Kyle Seeback
Dufferin—Caledon, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I want to extend my deepest sympathies to the family of Constable Tarun Bali, who passed away tragically in the line of duty in northern Ontario. Constable Bali was a member of the Dufferin OPP in my home riding of Dufferin—Caledon. I know the men and women who serve in the Dufferin OPP.”
“Mr. Speaker, this is the 11th time the Liberals have announced they are going to make food cheaper for Canadians. Forgive me if I do not believe a single word that these guys say.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first petition is with respect to a young man from Bolton, Ontario, Gabriel Arshad, who was critically injured on July 5, 2025 in a devastating four-vehicle collision.”
“Mr. Speaker, luxury Normandy butter cups, beef tenderloin, braised beef with wine reduction and crème brûlée were included in 95,000 dollars' worth of luxury meals on one flight, $1 million in the last 12 months. Meanwhile, a quarter of Canadians are food-insecure.”
“It is really unbelievable, Mr. Speaker. Every week, they stand in the House of Commons and brag about the fact that for the first time in Canadian history, a government has to send money to Canadians so they can buy groceries. Let us think about that for a minute. That is the country they have created in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, every month, there is a new report that shows how difficult life has become under the Liberal government. Last night, it was a damning report from Food Banks Canada, and this month we have a report from United Way that says 60% of Canadians now have anxiety just thinking about their finances.”
The complete record
Every one of 306 lines we hold for Kyle Seeback, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 7.
“The Liberals have created a very weak substantial connection test. What does that mean? (1020) Most people who are listening will not understand what that means, so I am going to explain it. It means that, according to the Liberals, if a person wants to have Canadian citizenship extended to them and their children for generations, they have to spend 1,095 nonconsecutive days in Canada. They have not even said what the proof for that is. Somebody can say they spent 1,095 days in Canada over the last 25 years, and their children, their children's children and so on will all get Canadian citizenship. This is weakening Canadian citizenship. The Liberals do not even know the numbers of people this would affect, how many people this citizenship is going to be extended to. Also, there would be no security checks.”
“I know math is not great for the Liberals; they think that an affordable housing program is 4,000 houses for $13 billion, so math is not their strong suit. However, when we actually broke down the number of people who were processing the applications and the number of applications coming in, because the Liberals had set the levels so high, it worked out that someone assessing an immigration application had 30 minutes per application. One can imagine how someone such as the person I just described ended up in Canada. When we increase the volumes of people to such high levels and have no security screening, we end up with the challenges we have. Now the Liberals have brought forward a piece of legislation on citizenship. I will say, I am a proud Canadian. I know my wife is a proud Canadian, and her whole family are proud Canadians as well.”
“When we look at what the Liberals have done, at the mess they have made of the immigration system, it is a tragedy for all Canadians. The buck stops 100% with the people on the other side. It is their fault because they have made this absolute mess. I could talk for three hours about the actual specifics of the mess, but I would point out that at one point, the Liberal government allowed an accused ISIS terrorist to immigrate to Canada. This person was accused of being in a video in 2015 in which they dismembered someone, and the Liberals let this person come to Canada. This is the disrepute they have brought the system into. In 2024, I did an OPQ, and I asked how many people were processing applications in CIC and how many applications were actually coming in. Then we could do some simple math.”
“That is a 29-point decline as a result of the mess that the Liberals have made with respect to the immigration system. These are catastrophic declines. Looking at the share of people who believe that Canada is accepting too many immigrants, again, we go back to 2002 and it was 34%. We look at 2025 and it is now at 60%. Who is responsible for that? It is not the fault of the people who have come to Canada. They came to Canada because they wanted the opportunities and better life Canada provides, just as my wife and her family did. My wife came to Canada with English as a second language. In fact, she spoke no English and went to high school; she went on to get a master's degree, and she has had a great career. That is the epitome of why people come to Canada, because of the opportunities this great country affords.”
