If the question is in terms of economic priorities, I'd say I'd highlight three. In fairness to Mr. Noel, it wasn't specifically on economic priorities, but was the preamble. First, affordability. There's this initiative here that goes directly to affordability concerns. Secondly, working to accelerate our housing program and our community-built program. There's a bill before the House on Build Canada Homes, the structure for Build Canada Homes, which will help accelerate at scale these projects. And thirdly, the large projects. But I'd...
Okay. So, we're putting in place, to put it in English, we're putting in place a series of measures. Some will have short-term payoffs. Many will have payoffs in a few years. The bigger projects, the bigger initiatives, we have to change fundamentally our economy to be stronger, more independent, more prosperous. But we want to make sure that those benefit all Canadians. And in the spring update, which the minister will in due course announce the timing for, and the initiatives, of course, in that, you'll see more emphasis on taking where we're going with the economy and making sure that it benefits all Canadians.
Next question. Next question.
Good morning, Prime Minister. Kate McKenna from CBC. I just wanted to push you a little bit on that question from my colleague. Some of the things you mentioned, housing, gas tax, major projects, these are all things that have received either rhetorical or legislative support from the Conservatives. So, what specifically can you advance that you weren't previously able to advance with the minority government?
Well, we've had, look, we've had a variety of issues over the course of the parliament where things have taken longer than they necessarily would, where debates have been more performative than actual around substance. I don't want to read into the record, although other deputies in parliament did read into the record their love of cats and dogs. But these are examples. These are real examples in committee. You get the pleasure of covering committees. And I ask you, and I say this as someone who's testified to committees in front of the Canadian parliament, in front of the UK parliament, for decades. There is a difference between real testimony, real substance, getting to issues, debating aspects of law, advancing. That's the job of parliamentarians. And showboating. We're going to have less of that. We're going to have more substance. I think all parliamentarians in the end will appreciate that, even if it's a change for some of them.
Would you have a response in French or not? Yes, okay. Okay, what?
We're going to be serious.
Pardon? What? Some of your bills have been criticized by senators, opposition, for including little... they call them poison pills. What checks and balances are going to exist for you now that you have a majority government? Some examples might be the lawful access in former C-2.
Lawful access? You mean that would be lawful access that's supported by virtually every law enforcement agency in the country. This is an exceptionally important issue. We all know how we communicate increasingly in different channels of communication. And the fact is, and I'll give you the example, I just spent a number of hours with Peel police in their serious crime unit and on their action unit that's working against home invasions, extortions, auto thefts. The biggest thing they want is lawful access. So this is not... This is a serious point, if I may, Kate, which is that it's not a... This is not a poison pill. These are important issues. And that is a framing that is a framing of an issue that is tying the hands of police forces behind their backs unnecessarily in this time. Now, we will go through processes for any bill, certainly any bill related to the criminal justice system, with debate in parliament, with serious committee discussions, not about cats and dogs, but about lawful access, the implementation of it and others. And we welcome that. But then we will take our responsibilities, as all deputies will, as parliamentarians, and vote. Next question. Next question.
Abigail Bimman, CTV News. On the gas tax, did you get this idea from the Conservatives, and will you continue to lean on the opposition for ideas now that you have a majority?
Well, let me... No is the answer, the short answer to your first question. But to your second question, second part of your question, we're open to ideas from anyone. Certainly any deputies, ideas that could come from the Senate, above all ideas from Canadians, from stakeholders and others. That is what governing in a collaborative way means, and governing for Canadians. So if there's good ideas for Canadians, we will look at them and implement them. One difference, if I may, and this is not especially on anyone, but is when you're a government, to govern is to choose. And if you're choosing a fiscal measure, such as the gas tax, you're balancing against it against other priorities that the government has. How well we can continue to fund child care, dental care, health care with the provinces, how we continue to support the vulnerable. What's the best way to do it? And so what you see today with what we're going to put in front of the House, the minister will put in front of the House, is a balance which takes an additional revenue that we expect to get, returns it to Canadians for a temporary period of time, while the economy adjusts and one would hope while events improve, if I can put it that way, in the Middle East. Yeah.
Pardon? If you were Mr. Poilievre, would you quit today?
That's an unfair question. I can't look into the heart of Mr. Poilievre. I respect him as a parliamentarian, as I do the other leaders of the other parties, and we'll continue, you know, I'll continue to work with him and all parliamentarians, as will my colleagues, to advance the interests of Canadians. Next question. Next question.
Morning, Tonda MacCharles, Toronto Star. Pierre Poilievre called you badly educated in economics, and...
