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 4 of 9.
“The budget also proposes to start automatically delivering federal benefits to low-income Canadians through the Canada Revenue Agency. We will continue to ensure that the federal benefits to which they are entitled, including those they may not be aware of, are also received through these measures that we have put forward. I see that my time is coming to an end. I am not able to finish my speech, but I am happy to answer and take questions in the House. However, one thing I want to say before I end my speech is that all of us came to the House because Canadians asked us to respond to their needs. We told Canadians that we were going to make life more affordable. Even Canadians who live in Conservative ridings want to see us remove the obstruction.”
“As I said earlier, most of this tax relief will go to people whose incomes fall in the two lowest tax brackets. We are eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes up to $1 million and reducing the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We will also enable first-time homebuyers to save up to $50,000. [ English ] We tabled budget 2025, which was the Canada strong budget. Budget 2025 proposes making the national food program permanent for Canadian families. This is something that has been well received across Canada. This program helps 400,000 more children each year receive healthy meals in their schools, and participating families with two children will save $800 on groceries.”
“This new legislation would build on significant action to lower costs for Canadians and protect essential programs. Our middle-class tax cut would save money for 20 million Canadians. We are going to eliminate the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes costing up to $1 million. We are taking action to help Canadians keep more money in their pockets, and that is what families across Canada need right now. What is more is that we removed the consumer carbon price as of last April, which we know is helping reduce fuel costs in most provinces and territories, including lowering prices at the gas pump. (1620) [ Translation ] Our middle-class tax cut alone will save two-income families up to $840 this year. In the future, it is expected to save Canadians more than $27 billion in taxes over five years.”
“[ English ] This strategy would also include measures to implement unit price labelling and support the work of the Competition Bureau in monitoring and enforcing competition in the market, including food supply chains. We are doing this because we promised it to Canadians. This is what I said earlier. We went to the electorate and said that this is what we were going to do as a government. We are going to work together to find every single measure we can find to make life more affordable. Canadians have been impacted by COVID-19, the tariff war that we are experiencing right now and many other factors that are external. We need a government that is able to meet the moment and make sure that we are responding to Canadians' needs.”
“We will allow food growers to fully write off the cost of new greenhouses immediately, allowing them to free up the capital they need to expand production, which will also translate into lower prices and better food security for all Canadians. [ Translation ] The Prime Minister also announced $20 million in funding to enable food banks and other local, regional and national organizations to provide more nutritious food to families in need. We are currently developing a national food security strategy to address the root causes of food insecurity. This strategy will help strengthen national food production and improve access to nutritious food in a way that is very affordable.”
“Our government has also announced a suite of measures to tackle food insecurity, to support producers and to strengthen supply chains across Canada over the mid and long term. Last September, we also launched a new strategic response fund to help sectors impacted by tariffs, and we have committed $500 million from this fund to help food businesses expand their capacity so that they can strengthen Canada's food supply for the future. We have also committed $150 million under the regional tariff response initiative to specifically help small and medium-sized businesses in the food sector, as well as the organizations that support them.”
“Right now, a senior living alone who is eligible for the GST credit could receive a maximum of $543 for 2026 and 2027. That same person would get approximately $950 in total from the one-time payment in the 2026-27 benefit year. Thanks to the changes that we are proposing, this is real money that would go into the pockets of Canadians to help them. [ Translation ] For a couple with two children, the amount will increase from about $1,086 to $1,890. That is approximately $800 more going into Canadians' pockets. I am a parent. We know how much $800 can make a difference for parents, for single parents, for many parents across Canada. This new benefit will be indexed to inflation, meaning that the amounts paid to Canadians will increase each year in line with the rising cost of living. [ English ] We are not going to stop there.”
“Second, we will add a payment this year that will be equivalent to a 50% increase in the current benefit. [ English ] As global prices continue to surge, the increase will be considerable and will make a real difference for Canadians struggling to put food on their tables. This measure would particularly target low and modest incomes. Again, this is what Canadians were talking about on the campaign. This is what Canadians continue to talk about now. As the world changes, we see the different needs that Canadians have. We have to be a government that can step up and support Canadians and meet them at their point of need. I want to take this opportunity to mention that I am splitting my time with my colleague the member for Winnipeg North .”
