecting the public and ensuring accountability for those who repeatedly show disregard for the law and the safety of others in a way that balances the charter rights of those accused of criminal offending.

Making bail stricter is only part of the solution. Our sentencing laws need to better reflect the gravity of violent crimes and the harm done to victims and communities. The bill therefore proposes significant sentencing reforms to make penalties tougher for repeat and violent offending, including car theft, extortion and crimes that endanger public safety. For example, the act would require consecutive sentences when violent auto theft is committed with a break and enter, or when extortion is committed with arson. This means that offenders would serve one sentence after another rather than serving them at the same time. This may result in longer penalties' being imposed.

The bill would also enact new aggravating factors at sentencing for crimes against first responders, for retail theft and for offences that impact critical infrastructure such as power stations, water systems and communications networks.

The bill would end house arrest for serious sexual assaults and child sexual offences, ensuring that custodial sentences are served in a secure setting, like jail, appropriate to the severity of the crime.

The bill would restore driving prohibitions for offences like criminal negligence causing bodily harm or death and for manslaughter. It would also improve fine enforcement to make sure that penalties are meaningful and are able to be enforced.

As all members know, the criminal justice system in Canada is a shared responsibility. I want to thank the provinces and territories, which have been strong advocates for these reforms. They have shared their on-the-ground experiences with repeat violence offending, and they have helped shape a package of measures that are practical, targeted and grounded in evidence.

The government is also working to improve the youth criminal justice system to support ongoing successful implementation of the Youth Criminal Justice Act by the provinces and territories. The proposed amendments are very focused in nature to clarify areas that have led to litigation and uncertainty, to assist the provinces and territories in administering sentences and to make some other technical improvements.

The bail and sentencing reform act is part of a broader modernization of Canada's justice system. In the coming months, the government has announced, it will bring forward further changes to address court delays, strengthen victims' rights and better protect people facing sexual and intimate partner violence, as well as take new steps to keep children safe from horrific crimes.

Canadians deserve to be safe in their homes, on their streets and in their communities. They deserve a justice system that protects the innocent, supports victims and holds offenders accountable—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

National Strategy on Housing for Young Canadians Act

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

moved that Bill C-227, An Act to establish a national strategy on housing for young Canadians, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to speak, at second reading, to Bill C-227, an act to establish a national housing strategy for young Canadians.

It is rare in political life to get a second chance at a good thing, but I am happy to say I have had that chance with the bill that is before us. As I mentioned during first reading introduction, I introduced a similar bill into the Nova Scotia Legislature almost exactly three years ago, on October 19, 2022. I checked the date today. In the three years that have elapsed since that time, the issue has certainly not gone away. It has remained a significant area of concern both in Nova Scotia, my home province, and across this country. That is the reason I brought it forward, and I hope it will be passed.

As all members know, and as I think all Canadians know very well, housing is not just a roof over one's head; housing is so many other things. It is one of the key social determinants of health. For physical health, having a roof over one's head is very important. For the mental health of Canadians, the peace, comfort and stability that comes from knowing that at the end of the day, whether it has been a rough day or a great day, no matter what, we get to go home, is huge.

Housing is obviously incredibly important for job prospects, financial security, the ability to have and raise a family, and the ability to take care of siblings, friends, neighbours or aging parents. It is essential to so many aspect of our life, and that is why it remains such a key issue and one in particular that affects young Canadians. The bill defines young Canadians as those between the ages of 17 and 34.

Do not just take my word for it. If we look at StatsCan reports from 2024 of Canadians experiencing housing challenges, we see that only 36% of them reported high life satisfaction, being happy, to put it simply. By comparison, 70% of people who do not have housing challenges reported high life satisfaction. It goes without saying that housing is critical, and it is an issue all members of the House agree on, evidently. It is something brought up in the House very regularly, and I hope it is something we can see as a relatively non-partisan issue as I put the bill forward.

The structure of Bill C-227 is fairly straightforward and easy to follow. Basically, the bill identifies three things that the government must do. As I said, the first thing would be the creation of a national strategy to address the housing needs of young Canadians, those between the ages of 17 and 34.

The strategy would be informed by consultation with provinces, territories and municipalities, because housing is an issue that has elements in all three orders and levels of government, and if all three orders of government do not work together effectively, we will not solve the problem for anyone, let alone for young people. Provinces, territories, municipalities, indigenous organizations, non-profit housing providers and for-profit developers, the entire spectrum of the housing continuum, must work together.

Again, the proposed strategy would touch on all aspects of the housing spectrum, from homelessness, which of course we know is an issue across this country in urban centres, suburban areas and rural areas, to crisis shelters and transition shelters, as well as to subsidized housing, market rental housing and up to entry-level home ownership, which as we know, is the gateway to wealth creation in this country and has been for many decades.

The strategy would be comprehensive. It would not be narrowly focused on any one particular element of the housing market but on all of them, to make sure there is a holistic response to the issue. I should have mentioned co-op housing as well, a really underutilized solution to our housing crisis.

Just last week I was in Halifax to attend the opening of a new neighbourhood, Unity North in the north end of Halifax, with 57 units of co-op housing. It was amazing to see the pride, the sense of community and the joy on everybody's face for the 200 or so people who are living in those affordable, safe, clean and wonderful places to live, as well as to consider all the benefits that will flow from that.

The bill calls for the minister to hold at least one conference with the stakeholders that I laid out, to really get down into the details of the strategy.

The bill also has clear timelines. No matter what government program we are talking about, timelines and measurables are very important. The bill would ask the minister to return to the House within 18 months to table a report with recommendations on how we can move forward, to make sure that young Canadians, not just now and not just 18 months from now but for years and years into the future, are able to be supported and that they are able to fulfill the dream of affordable housing to live in, to own and to have for the rest of their lives.

Beyond the 18 months, there would be a requirement for another status report on how things are going, four years subsequent to that. That is an important piece. I know that opposition members, as they should, care about accountability and timelines, and this timeline is in the bill, beyond the life cycle of any one government, to make sure that no matter which party is in government and no matter where we sit in the chamber, we are making sure that young Canadians and their housing needs remain central.

I would also like to thank the wide range of stakeholders that have helped inform the bill over the preceding few months, that have helped to improve it and that continue to do incredible work across the country on the issue of housing, particularly for young people.

