Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her wonderful speech. Like her, I represent a large rural riding. When I was talking to my constituents over the summer, the cost of living came up a lot, as did the cost of gas. The people in my riding understood that the recent spike in gas prices was due to various international factors and global instability. As a federal government, we need to focus on what we can control. We also need to listen to people. This bill extends the suspension of the excise tax. I see it as a measure that meets the needs expressed by the people in my riding. I would like to ask my colleague why it is important to listen to people and take action. We heard about certain issues during the summer, we returned to Parliament, and now, in the first week, we are taking concrete steps to help with the cost of living. I would like to ask my colleague what she thinks of the situation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague mention that, for once, the Conservatives will support a measure that will put money back in Canadians' pockets. However, I cannot help but note some hypocrisy in my colleague's speech. She mentioned that affordability should not be simply a slogan. However, when we look at her voting record, we see that she voted against almost all of the measures that we put in place to help Canadians deal with the cost of living, including the tax cut for over 21 million Canadians, the school food program, which has become permanent, and affordable child care spaces, to name just a few. Does my colleague not see a major discrepancy between her voting record and what she is saying this evening about the importance of affordability? How does she reconcile what she said in her speech with her past actions, with the way she voted in the House?

Mr. Speaker, in her response to my question, my colleague talked about the need for more doing and less talking. However, over the past year and a half, we have implemented meaningful measures. We have made Canada's national school food program permanent. We have lowered taxes for more than 21 million Canadians. That is in addition to all the other measures we implemented in budget 2025 and the economic update. Still, when we rolled out these meaningful measures—not just empty words—to help put more money in Canadians' pockets, my colleague voted against them. I am just trying to square that with what we heard tonight. I completely agree with her that we need to be there for ordinary folks, but how does she reconcile what she said tonight with her voting record?

Mr. Speaker, the content of my Conservative colleagues' speeches will never cease to surprise me, I think, because there seems to be a real disconnect between what they say and reality. The reality is that Canadians expect us to work to make the economy stronger and more resilient. That means diversifying our economic partnerships abroad. We need to maintain a relationship with the United States, but we also need to look at how we can diversify markets elsewhere, including in Europe. That also means implementing affordability measures, like the one we are discussing this evening. It must be a bit strange for my colleague to vote in favour of an affordability measure, since the Conservatives always vote against such measures. This time, they are going to make an exception. I think Canadians can see through the official opposition. The results of the last six by-elections speak for themselves. Canadians see that our plan to make the economy stronger and more resilient is working. Does my colleague agree that Canadians want us to truly work on making the Canadian economy stronger and that we need to stop this type of rhetoric that has no basis in reality?

Mr. Speaker, this evening, the bill we are considering is a straightforward measure. It is about affordability. It is about extending the fuel tax break. It is a measure that will put more money in Canadians' pockets. My colleague did not say much about it in his speech, but earlier, my colleague from Peace River—Westlock said that it was a good bill. He even described extending the fuel tax break as an amazing idea. How does my colleague feel about finally supporting a measure that actually helps with affordability? During this session, can we expect to see him supporting the measures we are putting in place to help Canadians with affordability? Can we expect to see him support what his colleague described as the amazing work our government is doing to help with affordability and to make the economy stronger and more resilient?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to finish this discussion with my colleague. Tonight, we are talking about affordability; we are not discussing all the other points he could have raised in his speech. If affordability is important to him, why has he consistently voted against our measures, whether it be tax cuts for the middle class, Canada's national school food program or all the other measures we have introduced over the last year and a half? Why has he finally decided to support affordability measures this evening when he has been voting against them for the past year and a half?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke of leadership in his speech. Real leadership is taking an interest in the cost of living and introducing a bill to extend the excise tax holiday in the the first week of Parliament's return. Leadership is implementing a range of measures, as we have done since the first day we were elected, to lower taxes for the middle class, make the school food program permanent or implement various employment insurance-related measures, such as temporarily suspending the one-week waiting period. That is the kind of leadership that helps Canadians cope with the cost of living. What is not leadership is talking about affordability in the House and then voting against every single measure when the opportunity arises. I would like to know whether my colleague sees this bill as an example of our government's ongoing leadership in helping Canadians cope with the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague began his remarks by talking about the kind of society we want and what we want for our country's future. On this side of the House, we have a plan that translates into concrete measures aimed at strengthening the Canadian economy and making it more resilient, to ensure we have a stronger Canadian economy that gives us the fiscal capacity to support measures like the one we are debating tonight, that is, extending the suspension of the excise tax. I think it is safe to say that Canadians have repeatedly demonstrated their confidence in our plan for Canada, whether during the last general election or in the six by-elections, including the most recent ones that took place over the summer. I would like to ask my colleague whether the results of the recent by-elections are a sign of the public's confidence in our plan, particularly as it relates to building a stronger economy that meets everyone's needs.

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague shared stories of constituents in his riding having to do with the cost of living. What does he tell people when they ask him, “Why did you vote against a tax cut that could help me if I am in the middle class? Why did you vote against the national school food program for my school-aged children? Why did you vote against affordable child care services for my children? Why did you vote against suspending the one-week waiting period for employment insurance?” When he tells us these stories, I wish I had the full picture. How does my colleague justify these votes to the constituents who come to see him to talk about the cost of living?

Mr. Speaker, this evening, I want to recognize that we are working together to pass this bill. This is a good example of what we can accomplish when we work together, something that we are not used to seeing from the Conservative opposition. I would therefore like to know whether this is a sign of things to come in this fall parliamentary session. Will the Conservatives finally understand that Canadians expect us to work together to help them deal with the cost of living? Will the Conservatives now support the various measures that we are putting in place? Is what we are seeing today a shift in the Conservatives' stance?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is one of the most experienced members of the House in terms of years of service. In fact, she served for nearly a decade on the government side during the Harper years. In her speech, she was quite critical of our government's economic policies, which aim to strengthen the Canadian economy and make it more resilient. Her former leader, Mr. Harper, spoke at our recent economic summit in Toronto about the value of our government's economic policies. I would like to hear her thoughts on Mr. Harper's speech at the recent economic summit in Toronto. I would also like to know how she reconciles her speech tonight with the one Mr. Harper gave in Toronto.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my colleagues back to Parliament. The modern treaty implementation bill has clear support and key partners. Our government evidently wants the bill to be implemented efficiently. According to my colleague's speech, the Bloc Québécois shares that desire. However, there seems to be more hesitation from the official opposition. I would like to ask my colleague whether her party, which is also part of the opposition, will continue to put pressure on the official opposition to ensure that no procedural delays or tactics are used to further delay the passage of this bill. I think it is time to pass it. There are clear expectations from the treaty partners. I would like to hear her thoughts on that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the fact that, through the economic update, we are continuing to implement our action plan for official languages, with $4.1 billion to support the vitality of francophone communities everywhere outside Quebec. There are also various other investments that contribute to the vitality of our francophone communities. I would like to hear what she has to say about the importance of our official languages and the investments we are making to support the vitality of francophone communities.

