Madam Speaker, if a revised response to Question No. 505, originally tabled on June 13, 2022, and the government's responses to Questions Nos. 1484, 1486, 1489, 1498, 1500, 1506, 1507, 1509, 1510, 1516 to 1520 and 1522 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.

With regard to ongoing or planned government IT projects with a budget over $1 million: what are the details of each project, including the (i) project description and summary, (ii) total budget, (iii) estimated completion date? With regard to the purchase of promotional products since January 1, 2021, broken down by department, agency or Crown corporation: (a) what products were purchased; (b) what quantity of each product was purchased; (c) what was the amount spent; (d) what was the price per unit; (e) if the products were purchased in relation to a specific event, what are the details of the event; (f) in what country was each product manufactured; and (g) what is the relevant file number for each purchase? With regard to government advertising expenditures with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC): (a) how much did each department, agency or other government entity spend on advertising with the CBC, in each of the last five fiscal years, including 2022-23; and (b) what is the breakdown of (a) by campaign and location, or type of advertising (CBC television, CBC Gem, CBC website, etc.)? With regard to land owned by the Department of National Defence or the Canadian Armed Forces which is currently not being used: what are the details of each location, including the (i) size of the land, (ii) geographic location, including the municipality or the proximity to the nearest municipality, (iii) future usage, if known? With regard to repayable loans and repayable contributions over $1,000,000 given out by the government since January 1, 2019: what are the details of all such loans and contributions, including the (i) date of the loan or the contribution, (ii) recipient’s details, including the name and the location, (iii) amount provided, (iv) amount repaid to date, (v) description of the project or the purpose of the loan or the contribution, (vi) program under which the loan or the contribution was administered? With regard to buildings and office space owned or leased by the government, excluding the Department of National Defence: (a) how much office space, by square footage, is currently (i) owned, (ii) leased; (b) how much did the government pay to lease office space during the last fiscal year; (c) what are the annual operating costs to run government buildings and office space, broken down by type of cost (energy, building management, etc.); and (d) what is the breakdown of (a) by province or territory and municipality? With regard to government information on digital assets and the Web3 sector in Canada: (a) what portion of the gross domestic product does the government estimate to be related to the Web3 sector; (b) how many jobs are tied to the Web3 sector; (c) what analysis or economic studies has the government done related to the size and scope of the Web3 sector since 2016, and what are the details, including, for each, the (i) firm who conducted the analysis, (ii) scope of the work statement of the analysis, (iii) date on which the work was completed, (iv) findings; (d) what steps is the government taking to foster the Web3 sector; (e) what is the assessed risk, to Canada’s economy, of creating a negative environment for the Web3 sector where large Canadian companies move to other jurisdictions; (f) how many blockchain applications has the government procured or is in the process of procuring; and (g) what are the details of all blockchain applications in (f), including, for each, the (i) applicant, (ii) date of the procurement, (iii) summary of the statement of work, (iv) contract value; (v) assessed risk of the government creating a negative environment for the Web3 sector to the procurement contract? With regard to leases for office buildings and office space signed by the government: (a) how many leases for (i) entire buildings, (ii) part of a building, or office space within a building, are currently active, broken down by those within the National Capital Region (NCR) and those outside of the NCR; (b) what is the total square footage of the properties in (a); (c) what is the total annual value of the leases; (d) what is the average amount of time remaining on the leases; and (e) how many leases expire, or are up for renewal, in (i) less than two years, (ii) two to five years, (iii) more than five years, from May 4, 2023? With regard to the report titled "PRC Foreign Interference in Canada: a Critical National Security Threat, CSIS IA 2021-22/31", dated July 20, 2021: (a) did Global Affairs Canada receive the report, and, if so, who received it and on what date; (b) did the Privy Council Office receive the report, and, if so, who