I met with Students Nova Scotia last week, at the great institution of higher learning in Nova Scotia, Saint Mary's University. Other stakeholders include Studenthaus, the Affordable Housing Association of Nova Scotia, and Generation Squeeze out of the University of British Columbia, led by Dr. Paul Kershaw, which is doing really amazing work on issues confronting young Canadians, housing, of course, being very much at the centre of its work.

There is also the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations, as well as many more groups and, of course, perhaps most directly of all, the young Canadians whom I have met during my time as an elected official and during my campaigns, when I knocked on doors. There is no form of democracy more direct than that. There is no better way to learn what issues people are facing.

When I was out knocking on doors just a few weeks ago in Lower Sackville and in Bedford, in my riding, I heard, as I am sure other members heard as well, the concerns coming from young Canadians. While there are concerns, justifiable ones, which is why the bill is here before us today, there is also optimism, resilience and hope. That is what young people are known for, and they are still like that. I think they should be, because the bill and many other efforts we are taking as a government are designed to make sure they have housing now and into the future.

When an issue presents itself to us, there are two ways we, as elected officials and politicians, can respond to it. One way is to try to apportion a blame pie and blame this group for that and that group for this. I understand that impulse. A year ago, I was an opposition member of a provincial legislature. I know that the job of opposition parties is to hold the government to account, to raise issues; that is 100% legitimate. That is what they are designed to do.

However, in my view, opposition cannot and should not devolve into nothing more than the airing of grievances, the pointing of fingers, and the idea that there is a problem and therefore we should look back and try to figure out whom to blame for it, and stop there. I do not think that is a practical, pragmatic or serious way to approach an issue. I hope, on this bill in particular, which as I said at the beginning, I see as a relatively non-partisan one, we can treat the issue as one that deserves serious study and deserves the optimism, hope, resilience and ambition of the young Canadians I am hoping to help with the bill.

I would not sit here and say that Bill C-227 alone would solve the problem. I think we need more humility in the House, so what I would say is that it would complement a lot of good, existing work that is going on right now.

I will highlight a few things. The national housing strategy, which was launched in 2017, is a $115-billion program that goes until 2027-28. Another really important initiative, which was done under the previous government, is the first home savings account. It combines elements of an RRSP and a TFSA to allow Canadians, disproportionately young Canadians, of course, to save for their down payment on a house. We know that in many cases that is the single biggest barrier to home ownership. That program has been very successful with great uptake, and I expect that will remain the case for some time to come.

The housing accelerator fund has had positive impacts. In my own region of Halifax, there are cranes all over the city. I think the housing accelerator fund pushed things in a positive and constructive way, not pitting levels of government against one another. It led to changes in municipal bylaws, programs, planning rules and regulations, which at times, in my view, were too cumbersome and time consuming. Absent intervention from the federal government with the housing accelerator fund, I do not think those changes would have happened in as timely a manner. I think that was very positive as well.

Most recently, of course, we began Build Canada Homes, a signature commitment of our government. The goal is to build half a million homes a year in this country, with $13 billion of initial investment, and to look at different ways to build homes, such as prefabricated homes and modular homes. When meeting with businesses in my riding over the last number of weeks, I could see they were excited about the possibilities from Build Canada Homes. Non-profit housing providers in my riding and across the country are interested in how they can leverage Build Canada Homes to make sure that Canadians, young Canadians in particular, who may need additional support have it through an agency and at a scale that we have not seen since the end of the Second World War.

If someone were to go to Halifax and drive up Bayers Road toward the Halifax Shopping Centre, they would see, on either side of the street, homes built in 1946, 1947 or 1948, post-World War II, that people still live in today, 80 years later. They provided safe, affordable housing for many young people at that time, and the goal of what we want to do with Build Canada Homes is make sure that possibility continues. I know that in my riding, many organizations are excited to make that happen.

As I said earlier, this problem is not going to solve itself. This problem is not going to be solved overnight, but there are positive signs of progress. In many cities across this country, we are now seeing rents stabilizing, in some places beginning to fall from levels that were, frankly, unsustainably high. There is no question about that. Home prices in many markets have started to stabilize as well. Home starts, which are a key metric, were up 14% in September, year over year.

What I would say to members of the opposition from all parties is that each and every one of us has thousands and thousands of young Canadians in our ridings. We knock on their doors. We see them at the coffee shop. We see them when we are out and about in our ridings, and they have a consistent concern around housing. This bill does not solve that problem in and of itself. What it does is it puts a stamp in the ground that this government, this Parliament and all parties want young Canadians to have safe, affordable housing that will give them entry into the home ownership market so they can build a future for themselves, whether they are in Nova Scotia, British Columbia, Northwest Territories or any point in between.

With that, I want to thank all the stakeholders who helped me craft this bill. I look forward to questions.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague rhymed off a number of federal programs from the Liberal government that have existed for about 10 years. He talked about a whole bunch of different ones. One of them, of course, was the national housing strategy.

If these programs have worked so well, why is the problem as bad as it is today? What does he hope to achieve with yet another national housing strategy?

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the national housing strategy my hon. colleague refers to, which was adopted back in 2017, did not have as explicit a focus on young Canadians as I would have liked. I certainly was not here at that time, but the idea, as I said during my speech, is not to endlessly litigate a litany of things that may have happened in the past, but to look forward to the future to make sure that, through this strategy and others, we find ways for young Canadians to have more affordable places to live, rent and eventually own.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, why not simply release the money owed to Quebec and the provinces for housing—we are talking about billions of dollars—with no strings attached, and I want to emphasize the “no strings attached” part, instead of introducing a bill that ultimately aims to issue a mandate for developing a strategy?

We would like to know how this bill really changes anything and what purpose it serves, compared to simply giving a local authority with a greater degree of proximity, and therefore a better knowledge of local needs, the ability to make the right housing choices.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it comes down to which level of government is best placed to address the housing crisis.

There are community organizations for this, and housing is in many ways the responsibility of the provinces. I know that very well having served in provincial legislatures. However, I believe strongly that the federal government has a role to play, which oftentimes is lacking, in coordinating provinces, municipalities and housing providers, particularly on the non-profit side. That is a role the federal government can and should play through this bill.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech and most of all for the important project he is proposing to this House.

Housing is a key issue for our government. It is an important issue for my own riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, as it is for many other ridings across the country.

I would like to hear his view on how this bill would ensure that young Canadians benefit fully from the historic investments we are making in housing through Build Canada Homes.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for his advocacy. He is another young member of the House, a bit younger than me, and I thank him.

