House Publications

     moved that Bill C‑269, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (heat recovery tax credit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

     He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me acknowledge the help I have received in the conception, analysis and presentation of this bill. Janice Tran, the CEO of Kanin Energy in Calgary, provided me with the inspiration, and numerous alternative energy experts have provided their input to this bill since it was first introduced in the House. I thank them all, and I note the importance of having a channel to bring forth great ideas from Canadians for consideration in Parliament for how we help grow our country and help it prosper.

    The best way to start this speech about this private member's bill, entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act, heat recovery tax credit, is to first say what the bill is intended to do. To illustrate that effectively, some context is required. First off, for the sake of those who have little background in tax incentives with which we attempt to motivate business investment in this country, let us illustrate how an investment tax credit works. A non-refundable income tax credit allows a company to deduct the amount of the credit from the taxes it has payable to the federal government in any year.

    Let me give an example. Let us say that a company earned pre‑tax profits of $10 million in one taxation year. Assuming an effective federal tax rate of 15% on those earnings, that would mean the company would owe the government $1.5 million for that taxation year. Their after‑tax profit, in that case, would be $8.5 million before other taxes payable to other jurisdictions. If we look at an investment tax credit of 30%, and we assume an investment in that equipment equal to $10 million, then the 30% tax credit would mean that the company could take a credit against its taxes equal to $3 million. Note that in this case, this amount would be more than the amount payable in the year's taxes, so a portion of the credit would still be available for credit against future years' taxes payable. For the company's sake, when management makes decisions about how it would invest, it would effectively reduce the capital cost by that 30%, predicated upon the fact that the company would be taxable, and any amount due in tax credits in future years would also be time‑valued. The result is that the cost of the $10‑million equipment, in the company's estimation, would be reduced by 30% or thereabouts, so the investment could meet an “investment cost of capital” analysis. The company could take actual cash flow from the taxes it would have otherwise paid to justify why it would be spending $10 million up front. There are other complications, such as the half‑year rule, that I will not address here, but I hope this illustrates the case.

    The reason governments allow investment tax credits for selective purposes is because they are trying to motivate investment in sectors or uses that, all other things being equal, would not occur. In the illustration I presented, the government will not be collecting $1.5 million in taxes that year and a similar amount the following year.

    Governments cannot do that always and everywhere because it would then not have corporate income tax collection as part of its revenues. That tax collection line in 2025 amounted to about $97 billion, 19% of all the revenue the Government of Canada collected. Therefore, we need to be selective about how we apply investment tax credits in order to have a functioning taxation system and in order not to worsen our escalating deficits and unsustainable debt situation that Canadians are facing.

    That should lead listeners to the next question: Why should we apply an investment tax credit to waste heat recovery? Put differently, what is the problem we need to solve and how does this approach fit the solution? Let me provide some background. In Canada, the industrial sector amounted to 54% of Canada's end‑use energy demand in 2021. The main use of energy in the industrial sector is heat production, which is used in various industrial processes. By application, the sectors with the greatest opportunity are chemicals and primary metals, followed by cement and glass production and pulp and paper. In these industrial processes, approximately 30% to 50% of heat is lost. That is from a study undertaken by Polytechnique Montréal in 2021. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the equipment available today would capture 13% to 18% of the unused heat resources. The equipment exists to turn waste heat into power. The economics alone are still slightly challenging; however, with a 30% investment tax credit, it would drive the levelized cost of electricity, which is the power derived from the waste heat, down to levels competitive with wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal, most of which receive generous tax incentives to add to our energy supply. In the end, what we are aiming for is energy efficiency.

     First, Canada needs more electricity. Last month, the Prime Minister announced a national electricity strategy to double electricity production by 2050, which included financial incentives of various sorts. The irony is that electricity production is a provincial jurisdiction and the policy‑makers who are trying to wedge the federal government into Canada's electricity markets are the same people who made an absolute mess of Ontario's electricity system over a decade ago. The problem energy consumers face is that they do not know what their electricity costs, between the various levels of government that are subsidizing power production in many non‑obvious ways. However, what the ratepayer does not see on their electricity bill, they see on their tax bill, or it is added to the fiscal deficits we are passing on to the next generation to pay. Let us accept that, in the modern construct, producing new electricity production facilities is time consuming and expensive. Therefore, getting electricity from power sources that are producing waste heat may be the most efficient source of new electricity.

    Second, Canada needs to further reduce emissions. The lower our emissions profile per unit of output, the better the outcomes for the environment and society. New electricity would have an emissions profile. Some of that profile would be in the capital equipment and some would be in the consumable portion of the equation. We cannot ignore the carbon embedded in the capital equipment and just count the emissions from the variable inputs. That ignores the full carbon costing, which is one of the reasons the world's efforts to reduce carbon emissions are failing.

     Similarly, there is a footprint to the production of the equipment that would be required to produce power from waste heat. We must recognize that this equipment is an add‑on to an existing system, so its footprint per amount produced is less than any new build. In the case of capturing waste heat and producing electricity from that heat, the new variable emission amounts to zero, so the power profile has a near zero carbon footprint. This policy serves a great environmental purpose, one that gets results with respect to flatlining emissions and produces power with no new emissions. As we need power, the most environmentally friendly power would be that with zero net new emissions.

    Let us address the competitive landscape, because Canada is not the first country to undertake this exercise. The United States, in particular, instituted a similar 30% investment tax credit for waste heat‑to‑power investment in 2022. By 2023, 63 manufacturers across various industries had installed equipment resulting in the production capacity of 812 megawatts of power. For comparison, Canada's most recently completed hydro dam, Site C, in northern British Columbia, has a capacity of 1,100 megawatts. That dam cost $16 billion and took 11 years to build. If we scale back the U.S. experience by a factor of 10 roughly, therein lies the outcome we can target in Canada: about 80 megawatts of new electricity per year with no new emissions. I will note the importance of timeliness in our approach, because Canada is now a net importer of electricity, so speed matters, execution matters and cost‑effectiveness matters.

    What is missing in Canada's set of tools is a credit for waste heat‑to‑power, which is available and being deployed effectively in other jurisdictions. This seems like low‑hanging fruit with its cost savings, new electricity production and no new variable emissions profile for that electricity. It is probably the most cost‑effective and feasible way of accomplishing our goals, which is to produce more electricity with a lower emissions profile. Why have we avoided it? I am certain federal officials have seen this approach. The answer is in the mindset of the embedded decision‑makers.

     In Canada, our energy production system counts on three well‑built and necessary infrastructures. There is the electricity grid, for which various input sources make electricity. There is our natural gas distribution system, which is not just for heating homes, but used for many industrial processes as it is the most efficient source for generating heat, and many industrial processes will always require heat. There is also our mode of fuel distribution network, primarily fossil fuels. Think of each of these distribution systems as representing about a third, give or take, of Canada's power production and consumption. Think of the combination of the three representing an infrastructure asset base that has served as the envy of developing countries.

    Generations of Canadians have built an infrastructure on which we all depend. Doing away with any of these three power distribution infrastructures would weaken our power profile and increase the risk of an overall system failure.

    When I mention the embedded decision-makers, I am appealing to the new representatives on the government side of the House to overrule the entrenched ideology that has put our country in the box we are in. The ideological attempt to penalize Canada's hydrocarbon energy systems is misguided. That includes our natural gas distribution system, an essential tool for our continued economic advancement. Perhaps if we approached the most easily accessible solutions, we would get better outcomes.

    The Liberal government has represented itself to Canadians as having changed from the painful, divisive ideology that defined the former prime minister. Unfortunately, we see that the rot the government brought to our energy systems in Canada runs deeper than just the elected representatives. It is now entrenched in what seems like the actual decision-makers in the government, the embedded ideologues who are still driving the government's aimless policies.

    Five years ago, the Liberals voted down my last private member's bill to provide an investment tax credit for enhanced oil recovery. This spring, the Liberal government decided to put a form of that credit into the budget. However, the credit it has put forth is uncompetitive with our peers and it has caused confusion as to its stringency requirements. A policy that still leaves Canada as the least competitive among our peers in our approach to this technology is one that will continue to see capital allocated elsewhere.

    No data is more consistent than that which has shown the great egress of capital from investment opportunities in our country. In that sense, the Prime Minister is accomplishing his objectives. What one cannot get one way, one gets another way, in this case, pretending one has a credit, making a big announcement and ensuring it is functionally unviable. I sense the same approach with the investment tax credits for greener power production.

    For the ideologues, the perfect is the enemy of the good. The approach I am proposing in the bill would be very good for Canada. Let me appeal to those voices on the Liberal side of the House with whom I have worked to build goodwill in our approach to Canada's energy system. As was our mantra when I embarked on hearings across Canada for the Conservatives' economic growth council, I say to my Liberal friends to take our ideas, please. These are better for the country.

    In summary, the bill would provide an incentive, an investment tax credit, to motivate industrial power users to invest in equipment that would increase Canada's electricity production with no new emissions. That means more power without more emissions, energy efficiency improvements, productivity enhancements and lower business costs, making Canadian manufacturers more competitive. Let me appeal to all parliamentarians to see the obvious good in all of this.

     Madam Speaker, I am very sensitive to the need. As the Prime Minister has clearly indicated, we want to be able to increase electricity production here in Canada. We recognize that. I think that we have a number of measures that are within the budget. Many discussions are ongoing between the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers and different levels of government. Working in collaboration is really important.

    I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts in regard to how careful we need to be when we talk about anywhere from, let us say, $80 billion to $100 billion, which is collected annually through corporate taxes. We have to be very delicate in the way that we use tax breaks in general, with respect to that level.

    Madam Speaker, I think, in my speech, I addressed that very clearly, but I will give another data point for the hon. member.

    All of the government's investment tax credits for clean energy production amount to the expected spending of $103 billion, between when it started a handful of years ago and 2035. In fact, because it is a misguided approach, only $22 million of that money has been spent, That is because it is misallocated. We have to go for the low-hanging fruit here first of all. The low-hanging fruit is the waste heat that is already being produced, which we can cost-effectively get into our electricity system.

    I hope my colleague looks at this from a cost-effective perspective. I have, and I think it is our best approach going forward.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill. I will have an opportunity to talk about it a little later.

    I have a question about oil and gas companies, which already receive tons of investment tax credits. Does my colleague believe that these companies would also be included and that they would also be able to benefit from the tax credit he is proposing in his bill?

    Madam Speaker, it is important to clarify that this is not a credit for oil and gas production. It is a credit for manufacturers that use mainly natural gas, but also other types of fuels and sources that can produce heat. They are the ones who would benefit from this bill.

    Madam Speaker, as my colleague described, waste heat to power is a well‑established technology that captures excess heat from industrial processes and converts it into reliable baseload electricity, while producing no additional emissions or fuel use.

    Can my hon. colleague explain how this pan‑Canadian opportunity would be especially beneficial to the forestry sector and other resource sectors in western Canada, and particularly in British Columbia?

    Madam Speaker, the thing about this tax credit is that it is manufacturing. It is across Canada. I mentioned some of the industries across this country that would benefit enormously from this as it would reduce their costs and give them an electricity source they can actually gain some revenue from. Every tax credit should have a benefit as well, at the end of the day. With this benefit, there would be more power for the country and more revenue for the companies that use this tax credit, it would lower costs all across the country and it would make us more productive as an economy.

    Of the industries involved, pulp and paper is one that produces a lot of waste heat to power. Using this credit would give the companies more electricity to use on site, and they could potentially put it back into the grid if they use some other equipment.

     Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could clarify what the actual cost would be. We have heard the government talk about billions of dollars, whereas he countered that it would be quite a bit less.

    What would the cost to the taxpayer be if these credits were enacted in Canada?

    Madam Speaker, that is a complex question, but I appreciate it, because we have to model this somehow. We talked about the credits that exist. The government expected $103 billion for its investment tax credits. Of that, only $22 million has been allocated so far. This one would bring about 83 megawatts of power into the grid. The production of extra power for this would probably offset the credit that the government would have to take out of its revenue.

     Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate on private member's bill, Bill C‑269. I thank the member for Calgary Centre for putting it forward. I appreciate all members' private member's bills. They are an opportunity for us to work on projects and ideas and bring things forward. I appreciate the hard work that goes into that.

    As we know, the bill proposes a set of amendments to the Income Tax Act to establish a new, permanent 30% non‑refundable investment tax credit for certain heat recovery equipment, which would be available as of January 1, 2026. In short, the intent of the bill is to support the adoption of certain heat recovery equipment, including waste heat-to-power technology.

     I should make it clear from the outset that this is an objective that our government considers very worthy. For example, waste heat-to-power technologies capture heat that is typically lost during industrial processes and converts it into electricity. Common applications include energy‑intensive industries such as oil and gas refineries, steel mills, cement kilns and many others. By utilizing energy that would otherwise be wasted, this process can improve energy efficiency while also helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

    Improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are, indeed, the sorts of objectives our government supports, and these are the sorts of technologies we would like to see adopted to help achieve these objectives. That is why we already have measures in place to support the adoption of energy‑efficient technologies, which are helping us meet our goals of improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

     Let me clarify. With budget 2025's productivity superdeduction, for example, we have reinstated the accelerated investment incentive, as well as immediate expensing for manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment for clean energy generation, energy conservation equipment and zero‑emission vehicles. The productivity superdeduction also provides for immediate expensing for productivity‑enhancing assets and capital expenditures for scientific research and experimental development. It introduces immediate expensing for manufacturing or processing buildings and it includes the reinstatement of the accelerated capital cost allowances for liquefied natural gas facilities, but only for those that are low‑carbon liquefied natural gas.

     Together, these measures that form the productivity superdeduction would lower costs, spur investment and reduce Canada's marginal effective tax rate to 13%, reinforcing Canada as the most tax‑competitive country for new business investment in the G7 and supporting the adoption of cleaner and more efficient technologies.

    I would add that we see numbers going up for investments in this area. Business investment has gone up by over 10% for new machinery and equipment. It has also gone up about 13% in IP protection, which is also included in the immediate expensing measures we put in budget 2025. These measures are already starting to take some effect in the economy, and we are seeing business investment where we have not seen it in past years.

    Of course, a cornerstone of our new economic plan is an exceptional and unprecedented suite of clean economy investment tax credits, which will help attract investment from here in Canada and from around the world through tens of billions of dollars in incentives. These clean economy investment tax credits are providing businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build in Canada. They are already attracting major job‑creating projects, ensuring that we remain globally competitive, from new carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry to new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses. These new clean economy ITCs would put Canada on track to achieve a net‑zero economy by 2050.

     I appreciate that one of the intentions of this private member's bill, Bill C‑269, is to address a perceived gap in the design of those clean economy investment tax credits. However, as I have already noted, certain energy-efficient equipment generally already benefit from the immediate expensing measures that are part of the productivity superdeduction. Therefore, Bill C‑269 is aimed at a target that is already being hit by some of these other measures.

    Moreover, in the way the bill is currently structured, it would hit more than just the intended target. That is because the eligibility under the proposed tax credit is defined very broadly and could include not only waste heat‑to‑power technology, but also a much wider range of equipment used in industrial heat recovery and energy generation processes. While a narrowly focused tax credit for waste heat‑to‑power technology could cost roughly $70 million per year ongoing, the proposed tax credit would be available to other types of heat recovery and energy generation equipment, and its fiscal impact is expected to be significantly higher. Opening the door to energy‑efficient technology could create a significant new precedent in this regard.