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party used to call itself the party of law and order. Unfortunately, today, the Conservatives no longer have any credibility on this issue. When the time comes to better protect victims, what do the Conservatives do? They vote against it. When the time comes to combat hate crimes in our communities, they vote against it. That is not to mention all the disinformation they have been spreading on the matter. When the time comes to debate Bill C‑22 to give the authorities the tools they need to fight crime, what do they do? They filibuster. I would like to hear the thoughts of my colleague opposite. What does he think about the fact that his party no longer has any credibility when it comes to keeping our communities safe and getting tough on crime?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. In Canada, no one should feel unsafe because of who they are, their religious practices, or where they gather. However, recently we have seen an increase in hate crimes. As members of Parliament, we cannot stand idly by. We must take action. Bill C-9 introduces a targeted set of reforms to the Criminal Code to protect safe access to community spaces, address hate crimes and clarify the legal definition of hate. Bill C-9 also expands the existing offence of wilful promotion of hatred by recognizing a modern expression of hate: the public display of hateful or terrorist symbols. We thereby recognize that when a person displays certain symbols with the intent to deliberately promote hatred, this constitutes a separate offence. Today, we are focusing specifically on the proposed Senate amendment to add the noose to the list of symbols of hate. The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights has heard from numerous witnesses and organizations who have stated that the noose is a recognized symbol of terror and intimidation against Black people and that it should be treated in the same manner under the new offence relating to hate symbols. I sincerely believe that when people targeted by these symbols courageously come forward to testify before a parliamentary committee, whether in the House of Commons or the Senate, to explain how a symbol is perceived as an instrument of violence, threat, and hatred directed at them, we have a duty to listen to them. The noose is closely associated with the history of racial lynchings that have left their mark on North America. It has been used to terrorize, humiliate and control Black communities for generations by making them feel that they were neither safe in their own communities nor fully accepted within society. Its use against Black people is a form of racial intimidation and a symbol associated with violence and white supremacy. There is nothing ambiguous about it. Displaying it in a workplace, in an educational institution, at a demonstration or elsewhere in the public sphere goes beyond the bounds of legitimate expression. When it is used to target or intimidate Black people, it then symbolizes real acts of persecution, violence and hatred. As a Canadian citizen, I believe that we should all be concerned when such symbols are used to promote hatred against colleagues, friends or members of our communities. Combatting hate is not just an issue for those who are directly affected by it. It is a responsibility shared by society as a whole. Even when we are not personally targeted by hate symbols, we cannot remain silent. As members of Canadian society, we have a duty to strongly condemn behaviours that seek to intimidate, exclude or terrorize some of our fellow Canadians. This goes to the very nature of living together in harmony. Especially when members of our communities are being targeted, being there for one another is what defines us as Canadians. Our diversity is a strength, but it can only thrive in a climate of respect, dignity and security. Last night, I was appalled by the tone of the remarks made by certain Conservative colleagues, in particular those of the member for York—Durham. He downplayed the impact of the use of the noose in Canada, going so far as to say that it was odd to include it in the bill as a symbol of hate. I feel my colleague's remarks are inappropriate and deeply out of place. The MP's comments unfortunately demonstrate a lack of consideration for the experiences of many members of the Black community. Questioning the need to recognize the noose as a hate symbol is akin to downplaying the suffering, fear and trauma that this symbol evokes for those who have historically been targeted by racial violence. These remarks also show disregard for the testimony of many individuals and organizations who have come before parliamentarians to explain the historical and contemporary significance of this symbol. In this context, downplaying its significance sends a worrying message. It gives the impression that the concerns being expressed by the Black community are not being taken seriously. As parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to listen, understand and acknowledge the realities experienced by communities affected by racism in order to build a fairer and more inclusive society. Brushing aside their concerns, as my colleague did last night, or questioning the legitimacy of their experiences does nothing to help build a more inclusive society. On the contrary, it risks trivializing behaviours that have no place in a democracy that respects the dignity of every individual. These comments from the Conservative member are all the more concerning because they ignore the reality experienced by many Black Canadians. Hate crime data that is reported by police shows that Black people remain among the most frequently targeted groups for hate crimes based on race or ethnicity. Behind these statistics are individuals, families and communities that experience the real consequences of racism and intimidation. In this context, it is difficult to understand why some people would choose to downplay the impact of a symbol that is widely recognized as a historical instrument of racial violence. Instead, we should be listening to affected communities and being serious about measures to protect them better. As legislators, we have a responsibility to act seriously, with sensitivity and respect, toward people who are the target of hate crimes. I sincerely hope that my colleague from York—Durham will retract his statement and reconsider what he said last night, because it was completely unacceptable. His statement has no place in the House or in society. In Canada, there is no place for hatred or intimidation based on race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation. We have a collective duty to build a country in which everyone can live, work, learn and practise their religion safely and without fear of being targeted or intimidated. That is why I support the Senate amendment to recognize the noose as a symbol of hate. Adopting the amendment sends a clear message. We have heard the affected communities, we acknowledge their experiences and we refuse to turn a blind eye to hatred. This is how we strengthen our shared way of life and the truly Canadian values of respect, equality and dignity. I will use the last few minutes of my time to say that I am disappointed by the excessive partisanship we have seen in the debate on Bill C‑9. In a debate as serious as this one, a debate about fighting hatred, about the lived experiences of people in our communities, we should be able to set partisanship aside and truly reflect on how to make our communities safer for everyone. We must rise to the occasion. Canadians expect us to elevate the level of debate, to rise above partisan games. Unfortunately, that is not what we have seen from the Conservative side. I urge my colleagues to exercise caution and rigour in the tone and content of their remarks, particularly when it comes to issues as sensitive as combatting hate. Sensationalist slogans and simplistic statements designed to stir up people on social media have no place in such a serious debate. We are here to legislate responsibly, not to polarize public discourse. As lawmakers, we also have a duty to maintain a healthy social climate and to consider the consequences our words may have in the public sphere. Unfortunately, during the debate on Bill C‑9, we also saw a major disinformation campaign circulating, particularly on social media. This campaign was fuelled in part by the remarks made by Conservative members of Parliament. As my colleague mentioned earlier, certain aspects of Bill C‑9 have been completely distorted from reality and have even been used in the Conservative Party's political fundraising activities. I do not believe this is commensurate with the issues before us, and I find it deplorable. Lastly, beyond the issue of hate symbols, Bill C‑9 is an important step forward in a number of ways. For one thing, it includes a new obstruction offence that prohibits obstructing or interfering with lawful access to a building or structure used primarily for religious worship or by an identifiable group. This is indeed a problem. People must be able to enter the place they use for religious worship or gatherings in complete safety. This is fundamental. The bill also proposes a new intimidation offence that would prohibit behaviour meant to intimidate, threaten or frighten persons trying to access a building used primarily by an identifiable group or for religious worship. These measures will make our communities safer for everyone. I am calling on all of my colleagues to support Bill C‑9, now in the final stages of the legislative process, so that it can be implemented and address the very real concerns of our communities.

