Jessica Fancy

Mr. Speaker, in the face of rising fuel prices driven by global instability, Canadians deserve real relief. I heard this from the families and businesses in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets throughout the summer. They benefited from our government's decision to suspend the fuel excise tax last spring, and they are hoping to see it extended. I have a question for the finance minister that I am hearing from my constituents. How are we helping Canadians pay less at the pump so they can keep more money in their pockets?

Mr. Speaker, before I start talking today about Bill C-266, I would like to first take a moment to thank all the wonderful people in South Shore—St. Margarets. It was wonderful to be back home in the riding over the summer, getting out into our communities, meeting with constituents, listening to their concerns and celebrating the incredible work happening across the south shore. It was also a real privilege to help deliver some exciting investments to our communities, including $6.2 million to the Lunenburg Opera House and over $15 million to Hawboldt Industries, which received the Davie contract. Of course, I loved getting out to meet our students in the Canada summer jobs program, where young people are gaining valuable experience, building confidence and contributing to their communities. I want to thank everyone who opened their doors, shared their stories, invited me into their workplaces and to their community events, and reminded me every day why I am here to serve. I am grateful to be back, and I am excited to bring the voices of South Shore—St. Margarets to Ottawa. I am pleased to rise today to speak on behalf of Bill C-266 and to the importance of making it easier for skilled trades workers to take their skills, experience and hard work with them wherever opportunity exists in this country. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Richmond East—Steveston, for the bill. At its heart, the bill is about something very simple: opportunity. It is about making sure that if a Canadian has the skills and training to do a job in one province, unnecessary administrative and regulatory barriers do not prevent that person from doing the same job in another province. Bill C-266 proposes the development of a national framework on skilled trades and labour mobility. The objective is to reduce barriers, improve credential recognition, identify those equivalencies between jurisdictions and find, as I said before, opportunities to harmonize certification processes. Importantly, this is not about Ottawa telling provinces how to regulate their skilled trades. It is about governments working together. It is about provinces and territories, industries, unions, apprenticeship organizations, indigenous partners, employers and training institutions sitting at that same table and asking one very practical question: “How do we make it easier for Canadians to work?” That question matters enormously in a country as large and diverse as Canada. I come to this conversation with a very different professional background from many of the members of the House. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I was a teacher. I spent many years working in the education system, including as a high school principal. One of the things that experience taught me is that when we talk about workplace development, we cannot start at the point where someone wants to get onto the job site. We have to start much earlier. We have to start with the young people. We have to start with the students sitting in a classroom wondering what kind of future is possible for them. We have to start with the young person who is incredibly capable with their hands and who can build, fix, design, operate, and solve problems but who might not see themselves already reflected in a traditional academic pathway. We have to make sure young people understand that there are many different ways to build a successful life here in Canada. A good education system should not tell every student that success means following the exact same path. It should open doors, and that means universities, colleges, apprenticeships, skilled trades, entrepreneurship and technology. It means creating opportunities. There is a theme here for young Canadians to develop skills that are valued in their communities across this country. I represent South Shore—St. Margarets. It is a beautiful riding, but it is also a riding that knows very well the challenges that come with being rural. Young people have enormous potential. We have people who are working in construction, transportation, marine industries, forestry, fisheries, energy and manufacturing. I could go on. We have small business owners who are looking for workers, and there are communities that need housing. Infrastructure needs to be built, and we have employers who tell us that finding people with the right skills is one of the biggest challenges. At the same time, we have young people who are asking themselves whether they can build a future in the community where they grew up. That is an important question, because if a young person has to leave their community to find opportunity, sometimes they never come back. What does that mean to a rural community? It loses more than just a young worker. It loses volunteers, parents, future business owners, coaches and community leaders, and we lose people who would eventually become the next generation of teachers, tradespeople, nurses, entrepreneurs and public servants. Therefore, when we talk about building Canada's workforce, we have to talk at the same time about building strong communities. That is why labour mobility matters, but it is also why education and training matter. I am a former member of HUMA, which completed a study on youth employment. One of the lessons that came through very clearly is that young people do not experience the labour market in the same way that many of us did growing up. There are young people who are ready to enter that workforce but cannot find the first opportunity. There are young people who have the education but not the experience that employers might be looking for. There are young people who need access to