Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership of committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I move that the 33rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented in the House earlier this day be concurred in.

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the membership of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be amended as follows: Ms. Mingarelli (Prescott—Russell—Cumberland) for Ms. Fancy (South Shore—St. Margarets), Mr. Caley (North Vancouver—Capilano, British Columbia) for Mr. Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga), Mr. Moore (Fundy Royal) for Mr. Jackson (Brandon—Souris), Mrs. Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek) for Mr. Van Popta (Langley Township—Fraser Heights).

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 30th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the orders for the second reading of private members' public bills originating in the Senate, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak to Bill C-31 and the heart of our national security, our economic resilience and our sovereignty as a nation. Canada has long stood as a proud and reliable partner among the world's leading democracies. Our work within the G7 and our enduring commitment to NATO reflect not only our values but our understanding that collective security and co-operation are essential in an increasingly uncertain world. If Canada is to remain a credible and capable partner abroad, we must ensure that we are equally strong and prepared at home. For too long, Canada's defence procurement system has been fragmented across multiple departments, slow to engage with industry and overly complex in its execution. The result has been delays that stretch not months but years, sometimes even decades, before critical equipment reaches the Canadian Armed Forces. This is not simply an administrative issue. It is a matter of sovereignty. A nation that cannot equip its armed forces in a timely and effective manner risks undermining its own ability to defend its territory, protect its interests and respond to emerging threats. That is why Bill C-31 is significant. The creation of the Defence Investment Agency represents a decisive step forward in modernizing Canada's approach to defence procurement. This agency will consolidate procurement processes that are currently spread across government. By removing duplicate approvals and cutting unnecessary red tape, it will accelerate timelines and provide much-needed clarity and predictability to our industry partners. With a centralized process for review and approval, procurements will move forward more efficiently. With specialized expertise housed within a single agency, we will ensure that defence acquisitions are managed with the focus and precision they require. I would like to take a moment to talk about how this is important in St. Catharines and within southern Ontario. We have seen through the threat of tariffs, the trade war with the United States, the impact on the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario. St. Catharines, and Niagara, relies on the automotive industry. It is something we have relied on for about a century. That threat is there. We have heard it from our American partners. The Prime Minister is right in ensuring that we step up and meet our NATO commitments and using that commitment to build and ensure strength within our manufacturing sector. I had the opportunity to tour a company in St. Catharines called FBT. FBT is a multi-generational company that has been in business for quite some time. It saw the writing on the wall a few years back, as it primarily did business with the automotive sector, and has switched its processes in-house to focus on defence and nuclear. It still does some automotive. In touring that facility a couple of times, I saw that it is using advanced manufacturing with high precision and is ready to take it to the next level. It is expanding and will be able to meet the needs that Canada is putting forward in our defence sector. It provides a great number of high-paying jobs in St. Catharines and has a lot of long-term employees there, which speaks to the good work it does. A lot of tool and die shops, and other companies within the Niagara region, can learn a lot from this company. With this type of agency in place, which can see procurement move quickly, a lot of companies can retool. They can be dual-use and work within what we have laid out in the defence industrial strategy. We do not have to go far from FBT in St. Catharines. Across the street from FBT is Ontario Shipyards. At the moment, it is undergoing a $130-million refit of a Canadian Coast Guard vessel, the Terry Fox. I am sure others in this place may look to a place in southern Ontario and question what I am about to say, but St. Catharines has a strong tradition of shipbuilding. It is one of the industries that it was founded upon. The Welland Canal is older than the railway itself in this country, and St. Catharines was the heart of that. We need to get