Mr. Speaker, I was also in the House yesterday at that late hour. I actually do think that condemning it is entirely legitimate. We cannot remain silent when people make comments that minimize the repercussions that certain symbols can have on targeted communities. I was not planning on speaking to Bill C-9 today, but after listening to my colleague, I wrote my speech this morning to call out those kinds of remarks. I also wanted to point out that witnesses appearing before the Senate explained why the noose should be included as a hate symbol in the bill. Minimizing these repercussions within the Parliament of Canada could have an impact on people listening to us. I found that—

Mr. Speaker, in Canada, no one should feel threatened or unsafe because of who they are, what religion they practise, or where they gather. This is essential. Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism and homophobia have no place in Canada. For the sake of people who are victims of hateful behaviour, we have a duty to ensure that communities are safe for everyone. Bill C-9 includes several proposals that represent a significant step forward in ensuring that everyone, no matter who they are, can live in safe communities in Canada. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill because it is essential.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I think that, as Canadian citizens, we all need to take notice when symbols are used to promote hate. We do not need to be personally affected. As members of Canadian society, we are all affected when our colleagues, friends or community members are the target of hateful behaviour. Last night, we heard a Conservative member downplay the symbolic impact of the noose in Canada. He even said that it was odd to include it as a hate symbol in the bill. I think those remarks are completely out of place. That is why I rose in the House this morning to speak out against these remarks and to remind members about the importance of Bill C‑9.

Mr. Speaker, I would rather hear my colleague tell me whether she supports the remarks made by her colleague from York—Durham. Yesterday, he made comments that downplayed the impact of the noose in Canada. He said it was odd to include it as a hate symbol. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. I would be very interested in hearing from more Conservative members and finding out what their positions are with respect to what their colleague said last night.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, as legislators, we need to be mindful of the impact that our words can have in the public arena and we must also ensure that what we say does not contribute to disinformation and does not harm certain groups that we wish to protect. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the importance of being thorough and factual when debating a bill as important as Bill C‑9.

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, 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, 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.

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, there are things for all of Canada, including Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. I am thinking of the investments in small ports, which is something many of our colleagues have long been calling for. This will benefit British Columbia, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces alike. Fisheries are an important sector of our economy. We are making historic investments. That is just one example among many.

Mr. Speaker, no one should feel unsafe because of who they are, what religion they practise or where they worship. Unfortunately, in Canada, we have seen a rise in hate crimes, and several organizations, including human rights groups, are calling on us to take action. Faced with such a situation, I believe the public expects us to raise the standard of the debate and, as parliamentarians, to work together. I would therefore like to ask my colleague to explain why, as parliamentarians, we should set partisanship aside in such an important debate to ensure that we can pass this significant piece of legislation before Parliament rises for the summer.

Mr. Speaker, last year, in our election platform, we wrote: “A strong Canada means strong protections in our communities and a Criminal Code which is responsive to emerging issues and protects victims of crime and keeps our kids safe.” Since then, we have introduced several bills: Bill C‑14 makes it harder to get bail and imposes harsher penalties on criminals, particularly violent and repeat offenders; Bill C‑16 better protects victims of crime; and Bill C‑22 gives law enforcement access to the tools they need, particularly to fight crimes committed using modern technology. We have also introduced legislation to strengthen security at our borders. I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about the work we have done over the past year to fulfill the campaign promises we made to make our communities safer.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Ponoka—Didsbury In Canada, we are privileged to have a strong and internationally recognized electoral system. Canadian democracy is among the most stable and resilient in the world, and the Canada Elections Act is recognized for its robust safeguards, strict rules on political financing and high standards of transparency. In addition to this solid framework, the strength of our electoral system also lies in its ability to evolve. The rules that protect our elections must adapt to the realities of our time. Today, as we can see throughout the world, democracies face growing threats, whether through the malicious use of technology, foreign interference, disinformation or other attempts to undermine public confidence in democratic processes. To maintain Canadians' confidence in the integrity of our elections, it is therefore essential to continue strengthening the mechanisms that protect our democratic process. Public trust is the very foundation of democratic stability, and we must strive to preserve and strengthen that confidence at all times. That is why Bill C-25 proposes several practical measures to address current challenges, including addressing the problem of excessively long ballots, banning deepfakes of election officials, further protecting the integrity of leadership and nomination races, enhancing measures to prevent foreign interference, strengthening the enforcement of the act and improving federal requirements for the protection of personal information by federal political parties. These amendments did not come out of nowhere. They are well reasoned and based on recommendations made by experts during the public inquiry into foreign interference in federal electoral processes and democratic institutions, as well as by the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections. Over the next several minutes, I am going to review some of the measures set out in this bill and try to explain why I think they are important and why we should support them. The bill contains measures that seek to prevent excessively long ballots. We will achieve that by allowing voters to sign only one candidate nomination form per riding and by requiring each candidate in a riding to have their own official agent. Why are we doing that? It is because, over the past few years, we have seen a group of activists disrupting elections. Dozens of candidates in one riding had the same official agent and their nomination forms were signed by the same people. In some cases, we ended up with dozens of nominations for people who had no real intention of participating in the democratic process and who were really only trying to disrupt the democratic process that we want to protect. Let me give a few examples. In the last election in Terrebonne, nearly 40 out of 48 candidates were people who had no real intention of campaigning. As a result, instead of a normal ballot, we ended up with a blank ballot. In Battle River—Crowfoot, 200 out of 214 candidates were not really serious ones. In LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, during a by-election two years ago, we ended up with 91 candidates and a ballot that was a metre long. This has real consequences because it makes it harder for some people to participate. When voters are given a blank ballot and there are people who struggle with literacy or have difficulty writing, it makes it harder for them to participate in this democratic process. It shows a lack of respect for these voters. It also shows a lack of consideration for well-intentioned candidates who want to represent their community. I believe these changes strike the right balance between preventing candidacies intended solely to disrupt the elections and ensuring that serious candidates are allowed to run. By serious candidates, I am referring not only to those representing the major political parties in the House, but also, of course, to independent candidates who are genuinely committed to their communities and wish to represent them, as well as candidates from smaller political parties. The rules will not prevent this type of candidacy, since people will only need to have a single agent and collect the required number of signatures. With these changes, I think we have struck a good balance that will prevent excessively long ballots while still allowing serious candidates to run in elections. The bill also provides for various safeguards, particularly against the malicious use of new technologies in elections. As we know, various technologies are emerging, including artificial intelligence, and it is becoming increasingly easy to impersonate people online. For example, with AI, people can create videos in which they pretend to be someone else. People can be made to say things that they never actually said. In the context of an election, that can be dangerous and highly problematic. Imagine a candidate in an election. Someone makes a video in which the candidate appears to say all sorts of nonsense, and then posts it on social media. People who see that video might decide not to vote for that candidate. Someone could also make a fake video to impersonate an election official. For example, someone could impersonate the Chief Electoral Officer and give false information about the location of the polling station, the date of the election or the instructions to follow in order to vote. That could undermine the democratic process. That is why we are going to ban deepfakes. We will also strengthen safeguards for the use of IT systems in elections. We will tighten the rules on hacking or tampering with IT systems and databases with the aim of disrupting an election. As has already been mentioned, the issues are changing, and technologies are evolving. It is important that our regulatory framework keep pace and reflect the times we are in. We will also put stricter rules in place regarding political financing. Canada has one of the strongest political financing systems in the world. Since we are always looking to improve, we are going to introduce certain new rules to strengthen the system, particularly with regard to preventing foreign interference. This is an issue that has garnered significant attention in recent years. There was a commission on the subject. We have also seen several democracies around the world face foreign interference issues. We therefore want to close all possible avenues for foreign financing that could interfere with our democratic processes in Canada. For example, we will prevent political parties from accepting anonymous or untraceable contributions. This includes, for example, contributions made using cryptocurrency, prepaid cards or other forms of prepaid payment. It is not possible to clearly identify who is behind these contributions. We want to prevent foreign agents from making contributions using cryptocurrency or other forms of unidentified payment, for example. We will also prevent third parties, organizations, businesses, unions, or citizens who are not candidates, from organizing regulated political or election-related activities, such as election advertising or partisan activities, and accepting untraceable contributions. That way, it will not be possible to circumvent the rules. For example, cryptocurrencies cannot be used to fund an organization that would then finance partisan activities. We are shutting down those avenues as well. We will explicitly prohibit foreign actors from funding regulated activities, such as partisan activities or election advertising, carried out through third parties in Canada. These contributions must come exclusively from Canadian citizens or permanent residents. In our democracy, there are other key moments besides general elections. One example is leadership races within political parties. These can have a major impact on our democracy. Consider the leadership races to elect the new leader of the official opposition or the next prime minister. These are events that have tangible consequences. Nomination contests also come to mind. When several candidates in a riding want to stand for the same party, a nomination contest is arranged. These processes are also watershed moments in our democratic system, and we are going to strengthen the rules to better protect them. In fact, a number of rules that already apply to general elections will now apply to leadership campaigns and nomination contests. I am referring to rules about preventing foreign influence. For example, third parties will not be able to accept foreign funds to arrange nomination race activities. Other rules relate to the prevention of intimidation, bribery and identity theft. All of these procedures, already in use for general elections, will also apply to leadership campaigns and nomination contests. Through these carefully crafted measures, all based on assessments and consultations, we will strengthen our democratic system which, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, is already very strong. I believe that these changes will help maintain Canadians' trust in our democratic institutions. Accomplishing this work is essential. I think most of my colleagues in the House share that opinion, and I look forward to seeing Bill C-25 receive royal assent.

