Dan Muys
Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. Young Canadians who have done everything right are finding themselves locked out of the housing market. Many are delaying major life decisions.”
“Yet, when members examine Bill C-26 , they will find very little detail about what success looks like. How many homes would be built? How many housing starts would result from this spending? What benchmarks would be used to determine whether the money was spent effectively?”
“In essence, it would authorize the Minister of Finance, with a giant blank cheque, to make payments to the provinces and territories up to a maximum of $1.713 billion for the purpose of improving housing supply. It is a lot of money, and there is not a lot of indication as to whether there would be results.”
“After the introduction of the bill in March, between the months of April and May, housing starts decreased by 6%. That is not progress. Housing affordability improves when homes are built. That means reducing delays, accelerating approvals and ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with growth.”
“What is missing is a federal government willing to focus on results instead of process. Canadians are tired of hearing that help is coming. They want to see the homes being built and families getting a key in the door of the home they can actually afford. That is the standard by which the bill should be judged.”
“Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me for a moment, as Sunday is Father's Day, I would like to thank my father for his love and support to me and my three brothers, for the life lessons he taught us and for his humour, his compassion, his very practical common sense and his love of nature: happy Father's Day to Dad.”
The complete record
Every one of 129 lines we hold for Dan Muys, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia raises a question about what the outcomes are for $1.7 billion in funding that we are supposed to approve in the House, based on a two-paragraph bill. Did the hon. member find in any place in the bill, or in what she has read about it, any sort of targets in terms of the housing, whether it is deeply affordable housing or otherwise, that would be built with the $1.7 billion?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point. We were asked to approve, with this bill, a $1.7-billion blank cheque with no idea as to how many homes are going to be built with that. In fact, we do not even know from the Province of Ontario when that is actually going to be implemented, or how that is going to result in homebuilding. This question was asked in question period. We received no answer. The question was asked in this debate so far this evening. We received no answer, so we have no idea how many homes are going to be built for the giant cheque of $1.7 billion. We should be incentivizing builders to build by cutting the third of the cost of a home that is government, which is fees, taxes and all of the roadblocks at the municipal level that we Conservatives have proposed to help remove.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's point is valid. It is not the spending, whether it is increasing or decreasing, and we have debated that, that is resulting in the construction of homes. We need builders to have confidence. We need an economy that is, as it was 11 years ago, the strongest-performing economy in the G7, the strongest-performing economy in the OECD, not the only economy in the G20 that is in recession. That is what is going to help build homes and ensure that they are affordable for young Canadians to actually enter the market.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about reality in his question to the previous speaker. Let me get to that in a moment, but the Province of Ontario, the government itself, home builders and buyers are waiting to see this program actually be implemented. They do not understand how this rebate is going to actually happen. That is one thing. Here is the reality faced by Ontarians, Canadians and young Canadians in particular. Before these Liberals, 11 years ago, because of the taxes and bureaucracy they support, the average monthly mortgage payment in this country was $1,432. The average rent was $943. People could afford to buy a home. Now, a third of the cost of building a home is government, and this is symptomatic of the problem of the current government.”
“What is missing is a federal government willing to focus on results instead of process. Canadians are tired of hearing that help is coming. They want to see the homes being built and families getting a key in the door of the home they can actually afford. That is the standard by which the bill should be judged. Conservatives continue to advocate for policies to get homes built. We continue to push for lower taxes on housing. We continue fighting to remove barriers to construction. We will continue standing up for young Canadians, families and workers who simply want the opportunity to own a home and build a future in this country. Canadians deserve those results, they deserve accountability for $1.7 billion, and most importantly, they deserve a government focused on building homes instead of building bureaucracy.”
“After the introduction of the bill in March, between the months of April and May, housing starts decreased by 6%. That is not progress. Housing affordability improves when homes are built. That means reducing delays, accelerating approvals and ensuring that infrastructure keeps pace with growth. Conservatives believe that federal funding should be tied to those outcomes, and that is what we have proposed. Municipalities that increase housing construction should be rewarded. Municipalities that continue to block growth should expect that taxpayers will not subsidize that failure. The objective should be simple: more homes built every year, not more paperwork, bureaucracy or announcements but more homes. Canada already has the workers, materials, expertise and entrepreneurial spirit needed to address the housing crisis.”