back to that. With these changes, with speeding things up, I would like to see more development, more opportunities for a shipyard that has been vacant for far too long. We have seen the benefits in Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, with ships being built there and government contracts. With us getting to our NATO commitments, I would like to see that next step happen in St. Catharines. Let me come back to the agency, which will align defence procurement more strategically with Canada's economic and industrial objectives. Every dollar invested in defence is an opportunity to create careers, grow Canadian business and drive innovation in sectors such as aerospace, shipbuilding and advanced manufacturing. By leveraging procurement as a tool for economic development, we will strengthen our domestic industrial base, reduce reliance on external supply chains and position Canadian firms to compete on a global stage. We saw that even in southern Ontario, in Kitchener, with the Canadian military ordering a new service rifle to be in line with our European allies. I believe it was the Danes who ordered tens of thousands of these rifles as well. The opportunity is there. The Prime Minister has worked very hard to build relationships with like-minded allies. To see, even in just one announcement, the benefit to southern Ontario and the supply chains throughout southern Ontario from this defence industrial strategy is a good thing. It is something that I know concerns my colleagues across southern Ontario, with the loss of jobs, especially in the automotive industry. Our approach includes continued investment in dual-purpose infrastructure, projects that serve both our military and the broader Canadian public, ensuring that our defence spending delivers tangible benefits across society. The Defence Investment Agency will ensure earlier and more meaningful engagement between the Canadian Armed Forces and our defence industry. By bringing industry into the conversation at the outset, we will enable a clearer understanding of operational needs, realistic timelines and available technological solutions. This proactive approach will allow Canada to anticipate future requirements and build capacity at the speeds and scale that modern security demands. Finally, the agency will strengthen Canada's alignment with key allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia and France, countries that have already established dedicated procurement bodies to streamline their defence investments. This alignment will make our joint procurement initiatives more efficient and enhance our ability to collaborate within NATO. Our commitments to NATO are clear: We must meet the benchmark of 2% of GDP in defence spending, and we must contribute meaningfully to the alliance's long-term objectives, including the 5% investment pledge by 2035. By reforming the procurement system, we are not only meeting these commitments but also reinforcing Canada's role as a dependable and capable ally. At the same time, this initiative positions Canada to play a leading role in broader multilateral efforts, including Europe's readiness 2030 plan, which seeks to strengthen defence supply chains and industrial co-operation among allied nations. There is no contradiction between sovereignty and co-operation. On the contrary, in an interconnected world, they are mutually reinforcing. By strengthening our domestic capabilities, we enhance our independence, and by aligning with our allies, we amplify our strength. Canada must be ready not only to meet the challenges of today but also to anticipate those of tomorrow. This reform is an important step in that direction. I know that many of my colleagues went to the CANSEC conference in Ottawa to see the business that is happening. I know that the Prime Minister announced a significant investment with Saab that will have some substantial economic benefits, not only within our aerospace industry but beyond, to strengthen those supply chains that have been shocked. Companies concerned that they have no orders on the books will have an opportunity to grow and to meet that new demand, and they will feel safe in the understanding that Canada's government has their back and is willing to move forward and to ensure that industries under attack are protected under the defence industrial strategy.

Madam Speaker, I think we are falling into an old debate in a system where we were not spending enough on defence. We were all concerned about not everyone getting a piece of the pie. We are in a situation now where if we are at 2%, which we are, going to 3.5%, there is an opportunity for the manufacturing sector, not just in Ontario but also in Manitoba. We have heard announcements across the country. The old saying “A rising tide lifts all boats” applies. This is something we can see right now. Though I cannot speak about and have no insider information on what will happen next with our next fighter purchase, I know that it will benefit not only just one area of the country but from coast to coast to coast.