Canada's political financing system is among the strongest in the world. When we compare ourselves to other democracies, we see that there are already several mechanisms in place to ensure that funding actually comes from Canadian citizens. We will close off the various avenues that could allow for foreign influence. Contribution limits are already in place. Canadian citizens have to be the ones contributing to political parties. We have a rigorous framework. Bill C-25, which is based on various recommendations from experts, will allow us to make this framework even more rigorous in order to ensure the integrity of our elections.

Mr. Speaker, maintaining trust in our democratic institutions is essential. We have a robust electoral system and framework in Canada, but to keep it strong, we need to adapt it to the challenges of our time. I believe that by working together in the House, we will be able to maintain trust in our democratic institutions and make the necessary changes. As we are seeing in other parts of the world, some democracies are facing challenges. There are instances of abuse and situations where the public is losing confidence in its democratic institutions, which has serious consequences. That is why I believe that in Canada, where trust remains high, we must continue to work to preserve it by strengthening our democratic institutions and passing Bill C-25.

Mr. Speaker, there are already measures in place to protect the integrity of the election itself. When someone runs as a candidate or raises money for a political association, the contributions are registered and certain information must be provided. There is already a framework in place for that. That said, some situations, not necessarily at the federal level, that the media have reported on have led us to propose amendments to further strengthen our electoral system. My colleague talked about nomination contests and leadership races. Several provisions that currently apply to general elections under the Canada Elections Act did not apply to leadership races or nomination contests. Therefore, it is not just this specific example that is being addressed; a whole series of measures will now apply to nomination contests and leadership races. As I mentioned in my speech, I think it was essential to take action. General elections are obviously important moments in our democracy, but so are nomination contests and leadership races. These events have real consequences, particularly for the composition of the House. I think that taking some of the measures already set out in the Canada Elections Act and applying them to these other important moments in our democracy is a good decision.