training, and, most important, there are young people in rural and remote communities who face additional barriers simply because of geography. There are many young people who have the trades, but they also need a pathway to put those to work, and that is what the bill would try to do. The last point is particularly important, because when we talk about the skilled trades, we talk about how we can train people. We encourage through apprenticeships, we invest in education, and we can help young people enter the workforce, but if unnecessary barriers prevent these workers from taking their skills where they are needed, we have not solved that problem. We have simply moved the problem, kicking the can down the road. Canada's workforce needs to be flexible. A worker in Nova Scotia might have an opportunity in Alberta, a worker in Quebec might have an opportunity in British Columbia, and a worker in Newfoundland and Labrador might have the skills that are desperately needed in other parts of the country. All Canadians should be able to make these choices. That does not mean we eliminate the safety standards. It does not mean that we lower training requirements. It does not mean that we undermine provincial authority. It does not mean that every certification system needs to be identical. What it does mean, though, is that we should be asking whether these differences between jurisdictions are genuinely necessary or whether they come from simply creating duplication and the old red tape that we talk about a lot in the chamber. Bill C-266 takes a framework approach to this problem. It proposes mapping equivalencies across jurisdictions. It proposes identifying opportunities for harmonization. It proposes modernizing certification processes, and it proposes bringing the right people together to have these conversations. That is important because the young people who understand these barriers best are the ones who encounter them. Unions also understand the importance of safety, wages and working conditions. Provincial regulators understand their responsibilities. Indigenous communities and organizations have important perspectives on workforce development and economic participation. Governments have the responsibility to bring these voices together. I also want to emphasize what the bill would not do. It would not override provincial authority, and that matters. Provinces and territories have important responsibilities when it comes to training, certification and labour market regulation. These responsibilities must be protected. The strength of the bill is that it would recognize that reality but would also recognize something else, which is that the labour market does not stop at a provincial border.

Mr. Speaker, in South Shore—St. Margarets, every summer we see young people across our communities stepping into jobs, gaining confidence, experiences and new skills and contributing to the local businesses and organizations that make our region so vibrant. This summer, the government has added an additional 25,000 jobs to the Canada summer jobs program, giving the opportunity for 100,000 kids to gain hands-on experience. In my riding, there are over 300. Can the Minister of Jobs and Families please share how this program is helping communities?

Mr. Speaker, mining is already one of Canada's largest economic drivers, contributing billions of dollars to the Canadian economy annually, but the sector is experiencing a labour shortage right now, needing 250,000 new hires over the next 10 years. Can the Minister of Jobs and Families please update the House on a national announcement that was recently held in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets about what is being done to ensure that Canadian workers can take advantage of these generational opportunities?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of Bill C‑20, the Build Canada Homes act. I do so as the proud member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margarets. Any day we get to rise on behalf of our constituents is always a great day. I want to talk today about our housing crisis and how it is not just theoretical. It is something that I hear about every single day from residents, businesses and my community leaders. Across our communities, all the way from Shag Harbour to Tantallon in my riding, there is a message that is clear. We need more housing, not someday, not eventually, but right now. In South Shore—St. Margarets, the challenge is not just affordability but also availability. Most of what we have talked about today is between those two things. I would like to talk about our responsiveness to both affordability and availability. We have employers that are looking to hire in South Shore—St. Margarets but are unable to attract workers because sometimes there is no place for them to live. We also need the infrastructure to support that. We have young families who want to stay in the community but cannot afford a home. We have seniors who want to age in place, in community, but have limited options. We have growing communities that are being held back, not by a lack of opportunities but by a lack of housing supply. This is not just a housing issue. It is an economic issue, a workforce issue and also a community sustainability issue. I do not want to sound like a negative Nelly. I would like to talk now about why Bill C‑20 matters. This legislation would transform Build Canada Homes into a Crown corporation, as we have been discussing today in the House, giving it the independence, flexibility and tools needed to actually deliver housing at the scale required. This is about action. Build Canada Homes would not just fund projects one at a time. It would act as a builder, a partner and a catalyst, working alongside municipalities, provinces, indigenous communities, non-profit organizations, co-operatives and the private sector, an opportunity that is also backed by $13 billion in initial funding to get the work moving. I want to speak directly about what I have been hearing from the people in my riding. I have met with developers, builders, tradespeople and community housing organizations, and they are all aligned on one thing: They are ready to build, but