Madam Speaker, St. Catharines has had a General Motors factory in our city for, I believe, about the last century. It is something I do hear about from constituents. It is something they are concerned about. Down the road in Niagara, construction is continuing on a battery separator plant. It will open in 2027 and will be transformative. The number of Chinese automobiles the member is talking about is such a small segment of the market. There has been an increase in production at Honda and Toyota. I know they have suspended plans for further expansion, but their production is strong. We look for more of that in the future. I talked about many of the buy Canada projects. Buy Canada is the Government of Canada's buying. The Government of Canada is not buying the vehicles that the member is talking about. I would be excited to be working with companies like General Motors to build Canada strong.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 26th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27: Vote 1 under House of Commons, Vote 1 under Leaders' Debates Commission, Vote 1 under Office of the Chief Electoral Officer and Vote 1 under Parliamentary Protective Service”. While I am on my feet, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and Standing Order 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 27th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding membership of the committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 27th report later this day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill S-228, following its careful study by the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. At the outset, I want to recognize the important work of the committee. Members heard from 19 witnesses, including advocacy groups, indigenous leaders and legal experts. Their testimony was powerful, grounded in lived experience and essential in ensuring that this legislation reflects the realities of those most affected and the seriousness of the harm we are addressing. Their work has reinforced the urgency of the bill's adoption. Bill S-228 addresses a reality that is both deeply troubling and unfortunately ongoing: the forced and coerced sterilization of indigenous and racialized women, girls and 2SLGBTQI persons in Canada. Survivors have come forward with accounts of being subjected to sterilization procedures without their free and informed consent, sometimes through coercion, sometimes through misinformation, and often at moments of profound vulnerability, including during childbirth or institutional care. These are not isolated incidents. They reflect a broader legacy of systemic discrimination rooted in colonialism, racism and deeply gendered assumptions about who is deemed fit to have children. While some may be tempted to view this as a historical injustice, confined to another era, the evidence heard at committee makes it clear that this harm has not been relegated to the past. It persists. That is why this bill matters. At its core, Bill S-228 is a clarifying measure, but it is no less significant for that reason. It makes explicit what is already implicit in our criminal law: that sterilization procedures carried out without valid consent constitute aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is the most serious form of assault under the Criminal Code. It applies when a person is wounded, maimed or disfigured, or when their life is endangered. Because sterilization procedures inherently involve the alteration of the human body in a permanent and profound way, they fall squarely within this framework when performed without consent. This bill would remove any ambiguity. It would send a clear and unequivocal message: Non-consensual sterilization is not merely inappropriate; it is not merely unethical; it is criminal, and it is among the most serious forms of violence recognized by our law. This bill would not create a new offence. It would not alter the law of consent, and it would not interfere with legitimate medical practice. That distinction is critical. Canada's legal framework already requires that consent be free, informed and given by a person with the capacity to understand the nature and consequence of the medical procedure. Consent obtained through coercion, manipulation or abuse of authority is not valid consent. Bill S-228 would simply clarify how these well-established principles apply in the context of sterilization procedures. It would preserve the right of individuals to make their own reproductive choices, including the choice to undergo sterilization. What it protects is the integrity of that choice. The committee's study also underscored an important reality: Despite existing legal protections, no criminal charges have been laid in Canada in cases involving alleged coerced sterilization. That fact alone raises serious concerns about clarity, accountability and, perhaps more importantly, trust. For many survivors, particularly indigenous women, the absence of legal consequences has contributed to a profound erosion of trust in institutions, such as the health care system, law enforcement and the justice system itself. Bill S-228 is not a complete solution to that broader challenge, but it is an important step. It would provide clarity to police, prosecutors and courts. It would reinforce the seriousness of the offence, and it would signal to survivors that Parliament has heard them. We must recognize that the harm caused by non-consensual sterilization extends far beyond the physical. It is a violation of bodily autonomy. It is an infringement on reproductive rights, and for indigenous communities, it carries deep cultural and intergenerational consequences. The ability to have children is not only a personal matter. It is tied to identity, family and the continuity of community. To deprive someone of that ability without their consent is to inflict harm that reverberates across generations. That is why this bill is also consistent with Canada's broader commitments, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the national action plan to end gender-based violence. Bill S-228 reflects a commitment to address systemic discrimination and to take concrete steps to prevent this harm from occurring in the future. I want to highlight the collaborative nature of this legislation. This bill was introduced in the Senate. I also want to highlight the important work done by members of this place. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this bill.

