Dominique Vien
Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Confronting Antifeminist Ideologies in Canada”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we mark World Elder Abuse Awareness Day today, the Liberal government is standing in the way of organizations that support seniors. The new rules for the New Horizons for Seniors program are forcing volunteer groups to get a business number from the Canada Revenue Agency.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are totally out of touch, but I want to raise a different topic. Last week, the President of the Treasury Board was unable to answer a simple question from my colleague. That embarrassed his government and, according to La Presse, angered his fellow Liberal MPs.”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague said, a United Way survey confirms that this government is a disaster, as 60% of Canadians are feeling financial anxiety and 22% of Canadians have personally experienced poverty, compared to 19% last year.”
“Mr. Speaker, under this Prime Minister , Canada is the only G20 country in a recession. This comes as no surprise. We have experienced three out of four quarters of negative growth. We are seeing a record decline in productivity.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise, as we were not sure I would have enough time. I would like to thank my two colleagues from the Bloc Québécois, who spoke so eloquently, as well as my colleague from King—Vaughan , who gave a really poignant speech about seniors. She is able to do so because she travels around many ridings.”
The complete record
Every one of 124 lines we hold for Dominique Vien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“It is difficult for the Minister of Women and Gender Equality . It is difficult for our colleague from Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville , who was at École Polytechnique in Montreal on the evening of December 6, 1989, when a young man walked in, armed to the teeth. He separated the men from the women. The men were spared. This was a shocking femicide: Fourteen women lost their lives that night, and for what? It was primarily because they were women. The young man in question was angry because these women were studying for a career in engineering which, at the time, was viewed predominantly as a career for men. In this House, we are fortunate to have among our colleagues the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong , who is, I believe, the first female engineer to be elected to Parliament.”
“We may sit on opposite sides of the House, but beyond that, we are men and women. Women stand up for each other and must support one another because, as I was saying at committee this week, right now is a terrible time for women. It is not easy. Violence against women is on the rise. The rate of violence is not slowing down or stopping. It is going up, and I see this clearly as a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, along with my Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois colleagues. We have conducted nine studies in four years and have issued recommendations to strengthen women's safety. Why? It is because the situation is not improving. Today is the day we set aside to commemorate a past event that is difficult to revisit. It is difficult for me to speak about it here today.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit difficult to rise to speak after listening to such a heartbreaking and personal account. What we heard from the Minister of Women and Gender Equality this morning was a cry from the heart. It is essentially an appeal to us to work together, to make sure that we live in a society, a country, a city, a town where every person is respected for who he or she is, with his or her own unique strengths, weaknesses, values and beliefs, regardless of sex. That is in part what we heard from the minister this morning. She also spoke to us about our shared responsibility. That is absolutely true. We will get there only if we work hand in hand, whether we are in government in Ottawa, in Quebec City, in Alberta or somewhere else. This morning, I hope that Canadians were able to see how connected we can be.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not sure she understood my question, so I will ask it again. Canadians can no longer afford to put food on the table because of the cost of living, and this government continues to empty their pockets and fill those of big corporations. This Prime Minister found $72 million for Nokia, $400 million for Algoma Steel and $15 billion for Stellantis. What do the Liberals get in return? Job cuts. Is this the new Liberal strategy: make Canadians poorer in order to make big business richer?”
“Mr. Speaker, it takes a lot of talent to create unemployment while spending $15 billion. Food banks are swamped, but the Prime Minister would rather act as an ATM for multinationals. He is giving $15 billion to Stellantis and $400 million to Algoma Steel, and yet the result is job losses. Can the Prime Minister explain his wonderful strategy that involves paying big business to layoff Canadians?”
“I will close by saying that one of the arguments in favour of criminalizing coercive control is that coercive control, as invisible as it may be, can lead to physical violence. I am sure my colleagues know where things go from there.”