“What pains me the most in talking about the breakdown of the consensus on immigration and refugees in this country is the fact that my wife came to Canada as a refugee. She is a Kosovar Albanian. Canada had a wonderful program, Operation Parasol, to bring Kosovar Albanians fleeing the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo at that time. To see the reports from the past 10 years on the decline of the consensus in Canada, known as a beacon of acceptance for immigration and refugees, because of Liberal incompetence is really heartbreaking. I think most Canadians are heartbroken because of this. There are a couple of polls that address this, which are really, in my estimation, tragic. Pollara had a study in 2025 that compared views from 2002 to 2025. In 2002, immigration was viewed as a positive plus 31. In 2025, it is now down to a plus 2.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here and to talk on behalf of the great people of Dufferin—Caledon, who have re-elected me to come to the House of Commons and fight for common sense, which is often a difficult thing to do with the Liberal government. This piece of legislation is the perfect example of why we have to fight. I want to talk a bit about how the Liberals have absolutely destroyed the consensus in Canada on immigration, botched the immigration system in so many ways and brought that incompetent approach to this particular piece of legislation. The consequences for this will be far and wide, and, ultimately, Canadians will pay the price, as they have done for all the Liberal mistakes, errors, debacles and corruption over the past 10 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, $13 billion for 4,000 homes is $3.2 million per home. That is not affordable. It is all starting to make sense where this scheme was cooked up. The Liberals have a housing minister who oversaw the doubling of rent and the doubling of housing prices when he was mayor of Vancouver. The head of the new agency came from the City of Toronto, which increased the cost of building by 700%. It is almost like the interview process for these positions asked, “Are they incompetent? Were they fired from their last job?” Once again, for the sake of Canadians begging to buy a home, can the minister please tell me this is not the plan?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised he would double housing starts; he looked Canadians in the face and promised. Starts are down 16%. His plan is a $13- billion bureaucracy that might someday build 4,000 homes. Canada had 245,000 new home starts last year. Even if they hit 4,000 homes, it is a 1.6% increase. Please, for the sake of Canadians trying to buy a house, can the minister tell me this is not the plan?”
“Mr. Speaker, what the member just said is completely misleading to the Canadian public. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said this big tax cut is actually going to deliver $15 a month. That is not transformational. That is not going to build anything. The average Canadian can buy a couple of coffees at Starbucks for $15 a month, so it is all talk and no action, realistically, from the government. The Prime Minister has broken four promises in four weeks of being the Prime Minister. That is not leadership. That is not transformational. That is misleading the Canadian public. Is “misleading the Canadian public” the new mantra for the “new government”?”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is worse, the minister for crime reduction blaming the provinces for enforcing bad bail laws or the justice minister making witty statements like “extortion is illegal”. Anyone with a fifth grade education or higher knows that. The problem is that extortion is up 357%, and violent extortionists get out on bail almost the next day. That is the problem, not that extortion is illegal. Everyone knows that. The real question is this: Are the Liberals actually going to do something? The minister is saying they will do something in the fall, so it is a summer of free crime. Canadians need changes now. Will the Liberals do it, yes or no?”
“Mr. Speaker, his interruption of the member for Battle River—Crowfoot was not fictional. He just suggested that I was making up fiction. He actually did interrupt him. My question was whether or not he is going to apologize—”
“Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the member is going to take some time in his speech to apologize to the member for Battle River—Crowfoot for interrupting his speech in Parliament yesterday, when he was—”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish they had talked to someone. I would say that we had a great trip out there. We met with the great unionized steelworkers and others who build this country from coast to coast. I do not think the Liberals talked to anyone, because when we look at the facts that I have pointed out repeatedly, we see that they do not have a plan. They need a plan for the fundamental aspects of making a zero-emission vehicle for Canadians to actually be able to drive and charge, and they have no plan for that. As I say, this is 100% Liberal ideology over reality.”
“The only result of this would be increased suffering for Canadians, who are already suffering as a result of the economic policies of the Liberal government for the last 10 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I will trust the estimates by the Canadian Journal of Economics over those of the company that the member cited with respect to economic loss. The fact of the matter is this. There is an old expression, “putting the cart before the horse”, and this is what is happening here. We do not have a plan for the electric generation. We do not have a plan for transmission of electricity. We do not have a plan for local electricity transmission. We do not have a plan for charging networks. When we do not have any of that stuff, which is required for a mandate, how can we proceed with the mandates? That is the problem. There has been no thinking, no thought done by the government on how to implement the mandates.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is amazing. The member has the opportunity to respond to the real, valid criticisms that have been raised: we do not have the electric generating capacity, we do not have the transmission capacity, we do not have the local transmission capacity, we do not have the EV charging network in place and the CEOs of the companies are also saying they cannot reach the mandates. The member's answer is to say that there were some other issues that were dealt with a generation ago, so why can we not deal with this? Deal with the facts. What is the cost of doing this? You have no idea. What is the cost of the transmission network? You have no idea. What is the cost of the charging network? You have no idea. Will you reach any of these things before the mandates come in? No. They have absolutely no clue what they are talking about.”