M r. Speaker, on May 1, 1876, the City of St. Catharines was incorporated. That means 150 years ago, the garden city was born. Over the years, St. Catharines has grown to a vibrant community of nearly 150,000 people. Along the way, we have welcomed communities like Merritton, Louth, Grantham and Port Dalhousie, and yes, we say that right. Every city has its stories. Generations pass, landmarks change and memories fade, but one thing remains constant: the land beneath our feet. That is why the celebration's theme is Our Common Ground. Our land has supported us and carried us forward. It bore the footsteps of first nations people, offered refuge to freedom seekers on the Underground Railroad and gave rise to waterways, vineyards, orchards, industry and gardens that define us today. I invite everyone to join us on Saturday at Montebello Park from 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. as we celebrate this remarkable milestone. While the unusual spelling of our city name may remain a mystery, one thing is certain: Happy birthday, St. Catharines.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to add my voice to Government Motion No. 9, which addresses composition of standing committees of the House of Commons and joint committees. Over the course of this debate, it has been undisputable that committees are microcosms of this place in form and in function, both reflecting party standings in the House and performing the necessary duties to scrutinize legislation, propose solutions and represent the diverse views of Canadians. The granularity of this work being undertaken in committees is what makes us more informed, effective and thoughtful legislators, better equipped to support Canadians. The government has taken a balanced approach to additions to standing committee and joint committee compositions that we are discussing today. This routine motion in response to the changing landscape here in the House would add to the voices currently at committee. I would point members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, which makes it clear on page 819: “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.” There is an undeniable, long-standing principle in Parliament: A party that has a majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees. This is at the core of our Westminster system of government. The motion proposed by the government reflects how things are done in the House of Commons. The numbers on committees ensure that the government has a majority and the chair of the committee does not routinely need to vote to break a tie, because the number in the House means that the Speaker does not routinely need to vote to break a tie. The makeup of the House of Commons has changed since committees were formed almost a year ago. The government has gone from a minority government to a majority. Naturally, this means a change must occur to the makeup of committees to reflect this change. The motion would not put opposition parties in a position to lose representation. Current committee members of both the government and the opposition would remain unaffected and would be able to continue the important work they have undertaken over the course of the last year. The government recognizes the time these members have invested in familiarizing themselves with their respective committee subject matter and in building trusting relationships with stakeholders and members of all political stripes. Do my colleagues across the way not agree that having more voices on standing committees would add to the diverse perspectives being shared during a committee's deliberations? Do they not agree that an additional voice from the Prairies or Atlantic Canada, from rural or urban centres, would better inform our studies, reports and amendments? I have heard my opposition colleagues speak to what they say Canadians voted for in the last election. The message our government was elected on was to build Canada strong. I recall conversations at the door about a year ago being rooted in addressing affordability concerns, managing geopolitical threats and investing in Canada's future. These are the exact issues that committees are expected to undertake. They are a mechanism to further dive into these issues, propose solutions and improve legislation. I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Halifax. Usually I am the one to drop that note on other members' desks. I apologize. I am sure the opposition would much rather hear from the member for Halifax than the member for St. Catharines. We have seen collaboration take place since the start of this Parliament, as the government has thoughtfully considered ideas and supported amendments brought forward by opposition parties. Members of the finance committee studied, in depth, Bill C-15, the 2025 budget bill, and proposed amendments. The government brought forward amendments to address stakeholder concerns and, without hesitation, supported opposition party amendments to provide more security to consumers and ensure guardrails on ministerial power. Even going back to my days in the 42nd Parliament, I did not see a bill go through without amendments by the opposition accepted. This level of collaboration has also been shown on legislation brought forward by private members, as was the case at the public accounts committee when government members proposed reasonable amendments to ensure the scheme and policy objectives of Bill C-230, the creation of a debt forgiveness registry, would work effectively if established. I have heard claims made against Government Motion No. 9 as changing the checks and balances on government. I find this unreasonable for the simple fact that the mechanisms that hold government to account remain unchanged; ministerial appearances before committees, opposition day motions, the study of estimates and question period are just a few examples. On the valuable studies committees undertake and reports they present, if a member feels that their concerns have not been adequately reflected in a report, they have an opportunity to present the House with