As I said during my speech, Build Canada Homes is a key part of this bill. Its strategy dovetails very nicely with both Build Canada Homes and the national housing strategy, which is due to expire in 2027-28.

For me, it is critical for the focus on young Canadians, the group most disproportionately impacted by the housing issues across this country, to be reflected in Build Canada Homes to make sure there are many places for students in particular and young Canadians to live, both on the rental side and on the home ownership side. I think there is a natural connection between Build Canada Homes and the strategy I am proposing.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of the fine people of Mississauga Centre. It is also always a privilege to rise alongside my colleague and good friend, the member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston, particularly on a topic as important as this one.

I proudly jointly seconded this bill, because at the end of the day, politics is not just about policies; it is about people. Bill C-227, the national strategy on housing for young Canadians act, acknowledges this reality.

I would like to hear from the member how he believes this policy is ultimately going to benefit Canadians, particularly in tandem with other policies we currently have in place.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mississauga Centre is another great young Canadian in the House.

As I said in response to my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche, the spotlight and focus have to be on young Canadians in particular. That is an area where we have perhaps not been as diligent as we needed to be in the past. The strategy I proposed would do that very particularly.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in April 1910, Teddy Roosevelt arrived in Paris on the heels of his Smithsonian-sponsored, year-long scientific expedition to East Africa. While he was there, he delivered his famous “Citizenship in a Republic” speech at the Sorbonne, made famous largely because of that stirring “man in the arena” passage. However, in his speech about the importance and the value of public participation in our democracy, there is actually another line from that speech that I am thinking about today, which would be this line: “The gravest wrong upon his country is inflicted by that man...who seeks to make his countrymen divide primarily on the line that separates class from class”.

Today, in Canada, we have a housing system that has become a division, class from class, between those who have and those who have not. In our housing system, the lines have quite clearly been drawn. While Teddy Roosevelt was clearly not talking about housing that spring in Paris, his words ring true today here in Canada in an uneven housing system of over-regulation, painfully long approval processes and skyrocketing government charges, taxes and fees on housing.

Seniors, on the one hand, are counting on the equity in their homes to retire; young people, on the other, are saving every penny, hoping that they can one day buy a home. There are young people who know for sure that the bank of mom and dad will be there when they go to buy a house, and then there are other young people who are not too sure how they are going to make the rent payment next month. Tradespeople are sitting at home, waiting for that phone to ring to get back to work to build more homes; meanwhile, housing starts are plummeting in this country at a time when we are desperate for millions of new homes.

For over 10 years, we have heard about Liberal promises with respect to housing. We heard Justin Trudeau tell young people in 2017 that his national housing strategy was going to be “transformational” and “life-changing”. Many young Canadians thought this was the first time that the government was going to take housing seriously in their lifetime. Maybe, just maybe, they were going to be able to afford to buy a home, as the generations before them did. However, we know that this is not what happened. Since then, rents have doubled, prices have doubled, down payments have doubled and mortgages have doubled.

Some think this is when the national housing crisis began, when the national housing strategy actually turned out to be a bureaucracy-building strategy. While the Liberals have made things exponentially worse, the genesis of our current mess actually began with the first Prime Minister Trudeau. Back in the 1960s, there was a period of significant expansion of social housing. The federal government, through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, partnered with provinces and municipalities to build large-scale public housing projects, for example, Regent Park in Toronto, Bayers Road in Halifax and Churchill Park in St. John's. The government's aim was to address housing shortages with a focus on integrating public housing into existing communities, thereby making complete communities. The first Prime Minister Trudeau also brought in a special tax program to incentivize the private sector to build rental units. It was called the MURB program. It was wildly successful. It worked, so he cancelled it.

In the 1980s, the federal government began engaging more, and more directly, with the provinces, and it began to reduce its own leadership role. Recessions and budget constraints led to a slowdown in new social housing development. The focus began shifting away from building new units to maintaining the existing stock. By the early 1990s, the federal government withdrew completely from funding new social housing, transferring responsibility to provinces and municipalities.

By the 2000s, Prime Minister Harper, to his credit, saw this crisis coming. He recognized that there was a growing homeless population all across the country. His government's housing first policy aimed to focus on just that. Non-profit organizations and community groups had funds available for housing, and those organizations actually committed to getting it built.

Then came the second Trudeau era. Before Justin Trudeau, it took 25 years to pay off one's mortgage. Now it takes 25 years just to save up for the down payment. Taxes, charges and fees make up almost 30%, on average, of the cost of every new home. Cities and towns have planning departments that have slowed the approvals process by adding layers of reports and processes and new and ever-more-complicated zoning regulations. All new homes are subject to the high cost of red tape, reports and studies by experts, as well as studies of those studies by other experts. The cost of approvals has skyrocketed.

On top of all those layers of bureaucracy, many cities also use a tool called development charges, a tool designed to help municipalities offset the cost of new housing infrastructure, all related to growth. It has been fairly abused by a lot of municipalities to pay for pet projects and overpriced infrastructure under the mantra that growth will pay for growth. Municipalities in Ontario alone sit on development charge reserve funds of over $12 billion. Housing-enabling infrastructure is not getting built, and development charges continue to rise, in many cases to over $200,000 per home, which just sits in these cities' bank accounts.

Here we are with a crisis that is quickly becoming a catastrophe. We know what the housing problem young people are facing in this country is. Industry stakeholders and housing experts and advocates have been abundantly clear that the cost and burden of government make it too expensive to build.

The national price of a home today is 58% higher than it was in October 2015. We know what the solutions are. We must cut the cost of building by getting the government out of the way on market housing. We must incentivize the private sector to build affordable units. We must focus scarce public dollars on social and supportive housing for the most vulnerable in our society.

The last thing we or young Canadians need is yet another bureaucratic report for the minister to review and update the House on, yet here we are. We have a proposal from a very well-meaning and earnest new Liberal MP who wants to make a difference, and I applaud that. The problem is that his proposal is to offer more studies, analysis and reporting back to the House of Commons about what the federal government intends to do to solve a problem that has become a national crisis under its watch and national strategies.

They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. While the Liberals build more bureaucracy and engage in further studies, the Conservatives just want to get more homes built. To all the people who accuse nasty Conservatives of only criticizing the government, I want to be very clear that while we criticize on housing, we have also proposed many great ideas and solutions, such as cutting the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, which would get homes built; tying federal infrastructure dollars for municipalities not to promises on hopes and dreams of being better, but to real results; cutting local taxes, charges and fees on housing, something the Liberals promised in their election campaign and have not done anything about yet, to make homes less expensive; and cutting the capital gains tax on reinvestments into new housing to attract more capital and investment and get more homes built.