they need the conditions to do it. They need access to land, in some cases. They need financing that works in today's market. Perhaps most importantly, they need infrastructure to support growth. Without infrastructure, homes cannot be built. In South Shore—St. Margarets, we are already seeing the kind of collaboration that makes housing possible. A strong example of this partnership in my riding is between the Municipality of the District of Lunenburg and the Town of Bridgewater. They have led a joint venture with their wastewater system, and this is exactly the kind of forward-looking investment we need. I was very proud to be one of the only members of Parliament right now to have one of those announcements in our larger announcements just a couple of months ago. When municipalities work together, they expand core infrastructure like water and wastewater systems, and they unlock the ability to build housing to scale. These are foundational investments, and for too long, there has been a bottleneck. We have seen this as a government, and our new government is here to respond. Build Canada Homes recognizes this. It understands that if we want homes built, we must also support those systems that make these homes possible. Another reason this legislation matters to people in my rural riding in Nova Scotia is that it recognizes the diversity in housing needs. Housing affordability in South Shore—St. Margarets does not look the same as in many other areas, in urban centres. This is why Build Canada Homes uses both a place-based and an income-based definition of affordability, ensuring that housing reflects the realities of local incomes. This matters because homes must actually be affordable to the people who live and work in our communities, not because they are on some type of abstract national average. I was also very impressed with, and helped host, one of our round tables with our minister last summer as he was going all over the nation listening and learning, and now, through this legislation, responding. I met with the developers and the whole spectrum of builders at these round tables who gave their concerns, the good, the bad and sometimes the ugly, in response to the minister having these consultations. Rural communities are often overlooked in national housing strategies, but we know that they are essential to Canada's economy, culture and identity. From forestry, to fisheries, to tourism, to small business, rural regions like ours are vital. However, without housing how do we sustain that vitality? The recognition of rural needs through Bill C-20 includes support for infrastructure, transportation considerations and community revitalization. It is an important step forward. This legislation is also about partnership, and in South Shore—St. Margarets partnership is how we get things done. We are seeing municipalities collaborate. We are seeing non-profits and co-operatives step forward. I was recently at an announcement for shovels in the ground for an eight-unit co-operative shared housing unit in the small town of Liverpool. Although there are only eight units, that is huge in our small rural and coastal communities. We are also seeing leaders come together to think bigger and aggregate projects to create scale. That type of collaboration is exactly what Build Canada Homes is designed to support, because when communities align with federal resources and private sector capacity, we can move forward from ideas to construction and from plans to actual homes. We also want to highlight some of these economic opportunities in this approach. Build Canada Homes is more than just housing. It is about building Canadian capacity. It is about Canadian workers, Canadian materials and Canadian expertise. For South Shore—St. Margarets, that means opportunities for tradespeople. It means opportunities connected to our forestry sector and supply chains. Our colleagues have just talked about the lack of support for the forestry sector. I have met with multiple different lumber mills in my riding and some of our prefab manufacturers on how they are working specifically within our supply chain locally to get these homes built. It means good jobs that support families in our region. It is like having multi-generational families like Freeman Lumber in my riding working together with others like Lloyoll Prefabs, Walls and CLATTCO Construction in my riding on a common goal, which is to get roofs over people's heads. At a time when global uncertainty is increasing, investing in Canadian industry is solving problems with respect to our housing shortage. This is the right approach. Innovation is key. I want to address directly the idea that this legislation creates unnecessary bureaucracy. Respectfully, I disagree. This legislation is about streamlining, not adding layers. Build Canada Homes brings expertise, financing tools and partnerships together under one organization with a clear goal. The housing crisis did not emerge overnight and will not be solved overnight. What Canadians expect of us is progress. They expect us to work together. They expect us to take bold, practical steps. Bill C-20 is one of those steps. For the young family in Bridgewater who is working and looking for their first home, for the nurse who is considering a job on the South Shore but is unable to find housing and for the senior in Lunenburg who wants to stay close to their community, this bill matters.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk to my colleague from Ontario about Carolyn Whitzman. I was a member of HUMA, where we had this on our desk to study. I want to read something that she said about Build Canada Homes and how it needs the independence of a Crown corporation. She said that it had been clear from the start that it was merging the existing Canada Lands Company into it. The real question here was affordability, targets and what this kind of economic and social return was expected to generate, and how we needed these plans for a national housing strategy. She was a huge proponent of this. Therefore, I would like to remind my colleague that we have people who are doing the work and I would love to see the responsiveness of our minister in this.