“It would reduce costs while encouraging the construction of additional housing supply. That is the difference between a measure designed to generate headlines and a measure designed to generate the building of homes. Another concern is the government's continued focus on creating programs and bureaucracies instead of a focus on outcomes. Canadians do not measure success by the number of announcements issued by governments. They measure success by whether they can afford a home, whether housing starts are increasing and whether their children have a realistic path to home ownership. Those are the metrics that matter. Canadians understand that housing affordability will not improve because government creates another program, fund or bureaucracy.”
“One of the most notable aspects of Bill C-26 is the government's agreement with Ontario regarding the decision to remove the HST from eligible new homes. Conservatives have long argued that taxes imposed on home construction ultimately make housing more expensive. That is why we support lowering taxes on housing. However, we also believe that Canadians deserve something better than temporary measures and complicated rebate programs. Our position has been consistent: We would permanently remove the GST on new homes under $1.3 million. That would be permanent, not a one-year fix. The Canadian Home Builders' Association agrees with our vision. It too would like relief on taxes to be made permanent. A permanent GST cut would provide certainty for homebuyers, builders and the housing market.”
“Time and again, Canadians are told that relief is just around the corner, yet housing affordability continues to worsen. The reality is that after Liberal housing programs over the past number of years, with billions of dollars spent and countless announcements, Canadians are still asking a simple question: Where are the homes? The CMHC cautions that Canada needs 430,000 to 480,000 new homes per year through 2035 to restore affordability to pre-COVID levels. The government frequently talks about ambition, but Canadians are looking for results. The government frequently talks about investments, but Canadians are looking for homes. The government frequently announces new programs, but Canadians are asking why housing remains less affordable today than it was a decade ago.”
“Let me be clear. Conservatives support working with the provinces to increase housing supply. We support reducing the tax burden on new homes. We support measures that make it easier to build. The partnership with the Province of Ontario promises funding over a 10-year period to boost housing supply. However, in the announcement, there are no clear benchmarks on how many houses would be built. In fact, buyers, home builders and even the Government of Ontario are still unclear as to how this rebate would be implemented. In question period today, the Liberal government gave no clear answer to the question from our shadow minister of housing about when the rebate would be implemented. (2150) Time and again, Canadians hear announcements. Time and again, Canadians hear promises.”
“Yet, when members examine Bill C-26 , they will find very little detail about what success looks like. How many homes would be built? How many housing starts would result from this spending? What benchmarks would be used to determine whether the money was spent effectively? What reporting requirements would exist to ensure that taxpayers could evaluate the results? This legislation provides few answers. Instead, Parliament is being asked to approve a substantial amount of public spending while placing considerable discretion in the hands of the Minister of Finance. If a municipality came before taxpayers asking for $1.7 billion, citizens would expect a plan. If a private company sought $1.7 billion from investors, shareholders would expect measurable outcomes. Surely Canadians deserve no less when it comes to federal spending.”
“In essence, it would authorize the Minister of Finance, with a giant blank cheque, to make payments to the provinces and territories up to a maximum of $1.713 billion for the purpose of improving housing supply. It is a lot of money, and there is not a lot of indication as to whether there would be results. At first glance, that sounds like a big number and maybe that would achieve something. Canadians do want more homes built. The Conservatives certainly want more homes built. The question is whether the legislation would actually accomplish that objective. That is where concerns begin to emerge. When Parliament is asked to approve $1.7 billion in spending authority, Canadians certainly have the right to expect a clear plan. They have the right to expect measurable objectives. They have the right to expect accountability.”
“In my home community of Hamilton, the 2025 average rent was over $1,600 per month. Under the Harper Conservative government in 2015, the national average was just $942 per month. Increasingly, it has become a question of whether future generations will enjoy the same opportunities that previous generations of Canadians took somewhat for granted. That is why all members of this House should be focused on one goal: building more homes. Unfortunately, while there is broad agreement on the problem, there is far less agreement on how to solve it. Bill C-26 is presented as a measure to improve housing supply. The legislation itself is relatively short. It is only two paragraphs.”