These are proposals supported by industry, housing advocates and housing experts that will restore the dream of home ownership once again to the millions of young people in this country who are tired of being patronized with Liberal promises and spin.

Owing a home is an important source of stability in our lives. For generations, owning a home has formed the foundation for building a life. I want to speak directly to the millions of young Canadians who see that foundation slipping further away.

To the young people who have been told by older generations that it was hard for them to buy a home too and that if they work a little harder, they can buy a house, Conservatives know that it is not just a matter of working a bit harder or sacrificing even more. The deck is literally stacked against them. Fifty years ago, $50,000 could get someone a beautiful home. It was a great start. After inflation, that is about $300,000 today. The problem is that the average cost of a home today is $700,000.

The desire of young people to become homeowners has not changed. Young people are willing to compromise to make it a reality, and facing the new reality, young Canadians are adapting their expectations. For 60% of first-time homebuyers, this means compromising on the size, location or type of home. Young Canadians are willing to change; they see home ownership as a core part of their identity and aspirations. It remains central to how people define progress, belonging and fairness in this country.

Bill C-227 seeks to assess the current state of housing for youth, but we know the problem is bad. We do not need another national strategy to solve it because we also know the solutions. The crisis is today, not years from now, and it is time for results today.

Young people in this country deserve a home. They deserve the promise of Canada that previous generations have enjoyed. They need a government committed to removing the lines that divide us, class by class, into those who have homes and those who are giving up hope of ever owning a home.

To all young Canadians holding out hope for one day owning a home of their own, do not give up hope. There are solutions, and there is a path for them to own a home. Our Conservative team will never stop until those solutions are implemented and we restore the dream of home ownership to every single one of them.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are discussing Bill C‑227, an act to establish a national strategy on housing for young Canadians. After reading the bill, it appears that this strategy would specifically target young people between the ages of 18 and 34 who are having difficulty accessing housing.

I cannot dispute the fact that young people between the ages of 18 and 34 have difficulty accessing housing or becoming homeowners. This week, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives from the Canadian real estate brokers association. They told me that 20 or 30 years ago, people became homeowners, on average, at the age of 26. Now, in 2025, people are becoming homeowners at the age of 36, on average. I am 36. At 36, people usually hope to be able to start a family and have children. I am fortunate to have three children. People sometimes choose to rent, but other times they have no choice. This can mean postponing the decision to have children because it has been too hard to put money aside. If people have not been able to save money by 36 and their biological clock is ticking, well, that is a problem.

I think that my colleague from across the way has put his finger on an important issue. That is indeed a serious problem. However, the devil is in the details of this bill. What does my Liberal colleague's bill actually do? It does nothing. The only thing it does is say that the minister would now have a mandate to work on this file, consult people and develop a strategy. That is great. I am all for the minister consulting people and developing a strategy. I do believe that it is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, do we really need a law to do that? Does it take a law to address the housing crisis? Does it take a law to develop a strategy to solve the housing crisis? The answer is no. We do not need a law to do that.

The reality is this. On the other side of the House, backbenchers, particularly those in government, are told to keep quiet, ask as few questions as possible, and make as little noise as possible. Everything they say must be in line with the government's position. They cannot make announcements because it is the ministers who make the announcements, and everything is written in advance. As a result, instead of introducing real bills in the House that would really change things, Liberal members often introduce insignificant bills that do not change anything in people's daily lives.

That is exactly what we are being presented with right now. This is a bill that will change nothing and do nothing to address the housing crisis. It is sad because, in the meantime, the average age at which people become homeowners has risen from 26 to 36. A Liberal member will be happy to say that he has passed a bill that may one day lead to a strategy to address the housing crisis among young people. However, he is not the one who will create the strategy, and no concrete measures are included in the bill.

In the meantime, this is monopolizing the resources of the House of Commons. All the members here are going to debate this. The bill will be referred to committee and people will come testify. That is good, because we will be able to talk about the issue, and I think it is important to do so. Despite any merit the bill may have, nothing will come of it. That is the sad part. The fact is we could very well do this work without monopolizing the entire House of Commons. We could adopt policies.

I would like to make a suggestion to my Liberal colleague and his government. It is a very important suggestion. Not long ago, I met with the Union des municipalités du Québec. Its representatives told me that there is still no agreement between the federal and provincial governments about the $8.5 billion to deal with municipal responsibilities. This is money owed to Quebec that is sitting in Ottawa's coffers. There is a whole stack of envelopes. Who manages most of the housing? Who is primarily responsible for housing? It is the municipalities, and there has been $8.5 billion sitting in Ottawa's coffers all this time. Perhaps my colleague across the floor could have introduced a bill to force Ottawa to release the money that cities need to build housing.

The Canada housing infrastructure fund alone is worth $1.3 billion. That would be enough to build a few sewers and a few water mains. I think that would go a long way to improving the situation.

I can give another example of a federal problem that we are currently facing. There is this thing that we now call the Build Canada Homes program. To start with, let me point out that no one in Ottawa could even get its translation into French right; that should give members an idea of how competent the staff here is. Everyone in the media made a big joke out of it.

More specifically, while we are on the topic of the Build Canada Homes program, we were told that federal lands would be used to accommodate prefabricated homes, all under federal management, that some great announcements were on the way, and that we should be pleased that more houses are getting built.

To add insult to injury, the government is still telling us that it is going to work with the provinces, that it is going to work hand in hand with the municipalities and that everything will be all hunky-dory and just fine. It keeps repeating that like a broken record.

In the end, in the case of a project planned in Longueuil that we found out about, the mayor of Longueuil learned of it through the media. The government is working so closely with others that the mayor of Longueuil had to learn through the media about a project about to break ground in her municipality. That is how this government operates.

I can give another example of working hand in hand to help Canada's municipalities and cities. Not long ago, the federal government was planning to build a new courthouse in Montreal, Quebec. They wanted to renovate an old courthouse to make upgrades to it. So far, so good. What we ended up learning was that the federal government wanted to build it without providing the city with any plans, without a clear intent to harmonize the architecture, without anyone knowing what it was going to look like or how many storeys it would have. Right in the middle of Old Montreal, a historic neighbourhood that is bustling with tourists, they were going to build a multi-storey building without anyone knowing what it was going to look like. Héritage Montréal warned us that the federal government was going to do whatever it wanted without consulting anyone. That is what it looks like when this government works hand in hand with the cities and provinces.