Mr. Speaker, we have been experiencing similarities with our ridings. Although I am in a coastal community, we still have small-town pride. I would like to say to my colleague that we have been with our new government for only a year. We have been laying infrastructure. We are trying to pass this bill that would help unlock everything and get those shovels in the ground. In my own riding, I have had multiple announcements and multiple shovels in the ground. I have talked to the people in my forestry sector. My colleague wants to talk about lack of support in the forestry sector. I have talked with Derek Nighbor of the Forest Products Association of Canada regarding how I can work with my local mills and my local prefab people and build those partnerships together to get more shovels in the ground for private, non-market and co-operative housing.

Mr. Speaker, as a former municipal councillor, the example that I used in my speech today in regard to our municipality and district in Lunenburg and my town of Bridgewater is how people were trying to put together a larger supportive housing complex just outside of the town of Bridgewater, but they did not have the waste-water system. Therefore, they are working with the town. They are working with the municipality and collating a larger project that is going to help over 3,000 people in my riding, so these partnerships are key. I would ask members who are negating this legislation whether they have sat down with all the different key players and stakeholders. What are they doing, as their representative, to help make these plans to get these shovels in the ground?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show strong support for Bill C-16, the protecting victims act. This legislation represents one of the most significant updates to Canada's criminal justice system in generations. It reflects a clear understanding that our laws must evolve to meet the realities that Canadians are facing today, realities that include rising intimate partner violence cases, online exploitation, coercive control and gender-based violence and growing concerns about public confidence in the justice system. At its heart, Bill C-16 is about protection. It is about protecting women, children and survivors and ensuring that victims are treated with dignity, compassion and fairness throughout the justice process. Across Canada and certainly in my province of Nova Scotia, we are witnessing a growing crisis of gender-based and intimate partner violence. Women continue to be harmed, controlled, terrorized and, too often, killed by intimate partners. In 2024, 187 women were violently killed in Canada. That is nearly one woman every two days. These are not isolated incidents. These tragedies occur in large cities, urban neighbourhoods and rural communities, like my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. We know these realities all too well. While our communities are strong, compassionate and deeply connected, rural communities like mine also face unique barriers when it comes to escaping violence and accessing support. Survivors may live far away from shelters or counselling services. Transportation can be limited. Accessing legal support might require hours of travel. In smaller communities, anonymity can be difficult, and many victims fear not being believed or fear retaliation if they come forward. I have had conversations with frontline organizations in my riding, advocates, survivors and service providers throughout South Shore—St. Margarets. We have made one thing abundantly clear: Our systems must do more to protect victims before violence escalates. This is exactly what Bill C-16 seeks to do. One of the most important aspects of this legislation is the recognition of coercive and controlling behaviour. For years, survivors and advocates have been telling us that abuse is not always physical. It can be emotional. Abuse can be psychological. Abuse can be financial and it can be technical. It can involve intimidation, surveillance, isolation, threats, humiliation, manipulation and fear. We know that coercive control is one of the strongest predictors of lethal violence. Bill C-16 would create a new Criminal Code offence prohibiting patterns of coercive and controlling conduct towards intimate partners. This would allow intervention before violence becomes deadly. “Before” is the key piece that matters, because too often the justice system will react after someone has already been seriously harmed. Organizations throughout South Shore—St. Margarets understand these realities intimately. Be the Peace Institute in my riding has done extraordinarily exceptional work in helping young people and communities build healthier relationships and prevent cycles of violence before they begin. Second Story Women's Centre, where I was a director before becoming a parliamentarian, continues to provide advocacy, education and support for women navigating violence, inequalities and trauma. The Thriving Twogether Society has become an important community voice in Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby and Queen's County, focused on well-being, trauma-informed care and strengthening supports for survivors and their families. Harbour House, a women's shelter in my riding, continues to provide essential shelter and outreach services for women and children fleeing violence in our communities. These organizations have long understood what this legislation now recognizes