“The only people who are going to be hurt by this are Canadians who are already suffering from a cost of living crisis, an inflationary crisis and a housing crisis. They cannot afford it. Conservatives would cancel the mandates. Why will the Liberals not get onside?”
“Kristian Aquilina, president of General Motors, urged the Liberals to scrap the EV mandates, saying, “It's unrealistic to believe that the country is going to go from 5 or 6 per cent to 20 per cent by [2026], which starts now.” The auto manufacturers have said that the mandates are unrealistic and are impossible to achieve. The Liberals do not know the cost of the electricity generation or how they are going to get there. They do not know how they are going to get there on transmission or on local transmission. They have set the EV charging network standards way lower than in California and way lower than in the EU. There are more cars per charger for chargers that they have not built, yet the Liberals are refusing to cancel the gas vehicle bans. Why is that? It is because they are about ideology over reality.”
“Do the Liberals know? No, they do not. Do they seem to care? No, they do not. Therefore, the gasoline-powered vehicle bans that the Liberals are coming forward with are completely ideologically driven, with no plan. I have seen the Liberals come up with things for which they have a plan on the back of a napkin, but at least it is a plan. It is a terrible plan that they drew up in about 10 seconds, and that is often how they govern, but on this, there is absolutely no plan. There is no plan to build the electric generation capacity, no plan to build the electric transmission capacity and no plan to build the local electricity generation capacity. This is where we are. What have some of the CEOs of the auto companies said about this? Bev Goodman, CEO of Ford Motor Company of Canada, called for the EV mandates to be repealed.”
“Let us move to the issue of electricity transmission, and there are two aspects to that. There is transmission across the country, which would have to be massively increased. How much would that cost? They have no idea. Does the ministry of the environment have an idea? No, because I asked, and it does not know. Then we get to local transmission. If everybody on my street in the town of Orangeville were to decide they were going to install an electric vehicle charger, because remember, in five years, 60% of the people on my street would have to have an electric vehicle, the local transmission cannot handle that capacity. Again, it does not just get downloaded from the federal government. That means there would have to be improvements made to Orangeville Hydro for local transmission. How much is that going to cost? Nobody knows.”
“These are the consequences of the kinds of things the Liberals are talking about. Look at number one: We do not have the electric generating capacity to do this across the country. It takes 10 to 15 years to permit and develop new electricity generation, so somehow we have to massively increase our electricity demand for all the electric vehicles that would have to be charged, plus heat pumps, but there is no plan to actually increase the amount of electricity we generate. Again, this is gross negligence, or it is an absolute denial of reality. Then we go the issue of the cost, which no one knows. I asked the deputy minister of the environment at committee how much it would cost, and he said, basically, that they have no idea and have not calculated that out to the end point.”
“Are they changing the mandates? No, they are not. This is gross negligence. It would have catastrophic consequences for Canadians who are would be forced to buy these vehicles and then have nowhere to charge them. How can a government continue like this? How can members of the Liberal Party support this? Many of them have rural ridings where there will be no charging network, and their constituents, their voters, the people they are supposed to represent, would be forced to buy these vehicles. This is not a zero-emissions vehicle mandate; it is a ban on gasoline vehicles. Let us call it what it is: a ban on buying a gasoline vehicle regardless of the consequences. If someone does not have a charging network that they can go to, that is too bad; they would still have to buy an electric vehicle.”
“They do not know how they are going to get there, and they do not know how much it is going to cost. This is the direct definition of negligence, and they do not care. They are driving forward with it. Let us think about how we get there. First of all, the government has set the charging network at a capacity that is higher per car usage than California or the EU. It has calculated the number of charging stations needed for a vehicle. The government has said that in Canada, a cold country, we need fewer chargers per vehicle than California does. This, in and of itself, is negligence. (1030) Then, we look at where they are regarding the build-out of the charging network. Even with the Liberals' modest goals, which would not create the charging network that Canadians need, they are at about 10% of their goals.”
“There was a report put out by RBC called “The $2 Trillion Transition: Canada’s Road to Net Zero”. The government is ideologically obsessed with net zero, no matter what the harmful consequences are to Canadians. I had the privilege of being the shadow minister for the environment at the time the report came out. I asked the deputy minister of environment at committee how much would it cost to build out the charging network in Canada, electric generation in Canada and increases to electric transmission in Canada to get to these zero-emission vehicle mandates. The answer was that they had no idea, that they had not calculated it. When we talk about gross negligence, that is the example. The Liberals are driving forward with an ideologically driven mandate that is going to be harmful for Canadians.”