received it and on what date; and (c) did Public Safety Canada receive the report, and, if so, who received it and on what date? With regard to government expenditures on sporting event tickets since May 1, 2019: for each expenditure, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) sport, (iv) league and teams involved, if applicable, (v) total cost, (vi) cost per ticket, (vii) number of tickets, (viii) titles of persons using the tickets, (ix) name or title of the event for which tickets were purchased by, or billed to, any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity? With regard to government expenditures on gala or concert tickets, since May 1, 2019: for each expenditure, what was the (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) event title and description, (iv) total cost, (v) cost per ticket, (vi) number of tickets, (vii) titles of the people using the tickets, (viii) name or title of the event for which tickets were purchased by, or billed to, any department, agency, Crown corporation or other government entity? With regard to ongoing or planned government IT projects with a budget of over $1 million: what are the details of each project, including the (i) project description and summary, (ii) total budget, (iii) estimated completion date? With regard to contracts awarded since the 2015-16 fiscal year, broken down by fiscal year: what is the total value of contracts awarded to (i) McKinsey & Company, (ii) Deloitte, (iii) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (iv) Accenture, (v) KPMG, (vi) Ernst and Young? With regard to the electoral district of Courtenay—Alberni, since fiscal year 2018-19: what are all the federal infrastructure investments (including direct transfers to municipalities, regional district associations or First Nations, national parks, highways, etc.), broken down by fiscal year? With regard to federal investments and communities which comprise the federal electoral district of Courtenay-Alberni, between the 2005-06 and current fiscal year: (a) what are the federal investments in Innovation, Science, Economic Development, and Forestry, including direct transfers to the municipalities and First Nations, for the communities of (i) Tofino, (ii) Ucluelet, (iii) Port Alberni, (iv) Parksville, (v) Qualicum Beach, (vi) Cumberland, (vii) Courtenay, (viii) Deep Bay, (ix) Dashwood, (x) Royston, (xi) French Creek, (xii) Errington, (xiii) Coombs, (xiv) Nanoose Bay, (xv) Cherry Creek, (xvi) China Creek, (xvii) Bamfield, (xviii) Beaver Creek, (xix) Beaufort Range, (xx) Millstream, (xxi) Mt. Washington Ski Resort, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; (b) what are the federal investments in Innovation, Science, Economic Development, and Forestry transferred to the regional districts of (i) Comox Valley, (ii) Nanaimo, (iii) Alberni-Clayoquot, (iv) Powell River, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; (c) what are the federal investments in Innovation, Science, Economic Development, and Forestry transferred to the Island Trusts of (i) Hornby Island, (ii) Denman Island, (iii) Lasquetti Island, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure; (d) what are the federal investments in Innovation, Science, Economic Development, and Forestry transferred to (i) the Ahousaht First Nation, (ii) Hesquiaht First Nation, (iii) Huu-ay-aht First Nation, (iv) Hupacasath First Nation, (v) Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations, (vi) Toquaht First Nation, (vii) Tseshaht First Nation, (viii) Uchucklesaht First Nation, (ix) Ucluelet First Nation, (x) K'omoks First Nation, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) projects; (e) what are the federal investment funding of the Strategic Innovation Fund, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure (iii) project; (f) what are the funding of the Government of Canada's Sectoral Initiatives Program, broken down by (i) fiscal year, (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project; and (g) what are the federal investment funding of the Forest Industry Transformation (IFIT) program, broken down by (i) fiscal year (ii) total expenditure, (iii) project? With regard to government statistics on the causes of death in Canada: (a) what were the top 50 leading causes of death for each year and quarter since 2014, broken down by sex, age interval, geographic location of death, type of location of death (long term care home, hospital, etc.); and (b) for the statistics in (a), from 2021 onwards, what is the breakdown by COVID-19 vaccination status? With regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency’s Directive 2009-09: (a) which agricultural groups were consulted on making the decisions within the directive; (b) on which dates did consultations take place; (c) in what manner did consultations take place; and (d) what guidance was provided on gene-editing for resilience?