Every time the Liberals meddle in a project that is not under their jurisdiction—the municipalities are primarily responsible for urban planning and housing—it only leads to more trouble and more problems. The same thing is happening right now. What is going on with all the money I mentioned that is sitting in Ottawa? What is happening during all that time?

While the money is sitting in Ottawa and not flowing to the cities, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back because they announced funding for housing. Meanwhile, what is happening? There is inflation. Cities are going under because everything costs more. Everything costs more, and yet, the money is sitting in Ottawa. Ultimately, we are getting less and less bang for our buck because Ottawa is blackmailing us with our own money, pure and simple.

It is blackmailing us because it wants to impose its conditions, its urban planning rules and its density standards, even though everyone is already committed to those things. That is not enough for the federal government. It wants to decide everything that happens everywhere, as if there were no other governments and no other elected officials. The federal government needs to calm down a little, listen to what the cities are saying, listen to what Quebec is saying and, most importantly, send us the money instead of coming up with new strategies and talking non-stop. In the end, nothing is being done on the ground. I am really disappointed to see that the Liberal government is not disbursing the money it should be.

On top of this, we could mention that one of the causes of the housing crisis is also linked to population growth. This is worth mentioning. In Canada, the population has increased by 1.2 million in the last 12 months. That is quite a lot of people. At the same time, Ottawa has very lax immigration policies. The goal of reaching a population of 100 million by 2100 has ultimately changed the situation on the ground. Perhaps no one considered that this would require housing. Perhaps no one considered that it would require additional resources.

In the meantime, young people are suffering. Newcomers are unable to find housing. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated that rents have increased by 26% solely because of the Liberal government's lax immigration policy. It is crazy, but that is the reality. I am not the one saying it, the Liberal government is.

I will conclude by saying that before lecturing others, perhaps they should take a hard look at themselves.

[Fares Al Soud, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of the fine people of Mississauga Centre. It is also always a privilege to rise alongside my colleague and good friend, the member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston, particularly on a topic as important as this one.

I said it already, but I proudly seconded this bill because, at the end of the day, politics is not just about policies; it is about people. Bill C-227, the national strategy on housing for young Canadians act, acknowledges this reality.

This past weekend in my riding, I spent some time speaking to neighbours, joined by over 30 young Canadians from Mississauga. While the conversations at the doors were, as always, delightful and informative, my conversations with those young Canadians served as a firm reminder that young people care. They are watching, and they are counting on us to do the right thing. This is the case for public safety; our role on the international stage; Canadian language, culture and heritage; affordability; and most certainly housing.

The member for Sackville—Bedford—Preston explained the bill perfectly, but I think it is important to contextualize it and its potential relative to the national housing strategy. Introduced in 2017, the national housing strategy was Canada's first-ever long-term plan to make sure that everyone in this country has a place to call home. It was created in response to growing concerns about affordability, rising homelessness and the lack of coordinated national leadership on housing. For decades, Canada faced deepening challenges in ensuring access to safe, suitable and affordable homes, challenges that were felt most acutely by young people, low-income families, indigenous communities and newcomers.

The national housing strategy addresses the needs of Canadians, whether they are seniors looking to downsize, young families wanting to move into a larger home, or young Canadians entering the housing market. All Canadians deserve housing that meets their needs. Young Canadians need housing that is right for them.

The strategy represents a commitment to housing as a human right, anchored in the belief that access to adequate housing is essential to health, security and dignity. By focusing on both immediate needs and long-term sustainability, the strategy seeks to break cycles of poverty and housing insecurity that have held too many Canadians back. At its core, the national housing strategy is about partnership. It brings together all levels of government, indigenous partners, the private sector and community organizations to tackle Canada's housing crisis from every angle.

For young Canadians, the strategy acknowledges the unique challenges of entering today's housing market. It also aims to create pathways to enable youth to find secure, affordable places to live, whether through rental assistance, community housing or programs that encourage innovative and sustainable housing design. It also recognizes that when young people cannot find stable housing, it affects their ability to pursue education, build careers and contribute fully to their communities.

With this mind, over the past few months, time and time again, I have heard from organizations from across the country and in my riding, housing advocates, youth groups and local service providers. They have made one thing abundantly clear: Young people need solutions that are exclusively and explicitly geared towards them. They need policies that reflect their realities, from rising rent costs to barriers in home ownership, and they need to know that their government is listening and responding. I have heard this from high school students, university students and young Canadians entering the workforce. Housing policy must be people-centred, grounded in lived experience and adaptable to the changing realities of today's youth. When we listen to those directly affected, we create solutions that last, that restore hope and that build stronger, more resilient communities.

Far too many young Canadians experience homelessness. What is perhaps most tragic is that their struggles are often hidden. They couch surf with friends or relatives, stay temporarily with family, or sleep in cars. These are young people whose lives are disrupted, whose education and work opportunities are impacted, and whose sense of security is fragile. This bill recognizes them.

As a young Canadian, I stand proud today in support of Bill C-227, the national strategy on housing for young Canadians act.

Housing is not just a roof over one's head. Housing is security. Housing is dignity. Housing is the foundation on which young Canadians can build their lives. Imagine how difficult it is for them to study for exams, start a new job or even sleep well at night when they do not know if they will have a bed tomorrow. That is the reality for many young Canadians today.

I would like everyone here to take a moment to imagine something simple: a room of their own, four walls, a door that locks, a quiet space where they can dream, focus and plan for their future. For millions of Canadians, that is not a given. It is a privilege. That is precisely what this strategy seeks to provide.

Across the country, from Vancouver to Halifax, from Montreal to Mississauga, young Canadians have been clear: They want a fair chance at affordable housing. They are not asking for charity, they are asking for hope, they are asking for stability. They are asking for the freedom to pursue an education, build a career and contribute fully to society.

Let us consider the cost of inaction. A young Canadian who cannot find stable housing may delay finishing their education, miss working opportunities or be forced into unsafe living conditions. They may experience anxiety, depression or a loss of confidence in their future. These are not abstract outcomes. They are the consequences of a system that has not yet caught up with the rapidly evolving realities of today's youth. Here, we have the power to change that.