“We have seen an increase in Canadians receiving the supports they need because of this. Last week, the Prime Minister announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which we know would help more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians to afford their day-to-day essentials. I hope the colleagues who were heckling a little while ago will also help us pass this legislation and not just heckle it, and that they will help us pass the legislation as soon as possible, to be able to deliver these supports and make life more affordable for Canadians. (1615) [ Translation ] This new benefit will replace the current GST credit, but it will be much more generous. For one, the credit will increase by 25% for five years, starting in July 2026.”
“We were elected with the promise that we were going to do our best to bring costs down for Canadians. We want to create new opportunities for Canadians across the country. That is why the first thing we did was cancel the divisive consumer carbon price as of last April, directly helping Canadians save money at the pump. It is also why we delivered three major tax cuts and supercharged homebuilding to increase supply and lower housing costs. We also introduced the automatic federal benefits so that millions of Canadians can receive the support they qualify for. Of the many things we have done as a government, I think this is a game-changer. We know there are so many families that are not receiving the supports they need because they either are not able to file or have not been in the right spaces to learn how to file their taxes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House today on this bill that is very important for all Canadians. [ English ] This is especially important for those who sent us to the House to represent them. As we just came back from the break, we have had the opportunity to chat with many constituents who have spoken to us about the state of what we all know, the state of where finances are for Canadians. Many Canadians are looking for opportunities to be able to afford to put food on their table, to put their kids in child care and to afford dental care and many other needs that they have. It is a privilege and an honour to lend my voice to support Bill C-19 , the Canada groceries and essentials benefit act, which is an important priority for our government.”
“Madam Speaker, in the 2021 election, the then leader of the opposition ran under a platform that said, “We’ll finalize and improve the Clean Fuel Regulations to reduce carbon emissions from every litre of gasoline (and other liquid fuels) we burn.... This will generate emissions reductions at lower cost, and protect Canadian jobs”. Since the finalization of these regulations in 2022, they have driven billions of dollars of investments and created thousands of jobs across Canada. Where did the member of Parliament, who supported these regulations and Canadian farmers, go, and what have they done with them?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know the specific member's riding name, but the member does have a colleague who agrees with the scenario where mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, would be unconstitutional. That member said, “Conservatives have faced push-back because we want mandatory minimums for an offence for which the victim is serving a psychological life sentence. People will say that it failed in the Harper era. It failed in the Harper era because all we needed was a safety valve to say 'except in exceptional circumstances'. That is what one of the member's colleagues said. They agreed with this bill, and I hope the member also gets on board.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is something that a lot of people are talking about, especially parents. I am a mother. I have a teenage son who is navigating online. Many people want to talk about how this affects younger women and the conversations and education that are needed when we have our kids online. One of the questions the member asked was about what our stakeholders were saying. As I mentioned earlier, there is a bit of a divide. We can never have a bill where all parties agree, but the life of this bill is that we want to make sure we are dealing with the important issues that harm our communities and harm our children and, as was mentioned, deepfakes. We saw recently on X that it is unable to address the issues that are affecting young women on the platform. This is an important issue that we continue to have in our communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the fact that whether they are hypothetical or not, we should deal with them. This is what Bill C-16 is offering, which is that we deal with the issue at hand. It is a solution, and it is what I think the courts and Canadians would want us to do. I would put a question back to the member opposite: What would he propose that we do better in this situation?”
“I firmly believe that all members of the House can agree that this approach represents a sound compromise to ensure that a vast majority of MMPs remain available and actionable by the courts. In my view, this approach represents a positive evolution of the law that ensures that our legal frameworks remain effective and responsive to the concerns of the day. In closing, I would like to highlight that the approach of Bill C-16 would complement the sentencing reforms proposed by our government in Bill C-14 , the bail and sentencing reform act. Taken together, Bill C-14 and Bill C-16 reflect a clear and deliberate choice by the government to strengthen sentencing laws, protecting children and ensuring that the people who commit serious sexual offences face real, meaningful consequences.”