     The proposed new tax credit in the bill also has several inconsistent features that would introduce significant new policy precedents and irregularities into the investment tax credit regime. The proposed tax credit would be permanent, for example, while existing clean economy investment tax credits are time‑limited to encourage investment in the short and medium term. The proposed credit also lacks certain integrity rules that apply to many of the other clean economy ITCs. For example, eligible capital costs under the proposed credit would be reduced by other government assistance received or unpaid amounts, as is generally the case with the clean economy investment tax credits. It is also the case that Bill C‑269 proposes a non‑refundable tax credit, while all of the other ITCs are refundable, which is another inconsistency that I would point out. This would result in the lack of a tax refund and it would be used only to deduct from taxes owed, which is a significant inconsistency with the other ITCs that we have offered.

     These are all important facts that should be taken into account when considering Bill C‑269. Having done so, our government cannot support the bill in its currently structured form. Changes to tax laws are ideally considered as part of the budget process so that all relevant facts can be taken into consideration. The budget process also ensures due consideration of the potential fiscal costs of proposed tax measures to ensure that they are consistent with the fiscal framework and overall coherence of the tax system.

     I believe we have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to maintain these standards outside of the budget process. I also believe Bill C‑269 does not meet these standards for the reasons I have outlined today. While the bill is laudable in its intent, and I give the member opposite credit for including the technology he is proposing to support, which I believe in, I believe it is duplicative in that there are existing tax supports for investments in certain heat recovery equipment, it is not appropriately targeted and it may have costly, unfair and unintended consequences.

    To conclude, I would accordingly urge that Bill C‑269, unfortunately, not be given the support of the House. I appreciate the opportunity to make this case today.

    Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-269 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

    First of all, as a proud resident of the north shore, I would like to thank the people back home who work in the energy sector. My riding is the second-largest producer of hydroelectricity in Quebec and in Canada. Obviously, energy is a big part of our identity. I mentioned hydroelectricity, of course, but I am also thinking about projects such as the one in Pessamit, where there are plans to build wind turbines. We want that, too. I am very interested in that work.

    I also feel a sense of pride because the north shore, like Quebec, built this hydroelectric network on its own, without financial assistance from the government. It is a source of pride for me. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all the workers in the industry, particularly those at Hydro-Québec. There are privately owned dams, but there are also Hydro-Québec dams. In fact, Hydro-Québec suffered a major power outage back home this morning, and they are still working on it. I wanted to mention that. It is affecting a lot of people in our region, and I want to thank them. They support Quebec's entire economy and industry. I just wanted to express my thanks. It has to be done, and it has to be done properly.

    As for the bill, considering what I just said, I cannot object to my colleague's bill, which proposes offering a tax credit. The bill is relatively simple: It amends the Income Tax Act to grant a heat recovery tax credit.

    It is as simple as that. The details may be more complicated, but overall, the bill is straightforward. The Bloc Québécois supports studying this tax credit, which goes hand in hand with the other existing credits. Despite having done so a number of times in the House, we would like to remind members of what the term “heat recovery” means. Obviously, we must agree on a definition before we can move forward. Heat recovery is “the principle of reclaiming heat which would otherwise be lost from a system and, instead, capturing and using it elsewhere to reduce energy consumption”.

    We hear a lot about reducing energy consumption, but some would argue that it is a matter of optimization. This is definitely about heat that would be lost. This is not about producing more energy, but rather recovering energy and putting it to good use. We hear a lot about productivity, which is something we care about. Why not make use of the energy that already exists?

    I will digress briefly to talk about hydroelectricity. These days, with climate change, we are facing a number of challenges that we have seen on the horizon for a while, but they are becoming even more apparent now, particularly with regard to water levels, which are going down. Some folks are wondering whether new dams should be built. Do we need more? These discussions have been on the back burner for a while, but we have been thinking about it. If energy usage could be optimized, there would be less demand on the system. Of course we encourage that.

    In Quebec, Hydro‑Québec already offers financial support programs to encourage businesses to install heat recovery technologies in buildings. Depending on the type of system, up to 85% of the heat energy can be recovered. There are different options, including water loops, cooler heat recovery systems, and plate, cassette-style or thermal wheel heat exchangers. It depends on the system that is used, but the recovery rate can reach 85%. For some methods, it is 20%. It varies, but this is still an opportunity to recover a significant amount of energy and convert it into added value.

    There are several projects across Quebec. Some have already been launched and are under construction. There is one right near here, in Gatineau. The Zibi complex is working with Kruger to reuse the plant's waste water in winter to meet the community's heating needs. It is right next door, so why not take advantage of that opportunity?

    There are also several greenhouses, in Drummondville, for example, or Île d'Orléans, where energy is being used. This is happening in many different places and across different sectors. I just mentioned the food industry and greenhouses, but there is also the whole issue of residential heating. These are other possibilities.

    That said, we agree. Through the government‑owned utility Hydro‑Québec, the Government of Quebec is already helping businesses and manufacturers modify their systems for energy recovery. What we actually want to know is which companies will be eligible for the tax credit. Not all businesses have started working on improving their greenhouse gas emissions. We want to know which ones will be targeted, which ones will be eligible.

    Again, the Bloc Québécois supports the bill introduced by my colleague from Calgary Centre. That said, we have concerns about the measure's effectiveness. Since there are other measures to support energy efficiency, we wonder whether this one is as good, whether it is better, or whether it is ultimately worth our while to adopt it. What we would like is for the bill to be sent to committee so that we can discuss it, debate it, and, of course, draw on the expertise of experts and scientists in various fields.

    For example, Environment Canada itself could shed some light on this by telling us the cost of such a measure, which might be difficult to estimate. The tax credit does not exist right now, but we know that it is not mandatory, so we do not know who will use it or on what scale it could be used. At the same time, there is the whole issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, we want to generate power using this recovered energy, but we need to look at what the benefits will be, because we also want to see results. We see that the government has begun dragging its feet in the fight against climate change, so we would really like to know what additional benefits this would produce.

    As I said earlier in a question to my colleague, this bill is very broad, and we are being told that the entire industry will benefit from it. However, the way we see it, even though the oil and gas sector accounts for 4% to 6% of Canada's GDP, it is responsible for 30% or 31% of the air pollution. We see an imbalance there. We want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we are also talking about one of the most heavily subsidized industries, which already receives billions of dollars in investment tax credits.

    We wonder if this will be added as well, because this industry already has everything it needs to make changes and start recovering heat energy, for example, in order to contribute more to the fight against climate change and to improve its carbon footprint. That is what we are wondering. If this is intended to help oil and gas companies, we would like to know that because we do not think that this is the best way to do it. They already have the ability to do this. That is the main issue and the reason why we want the bill to be referred to committee. We are really acting in good faith, so that we can study this objectively and responsibly.

    I would remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of the bill and that we will support it so that it goes to committee, where we can discuss it and learn more about all the sectors that could benefit from the technology. We also want to hear from all the stakeholders in those industries that wish to apply for this investment tax credit to improve their productivity and to reduce their carbon footprint. That is why I hope that we can study this bill in committee.

    Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C‑269, which was tabled by my colleague from Calgary Centre.

    One thing I can say is that I have known my colleague very well for seven years now. He was first elected in 2019. He has an MBA, he has a strong grasp of numbers, and he knows the energy sector inside out. This bill addresses precisely these very important issues, namely energy and taxation, as well as their economic and environmental dimensions.

    Before I continue, I want to acknowledge my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, who mentioned earlier that there was a power outage on the north shore. Things are bad when the Manic-5 generating station is down. Needless to say, the people at Hydro-Québec will be sorting this out.

    Bill C‑269 targets several extremely important objectives. Its first objective concerns the environment. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce our carbon footprint and take a much more environmentally friendly approach. We all agree on that, but the way to win people over is definitely not by imposing or forcing things on them. Like I say all the time: Pulling on a flower will not make it grow faster. What we need are positive incentives based on good old common sense. That is exactly what this bill has.

    It is also important from a taxation perspective, because we want to let people and companies hold on to more of their money so that they can invest in much more economical and environmentally friendly approaches.

    We also have to find ways to use the energy that is currently going to waste. This bill will incentivize entrepreneurs to find new, much smarter ways to harness the energy that their business is generating.

    Essentially, here is what this bill proposes. Businesses generate a tremendous amount of heat as a result of the operations taking place in their facilities, but this heat is wasted. Up to 30% of this waste heat could be used efficiently and intelligently. That is smart because it is nothing new. The energy is already there. It is simply a matter of capturing it, storing it and using it in a meaningful way.

    When I was preparing the speech I am delivering today, I learned that this involves generating electricity from waste heat. I will not hide the fact that when I saw “waste heat”, I found it somewhat odd, bordering on the absurd, or even a little suspicious. As a result, I would rather talk about recovery, because waste heat is heat that escapes and is lost into the atmosphere, whereas it could be used through recovery.

    This brings to mind a fundamental principle in economics and ecology, namely that the best energy is the energy we do not consume, or rather, the energy we use because it already exists. That is precisely the objective of this bill. Some will say that the member for Calgary Centre did not invent the principle behind this bill. Of course not.

    For decades now, if not longer, some companies have been harnessing, capturing, storing and making smart use of the heat generated by their operations. The difference is that there is no incentive for that in the federal plan.

    We believe that this approach, using or recovering waste heat, should be treated the same as solar and wind energy. It is just common sense. Wind energy has potential, but it is not the answer to everything. Solar energy also has potential, but it is not the answer to everything, either. These come with both challenges and benefits. The same is true of heat recovery. This approach is pragmatic, effective, environmentally friendly and economical. In short, it is a conservative approach.

    That is why I urge everyone, including my colleagues in the House, to support this bill, because it addresses precisely what brings us all together. Above all, it is meant to be efficient and cost-effective for everyone.

    In fact, this could affect nearly every industry sector. I am going to have to put on my glasses, because there are so many that I have no choice but to read them. We are talking specifically about heavy industry material handling, cement plants, glass manufacturing, chemicals, paper and forestry, as well as mining, energy, and utilities. In short, it affects just about every sector of the manufacturing industry. Thousands of companies would be able to recover this heat through a tax incentive, and that is what the bill proposes.

    We are talking about tax incentives. I have to say I am a car enthusiast. People in the automotive industry say it: the greenest cars, aside from100% electric vehicles, of course, are used cars. I say this to make people fully aware and understand that manufacturing a car, whether electric or traditional, has a significant environmental cost, not to mention an environmental impact. Someone who buys a 100% electric used car creates double the benefit, in other words, the environmental impact is lower because it is a used car, and using an electric car certainly produces fewer emissions. It is a win-win situation.

    We made an announcement over the weekend. Our leader was there, as was our colleague from Ontario, who earlier announced the private member's bill to eliminate the GST on used cars. A vehicle that has already been manufactured and taxed should not be taxed a second, third or fourth time because people want to buy that used vehicle. The GST has already been paid once. It does not need to be paid repeatedly, especially since, from an environmental standpoint, it is always better to buy a used car than a brand new car. All environmentalists say so.

    This is an environmentally friendly Conservative measure. Yes, we Conservatives are environmentalists because we are taking a pragmatic approach. We are prioritizing people's pocketbooks. A consumer who buys a used car may not necessarily have the means to buy a new one. However, this measure benefits both the consumer buying the car and the environment because a used car is much greener than a brand new one. Any environmentalist will tell us that. They may not say that this is a Conservative approach, but it is. I am saying it.

    This bill is a step in the right direction. It takes a pragmatic approach. It is meant to put more money in people's pockets and give businesses more funds to reinvest in their operations in order to make them greener, more efficient and more profitable, while ensuring strong environmental protection and sound economic stewardship when it comes to energy management.

    As I mentioned earlier, this is nothing new. Incentives are already in place in France, and the results are quite promising. As stated in a press release from CEA Liten, “Lower process water consumption (either direct for steam or indirect, such as for wet cooling towers) is an added benefit.” This makes it a win-win situation.

    Even though there are tax incentives elsewhere and there may be some here in Canada, we believe that this approach, which involves reusing the heat generated by industrial equipment and factory machinery and equipment as an energy source, is feasible. The technology allows for it and it is constantly improving. However, the government still needs to view it as a green approach, just as it does with wind turbines and solar energy.

    That is why I urge the Liberals to support this bill. If, for some reason, they have any doubts, they should recall that three years ago I introduced Bill C-375. The idea behind that bill was one project, one review. It was common sense. People voted against it, but guess what? A year ago, in the Speech from the Throne, the King acknowledged that it was a good thing. He himself said that the government would implement a law ensuring that there is a single environmental assessment for each project. If the Liberals are recycling my idea for Bill C-375, I invite them to do so immediately for the bill—

    I must interrupt the hon. member.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

    Madam Speaker, at the get-go, I want to recognize the member's objectives. What he is trying to accomplish with the legislation is fairly admirable, but I have a number of concerns with respect to the legislation as proposed, which I can maybe break down into two or three areas.

    The first, and I made reference to this in my comments, has to do with the overall revenue that comes to the Government of Canada, even if we break it down in terms of percentages, and how that budgetary process actually works. In a situation like the one being proposed in Bill C-269, I would feel far more comfortable if it had been incorporated as a part of the overall budget, part of the budget planning.

    It is important to recognize that a great deal of pre-budget effort is put into where and how best to implement tax credits, in whatever form. Looking at corporate taxes, I believe the member made reference to about $90 billion. I believe it is somewhere in that ballpark, let us say $85 billion to $100 billion. A lot depends on the overall performance of the economy, economic conditions, growth and so forth, and budgetary policies. All of these are factors. Cumulatively, we are looking into millions of dollars that could be used to provide incentive, and that is the essence of what often takes place.

    When a government wants to encourage investment, what we try to do is use taxation policy as a way to encourage that. In the last federal budget, there were a number of policy initiatives or tax breaks to encourage and promote capital investment. That is something that governments in the past have done. Something that this Prime Minister and government are very much focused on is how we can use taxation policy to enhance job opportunities for Canadians and, in this particular case, to look at ways we can not only enhance job opportunities but also improve our environment. That is how I see the specific bill being brought forward.

    I can recall, for years, driving by the community of Regina and seeing those gigantic flames coming from the refineries. The member made reference to cement plants and other industries, where we have actually seen significant improvements over the years. Technological advancements have enabled industries with a lot of heat generation that would have escaped and could be used in other forms of energy the mechanisms to capture that and convert it into another energy source. We have seen a great deal of technology being used over the past number of years to improve the conditions, but is there more? The short answer to that is yes, there is more out there.

    I believe that with the right type of capital investment, when looking at Canadian technology we will in fact see more energy efficiency. We will see more capturing of heat then being put into a place where it generates energy. There is a role for the government to play in that. When we look to the last national budget produced by the government, we see there are a couple of initiatives in there that promote and encourage the use of technology, its expansion and the investing in capital to make things more energy efficient. Those are the types of things that can really make a difference. That is why, in part, the private member's bill that the member has put before the House today needs to look at the bigger picture.

    Most politicians inside the House of Commons today will recognize the importance of dealing with gas emissions, the greenhouse impact, and how, as policy-makers, we can have a favourable response in comparison with other countries in the world while at the same time looking at attracting investment and building on Canada's energy. Both are very much deliverable, so that when we talk about the year 2050 and having zero emissions, we take the issue of greenhouse gas seriously. One way we can do that is by looking at ways we can modernize, using technology, and promote and encourage capital investment in industries, particularly industries that really contribute to the greenhouse effect. That is how I am going to read the legislation that has been brought forward.