“It seems to me that there is an inconsistency when government members who are wearing the ribbon are presenting these kinds of numbers and rising in the House to pay lip service to women's issues, while, at the same time, cutting the budget to protect women. Something is wrong here. I would therefore urge the government to bring back Bill C‑332 and fast-track it. We all agreed on it. Let us hit one out of the park and move forward with a bill to criminalize coercive control. All of the stakeholders we have met with in recent weeks are calling for that. While we are at it, perhaps the government should also reconsider the budget it has allocated to the Minister for Women.”
“The House of Commons passed it, and it got to the Senate. It did not have much further to go. I hope that the Chair will allow me to make a somewhat more partisan comment. I am not the most partisan person here, so I hope he will indulge me. First, there is no full-time minister for the status of women. We know that the minister has other jobs and other portfolios to deal with. She is not just responsible for the status of women. Second, we learned in the budget statement that the funding for the department responsible for the status of women has been cut by 78%. Off the top of my head, I think that can be found on page 209 of the French version of the budget.”
“The committee has conducted about nine studies that have resulted in resolutions, recommendations and observations that have been presented to the current government to get things moving and speed up action to improve protection for women. Let us talk about coercive control. As I was saying earlier, the committee did a study on that topic, and the report will be tabled today. (1010) The House passed a bill on this subject that even made it to the Senate. It was Bill C‑332 , if memory serves. This bill had to do with criminalizing coercive control. This is no one's fault, but that bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called. I would therefore like to issue my colleagues a challenge. If this is not already in the works, would it be possible to fast-track the bill to get it moving forward again?”
“Two or three weeks ago, the Liberal Minister of Justice said that the violent crime index in Canada has increased by 41%. According to police across Canada, the number of female victims of domestic violence has risen by 40% nationwide, which is very high. That is extremely concerning. A number of initiatives have been implemented. Every small step, every small gesture, no matter how small, is important and brings us one step closer to being able to keep women safe. I drew up a list of the work we have done. Perhaps some will say that the women on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and the men who sometimes attend, are hyperactive.”
“The picture is not completely bleak, but neither is it very rosy when it comes to women's safety. A woman or girl is murdered in Canada every 48 hours, meaning every other day. In 2024, 240 women and girls were murdered. There have been approximately 15 femicides in Quebec over the past year. These women, these people, were murdered simply for being women. Our committee is in the middle of a study about women's safety and the Criminal Code. We have heard chilling statements from witnesses. They told us there is an epidemic of violence against women. I would go even further and call it a national crisis. I think we have a national crisis on our hands when it comes to the status of women and women's safety. Here are some statistics. Sexual assault is up 76% since 2015. Homicides are up 30%, and violent crime is up 55%.”
“There are three key dates, as my colleague mentioned. In 1999, the United Nations declared November 25 as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. There is obviously December 6, a date that is painful for all Canadians and, it goes without saying, for all Quebeckers to remember. I am the same age as the women who were murdered on December 6 simply for being women and perhaps for studying in traditionally male-dominated fields. They were murdered. My colleague called them her 14 sisters, but I would call them our 14 sisters. There is also December 10, Human Rights Day, which celebrates the adoption of the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in 1948. The news for women is not especially positive today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague, the Secretary of State (Nature) . I believe that there is no such thing as too many opportunities to talk about women and violence against women. We have the chance to talk about it here from November 25 to December 10, although we should be talking about it all year round. In fact, that is what we do at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but I will come back to that. The period from November 25 to December 10 is a key time of year when men and women come together to look at what is happening in our communities, in our country, in our provinces, in our cities and in our towns. How are women's issues being approached? How are women being treated? I want to share some background information about the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.”
“Mr. Speaker, there needs to be some context. When my colleague shares information, he should provide the full context. I would like to remind my colleague of something that he may not remember, since he is a young man. In 2008, there was a global financial crisis.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member asked me this question. Food banks have never been busier. I believe that the number of monthly visits to food banks is now 2.2 million, which is double what it was in 2019. That is just off the top of my head. These are not the unemployed; these are working people. The people who are ending up at food banks are people who have jobs, who get up in the morning and go to work. My office called a food bank in my riding. They told us that they cannot keep up. They said that demand keeps rising. Just this week, six new families came in and 20 new families have registered since mid-September. Available supplies are down, with a decrease of $82,000 compared to last year. There was no meat in the Moisson Beauce delivery this week. What will those who rely on Essential des Etchemins eat this week?”
“Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier. If the government had not spent money like it grows on trees for 10 years, we would have money to invest in infrastructure. We would have money right now to protect our borders. I am going to read some of what Fitch Ratings wrote about the budget. It said: "[P]ersistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened [the government's] credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term." Fitch also wrote that "the Canadian government has a track record of upward deficit revisions", and added, "Given that these rules are non-binding and prior versions have been ignored, federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration." That is not coming from me. That is from Fitch, a New York ratings agency.”
“The Parliamentary Budget Officer told the truth so much that they started writing a job posting to replace him, because he is not on their side. Is that true or false? We on this side of the House are disappointed. We are the voices of our communities. The Conservatives are not the only ones on our side. There are also people who think critically and who are able to provide important and credible analysis. These people are telling us that this makes no sense. That is why we did not vote in favour of this budget.”
“Despite the criticism, the Liberals have convinced themselves that everything is fine, that life is beautiful, and that everyone is in a good mood. That is not true. The criticism against them is unanimous, whether it comes from the English-language press or the French-language press, from Fitch Ratings or the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Is there anyone in this country more credible than that? Fitch Ratings in New York said that Canada's financial situation is poor, that the overspending is too high, and that it is not certain if it can maintain the current rating. The Liberal member spoke earlier about the AAA rating. Honestly, that is laughable; it is impossible. That is not coming from me; it is coming from the rating agencies.”
“Every dollar of that is going toward paying down the debt. From the moment they let out their first cry, every newborn owes $30,000 in debt servicing charges. That is today's reality; it is as simple as that. The Liberals are the ones who got us into this mess. They spent money they did not have. For 10 years, they spent like there was no tomorrow. One would have thought that the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin , who is a conscientious Liberal member, could have influenced the Minister of Finance and National Revenue . They did not listen to common sense. They did not listen to the people. That is how they operate. Today, we are left without one penny to defend our borders. On top of that, they have to borrow on the markets at exorbitant rates.”
“We certainly are borrowing a lot these days, because Canada is spending like there is no tomorrow. Debt servicing costs $50 billion. Believe it or not, that is more than the provincial health transfers. Earlier on, the member for Winnipeg North was yelling about health care services and infrastructure. He said that his government was going to make investments. The $60 billion that will be spent on servicing the debt in 2026-27, which is just a few weeks away, is money that will not be spent on health care. It is money that will not be spent on services for Canadians. It is $60 billion flung out the window. That is more money than the provinces receive in health transfers. It is more than all of us combined pay in GST. Every time we go to the pharmacy or buy a pair of winter boots, we pay GST.”
“Trudeau's Liberals had not spent money like it grows on trees, we would have money right now, money that could be allocated to national defence to keep our country safe. A member asked a question earlier: Is it possible to spend more than Mr. Trudeau's government did? We never thought we would be able answer yes, but it is possible and it is happening now. (1225) Now let us talk about the debt. Those of us on this side of the House are very concerned about the debt, as are our constituents. We hear a lot about it in our ridings. Under the Liberals, the debt has more than doubled. It went from $687 billion to $1.35 trillion. I do not even know how many zeroes that is. It is a very big number; it is huge. That is our current debt. Debt servicing is a simple concept. It is the interest we pay on money we borrow.”
“That was under the former finance minister, Ms. Freeland. During the election campaign, they announced that the deficit would be $62 billion. Even that was unacceptable to us. Now they have tabled a budget with a $78‑billion deficit. That is an extra $16 billion. Can someone explain to me how we got to this point? That is not all. They are tabling a budget with $90 billion in new spending. Does anyone know how much that represents per family? That is an additional $5,400 per household. This government's reflex to constantly spend money it does not have is detestable. In contrast, we Conservatives always remember where the government's money comes from. It comes from taxpayers' pockets. If Mr.”
