Arielle Kayabaga
London West, Ontario · Liberal · Canada
“Madam Speaker, earlier a member of the opposition talked about the fact that they were not filibustering, yet she was the one who actually told the story about an elephant in a discussion of Bill C-30 , where there is money that has to go out to people who need more housing in a faster way.”
“Mr. Speaker, obviously, the member has been at the municipal level before, and we know that we cannot build homes without cities and without partnerships with the provinces and municipalities.”
“Earlier, Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague who sits on committee with me said he feels we are not listening. I talked about the fact that we did extensive collaboration.”
“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. Of course, we all know that our systems and institutions are very robust in Canada, and I know my hon. colleague touched on that in his speech. Can he tell us more about what Canadians stand to gain from this bill?”
“Mr. Speaker, what I find interesting from the member opposite, who also sits on the committee with me, is the fact that he said he is not buying what we are selling, though we worked in collaboration with their team to bring the bill forward as quickly as possible.”
“Bad actors may try to interfere with our democratic processes and our elections from anywhere in the world at any time. Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections are safe.”
The complete record
Every one of 419 lines we hold for Arielle Kayabaga, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“On February 9, Bill C-11 was reported to the House with amendments. Now that the bill is before the House, I am rising to challenge the admissibility of the six amendments that were ruled inadmissible in committee and that are now contained in the bill. The six amendments are CPC-1, CPC-10, BQ-2, CPC-16, NDP-4 and BQ-3. CPC-1 would amend section 10 of the National Defence Act, which was not subject of the content of Bill C-11 . In this case, the chair ruled that, pursuant to section 16.75 of the fourth edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , CPC-1 proposed to amend a section of the act that is not before the committee and that the bill did not seek to modify the appointment process of the judge advocate general.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order respecting six amendments that were adopted in committee during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11 , an act that would amend the National Defence Act and other acts. In late January and early February of this year, the Standing Committee on National Defence conducted clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-11 . During the course of clause-by-clause consideration, six amendments were proposed that the chair of the committee ruled inadmissible on the grounds that these amendments either exceeded the scope and principle of the bill, as decided at second reading, or infringed on the parent act rule. In each of these cases, the ruling of the chair was challenged and overturned, and each of these amendments was adopted by a majority of members.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the collaboration that we have had on the committee to move this bill forward, which will continue as this bill goes back to our committee. Obviously, a key piece of this bill is to make sure that people who give misleading and false information during elections are held accountable. Does the hon. member believe that people who are giving misleading information, which can erode Canadian trust in our elections, should not be held accountable, and if so, why?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the name of his riding. I believe some other members might disagree with his comment. As I said earlier, one of the goals of the many changes we hope to make through this bill is to strengthen voter protections. As we have noted, Canada's elections are among the most robust and respected in the world. Long ballots have had an impact on Canadians and on the administration of our elections. We saw this just recently in Terrebonne. The goal is therefore to ensure that we can find other ways to allow Canadians to have their say through their votes, rather than creating obstacles in the electoral process.”
“Mr. Speaker, I believe that the House leader for the Bloc Québécois raised this issue earlier. As we said, this bill was developed by consensus after a lot of hard work from all the political parties. Some amendments have been proposed. I therefore believe that this bill can be passed in the House as soon as possible so that it can be referred to committee for further study and discussion to see what we can do.”
“We want to make sure that candidates who are on a ballot actually have a genuine intention to present the views of Canadians as a member of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, but I think he must have missed the first part of my speech. I talked about how this is part of the measures in Bill C-25 . It is one of the issues we have been addressing after bringing this to committee. We did a study on the long ballots. We had witnesses, particularly those who participated in long ballots. We understand that Canadians want to express their views on how our electoral system should go, but we also understand there are rules around that. We are putting in new measures to ensure that long ballots can no longer continue. An official agent, for example, can sign up only one person at a time. We are also increasing the numbers of signatories that they need in order to submit a candidate.”
“(1155) [ Translation ] In closing, as I said earlier, the federal election process includes many measures to protect our electoral system and keep it strong, including measures governing the secrecy of the vote count, the security of the vote count and the sharing of the results. Although the long ballots did not affect the results of the election, they still created considerable challenges for candidates. Bill C-25 , the strong and free elections act, will address those issues and strengthen the integrity of both the candidate nomination process and the electoral process as a whole. [ English ] Obviously, this is something we studied. We had many discussions, and witnesses spoke on it. I am glad to see we are finally putting forward a bill that would make sure that our elections and voters' integrity continue to be protected.”