    However, as a government, it is difficult for us to support the legislation for the simple reason that within the budget, there are already initiatives that no doubt would address, at least in part, what the member is bringing forward, which then risks duplication in areas where we do not necessarily intend to move. Canadians have expectations in regard to the whole issue of taxation, the $500 billion plus in revenue, of which $85 billion or $90 billion is in corporate tax. The government has the right to have different forms of revenue, but there is an expectation that there is a sense of fairness and that some goals or objectives are established and put into place so that when we start spending the money that we raise, it is spent in a transparent and accountable fashion, and the revenues we generate are also perceived as being fair.

    This is why I always find it interesting that some members of some political parties will say that we are subsidizing certain industries excessively. Well, there are also certain industries that contribute to the tax base excessively. There needs to be a balanced approach to dealing with things. That is why when I look at the issue before us today, I think of the accelerated capital cost allowance, as an example. The government has talked about the productivity superdeduction, which is an accelerated investment. These funds include, in part, clean energy generation and also, in part, energy conservation equipment.

     The bottom line is that as much as the member's objectives are admirable, I would suggest that many of the concerns that the member has brought forward are actually dealt with in the national budget. In part of those budgetary processes, there are many different stakeholders, in particular within our energy sector, that we have been working very closely with. The Prime Minister has been very clear. We want to make Canada a superpower on energy. In doing that, we have to make sure we have the proper taxation laws to support that.

    In essence, Canada is, arguably, the most competitive country for new business investment in the G7 today. We need to have a balanced approach, and that is something on which our Minister of Finance and Prime Minister are working with not only the national caucus but the many different stakeholders, including reviewing legislation such as what the member has brought forward.

     The bottom line is that, I believe, what we currently have in place would meet the needs of where we are today.

    Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of this fantastic bill from my colleague from Calgary Centre.

    It is very disappointing to hear members of the Liberal government look at a very strong, common-sense piece of legislation and, of course, throw it away. It is interesting to hear them complain about costs. This is, of course, from the same Liberal government that funded, through its green energy accelerator fund, companies that used that funding to go abroad and actually fund ISIS. Yes, a company that was convicted in France and in the U.S. of using that funding to actually fund ISIS, this Liberal government gave tens of millions of dollars to. Under the same fund, it gave tens of millions of dollars to an overseas Chinese EV company that was named as a war sponsor supporting Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Yet, when the Liberals have a chance to support a common-sense bill that would help Canadians, encourage investment in Canada and reduce greenhouse gases, we hear government members stand up and speak against it.

    Bill C-269 is a very simple, common-sense bill. It would introduce a non-refundable investment tax credit for equipment that captures waste heat from industrial processes and converts it into electricity.

    I am afraid that is all the time I have at this moment. I look forward to speaking more on it after the votes.

     The hon. member will have time once the bill comes back.

    The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

    Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 12, I move:

     Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. Members will recall that the preference for questions during the 30 minutes is provided to the opposition, but not to the exclusion of some members from the government side. Members should keep their interventions to approximately one minute, and they may speak more than once.

    I now invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

    The hon. member for Edmonton West.

    Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269.

    However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate? Canadians sent us here to debate the issues, not have the government shut down debate. To the hon. member opposite, why is he doing this again?

     Madam Speaker, I do respect the member opposite, despite the many differences we have. However, we are here to deliver for Canadians. We are here to move our agenda forward, fighting to build our economy for Canadians.

    In the finance committee, there has been an almost 30-hour filibuster over the last week. We need to move on. We need to move forward for Canadians.

     Madam Speaker, I suppose I will echo the comments of my friend from the Conservative benches, the member for Edmonton West, a moment ago.

     The programming motions, the time allocations, are becoming routine. They used to be rare exceptions. I am honoured to have been serving here for the last 15 years, so saying something as simple as “I have never seen anything like it” might mean something.

    The spring economic statement did not, in any way, foretell what would be in Bill C-30. A budget implementation bill is supposed to be about implementing what one reads in the economic statement. This one did not make anything of it. There is one line where we were going to include that regulatory agencies get to consider food security and food prices. It did not say that we plan to deregulate pesticides so that we can use them when they are too dangerous.

    I am wondering if the hon. member would explain why it is that we do not have adequate time to study bills in this place under the new administration.

    Madam Speaker, it is two for two. I respect the member very much, too. She was my seatmate in the last Parliament.

    The spring economic update contains many great things for Canadians: billions of dollars for trade unions, the sovereign wealth fund and money for small craft harbours. We have an agenda, and we need to deliver for Canadians. We need to rebuild, restructure and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.

    Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of being at the finance committee over the last week or so for a number of the hours the member is speaking about, and I can say that it has not been about filibustering. It has been about asking questions in the only venue that has been made available to us to examine this bill. I have received many emails, phone calls and comments from constituents who are concerned about some of the things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about, such as the pesticide clauses and other changes that are happening to a wide variety of bills. For a bill that would touch so many acts, 30 hours is not enough. We need to be able to examine this bill properly.

    I am wondering why the government is determined to ram things through without adequate consultation and risk unintended consequences of bills, as we have seen with Bill C-30.

    Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting on committees for almost a decade, and we know when we are moving government committee business forward and when we are not. I know many Conservatives have admitted that the filibuster is not really even about Bill C-30 but about another issue.

    Again, we were elected on an agenda to provide leadership and affordability to Canadians and to build and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.

    Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago. Now I am experiencing a majority government for the first time in my elected career.

    Is this what I am to expect, time allocation, closure and cutting off debate? Is this how the government intends to reflect the minority mandate, quite frankly, that the Canadian people gave it?

    Madam Speaker, as I said before, I had the privilege of being on committees for over a decade in this place, and so much important work is done by committees. It is vital to our democracy. However, when the committee had over 30 hours of a filibuster last week, that is not productive.

    The member opposite also talked about the calls, emails and visits to constituency offices. I had some time in my constituency office late Friday afternoon. Canadians want us to move forward. Canadians want us to build our economy strong, and we are going to do just that.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his responses to many of the questions being asked of him today. This is an important question, because Canadians have seen over the last number of years, and increasingly so, the limits of debate in this House in terms of how we address government bills. When Canadians elect a Parliament, they elect a government, with the most seats, and they elect an opposition. The tools of the opposition, of course, are to make sure the government is held accountable for what it is doing, and it brings those things forward through a process that has been well understood for a long time. If the government thinks that our role as the opposition is just to roll over and not perform our role as His Majesty's loyal opposition, then it is mistaken.

    We need to continue to look at what the government is proposing. I have a number of issues with the bill at hand, including why we have allocated less than half the credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage in enhanced oil recovery than in any other of the environmental approaches. It is the most accessible way we can reduce CO2 emissions in this bill, and yet it is not going to be debated at committee. These are the types of things that have to be brought forth, and we have to respect the fact that Canadians need to see democracy being performed in the House where they elect people to represent them.

    Can my colleague please tell us where he thinks Canadians will get a view of how we are getting things done here in a democratic forum when his leader is using it less and less?

     Madam Speaker, we are here to deliver for Canadians. Again, I have sat on committees. We know when committees are productive and functioning well. Yes, the opposition has a role to play for sure. We should be challenged.

    I will say that I have been here through the elections of 2015, 2019, 2021 and 2025. We have been in government and are now into our 11th year. Canadians have spoken again. Canadians want real leadership. The members opposite at times wonder why they sit on that side. Some of them have been over there for 11 years or longer. It is because they are not offering viable solutions, a viable government for Canadians. Canadians have spoken.

     Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the hypocrisy that we are hearing today from members opposite, who complain about debate being contracted here in the House when they wasted almost 30 hours of time in committee, filibustering with eight subamendments just on lowering CPP contributions. That kind of behaviour is a waste of time, taxpayer money and the resources of this House, which are valuable in committee and could have been used to debate this legislation.

    Here we are in the House, having to move closure. Why? It is because Conservatives are not serious about getting legislation done, and when they have the opportunity, they waste it.

    Could my colleague speak to the hypocrisy that we experience here in the House?

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for his tremendous leadership in this House and on the finance committee. He is absolutely correct. I would ask Canadians to tune in to ParlVU or CPAC to watch the filibuster that occurred last week, where opposition members were talking about elephants and everything else under the sun. That is not a serious government. That is not serious opposition.

    We are here to deliver. Our spring economic update contains things that are vital to grow our Canadian economy: billions of dollars for trade unions, a sovereign wealth fund and $1 billion for small craft harbours. The Conservatives are getting in the way. We are here to produce for Canadians.

     Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of the trades. In 2006, Stephen Harper brought in grants for trades workers. In 2009, the same Conservative government brought in completion grants. One of the first acts of this Prime Minister was to cancel grants for trades workers and completion grants. The government also pulled student grants for students studying at vocational institutions. Now, after a lot of advocacy from Conservatives, as well as from unions, we were pleased to see the partial restoration of grants to trades workers. This is something we and unions had advocated for.

     I want to ask the minister, number one, why did the Liberals cancel these grants in the first place? Second, why are they still denying student grants to those studying at vocational institutions?

     Madam Speaker, that member and I both came to this House in 2015 and have advocated for Canadians since then. However, that member is sadly mistaken when it comes to trade unions and their support for their government. If we look at Canadian Building Trades Unions and the IBEW, and the list goes on and on, they are standing with our government. We announced billions of dollars for trades and retraining. Trade unions stand with our government. The trade unions want to build Canada. Trade unions are totally impressed with the major projects that we are announcing, the projects that we are going to build from coast to coast to coast.

    If members of the opposition party want to stand up and say they are the party of unions, I think they are sadly mistaken. Unions will speak volumes about that.

     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.

    Could the minister talk about the fact that while opposition members continue to say we are stopping debate, they are talking about elephants in a debate about money that needs to go out for the construction of housing?

     Madam Speaker, the opposition has a role to play in our democracy and in our government. That party has been in opposition going into its 11th straight year now.

     There comes a point in time when debate has to stop, such as, for example, when members are talking about elephants or when there has been 30 hours of filibuster. We are here to move forward. We are here to build our economy. The spring economic update contains so many things that Canadians want and need. When trade unions call my office and I talk to them about 30 hours of filibuster resulting in programs that cannot move forward, they are upset. They want us to build Canada strong.

    Madam Speaker, when we sit in a committee with members opposite and officials who are unwilling to answer questions, we make whatever analogies we can to try to convince them to answer those questions.

     What we were talking about in committee, which was very important and very serious, was how we explain to Canadians what we are doing with CPP. That is very important to those in this country. Following the supposed filibuster that they are talking about, which was really questions about CPP, I got a phone call from a very senior finance executive who has worked for not one but two of the maple eight pension funds, telling me how important the work we are doing in finance committee is and saying how important it is to produce reports that explain, in plain English, what we are doing in the House to Canadians' pensions.

     If the members opposite do not understand how important it is to make sure that there are no unintended consequences through the drafting of bills that affect Canadians' pensions, then I do not know what to do. Perhaps the member could explain why he does not think Canadians should be able to get a full explanation about what the government is doing to Canadians' pensions?

    Madam Speaker, I also met with the maple eight pension funds. The maple eight pension funds want us to get going to build our economy. They want to invest in Canada.

     Capital follows its easiest path, and right now, we are building major projects, investing in defence, investing in aerospace, investing in housing and investing in infrastructure. We are here to build an economy that is strong for all Canadians. It is time for that member, and that party, to stop the filibuster. Let us get to work. Let us build Canada.

     Madam Speaker, I find some of the comments from the official opposition interesting, especially when comments are made that 30 hours of debate is not enough.

    I agree that we want to raise different perspectives. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo have a diversity of perspectives. They want to hear us having meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Commons, as well as in committee, but they also remind me that we are not just here to talk things out and to debate. We need to make decisions. Canadians made a decision to send the Liberal government to Ottawa to govern the country and respond to the challenges we are facing.

     Can the secretary of state just reaffirm the importance of making decisions and calling the question on votes so we can be productive?

     The opposition has the ability to ensure that members can be heard, but they refuse to share how many members want to speak because they are derailing the conversation rather than staying focused. Why is it that these tools constantly need to be used?

     Madam Speaker, we were elected just over a year ago with the mandate to restructure, rebuild, refocus, diversify, build new trading relationships and strengthen our economy to move from reliance to resilience. We have a job to do. Canadians are watching.

     Again, I ask Canadians from coast to coast to watch the filibuster from last week and to tell me if it is productive or a great use of committee time. It is not. We have a job to do. We have things in the spring economic update, such as billions for unions, the sovereign wealth fund and small craft harbours. The list goes on and on.

     We are going to focus on Canadians. We are going to focus on delivering affordability, rebuilding and retooling our economy. That is what we are elected to do.

    Madam Speaker, I must say that this is fascinating.

    I too am a member of the opposition in the House and have been for 11 years. As my colleague said earlier, the Conservatives have been in opposition for 11 years. The Bloc Québécois will always be in opposition. The opposition is necessary. The opposition stops the government from becoming a dictatorship, although it has been acting like a dictator in committee ever since it secured its majority and got to set the agenda. We are also seeing dictatorial behaviour in the House, where the government wants to cut our debates short.

    I think that there is a fundamental problem in the House, and I have been experiencing it for 11 years: The government has a hard time managing its legislative agenda. If it were more organized, we would not be forced to rush through business at the end of every session under the threat of not being able to go home.

    I think that this is disrespectful to the public. They do not expect us to rush through our work. They expect us to manage our time properly.

    Take today, for example. If we had simply started with Bill C-9 this morning and debated Motion No. 12 after question period, we would have saved two hours. That would have given the government two extra hours for its legislative agenda.

    In my opinion, the government is having a hard time being efficient. We were discussing heat recovery earlier. If only we had a time recovery system, we could be more productive not only for all members of the House, but also for the public. That would be nice. I offer that as food for thought for my colleague across the aisle.

    Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe that we are in our 11th year in this great place advocating on behalf of Canadians.

    We remember the last Parliament. We remember how it was bogged down and obstructed. We could not move forward for Canadians. We could not move forward with legislation.

    I come from the private sector. I believe good leadership needs to be challenged. There is no question about that, but there comes a point when, after 30 hours of filibuster, somebody has to call it and say we need to move forward, because if we did not have the opportunity to move forward, the Conservatives would absolutely obstruct this legislation and we would not be able to pass the spring economic update, Bill C-30, to deliver for unions, small craft harbours and Canadians.

    Our Prime Minister was elected over a year ago. He is a world-class diplomat. He is a world-class economic and business leader. He was elected, and we were elected, to build our economy, diversify our economy and deliver for Canadians.

     Madam Speaker, we are seeing here a heavy-handed Liberal government that has decided that, because it is unable to manage the time of the House and because it is unable to bring forward legislation in a timely manner, it is going to use the hammer to curtail debate.

    We have seen an hour of debate on this particular bill in the chamber, and the Liberals' answer is to speed this through so we cannot have an adequate debate on the bill. They are trying to use every excuse in the book, but the reality is that, when we started sitting, we had effectively no bills for a very long period of time, and that is on the Liberals. They cannot get bills out for us to have time to debate them. It is not on the opposition for holding them accountable and saying that we deserve to have debate. This is a lot of money being spent.