“He is one of my former colleagues from when I was in the Quebec cabinet. He once said that a balanced budget is a way to establish the government's credibility and financial stability. Perhaps he should have been the one preparing the budget that was just tabled in the House. As members will recall, this budget was 18 months overdue. Canada was flying blind because it did not have a budget. The Liberals have used big adjectives to describe this budget, including the word “generational”. I would say that the only generational thing about this budget is the debt it places on our children's shoulders. I want to talk about the deficit. The member for Winnipeg North said that the Liberals did what they said they would do. That is false. That is completely false. They said the deficit would be $40 billion.”
“The dynamic is still the same as it was during the past 10 years of out-of-control spending and not being able to table a balanced budget. Quite frankly, given the context and the situation Canada is in right now, the Conservative members were keeping an open mind and were paying very close attention. We were also worried about the current geopolitical situation, and we still are. We were eager to see what the current government was going to table. All I can say is that what was tabled is totally contradictory and incompatible with the Conservatives' DNA, which is why we could not support this budget. I personally find it troubling that the members opposite did not rely on the wisdom of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin , currently the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my dear colleague from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies . It is always very interesting and very important to rise in the House, especially during the budget debate, because as we know, the tabling of the budget is a crucial moment in the history of any parliament. I have received a lot of comments and talked a lot with people in Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. I will not be telling members anything new when I say that my constituents are extremely worried. They have concerns, and they are also disappointed by what the Liberal government has presented. The only new thing about this government is the name of the Prime Minister . Everyone can see that it is the same government using the same approach, with the same people who were there under Mr. Trudeau.”
“Mr. Speaker, is the minister telling us that Fitch and the Parliamentary Budget Officer are liars? In fact, the Liberals want to fire the Parliamentary Budget Officer. In his recent report, he confirmed that the government has abandoned the fiscal anchor to reduce the debt. He warned that this poses a direct threat to Canada's credit rating and investor confidence. I have a straightforward question. How many more alarming reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer will it take for the Prime Minister to end this financial mess?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister 's credit card budget passes the bill for today's spending on to our children. After 10 years of this government, families are struggling. They have to put 50% more of their household expenses on their credit cards just to get by. Meanwhile, Fitch Ratings says that federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration since the Liberals keep exceeding their own fiscal anchors. Will the warning from Fitch convince the Prime Minister to stop his reckless and irresponsible spending?”
“Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are tightening their belts, the government is spending recklessly. It is adding $90 billion in spending. That is an extra $5,400 per household. According to Professor Charlebois, the gap between wholesale food prices in Canada and the United States has widened, and the industrial carbon tax is a major factor. Canada is the only G7 country to have experienced four consecutive months of rising food inflation. Why is the Prime Minister increasing the industrial carbon tax, which is already making food much more expensive for all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget is the most costly budget with the largest deficit in the history of the country, outside of the pandemic. We know it is going to drive up the cost of food. It is an attack on our food security, and food banks know it too. They are overwhelmed. Add to that the industrial carbon tax, a hidden tax that increases the cost of producing and transporting food. When will the Prime Minister stop waging war on farmers and finally come up with a real plan to lower grocery prices?”
“Mr. Speaker, the heavy responsibility of protecting Canadians, especially the most vulnerable among us, our children, falls to the government. The government introduced Bill C‑14 , which could have brought back minimum sentences and done something useful. But no, that is not what it did. Instead, criminals are being let off the hook. The Supreme Court confirmed it just last week. Why is this government more inclined to protect the charter rights of pedophiles than the charter rights of children?”