“Today, that promise feels increasingly out of reach. Young Canadians who have done everything right are finding themselves locked out of the housing market. Many are delaying major life decisions. They are postponing marriage, postponing starting a family and postponing putting down roots in their communities because the cost of housing continues to rise faster than their ability to save. According to the OECD, approximately 35% of low-income Canadian households are cost-overburdened, meaning they spend more than 40% of their disposable income just on housing. Renters are watching an ever-larger share of their income disappear each month, making it even more difficult to save for a down payment. The average rent on a two-bedroom purpose-built apartment in Canada rose 5.1% to $1,550 per month in 2025, and that is if one is lucky.”
“Mr. Speaker, if you will indulge me for a moment, as Sunday is Father's Day, I would like to thank my father for his love and support to me and my three brothers, for the life lessons he taught us and for his humour, his compassion, his very practical common sense and his love of nature: happy Father's Day to Dad. Let me get back to the matter at hand, which is Bill C-26 , the so-called improving housing supply act. Before discussing the details of this legislation, it is important to recognize why housing remains one of the most pressing issues facing Canadians. For generations, home ownership was part of the Canadian promise. If someone worked hard, saved responsibly and played by the rules, they could reasonably expect to purchase a home, raise a family and build a future in the community they loved.”
“I thank all who have served our country and all who continue to serve for their service. I thank them for keeping Canada strong and free.”
“Mr. Speaker, last Friday, Waterdown, Ontario, celebrated its annual “remember everyone deployed Friday”, better known as RED Friday, which was hosted by the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 551 in the core of Waterdown. On RED Friday, we wore red to show appreciation for veterans, active military and first responders and their families. This year, Waterdown saw a record crowd, with live music, activities and displays featuring first responder and military vehicles. The Waterdown Museum of Hope was also open. The museum hosts some amazing displays, showcasing Canadian heroes and peacekeepers, narrated by students from the Waterdown District High School. The event would not have been possible without the leadership of Sheila Latner, president of the Waterdown Legion, and event co-hosts Bob Thomas and Judi Partridge.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for a strong grasp of the numbers and the facts. I would note that 11 years ago, the average monthly mortgage payment was $1,432. The average monthly rent payment was $973 a month after 10 years of Conservative government. Maybe the hon. member can reflect on the fact that now in Canada, a third of the cost of building a home is government taxes, fees, levies, delays and permits. In my community of Hamilton, Ontario it is actually 36%. This is driving up the cost of housing and it is preventing young people from entering the market.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that the Alto high‑speed rail project, which will be completed toward the end of the next decade, 2040, already has 13 vice‑presidents at that agency who are already receiving bonuses, with not an inch of track being laid. The hon. member described Build Canada Homes as an arm's-length federal agency. How many vice‑presidents will there be, and are they going to be receiving bonuses already?”
“The Leader of the Opposition has called upon the Prime Minister to hold an emergency debate to explain the plan to reverse the recession the Liberals have created, because Canadians deserve answers. Canadians deserve a plan, and Canadians deserve a government that will unleash Canada's economy once again.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Instead he delivered the only recession in the G7. He promised growth. Canada lost more than 112,000 jobs in just three months. He promised investment. Business investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters. He promised prosperity. Today, one in four Canadians faces food insecurity. The recession is real. I hear it from families and seniors every day. It is real for families struggling to afford groceries. It is real for workers coming home from work and telling their kids they no longer have a job and that they are going to have to sell the house. It is real for Canadians watching their savings disappear while costs continue to rise.”
“Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent speech. Eleven years ago, Canada had the best-performing economy in the G7 and the OECD. After 11 years of the Liberals and their disastrous policies, we are the only G7 country in recession, and we have the lowest private sector investment of any economy in the OECD. What would Conservatives do to close the gap the member talked about, in terms of the immense resource wealth we have, and the smart people, yet poor results?”
“Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago, the front page of The New York Times declared Canada as having the richest, most prosperous middle class in the world. Eleven years after the Liberals took office, as my colleague mentioned in his speech, there is record household debt and delinquency, and the middle class is suffering. How is this possible in a country that is so blessed with the resources that Canada has?”