a supplemental report to ensure their views are on the parliamentary record. Last spring, colleagues on both sides of the aisle welcomed many new faces to our caucuses who were eager to represent their constituents, share ideas and work hard to improve the lives of Canadians. Allowing more members on committees gives our colleagues the opportunities to be better legislators. As my colleagues have previously stated, this is a time of unity, to bring Canadians together, to represent the needs of our communities and to listen to one another so we can build Canada strong. Demonstrating to Canadians that we, as political parties with differing views on matters of policy, can come together, working collaboratively and constructively, is of utmost importance given the challenges we face. We should define ourselves in this time of crisis by the things that unite us, not by those that divide us. This is a critical time in our nation's history, when we will, hopefully, define ourselves not by our partisan interests but rather by how we work together to deliver what the country needs in spite of our partisan interests. We can disagree, but we must rise above pettiness to deliver on our promise to put Canadian interests first. In my speech, I have noted times that we worked together, whether on government legislation or in private members' business. Let these examples be the rule, not the exception. I have listened to the debate for a bit, and I am genuinely surprised. Many of these Conservative members were here in the 41st Parliament, and the things they are proposing right now did not exist then, when the Conservatives held the majority. I believe the previous speaker was a member of Prime Minister Harper's office, and I doubt he was proposing the things in the PMO that he is coming to the House today to deliver. This is how Parliament has worked in this country. The composition of the House has changed, and as such, the committees—

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that in all this criticism, they never stand up in the House of Commons, if they claim that this Parliament is illegitimate, and call for an election at this time. I am curious why this is. I am genuinely curious why, at this point, they question the legitimacy of floor crossings when in the last Parliament they were actively seeking Liberals to cross the floor to them. It was not an issue 18 months ago. Now they are upset that we have formed a majority and that the rules of the House, the traditions of this place and of Westminster Parliament, allow us, and dictate that there should be, a majority on committees. They can heckle. They can shout, scream and pound their fists, but this is the way it has been and the way we hope it is going to be.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that there was a question there. It is time for questions and comments, and it was more of a comment. These members are clutching at their pearls, but there have been Conservative majorities in this country, not only provincially but federally, and they had no problem with the majority on committees being Conservative. They can shout and scream and pound their fists, but they know I am right at the end of the day. We will see what happens at the end of this vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is fundamentally important, as the Prime Minister pointed out. With respect to Isaac Brock, with indigenous support, defending Canada, what was then British North America, against a hostile American threat, we are facing difficult times with our American neighbours. We got voted in, as I said in my speech, on a plan to build Canada strong. Canadians have spoken. They have spoken in the last three by-elections, overwhelmingly, and have confidence in the Prime Minister, confidence in this government and confidence with us moving forward, especially on issues with respect to trade with the United States. This is fundamentally important and something we need to keep going on.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 21st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the order for the second reading of private members' public bills originating in the Senate, and recommended that the items listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

Mr. Speaker, across the world, conflict and instability, particularly in the Middle East and with disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, have put pressure on the global oil supply. Prices are rising. Canadians are feeling it. They are feeling it at the pump, on the grocery bill and in the cost of moving goods across the country. Let me be clear: Canadians are right to be concerned. However, in moments like this, Canadians expect seriousness. They expect leadership grounded in facts, not slogans. They expect a plan that deals with both the immediate pressures they are facing today and the structural challenges we must solve tomorrow. It is exactly what our government is delivering. Let us start with the reality. Canada does not control the global price of oil. We do not control geopolitical conflicts. We do not control disruptions in international shipping lanes. We do not control the decisions of OPEC or other major producers. What we can control, and what we must control, is how we respond. Today, our response is clear: immediate relief for Canadians paired with long-term energy security. Earlier today, the Prime Minister announced that our government will temporarily suspend the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel, from April to Labour Day. That means real savings for Canadians. It means up to 10¢ a litre off gasoline, money that stays in the pockets of Canadians. It means savings every time a parent fills up the car, every time a small business fuels a delivery truck and every time goods move across our country. This is targeted, and it is how we are responding responsibly for Canadians. It recognizes that the price spike Canadians are experiencing is driven by external global factors, not long-term domestic policy. It provides relief without undermining the fiscal