    Does the minister not believe that Canadians deserve to have actual conversations and debate on bills in this chamber, specifically when we are spending billions of dollars for Canadians, yes or no?

    Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her advocacy on behalf of Canadians, although I do not agree.

    We are here with an agenda to deliver for Canadians. We are here to rebuild, refocus, diversify our trading partners and build new trade relationships. We are here to deliver affordability for Canadians. We are here to build our economy from coast to coast to coast. We are here for east-west trade, not north-south trade.

    Maybe it is because of my business background from before I was in this great place, but I think there is a point when we can listen to opposition. Good leadership needs to be challenged, absolutely, but there is also a point when it is not productive any longer. The Conservatives know that. We have had 30 hours of filibuster talking about elephants and everything under the sun.

    Conservatives know it. Canadians know it. We know it. It is time to move on, and we are going to do just that.

    Madam Speaker, over the course of this debate, I have heard a number of things said that need to be referenced. As my hon. friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake pointed out, we have actually had one hour, or maybe a bit more by now, for the programming motion we are debating right now, and now we have closure on that programming motion, which is all about speeding things up.

    The hon. member says that the government was elected and “we were elected”. I remember the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie pointing out that climate change was mentioned 28 times in what the government was elected to do. Pipelines were not mentioned once. I will remind the hon. member that, in the spring economic statement, there is no reference at all to deciding that, if a pesticide is considered too dangerous for use, that decision can be overturned for economic reasons. That is now buried in an omnibus budget bill that only got studied at the finance committee and, even there, very briefly. That is not due to the Conservative filibuster, but to the priority of the whole committee in what witnesses got called.

    Therefore, I beg of the government to not push this through without taking the time necessary, to not push through those buried bits in the omnibus budget bill without any real discussion or debate.

    Madam Speaker, number one, we were elected to do a job for Canadians. Number two, we want to focus on moving our agenda forward; that is important. Number three, what has happened over the last week with respect to the finance committee and the 30 hours of filibuster is not productive. Again, I ask Canadians to tune in to watch it if they can suffer through the filibuster like the members on our side have had to. There comes a point when we have to show leadership, make tough decisions and do what needs to be done for Canadians.

     We are going to build our economy. We are going to cut taxes. We are going to invest in Canadians. We are going to build major projects. We are going to invest in infrastructure, outer space and defence; you name it. We are going to retool this economy. We are going to restructure this economy, one step and one day at a time, and we are going to build Canada strong.

    Madam Speaker, it is great to see you back in the chair today. It is a sight for sore eyes.

    In my colleague's comments, he was talking about trade, not just north and south but east and west, even though our trading partner to the south of us is the most important trading partner for our economy, and the Liberals are turning their backs on it.

    Regarding the east-west comment, the member knows that food transportation was exempt from the Liberals Canadian free trade agreement. We are talking about food affordability and food production and the importance of that issue. We have not had an opportunity to even talk about that and why it is exempt from their Canadian free trade agreement, when they are closing down seven critical research centres and experimental farms, which again will impact food affordability and food production here in Canada.

     The Prime Minister himself spoke of food sovereignty and how a country that is unable to feed itself has few options. Well, we have hardly been able to scratch the surface of the impact that the decisions in this budget bill would have on food production and food affordability in Canada. Would the member not agree that food affordability is a top priority for all Canadians, and worth some time to discuss?

     Madam Speaker, that member too came into this great place in 2015.

    An hon. member: No.

    Hon. Wayne Long: No? Was it 2014?

    An hon. member: The last remaining member.

    Hon. Wayne Long: Well, I stand corrected. You have been over there for 12 years now.

    Madam Speaker, I would agree with him that food affordability—

    Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

    I would like to take a moment to remind the parliamentary secretary to address his comments through the Chair and not directly to his colleague.

    I did not notice.

    Yes, the hon. secretary of state has to direct comments to the Chair.

    Madam Speaker, of course we are concerned about food affordability. Canadians are concerned with food affordability. For the first time in a long time, world food prices started to drop last month. There has been an affordability issue around the world, and we are stepping up for Canadians at a time when they need it the most. We just launched and announced our groceries and essentials benefit. About a week and a half ago, I was in Halifax to announce the one-time 50% top-up.

     On this side of the House, we are not about blaming everybody else and throwing our hands up with no concrete solutions. We are here to deliver. We are here to deliver affordability for Canadians, and we are going to do just that.

    Madam Speaker, I am not sure there is any point in asking my colleague a question. He is just going to stand like he did before and say that the government has a job to do for Canadians and that it is going to do that job, whether it was elected to do it or not.

    I would like to remind him that we debated another time allocation motion not so long ago. At the time, I was asking questions of the minister responsible for Canadian heritage, who was defending that time allocation motion. I explained to him that, ever since the Liberals got a majority, they have been using it to hold in camera meetings at the expense of Driver Inc. victims and to quash investigations into the conflicts of interest of the Minister of Finance and his wife.

    Do members know what the Minister of Canadian Heritage said to me at the time? He asked me whether I thought he wanted to be here, because he had been forced to come and defend something that is indefensible.

    I will conclude my comments by saying that I serve on the Standing Committee on Finance and that I participated in the study of Bill C-30. As soon as the Conservative Party presented its first amendment, the Liberals clearly indicated that they were going to oppose any and all amendments because they have a majority. They did not even wait an hour to make that clear. They said it in the very first minute of the meeting.

    The Liberals were asking for a special report on specific changes to the Canada pension plan. I tried to negotiate a solution myself. Officials told us it was doable, but the Liberals refused.

    The reality is that the government is trying to curtail debate, whether it is a minority or a majority. Circumstances do not matter, and this government has decided that it will make all the decisions. According to the government, in a democracy, the opposition serves no function.

    I will say it again: I think Parliament is better than what the Liberals are doing with it.

    Madam Speaker, I come from the private sector. This type of filibuster, 30 hours of basically producing nothing for Canadians, is not acceptable. Canadians see it. Canadians know it. I know that here in the Ottawa bubble, people think that it is okay and that Canadians accept it. They do not accept it. They want us to move forward. They want us to build Canada strong.

    It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

     The question is on the motion.

    If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

     Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

    Call in the members.

     I declare the motion carried.

    Mr. Speaker, before speaking to Bill C-30, I would like to take a moment to talk about a colleague.

    As we know, politics is not always easy on the politician's loved ones. It is not always easy on their family. No matter what party they belong to, a life in politics comes with a heavy personal toll. Last Monday, we learned that the MNA for Mirabel, Sylvie D'Amours, who is not part of my political family, was leaving politics after three terms.

    I want to take a minute to pay tribute to her. For 12 years, she has made many sacrifices to serve her constituents. I have gotten to know her family—her husband and some of her children—and I know that, in her own way, she has always cared deeply about her community—

    I must interrupt the hon. member. There is a lot of noise in the antechamber.

    Could we please have some quiet? There is a lot of commotion.

    The hon. member for Mirabel.

    Madam Speaker, it is a shame that I was interrupted. I was saying that she cares about her community. She is a wonderful person. I hope she enjoys a rest, and I wish her every success in her future endeavours. I think that it is well deserved. I think that we should take time to acknowledge the work of elected officials from all parties who are close to their communities. It is very important to me to do this today, especially since this may be the last time that I speak in the House before we adjourn.

    Now that that is done, we are discussing closure. Madam Speaker, I should say that I would like to share my time with the member for Rimouski—La Matapédia.

    Closure is being imposed. Today, we are once again faced with a government that has decided to shut down debate and impose its agenda. This is the second time in a very short period that closure has come up, along with super closure. Last time, I said that the government had bought itself a majority. Since getting that majority, it has used it to go against the interests of taxpayers and the public in many respects.

    For one thing, it used it to impose closure on the Driver Inc. issue. This was at a time when the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was attending events organized by the very people at the centre of this scandal, which has cost lives.

    The government used its majority to halt debate on an ethical issue involving the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, whose wife is Alto's vice-president. I am not saying that anything inappropriate happened, only that the matter deserves some discussion.

    Closure has been imposed on several bills by a government that is having trouble managing its agenda. That is what has happened here, with Bill C‑30. The Liberals are going to keep saying that Parliament is at a standstill and that the opposition parties are to blame. The government was a minority during the 44th and 45th Parliaments, and back then, the Liberals kept saying that the opposition parties were using their majority to paralyze the work of the House.

    Now we are dealing with a majority government that constantly chooses to shut down debate and impose its agenda.

    I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. I attended the debate on Bill C‑30. Did things get out of hand? Was there filibustering? Of course there was, as there often is. However, when the Liberals say that there were 30 hours of debate and that the opposition filibustered for 30 hours, some clarification is in order.

    Starting from the very first amendment, the very first minute and even the very first second of the committee meeting, the Liberal Party decided to block everything. The Liberals made this very, very clear to the committee: No amendments would be allowed, and the bill would not be discussed. This was clearly stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, the member for Whitby.

     If I recall correctly, the first amendment was intended to obtain more detailed data on the Canada pension plan. Since I am from Quebec, my public pension plan is with the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, so none of this concerned me personally. However, I thought it was reasonable. Officials were at the meeting in person. They told us it was possible to make a change to make it entirely feasible, but the government said the data would never be available.

    That is when we realized that the government was going to hold this up until the very end and that it did not want to debate the matter.

    The Green Party member, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, attended the full 30 hours of committee meetings. She was waiting for the opportunity to debate the issue of pesticides. The fact is that the government is using an omnibus bill to grant itself the power to authorize any pesticide. The Green Party member stayed until she was completely exhausted and, after seeing the government's behaviour, she realized that she would not have the opportunity to debate this.

    Why, then, is this being blocked? It is being blocked because the government does not want Bill C-30 to be debated.

    My colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia is going to talk about pesticides. We have known for years that the process for approving new pesticide formulations needs to be expedited. The scientific analyses need to be conducted more quickly. The process needs to be more efficient. That is what the industry is calling for. It is asking for things to move faster. However, no farmer has ever asked the government to approve any old pesticide behind closed doors without any scientific analysis. The agricultural industry has never asked for that.

    To avoid debating the subject, the government decided to block its own bill, like it did when it had a minority.

    When it comes to air passenger complaints, what the government is doing under division 17 is serious. From now on, air passenger complaints will no longer be dealt with by a public entity. If the Minister of Transport, who is not known for his transparency, so decides, air passenger complaints could be dealt with by private companies chosen by the minister himself, perhaps after a phone call from the airlines, rather than through a more transparent system.

    The government is cutting public service jobs. We understand that the it wants to reduce day-to-day government spending, but what good does that do if it ends up costing the government even more to have private companies do this work and there is a complete lack of transparency? The Liberals are blocking their own bill because they do not want to discuss this.

    The same goes for its “sovereign wealth fund”, which is a misnomer. According to La Presse, it is a wealth fund with no wealth. The government is giving itself the authority to conduct all sorts of studies and analyses with a view to possibly privatizing our airports, some of which have serious governance issues. Perhaps it wants to privatize them to fill this fund with money. Is that the case or not? It is hard to say, because today we are going to pass a bill without debate, without a proper clause-by-clause review, without parliamentary scrutiny, without expert testimony, without witnesses, and without sufficient parliamentary time. People need to understand that when there are tax measures in an economic or budget update, they take effect when the notice of ways and means is tabled in the House. That means there is no rush.

    We are dealing with a government that has made up its mind. The parliamentary secretary told us earlier that the government had a job to do, that Canadians had elected it to do that job, and that it would run roughshod over us if necessary to get it done. Some members rightly asked where, in the election platform, it was stated that a public servant could approve any pesticide or that complaints from airline passengers would be outsourced to the private sector. We hear that Air Canada was already ready to implement this law before members of Parliament had even seen it. Where in the Liberal election platform was there any mention of the possibility of privatizing airports? Nowhere.

    I said this last week and earlier today when I asked a question. I get the impression that the Prime Minister thinks of himself as the CEO of Canada. He sometimes forgets that he is the Prime Minister. I wonder if he knows where Parliament is on a map. It is a fair question, and I am asking it. No one knows. I know that Parliament deserves better than what the Liberals are currently doing.

    I would like to repeat that, when the government was in a minority, it kept justifying its constant need to limit debate by claiming that the majority opposition was preventing business from moving forward. Now the Liberals have a majority. Members of the committee can attest to the fact that Bill C-30 is being blocked by the Liberal Party, which clearly told us that no amendments would be allowed.

    That is a very disturbing approach to democracy.

    Madam Speaker, ignoring the reality of where we are today does not do justice to many of the comments that members have put on the record.

     There have been numerous hours of discussion and debate. There is an extension of sitting hours in order to accommodate more debate. I have now sat through debates that have collapsed, even within the five-hour allotment. There is exaggeration. Yes, there are some topics that it would have been nice to have more debate on, but equally, there have been topics on which there has been an excessive amount of debate.

     I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on that.

    Madam Speaker, it is a question of dynamics. When the government arrives at committee saying that it has a majority, that it has a bill, that it is not going to accept everything, but that it is willing to discuss certain issues, things start moving again. When it starts a committee meeting by telling everyone else that all their amendments have been thrown in the garbage, that the government has the power to say no, and that the other members are free to carry on and filibuster because, ultimately, the government has time allocation on its side, that creates a certain dynamic.

    Is it true that the Conservatives debated amendments—not all of which were particularly sensible—for some 30 hours? That is absolutely true. I will give the parliamentary secretary that much. However, could things have been handled differently from the outset?

    Personally, I tried. My colleague is referring to comments that were made on the record. Everyone can watch the videos where I said that a compromise needed to be reached, that civil servants were telling us it was possible and that we could move on. If the government had listened, it might have avoided seeing several amendments to the amendments tabled, not all of which were very useful, but which were tabled out of frustration. I believe that the government definitely shares responsibility for that.

    Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate and thank my colleague from Mirabel for his speech. He began by acknowledging Sylvie D'Amours, who, after three terms as an MNA, will not be running again. I would also like to acknowledge Ms. D'Amours, as well as my provincial colleagues. I would like to acknowledge Éric Caire, who is leaving politics after 19 years, Mario Asselin, who is leaving politics after eight years as an MNA, and Sylvain Lévesque, who is leaving politics after ten years as an MNA.

    My colleague touched briefly on a point, and I would like him to elaborate on it. He said that Air Canada staff were already prepared to apply certain rules that had not yet been tabled in Parliament, let alone debated or even adopted.

    Can the member tell us more about this?

    Madam Speaker, this is indeed a situation that concerns us. A closer look shows that all of this plays right into the hands of the airlines. A commissioner who receives complaints needs to be given the necessary tools to make progress and process complaints. The government should not take away or withhold resources from the commissioner, only to finally say that the system is not working and that the work needs to be outsourced. Complaints must be handled with full transparency.

    Air passengers are families and individuals who pay to go on vacation and to travel and who are victims of injustice under the law and the regulations. They have a right to timely compensation, but they also have a right to be assured that the process is fair and transparent. That is a far cry from what is in place now. Can such assurance be provided? It might be possible. Would a parliamentary debate have perhaps provided that assurance? The answer is yes.

    However, the reality is that by the time the study of Bill C‑30 is complete, there will not be time for us to ask the right questions and get to the bottom of things for the benefit of the public. Today, we are under a guillotine. The bill will be shoved down Parliament's throat, and all these questions will remain unanswered.

    Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the member for Mirabel, for pointing out in his speech that I was also present at the Standing Committee on Finance during the 30 hours when the committee was effectively deadlocked. It is not the fault of the committee members.

    Does my colleague agree that the root of the problem is that we are seized with an omnibus budget bill containing a hidden clause that applies to an entirely separate matter, namely pesticides?

    That is why we are angry now about the idea of another closure.

    Madam Speaker, we made sure that the House recognized that the air passenger complaints issue had nothing to do with budgetary policy. The same goes for pesticides: They have nothing to do with budgetary policy. There should be a separate vote.

    In the face of all of these obstructionist tactics, we need to take the high road during debate and stick to the facts. I abstained from voting on all these dilatory motions. I abstained from voting because I thought that they were ridiculous, and it is true that it was a waste of time.

    Now, I think that the member from the Green Party has some valid points to present to the committee. I think that she has the right to speak and that her concerns align with ours in many respects. I hope that she will have an opportunity to speak to this during the time we have left for debate under the closure motion.

    Madam Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that June 15, 2026, marks the 35th anniversary of the founding of the Bloc Québécois. In Sorel, on June 15, 1991, in the wake of the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and members from Quebec from various backgrounds chose to come together to give Quebec its own voice in Ottawa.

    Lucien Bouchard put it very clearly, in a way that has stood the test of time: “The Bloc Québécois is the only way for us to do away with the harms of dual legitimacy. The truth is that there are two peoples, two loyalties and two visions of the country. There is a country missing in this country. Quebec is missing.”

    Thirty-five years later, this observation still resonates. Every time that Ottawa forgets about Quebec's priorities, every time that the regions are treated as an afterthought, every time that Quebec has to remind the government that it is a nation, the entire reason for the Bloc Québécois's existence is confirmed. Today, Bill C‑30 is another example of that.

     Not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We are not voting against it because it is entirely bad. Some of the measures are a step in the right direction. However, a budget implementation bill must be judged as a whole and, taken as a whole, Bill C-30 fails to address the most pressing needs of Quebec and our regions.

    For regions like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence, this economic update is notable primarily for what it does not contain. While Quebeckers are fighting for survival, and while the aluminum, steel, timber and processing sectors are suffering the repercussions of new trade barriers, the government is tabling an economic update that does not rise to the challenge.

    In eastern Quebec, this directly affects our forestry businesses, our manufacturers and the workers who sustain our communities. There are no support programs for the affected sectors and no real plan to protect jobs, as if this crisis can simply wait, yet the Bloc Québécois has proposed concrete measures to support the sectors affected by American tariffs, to help the elderly, to protect our regional media and to finally reform EI. None of these proposals were retained.

    We also called for correcting the injustice created between seniors 65 to 74 and those 75 and older. In a region like the Lower St. Lawrence, this issue has a real impact. At 74, groceries cost the same as they do at 75. Housing costs the same. Heating costs the same, and yet, Ottawa continues to treat these seniors differently. The Bloc Québécois believes there should not be two categories of seniors. Our seniors have worked their entire lives. They have built our communities. They deserve to be treated fairly.

    We also called for meaningful support for regional and French-language media. In eastern Quebec, we have seen regional news coverage lose ground. When regional newscasts are no longer broadcast from within our region, it is a wake-up call. The government has chosen to concede to the web giants and forgo revenue that could have been used to support local news, culture and French-language media. This economic update includes no concrete measures to further support regional media or protect local news. Once again, it is the regions that are left holding the bag.

    In a region where agriculture plays an important role in the local economy, we are also concerned about the proposed changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to the Pest Control Products Act. The government wants to weigh economic considerations against public health and environmental protection. For the Bloc Québécois, health care decisions must not be driven by politics. They must be based on science. Public health must never become an economic adjustment variable.

    I now want to talk about employment insurance. The government is extending certain provisions for seasonal workers until 2028. That is better than nothing. However, it still falls short of the comprehensive reform that regions have been seeking for decades. Seasonality is not a temporary phenomenon in the Lower St. Lawrence. It is part of our economic reality. In 2028, our forestry, agriculture, tourism and marine industries will still need workers. The conditions that justify these provisions will still be there.

    Why then are temporary solutions still being applied to a permanent problem? Why is uncertainty allowed to persist year after year? Why are these protections not being permanently enshrined in law? The Bloc Québécois is calling for real EI reform, permanent reform, systemic reform, reform that will finally eliminate the spring gap for thousands of workers. Seasonal workers are not a temporary problem. They are at the heart of our regions' economies.

    Ultimately, this bill does not address the priorities of regions like ours. It does not address the challenges raised by U.S. tariffs, the expectations of seasonal workers, the pressing needs of seniors or the difficulties facing our regional media. It also raises serious concerns about public health and environmental protection.

    People back home are not asking us for the moon. They are asking us to listen to them, to take their reality into account and to come up with practical answers to the challenges they face in their daily lives. Unfortunately, this bill provides them with no such answers.

    For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C‑30.

    Madam Speaker, it is no surprise that the Bloc is making the decision to vote against the budget and the supplementary legislation required to implement it. At the end of the day, this is a budget that would, in fact, serve all Canadians in many different ways.

    The member made reference to the issue of 65 to 75 with respect to seniors. What he did not highlight is the fact that there is a difference generally between the ages of 65 and 75 regarding medical requirements, employment capabilities and other types of expenses at age 75. This is not to mention the fact that there was an election platform back in the day that said we were going to do just that.

     The member is very selective. All regions of the country are supported within this budget in a very real and tangible way, including my home province and his home province, and we all feel very passionate about our home provinces.

    Madam Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary just said is extremely insulting.

    He now says he is offering it to everyone, but the measure he is offering to seniors is temporary. The purchasing power of seniors is a permanent problem, however. If he does not understand that after all these years as a member of Parliament, I wonder what he is doing here.

    I invite my colleague to go out into the community to meet with seniors, and I invite him to ask them if they have to make agonizing choices today between paying their rent, buying medication, groceries or clothes. Then he will come back and tell us things like he just did.

    I think he is going to be in for a big surprise, as we say in Quebec.

    Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his remarks. He began by marking the 35th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I would therefore like to wish everyone in the Bloc Québécois a happy anniversary.

    Clearly, I am not about to debate the matter, but, since he quoted Lucien Bouchard, I would also like to quote him. Last August, Lucien Bouchard stated that he was not in favour of holding a referendum right away. He said the following:

    Does my colleague agree with Lucien Bouchard?

    Madam Speaker, it comes as no surprise that the member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent—Akiawenhrahk will be voting “no” in the next referendum. I, on the other hand, will be voting “yes” in case anyone was wondering where my political interests lie.

    That said, what is even more ridiculous is that my colleague is asking me these types of questions when he knows full well that this is not a matter for debate in the House of Commons.

    However, I hope that my clear and straightforward answers have helped to reassure him.

    I can confirm that this debate has nothing to do with government business.

    The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South has the floor.

    Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We disagree on many things, but he was right to point out that the Liberals have a tendency to impose their own solutions on the provinces and on Canadians.

    As for Bill C‑30, the Liberals cut the debate short. They refused to give important witnesses the opportunity to appear before the committee and they tried to push through ideas that they did not campaign on.

    What does the member think that says about the Liberals' commitment to accountability?

    Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his French.

    It is fairly easy to understand. The Liberals have rigged a majority. That is not insignificant. It is a historical first. Does anyone know what else is a historical first? The government has run the biggest deficit in history, totalling $78 billion. That said, they have done such outstanding work that that deficit will be $10 billion less.

    This government is currently doing the exact opposite of what it promised during the first election, which took place in April 2025. The main problem is that the government said it would resolve the crisis with the Americans. However, at present, nothing has been resolved. Concession after concession is being made, mainly at Quebec's expense. Our economy is the hardest hit compared to the rest of Canada.

    Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, a riding with a name even longer than mine.

    Today, we are discussing our economic update, which is an important step in our plan to build a strong Canada. Over the next few minutes, I will explain what we mean by a strong Canada. When we talk about building a strong Canadian economy, we are talking about an economy that works for everyone. That is why we are continuing our investments in social programs that help people deal with the cost of living.

    I am thinking in particular of the Canada child benefit. This is a monthly tax-free payment that helps families provide for their children. Since its introduction in 2016, it has become a cornerstone of Canada's social safety net. Each year, it keeps nearly 600,000 children above the poverty line. In my province, New Brunswick, more than 80,000 families receive nearly $640 million a year. This money goes directly into the pockets of New Brunswick families to help them provide for their children.

    In July of this year, monthly payments will increase again to account for inflation. This is a good example of what we mean when we talk about building a strong Canadian economy that works for everyone.

    When we talk about our plan to build a stronger Canada, we are also talking about investments in nation-building projects, in infrastructure and housing, and in the projects carried out on the ground by our community organizations.

    In particular, I want to highlight the importance of the New Horizons for Seniors program, which provides financial support for projects that have a positive impact on the lives of seniors in their communities.

    Every year, many projects get built, including in my riding. They provide a wide range of activities that have a positive impact on seniors and the facilities they use. These projects help combat social isolation, promote volunteering among seniors and strengthen the communities in which they operate.

    This year, the call for proposals is open. Projects can receive up to $50,000 in funding and interested organizations have until July 14 to submit their application.

    I would like to illustrate the importance of these investments with a few examples from my riding, because these are projects that genuinely improve the lives of the people I represent here. I am thinking in particular of the investments made in various seniors clubs in Saint‑François‑de‑Madawaska, where renovations were carried out on the community kitchen. I am also thinking of a whole range of activities and workshops offered in Kedgwick for seniors, as well as the purchase of equipment for outdoor activities in Saint‑Quentin and the renovations at the Campbellton seniors club. I am also thinking of other types of organizations, such as the Jodin Residences in Edmundston, where I was able to attend the opening of a community garden; the Acanthus Gallery in Grand Falls, which offers pottery classes; the multi-generational activities offered in Vallée‑des‑Rivières; or the improvement work for Les aventuriers de Charlo. This is a range of activities. The amounts are not always huge, but it is money well spent to improve the lives of seniors and of those within our communities.

    When talking about building Canada strong, we must also look at which sectors of the economy need to be strengthened and developed. This brings to mind the work that we are doing to establish Canada's sovereign space launch capabilities.

    Right now, Canada is the only G7 country that has no sovereign space launch capabilities. To fix this situation, we recently introduced a Canadian space launch act that is going to make a huge difference by developing the framework needed to create Canada's sovereign space launch capabilities. This comes on top of our investments in supporting the development of spaceports, including Maritime Launch Services in Nova Scotia.

    These investments are important. They equip us with sovereign capabilities to meet our defence needs, serve our strategic interests and more. They will also create major economic benefits and address the needs of a wide range of sectors, like the telecommunications sector.

    We know that the new, rapidly emerging satellite technologies have the potential to change the cellular connectivity landscape in our regions. I know something on that score as the representative for Madawaska—Restigouche. I hear about cellular connectivity problems from constituents all the time. When I travel from one end of the riding to another, from Saint-Basile in Madawaska to Sainte-Anne-de-Madawaska in Restigouche, or along Highway 17, to name just a few, I run into lots of dead zones with no cell coverage.

    This is both a safety issue and an economic one, and since it affects the appeal of our communities, it is a top priority for the people I represent. Certainly, as a member of Parliament, I am very interested in the potential of satellites that, with certain technologies, could substantially expand cellular coverage in our regions that are currently underserved. By building our own space launch capabilities and supporting the development of a spaceport, we are ensuring that Canada does not miss the boat and that we have the capacity to support this sector of the future. We know that things are evolving and that this technology is developing. We are therefore preparing and investing to get this telecommunications sector ready, especially since we recognize its great potential for cellular connectivity. That is one example.

    Building Canada strong also means protecting nature. Last spring, we launched “A Force of Nature: Canada's Strategy to Protect Nature”, backed by a $3.8-billion investment, which will focus on measurable outcomes and actions that can be implemented by 2030. Our strategy is built on three pillars aimed at aligning nature conservation with economic growth. These three pillars are “Protecting Nature in Canada”, “Building Canada Well” and “Valuing Nature and Mobilizing Capital”.

    Among the various measures included in our strategy to better protect nature, I would like to talk about our five-year investment of $81.7 million as part of Canada's national strategy to ensure the future of Atlantic salmon 2024-2036. This funding will make an essential contribution to stabilizing and restoring wild Atlantic salmon habitats. As we know, this species has been in decline since the 1980s, but the rate of decline has accelerated in recent years and is having a real impact on our communities. It is therefore important to invest in the conservation of this species, particularly to protect our natural ecosystems, but also because of its strong cultural and identity-related value.

    In my riding, Madawaska—Restigouche, salmon fishing is rooted in traditions that date back several generations, as well as in fishing knowledge and practices that have been passed down from one generation to the next. The decline in the wild salmon population also represents a loss of our living heritage in my riding. It is therefore at the heart of our identity and our culture. It also has significant economic consequences because hundreds of jobs depend on it in the fishing camps that practise salmon fishing, particularly along the Restigouche River. Most of these camps are located in my riding. This has significant economic benefits for our communities.

    In short, preserving wild Atlantic salmon and investing in our strategy to protect nature means simultaneously protecting nature, supporting our local economy and keeping our heritage alive.

    To build Canada strong, we must also maintain a strong arts and culture sector. I am very pleased that budget 2025 includes an investment of more than $750 million to support arts and culture. Supporting arts and culture not only strengthens our identity and culture, but also brings significant economic benefits to our communities. There is also a wide range of projects in our ridings, including festivals, that can be supported through this funding.

    Summer is just around the corner, and a wide range of activities take place during the summer months. Local artists are often featured at festivals in our communities. In fact, back home in Madawaska—Restigouche, we have a packed lineup of events. Dedicated volunteers care deeply about our communities and want us to enjoy a lively and dynamic summer season. To that end, the federal government is supporting art exhibits, including by local artists, through various Department of Canadian Heritage programs. These programs can also be used to support programming put on by our cultural organizations and arts centres. This represents a whole range of funding that recognizes the importance of the arts and culture sector in building Canada strong.

    I see that I am running out of time. I would be happy to answer any questions my colleagues may have.

    Madam Speaker, Bill C‑30 contains measures that allow cabinet to grant exemptions to certain rules on food and agriculture for up to three years with a possible extension.

    Does my colleague agree that such powers should be debated rigorously and thoroughly rather than being rushed through in committee?

    Madam Speaker, I am glad we are talking about the issue of food, because it is important to strengthen Canada's food sovereignty. In fact, last week, we laid the groundwork for our food security strategy.

    That means investing in our local farmers and providing support for greenhouses. We will also look at where the challenges are and how we can increase production in Canada. To ensure our food security, we want to see more Canadian food on our plates.

    That is what we want to do as part of the strategy we announced in the past few weeks.

    Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to sit with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Science and Research. We share certain rural boundaries and we have an awareness of some of our mutual realities.

     I would like to talk to him about the EI issue. The Liberals, who were in power back then, have been promising a reform since 2015. The Trudeau government said so in 2015. Then, during the 2019 campaign, it said it again. In 2021, the budget even promised that the reform would get done. Here we are, in 2026, and we are still waiting. The government is offering temporary solutions to a permanent problem.

    Does my colleague truly believe that he is building Canada strong by proposing temporary solutions to a permanent problem?

    Mr. Speaker, in 2016, as soon as the Liberals returned to power, the most controversial EI reforms introduced by the Stephen Harper Conservative government were abolished. Many of these measures did nothing to address the realities of our rural regions. We therefore scrapped the measures that had been introduced by the Conservatives.