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Regina—Wascana, Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Since today is the final allotted day for the supply period ending June 23, the House will go through the usual procedures to consider and dispose of supply bills. In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the bills be distributed now? It is agreed.

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Bay of Quinte. We are living through the same economic and scientific experiment that politicians dust off every 30 years, as soon as the last experiment is forgotten. The experiment I mean is the one where politicians approach the economy like this: if it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it; and if it stops moving, subsidize it. This is exactly this government's approach. The government has turned Canada into the second-slowest country in the world to grant building permits. Under existing regulations, it takes 25 years to approve a mining project. This country imposes more taxes on small and medium-sized enterprises, which is slowing economic productivity. Then the government turns around and tries to subsidize all these things. Let us talk about housing, for example. Since taking office, the Prime Minister has been running a country with the fewest houses per capita in the G7, even though Canada has one of the largest land masses. This is because construction projects sometimes take 10 years to be approved. What does the Prime Minister do? He hands out subsidies and big cheques to municipal politicians, who then stand in the way of this construction. That is why Vancouver is the world's third most expensive city, and Toronto is the second most expensive. Canada has a lot of land, however. The average house cost is almost double in Canada what it is in the United States, which has 10 times the people to house on a smaller land mass. The government blocked the construction of two pipelines but then subsidized a third. This means that it is against pipelines that are built by the private sector with private money, but it is in favour of pipelines that are subsidized by the government. As a result, $30 billion is being spent to subsidize a pipeline in western Canada that could have cost taxpayers nothing. Meanwhile, these kinds of projects are being built for free around the world. The Prime Minister boasts about subsidies under Canada's critical minerals strategy for materials needed for electrification. At the same time, the government is blocking the development of those same kinds of mines in northern Ontario that could produce those same products. Why is this government blocking something with one hand and subsidizing it with the other? Why not do neither and just allow investors, workers and entrepreneurs to do it on their own? The answer is that it would take the Prime Minister out of the equation. He may seem inconsistent, but he is actually very consistent, because in all of these cases, he forces people to go through him and through the government to do anything at all. He puts himself at the centre of everything that people can do in the economy. It is Canadians, ordinary folks, the people doing the work, who should be at the centre of our country. There are real consequences and real costs to that. Over the next 30 years, Canada is expected to have the worst economic growth in the OECD. The cost of housing has also doubled. Food prices are rising at the fastest pace in 40 years. When the government prevents the market from developing naturally and organically, just so it can subsidize it, that means additional costs for ordinary Canadians who are forced to pay more. There is another way. We need to remove gatekeepers so hydroelectric dams can be built and materials can be mined for electrification. We need to produce more of our own energy here in Canada, instead of importing it from elsewhere, by cutting red tape and reducing delays. We need to encourage municipalities to cut their own red tape so that we can build affordable housing for average Canadians. The correct approach is to give Canadians the freedom to create a better quality of life that costs less. It is just common sense. Together, let us bring common sense home to Canada. That is our goal, and that is exactly what we are going to do. We are now living through an experiment. It is not an unprecedented experiment; it is tried about every 30 years, as soon as the last experiment is forgotten. It is the idea that if the government sees something that moves, it taxes it. “If it keeps moving, [they] regulate it. And if it stops moving, [they] subsidize it.” That is, of course, a quote I took from a famous American president who took the opposite approach, but it is the approach we are living with right now. What is the result of a government that interferes in order to block Canadians from building things for themselves and then tries to subsidize that very building after the fact? The result is that the cost of everything is rising. The cost of government is driving up the cost of living. The government has produced half a trillion dollars of new money that bids up the goods we buy and the interest we pay. Now, Canadians face the real threat of a mortgage meltdown when those rates rise further. We see this approach, though, played out again and again. For example, the government blocked two pipelines but then subsidized a third. It is not that it is against pipelines; it is just that it is only in favour of a pipeline that can be built with 30 billion tax dollars. The government blocked mines. It blocked all the mines in northern Ontario's ring of fire, and now it wants to subsidize those very same mines. The government taxes small businesses and then claims it is coming up with subsidies to bail out those very same small businesses for the costs the government made them pay. The government claims its carbon tax works like this. It will take the money away and give it back, and somehow it will be worth more than when it left. Of course, we now know that everyday Canadians are paying vastly more in these taxes than they get back in return. The experiment fails. Every 30 years or so it happens, and it is allowed to happen only because enough time has passed for people to forget its logical outcome. The logical way out of it is to take exactly the opposite approach; instead of taxing and blocking our industry and then subsidizing it, we should do neither. We should have real, sensible streamlined rules that allow us to protect our environment and public safety but allow our entrepreneurs, investors and industrialists to get things done. That is what we will do when I am prime minister. Let us set some wonderful, ambitious goals. Why do we not set a goal? Instead of being the second slowest in the OECD to grant a building permit, why can we not be the fastest place to grant a building permit anywhere in the OECD? Why can we not approve a mine or a small, modular nuclear reactor in two or three years, rather than in 25 years? What do we learn in years 23, 24 and 25 that we could not have learned in years one, two and three of these projects? Why do we not incentivize our municipalities to do what some are trying their very best to do? For example, the mayor of Walkerton just streamlined and sped up the approval of housing so he could have three 60-unit apartment blocks finalized in several months. The great Squamish people, right inside the city of Vancouver, do not have to follow Vancouver's bureaucratic rules, because they control their own land. They were able to speed up and approve 6,000 units of housing on 10 acres of land. That is 600 units of housing per acre. People will now have homes because the Squamish know how to do what so many local government bureaucrats do not allow, which is to approve projects and get them built. That reminds me of the great Aubrey Moodie, who was the reeve of Nepean. Jack May went to see him on a Sunday morning before he got up to go to church, and said he wanted to build a car dealership and he had a piece of land. The next day at the local town hall, the lawyers sat down with the engineers. Within 48 hours, there was approval, and within 72 hours, there was construction. The car dealership is still standing safely there, 70 years later. That is common sense. That way, we can build homes that people can afford, build businesses that pay higher paycheques, lower the tax burden on the backs of the hard-working people and let them bring home more of their paycheques. That is the purpose of the government; it is to make Canada work for the people who do the work, by bringing home lower costs, by eliminating the carbon tax and the inflationary deficits, by bringing home powerful paycheques with lower taxes that reward hard work, by removing gatekeepers to build homes, to allow first nations to develop their economies and to allow our people to develop their own industry. We need to bring in homes people can afford, by removing gatekeepers, freeing up land and speeding up permits to build and build. We need to bring home safe streets for our people, with consequences for repeat, violent offenders, not by targeting our lawful firearms owners. We need to bring home our freedom again by eliminating the censorship and centralized control the government has attempted to impose on the people. In other words, when we say “bring it home”, it means using the House to bring the power, the control and the money back into the hands of the entrepreneur, the worker and the everyday extraordinary people who know better than anyone in this room how to chart their own course and live their own lives. It is common sense. It is the common sense of the common people, united for our common home: your home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