“In addition, to ensure that this point is clearly understood by the legal community and the public, clause 87 of the bill provides that, for greater certainty, following the enactment of the judicial discretion clause, the operation of the existing minimum punishments would also be affirmed. In practice, as a result of the proposed amendments, the courts would once again be required to impose MMPs for all offences where that penalty has not been repealed from the law, except in the rarest of cases where the MMP would result in cruel and unusual punishment for the offender before the court. This would enable Parliament to ensure that serious offences resulting in significant harm to victims and communities continue to attract severe sentences, while allowing courts to avoid imposing disproportionate punishments in exceptional cases.”
“This guidance is clearly reflected in the proposed amendments, and I am confident that they are a sound approach to maintaining appropriate MMPs while offering flexibility. I would like to spend the remainder of my time elaborating on how the enactment of the judicial discretion clause would apply to existing MMPs. If Bill C-16 comes into force, by operation of the common law, all MMPs that had been found unconstitutional but that remain on the federal statute book would be considered restored. This would include recently invalidated MMPs for the possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material, among many others.”
“We are aiming to ensure that courts impose serious consequences for serious offences, particularly those that harm our children and our communities, and to also ensure that judicial discretion is available for those exceptional cases that warrant lower sentences. I would also add that this approach is responsive both to requests from stakeholders and to suggestions that have been repeatedly made by the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, which suggested that such a judicial discretion clause could resolve most of the constitutional challenges associated with MMPs. In making these comments, the Supreme Court made it clear that there would be only one requirement for such provisions: that it allow for a lower sentence where a specific MMP would violate the charter.”
“(1810) Some people have raised questions about this, arguing that it does not reflect the guidance of the Supreme Court of Canada. I respectfully disagree. Requiring the imposition of a jail sentence in all cases would not only, in my view, create a risk of grossly disproportionate sentences, for the reasons I discussed earlier, including the fact that this standard is significant. Maintaining this aspect does something important; it excludes the option of a conditional sentence order for these very serious offences. In my view, the proposed approach aims to strike an essential balance.”
“These changes are going to address this issue by amending the Criminal Code to restore the MMPs that have been found unconstitutional by the courts. They would do this by enacting a provision that would give judges the discretion to order a sentence of imprisonment lower than the statutory MMP in very narrow situations. It is expected that, in most cases, the stated MMP would still be applied. However, if a court is sentencing an offender for whom the mandatory penalty would be a grossly disproportionate punishment, the court would not need to impose the stated MMP, nor would it have to find the MMP unconstitutional. It is important to emphasize that even though an individual may not be subject to a specific MMP, it is only in exceptional cases. In every case, the judge will still be required to impose a sentence of imprisonment.”
“In many cases, the court finds that proportionate sentences for the offender before them should be equal to or more than the MMP, but many MMPs are struck on the basis of a hypothetical offender whose conduct is captured by a broad offence but falls at the low end of risk regarding public moral fault. Because of this potential for a grossly disproportionate sentence, the court must find these penalties to be of no force or no effect. Most recently, following the Senate bill decision, significant concerns have been raised by stakeholders across Canada and the public about the inability of Parliament to denounce and deter some of these more serious offences using MMPs. The government agrees, which is why we are taking decisive and immediate action by proposing reforms to Bill C-16 .”
“Gross disproportionality is a high threshold and has been described by the courts as being “merely excessive” or “disproportionate”. It must outrage our society's sense of decency, such that Canadians would find it abhorrent and intolerable. Over the years, MMPs have been declared unconstitutional by the courts across Canada on this basis. Most of the MMPs invalidated to date are for child sexual offences, including those struck down by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Senneville case or the Bertrand Marchand case. In both of these cases I just mentioned, the Supreme Court struck the MMPs down on the basis of a reasonably foreseeable scenario, meaning that the court considers whether the penalty is unconstitutional because of its effect on hypothetical offenders, not the actual offender before the court.”