    In 2018, a pilot project was launched in 13 economic regions across Canada where seasonal work is common, allowing for up to five additional weeks of EI. This pilot project helps seasonal workers, as well as the employers and the local economies of all these regions, because it allows people to stay in their communities while they wait for the next season.

    I am very pleased to say that we extended the funding for this measure in the economic update. This pilot project actually covers my entire riding. I believe this is a step in the right direction to support our workers with a view to building Canada strong.

    There will be one and a half minutes left for questions and comments after question period.

     Mr. Speaker, June is Brain Injury Awareness Month, a time to recognize survivors, families, caregivers and first responders whose lives are forever changed by brain injury.

    In Courtenay—Alberni, Amelia Hayden, a retired RCMP officer, knows this impact deeply. She was on duty the day Constable Gerry Breeze was injured, and she remained a source of support to his family throughout his recovery and after his passing. Their story reminds us why Canada needs a national brain injury strategy. It is why I introduced Bill C-206.

    In the last Parliament, former MP Alistair MacGregor's bill passed unanimously at every stage to report stage but died because of prorogation. The call to action is non-partisan, and on Wednesday, June 17, as Canadians take part in a national pause for brain injury, we hope all parties will support a call for a national brain injury strategy in this fall's budget.

    Mr. Speaker, this year, the Burnaby Hospice Society celebrates 40 years of caring for Burnaby. For me, this anniversary is deeply personal. My mom battled cervical cancer for three years. In the final months of her life, she received hospice care. It gave her comfort and peace. It also gave our family the strength to face the unimaginable. “Be a blessing to others” were my mom's final words before she passed away. They led me to a life of service and to the House.

    Having witnessed the impact of hospice care first-hand, I know that hospice workers and volunteers cannot change what lies ahead, but they can ensure that no one walks their final journey alone.

    I thank every staff member, volunteer, donor and supporter of the Burnaby Hospice Society. In the moments when a hand is held for the last time and a final goodbye is whispered, they are there. They remind us that the soul of a community is not how it celebrates life but how it cares for one another when life is drawing to a close.

    Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to speak about a devastating fire in Hampton Village in Saskatoon West. In a matter of moments, four homes were destroyed, and 20 properties were damaged. Families lost the places where they had built their lives, raised their children and made their memories. One family also suffered the heartbreaking loss of their beloved dog Mocha.

    These are the kinds of tragedies that shake an entire community, but in the midst of this sadness, we have also seen the very best of Saskatoon West. Neighbours, friends, local businesses and complete strangers have stepped up to help those who lost so much. Businesses such as Da India Curry House and Sweets For My Sweets have held fundraisers to support the victims, showing what community compassion looks like in action.

    To the families affected, I say that Saskatoon stands with them. They are not alone. I thank everyone who has donated, volunteered, prayed or offered support. I thank them for reminding us that, even after great loss, hope, kindness and community spirit can be stronger than ever.

    Uqaqtittiji, with June being National Indigenous History Month, I remind all Canadians to celebrate the stories, culture, strengths and brilliance of indigenous peoples across Canada.

    As a proud Inuk, I highlight the strength both of Canadian Inuit from across Inuit Nunangat and of Inuit from across Inuit Tapiriit Nunarjuarmi, the circumpolar Arctic.

    Ancient Inuit world view is embedded in our current society. I see it in Inuit remaining as hunters, seamstresses and knowledge holders. I hear it through Inuit decision-makers having influence in domestic politics and abroad. I have watched it shape legislation strengthening indigenous languages and rights, including in UNDRIP.

    We still have much to learn from Inuit and indigenous peoples. Let us work together for the betterment of our collective future.

     Mr. Speaker, I hope that all colleagues have reviewed the seating plan that has been proposed for our return to Centre Block.

    Faced with a growing number of MPs in a fixed space, the government's solution is, number one, to expand by about 30% the size of the desks assigned to cabinet so the Prime Minister will feel like he is back home on his favourite luxury jet, and number two, having thereby caused an artificial space shortage for everyone else, to shove 300 MPs into four rows of bleachers, so tightly packed that MPs will no longer have a usable workspace and will have to tread on each other's toes to get to their seat.

    A better idea would be to use the Quebec legislature's new seating plan as our model. We could have five rows, with each row containing 36 members, connected by four aisles. This would result in wider seats, retention of desks instead of bleachers, and enough room for members to circulate behind each other's seat rather than over each other's feet.

    All we need for this to happen is to acknowledge the ancient principle that all MPs are treated and seated equally. Let us do that.

    Mr. Speaker, as Pride season kicks off, I am pleased to stand up and celebrate the 30th anniversary of Jeunesse Idem.

    For 30 years, young people in the Outaouais 2SLGBTQIA+ community have had a place where they are respected, affirmed and loved. For 30 years, queer youth in the Outaouais have had a place to thrive, grow, and find a community. It is a place to find oneself. For 30 years, Jeunesse Idem has been visiting schools in the Outaouais to teach our youth about loving others and loving themselves. As we see a rise in homophobia, transphobia and violence against queer people, the work that Jeunesse Idem does, day in and day out, remains as important and relevant as ever.

    On behalf of myself and the people of Hull—Aylmer, I thank and commend Jeunesse Idem for 30 years of dedicated service.

    Mr. Speaker, last year, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said this, referring to Alberta: “I am not certain that oil and gas qualifies” to define a culture. A leftist Canadian podcaster recently claimed, “Alberta has ZERO culture. None. Unless you count oil patch hillbillies getting blackout wasted ‘culture’.”

     Here is a wake-up call for anyone who shares that paternalistic view. Alberta's culture is what drives Canada. Alberta's culture of risk-taking that drove the development of the Leduc No. 1 has fuelled the entire Canadian economy. The same culture of resiliency and self-sufficiency that pushes our farmers and ranchers to feed the world builds hospitals for Ontario and Quebec. Our culture of perseverance, swagger and love of wild beauty is in our art, our music and our festivals.

     The people who try hard to beat the culture of self-determinism out of my province do so to their own detriment and to the detriment of the entire country. A stronger Alberta in a united Canada means acknowledging and giving thanks for Alberta's culture, and praying hard that Alberta will be lucky enough to get more of it. I say, “giddy-up”.

     Mr. Speaker, June is Filipino Heritage Month in Canada, a time to recognize and celebrate the rich history, culture and contributions of Filipino Canadians to communities across the country. Since the arrival of the first Filipino immigrants, generations have helped shape Canada's social, economic, cultural and political landscape through their hard work, resilience and commitment to service.

     Filipino Heritage Month provides an opportunity to honour the vibrant traditions, languages, arts and values that form an important part of Canada's multicultural identity. It is also a chance to reflect on the achievements of Filipino Canadians in every field, while acknowledging the challenges many have overcome in building new lives and stronger communities here in Canada.

     As we celebrate this month, let us recognize the enduring contributions of Filipino Canadians and reaffirm our commitment to inclusion, diversity and mutual understanding. Mabuhay, Canada. Mabuhay, Philippines.

     Mr. Speaker, words can barely describe the tragedy that took place in Mapleton on Friday evening, when five young lives were taken in the blink of an eye. Five children, ages four, six, eight, 10 and 12 years old, were killed in a horrible collision, and five other family members were seriously injured. Today our thoughts and prayers are with the family and their community of Elmira as they grieve this unthinkable loss.

     I want to thank the first responders, paramedics, police, and members of Mapleton fire department and neighbouring departments for the professionalism and compassion they displayed. Our hearts are with each of them as they process what they witnessed. I thank the neighbours and good Samaritans who rushed in to help. Today our community is grieving, praying about, remembering and honouring five beautiful young lives taken far too soon.

    Mr. Speaker, June 15 is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day. At a time when fraud targeting seniors is gaining attention, let us remember the importance of staying vigilant and taking action against the various types of abuse, including financial abuse.

    Seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 face age discrimination, since they do not receive the same pension amount as seniors aged 75 and above. This is ageism, another form of abuse. However, rising inflation and housing problems directly impact people living on a fixed income.

    While there is also growing concern about isolation among seniors, the new requirements of the New Horizons program are making it harder for volunteers to organize activities to help them break out of their isolation. Let us stop ignoring the needs of seniors so that they can age with care, compassion and dignity.

    Mr. Speaker, more than 4,000 Canadians live with ALS, and June is ALS Awareness Month. ALS has been called a rare disease, but that does not take away from the very real impacts it has on people who are living with it. ALS attacks the nerve cells that are responsible for movement; therefore, basic human functions such as walking, speaking, breathing and much more are impacted. While the effects are gradual, they are absolutely devastating.

    For the month of June, when we reflect on ALS and what it means for those living with it, we also celebrate the resilience of those who have this terrible disease. We also think of their family, their friends, their health care workers and of course the researchers. The researchers are doing so much, not only to bring awareness to ALS but also to provide hope. “Research”, of course, is another word for hope. I thank them.

    I thank the ALS Society of Canada and ALS Action Canada, two incredible advocacy organizations doing so much as well. We will continue this fight together.

     Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honour the life of Bobbie Sparrow, who passed away in February at the age of 90. Bobbie earned respect through a lifetime of service and of unwavering fidelity to her principles. From her years as a surgical nurse at Holy Cross Hospital to her leadership in the energy sector, she embodied the resilience of her generation.

    She gave herself fully to Calgary and its charities, institutions and civic life. As the member for Calgary Southwest, she brought that same duty to Ottawa, fighting fiercely against the national energy program, inflation and relentless tax hikes. She served with grace, competence and fierce determination. She was a fighter right until the very end.

    I thank her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren for sharing her with our community and our country. May her example inspire us to defend the Confederation she fought for, our resources, our promise for an ordered liberty, and a nation defined by strength and ambition. I will miss my friend. May she rest in peace.

     Mr. Speaker, it was 47 years ago that The Log Driver's Waltz was first screened and won a best animated film award at an international film festival in France.

    The Log Driver's Waltz is a Canadian folk song originally written by Wade Hemsworth and performed by The Mountain City Four. Most of us will instantly associate the tune with the iconic vignette of the timeless tale of a young girl, who, to please both her parents, had to give way and dance with the doctors and merchants and lawyers as the log driver “goes birling down and down white water”.

    Directed by John Weldon, the film celebrates the lads as they work on the river and has captured the imagination of generations of Canadians and generations to come, I am sure, because “That's where the log driver learns to step lightly”.

     Mr. Speaker, thousands of Canadians are writing to the health committee demanding an investigation into the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. However, Liberals MPs are silencing their voices and blocking an investigation.

    On April 28, the Liberal MP for Don Valley North turned off the committee cameras during an emergency meeting, and then she refused to say why. On May 5, the Liberal MP for Winnipeg West voted to shut down the committee to block the health minister from testifying. He was then caught telling his constituents online that he supports an investigation, while voting to shut it down. On June 1, the Liberal health minister refused to come to the health committee. On June 11, the Liberal chair abruptly adjourned the meeting and literally ran out the door to kill any investigation.

    Canadians believe in accountability, but the Liberals believe in cover-ups. Conservatives will not stop until Canadians know the full truth of the $300-million PrescribeIT failure and until the people responsible are held accountable.

    Mr. Speaker, recently Canada was selected to host the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank following negotiations among allied countries.

    This decision reflects the confidence of our allies and will lead to the creation of a defence-funding institution, providing affordable loans and facilitating strategic investments.

    As Canada's national capital region, Ottawa-Gatineau is uniquely positioned to host the DSRB. Home to more than 130 missions, it is a recognized defence and security innovation hub with world-class research institutions, cutting-edge laboratories and a rare ecosystem where government, industry, academia and the security sector work together.

    Ottawa and Gatineau have the largest pool of specialized defence talent in the country, supported by a highly bilingual workforce.

    I join my NCR colleagues and the mayors of Ottawa and Gatineau in strongly supporting Ottawa-Gatineau as the ideal home for the DSRB.

    Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 as the only leader who has driven his country into a recession.

    While families struggle through this full-blown recession, the Liberals continue to offer announcements instead of results. On Thursday, the Liberals brought yet another food affordability strategy, but grocery bills remain sky-high. Canadians are making impossible choices just to survive. In New Brunswick, one man was forced to postpone open-heart surgery because he simply could not afford to stop working and recover. Meanwhile in Moncton, there were over 300 opioid overdoses in just two weeks. Things are getting desperate.

    While families struggle to buy groceries, the Prime Minister is leaving on a jet plane and is not sure when he will be back again. He has spent nearly $1 million on luxury inflight catering over 14 trips so far.

     When two in five Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, they are right to ask why the Liberals are funding luxury while their families are struggling to just get by.

    Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Indo-Caribbean Organization of Ottawa is celebrating the 25th anniversary of its annual multicultural event. This special occasion is a celebration of the culture, heritage and identity of the Indo-Caribbean community. It is an opportunity to recognize the many valuable contributions the Indo-Caribbean community has made to Canada, particularly in the national capital region.

    I want to congratulate my friend Peter Maharaj, who is here on the Hill, for his hard work and dedication in organizing this wonderful event over the years. I send much gratitude to all of the volunteers in our community for assisting in the success of this multicultural event year after year.

     Congratulations. Here is to 25 more years of celebrating Canada's Indo-Caribbean community.

    Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 as the only leader who has driven his own country into a recession. While he flies around the world in style with nearly $1 million in luxury inflight catering, Canadians are being driven out of their homes and into food banks. Two in five Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, and many families are skipping meals, living in RVs and losing sleep over how they will pay their bills.

    Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly Liberal policies that have caused this crisis so that Canadians can afford to live and have hope again?

     Mr. Speaker, every time we propose something to help the very people the member speaks of, she rises on her leader's orders and votes against it, such as the groceries and essentials benefit, the Canada child benefit, aid for seniors and aid for dental care.

    We will not apologize for the Prime Minister's going to other countries, signing trade deals, bringing back billions in investment and creating jobs and opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

     Mr. Speaker, Canadians are seeing through the illusions. The Liberals keep rolling out more programs and calling them progress. If we need more government supports just to get by, that is not success. It is an admission of failure.

    All of the G7 countries face the same global pressures, yet only one has managed to turn these shared challenges into a recession at home. That is our Canada under the Liberal Prime Minister. Since the same global pressures are affecting everyone, why is Canada the only G7 country in a recession, while others have managed to avoid it?

    Mr. Speaker, let me tell the member and her entire bench what success looks like. Success looks like creating twice as many jobs per capita as the United States. Success looks like diversifying our trade. Success looks like Contrecœur. Success looks like high‑speed rail in Ontario and Quebec, which her party is against. Success looks like an MOU with the Province of Alberta. Success looks like economic development from one coast to another.

     We are going to keep getting success, notwithstanding the opposition of these guys.

    Mr. Speaker, if we talk to anyone on the street or to businesses suffering from 11 years of failed Liberal policies, they will tell us that Canada is in a recession, no matter how the Liberals or the media try to spin it, and that things are not getting any better. Families, seniors and young people are anxious about their finances and their future. The worst of all scenarios have crept into the minds of Canadian business: doubt and uncertainty.

     The Liberal Prime Minister has the distinction of walking into the G7 meetings as the only leader to push their country into recession. Will he rethink his costly policies, which have caused this recession?