Madam Speaker, at least we always know when a Conservative is wrapping up their speech. It is a good cue. I have a question for the Leader of the Opposition. He has been very critical of the government, the government's responses to COVID and the various measures that have been put in place. However, I want to read what one of his predecessors, a previous leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, said. Brian Mulroney said that the Prime Minister and the premiers “conducted themselves as well as anybody else in the world” in dealing with COVID, something Mulroney called “the greatest challenge that any prime minister has dealt with in Canada in 156 years.” The Conservatives are laughing at Mulroney. With respect to NAFTA, Mulroney said he saw first-hand how the Prime Minister made “big decisions at crucial moments” and won “a significant victory for Canada”. How can the current leader of the Conservative Party differ so much from the leader of his party a few decades ago?

Madam Speaker, when we look at the record of the Prime Minister, he has doubled the cost of housing; he has doubled the cost of rent, mortgage payments and necessary down payments. He has massively increased lineups at our local food banks. There are 1.5 million people standing outside food banks every single month. They are lined up all around street corners in cities like Toronto. We now see 100,000 British Columbians who face possible homelessness because of the increases in rent that the government's inflationary policies are helping drive. These are new problems; eight years ago, we did not have these problems. Housing was affordable. Canadians could afford to eat. There is no excuse for this failure. We have all the natural advantages. We live next to the most lucrative economy in the world. We have the most educated people in the world. We have four coasts. We can do it.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Conservative leader for his speech and for introducing this motion. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of tabling a plan to return to a balanced budget. I think that the least a government can do is to state its intentions. I agree that the government or the Liberal Party may be spending too much money, but above all, I think that the money is being spent unwisely. It cannot expect to magically balance the books. To do that, it will need a better way to spend and invest, and the Bloc Québécois has some suggestions to make. For example, we want to support seniors to stop their purchasing power from eroding. We want to ensure that health transfers are in line with what the provinces are asking for. We want a real plan for social and affordable housing and an EI system that works. Does the Leader of the Opposition support these measures?

Madam Speaker, I am glad to hear that the hon. member wants balanced budgets. I agree with that. I have put forward several ideas for saving money. For example, $35 billion of taxpayers' money was allocated to the infrastructure bank. However, it has not completed a single project in five years. This is an enormous waste of money. What is more, the amounts awarded to consultants keep increasing, even though we have a larger public service that can do exactly the same work. Buying back hunting rifles is another example of waste. There is a lot of waste in this government. We will eliminate waste and balance the budget to bring down inflation and interest rates.

Madam Speaker, of course, when we talk about what affects the power of Canadians paycheques, it is not just a matter of talking about taxation, because outsized price increases by corporations also affect the power of Canadians' paycheques. We have seen record profits by grocery companies and by oil and gas companies, which are raising their prices far more than the increase in the input costs they have seen. Just today, it was reported that Canada Bread Company pleaded guilty to price fixing with Weston Foods, in a scandal that goes back to even before the pandemic. We know Canadians are very concerned about unjustified price hikes during the pandemic, which some economists have said are responsible for up to 25% of inflation. Therefore, why does the leader of the Conservative Party never address the question of corporate greed when he talks about inflation?

Madam Speaker, this is the paradise the NDP created. It is part of a coalition government, during which all of these economic outrages the member described have been able to flourish. There is no question that since the socialist policies of the NDP, with the government, have come into place, they have actually have helped corporate profits, as they always do, contrary to the false narrative. In reality, when big government controls all the money, those with the political influence do the best, and those who pay the bills do the work. We want to put the money back in the hands of the hard-working people who earned it, not in the hands of the corporate oligarchs or the big government.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and privilege to follow and share my time with the future prime minister of Canada. When I was a little boy, my grandfather used to read—

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

Madam Speaker, I do not recall hearing the Leader of the Opposition indicate he was sharing his time.

He did. The hon. member for Bay of Quinte.