University is a distant memory for many in the House. For me, it was merely a few years ago. I proudly studied and graduated from the University of Toronto Mississauga. During my first year, I lived right on the Credit Woodlands with three incredible people who have become lifelong friends. They were a year above in a similar program, which, needless to say, came in clutch. We lived 10 minutes from campus, so I had the privilege of being able to go to class, learn and then have lunch at home. It was while I was in that apartment that I found my first job and my first extensive volunteering opportunity. Needless to say, I would not be me without that room. As small as it may have been, it was home.

This is why this bill is about more than mere bricks and mortar. It is an opportunity. It is about hope. It is about equity. It is about telling every young Canadian that they matter, their potential matters, and this country will not leave them behind. We often talk about the future, but the future is not some distant concept. The future is being written today in dorm rooms, first apartments, shared homes, traditional housing, and yes, sometimes shelters. Every decision we make here shapes that future, and every young person whose life is stabilized by this strategy would become a testimony to what is possible when government, regardless of parties, listens, acts and cares.

This is why this bill matters. It is a promise, a promise to recognize and support young Canadians, to address hidden and transitional homelessness, and to invest in affordable housing solutions that meet their unique needs. It is a commitment that housing is not a privilege reserved for a few, but a foundation available to all. I propose that we act now.

Too often, we see politics take precedence over real priorities. This bill is non-partisan. It is an opportunity to truly demonstrate a cross-party, collaborative understanding of the priorities that matter most to young Canadians in all of our ridings. When young Canadians are secure, when they have a place to call home, they are not just surviving, they are living. They are contributing to their communities, to our economy and to the Canada we all envision. This is why we are here. This is why this bill matters.

[Sukhman Gill, Conservative, Abbotsford—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise on behalf of the good people of Abbotsford—South Langley, whom I represent so proudly in the House.

Today I am honoured to rise on behalf of youth across this nation. Young people across Canada are sacrificing their dream of home ownership, just to make ends meet. In my hometown of Abbotsford, the number of people experiencing homelessness continues to rise every single year. Families are struggling, rent is unaffordable and the dream of owning a home feels farther out of reach than ever before. I am tired of watching the Liberal government's political theatre while Canadians suffer.

The Liberal private member's bill before us, Bill C-227, which claims to introduce a national housing strategy for youth, is yet another example of performative virtue signalling, with big promises but no real results. The bill would do nothing to address the root cause of the housing crisis. It would simply create more bureaucracy, more studies and more expensive government offices that would not put a single roof over a young Canadian's head.

Let us be clear: The housing crisis did not appear overnight. It is not a naturally developing problem. It has been created by the Liberal government's policies. Liberals inflated the housing bubble with excessive money printing and immigration, then blocked supply with taxes and red tape for builders. Building permits in Canada now take longer to approve than in any other country in the G7, stalling development and driving up costs.

On top of that, nearly 30% of the price for new homes is government taxes, fees and charges. CMHC says we need to build 480,000 homes this year to restore affordability. We are on pace to build only 212,000. The government has turned housing into a source of revenue instead of a necessity for all Canadians. That is what we call greed, and it has no place in a government that was elected to serve Canadians and not to profit from their struggles.

Young Canadians deserve better, and so do workers, because the crisis affects not only young families but also all workers whose livelihood depends on construction, including tradespeople and suppliers.

Housing comes down to basic economics: supply and demand. When government restricts housing development through endless red tape, and when construction is bogged down by taxes and fees, supply dries up. When supply dries up, prices skyrocket, and Canadians are the ones who end up paying the price. It is unbelievable that we are facing a shortage in a country as vast and as resource-rich as Canada. We have the land, the material and the talent, but we are missing the leadership.

While the Liberals continue with useless studies, fake announcements and photo ops, Conservatives are focused on solutions. We have introduced common-sense bills that would tackle the housing crisis at its source, yet time and time again, the Liberals have voted them down.

Conservatives have proposed to cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000; to tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, ensuring that municipalities permit at least 15% more homebuilding every year; to cut development charges by 50%, a promise the Liberal government made but failed to deliver on; and to end the capital gains tax on reinvestments in housing, unlocking billions of dollars for the homebuilding sector. These proposals are grounded in research, not rhetoric.

Nearly half of Canada's housing costs stem from restrictive land-use regulations, municipal red tape and government overreach. Homebuilding taxes alone account for one-third of the total cost of a home. Taxes and fees on housing are so high that developers struggle to make projects viable, but many are being forced to lay off skilled workers because they simply cannot afford to keep them employed.

Since the Liberals doubled housing costs, the Prime Minister celebrated the housing accelerator fund as a great Liberal success, but the numbers tell a different story. CMHC's own data shows that the fund does not build homes; it builds bureaucracy. In cities that received the so-called accelerator funding, housing starts went down, not up.

The numbers speak for themselves. Vancouver received $150 million, but housing starts went down by 10.4%. Toronto received $471 million, but starts are down 58.5%. Guelph is down 78.6%, Hamilton is down 50.7%, London is down 72.3% and Kelowna is down 33.6%.

This failure is compounded by the Liberals' choice for housing minister. The Liberal housing minister, as the mayor of Vancouver, increased homebuilding taxes by 141% while home prices rose 149%, making Vancouver the least affordable city in North America. In one of his very first interviews as housing minister, he flatly said no when asked if housing prices should come down. He was even caught admitting that the $4.4-billion housing accelerator fund would not result in more homes being built in Canada.

All the government does is continue to waste taxpayer dollars on studies and not answer Canadians as to the root causes. How dare it claims to champion youth while refusing to take meaningful action.

Young Canadians do not need another Liberal photo op; they need homes, affordable homes. A house is not only a lifetime achievement for many folks, but a safe place for building a generational foundation. It is about more than just owning a property. It represents stability, security and a future to work toward.

What this crisis is doing to people my age in my community is creating anxiety, scarcity and fear. We are watching the opportunity to own a home slip away and are being told to simply accept it. I am afraid to see what the future holds for people my age if this continues.

The Prime Minister has spoken about how young people need to make sacrifices, but I believe sacrificing a stable future with a family in a safe home and a safe neighbourhood is unacceptable. There is nothing fair or reasonable about asking young Canadians to give up the hope of home ownership.

I find it personally troubling that the government continues to deliberately ignore the blaring alarm of the crisis it has caused. The Liberals have had years to act. Housing costs have doubled under their government, and young Canadians are being left behind.