“Bill C-25 also includes a number of other measures that would protect the integrity of Elections Canada in addressing long ballots. For example, Bill C-25 includes measures that would ensure that the commissioner of Canada elections, who is responsible for enforcing our Canada Elections Act, could hold individuals to account who encourage or incite others to sign multiple nomination forms, and to prohibit false information in candidate nomination papers. Taken together, these measures would help address long ballots, protect election administration, accessibility and integrity, and ensure that when voters head to the polls, they are presented with genuine lists of candidates who legitimately want to serve the interests of Canadians.”
“This would include information letters, warning letters, and depending on the severity of the infraction, administrative monetary penalties. Secondly, this bill would limit official agents who are responsible for managing campaign finances and reporting all financial activities to Elections Canada to working for one candidate per electoral district per election. This step would recognize the important and substantial role that official agents play and their responsibility toward the candidate they represent. To ensure compliance with this, it is already the case under the Canada Elections Act that individuals who serve as an official agent when ineligible to do so may face consequences, including warning letters or administrative monetary penalties, and up to more significant fines or even jail time.”
“However, also aligned with the Chief Electoral Officer's expert recommendation, the nomination of candidates would not be refused if an elector signs more than one candidate nomination paper. This is because candidates who are not affiliated with a coordinated protest movement are unlikely to have knowledge of or control over whether an elector has already signed another candidate's nomination form. For individuals who contravene the new signature requirements, the commissioner of Canada elections, the independent agent who is responsible for enforcing the Canada Elections Act, would have a number of tools at her disposal to encourage compliance with the act depending on the unique circumstances and contravention.”
“I am personally pleased that Bill C-25 would do exactly that, through a series of targeted amendments to the Canada Elections Act, the fundamental framework that governs all aspects of federal elections in Canada. Firstly, as suggested by the Chief Electoral Officer, Bill C-25 would limit voters to signing only one candidate nomination paper per election, recognizing that, to date, candidates associated with unduly long ballots often obtain the required number of signatures by having the same person sign multiple nomination forms. Not only would this mitigate the issue of long ballots, but it would also reinforce the original intention behind the Canada Elections Act's signature requirement, which is to demonstrate sufficient local support for a specific individual's candidacy.”
“(1150) [ English ] The time has come to put an end to this confusion and the complication of the accessibility challenges created by the actions of the longest ballot committee. I also want to highlight that the main concern we heard from our witnesses on this study was around the fact that people want to see better processes when it comes to elections. There are other ways to work through that system to make sure that we have more accessible elections for Canadians and that there are different ways of participating and doing our civic duty rather than obstructing and causing this issue that has affected voters who live with a handicap.”
“For example, voters with dexterity and mobility issues indicated that it was very difficult for them to handle and mark their ballots, whereas blind voters were unable to use the new assistive voting technology. Research conducted by Elections Canada shows that 71% of voters who had difficulty filling out their ballots attributed this to a candidate list that was too long or to difficulty locating a candidate on the list, while 13% mentioned that the ballot was too long to handle or difficult to fold. In addition to voters, election workers reported significant challenges associated with long ballots. The ballot boxes used to transport ballots are much heavier and harder to carry, vote counting becomes more complex, and reporting is often delayed.”
“[ Translation ] It is important to point out that the protest movement did not affect our election results, which shows just how strong, robust and secure our electoral system really is. However, the group's actions did make the administration of the election a lot more confusing and complicated. They also caused accessibility issues for voters and election workers, particularly those with disabilities. In the elections preceding the 45th general election in 2025, the ballots in the ridings targeted by the group were much longer because of the large number of candidates. At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we heard that the long ballots posed major problems for many voters, particularly those with disabilities.”
“During the 45th general election in 2025, the number of candidates included on the ballot in the electoral district of Carleton reached 91, most of whom received fewer than 10 votes. This resulted in a ballot that was close to one metre in length. In Terrebonne, some candidates on the ballot received zero votes. The August 2025 by-election in Battle River—Crowfoot, Alberta featured 214 candidates, 201 of whom were affiliated with the longest ballot movement and shared the same official agents. In October 2025, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, PROC, undertook a study that looked at the issue of long ballots. The committee presented its report to Parliament in March of this year, and all of its recommendations are contained in Bill C-25 .”