in law: Violence is only physical, and intervention must happen earlier. Bill C-16 would also modernize Canada's laws to address the very real challenges posed by technology-enabled abuse. Remember, I said “technical” earlier. Predators are increasingly using online platforms to exploit women and children. We talk about deepfakes. Before becoming a parliamentarian, I was a teacher, educator and principal, and members can think about some of the cases I had to deal with and talk to parents and survivors about. Deepfake technology is being weaponized to create non-consensual sexual images. For a young girl in the classroom or a young child, members can imagine the trauma for them, their families and these small-knit communities. Children are being targeted through sextortion, online luring and exploitation. Police reported that child sexual exploitation offences are now dramatically higher than they were just over a decade ago. Parents across Canada are deeply concerned, and rightly so. In response, Bill C-16 would strengthen protections against child exploitation, expand offences related to online luring and sextortion, criminalize sexual deepfakes and reinforce some of these mandatory penalties for serious child sexual offences. Our laws must keep pace with technological predators. Another critical pillar within this legislation is strengthening victims' rights. Too many victims continue to be retraumatized by the justice system. They feel uninformed, ignored, excluded or treated as though they are simply witnesses to their own trauma rather than people deserving dignity and respect. Bill C-16 would strengthen the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights by affirming that victims' rights would be treated with respect, courtesy, compassion and fairness. It would that ensure that victims receive information proactively, it would strengthen access to testimonial aids and it would recognize victims' interests in a timely resolution of proceedings. These changes matter, because justice delayed is often justice denied, especially for survivors of sexual violence and intimate partner violence. Many Canadians have watched serious criminal cases collapse due to court delays. How can people get help and move on when these delays in court make them relive their trauma or when perpetrators change lawyers time and time again, restarting proceedings and restarting that trauma? Victims are forced to relive trauma for years sometimes, only to see these proceedings stayed before accountability is ever reached. That undermines confidence in our justice system. Bill C-16 would take practical steps to address these delays while fully respecting charter rights and judicial independence. The proposed legislation would require courts to consider alternatives before imposing stays of proceedings. It would streamline procedures in sexual offence trials. It would also improve efficiency in many of our complex cases. It would help ensure that serious offences are heard on their merits rather than collapsing because of these procedural delays. This is about balancing fairness with accountability, which is something our government stands for. I am wondering why, at report stage, Conservatives are voting down these amendments and this bill. The justice committee heard from dozens of witnesses and reviewed more than 100 amendments. We heard from survivors, advocates—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize that it is same piece of paper that the member has stood up and read from tonight, asking the exact same question about one little piece of an amendment on a huge proactive bill. I would like to tell him about all the people and organizations that we have heard from. I was a member of FEWO with the member across the way when we heard from the hundreds of victims and hundreds of different witnesses. On child protection, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and other organizations are in favour of this bill. On victims' rights, we have the Domestic Violence Prevention Society, Humane Canada and Niki Sharma, the attorney general for B.C. I could go on. There are the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Canadian Police Association. I can go on all night.

Mr. Speaker, I also have a lot of admiration and respect for that colleague across the way, but in this case, I have to challenge. We talked earlier today about mis- and disinformation, and I feel that this is a case of misinformation. We know that some of the projects and funding streams that we have will sunset. That does not mean that they go away. That means that they get reinvigorated as we pass bills in the House within our economic budget. I would like to say, regarding the member's question, that it is part of our economic strategy each time we re-fund these programs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her work as a family lawyer, because sometimes they are the unsung heroes in helping women who are fleeing violence manoeuvre through systems that sometimes have failed them. We talk about the coercive control piece, and the bill would help women. It would protect them and help protect children when they are navigating some of these systems. It would help with some of these delays. It is nice that we are seeing so many of our different crime bills coming here from the government. That has not been done in 20 years, 30 years or 40 years, so it is good that we are making progress on that measure.