I want to end my speech with a message to all young people in this country and to those who have been told by the Liberal government to give up, to lower their expectations and to sacrifice their dreams. It does not have to be this way. My message to them is very simple. They should never sacrifice their future. They deserve opportunity, stability and the chance to build the life they have always dreamed of.

The Conservatives are here to make that possible. We will not rest until young Canadians have access to a good job, an affordable home and a fair shot at the Canadian dream. We will hold the government accountable every single day for the failures it has imposed on them. There is still hope, and together we can build a brighter tomorrow.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. There are roughly two minutes left in this debate.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be with you at this critical time as this sitting of the House draws to a close. During these final two minutes in your company, I will be pleased to speak to you and hope that I will not put you to sleep or make you wonder whether this will ever end.

Since my time is very limited, I will get straight to the point: The Bloc Québécois is going to vote against this bill. In our opinion, it is useless, an empty shell. It claims to be creating a national strategy when in fact it does nothing of the sort. At best, it allows the Liberal Party to boast about having a strategy and claim that it has the knowledge to tell the provinces what to do.

The government already has a whole host of programs and, in any case, its only role is to transfer money to the provinces and, potentially, to cede land that Ottawa owns but does not use. It should be providing transfers with no strings attached and ceding unused land. Even that would move us closer to something that makes more sense as far as housing goes. Housing is a major crisis for most of Quebec's big cities and a common problem in western countries generally, but it could be mitigated with the tools at our disposal.

We know that centralization gets us nowhere because Quebec and the municipalities have a better understanding of local realities and citizens' needs. Although Ottawa claims it wants to collaborate, its usual “Ottawa knows best” attitude leaves little doubt as to how it will implement such a strategy.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Canada Revenue Agency

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I previously had the opportunity to question the minister on the performance of the CRA after the Auditor General had released a report on her findings on the performance standards at the CRA. I think it is important to start this off by reading a couple of fine points from her findings.

She starts off with a line about how “The Taxpayer Bill of Rights states that callers have the right to complete, accurate, clear, and timely information.” I think that is kind of at the heart of the Auditor General's report. It is also at the heart of the experience that Canadians have had when dealing with the CRA over the last number of years.

The Canada Revenue Agency, interestingly enough, has the ability to adjust its own service standards, and it is interesting to note that in 2017:

the Canada Revenue Agency’s service standard was to have 80% of calls answered by an agent within 2 minutes. Starting in the 2019–20 fiscal year, the agency lowered the standard to 65% of calls answered within 15 minutes.

The number of complaints relating to the service provided by the contact centres increased by 145% since 2021–22.

That is kind of at the heart of the issue here. The CRA recognized that they could not keep up with the service, so rather than try to figure out how they could offer better service to Canadians, they said they were just going to lower the threshold and criteria that were required to say that they were offering better service to Canadians. Then, they followed that up by providing even less service to Canadians, with wait times being beyond unacceptable. This past summer, there are people who spent entire weeks trying to get hold of CRA without being able to get through, having to call back in at the beginning of the day every day, sitting on hold and not ever getting through.

I just recently received an email. Actually, it was today. It was an email from a lady who spent months dealing with the CRA because of an issue with the CRA. It was not anything she did wrong but something CRA did wrong, and she ended up having to go through the courts in order to be able to get the situation rectified. The court sided with her, and finally she had this issue resolved. It should not have to take going to court in order to get CRA to do their job properly.

I had another case of an individual. We have been working with this person for over four years now, trying to settle an estate. They lost a loved one, and the biggest hold-up in that whole process was the CRA. It has taken over four years to resolve an issue with them, and the issue is still unresolved. That is not acceptable. That is the kind of problem that Canadians are routinely finding themselves faced with.

What has the CRA gotten for that? It has gotten a 70% budget increase for the absolutely abysmal, terrible service that Canadians have been receiving. It would be great to see this government take responsibility. The Liberals have been giving us a word salad about how there is a 100-day action plan for the CRA to get its act together and provide better service for Canadians.

As of right now, tax season was back in April, and we are near the end of the calendar year here, with only a couple of months left, so they are going to say that wait times have improved. Let us just wait until next April, when Canadians start filing taxes again, and see if their 100-day action plan actually bore any fruit.

I am just wondering if the minister or the parliamentary secretary here is going to be willing to stand up today and guarantee that Canadians will receive better service standards than they received this last tax season.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, following the interventions by the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, I am pleased to have the opportunity this evening to speak about the CRA's actions in response to the Auditor General's audit of its contact centres.

First and foremost, let me say that the government accepts the findings of the Auditor General and thanks her for her invaluable audit published on October 21, 2025. It is my understanding that the report is currently being studied at the PACP committee. As a matter of fact, both the Minister of Finance and the Secretary of State for the CRA and Financial Institutions have pre-emptively volunteered to appear at committee to discuss the report and the important steps that our government has already taken to improve service delivery at the CRA.

With nearly 200 million service transactions annually, service delivery is central to the agency's mandate. While CRA agents do exemplary work, it has become increasingly clear that service delivery is an issue facing many Canadians in their dealings with the agency.

That is why the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and the Secretary of State for the CRA and Financial Institutions tasked the CRA with a 100-day plan to examine existing gaps and flaws and develop common-sense solutions to improve service delivery. This process began on September 2 and will run until December 11. The plan encompasses improvements in both the short and long term, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to share with the House the measures currently under way at the agency, as well as the results achieved to date under the 100-day plan.

First, the CRA has reallocated the number of call centre and contact centre representatives available, and as a result, the percentage of calls answered has exceeded the plan's target of 70%.

Second, the agency is enhancing its self-service digital options, including optimizing its website, adding features to the My Account function and expanding Al-based chat support.

Additionally, live chat support through My Account is now available from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. eastern standard time. Users with locked accounts can now regain access by re-registering, thus eliminating the need to call. Taxpayers with debts of $1,000 or more can now set up payment arrangements directly through My Account, bypassing the need to talk to a collections officer. The GenAI chatbot on Canada.ca will soon be able to answer a broader range of questions by drawing from a vastly larger pool of CRA resources.

When combined, these measures are streamlining operations and making the CRA more nimble and efficient in responding to Canadians.

The CRA is also improving the accuracy of responses provided by contact centres. During the last fiscal year, the agency evaluated over 100,000 calls as part of the quality assurance program. Of these, 80% were related to specific taxpayer files. According to our results, these calls achieved an accuracy rate of 94%.