“At the heart of this vibrant democracy are free, fair and accessible elections. Accessible elections reflect a core Canadian value that all Canadians will be able to cast their ballot without facing undue challenges. In recent years, however, the accessibility of federal elections has been challenged by the actions of those coordinated movements known for registering a large number of independent candidates who are not running to serve as members of Parliament. Rather, they are choosing this method as a means of protesting Canada's electoral system and the ways in which our electoral laws are made. Since 2019 this group has targeted three general elections and six by-elections, including the most recent by-election in Terrebonne.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member of Parliament for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie. It is my honour to rise today to speak on Bill C-25 , the strong and free elections act, specifically about the bill's timely and comprehensive amendments to address unduly long ballots. I want to echo what my colleagues have been saying in the House, specifically the government House leader and our colleagues from opposition. This was collaboration amongst parties. I have the privilege of sitting on the committee that will receive this bill and continue to work, in good faith, on the amendments that come forward. Hopefully in that same good faith, we will see this bill pass quickly to address the many concerns that we have heard from Canadians. Canada's democracy is among the strongest and most stable in the world.”
“In doing so, it recognizes that those who take the life of an intimate partner in a context of coercive control bear greater responsibility. Lastly, Bill C‑225 was also amended to create a new offence specific to intimate partner violence that—”
“This provision also complements one of the aggravating factors related to manslaughter in cases of femicide already set out in Bill C-16. The amended bill also includes a number of consequential amendments related to this amendment regarding the offence of manslaughter in the context of intimate partner violence. For example, if a court were to impose a life sentence in such a case, it would also be required to impose a parole ineligibility period of 10 to 25 years. This amendment ensures that manslaughter committed by an intimate partner is treated in a manner that is comparable to second-degree murder for the purpose of the parole ineligibility provisions when an offender is sentenced to life imprisonment.”
“Second, Bill C-225 was amended to require the sentencing court to consider imposing a life sentence in cases involving the manslaughter of an intimate partner where the offender committed the offence in a context of coercive control. This amendment complements the one relating to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, which I just talked about, by ensuring that, even when the homicide of an intimate partner does not meet the legal threshold for murder, the law still treats it with the utmost seriousness. Like the amendment related to first-degree murder in a context of intimate partner violence, this amendments seeks to protect victims who kill their violent partner in response to the violence they are experiencing.”
“This will make it possible to distinguish between acts of abusive violence and those committed in self-defence. In short, evidence will be required to prove that the person who killed their intimate partner was also experiencing a pattern of controlling or coercive behaviour. This could help to ensure that victims who kill their violent partner would not be considered to have committed first-degree murder because these victims did not necessarily have control over their partners. The goal is to protect the victims in such situations. (1155) This amendment is therefore very important. It also seeks to protect women and is a direct response to the concerns raised by several witnesses in committee. It also complements the provisions of Bill C-16 related to femicide.”
“In response to these concerns, the bill was amended to include a safeguard: Intimate partner murders would be treated as first-degree murders only if the evidence showed that the murder was committed “in the context of a pattern of coercive or controlling conduct”. A pattern of controlling or coercive conduct is defined in the coercion or control offence proposed in Bill C‑16 . This offence was carefully designed so that it would protect victims and not be used to their detriment. It includes indicators of persistent violence that help determine who the true aggressor is in any given situation, including fatal cases of intimate partner violence, since we must consider the alleged offence in its broader context, rather than focusing only on isolated incidents of violence.”
“This is a very important measure aimed at condemning intimate partner homicides, which disproportionately target women. First-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 25 years. At first reading, Bill C‑225 proposed to automatically designate all intimate partner murders as first-degree murders. When the bill was being studied in committee, many witnesses indicated that, even though they supported the intent behind the proposal, they were concerned that it might inadvertently penalize victims of intimate partner violence who end up killing their intimate partner in response to that violence. They wanted to make sure that the bill would not apply to persons acting in self-defence.”
“I would like to focus on three points today, three key amendments made to the bill at committee that deal with first-degree murder, manslaughter and the proposed new offence of intimate partner violence. First, Bill C-225 was amended to specify that the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as first-degree murder if the perpetrator commits the murder while engaging in, or after having engaged in, coercive and controlling behaviour. This means that, under these circumstances, the murder of an intimate partner will be treated as the most serious form of homicide, regardless of whether it was planned and deliberate. Whenever someone murders their intimate partner, it will be treated the same way whether it was premeditated or not.”