“Mr. Speaker, on the same topic, the Supreme Court ruled that sentencing pedophiles to minimum sentences could be cruel. However, one of the offenders had 317 images of children in his possession, 90% of which were images of girls aged three to six. Canadians are shocked by this decision to protect these child abusers. There are certain crimes for which mandatory minimum sentences, particularly for pedophiles, are necessary. I hear the members across the way saying, “Come on, honestly.” How can the Liberal government minimize this and be more inclined to protect these criminals than—”
“I congratulate the newly elected officials and wish them all the best. I want them to know that they can count on my help and that I am always available to work with them in serving the people of Bellechase—Les Etchemins—Lévis. I wish them a very successful term.”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec has been occupied with municipal elections over the past several weeks. Yesterday, voters made a choice. That choice means that many people have offered to give their time to serving the public. I congratulate all the candidates for having the courage and generosity to embark on this adventure. Many were not elected, but they won something nonetheless: They won the gratitude of our constituents. An important task lies ahead for the successful candidates. I want to thank the elected municipal officials of Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis for the remarkable work they have accomplished over the last term. To those whose time in office is drawing to a close, I sincerely thank them for their deep commitment to the community. Their sense of duty has helped to enhance the vitality and prosperity of our municipalities.”
“Mr. Speaker, numbers do not lie. I do not know whether the member is aware, but food inflation is skyrocketing. It is up 4%. This week, Food Banks Canada reported a record 2.2 million visits in a single month. Twenty per cent of food bank users are full-time workers, and 33% are children. The Conservatives have a plan to make life much more affordable for Canadians again. I repeat: Will the Prime Minister eliminate these taxes on food in his budget and make life more affordable for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to be judged by the price of groceries. Ironically, hidden Liberal taxes on food are driving up grocery prices. I am talking about the industrial carbon tax, the food packaging tax and the clean fuel regulations that increase the cost of transporting, producing, and marketing food. Everyone understands that. The more the Liberals spend, the more Canadians pay. Will the Prime Minister eliminate these taxes on food in his budget and make life more affordable for Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec has already seen its 15th femicide since the beginning of the year. This morning, we learned that the number of women who are victims of domestic violence has increased by 39% across Canada since 2015. Bailey McCourt died because the system failed to protect her. Gabie Renaud died because the system protects criminals more than it does victims. Their families are calling for greater protection and fewer slaps on the wrist. As everyone knows, the Conservatives are listening and coming up with real solutions, such as Bill C‑225 . Will the Liberal government finally listen to the Conservatives and keep dangerous people behind bars instead of at home?”
“I applaud the vision of Alphonse and Dorimène, their enduring values of justice and solidarity, and all the employees who, over the decades, have made Desjardins a co-operative that inspires immense pride. I also applaud Denis Dubois, president and CEO of Desjardins Group, who is with us today in Ottawa.”
“Mr. Speaker, it being the 125th anniversary of Desjardins Group, it is an honour for me, as a resident of Lévis, to pay tribute to Alphonse and Dorimène Desjardins, founders of what has become the largest co-operative financial group in North America and one of Quebec's largest private employers. The first caisse populaire, the Caisse populaire de Lévis, was founded in December 1900, when 132 people signed the founding social pact. Since then, Quebeckers have not wavered in their commitment to this institution. With some seven million members and branches throughout the regions, Desjardins is now a key player in Quebec's economic development, as well as an important player elsewhere in Canada and beyond our borders.”