“It does not even factor in it for them. Then it is to be 100% by 2035, a mere decade away. The consequence of this for Canadians is that we are not going to be able to buy a gas-powered vehicle. When we go to 60% in a mere five years, if Canadians go to that dealership and say, “I am a farmer, and I want to replace my diesel pickup truck.” The dealer will say, “Sorry, we have sold all the diesel pickup trucks we are allowed to sell this year.” That farmer will not be able to get one. Can members imagine that that will be the consequence? Now, if there were a readily available charging network in Canada, people might say that this makes sense, but, one, there is not; two, the government has no plan to create a charging network; and three, who is going to pay for it?”
“How is that even remotely possible? The government knows it is not possible, yet it is continuing to drive forward on this. This is because the Prime Minister is just as obsessed as Justin Trudeau was with this impossible agenda on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let us break down a couple of things. This is the epitome of ideology over fact and ideology over reality. First, it is going to cost, in an estimate from the Canadian Journal of Economics, 38,000 manufacturing jobs in the auto sector. That is a devastating blow that would happen as a result of a policy that the Liberals know is not possible but are driving ahead with anyway. It is as though they are saying, “Damn the torpedoes, we are going ahead”. The Liberals are ideologically obsessed with this, and the consequences to Canadians just do not matter.”
“My colleague just explained that those subsidies have dried up, yet next year, in 2026, Canadians are expected to go to 20%, so increasing by more than double in one year. That is an enormous challenge right now, given that the average EV is about $20,000 more than its comparable gas-powered vehicle. We are at a time of an unprecedented cost of living crisis, where we have a million Ontarians regularly using the food bank, which is three times more than it was a decade ago. That is the economic record of the Liberal government. Now the government is going to say that Canadians have to spend $20,000 more just to get a new vehicle. That is just for next year, but it gets worse. By 2030, which is a mere five years away, it is going to be 60%. We are going to go from 8% to 10% this year to 60% by 2030, six times the previous amount.”
“Mr. Speaker, when we think about the terrible policy initiatives put forward by the Liberal government over the last decade, this banning of gasoline vehicles ranks in the top five. I will explain exactly why. In law, we would call this gross negligence because the Liberals know what they are doing is wrong, and that it is negligent, but they continue to do it anyway. If we could take them to court over this, they would absolutely lose on a charge of gross negligence. I am going to point out and explain exactly why. When we look at where we are in Canada right now, we see we that about 8% to 10% of new vehicles being purchased are EVs. That is, of course, with the subsidies that have been in place.”
“Mr. Speaker, the minister is in compliance with his multi-million dollar real estate empire. That is the only thing he is in compliance with, while people are living in tent cities. The minister has said the housing market is working just fine. This is from a real estate tycoon, while he has a $2.4-million penthouse in Vancouver, a $5.6-million lakefront property and a $3-million estate in Tofino. Do we think housing prices are going to go down? There is no way. It is not in in his financial interest for them to go down. How can anyone believe the minister will do anything for housing when it is in his vested interest to keep his real estate portfolio high and Canadians in tents?”
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was not listening to my speech. I was highly critical of this particular piece of legislation because of its effects on unions and skilled trades and the opportunity for government corruption and graft, which there is a well-documented history of. I am not sure I agree with the member's analysis of the election results, but the voter is always right, and this is where we are. We will continue to attack what I perceive as—”
“Mr. Speaker, the jokes on this write themselves. We are talking about a bill that gives ministers the ability to pick and choose who gets these billion dollar projects with a government whose record on this is absolutely deplorable, whether it is GC Strategies or the green slush fund. Now the Liberals are pushing modular housing. Of course, Brookfield has a major interest in this. The Prime Minister has not disclosed his assets that he still has from Brookfield. Let me ask this: Is it shocking that a Prime Minister who probably still owns shares and options, etc., in Brookfield is pushing for modular housing that would improve the profitability of Brookfield? I am not surprised at all, and I do not think Canadians are either.”