“Before proceeding further, I would also like to note that this bill has been named “Bailey's Law” in honour of Bailey McCourt, a woman from Kelowna, British Columbia, who was tragically murdered by her former partner last July. Members of Bailey McCourt's family were present during the committee hearings, and I had the opportunity to meet them right here in the House through our colleague, the bill's sponsor. I thank him for introducing them to us. We had a good discussion with them. I would like to point out that their work has not only inspired the House but also contributed to the amendments made to the bill in preparation for the next steps. It is for these family members and countless other survivors and family members of those who have experienced intimate partner violence that we continue our efforts to advance this vital work.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise at third reading to support Bill C-225 , introduced by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola . First, I would like to congratulate him on introducing this bill. I also want to congratulate the members of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women for their co-operation during the committee's consideration of the bill and for their efforts to significantly strengthen it through a series of amendments. We were able to work together in committee and achieve this. I would also like to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee for their valuable testimony and insights, which led to the discussion we are having today.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, and I appreciate her approach to this bill, which seeks to strengthen security and cybersecurity. Earlier, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons introduced Bill C-25 , which will also touch a little on Internet safety for children and families. We have talked about deepfakes. I would like my colleague to tell me how she sees these two bills, which will allow us work together on putting more security infrastructure in place for Canadians and Quebeckers.”
“Mr. Speaker, as we celebrated the International Day of La Francophonie on March 20, we also celebrated a new $1.5-million investment to support francophone immigration to minority communities outside Quebec. It is no coincidence that these two things happened at the same time. As a Franco-Ontarian who arrived in Canada as a French-speaking refugee, I know what it means to find one's language, culture and place in a francophone minority community. In 2025, 8.9% of permanent residents admitted outside Quebec were French speaking. Our goal for this year is 9%, and we are aiming for 12% by 2029. These figures represent families that choose to build their lives in French in communities like London and southwestern Ontario. This investment is an acknowledgement of our francophone minority communities' contribution to our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite was able to notice that there have been many quotes that have come out in response to their patched-up plan to respond to the auto sector a year out from the conversation. The Conservatives are talking about waiting it out. We are not waiting it out. We have a strategy that we have put in place with the collaboration of industry experts, automakers and unions. We have also provided many supports through our regional agencies to make sure that workers, even when they are struggling and losing their jobs, have opportunities to re-skill, to go into other skill sets, to continue to have jobs. Unfortunately, I am sure she picked only one quote out of the many quotes that have been said on this—”
“Mr. Speaker, expanding on what I was saying, our government has been working with industry experts and unions to make sure that we can work for a plan that is beyond just a tariff, to look at and imagine the future of the auto sector and what it is going to look like on the other side. Unfortunately, that is what the government has to do. The Conservatives cannot understand that because they have been in opposition for 10 years. In the 10 years that they have been in opposition, this is the first time they have stitched up a plan for the auto sector, and they have done it without even consulting workers. I am sorry. We cannot take their plan. We have to continue to work with Canadians, industry experts and automakers to make sure that we have a plan that works for Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, let me restart my answer. The question that the member opposite is asking is disingenuous. It does not take into account the fact that this is an unjust tariff war we are facing as Canadians. We have been working and collaborating with workers across our impacted sectors to make sure we can build a plan that responds now and in the future. Most importantly, they have had a whole year to join this conversation. The Conservatives just stitched up a plan without even consulting the workers who have been impacted. I think we sit on the better part of this end of the stick. We have been collaborating. We have been working. We have been responding in many different ways. The workers are looking for a response from the government.”
“We are working directly with them, consulting with them to come up with a plan that responds to the very challenging needs that our workers have and that Canadian families are facing. I want to talk about Ingersoll one more time, because every time this debate happens about production ratios, tariff framework and CUSMA leverage, I think about the specific human reality of what this region is living through. The workers who built Canada's first full-scale electric vehicle-manufacturing plant in Ingersoll believed they were building the future of this country's industrial base. They had—”
“This is the government that is telling automakers plainly that access to Canadian markets comes with obligations to Canadian workers. They do not get to take and not give back to our workers. That is consultation. That is keeping our workers in mind. The Canada-Ontario workforce tariff response announced this month is a joint federal-provincial initiative that directly supports workers through retraining, upskilling and work-sharing programs for sectors impacted by the tariffs. The workers at CAMI in Ingersoll, the workers across the supply chain who lost shifts or jobs because of a trade war that was not started by us and is unwarranted, those workers are at the centre of what our government is building. They are not an afterthought. They are not just people to whom we are going to announce what we are doing.”