We do, however, agree with the Auditor General's findings, and the agency fully acknowledges, that the remaining 20% of calls, which are related to general inquiries, still require improvement. To respond to audit findings, the CRA's quality assurance program is refocusing its evaluation criteria to emphasize the accuracy and completeness of information shared with callers. Evaluations will more effectively inform improvements, including updated training materials, revised procedures and individualized coaching.

Canadians trust the CRA. They trust it to handle sensitive personal and financial information and to provide accurate and timely advice. We are reinforcing that trust through our 100-day plan.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, if the target accuracy rate was 94%, the Auditor General would not have gone through the whole process of auditing the department. She has found the complete opposite when it comes to service standards.

I find it a little rich for the government member to stand up and say there is a 94% success rate when that was clearly not the case. It would be nice if the member would get up to explain how there could be such a discrepancy between the Auditor General's findings and the findings of the CRA. When the CRA is looking at itself, of course it is going to point to the number of calls where it knows it got the information right, not look at a bigger body of them, as the Auditor General did.

Quite often, people are hit by this issue. The number of times I have had people come in who are single mothers about to lose their child tax benefit or who are seniors at risk of losing their OAS or CPP or who have had clawbacks to them is absolutely tremendous. The government needs to get this right so that these vulnerable individuals do not suffer at the hands of the CRA.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Government of Canada will continue to closely monitor the results of this plan in the short and longer term. We will oversee the overall success of this plan, which will be assessed based on improvements in clients' experience.

Given the agency's commitment when proving the accuracy of responses provided by contact centre representatives, we will be tracking the performance closely. Our expectation is clear: The accuracy rate for general enquiries should be just as high as that for enquiries related to specific taxpayer files.

Finally, we will also monitor key indicators such as reductions in call volume and processing times, and the effectiveness of new solutions such as the platforms and AI tools to ensure better access to timely services for Canadians. Asking the agency to swiftly implement the 100-day plan was a decisive action by the government. Canadians deserve timely, accurate and accessible service from the agency's contact centres, and it is the agency's responsibility to deliver it.

Public Services and Procurement

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to follow up on my question from earlier this year about the Liberals' inability to follow through on Auditor General reports and actually improve service delivery to Canadians.

It was just back in June that I asked a question about the F-35, and we found out that the original cost of the F-35 jets was estimated to be $19 billion. However, the Auditor General, after their audit, found that the figure was based on outdated information and that by 2024 the estimated cost had increased to $28 billion, almost a 50% increase. That also did not take into account several other elements needed to achieve full operational capacity, such as essential infrastructure upgrades and advanced weapons, which would cost another $5.5 billion. It is past the budget time frame and past the budget costs, and we are still lingering months later with an inability to move forward on that file.

However, that is not the only report the Auditor General has that the Liberals keep messing up. I want to go back to reference another recent Auditor General's report, and that was on the performance standards of the Canada Revenue Agency call centres. This most recent report was not the first one that was done. The Liberals had their wrists slapped back in only 2017, a few years ago, about several aspects of their service delivery that were failing.

The Auditor General came out with a scathing report at that time, talking about service standards and accuracy of information in several ways and giving recommendations as to what the Liberals needed to do to get CRA to give better customer service. It was back in 2017 that the then minister for CRA put out a statement that said:

Our clients have a right to receive information that is clear and precise, when they need it. We have made strides to improve our service

The statement goes on to say:

However, there remains work to be done, and the Auditor General's recommendations will help us make the necessary adjustments.

They had a three-point action plan, and they said:

Beginning in 2018, our clients will see numerous improvements

Fast-forward to today. The budget of CRA under the Liberals, since their time in office, has increased by 70%. I wish I could come here tonight and instead congratulate the Liberals and say that service got 70% better. Literally, when we look at it, service actually got about 70% worse, I would say. That is closer to the actual reality.

In the second report under the Liberals with respect to the CRA, the call centres and customer service to Canadian taxpayers got astronomically worse. The Liberals had learned nothing except how to make the problem worse. Only 18% of calls met CRA's own service standard. The average wait time doubled. There were invoices paid with little or no validation, which is something we have heard before in the arrive scam investigation. Over 32 million calls were received, but only 10 million people reached an agent. This means that 22 million Canadians were redirected or hung up on.

My question for the Liberals is this. How many more Auditor General reports is it going to take for them to get what I call their “deliverology” in shape, get CRA in shape and take all these other Auditor General reports, like with respect to the F-35, and get something done properly, on time, on budget and with good customer service? Canadians are not expecting too much from the government but are getting the worst deliveries we have seen in recent years.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, last spring, Canadians made it clear they wanted change.

The new government is laser-focused on transforming the ways we do business, but we will not lose sight of our commitment to deliver responsibly for Canadians. From making housing more affordable to bolstering our defence efforts, we are building Canada strong while remaining mindful of our role as stewards of public funds.

We know government spending must at all times meet the highest standards of accountability. To address the member opposite, as we have said before, I will say that the government has accepted all the Auditor General's recommendations regarding procurements made in relation to the development of the ArriveCAN app. We share the demand for accountability expressed by the opposition.

The new government will ensure that rules are followed and that procurement processes are properly applied and documented every time. The government has already implemented several measures to improve how we procure and manage professional services. This includes improving evaluation requirements, increasing transparency, improving documentation, ensuring that work requirements are clear and adding measures for more procurement oversight across the board.

The goal, as always, is to make sure we are getting the best value for Canadians. I want to be clear: When it comes to recovering funds, where we can demonstrate fraud or overbilling, we will pursue, and are already pursuing, GC Strategies in court. At the same time, procuring goods and services, particularly those related to defence, needs to be more efficient.

Regarding the member's concerns around Canada's future fighters, a modern fighter jet fleet is essential for defending Canada and Canadian sovereignty, and we plan on delivering in a timely manner. In this rapidly changing and complex geopolitical environment, we must also take a hard look at our defence procurements to ensure that they remain in the best interests of Canadians and our armed forces. That is why we have created the Defence Investment Agency to streamline processes, tailor oversight to project complexity and embed a stronger sense of urgency and prioritization into how we deliver capabilities. This is what responsible governments do.

Canada's new government understands the importance of being fiscally responsible and maintaining high standards while conducting the business of the country. Canadians rightly expect this, and that is why we are committed to transforming the way we do business as we build Canada strong. With all federal procurements and projects, the new government will make sure we are always getting the best value while upholding the highest standards.