“Mr. Speaker, as my colleague and friend noted in her speech, the prices of groceries and many everyday essentials are up. There is an impact from gas taxes on that. Let me ask the question. A year ago in the election, the Prime Minister said that he should be judged on the price of groceries in the grocery aisle. It is now a year and a month later. How is he doing?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lakeland is exactly right. Eleven years ago, we had the richest, most prosperous middle class in the world here in Canada, but we have moved a long way from that. Canada has the lowest private sector investment in our economy of all the OECD countries because of the regulatory and tax burden that is choking and chasing away investment. I would like the member to comment on the fact that it has been nine months since the Major Projects Office was approved in legislation, and zero shovels are in the ground, yet Germany built an LNG intake facility in 6.5 months, the Netherlands in six months and Finland in four months.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the transport and infrastructure committee for his excellent speech. As we have mentioned in committee, and as he has mentioned many times in committee, we are pointing out the lack of transparency with the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the many connections to Liberal insiders that seem to be at play and, of course, the very favourable terms that are given to projects of those insiders. Does he worry that, with the sovereign debt fund, we are going down that exact same road? Can he elaborate more on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, yesterday's statement proved nothing has changed: more debt, more costs, more spending, more taxes, more of the same. Canada has the worst housing costs, worst growth and worse food inflation in the G7. As The Globe and Mail said, “This 'New Government' has no interest in arresting our economic decline”. Why have the Liberals doubled Justin Trudeau's deficit and doubled down on costly credit card budgeting, forcing Canadians to pay more for gas, groceries and housing?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about transforming the great potential of the space economy into action. One of the things that we as Conservatives believe is that this bill has massive, gaping holes, in terms of no regulatory framework. It is certainly a blank cheque to the minister to make decisions. That lack of regulatory certainty is going to drive private sector investment in the space economy away. How do we attract private sector investment when there is no certainty? The private sector needs regulatory certainty in order to invest. Would the member care to comment on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. That is the crux of this. Why would all the liability be on the taxpayer if things do not go right? Those are the questions we want to ask as the bill is studied at committee. Those are the oversights, rules and transparency that need to be added. Do not get me wrong; there is obviously a role for the private sector. Conservatives have always believed there is a great role for the private sector. That has certainly been proven in the space economy throughout the years and in our leadership on the Canadarm and so many other programs, but there needs to be an equal weighting because the private sector will invest where there is certainty and regulatory oversight. That is what needs to happen.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the vice-chair of the transport, infrastructure and communities committee, for his great work on this project and on so many others. The member raises excellent points. The CSA is not the expert on defence, and that is why we need to hear from experts at committee, such as CSIS, as the member mentioned, and others, that can address it. If we are going to invest this kind of money into a project such as the one that is being proposed, where are the safeguards against foreign interference? Where are the safeguards against influence by others? Those questions have not been asked, nor does the legislation address how that would happen.”
“Mr. Speaker, we agree. There is incredible economic opportunity in the space economy and in sectors related to it. Conservatives have always agreed with that. I know that my colleague from Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna identified in his thoughts in the House, going back to Diefenbaker, Mulroney and Harper, how we have helped advance that. What we are saying and have said consistently in only the first two hours of debate on this piece of legislation is that there are the gaping holes in Bill C-28 that would rest all the power with the minister to make those decisions. That causes grave concerns around Liberal insider access. It certainly is not a matter of transparency. Where are the rules, where—”
“We should ensure that the final product would help Canada succeed in practice, not merely in press releases. Canada has the people, Canada has the talent, Canada has the geography, Canada has the industrial base and Canada has the history. What we need now is the seriousness to match it. I look forward to seeing the bill studied at committee, strengthened and judged by whether it helps Canada compete, build and lead in the years ahead.”
“We know the value of steel, precision manufacturing, logistics, defence, engineering and skilled trades. Those same capabilities can and should help power Canada's next growth sectors, including aerospace and space technologies. That applies to ports, transportation corridors, energy and manufacturing as well. Bill C-28 now comes before Parliament with its gaping holes. It deserves careful study and thoughtful consideration at committee, because it needs much more detail. It deserves witness testimony from industry, regulators, legal experts, security experts, provincial partners and innovators on the ground. We should examine competitiveness. We should examine liability exposure. We should examine timelines. We should examine transparency safeguards.”