“Two weeks ago, I convened a closed-door meeting with the economic development leaders from across southwestern Ontario, alongside FedDev Ontario. The auto sector was part of that conversation. The questions those leaders asked, the barriers they named and the priorities they raised are things that have been taken back to Ottawa to work on with our colleagues who are tasked to do this work, like the Minister of Industry and many other colleagues who have been talking about the specific impact on our workers. That is what consultation looks like. When GM and Stellantis failed to meet their production commitments in Canada, our government decided to cut GM's tariff remission quota by 24% and Stellantis' by 50%.”
“Let me tell this House what our government is doing. Our approach actually looks like this. The difference between the Conservative approach and the government's approach is not just policy and talking points. It is a process. It is a process that we built with the workers. It is a process that we have announced and have consulted on across different regions and sectors. This government has been at the table with unions like Unifor, with the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, with plant chairs, with mayors and with economic development leaders across southwestern Ontario, not after announcing a plan but before building the plan, and then getting to the place of announcing it. I know what that looks like. I have been part of some conversations as well.”
“As I said when I started my speech, we are glad to see the Conservatives join the conversation that Canadians have been having for over a year. I share that. The opposition is finally talking about the auto sector in substantive terms, and that conversation really matters for all of our workers, for all Canadians. However, the workers who know this industry best have looked at what was proposed and said that the ideas were not rooted in their experience. They were not formulated with auto workers in mind. They were not rigorous enough to restart what needs to be restarted, and that also matters. Not to play for any partisan points here, but as a matter of basic respect for the people who sent us to this House to represent them every day, we are supposed to adopt policies that work for them, and this plan is simply not it.”
“Unifor National President Payne also addressed the mathematics directly behind this plan, calling the claim that the plan will restore Canadian auto production to two million vehicles per year just “mathematically incorrect” and noting that the auto industry today is global, with dozens of automakers building and selling cars in Canada who have no local production presence at all. The 1965 auto pact worked because four North American automakers dominated both production and sales on this continent. That world does not exist anymore. We cannot take 1965 and paste it onto 2026 and call it a strategy. I want to be fair. Unifor acknowledged that the threat to Canada's auto sector “warrants government attention, regardless of political affiliation”, and it was encouraged to see the opposition engage on this issue.”
“Madame Payne was also clear that plans for the auto sector must be rigorous, well researched and defensible, and that the ideas must be rooted in the experiences of auto workers and formulated with auto workers and their families in mind, and this was not it. (1220) On the central one-for-one production-to-sales ratio at the heart of the Conservative plan, the chair of Unifor's national auto council said directly, “That means we don’t need Brampton, and we don’t need Ingersoll because we don’t sell enough of those vehicles to get one for one”. That is just simply wrong, saying that we do not need Brampton and we do not need Ingersoll. This is not what we are saying, and this is not a plan that anyone should get behind. The union that represents the workers in Brampton is Unifor.”
“I will not stand here and let a plan that workers themselves have raised serious concerns about go unchallenged. Let me tell this House exactly what Unifor said. The Unifor national president, Lana Payne, wrote directly to the Conservative leader . She said, “We are encouraged by your effort, but skeptical that this plan can restart idled Canadian facilities. In fact, we fear it may prevent potential future growth—which I do not believe is your intent.” That is her quote, that it would not “restart” but “prevent...future growth”. That is the union that has been fighting for the workers in Brampton. That is the union that has stood with the workers in Ingersoll. That is Unifor telling the opposition members that their plan, designed to save the auto sector, could not make things work for the very plants that need saving the most.”
“There was no conversation. There was no phone call. When they responded and raised their concerns publicly and professionally, the response from the opposition was to amplify one local leader who agreed about the Conservatives' plan and to be quiet about the rest of the people, who were calling on them to consult. As I said, this confirms that this plan is not for the workers, as it purports to be. I represent London West. Ingersoll is in my backyard. I know what happened at CAMI Assembly. I know what it means for 1,200 workers. They showed up for a job that was supposed to be Canada's electric vehicle future and found that the plant was closing. I have spoken to some of the leaders there. I have spoken to the workers and the families that are impacted.”