Mr. Speaker, today's motion is on a serious topic. However, it is written in a very unserious way. As we know, the United States has fundamentally changed its approach to trade with countries around the world, not just with Canada. However, given our geographic proximity to the United States and given the fact that it is our main trading partner, this tariff dispute, which we did not initiate, is having specific repercussions on the Canadian economy, our workers and our businesses. At the same time, conflicts around the world, particularly in the Middle East and Europe, are having significant impacts on supply chains, which in turn affect the global economy. In light of today's challenges, Canadians do not need political theatrics. They need a serious plan to strengthen our economy and make it more resilient. In last year's general election, Canadians had a choice between a team offering empty slogans and divisive politics, and a team with a plan to strengthen our economy. That is exactly what they chose. Since our election, we have been working to diversify the Canadian economy, facilitate the implementation of major projects of national interest, strengthen domestic demand, and support our workers and businesses. When we look at the motion tabled today, it is clear that the official opposition is not taking the current challenges seriously enough. Once again, it is presenting us with a motion that seems designed more to fuel social media content and generate sound bites than to propose concrete solutions and work with us for the benefit of the Canadian public. I can list a few examples to illustrate our work and the results we are achieving. When it comes to economic diversification, we have been working for over a year to strengthen our trade partnerships around the world. This enables our businesses to access new markets and, at the same time, attract foreign investment to Canada. In fact, over the last 12 months, we have made significant progress in this regard. We have signed more than 20 new economic and defence partnerships and secured nearly $97 billion in foreign investment commitment. These are concrete results. They have an impact on the Canadian economy as well as on the ground, in our ridings. For example, agriculture is an important sector of the economy in Madawaska—Restigouche, where many farmers grow potatoes. The new agreement with Mexico will give Canadian potato farmers access to a market of over 130 million consumers. I have talked to business owners in my riding about this, and they are very excited about the benefits of this new agreement. That is how we build a strong economy: by providing new markets and new opportunities for Canadian businesses. I also want to mention that, in our work to strengthen the Canadian economy, we are also looking to develop new sectors and build capacity in areas where we may be less competitive right now. I will use the commercial space industry as an example. Right now, Canada is the only G7 country without sovereign space launch capabilities. That means that our country, our businesses and our institutions have to rely on foreign countries, particularly the United States, to launch their satellites into orbit. This reliance has real-world consequences. It is diverting investment to other countries. Naturally, since we lack sovereign space launch capabilities, investors turn to other countries. This leads to costly delays for our companies, since they need to launch their satellites through other countries. In addition, our critical infrastructure is at the mercy of decisions that are beyond our control. In an increasingly uncertain and competitive world, Canada can no longer rely on others to guarantee its access to space. That is why we introduced a bill on Canadian space launches. This legislation will be a real game-changer by establishing the framework needed to build Canada's own space launch capabilities. The idea is to boost Canada's commercial space launch industry. These changes will have real benefits for the Canadian economy. They will help develop a new commercial space industry in Canada and create numerous opportunities, particularly in the telecommunications sector. This is a particularly promising area. We often hear about connectivity problems in rural areas. Certain emerging technologies like low-earth orbit satellites show a lot of potential for improving connectivity in regions that are currently underserved by cellular networks. However, if we want a seat at the table, we need to have the capacity to develop these technologies in Canada and then be able to launch our own satellites. This also opens up all sorts of interesting opportunities in navigation and natural resource development in remote regions, as well as in the defence sector. This will also help reduce costly delays for Canadian businesses. We also expect it to attract billions of dollars in investment to Canada. In fact, since the announcement of this bill, several Canadian and foreign space launch companies, as well as foreign governments, have approached our government to signal interest in doing business in Canada for satellite launches. This is creating new partnership opportunities with our NATO allies and strengthening Canadian sovereignty. It is a concrete example of how our plan to strengthen the economy also helps strengthen our defence capabilities and our sovereignty. Moreover, as a member from an Atlantic riding, I am pleased to note that this potential is particularly significant in the Atlantic provinces, where several spaceports are under development, including the Maritime Launch Services spaceport in Nova Scotia and NordSpace's Atlantic Spaceport Complex in Newfoundland and Labrador. When we talk about investments that will strengthen the domestic market, when we talk about investing in infrastructure, building housing and delivering major projects of national interest, we have to start by investing in our workforce and our workers. In last month's economic update, we announced a plan to increase the number of workers in the country's Red Seal trades. For starters, apprentices attending technical training can get up to $400 in financial support per week—$16,000 per year—plus a $5,000 bonus when they obtain their certification. We want to give them a financial incentive to help them complete their training from A to Z. We will also provide financial support to small and medium-sized businesses that offer on-the-job training because apprentices have to accumulate a certain number of hours to get certified. Specifically, we will provide up to $10,000 in wage subsidies to small and medium-sized businesses that take on apprentices. This is an effective way to increase the number of welders, electricians, plumbers and carpenters, to name just a few. These workers are essential to achieving our ambitious goal to build more in Canada. When we talk about providing employment opportunities, we also need to talk about youth. In budget 2025, we announced increased funding for the Canada summer jobs program. In my riding, it amounts to an investment of over $1.5 million this summer to support more than 400 jobs. These jobs provide practical work experience for young people in Madawaska—Restigouche. They will have an opportunity to work for community organizations, municipalities, day camps, the construction sector or SMEs. This wide range of employment opportunities might not have been available without this funding. For employers, SMEs, community organizations and municipalities, this is a game-changer. Over the past few weeks, I have called over 200 different employers in my riding to let them know the good news that they are going to receive funding this summer through this program. Based on the feedback I received, the program is making a real difference to them. I would like to take this opportunity to wish all the young people in my region who get jobs through the Canada summer jobs program a terrific summer. When we talk about building a stronger Canadian economy, we must also ensure that we build a fair and equitable system and that we are there for those who need it most. That is why all our efforts to strengthen the Canadian economy are accompanied by a social safety net. I am thinking of all the programs we have put in place over the years, including the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit, the Canadian dental care plan, the affordable child care programs and the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. These programs make a huge difference to those who need them most. Unfortunately, when the official opposition is presented with measures that genuinely help people, their instinct is usually to oppose them. In closing, I think that we can see a contrast between this side of the House and the other side. The motion that is before us today is a joke. It was written in such a way that it cannot be supported. It seems to have been designed to generate sound bites for social media. It proposes very little in the way of concrete measures. On our side of the House, we do not let ourselves get distracted by this sort of grandstanding. From day one, we have remained focused on our work. Canadians gave us a clear mandate: to strengthen the Canadian economy and make it more resilient. That is what we are doing to deliver the results the public expects.

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to reread all the opposition motions that have been put forward in the past year. When it comes to the Conservatives, there is rarely anything substantive. It is always couched in hyperbole and exaggeration. There is little substance in their motions, and criticism comes easily. They are drafted in such a way that it is clear they cannot be supported. Personally, I would like to see more substance and more solutions in Conservative opposition day motions. We were talking about results, and we want results. Canada is expected to have the second-strongest growth in the G7 this year. Exports to non-U.S. markets are expected to double over the next decade. Foreign direct investment in Canada is up. We have signed more than 20 trade and partnership agreements around the world. These are concrete results that are making a real difference for the people we represent.

Mr. Speaker, in our most recent economic update, we announced a funding extension for the pilot project providing five additional weeks of benefits in 13 economic regions, including the two regions in my riding. I believe my colleague's riding is also included in this pilot project. This will provide five additional weeks of regular EI benefits to help bridge what is commonly referred to as the “spring gap”. This is in addition to other measures we have implemented, such as eliminating the one-week waiting period for EI benefits.

Mr. Speaker, our federal funding covered a substantial portion of the capital costs of providing a public transit service that is truly tailored to rural regional realities. FlexGo is providing affordable service that meets the needs of our seniors, workers and post-secondary students. Since this service was launched, it has made a huge difference on the ground and in people's lives. This is an investment that is contributing to the economic vitality of our communities while providing an essential service for people who may not have any other way to get around. It has been a resounding success from the start. Ridership has been even higher than predicted. This is a concrete example of how we are contributing to our rural regions.