     Mr. Speaker, while the opposition talks Canada down, we are building. We are building with $8 billion in Goose Bay. We are building new wind farms in Nova Scotia. We are building new nuclear plants in Ontario. We are building new pipelines in British Columbia and Alberta.

     All they do is talk us down. We are building.

     Mr. Speaker, Canada's decline did not start last April. It was catalyzed six years ago, when the current Prime Minister was Trudeau's economic adviser. The Prime Minister's fingerprints are all over the failed policies that have caused Canada to be the only G7 country in a recession. While well‑connected Liberals and corporate buddies are doing well, the crumbs the Liberals feed to families, seniors and young people cannot mask the fact that 60% of Canadians feel anxious about their finances, 40% are losing sleep, 38% have food insecurity and 2.2 million Canadians visited food banks last year.

    Does that sound like everything is working well?

     Mr. Speaker, I know they want to go back six years and re-fight an election from six years ago. Unfortunately, it is today, which is good for Canada.

     What we hear is the Premier of Alberta saying she has never been as optimistic about the country. We hear that from all of the premiers. They want to build with the government.

     Instead of talking us down, why do the Conservatives not get on board and help build this country?

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister will attend the G7 summit today as the only leader to have led his country into a recession.

    Full-time workers are living in RVs because they can no longer afford housing. According to United Way, 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, and 38% are food insecure, yet the Liberal Prime Minister finds a way to spend $1 million on luxury inflight meals.

    Will the Liberal Prime Minister finally put an end to the inflationary spending, bureaucracy and policies that created this Canadian cost-of-living crisis?

    Mr. Speaker, with regard to the economy, forecasts indicate that Canada will have the second-fastest growth among G7 countries.

    Wages have been rising faster than inflation for 38 months, but we recognize that challenges remain. That is why, on this side of the House, we are working tirelessly to deliver major projects, create jobs and generate wealth across the country. However, when I see the Conservatives come in every day, hand on heart, with all the empathy in the world, when they voted against measures that have helped millions of Canadians—whether it is the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the Canadian dental care plan, or the Canada child benefit—I want to urge them to take a step back and start walking the talk.

    Mr. Speaker, they want us to applaud them for putting a bandage over a wound they created. That is the issue.

    I have a message for the Prime Minister, who is at the G7. I also have a message for this minister. Rogelio Rigor, a Quebec father working two jobs, told La Presse, “I was just barely surviving.” He had to file a consumer proposal.

    This is the Liberal Prime Minister's real economic record. Instead of spending nearly $1 million on luxury meals while travelling, is the Liberal Prime Minister prepared to give up his smoked salmon, considering that Rogelio has sacrificed everything as a result of Liberal inflation?

    Mr. Speaker, I do not have their names, but there are 13,586 families in his riding who are getting their share of the $101 million from the Canada child benefit, which he voted against. I do not have their names, but there are 13,500 families who depend on it.

    I do not have their names, but there are 39,000 people in his riding who benefit from the Canadian dental care plan.

    I do not have their names, but tens of thousands of his constituents are benefiting from the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit.

    I urge him to stop making grand speeches in the House and start voting for his people.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister talks a good game. After Davos, where he called for middle powers to stand together, on Saturday he said at the G7 that the strands of a new world order could be woven together. The problem is that it is all talk.

    In real life, the Prime Minister is breaking with Europe by scrapping the digital services tax. He is distancing himself from the European Union by scrapping the levies on online broadcasters. He is leaving the climate fight to the Europeans so his government can build pipelines to benefit the Americans who own the oil companies.

    Why is he spending his time abandoning the middle powers just to please Donald Trump?

    Mr. Speaker, Europe has something else that is trendy: high-speed rail. It has been adopted by just about every country in Europe, and now by the Kingdom of Morocco as well.

    Canada wants to develop this technology. It is an environmentally responsible solution, a transportation revolution and a piece of infrastructure capable of moving millions of Quebeckers and Canadians every year and making a difference in how we get around.

    Why has the Bloc Québécois changed its mind on high-speed rail?

    Mr. Speaker, I did not even mention the Keystone XL pipeline, which is good for the U.S. but bad for all the countries working to fight climate change.

    I did not even mention Bill C‑30, which would allow previously banned pesticides to be approved. That will be good for the U.S. factories that manufacture Monsanto products, but it will be bad for our trade relations with Europe, which operates by stricter standards.

    The Prime Minister talks a good game, but his actions are moving him further away from our European allies and closer to Donald Trump. He writes fine speeches, but why do his actions always contradict his words?

    Mr. Speaker, why is the Bloc Québécois attacking the Quebec factories, Quebec SMEs and Quebec workers that would be involved in building this vast infrastructure project, the high-speed train? I am talking about SMEs in Louiseville, workshops in Old Montreal, businesses in Gatineau and marketing companies in Quebec City.

    This is a revolutionary project that will create 51,000 jobs and add $35 billion to our GDP. It is a transportation revolution. Why is the Bloc Québécois, led by the member for Repentigny, giving up?

    Mr. Speaker, that is zero for two. Let us give him another chance.

    The Prime Minister keeps saying that Canada needs to partner with middle powers to stand up to the United States. However, he is breaking with the 17 European countries and Australia, which impose digital services taxes on tech giants. He is breaking with the European Union, which imposes levies on streaming services such as Netflix.

    The fight for the diversity of cultural expression will be waged and perhaps won by middle powers. Canada is pulling out. It is weakening the global consensus and threatening the future of Quebec culture. Is selling one's soul not a rather high price to pay just to please Donald Trump?

    Mr. Speaker, that party is talking about threats to Quebec culture, but when it came time to make budget requests, it did not say a word about Quebec culture. When it came time to vote on the last budget, which contained $700 million for culture, including Quebec culture, not a single Bloc Québécois member voted for it.

    It is astounding to hear them talk and falsely accuse others about threats to culture. Now the Bloc members are talking about closer ties with Europe. No one, apart from the Bloc Québécois, believes that Canada is not rapidly becoming closer to Europe.

     Mr. Speaker, in just 14 trips, the Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on inflight catering at taxpayers' expense. Meanwhile, two in five Canadians struggle to put food on the table and a record 2.2 million Canadians rely on the food bank in a single month.

     Liberal inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment policies are driving up costs and weakening our economy. It is always Canadians who are left paying for Liberal waste. Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies that caused this crisis, so Canadians can afford to live again?

     Mr. Speaker, I am uncertain where that member has been over the last number of years, but I want to give them one good example of how this government stood up for Saskatchewan when 14 of them sat on their hands for 10 long years. I am talking to the Saskatchewan Conservative MP caucus.

     Why did you not defend this canola deal? Why did you not stand up—

     I am not involved in the canola deal.

    Again, a reminder to go through the Chair. The member may continue.

    Mr. Speaker, why did they not stand up for Saskatchewan and the canola deal that brought billions to Saskatchewan producers? Again, they sat on their hands doing nothing.

    Mr. Speaker, food affordability is so terrible that there is scurvy in that member's riding.

    We cannot forget that this Prime Minister is the one who said affordability is the best that it has been in over a decade. He is showing up at the G7 as the only leader who has caused a recession in his own country. That is his Liberal government's record: inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment policies that are driving up costs. It is not global factors; it is the Liberal choices that Canadians cannot afford.

     When will this government stop making life more expensive for Canadians?

     Mr. Speaker, it would be really nice if I saw one Conservative visit northern Saskatchewan to deal with the issues that we are struggling with.

     Now, I would point out that every time we have an opportunity to help my riding, and many other ridings across this country, whether it is on food and essential benefits, the $10-a-day child care or the food program for the schools, every single time we make initiatives, they vote against them.

    We will take no lessons on helping any region in Saskatchewan that feels underserved. We will represent all Canadians and stand up for them forever.

    Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate and unpleasant, but we are in a recession, and people are feeling the pinch. Some families have to spend more than 120% of their income just on housing and food. It has reached the point where people are having to borrow money just to put food on the table. The reality is that the Liberals' policies are not working, and the more power the Liberals have, the more it costs Canadians.

    Now the Prime Minister is about to attend the G7 summit as the only leader to have led his country into recession. Does he plan to continue dodging the issue by making more grand, inspiring speeches abroad while leaving families in Canada to pay the price?

    Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 5, Canadians received the first instalment of the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Millions of Canadians have received help with their grocery bills. We are very aware of the challenges Canadians are facing. Canadians are courageous, and they will work with us to rebuild our self-sustaining, strong and responsible economy.

    Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the programs.

    In Quebec, the average salary is $67,000. However, I received a photo of a Canada groceries and essentials benefit payment from a worker who earns exactly $67,000. He received $11.98 to help pay for groceries. Families can no longer afford groceries, rent and gas. The Liberals have plunged the country into a recession.

    I urge the Prime Minister to use his time at the G7 to heed the advice of all the other countries that are not in a recession.

    I think that could be beneficial to us.

    Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question gives me the opportunity to discuss an announcement made last week.

    We are going to invest $1 billion in food infrastructure to make food terminals and hubs more accessible to Canadians. We are also going to improve competition. We are going to do this because it matters.

     Canadians need support. We are providing that support, and they support us because they, too, want to rebuild our country in a self-sustaining and responsible manner.

     Mr. Speaker, today, the Prime Minister arrives at the G7 summit as the one and only leader who has led his country into a recession. This is what that looks like: Two in five Canadians struggle to be able to afford to feed themselves; full-time workers are living in RVs or a Tim Hortons; and food bank use has hit an all-time high. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister spends $1 million on luxury inflight catering, which includes things like Normandy butter cups, fine wines and braised beef.

    My question is very simple: When will the Prime Minister acknowledge the reality so many Canadians face and reverse his policy so they can afford to live again?

    Mr. Speaker, that member of Parliament has risen before to ask questions like this, but I would ask her a question: Why does she keep voting against the very people in Alberta who are asking for a hand up? In fact, the national school food program in Alberta feeds 58,000 children, and parents are saving up to $13,700 a year per child. These are all things that member has voted against.

    Mr. Speaker, I think what that member meant to highlight was the fact that under the Liberal government, child poverty rates have increased year after year after year for the last three. This dramatically impacts the people of my riding in Lethbridge, Alberta. It means that seniors in this country are living at Tim Hortons. It means that full-time workers are living out of their RVs.

    Why does the government turn a blind eye to the reality of Canadians while it is living high on the horse? Why does it not reverse its policy so Canadians can finally afford to live again?

     Mr. Speaker, if we check Hansard, we will find that member on record saying that parents do not want help. In fact, what I hear from Canadians, including Albertans, who write to me as the minister of jobs and families, is that we should stand up for each other, that we should make sure not one kid goes hungry, no matter if their parent is out of work, no matter if their family is struggling, because circumstances are unfortunate for families. What is most Canadian is the value of helping each other.

    Mr. Speaker, I will remind that member that today the Prime Minister is at the G7 summit as the only leader in the G20 who has caused a recession in his own country, technical or otherwise. He says the data can be uneven. What is not uneven is the pain. Food bank use is at record levels, while two in five Canadians struggle to eat and full-time workers live in people's driveways because a paycheque no longer buys a home. This is all while the Prime Minister's inflight catering bill for just 14 trips could feed a family for 55 years.

    When will this Prime Minister reverse his costly policies and make good on his announcements so Canadians can afford to live again?

    I just want to remind members that even if certain things are in the news, we should not mention the presence or absence of members.

    The hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

    Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is attending the G7 summit today—

    I am trying very hard to apply the rules, but the members are making it very difficult. We do not need to talk about location.

     The hon. minister, please.

    Mr. Speaker, Canada is represented at the G7 summit today as a country that has hit its 2% NATO target this year, as a country that has attracted foreign direct investment at twice the rate of our nearest G7 countries, and as a country that has secured 20 economic and defence agreements over four continents. British Columbians like to see this growth. This is Canada.

    Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources warned on Thursday that wildfire activity will increase throughout the summer. With hot temperatures expected, 300 mayors are calling on the federal government to abandon its plans for new pipelines, stating in their declaration that more communities are likely to burn to the ground this summer as we double down on fossil fuel expansion.

    As another wildfire season approaches, will the Liberals finally drop their obsession with oil?

    Mr. Speaker, I will say it again: Our government continues to fight climate change, and we are getting the job done. We have strengthened methane regulations, and we are a global leader in this effort. People are looking to us and asking how they can do the same. When we talk about what we are doing when it comes to climate change and international financing, again, we are a leader.

    However, every time we make these changes and do this work, the Bloc Québécois does not support us.

    If the Bloc members want to do the work, they should help us with electricity and our efforts.

    Mr. Speaker, the Department of Natural Resources announced on Thursday that we are facing another bad summer for wildfires. However, that is not apparent from listening to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Two days earlier, he was at an energy trade show in Calgary, calling the oil sands one of the great industrial achievements in Canadian history.

    He was boasting about speeding up oil and gas exports at the very same time as his own department was warning that our regions are going to burn.

    Do the Liberals not think that the safety of forested regions should come before oil sands profits?

    Mr. Speaker, climate change is a reality. We are fully cognizant of that, and we are working on it. With Canada's 2030 nature strategy, we plan to protect 30% of our lands and waters, which will help us fight climate change.

    My colleague mentioned strengthening methane regulations and all the things we are going to do for renewable electricity, renewable energy. These things will help us fight climate change. That is how we will make progress and become economically self-sufficient.

     Mr. Speaker, community organizations are warning that the rush changes to the New Horizons for Seniors program are putting hundreds of projects at risk. Many volunteers are seniors who already struggle with technology. With only weeks to register for a CRA business number and navigate a complex online portal, these changes are overwhelming and many fear they will be disqualified.

    Will the Liberals fix these unnecessary barriers or will they have to create another program to help seniors apply for a current one?

    Mr. Speaker, we are incredibly proud of this program. Last year alone, it supported over 2,600 projects right across Canada, helping seniors stay active and engaged and fight isolation. This year, we are increasing the value of the grants and we are making some changes to strengthen the integrity of the program.

    Service Canada is there to assist any organization with questions on how to apply and we are going to make sure that this program remains accessible for seniors and organizations, and meets the standards of integrity that Canadians expect.

    Mr. Speaker, the secretary of state claims that registering for a CRA business number and using the online portal is simple, but senior organizations are telling a different story. In my community of King—Vaughan, where 18 senior groups have been supporting over 6,000 senior volunteers, organizations have been frantically calling my office, scared of missing out on critical funding. These changes will leave the most vulnerable organizations behind.

    Why are the Liberals trying to bury seniors in even more red tape?

     Mr. Speaker, it is quite the opposite. We have worked hand in hand with organizations to ensure that these changes to this program are welcomed. We know that this program delivers important services for seniors in every single riding of every member in this House. That is something that we are going to continue.

    We will take no lessons from the Conservatives in our support for seniors, while they continue to vote against programs like the dental care plan and the groceries and essentials benefit that benefit single seniors right across the country.

    Mr. Speaker, as we mark World Elder Abuse Awareness Day today, the Liberal government is standing in the way of organizations that support seniors.

     The new rules for the New Horizons for Seniors program are forcing volunteer groups to get a business number from the Canada Revenue Agency. This process can take months and also requires them to navigate an online application system. These organizations want to help seniors, not fight Ottawa's bureaucracy.

    Is the government going to back down on these bureaucratic reforms? Yes, we know the people in our ridings.

    Mr. Speaker, we are committed to ensuring that the New Horizons for Seniors program reaches community organizations led by seniors who are improving Canadians' quality of life. These changes are important to keep the program accessible while also complying with the standards of integrity that Canadians expect.