“They are just joining the conversation now, and it is never too late to defend workers in Canada. It is never too late to defend families in Canada, so we are very happy to see this conversation going. However, they have not consulted workers. How do we know? John D’Agnolo, chair of Unifor's national auto council and president of Unifor Local 200 in Windsor, said it plainly: “What was most frustrating is the fact that you think you [would] go to the experts that have to deal with it every day and sit down with our leader who’s been involved.” That is his quote, not my quote. I want this House to hear that again. The experts who are dealing with this every single day, the workers who live this reality in Windsor, Ingersoll, Brampton and Oshawa, were not in the room when this plan was built. They were not consulted.”
“I want to begin by saying something in very simple words. When one builds a plan for workers without talking to workers, it is just not a plan. Let us just put it out there. It is not a plan. There is no plan without the people who have to participate in that plan. The need for good and well-paying jobs in the auto sector is there. Unifor, which is Canada's largest private sector union, representing more than 40,000 auto workers across assembly, parts manufacturing and dealerships, was not consulted before the Conservatives' grand plan. We are happy to see that they are finally working on a plan. We are happy to see them join the conversation, which has been taken up not just by workers but by families across this country, particularly in southwestern Ontario, for the last year or so.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from southwestern Ontario, the member for Guelph . It is always a privilege to stand in this House and to defend workers, to defend the people who sent us to this House, especially and particularly workers from our neck of the woods in southwestern Ontario. For so long, southwestern Ontario has been known to be the heart of Canada's auto sector. Cities like London, Windsor, Ingersoll and St. Thomas are deeply tied to the manufacturing sector. This recognition comes because of the workers. World-class workers in our region have given us a spot on the map to be able to be a competing industry in Canada but also in the world. It is an honour and a privilege to rise today to speak to this motion. This debate touches the realities of what Canadians face every single day.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate the framing of my colleague's answer, and his pushing back on the premise and the framing of the Leader of the Opposition around this. His framing is actually inflammatory and is a menace to our social cohesion. Could the member tell me what his thoughts were when he heard the Leader of the Opposition framing refugees, people who are fleeing war and people who are fleeing climate disasters, as criminals? I know that my hon. colleague is also someone who came from a war-torn country to this country seeking a better life. Many colleagues in this House are in that situation. What does that do to our society? As well, could the member talk about the future of the Conservative Party if it continues to divide Canadians and break our social cohesion?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am left with the same feeling as I am not sure if Conservatives want to build homes for Canadians. We are putting legislation forward. Instead of constantly focusing on character assassination, maybe Conservatives could just vote for the legislation so we can build homes for Canadians.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I am not very familiar with the issue he is talking about. If that is the case and they went through all that, it is absolutely unacceptable, of course. I would ask my colleague to send us more information about this case so that we can help him and put him in touch with our teams so that they can resolve this issue.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. Earlier, I shared an example of a project that I have seen first-hand, from the start, from the time the first shovels hit the ground. I was recently invited by the residents who live in that building to their Black History Month celebration. When I saw the dignity that long-term housing gave these people, it really made me forget about all the discussions and arguments that we have in the House. It made me forget all the numbers we discuss, whether we are talking about dollars or using other jargon to talk about people who need a home. That is what Build Canada Homes aims to do, and that is what Build Canada Homes will continue to do.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the Conservatives truly believe in building homes for Canadians. One minute they are blaming the Government of Canada for homes that are not being built, and in another minute, they are blaming the Government of Canada for helping Canadians to build homes. Earlier, we talked about the number of homes that are already on the go. Shovels are in the ground. I am not sure if the member has been able to see how homes are built and what the procedures are. I would invite him to come to my riding to see some of the shovels that are in the ground and how the process goes, to the point where people can actually move in.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question was well put. As I said before, with Build Canada Homes, we will be able to build like never before. In his speech earlier, the minister said that we would even be able to build year-round. The only way to do that in a country like Canada, where it is winter half the year, is to innovate and use the tools at our disposal to build homes like never before. To answer her question, yes, absolutely, I do think it is important. Both of our communities need this housing, as do all communities across Canada. It is important to say that we are going to use all the tools at our disposal, including Canadian innovation.”