Madam Speaker, we are debating the second implementation bill of the 2025 budget, which includes an investment of more than half a billion dollars in Canadian creators and the cultural economy. This investment demonstrates that arts and culture are a priority for us. We talk about building Canada strong, and arts and culture, along with the entire cultural sector, are a cornerstone of what building Canada strong means to us. I want to ask the minister how the cultural community has responded to this investment and why it is important to make such an investment at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the second budget implementation act. The core of this bill reflects our intention to build Canada strong. I thought I would use the next few minutes to talk a little about what we mean by “building Canada strong”. First of all, we mean building a strong Canadian economy. From day one, we have focused on making the Canadian economy stronger and more resilient. Although we are facing a tariff war that we never asked for, we have to act first and foremost to support the sectors and workers that are most affected. I am thinking of the steel, aluminum, auto and lumber sectors. My riding offers some concrete examples. The first announcement related to the strategic response fund was made in Madawaska—Restigouche and involved a business based in Clair, operating in the steel sector. The funds are intended to support the hardest-hit sectors to help them maintain operations and retool during challenging times. I am also thinking about everything we have done to support the softwood lumber sector, which is particularly important for the economy in my riding. In particular, I am thinking about access to loan guarantees to facilitate quick access to liquidity when times are tough, as well as various measures that help the industry adapt, innovate and transform. In fact, there is a softwood lumber task force, in which New Brunswick is represented, of course. In addition to this immediate work, we are also working hard to support our SMEs, which are the backbone of the Canadian economy. I am thinking in particular about all the programs to support innovation and encourage productivity gains. Through budget 2025, we put in place a suite of measures called investment super-deductions, such as immediate expensing and other forms of accelerated depreciation. These measures send a clear message: The time to invest in Canada is now. In particular, these measures help businesses cover the cost of buying machinery, new technologies and various types of equipment so they can increase productivity and innovate. There is also all the work we are doing to improve and streamline our scientific research and experimental development tax incentive program. In fact, I have visited companies in my riding that are benefiting from this program and are eager to see the results of the improvements we are currently making to it. There is also all the work we need to do to diversify the Canadian economy. Last year, in just 11 months, some 20 agreements were signed with countries around the world. This means new markets are opening up for Canadian businesses. It also means we will attract investment to Canada. This is already yielding meaningful results: a substantial increase in the value of Canadian goods exported to other regions of the world, outside the United States. I can think of a tangible example from my riding. The agreement we signed with Mexico will, among other things, allow potatoes to be exported to the Mexican market both for processing and for consumption. This means that our local potato farmers will gain access to a market of over 130 million people. I have spoken with several potato farmers, and I must say they certainly welcomed the news. In addition to the work we are doing to develop new trade ties around the world, we are also focusing on building a strong domestic market. That is an important pillar of our strategy to make Canada's economy more resilient. Take, for example, all of the measures that we have put in place to remove the interprovincial trade barriers that fall under federal jurisdiction, or our “buy Canadian” policy, which sends a clear message: The government wants us to be our own best customer. I am also thinking of the various investment policies that stimulate domestic demand. I am thinking of housing, Canada's defence industrial strategy and infrastructure. We want to get Canadian businesses and workers involved and use Canadian products on these major projects to increase domestic demand and strengthen Canada's economy. When we talk about building Canada strong, we are also talking about safe communities. Thanks to our ambitious legislative agenda, practical measures have already been introduced in the House. I am thinking of Bill C-14, which would make it harder for offenders to get bail and would provide for tougher sentences for the most dangerous criminals, particularly violent and repeat offenders. There is also Bill C-16, which is about offering better protection for victims of crime, such as victims of intimate partner violence, and protecting children from online predators. In addition to introducing these legislative measures, we are also making significant investments in prevention, because that is key to ensuring safe communities. Here is a very recent and specific example related to the national crime prevention strategy. I had the pleasure of announcing over $560,000 in federal funding to help the Northwest Regional Service Commission implement the Planet Youth Northwest program. Through this program, partners like the regional service commission, municipalities, the public health department, schools and community stakeholders will develop a range of activities to help reduce youth substance use, which is recognized as a factor that can lead to delinquent behaviour. They will also work to strengthen youth mental health and provide positive youth engagement experiences in their community. Planet Youth is based on an Icelandic model. It will be rolled out and adapted to local realities in northwestern New Brunswick. It is also based on the ongoing collection of evidence-based data to ensure that the services and activities put in place truly meet the needs of our young people. As an MP, I can say that it is always a pleasure to announce funding in my region, especially when it supports young people. When we talk about building Canada strong, as I often say, that also means having strong rural communities. Our rural regions are an integral part of our country. It is important that the programs we implement, including the ones targeting innovation, also benefit businesses in rural areas. I am thinking in particular of all the work done by our regional economic development agencies, such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, including through the regional economic growth through innovation program. In recent weeks, I was pleased to announce more than $210,000 in federal funding for the Charlo Salmonid Enhancement Centre. This investment will support the drilling of a new artesian well, as well as the acquisition of an industrial fish grader that will help manage the growth of juvenile fish stocks. This type of investment will help solidify the centre's position within New Brunswick's aquaculture supply chain. It also contributes to the economic vitality of my region, particularly by helping to preserve good jobs. This centre has been operating in the Restigouche area since 1938, helping to revitalize fish stocks in New Brunswick's waterways; that is nearly 90 years of activity. As an MP, I feel it is important to give these institutions—which are vital to our economy and our local communities—the means to continue operating in the long term. This investment will ensure the centre's stability. In the context of climate change, it will also give the centre access to groundwater sources. There was a problem with access to water, and this investment will help resolve it. As well as being a project that contributes to the economy, it is also in line with the new nature strategies, as it will help to better protect our natural ecosystems, particularly through the revitalization of fish stocks. When we talk about building Canada strong, that also means supporting our community organizations, which are making a real difference on the ground. I am thinking in particular of organizations like the Acanthus Gallery in Grand Falls, which recently celebrated its 10th anniversary. I attended an event to mark the occasion and took the opportunity to announce $25,000 in funding. It is not always the largest amounts that make a difference, but these funds help our organizations meet their needs and continue contributing to the vitality of our communities. Over the past decade, the Acanthus Gallery has become a key arts and culture hub in Grand Falls. It is a popular destination for both local residents and visitors. It showcases local artists as well as artists from outside the region who come to exhibit there. Thanks to the grant that was recently announced, pottery classes will now be offered in the Grand Falls area. These are some of the measures we are implementing to strengthen our social fabric and support our community organizations. When I talk about strengthening the socio-cultural vitality of our communities, that also means supporting our festivals. Summer is just around the corner, and I can tell the House that there will be no shortage of things to do in Madawaska—Restigouche. We have volunteers who are deeply committed to the vitality of our communities and are working hard to put together a great summer of programming. I am very pleased that our government is investing to support these initiatives. To give a few examples, I am thinking in particular of the financial support we provide to the Campbellton Salmon Festival, the Saint-Quentin Western Festival, the Grand Falls Potato Festival, the Rendez-Vous des Artistes de Saint-Léonard, and the Sortie branchée en Acadie, which takes place at the Botanical Garden in Saint-Jacques. All these different types of investments send a clear message that the socio-cultural vitality of our communities is very much a priority for us. I appreciate having the opportunity to expand a bit on what we mean when we talk about building Canada strong.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, since day one, we have been focusing on strengthening the Canadian economy. We did not ask for this tariff dispute, but we are not standing idly by. Since the United States is our largest trading partner, this dispute has had a major impact on our economy, our businesses and our workers, but we are working to diversify our economy. We have signed over 20 agreements, and that is producing real results. I would invite my colleague to come talk to potato farmers in my riding who are seeing real economic benefits from these agreements. I am also thinking of the support that we are giving to the hardest-hit businesses, including those in the steel and softwood lumber industries. Once again, I would invite the member to come talk to businesses that have received this support, which has enabled them to maintain their operations. These businesses see the efforts that we are making to boost innovation and enhance their productivity gains through a variety of programs.