    We are working with the Canada Revenue Agency and with the department to help organizations that need assistance managing this number. The forms are ready. The deadline is July 14, and the department is ready to help anyone who needs help.

     Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are totally out of touch, but I want to raise a different topic. Last week, the President of the Treasury Board was unable to answer a simple question from my colleague. That embarrassed his government and, according to La Presse, angered his fellow Liberal MPs. He has had all weekend to recover and find the right page in his briefing book.

    Does he believe he still has the Prime Minister's confidence? I will give him a few seconds to find the answer in his briefing book.

    Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the question was, but as the President of the Treasury Board—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Clearly, members do not want an answer. We are going to start over.

    The hon. President of the Treasury Board.

     Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague made a statement, but there was no question in that statement.

     As the President of the Treasury Board, I strongly support the government's efforts to improve and modernize the access to information process. Access to information is a fundamental part of ensuring transparency and accountability for Canadians. That is why last March we launched a review of the Access to Information Act. We have provided Library and Archives—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    No. Wait. The minister may take a few seconds to finish here.

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have awarded Library and Archives Canada with a permanent funding increase of approximately $20 million per year to support its access to information system.

    Mr. Speaker, the press reports that Liberal MPs say the President of the Treasury Board is not very present, not very diligent and struggling to master his files. Last week, Canadians watched him stand in this House, unable to answer a very basic question about his own department.

     If the Prime Minister demands confidence from his ministers, does he still have confidence in the President of the Treasury Board, yes or no?

     Mr. Speaker, Canada's new government believes in transparency, accountability and fairness. As the President of the Treasury Board, I have been meeting with government agents, including the Information Commissioner. We have launched consultations to modernize the access to information system.

    I thank all the government agents, including the Information Commissioner, for their work to hold the government to account.

     Mr. Speaker, Canada led the invention of modern artificial intelligence, and now AI is used by millions of Canadians every day. Canadians want AI to strengthen our economy, to enhance job opportunities, to deliver new research and innovation, to protect our communities and our national sovereignty and to always prioritize people.

    Can the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation update the House on Canada's new AI strategy?

    Mr. Speaker, I would really like to thank the member for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas for his incredible advocacy on behalf of his community.

    Our new national AI strategy, AI for all, is building trust, creating opportunity and keeping sovereign control. We are creating a national AI literacy program so all Canadians can build a literate and educated workforce. We are creating 90,000 job placements for young Canadians so they can get the job experience they need. We are also investing in Canadian innovators, small and medium-sized businesses, to keep the jobs, the innovation and the business—

     The hon. member for York—Durham.

     Mr. Speaker, as the G7 gets under way, the Prime Minister remains the only leader of a G7 or G20 economy that is in recession. The Prime Minister should travel, but Canadians expect results from that. When he was back home in Ireland this weekend, investment was leaving Canada. On Saturday, Open Text's Waterloo-based AI company announced a $140-million investment in Ireland. That is 400 new jobs for Ireland. Ireland has lower taxes, less regulation and a better business environment.

    Why did this investment not get made in Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, no one can understand the economy if they have never worked a day in it, like the Conservative leader. Maybe he should listen to actual economists in Canada, like BMO's chief economist, who said adding 88,000 jobs should silence the critics. What about RBC's Frances Donald, who said that it is the wrong diagnosis, “neither accurate nor helpful”. The head of C.D. Howe gave his thoughts on the economy. I could go on and on.

    On this side of the House, we are going to build Canada strong. The Conservative leader can continue with empty parking lot press conferences, props and slogans.

    Mr. Speaker, the government's props and slogans are cold comfort to the young generation of Canadians, who are feeling its failures most acutely. The United Way's report last week confirmed that food insecurity concerns are highest among young Canadians, income declines are most acute among young Canadians and fully 91% of the next generation feel personal financial anxiety. Add on top of that the highest unemployment rate in 35 years.

    When will the government stop selling out the next generation?

    Mr. Speaker, there are some very promising signs in the Canadian economy, especially in Ontario and especially for youth. The Ontario unemployment rate is now the lowest in two and a half years. The Toronto unemployment rate is the lowest since November 2023. Full-time jobs are up 154,000, 99,000 of which were for youth.

    There are some very promising signs in this economy. We have investment both going to Canada and in—

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The hon. member for Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee has changed seats. I can hear him in a different spot now.

    The hon. parliamentary secretary may continue.

    Mr. Speaker, we have very promising results with incoming investment, the highest investment in over 18 years in foreign direct investment into Canada. It is very good to have very strong Canadian companies that are both exporting their products and finding trading opportunities elsewhere.

    I think we should celebrate and talk up these strong Canadian technology companies instead of running them down.

    Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Prime Minister is the only G7 leader and the only G20 leader who has delivered a recession in his own country.

    A United Way survey found that 60% of Canadians are anxious about their finances, 38% face food insecurity and 40% are losing sleep over how to stretch their paycheque. Meanwhile, this Liberal Prime Minister's luxury inflight catering bill has reached nearly $1 million over 14 trips, including $175,000 for food on a single trip, which is enough to feed a family for 55 years.

     Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly Liberal policies that put Canada into a recession, so Canadians can afford to live again?

     Mr. Speaker, instead of tearing down this country, which the Conservatives do, or counting airline miles, they should help build it up.

    The May jobs report showed that Canada created 88,000 new net jobs. Do they mention that? No. Our trade surplus is up 55%. Do they mention it? No. Our total exports are at a record high. Do they mention it? No. When we have a groceries and essentials benefit to help Canadians, do they vote for it? No.

    Why do they not get on board and help build up Canada?

    Mr. Speaker, Conservatives are not tearing down Canadians. It is Liberals who are keeping down Canadians.

    Those Liberal talking points will not help the full-time workers living in RVs and trailers because they cannot afford homes, or the families spending 120% of their income on food and rent alone, or the 22% of Canadians who have personally experienced poverty, or the one in five households that are food insecure. Every dollar wasted on Liberal luxury is a dollar not used to lower taxes, build homes, improve safety or help Canadians make ends meet.

    Will the Liberal Prime Minister end the waste, cut the bureaucracy and reverse the Liberal policies that caused this recession?

    Mr. Speaker, when we propose programs like dental care or the groceries and essentials benefit, anything that could help vulnerable Canadians, these Conservatives are against. When our closest ally launches an unjustified trade war, what do Conservatives do? They say we are having a “hissy fit”. When the Prime Minister goes and brings back tens of billions of dollars of jobs and investment to this country and proposes major projects, what do the Conservatives do? They vote against that.

    What, for the love of all that is good, are the Conservatives for?

    Mr. Speaker, despite leading Canada into a recession, the Prime Minister continues living in luxury, racking up $1 million in inflight catering alone. Meanwhile, more and more Manitoba families are struggling just to put food on the table.

     Last week, Harvest Manitoba shared its Manitoba poverty report card, which says it all, giving the government an F in its poverty rating and advising that of the record-setting 60,000 Manitobans who visit food banks monthly, 30% are employed full-time. What? If full-time workers cannot even afford food, these gimmicks and rebates are not going to cut it.

    When is the government going to take serious action to reduce food prices in this country?

     Mr. Speaker, I represent some of the poorest communities in this country, so when the member opposite tries to lecture me on affordability, I have to ask: Why does he vote against every single measure that is supporting Manitobans, including affordable child care, grocery rebates, automatic tax filing and cutting taxes at the pump? He needs to get onside and start voting and working for Manitobans.

    Mr. Speaker, we know how bad inflation has gotten in Canada. We know grocery prices are through the roof. Fuel prices are skyrocketing, and even the cars that Canadians need to fuel up are becoming more and more unaffordable for the middle class. The prices of used cars have doubled in the last seven years in this country, and the government is still putting the federal sales tax on them each and every time they are sold, sometimes collecting double, triple or quadruple revenue off the backs of Canadians.

    Conservatives come armed with solutions. We have Bill C-285, which would take the GST off of used cars and save Canadians thousands. Will the Liberals support it?

    Mr. Speaker, from day one, we have been focused on delivering affordability measures for Canadians. Let us talk about the removal of the GST for first-time homebuyers. Let us talk about the pause on the federal excise tax. That is 10¢ a litre. Combine that with the removal of the carbon tax, and it is a 28¢-per-litre savings. We just launched the groceries and essentials benefit. We just announced the 50% payment a week and a half ago.

    On this side of the House, we will continue to focus on affordability. The Conservatives will focus on rhetoric and bluster.

    Mr. Speaker, there is no rhetoric or bluster here, as the minister does his fancy dance over there.

    The price of used cars has more than doubled over the last several years as a result of the government's inflationary policies. Taxing a vehicle twice is wrong. We on this side believe that cars are not a luxury, and for many people, they are a lifeline. On this side of the House, we would zero-rate used vehicles under the Excise Tax Act.

    Will the Liberals stop profiting off of inflation and remove GST from the sale of used cars in this country?

     Mr. Speaker, I have actually had the privilege of running a private business in the economy, unlike the Conservative leader. When an economy or a business is faced with adversity, we have two choices. We can wave our hands around, blame everybody else and offer nothing constructive, or we can actually lead. We can rebuild. We can restructure. We can build new trade relationships. On this side of the House, that is what our Prime Minister and our international trade minister are doing.

     We are going to build Canada strong. They are going to continue with the rhetoric.

    Mr. Speaker, used car prices have doubled over the last seven years. The average price of a used car is now $36,000. That is a lot of money, especially for families in the regions who need a car to get to work and get around. We think only one tax should apply to used cars, but unfortunately, used cars are still also subject to GST. We want to take the GST off used cars.

    The Liberals have already axed the carbon tax, as the Conservatives were calling for. Do they agree with us that there should be no GST on used cars?

    Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to remind everyone that we have suspended the excise tax on gasoline for the summer, providing relief for consumers and boosting Canadians' purchasing power.

    However, we are not stopping there. The Conservatives claim that affordability is an issue they care about. I urge them to support us on the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the Canadian dental care plan, the tax cut for 22 million Canadians, and our other measures.

    Mr. Speaker, if we took the tax off all used goods, their talking points would be tax-free. We asked the question four times, and got zero answers.

     We came with a solution: a Conservative bill to save Canadians thousands of dollars by taking the GST off used cars, which are taxed two, three and even four times, as many times as the Liberals avoided answering the question.

     It is a very simple question: In my part of the country and for MPs across the House, driving is not a luxury but a necessity, so will the Liberals join us and take the GST off used cars?

    Mr. Speaker, I will give the Conservatives credit. They are now talking about actual measures that could support affordability, but I would ask them where they have been for the last number of months and years.

     I have been a member of Parliament for seven years in the House, and it does not matter if it is the Canada child benefit, national child care, the national school food program or the tax measures we have put in place, consistently, the Conservatives vote against these measures.

     We appreciate that they are finally talking about affordability, but we would ask them to actually support the measures the government consistently puts at the front to help support Canadians across the board. It is good that they are now talking, but why do they not get on board with some of the initiatives that we have had for years now?

    Mr. Speaker, we are facing a men's mental health crisis. Too many men and boys face mental health challenges, and too many simply will not ask for help.

    Last week, we once again hosted an annual Father's Day on the Hill event with Movember, where Montreal Canadiens great Guy Carbonneau shared his story and talked about the recent loss of his friend and teammate Claude Lemieux.

     As we mark Men's Health Month in June, can the Minister of Health provide an update on the much anticipated men and boys' health strategy?

    Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Edmonton Riverbend for his tireless leadership on this issue. I am pleased to report that, thanks to his help and the help of groups such as Movember, more than 5,000 people shared their thoughts and ideas during our consultations for Canada's first-ever men and boys' health strategy. We heard many great ideas about how to create more opportunities for boys and men. I look forward to releasing the strategy in the coming months.

    Mr. Speaker, Foothills families are shaken. A local man was charged with more than 500,000 pieces of child exploitation material, and he was released. Ten-year-old Grace asked me why this man was not in jail. She does not feel safe playing outside with her friends, and that is not right. Okotoks families want to know why a man charged with such a heinous crime was released into the community.

    Conservatives offered a solution, jail not bail for serious offences, but the Liberals rejected it. When will the Liberals fix the bail system they broke so Okotoks families can feel safe again?

     Mr. Speaker, these kinds of heinous behaviours have no place in Canada, and the Government of Canada has an opportunity to do something about it.

    I am pleased to share that we expect, this week, we will have changes to Canada's Criminal Code. These include changes that will make it impossible for conditional sentencing orders to be tied to charges impacting crimes such as sexual crimes against children. In addition, last week the House voted on the protecting victims act, which would put in place a number of measures designed specifically to combat child sexual exploitation and child sexual exploitation and abuse material. My hope is that these measures will become law expeditiously, so communities benefit from these protections.

    Mr. Speaker, the criminal charged in the Lambton College shooting, which left one person dead, is not surprisingly out on bail. Only under these weak-on-crime Liberals could a man charged with murder and attempted murder be back on the streets before justice is served. These Liberals have turned our justice system into a joke, a revolving door for violent offenders. Victims get fear; criminals get another chance.

    How many more accused killers do these Liberals intend to release before they finally admit that their weak-on-crime laws are a complete and catastrophic failure?

    Mr. Speaker, the political motivation behind the member's question is obvious, based on the way he phrased it, but if he would like some validation, the bail and sentencing reform act we have put forward in the House is supported by those who work on the front lines.

    I would invite him to talk to the head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. I would invite him to talk to the head of the Ontario Provincial Police or of the Police Association of Ontario. The legislation we put forward has been informed by leaders in the police movement. It has been informed by provinces and premiers demanding the expeditious adoption of the bail and sentencing reform act. It has been informed by engagement with cities. We will do everything we can to listen to those expert voices to keep Canadians safe.

    Mr. Speaker, that minister and the government have had 11 years to get this right.

    Last week, Canada suffered a tragic loss when officer Marc Pinizzotto was shot and killed in the line of duty. It has now been revealed that the man responsible for the horrific crime was already out on probation. Then we learned that the U.S. consulate shooter was on bail. Thugs, who are already before the courts, known to police and prohibited from possessing firearms, are now back on the streets. This should have never happened.

    How many more tragedies will it take before these Liberals stop treating bail conditions like a joke and start keeping repeat violent offenders behind bars?

    Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, we are deeply heartbroken that Constable Marc Pinizzotto of the Toronto Police Service and Constable Tarun Bali of the Ontario police service were killed in the line of duty last week. We as a government have been taking decisive action, including strengthening bail and sentencing, with bills that we expect to go through Parliament this week.

    We need to work in collaboration to ensure the safety and security of all those who serve on the front lines. We are taking those actions. We invite the party opposite to join us in order to strengthen these systems.

    Mr. Speaker, across New Brunswick and Canada, young people are ready to work, learn new skills and contribute to their communities. What many of them need is an opportunity to prove themselves. Every year, the Canada summer jobs program enables thousands of young people to secure their first job with local businesses and organizations.

    I would like to ask the minister to explain what our government is doing to strengthen this program so that more young people can have a rewarding work experience this summer.

    Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for standing up for young people across New Brunswick and Canada. We know that when young people succeed, our communities succeed. That is why we are investing in the Canada summer jobs program by creating 100,000 jobs this year, including more than 12,300 in the Atlantic provinces. We are ensuring that young people can work, build their future and continue to contribute to their communities.