“It is about national confidence. Too often, Canada has grown comfortable thinking small. We should be a country that builds major projects, and certainly notwithstanding the record of the Liberal government, so let us not allow Bill C-28 to become a missed opportunity because it is too dependent on political will and not proper regulatory processes, administrative tribunals and the needed oversights. We should be a country that has the tax regulatory climate to set up a healthy private sector that invests in advanced industries. We should be a country that rewards innovators, engineers, tradespeople, entrepreneurs and workers who turn ideas into reality. We should be a country that looks forward. In communities like mine, we know what advanced industry looks like.”
“Canadians have recently seen major public decisions raise legitimate questions. In Nova Scotia, the government announced a $200‑million agreement tied to the planned spaceport project, but it should be noted that the project's proponent has publicly listed former Nova Scotia Liberal premier Stephen McNeil on its advisory board. At the transport committee, we also examined the Canada Infrastructure Bank loan connected to the Mersey River wind project and the concerns surrounding that process and its uneasy connection to Liberal insiders. These examples are exactly why emerging strategic sectors must begin the right way. Canadians should be confident that contracts are awarded on merit, public money is protected and proximity to power never outweighs public interest. This debate is also about something larger.”
“That principle matters all the more when recent contracts and infrastructure decisions have raised legitimate concerns, and when political connections and insider proximity to power seem to have trumped a framework brought about by professionals. Canadians are ambitious people. They support private sector growth, they support innovation and they do not want favouritism. A new industry must not become an old story. If Canada is serious about building leadership in the space economy, then procurement must be clean, selection processes must be credible and accountability must be absolute. Conservatives are in favour of enhancing Canada's sovereignty and space capabilities, but we are not in favour of any framework that could become a blank cheque for Liberal insiders or foreign agents.”
“The true test is execution, and that is a concern when the legislation would give all the power to one individual, the minister. Where is the regulatory framework? Can Canada approve projects in a timely manner? Can we attract private capital? Can we ensure public confidence? Can Canada build a reputation for competence and reliability? Those questions remain unanswered by the legislation. (1215) Another principle that must guide us from the beginning is transparency. Whenever governments are involved in strategically emerging sectors, and whenever public funds, public lands or public approvals are at stake, Canadians must know that decisions are being made fairly, openly and on merit.”
“If governments confuse announcements with outcomes, they also go elsewhere. That is why regulatory certainty matters, and that is why it is puzzling that Bill C-28 would give the Liberal minister all the power to make decisions on what goes into space from behind closed doors. This would undermine transparency, and Parliament has every reason to be concerned. However, there are certainly positive elements in Bill C-28 . It recognizes that launch and re-entry activities require a dedicated framework. What we are asking for is a draft of those details around that. The bill would address safety, liability, site certification and emergency powers, but legislation is only a beginning, and that is where there are gaping holes.”
“Countries around the world understand this, and they are competing for this investment. They are building launch capacity, they are creating clear regulatory pathways and they are moving with urgency. Canada also possesses natural advantages that many other countries do not. We are a vast nation with northern geography; we have access to remote corridors, coastal opportunities, strong aerospace clusters and world‑class research institutions such as universities that have been mentioned in the debate thus far; and we have the ingredients many countries would envy. The question is whether we have the policy environment to make use of them. Canada must understand this as well. When investors face uncertainty, as my colleague from Northumberland—Clarke just talked about, they go elsewhere. When approvals take too long, they go elsewhere.”
“It is a reminder that Canadian talent belongs at the front edge of great endeavours. The question before us is simple: Will our laws, policies and economic climate allow Canada to participate fully in the next era of space development, or will we once again watch opportunity leave our shores, as has happened too often after 10 years of the Liberals? The global space economy is no longer theoretical. It is real, and it is growing rapidly. It includes launch services, satellite deployment, communications, earth observation, defence applications, navigation, research, manufacturing, data services and technologies that we have not yet even imagined. The global space economy is expected to contribute in excess of a trillion dollars in just a few years and $1.8 trillion within a decade. It is an industry growing at nearly 10% a year.”