“Others, in other circumstances, have criticized them as potentially being an unfair limit on judicial discretion in sentencing, which can result in significantly harsher sentences for some offenders. In particular, MMPs have raised the most concerns when they are attached to offences that apply to a wide range of conduct or circumstances. In such a scenario, a lengthy MMP can apply to conduct that involves relatively little risk to the public or lower moral blameworthiness. Because of this, MMPs are constitutionally vulnerable under section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, because they can result in what are called “grossly disproportionate sentences”.”
“Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act, reflects the government's commitment to ensuring our criminal law is strong, principled and capable of meeting this responsibility. In particular, I will focus on Bill C-16 's proposed reforms that address mandatory minimum penalties, or MMPs, in the Criminal Code. To set the stage, when an offence is punishable by an MMP, it means that, absent an explicit statutory exception, a judge cannot impose a sentence that is lower than the prescribed minimum penalty, regardless of the circumstances. They can impose a longer sentence, but not a shorter one, so MMPs are the subject of a fierce debate. Some stakeholders support them for offering a clear denunciation for serious offences.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House again as the member of Parliament for London West. I want to wish all members a happy new year and wish my colleagues a very successful session as they return to represent those who sent them here. It is a great honour and opportunity for me to speak to Bill C-16 , the protecting victims act, and the government's ongoing efforts to protect children and ensure that child sexual exploitation is unequivocally denounced, deterred and prevented. Protecting children and standing firmly with victims are among the most fundamental responsibilities of Parliament. Canadians expect a justice system that sends a clear message that sexual exploitation will not be tolerated, that victims will be protected, and that those who cause serious harm will face serious consequences.”
“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is an excellent colleague who has been here for quite some time and has seen the different phases of Conservatives in the House. Earlier, the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley , in B.C., talked about the fact that we are 10 years late to believe in Canada. This new brand of Conservatives constantly talks down Canada. It is almost like they have an anti-Canadian sentiment. Can the hon. member comment on this phenomenon that we are seeing in the House right now?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. I have a question for him. A Conservative member said in the House earlier that we are 10 years behind the times when it comes to believing in Canada. Could my colleague comment on the fact that the Conservatives no longer have confidence in Canada and that they spend all their time here in the House, as elected officials, speaking out against Canada? They have a truly anti-Canadian attitude. What does my colleague have to say to the Quebeckers who elected him to this place?”
“Mr. Speaker, I ask the member opposite to consider the comments of his colleague from earlier. He said that we are “10 years too late to believe in Canada.” Does the member opposite agree with this statement?”
“As promised in the fall economic statement, the benefit will be exempt from taxable income, because support should actually mean support. Conservatives cannot claim to stand with Canadians with disabilities while they are voting to keep these barriers exactly where they are. The question is simple: Will they pass Bill C-15 or keep hiding behind slogans?”
“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives love to ask the same questions over and over again about supporting Canadians with disabilities. They hold press conferences, repeat the same slogans and pretend to care, but when it is time to actually remove barriers and deliver the supports Canadians need, what do they do? They delay. Budget 2025 delivers actions. We are breaking down the red tape that blocks access to the Canada disability benefit. We are investing $115 million to lower barriers and provide a one-time supplemental payment for every disability tax credit certification or recertification that opens the door to the benefit. That is for the more than six million Canadians with disabilities who should not need a lawyer to access support. That is why we are simplifying the disability tax credit process.”
“Madam Speaker, this is important, especially given the kind of day we have had: We just had the Minister of Women and Gender Equality , our Conservative colleagues from the opposite side, and the Bloc Québécois, NDP and Green parties speak about the importance of the Polytechnique attack on women that happened. The member opposite called it a “feminazi” hoax. Can the member apologize in the House for saying that?”