Mr. Speaker, my esteemed colleague is welcome to visit Madawaska—Restigouche. There are indeed berry wine producers there. In fact, one of the wines served at the Parliamentary restaurant comes from my riding and is made from berries grown in my riding. Over the past month, we announced, among other things, that we would be extending the cap on alcohol excise duties. Various discussions are ongoing. I would like to thank my colleague for her commitment to this issue. It would certainly be worthwhile for us to continue discussing this matter together.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with my colleague in our rural caucus, which is made up of MPs who are committed to the development of our rural regions. For us, it is clear: Building Canada strong means building strong rural regions. It means programs tailored to life in rural areas. I am thinking of the rural transit solutions fund. Last fall, I announced an investment of over $700,000 in my riding to implement a public transit system that truly responds to the needs of rural areas. It has been a tremendous success. This has changed many people's lives. It makes it easier for them to get to work and school or to travel around the riding at very little cost. Building strong rural regions also involves raising issues that are important to them. I am thinking in particular of cellular connectivity and the bill introduced by our colleague from Compton—Stanstead on spectrum issues to improve cellular connectivity in Canada. There are a whole range of initiatives that my colleague and I, along with other members from rural Canada, are committed to working on to build strong rural regions for a strong Canada.

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I feel privileged to rise to speak to this important bill. This is a compassionate bill that will add more humanity to the employment insurance regime, particularly for grieving parents. As I mentioned, it is an honour to rise in support of the amendments that have been presented to facilitate the passage of Bill C-222, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code with regard to the death of a child. First of all, I would like to thank the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Burnaby North—Seymour. He deserves immense credit for his work in support of grieving parents. I also want to thank all of my colleagues who helped shape this bill, as well as the witnesses who testified in committee on this very sensitive subject. There is nothing more devastating for parents and a family than the loss of a child. It is, of course, an ordeal that causes deep and lasting pain. According to mental health professionals, parental grief is one of the most intense and persistent forms of grief. The death of a child is a tragedy that affects many Canadian families every year. Data show that, in 2024, approximately 3,100 children under the age of 19 died in Canada. Of those children, 1,661 were infants who died before their first birthday and 1,210 were infants who died within their first month of life. That means that, every year, approximately 1,600 Canadian families experience the unthinkable loss of a child while they are still receiving EI parental benefits. Research shows that returning to work after the death of a child can be difficult and takes time. Dealing with administrative institutions can also add to the emotional burden. This burden can become even heavier when the bereaved parent is no longer eligible for the income support measures available under the EI program. It goes without saying that work and financial considerations are not the priority for these parents while they are going through an extremely difficult time. Having to deal with various administrative procedures and worry about their job security or financial situation adds an unnecessary burden to their emotional distress. Some parents who return to work quickly may experience what is known as presenteeism: They are physically present at work but unable to participate fully due to their emotional and psychological state. No law can alleviate such grief, but our federal system—in particular EI and the protections provided by the Canada Labour Code—can at least ensure that bereaved parents have swift access to the support they need, when they need it most. That is what compassion looks like. At present, EI parental benefits end as soon as the claimant's child dies. In its current form, Bill C-222 will allow parents who lose a newborn or an adopted child to keep receiving parental benefits after their child's death. The bill would also amend the Canada Labour Code so that employees who work in the federally regulated private sector and are on parental leave can continue to take that leave even if their child dies during the leave period that was initially granted. For now, however, unless the claimant contacts Service Canada within a week of their child's death, they begin accumulating a debt to the Canada Revenue Agency. Bereaved parents can also apply for EI sickness benefits, but they are then required to check in with Service Canada every two weeks to confirm that their benefits are still needed. Again, this creates an unnecessary burden at a difficult time. It is easy to see how hard this process can be for parents still grieving the loss of their child. The current process lacks compassion and needs to be changed to ease some of the burden these parents face. The government wants to ensure that the parental leave provisions meet the needs of bereaved parents in a fair, reasonable and compassionate way. That is the spirit in which the amendments to Bill C-222 are being proposed today. These amendments are intended to strengthen the proposed bereavement and EI benefits for parents who are nearing the end of their parental leave. The amendments will help ensure that the bill actually meets parents' real needs. The proposed changes also make consequential amendments to the leave provisions in the Canada Labour Code to align them with the proposed changes to EI parental benefits for bereaved parents. Today's topic is an emotional one, but for the purposes of debate, I will also focus on a few technical details related to the proposed amendments to fully understand the scope of what we are discussing today. I want to take a few moments to talk about some of them. The amendments to Bill C‑222 propose that EI parental benefits continue to be paid for a maximum number of weeks after the death of a child, up to 40 weeks for parents who share standard parental benefits and up to 69 weeks for parents who share extended parental benefits. By allowing EI parental benefits to continue to be paid without any additional administrative burden, these amendments would help ensure ongoing support during a time of great emotional distress. For eligible parents who have already used almost all of their weeks of benefits at the time of their child's death, Bill C-222, as amended, would guarantee every eligible parent up to five additional weeks of benefits in the form of bereavement support. This measure will apply no matter which parental benefit option the claimant chose, whether standard or extended parental benefits. These additional weeks of EI parental benefits would be paid at the same income replacement rate as the option they chose initially. For example, if the claimant chose the extended parental benefits option at 33% of their average weekly insurable earnings, that rate would continue to apply for the remaining weeks and for the additional weeks of bereavement support. Under the proposed amendments, parents must inform the Canada Employment Insurance Commission if they want to add the additional weeks of bereavement support to their benefits. However, given the heavy emotional burden this would place on parents at a time of deep grief, a regulatory authority will be established to set up a simple and compassionate process that grieving parents can use to notify the commission. Bill-222 would also ensure that employees subject to the Canada Labour Code are entitled to the remaining weeks of parental leave that they would have been entitled to had the child not died. This proposed amendment would allow employees in the federally regulated private sector to benefit from protected parental leave while receiving EI parental benefits. Parents could also take advantage of the existing eight-week bereavement leave provided in the event of the death of a child, if they are nearing the end of their parental leave and wish to claim additional weeks of EI benefits. In closing, I want to reiterate that the loss of a child is a profound and tragic event that no Canadian parent should have to experience. These parents deserve our full support, not administrative hurdles, in their darkest moments. Our government is committed to ensuring that families facing this tragic situation get the support they need. There is no doubt that Bill C-222, as amended, would promote a compassionate and flexible approach for parents facing the unthinkable, allowing bereaved parents to remain eligible for parental benefits even after their loss, thereby ensuring continuity, compassion and stability. More importantly, Bill C-222 restores compassion and dignity to families during their darkest hours. It recognizes that no parent should have to navigate confusing red tape or repeatedly prove their loss in order to access the support they are already entitled to. This legislation represents a rare opportunity to achieve three goals at once: reducing unnecessary bureaucracy, improving government efficiency, and showing empathy toward bereaved Canadians. By supporting Bill C-222, Parliament can ensure that no family is punished by the system for having experienced an unimaginable tragedy. It is a small change, but it will have a profound human impact, and it reflects the best of who we are as a country. As other colleagues have already mentioned, we are here to make a tangible difference in the lives of the people we represent, and this bill allows us to improve things for people who are going through an extremely difficult situation. Once again, I would like to reiterate my congratulations and thanks to my colleague from British Columbia for introducing this bill in the House, as well as to all my colleagues who supported it and worked on the amendments in committee. I will conclude by saying that I fully support this bill and the proposed amendments.