stability Canadians depend on. Now let us contrast that with what the Conservatives are proposing. Their motion calls for sweeping permanent changes based on assumptions about oil prices that they simply cannot guarantee. Their entire plan depends on one thing, that global oil prices remain high. We have already seen how quickly those prices can change. Following a ceasefire announcement, prices dropped sharply in a matter of days. The question is simple: Are we going to base national fiscal policy on speculation about global oil markets? That is exactly what the Conservatives are doing. As outlined in the Conservative leader's letter to the Prime Minister, their plan assumes billions in revenue that may never materialize and would commit billions in permanent tax cuts that would leave a hole in our public finances. That is not a serious plan for a serious moment. From a natural resources perspective, the debate is about something bigger than just taxes. It is about energy security. This global crisis has revealed a fundamental truth. Countries that control their energy future are more resilient. Countries that do not are exposed. Canada is fortunate. We are one of the world's great energy nations. We have the fourth-largest proven oil reserves. We are a leading producer of natural gas. We are building major projects in LNG, nuclear, hydro and clean electricity. We are using that strength not just for ourselves but for our allies. Canadian energy exports are rising. The Trans Mountain expansion is moving record volumes. LNG exports are reaching global markets. Canada is playing a key role in stabilizing supply during a volatile period. That is what it means to be an energy superpower. Being an energy superpower also means something else. It means building for the future. While we deal with today's price spike, we must also ensure that Canadians are not exposed again. That is why our government is investing in clean electricity, low-emissions LNG, nuclear energy and the infrastructure that connects our resources to global markets. We are building an energy system that is more resilient, more independent and more affordable over the long term. Let us talk about what the Conservative motion would actually do. It is not just about the excise tax. It proposes eliminating the clean fuel regulations. It proposes scrapping the industrial carbon pricing. These are not minor changes. These are policies that are driving tens of billions of dollars in investment into Canada's energy sector, supporting projects like carbon capture, clean fuels and low-emissions production. Scrapping them would not make Canada stronger, and the Premier of Alberta has said as much. It would make Canada less competitive. It would send a signal to investors that Canada is stepping back from the very policies that are helping us access global markets and create domestic demand for canola and other crops to support cleaner fuels. At a time when our allies are demanding cleaner, more responsible energy, that is a risk we cannot afford to take. There is another consequence that the Conservatives have not addressed: The proposal would have real impacts on municipal infrastructure funding. Fuel tax revenues support communities across the country, helping to build roads, transit systems, water infrastructure and climate-resilient projects. These are not abstract concepts; they are projects Canadians rely on every single day. Undermining that funding without credible replacement would shift costs onto provinces, municipalities and our future taxpayers. What the Conservatives are saying is that they do not care how much property taxes increase for their constituents. They want to have a quick, cheap political win without thinking of the consequences back home. Again, that is not responsible. Our approach is different. We recognize that Canadians need help today, and that is why we are acting to lower costs at the pump. We are doing it in a way that is targeted, temporary and responsible. We are pairing that with a broader plan to strengthen affordability, such as cutting taxes for the middle class, providing support for groceries and essentials, investing in housing, lowering child care costs and promoting stronger competition across key sectors. That is because affordability will not be solved by a single policy. It will be solved by a comprehensive plan. At its core, this debate comes down to a simple choice: Do we respond to global volatility with serious targeted action or with permanent, unfunded promises? Do we build Canada's energy future or do we undermine the very policies that are attracting jobs and investment? Do we offer Canadians real relief today or build resilience tomorrow? Our government has made this choice. We are providing immediate relief to Canadians at the pump. We are building Canada into an energy superpower, and we are doing it in a way that strengthens our economy, supports our workers and ensures that Canadians have the certainty and security they deserve. Canadians understand that we cannot control what happens abroad, but they also understand that we can control how we respond. Today, we are responding with leadership, with responsibility and with a clear plan to build a stronger Canada. For those reasons, I urge all members of this House to reject this motion and support a responsible path forward for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The hon. member gets up to say that we are opposed to developing energy, yet he has been critical of building a pipeline, the Trans Mountain pipeline. I will be honest that at the time I was opposed to it, but Prime Minister Trudeau was right that it needed to get built, because we would be in a much worse position now if that pipeline had not been built. The Conservatives were critical, but at that time we got that pipeline built. Conservatives spent years trying to get oil to tidewater. They were not successful. They tried to ram through projects and violated the rights of people. We are going to get things done, we are going to get things built, and we are going to do it the right way.