Mr. Speaker, I served with my colleague across on the status of women committee briefly while I was subbing in for another member and looking at this report. She mentioned prevention. It is the focus of organizations in my riding, like Be the Peace, the Second Story Women's Centre, Harbour House and Thriving Twogether. They offer preventive measures so that if or when some of these court cases come forward, they have the support systems they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable achievement by a talented writer in my riding of South Shore—St. Margarets. Darcy Rhyno from Little Harbour has been honoured in the Canadian chapter of the Society of American Travel Writers awards, earning three distinctions for his outstanding storytelling. First, he received bronze for the best service story for his piece highlighting a geocaching project that brings African Canadian history to life in Shelburne County. He earned silver for the best Canadian story for his exploration of Anticosti Island. Finally, he won a bronze for the best international story for his travel feature on cycling around Lake Constance in Europe. These awards are a testament not only to Darcy's talents, but to his ability to share meaningful stories. His work helps shine a light on history, culture and place, and it also reflects the creativity and excellence found in our region.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the member would agree that scaling back federal investment, like the Conservatives proposed, would weaken that advantage, like I said before, in aerospace, batteries and clean energy and go hand in hand with the next generation of job jurisdictions that actually invest in growth.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I am going to be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. This afternoon, I would like to talk about the Territorial Lands Act, the amendments to the act, economic development and nation building in the north, as vice-chair for the rural caucus. I am rising to speak to the proposed amendments to the Territorial Lands Act that are contained in Bill C-31. At the outset, I want to be very clear. Changes to this initial act are necessary. They would strengthen Canada's sovereignty, security and economic future, while deepening our partnership with the Inuit and supporting northern and rural communities across the country. I am speaking as vice-chair of our national rural caucus, and I want to underline something that is very fundamental. Rural, remote and northern Canada is very much a part of the country's nation building and where it is actually happening. We will be there to allow it to continue to happen. Today, we are finally making some of these communities feel like they are finally at the table. I am going to focus on how these amendments would support indigenous self-determination and responsible economic development, as well as long-term nation building in the north. In terms of a changing global economy, the global economy, as we know, is rapidly evolving. Countries are competing for secure supply chains of critical minerals, minerals essential to clean energy, advanced manufacturing and national security. Canada, particularly northern and rural Canada, has an enormous opportunity here. With that opportunity comes responsibility. As competition intensifies, Canada must ensure that its natural resources are developed responsibly and strategically, and in a way that aligns with our national interests. That includes making sure that our rules reflect some of today's realities, hence the amendment. Nunavut and rural Canada are at the centre of nation building. The Arctic is more important than ever to our sovereignty, economic growth and national security. Nunavut is at the heart of our future here up north. I want to be honest about something. Projects that will define Canada's next century, like our critical minerals, energy corridors, ports in the north, roads and infrastructure, are not being built in downtown cores. They are being built in rural, remote and northern communities. For far too long, these communities powered our economy without a full voice in shaping that. That, with this amendment, is changing, and it must continue to change. Mining is already the cornerstone of Nunavut's economy. It creates good-paying jobs, supports local businesses, builds infrastructure and strengthens communities. In 2025, mineral production in Nunavut was projected at $3.74 billion, demonstrating that importance not only to the territory but to Canada as a whole. For rural and northern Canadians, this is what economic inclusion looks like. It looks like jobs close to home. It looks like infrastructure that lasts generations. It looks like communities that are growing and thriving. Why do these types of amendments matter? Canada's free entry system remains an important strength. It has supported exploration and investment for decades. Today, there is a gap. The current system does not allow Canada to act when mineral rights could be used in ways that conflict with some of our national interests, whether related to economic security, sovereignty or critical infrastructure. Bill C-31 would address this gap. It would introduce a targeted national interest safeguard, which would allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, to act in specific cases. Examples of this include cancelling existing mineral rights when necessary, preventing new rights in sensitive areas and temporarily closing lands to protect some of these strategic priorities. Examples also include ensuring notification and