“In these nine circumstances, the majority of members on the committee voted to overturn the chair's ruling, and these amendments were subsequently adopted. These amendments are CPC-8, CPC-13, CPC-14, CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17 to change part 6 of the bill, concerning asylum reform; CPC-30 and CPC-33, which would create two new parts of the bill concerning penalties for human trafficking and the location of the position of the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board; and CPC-2 to change part 4 of the bill, respecting ministerial powers, duties and functions related to the Canadian Coast Guard. I therefore submit that these nine aforementioned amendments were inadmissible at committee. Should you agree, I would humbly request that the bill be reprinted without the offending amendments for the House to consider at the report stage.”
“On page 771 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice , it states, in relation to the rules and precedents that govern the admissibility of amendments proposed in committee: An amendment to a bill must be relevant in that it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or to the clause thereof under consideration. In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill. In the case of the study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on Bill C-12 , the following nine amendments were ruled inadmissible by the chair because they infringed on the parent act rule.”
“Madam Speaker, earlier today, the second report of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security was tabled in the House, respecting the consideration of Bill C-12 , an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. I am rising on a point of order to bring to the Speaker's attention nine amendments adopted by the committee that the chair of the committee ruled inadmissible on the grounds that these amendments violated the parent act rule.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am curious to know what the member opposite thinks about what his colleague called the food program, which is going to be made permanent through budget 2025. One, it feeds children in schools and is requested in a lot of schools, and two, it is creating job opportunities. His colleague called it “garbage”. Does the member opposite agree?”
“Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite's party has not been in government for a long time, so I think the members might need to refresh their memories on how diplomatic conversations are conducted around trade and the agreements that we can bring to our country. Those are not things that happen overnight. There is a lot of work that goes into it. While the Conservatives continue to talk down Canada, we will continue to build. We will continue to secure deals that are meaningful for Canadians. The specific question the member asked is something that many colleagues on this side of the House have continued to engage on. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister was involved in those discussions, and they are ongoing. In the meantime, the member can maybe tell his electors why he continues to vote against Canadians.”
“As I was speaking, I was trying to catch everyone up on the newest announcement the Prime Minister is making to support Canadians. Some hon. members: Oh, oh! Hon. Arielle Kayabaga: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite continue to laugh and heckle as I speak, but they are forgetting that Canadians sent us back to the House to protect their jobs—”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. I just talked about how important it is for us to position Canada to continue to be a strong nation that can build other partners and not rely on one single country. My colleague talked about the importance of building relationships across the world. We are doing that. The member is a strong supporter of the Filipino community here in Canada. He has worked on this file for a long time and knows how important it is for us to build those relationships. He knows how important it is for us to build a relationship with Indonesia and other partners, where we can find common ground with people who share the same values and be able to trade together. That is what the government is doing, and will continue to do so. Most importantly, there is so much good news that we cannot even keep track of it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think we have some great news. Prime Minister Carney just announced new supports for the steel and lumber industries for Canadians. I just finished telling the House how Canadians sent us here because they want us to find real solutions for the real problems they have, and that is what we are doing. It is important to note for the people who elected the member that he has voted against all those measures. He asks me these questions, but this question should be asked of him: Why does he vote against Canadians?”
“I hope the entire House can understand that these are real pressures Canadians are feeling, and they are looking for us to pass this bill as quickly as possible.”
“The goals here are very clear: more homes built faster; restored affordability and real pressures relieved for families, workers and young people trying to build their future in their own communities. I can give a London West example of how we are doing that. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was in my riding announcing $11 million that will create 50 affordable units in London. That is 50 more people who will not have to be homeless, who can have a home that they can call their own and then begin to think about their work opportunities. It looks as though my time is up, so I look forward to being able to answer more questions and talking more about the things I care about in the budget.”
“Workers cannot build stable lives and businesses, and show up to work, if they do not have an affordable place to live. As Canada faces a real housing supply gap, our response is focused on speed, scale and coordination, and through budget 2025, we are taking direct action to bring more homes online faster by removing barriers for first-time homebuyers, by launching Build Canada Homes to drive larger-scale public-private construction and by modernizing how homes are built. We will do this by using Canadian products. This means that we will work with industry, provinces, municipalities and indigenous partners to deliver affordable and co-operative housing at scale and using new building technologies, securing long-term investment and prioritizing Canadian material and supply chains.”