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time. I rise this evening to speak to an issue that is particularly close to my heart and to the minister's: francophone immigration. As we know, immigration has significant economic, social, and demographic impacts on our communities. Immigrants enrich the social fabric of our francophone communities and help meet labour needs. As we know, immigration is the main driver of population growth in Canada. Historically, francophone immigration rates have been very low. It was not until 2019 that francophone immigration outside Quebec exceeded 2%. This has contributed to the accelerated decline in the demographic share of francophones living in minority communities across the country. That is why, in 2003, a strategic framework for francophone immigration was established. The initial goal was to reach a target of 4.4% francophone immigration by 2008. It was also in 2003 that, as part of the first action plan for official languages, initial public funding was announced to help structure the francophone immigration ecosystem. This made it possible to establish the first collaborative structures as well as French-language settlement services across the country. However, in 2006, with the change in government and priorities, francophone immigration took a back seat. We can talk about a decade of stagnation. We had to wait for the Liberals to return to power to review action on francophone immigration, including a significant reinvestment in 2018 through the action plan for official languages 2018‑2023. Then, there was a historic investment of more than $220 million to support francophone immigration in the action plan for official languages 2023-2028. I will get to that in a moment. What is important to know is that the government met its target of 4.4% in 2022 for the first time and then we increased our targets every year. For example, last year, under the minister's leadership, we reached a record target of 8.9% for francophone immigration. This is important because francophone immigration of 8.9% is enough to put the demographic weight of francophone communities outside Quebec back on track for growth. What is more, the investments that we have made, including the over $220 million announced in 2023, have enabled us to implement targeted international recruitment measures and empower our communities to play a role in recruitment. However, there is more to it than just recruitment. We need to make sure that we have the capacity to welcome and properly integrate those who choose to settle here, whether it be in Acadia, French Ontario, western Canada or the north. We must help our communities. With the funding we have invested in francophone immigration, we are seeking to strengthen the French-speaking pathway. That begins with pre-departure services that are offered even before people arrive in the country and individualized reception services at our airports. When people arrive, they get orientation services, help finding employment, language training and community connection services, which are provided by francophone organizations that understand what life is like in our minority communities and that play a key role in integration. We need to make absolutely sure that our communities have the intake capacity needed to ensure that people stay and that immigrants who choose to settle in our communities have positive social and economic experiences. For example, we have been able to increase the number of welcoming francophone communities across the country. In fact, I am fortunate to have in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche two of the 24 welcoming francophone communities outside Quebec. These are concrete examples of how our investments are making a real difference in this area. I would like to highlight the minister's leadership on francophone immigration. When she took office as Nova Scotia's immigration minister about a decade ago, francophone immigration accounted for 0.5% of admissions through the Nova Scotia nominee program. That meant that one permanent resident out of every 200 was francophone. Less than two years after the minister took office in Nova Scotia, that number had risen to 10%. The number went from one in 200 to one in 10 because she brought in concrete measures to ensure the success of francophone immigration in Nova Scotia. I am now seeing her exercise that leadership at the federal level. As I mentioned, we reached 8.9% in 2025, and we are aiming to continue toward the ambitious goal of 12% by 2029. This involves implementing a range of measures. We have a francophone immigration pilot program. We have put measures in place through express entry, and we are also working with our provincial and territorial partners. My question for the minister tonight is this: What is her plan? What measures will be put in place to enable us to achieve our ambitious goal of 12% francophone immigration by 2029? I know that this is an important issue. Like many of my colleagues, I care deeply about this issue, and having discussed it often with the minister, I know that she cares a lot about it too.

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on her excellent speech. I am very pleased that there is one more member of our caucus who cares deeply about our Canadian francophonie. I am very pleased to be able to serve with her. During her recent election campaign, what did she hear from her constituents about the importance of the measures that we are putting in place to help people cope with the rising cost of living? She put it very well when she said that we are focusing on what we can control, and that includes putting measures in place to help people. I would like to hear what her constituents told her about this.

Mr. Speaker, Acadian civil society is here on the Hill this week to discuss issues of importance to Acadia. We Acadians have been present in North America for over 400 years. Although we have faced our share of challenges throughout our history, we remain a strong, resilient, proud and forward-looking people. We are deeply attached to our symbols, such as our national holiday on August 15. In the 2025 budget, we not only doubled funding for National Acadian Day, but we made it permanent. This is a wonderful recognition of our Acadian people by our government. Furthermore, I am very pleased to announce that the Baie-des-Chaleurs region will host the 2029 Congrès mondial acadien, which is already shaping up to be a unifying event with a promising future. Acadians from all corners of the world will gather in my part of the country to celebrate their identity and strengthen the bonds that already unite them.

Mr. Speaker, since coming to power, we have invested heavily in infrastructure and housing, and we have launched our defence industrial strategy. In order to complete these major projects, we need people to build our country. We need people in skilled trades. I would like the Minister of Finance to talk about the measures we have put in place to substantially increase the number of workers in the skilled trades in Canada and to tell us why now is the time to take these steps.

Mr. Speaker, for over 100 years, the organization Acfas has been helping to advance and promote research, innovation and science culture in French. Next week, it will hold its annual congress in Trois‑Rivières, with more than 260 lectures showcasing the diversity of science in French. It will be one of the largest multidisciplinary scientific gatherings in the French-speaking world. Can the minister tell us what our government is doing to support the creation and dissemination of scientific information in French?

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I mentioned the importance of concrete examples. When we announce an additional $500 million through the tariff response initiative, for example, what does that mean for small and medium-sized businesses in our regions? It means support for businesses in Les Pays-d'en-Haut. It also means support for businesses like Max Steel in Madawaska—Restigouche to modernize, adapt, retool and deal with the current challenges. In and of itself, I believe that this support is about more than just numbers to be debated in the House. It is about concrete assistance that makes a difference for our businesses, helps create and maintain good jobs in our regions and rural areas, and opens up new opportunities for these businesses to continue to prosper.