“We became leaders in robotics, satellite technology, remote sensing, communications and advanced aerospace engineering. Canadian innovators have helped shape missions that reached orbit, the International Space Station, Mars and beyond. Our workers, engineers, technicians, researchers and manufacturers have earned global respect, and just recently, Canadians had another reason to feel proud: Commander Jeremy Hansen from southwestern Ontario, a Canadian astronaut, recently returned home as part of the Artemis II mission. That mission carried humans to the moon for the first time in more than 50 years and farther from earth than any people in human history. Think about that. A Canadian helping lead humanity's return to deep space exploration is not only symbolic.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the great people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North. There are some subjects that still have the power to inspire wonder, and certainly space is one of them. For generations, it has sparked curiosity, discovery and the belief that the next great breakthrough may still be ahead of us. It reminds us that progress is not automatic but must be chosen, must be built and must be earned. Canada has long had the talent, the ingenuity and the industrial capacity to contribute to the space economy. Our laws have not kept pace with the opportunities before us. Canada is not a stranger to excellence in space, far from it. We gave the world the Canadarm.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise again today to present another petition on behalf of Canadians opposed to government Bill C-9 , which they see as a threat to freedom of religion and freedom of expression. We have seen the consequences of that in other jurisdictions. The petitioners are calling upon the government to withdraw this legislation.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are opposed to Bill C-9 and the threats it poses to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, and to have joined some of those Canadians on Parliament Hill yesterday rallying against the bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Manning for his excellent remarks, which started before question period, and for raising the issue about the British pensioners and his knowledge on that. It was surprising to hear that is a $470-million cost to Canada. Why does the hon. member believe that the government was unsuccessful in so many missed opportunities to remedy that issue? Is it lack of will or laziness? What is the reason?”
“Madam Speaker, I think my colleague from British Columbia has really hit the nail on the head. We all stood in this place in support of Bill C-5 , the major projects bill. That was more than eight months ago. We know that Germany was able to build an LNG facility in less than seven months; the Netherlands in six months; and Finland in four months. We have had MOUs. We have had photo ops. We have had press releases. However, we have had no shovels in the ground and no results. My colleague has outlined a number of practical actions that we can take to make sure our economy is ready to take advantage of the fact that Canada does have everything the world wants. Maybe the member can elaborate a bit more on that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's excellent analysis on the ROI of the high-speed rail, and particularly the passenger levels, which are unrealistic, and of the fact that there is a lack of a business case here. Obviously, this is one of the major projects that have been designated. When we were at committee, and we supported Bill C-5 with strong Conservative amendments to improve the bill and pass it through, we heard from a witness who said that if we actually want to increase our GDP, the fastest and best way to do that is to build pipelines to tidewater and get our energy resources to tidewater. In contrast to this investment that is proposed, which would benefit very few people, what are the member's thoughts on that?”
“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because that is the point. The reason we are now among the worst-performing economies in the G7 and the OECD, which we were not 10 years ago, is that we have the lowest private sector investment in our economy in the world. When we do not create the conditions for the private sector to invest here, investment will elsewhere. Capital is global, and we have seen that time and time again. If we want to make sure we have opportunities for Canadians, we can do better than having one in four working for the government. We can provide excellent opportunities in the private sector so Canadians can prosper, save up, buy a home and live the Canadian dream.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should create prosperity for young Canadians so they can actually have jobs. That is what Canadians had 10 years ago. After 10 years of a Conservative government, youth unemployment was not at the skyrocketing levels we are seeing now, and that is not fair. As well, 10 years ago, the average monthly mortgage payment on the average house in Canada was $1,432. The average rent was $973. Young people could go to school, save up, buy a home and start a family. That was the Canadian dream. That is why we were the envy of the world and had the richest middle class. That does not exist anymore after 10 years of the Liberals. Conservatives will work to restore that dream and that promise.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak on behalf of my colleague. What I will note, as I said in my speech, is that we had the richest middle class in the world 10 years ago, when we had an economy that was attracting investment from around the world. Prosperity is the answer to all of our issues. The member opposite is part of a government that said no to Germany and Japan when they came for Canadian LNG. Germany built the facility, as I said in my speech, in seven months, and we lost the opportunity to diversify our trade, create those jobs and steal other jobs for all Canadians.”