“We are rolling out large-scale re-skilling supports so that workers can transition into growing industries, modernizing employment insurance to make it flexible and responsive and launching the digital job-matching tools that connect Canadians to their careers faster. At the same time, we are bringing employers, unions and industry together through new workforce partnerships to align training with real labour market needs. These are practical steps that will ensure that growth is not abstract but shows up as stable, well-paid jobs. Through major infrastructure investment, we are already unlocking tens of billions of dollars in economic activity that will support thousands of well-paying jobs and strengthen our productivity in the long term. Housing is a core part of our economic plan.”
“We are opening up opportunities for trade. The Prime Minister has already signed trade deals in the U.A.E. and Indonesia, and there are many more to come. This is really important for the agriculture sector and the innovation sector, and there are real opportunities here. When the tariff pressure came, it was both an opportunity and a pressure for Canadians. It was an opportunity for us to grow as a country and to continue to show that we are a strong middle power that can stand on the world stage. It was also an opportunity to protect our jobs and to build the future that we want to see for our young people. Building a stronger economy only works if the people who power it are equipped to succeed, and that is why our government is investing in people.”
“These are not symbolic announcements; these are real investments that will result in real jobs in the country, in real economic power, in strengthening our businesses and in making a stronger country. These are practical steps that are already leading to new facilities, expanded production and well-paying jobs in communities across the country. This is about doing the work that Canadians wanted us to do when they sent us here in April 2025. We have an opportunity to work together with the entire House to make sure that we can protect Canadian jobs; that we can create real, meaningful opportunities for Canada; and that we can continue to position Canada as a real partner around the world. Canada has exactly what the world needs; the world is calling on Canada to step up, and that is what we are doing.”
“(1615) This is a moment for serious leadership, practical action and long-term thinking, and this is exactly how we are going to build a stronger and more self-reliant Canada. Canadians did not send us here to sit on the sidelines while the world changes around us; they sent us with big, bold ambitions. They sent us with a clear expectation that we will act to protect their jobs and that we will position our country to compete and win big. That is exactly what we have seen so far. Since the Prime Minister became Prime Minister, we have secured major investments and trade commitments that are strengthening our supply chains; we have opened new markets for Canadian businesses, and we are bringing real capital into our economy.”
“The global trade rules that have powered our prosperity for decades are being rewritten, which is creating real pressures on Canadian small, medium-sized and large businesses; real risk for workers; and real uncertainty for families. In that context, our focus has to be clear. We have to strengthen what we can control here at home, which means growing our economy faster, building more of what we need here in Canada and making sure that we never overly depend on one single country. It also means that we have to make disciplined choices. We have to cut waste where it exists, and we have to invest with purpose in the infrastructure, housing, skills and industries that will carry us forward and create immense opportunities for Canadians.”
“It does not assume that markets will organize themselves. It does not assume that workers can absorb endless disruption. It does not assume that housing will magically fix itself. Instead, it is built around three practical priorities: strengthening Canada's response to global pressures; investing in innovation and workforce capability; and rebuilding opportunity for Canadian families and young people through affordability measures, housing and employment pathways. This matters for areas such as southwestern Ontario and my community of London West, because these are measures that are experienced through job stability, rent payments and whether young people can stay close to home to find meaningful work. Canada, along with many countries in the world, is operating in a world that is changing really fast and becoming very unpredictable.”
“This is where I will frame my speech, but I wanted to start by saying that the budget really did respond to a promise we made in April 2025 when we were campaigning. I believe that budget 2025 comes at a really important time, because it makes concrete changes to how Canada responds to global economic pressures and how we equip our workforce. It also responds to how we ensure that young people can build stable lives in the communities they come from, and my remarks are going to focus on these areas: how Canada is responding to the tariffs and external economic pressures, the support of businesses and communities, innovation, job creation through retooling and skilled trades, and the connection between youth opportunities and housing. Budget 2025 reflects a clear shift in how we think about economic strength.”