“Mr. Speaker, I spent a good deal of my speech talking about the opportunity for continued ministerial corruption from a corrupt Liberal government, and the parliamentary secretary's push-back is that Pierre Poilievre built six houses. That tells us exactly what is going to go on with the corruption, with respect to this particular piece of legislation. His push-back on the skilled trades was that there would not be any skills involved in building a modular house. Of course there would; factory workers have lots of skills. I talked about skilled trades. Unionized skilled tradespeople will not be building modular houses, which is also why we do not have a minister of labour; we have the kids' table Secretary of State for Labour, which every union in the country has criticized. They know exactly what direction the government is going in.”
“Yes, it is going to be one Canadian economy for Liberal insiders who get to line each other's pockets with these big fat contracts, just as they did with the green slush fund and just as they did with GC Strategies. The bill would unleash a tidal wave of corruption and graft that the Liberals will hand out to all of their friends. It is not what Canadians need. It is not what unionized workers need. It is not what tradespeople need. It is another big, fat failure by a corrupt Liberal government, not a new Liberal government but the same old Liberal government that is going to reward its same old buddies with these big fat contracts.”
“The minister is going to say he is going to pick one company to do a project. Can members imagine the corruption that is going to go on? If GC Strategies was able to turn $60,000 into $64 million, what is going to happen with a $1-billion project that a minister gets to pick? The green slush fund was Liberal insiders giving money to other Liberals while the minister stood there and did nothing. Actually, no, that is not true; the minister got promoted. The ministers responsible for GC Strategies got promoted too. What did the Liberals learn? It is that turning a blind eye to corruption gets rewarded, and now they say this is how they are going to create the one Canadian economy.”
“Do not even get me started on taking away the right to strike through section 107 referrals. This is a government that has absolutely no respect for labourers and unions in this country, and the labour unions know it. Now, let us talk about the one aspect of the bill that I find particularly troubling, which is the ministerial designation. The minister would get to pick the proponents of these projects. How could we ever think this is going to go well from a government that was responsible for the green slush fund and GC Strategies? Now the Liberals would get to pick the people who get these billion-dollar projects. Imagine the corruption and graft that will go on with a government that has been awash in nothing but corruption and graft for the last 10 years. This will be corruption unlike we have ever seen.”
“They are kind of there, but they do not really matter that much. They are not at the big person table, which is the cabinet table. What have unions said when they describe this? Joseph Mancinelli from LiUNA said, “if the Canadian government wants respect from labourers, perhaps let's start with a Minister of Labour”. He went on to call it a “slap in the face”. This is what it has been described as. Even CUPE said that it is “not just disappointing, but frankly insulting.” When we look at the lack of labour mobility in the bill, which is allegedly supposed to help; when we look at the Liberals pushing for modular housing, which will push out the trades; and when we look at the fact that there is no minister of labour, people in the labour movement know exactly where the Liberal government stands.”
“They are the ones doing all the work to build houses, and now the Liberals want to take that away and have modular houses built in factories where there will be no skilled trades. This is going to have a disastrous effect. We are not going to have Red Seal carpenters working in a factory to build modular homes. The members across are laughing, which displays their ignorance on how the trades work and the general disregard the Liberal government has had for trades, especially for unionized tradespeople. This brings me to another point, which is that for the first time in Canadian history, there is no minister of labour. This is a pretty shocking discovery. The Liberals are going to say they have a guy; he is the Secretary of State for Labour. However, it is like the person who sits at the kids' table at the wedding.”
“This is an absolute failure by the government, which says it is a new government that will take on new challenges. The Liberals have absolutely walked away from the challenge of labour mobility with this piece of legislation. While we talk about the challenges with people in skilled trades, I would be remiss, as the shadow minister for labour, if I did not talk about the Liberal plan for modular housing. The Liberals now tout this as the big solution to housing, which, of course, it will not be, but one thing it would do for sure is take away jobs from our skilled tradespeople, especially our unionized tradespeople involved in housing construction: the plumbers, the carpenters, the pipefitters.”
“This has been talked about for almost a decade, but the Liberals have lacked the political will to actually create a standard that would be recognized by all provinces, a new federal standard in the skilled trades for those types of safety things, as I said, like working in confined spaces or working from heights. If the Liberals did that, they would open up labour mobility for our tradespeople at a time when they absolutely need it. (1320) Projects that the Liberals say are going to be spurred along by this piece of legislation have been delayed for a long time; they are not moving forward. Many people in the skilled trades are finding it hard to be employed, but they could be employed if they could move from one province to another.”