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The Conservatives would starve municipalities of funding. We heard in the lead-up to the last election that they saw mayors and city councillors as the enemy. Their leader spent week after week condemning mayors and elected officials as the villains in this country on housing and infrastructure. This just shows that nothing has changed and that the Conservatives would starve them of the money they need for infrastructure. My community in St. Catharines, and every member's community across the country, uses that fund to build roads and bridges, keep the property taxes lower in the community and build necessary infrastructure. The Conservatives would just do away with that and leave them to their own accord. They do not care about property taxes back in their own communities. This is clear, based on this back-of-the-napkin math that they are coming up with on this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I guess that is why they call it “questions and comments”. We can ask a rhetorical question and answer it ourselves before even putting it aside. However, this shows that the Conservatives are against the thing that they are asking for. It boggles the mind that as a government they showed for years that they could not get anything done. Any project they pushed forward was stopped by the courts, stalled and denied. The projects would have violated indigenous rights and gone against premiers at every opportunity. We have heard recently from the Leader of the Opposition that he would do exactly the same thing. No lessons have been learned during their time in opposition. No lessons were learned when the Leader of the Opposition was in cabinet and he saw that all of these energy projects that they were going to ram down the throats of Canadians were denied and stalled. Nothing happened, and nothing has changed in all of this time.

Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet, I want to wish a happy birthday to Wesley Padbury. The Conservative members were excited to ask a question about the notwithstanding clause, the suspending of rights for Canadians. This is something they talk about frequently and is something they would do with religious freedoms and freedoms before the courts. It is shocking that they would come forward to do that. I was wondering if the hon. member could comment on how easy it is for the Conservatives to want to suspend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did a very interesting job skating through his argument about who will stand up and protect the rights of terrorists, sexual offenders and whatnot, which is interesting, because everyone is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think the hon. member made a case about that. At the same time, an hour or so earlier, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock got up and asked why we do not just invoke the notwithstanding clause to suspend rights under these types of provisions. I was wondering if the hon. member could stand up and either defend the member from Peace River or explain why charter rights should be protected, even in cases like this.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of the committees of the House. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence on the 19th report later this day. While I am on my feet, I also have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 20th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, entitled “Becoming a Candidate in an Election: A Review of the Criteria”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the order for the second reading of a private member's public bill originating in the Senate, and recommended that the item listed herein, which it has determined should not be designated non-votable, be considered by the House.

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are laughing about voting against housing for young people. This legislation is about getting housing that is more affordable for Canadians. That is what this legislation would do. The hon. member talked about how the experts are wrong. I guess that is his right, but at the end of the day, the Conservatives have nothing on this file and do not care about young people. It is time to put their money where their mouth is.

Mr. Speaker, I miss my time on the heritage committee with the hon. member for Drummond. At the same time, he is right; we do need to work with the provinces. That is part of the holistic plan. As I said, not everything is in this bill. The member talked about municipalities. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities says that it “welcomes the federal government's Build Canada Homes...initiative as a strong signal of leadership on the housing crisis.” I am sure the Conservatives will mock and laugh again at the experts and getting houses built. Let us not care what the mayors and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities say.