“Mr. Speaker, we do not live in the same world. Food bank visits will soon reach four million. That is a 128% increase under these Liberals. In my riding, Les Frigos Pleins has provided more than 1,600 emergency food baskets just four months. That is almost half of what they did all last year. The industrial carbon tax, food packaging tax and clean fuel regulations are measures that increase the cost of transporting, producing and marketing food. The Prime Minister told us to judge him on grocery prices. Does he realize that the case has already been heard?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to be judged by prices at the grocery store. We know that his taxes, such as the food packaging tax, are secretly driving up prices. These taxes are so sneaky that they are built right into the posted prices. They do not even show up on customers' receipts. What we have learned is that the packaging tax will cost $1.3 billion until 2032. Will the Prime Minister put an end to these hidden taxes on food so that Quebeckers and Canadians can finally afford to eat properly?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would encourage her to read Patrick Lagacé's column in this morning's La Presse. He speaks out against a justice system that protects dangerous repeat offenders with lengthy criminal records who are released back into society. Who is looking after the victims? Nobody is doing that in this government. The Liberals promised to act and to take down their ridiculous laws and yet nothing is being done. Will they do something and pass our legislation that supports victims? If not, they should get out of the way so we can do it.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not the reality. Quebec has already had 14 suspected femicides so far this year. Recently, one of the victims was allegedly murdered by her partner, who has a long criminal record for domestic violence and who violated his conditions 16 times. Despite that, he was out of custody. Since the Liberals came to power, violent crime has increased by 55%. Homicides are up 30% and sexual assaults are up 76%. How many women need to be raped and murdered, and how many young people need to be abused before the Liberals get the picture and change the law?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to reform his deeply flawed criminal justice system, but six months later, nothing has been done. He continues to release dangerous repeat offenders. I would remind members that, over the past 10 years, sexual assaults have increased by 76% under the Liberals' watch. The Conservatives are proposing legislation that we can pass very quickly to protect Canadians: the jail not bail act. Will the Liberals abandon their bail system? If not, they should get out of the way. We will take care of it.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House many times, we women are often hypervigilant when out in public, unfortunately. I would also like to remind the House that the Conservative Party has been very consistent. We have always sided with victims. This tragic event, Quebec's 14th alleged femicide, has captured our attention. No one on the Conservative side wants to put an innocent person in prison or see an outrageous sentence handed down for a youthful mistake. That is not what we are talking about, and I would like my colleague to make that clear so as to reassure our Bloc Québécois colleagues.”
“Mr. Speaker, sadly, the news is flooded with truly disturbing cases of women being attacked, of femicides. I said it in the House: Women are not safe. We live in a constant state of hypervigilance. We know this, and it is becoming increasingly well documented. The Quebec government is even calling for this. Does my colleague agree with me on the problems caused by Bills C-5 and C-75 , which were introduced and passed by this Liberal government?”
“Mr. Speaker, here is the situation. Because of the Liberals, gun-related crime has increased by 130%. This is a fact. The Minister of Public Safety has acknowledged that the gun buyback program is purely political. This is another fact. He acknowledges that it is ineffective. It is no secret. The minister is failing at keeping Canadians safe. Will the Prime Minister demand the minister's resignation, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Safety was recorded admitting that the Liberals' gun buyback program is not worth the $750 million he is about to spend on it. As he knows and as we know, this program will only frustrate good citizens, like sport hunters. It will not reduce gun crime, which, I should note, has increased by 130% under the Liberal government. Canadians have no confidence in this minister to introduce a policy that he personally acknowledges is ineffective. The only choice left to him is to resign. Will he resign?”
“Mr. Speaker, as a woman, I am somewhat taken aback and disappointed to hear that. Women have to be hypervigilant at all times. Behind closed doors, the situation is disturbing. Intimate partner violence is the most common form of violence against women. This morning, our colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola introduced Bill C‑225 , which would protect women who do not have a voice. Can we count on the Liberals to ensure that this bill is passed quickly, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, I normally love jogging and walking outside, but I no longer do that during the weeks I am here in Ottawa for work. I no longer go out alone after dinner, because I am afraid. I have had people scream at me and shout abuse at me for being a woman. Another problem is intimate partner violence, which is hidden and under-reported. We have to stop looking the other way. We are introducing Bill C-225 , which aims to protect women from intimate partner violence, as well as a motion to adopt a “three strikes” law. Will the Liberals support us?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is further compounding the problem with a new Crown corporation that will make it even harder to build housing. He is allocating $13 billion to build 4,000 homes, which works out to $3.2 million per home. That seems worthwhile, does it not? Everyone knows that. This is completely unacceptable. This is the same wasteful government, bogged down in bureaucracy and entangled in its own red tape. Why does the Prime Minister refuse to change the formula that has been failing for 10 years?”