“It is the same thing with any other skilled trades. The Liberals had a real opportunity to do something to make the lives of working Canadians better and to make labour mobility easier, but of course they declined to do that, so this is a major miss. When the Liberals are talking about how we need to get the economy moving, they should have taken real steps to improve labour mobility, especially in the skilled trades. Those of us who spend time meeting with our tradespeople, the people who build and maintain this country, know that there is often a boom-bust cycle to that. The projects may be booming in Ontario when they are not necessarily booming in Manitoba, so the ability to move from one jurisdiction to another in order to be gainfully employed is critical. This is not a new issue.”
“We said we would create a blue seal standard for these things across the country, so if people are certified to work from heights in Ontario, if they met that standard, they could go from Ontario to B.C., because they would have met this new standard. The problem that we have is that the government did not do that in this alleged labour mobility bill. The Liberals are not taking the real step. It is just another example of a lot of talk. It sounds good that they are going to improve labour mobility, but when we actually look at the bill, it would not actually do anything it says. It promises to improve labour mobility by recognizing provincial occupation certificates federally. That would not help the plumber who is trying to go from Ontario to B.C. for work. That actually would not do anything for them.”
“That is a problem, because it could take them three, four or five days to meet these allegedly different standards within their trade, and therefore people would be going three, four or five days without pay. I know. I have travelled across the country. I have met with skilled tradespeople in the unionized sector, and this is a huge problem. It is a big disincentive for people to actually travel across the country to go where the work is. When the Liberals talk about how we need to remove these interprovincial trade barriers, labour mobility is a huge part, and there is a simple solution. It is one that we actually proposed in the election.”
“Now, the so-called one Canadian economy act talks about labour mobility, which is a critical issue. For a tradesperson in Canada, it is very difficult to go from New Brunswick or Newfoundland over to Alberta, where there may be work, or from Alberta over to New Brunswick or Newfoundland, if they are looking for work. This is because there is no standard set of safety standards across the country. Each province has its own safety standards, whether it is about working in confined spaces or working from heights. People may have certifications in their home province, but those certifications would not be recognized when they move to another province for work.”
“This is a shocking increase from what it was a mere 10 years ago, when the number of people using a food bank in Ontario was about 350,000. Over the course of a decade of Liberal government management of the economy, the number of Canadians who are using a food bank has more than tripled. It gets worse because, again, 10 years ago, the number of people who were full-time employed and using a food bank was about 8% of those using the food bank. It is now 25%, so that has also tripled. This is the backdrop of what has been going on in Canada after 10 years of the Liberal government. The Liberals like to say that they are a new government, but in fact they are not. The government is almost entirely composed of the ministers who were responsible for the files that created the challenges that exist today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the fantastic member for Northumberland—Clarke . Before I talk about the actual merits of Bill C-5 , I want to set the stage a little. The so-called one Canadian economy act is being brought in allegedly in response to the threats from the south, from President Trump, but it is disingenuous, at best, to say that that is what this is about. The crisis that is facing Canada is really a result of the last 10 years of a pretty incompetent Liberal government, and I will just talk about a few facts to back that up. Let us talk about housing. Housing prices have become completely unaffordable. Most young people do not believe that they will ever own a home in their entire lifetime. In Ontario, my home province, we now have one million people regularly using food banks.”
“Madam Chair, the minister knows that grocery prices have gone up every single month since he made that statement. He either misled Canadians or was completely incompetent in his job to bring down grocery prices. Which one was it?”
“Madam Chair, these programs were in place for the last 10 years. These programs have been in place, yet the numbers at food banks keep rising. The minister knows the number of people using food banks now who are employed full-time is 25%. It has also tripled after 10 years of the Liberal government. Will the member apologize to those people who are employed full-time and now must go to a food bank to feed their families?”
“Madam Chair, if the minister does not know the answer to the question, he can just say it. We are talking about people who have to go to a food bank. That is the Liberals' track record. The answer is 8%. How many Canadians using a food bank regularly in 2025 are full-time employed as opposed to in 2015?”
“Madam Chair, I find the minister's indifference to the one million Ontarians regularly using a food bank to feed their families, quite frankly, disgusting. How many Ontarians were full-time employed and went to the food bank in 2015?”
“Madam Chair, the answer to that question is one million. Over a decade of your government, you being a minister, the number of people in Ontario who regularly use a food bank has tripled. It has gone up by almost 700,000. Will you apologize to those 700,000 Ontarians who now must go to a food bank to put food on their table as a result of your government?”