fair consideration of compensation. This is not about overreach; this is about responsibility. In terms of strengthening our investments through this amendment, and I want to address this directly, it would not hurt investment, but strengthen it, because a free entry system would remain in place, as it always has. These measures would be targeted, limited and only used in exceptional circumstances where national interests are at stake. In fact, they would also provide something that investors value deeply: certainty. They would make clear that Canada has strong rules, a stable framework and the ability to protect strategic assets. For rural and northern economies, that certainty is essential. It ensures that investment continues, that projects move forward and that communities benefit. The bill is part of a broader effort to support nation building, especially where it is actually taking place. I would like to remind everybody again that nation building in Canada today is happening in rural, remote and northern regions. It is happening in our energy corridors, our mining developments and our ports and transportation hubs. It is happening with clean energy infrastructure. I have a clean energy project in my riding right now in South Shore—St. Margarets, our Mersey wind project, which is a new direct competitor for Nova Scotia Power. It is a larger-scale clean energy project in our area, which we have not seen before in Nova Scotia. There are also projects like the Kivalliq hydro-fibre link. There are also projects like the Grays Bay road and port project. This is also about Iqaluit's hydro project. These are transformative projects, and when we look at transformational things, they do not happen overnight. They do not happen within one year. They do not happen within two years. These are transformational projects of which, over the next decade, we are going to really see the benefits and reap the rewards. They connect with communities, and they create jobs. These projects also help strengthen sovereignty and reduce emissions. Importantly, they ensure that rural and indigenous communities are not just participants, but leaders and partners in Canada's economic future. The amendments to Bill C-31 would also help ensure that mineral tenure does not interfere with these nation-building projects. In terms of indigenous partnerships, like how we were talking before about having indigenous people at the table as leaders, I would like to talk about indigenous partnerships and the devolution processes. The legislation is also grounded in respect for Inuit self-determination, for modern treaties and also for indigenous leadership, so engagement has taken place with the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and indigenous partners alike. These amendments would support a broader path toward Nunavut's devolution: the historic transfer of land and resource decision-making to the Nunavummiut. This is also about ensuring that decisions are made closer to home by the people most affected. We are forward-thinking, so we are also looking at safeguards for some of these processes. There would also be a forward-thinking measure in this amendment. It would ensure that Canada's resources are developed responsibly, strategic infrastructure can move forward, Inuit priorities are respected, rural and northern communities benefit fully, and our sovereignty and security are protected. This is about preventing risk while also unlocking opportunity. In conclusion, we are at a turning point. Global demand is rising, competition is intensifying and Canada has what the world needs, but success also depends on getting it right. It depends on recognizing that rural, northern and indigenous communities are not on the margins of our economy, but at the centre.

Mr. Speaker, I really want to thank my colleague from Bathurst for that. On Thursday, there will be an announcement. I will be at the AGM for one of the Nova Scotia mining associations. With regard to what some of the mining associations are saying about our federal budget update, I would like to read into the record the following quote from the Mining Association of Canada: MAC applauds today’s federal budget, which contains many measures that will enhance the competitiveness of Canadian mining and accelerate investments in critical minerals. Budget 2025 responds directly to several requests from the Mining Association of Canada and follows through on a number of mining-related commitments—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let my colleague know that is exactly what we are doing right now, debating this bill in the House. With regard to my statements on the Territorial Lands Act, the free entry system in that act remains in place. These amendments are a safeguard in some of the exceptional cases involving Canada's economic security, sovereignty and other national interests. I would also like to talk about Arctic sovereignty and the proposed changes within this amendment, allowing for indigenous economic reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague that measures in this bill are providing temporary and immediate relief, expensing for eligible manufacturing and processing buildings. The opposition members want to talk about debating here in the House today. Instead of complaining about the length of time to debate, they should actually be asking some of these debating questions. I also want to let him know that these expenses qualify as Canadian exploration expenses. Within the bill that we are debating today, we are also implementing a crypto asset reporting framework.