Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I am very engaged in this debate and my colleague's speech. We share adjoining ridings. Therefore, some of the concerns and questions that my colleague is hearing are also being asked in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park. I want to ask her, given her experience in this Parliament, to speak about the continuity pieces around the environmental regulations here. Also, would she not agree that it is important for people on the many sides of the environmental and resources extraction debate to agree that a quick decision is better than a slow decision, no matter which side of the debate they are on?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be back here with our colleagues of all sides. I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg Centre. We are all treaty people. This is something we sometimes say in our communities. This is something we sometimes say in the House of Commons. This is something we say to each other in classrooms, hopefully in boardrooms, in places across Canada. The question is, what do we mean by that? How do we animate those words? Regardless of when a person or their family arrived on this land, all of us live within relationships that were shaped by treaties. We are all immigrants, except for the first peoples of this place. Treaties are living arrangements. They are a recognition that indigenous peoples were and remain self-governing nations with which Canada must maintain an ongoing relationship. Today, at this third reading, Bill C-10 asks us to strengthen those foundations. Long before Confederation, indigenous nations entered into treaties and diplomatic relationships with European powers and later with the Crown. These agreements were often understood by everyone involved, including indigenous peoples, as commitments to share land, to coexist peacefully, and to maintain enduring nation-to-nation relationships. In fact, we use those words often in our own land acknowledgements. We refer to these treaties explicitly. We talk about what those treaties were committing to. The treaty relationship was not meant to be temporary; it was meant to last. It was a commitment that was signed. These were oaths that were made, commitments made, and yet, as we know, the history that followed was marked more often by broken promises, unilateral decisions, exclusion from governance, and policies of displacement and assimilation. Many treaty commitments were delayed, others ignored. Some were interpreted, incredibly narrowly, by governments. Indigenous peoples, later nations, and others spent generations advocating, organizing, litigating, cajoling and negotiating, simply to have those existing treaties which, yes, were decades or centuries old, to be honoured; agreements that were signed for generations to come. The good news is that in this era, treaties continue to be signed. Yes, we are getting a bit better, hopefully, at recognizing those treaties or reacting to the litigation that results in the recognition of those treaties. In this era, in the modern era, modern treaties, sometimes called comprehensive land claim agreements, reflect contemporary realities while building on long-standing indigenous rights and relationships to the land, including rights that are recognized in the charter and in other pieces of legislation. Since the 1970s, dozens of these agreements have been concluded across the country, particularly in northern Canada and British Columbia, addressing matters such as self-government, land management, resource sharing, environmental stewardship and economic development, but the challenge is, as it was, implementation. Indigenous treaty partners have repeatedly pointed out that signing an agreement is only the first step. An agreement on paper means little if governments fail to follow through consistently and transparently. That is where Bill C-10 comes in. Bill C-10 would establish an independent commissioner for modern treaty implementation and an accompanying office to support that work. The commissioner would review and audit how federal institutions are fulfilling Canada's obligations under modern treaties and would report publicly on findings. I hear some mention on the other side about bureaucracy, about process, but this is actually about accountability. I think our forefathers and foremothers would have wanted some further accountability on the treaties that were signed. Is it not possible that those treaties that were signed decades and centuries ago would have been less honoured in the breach and more honoured in the practice if we had had a commissioner, if we had some institution that was a bit removed from government, that was answerable to Parliament, to call for accountability on the treaties that had been signed? Treaties that, yes, are decades or centuries old, but that represented real, enduring commitments that were being made by all parties, not just for themselves, not just for the people that they represent, but for the future generations that they were binding. That is what treaties are. They are binding commitments across generations as well as peoples. I believe this piece of legislation, and my colleague, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, has done an excellent job outlining some of its benefits, including in this era, is going to be a very important piece of accountability, a very important piece of the framework that we need to continue on this reconciliation journey, to continue to honour not only the spirit, but also the meaning, of what it means to all be treaty people. This legislation also gives me an opportunity to speak a bit about how this issue relates to our riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park. Those who are more veterans of this place know that the name of the riding used to be Parkdale—High Park and through the federal electoral boundaries commission, the decision was made and adopted to add the name Taiaiako'n. What is Taiaiako'n, and where is Taiaiako'n? It is a settlement near what is now Baby Point, in the northwest corner of our riding, in a beautiful corner of west Toronto, just along the Humber River, and it has been a place of commerce, fishing and recreational activity for millennia. It was part of something called the Carrying Place trail, an important trading route that linked Lake Ontario to the upper Great Lakes. Taiaiako'n has been settled or inhabited in some way since at least 6000 BCE. There have been millennia of continuous human settlement in this beautiful part of west Toronto. It is a former Iroquois village, but many different inhabitants, the historical record suggests, have been there over the years. The record shows the presence of the Seneca, the Haudenosaunee under the Iroquois, the Wendat peoples, the Mississaugas, the Anishinabe and, much more recently, French Canadians. It is an important commercial space, place of exchange and place of dialogue. As I have learned from conversations with community members, historians and indigenous knowledge keepers, the story of Taiaiako'n is neither simple nor singular. In the English reckoning, there are different spellings of the word Taiaiako'n. There are also different pronunciations. Some pronounce it Taiaiako'n. We in the riding have chosen to pronounce it as Taiaiako'n, but there are multiple ways to speak about this community, this beautiful part of west Toronto that is now part of the Baby Point neighbourhood. The archaeological record continues to show a really significant presence of indigenous peoples and a variety of indigenous settlements all the way along the trail and the river, including what we believe are some burial mounds in High Park. All of this is the story of the indigenous presence in west Toronto. All of this is the story of Taiaiako'n. All of this is the story also of reconciliation. As I mentioned, there are multiple different ways of pronouncing our riding's name. There are different stories about who was there when. A lot of good research has been done, including by the City of Toronto and by the Taiaiako'n Historical Preservation Society. Just to refer to the ongoing connections of these ideas and these practices in our riding, I want to point out to constituents and people across west Toronto the opportunity to gather in our riding on Wednesday, September 30, the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, when at the Dundas Roncesvalles Peace Garden, starting at 3:30 p.m., there will be the sixth annual Orange Shirt Day walk in commemoration of that very important day, and we will walk south from there. The event starts at 3:30 p.m. eastern time. The walk starts at around 4:15 p.m. eastern time. Too often we look for a singular story, but indigenous knowledge systems frequently teach us to value multiple perspectives, multiple voices and multiple ways of understanding the same place. We continue to be enriched through events connected to the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, through events related to Indigenous History Month, including through the variety of activities that continue to happen in Toronto, particularly in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, and work by groups like the Taiaiako'n Historical Preservation Society, organizations such as the High Park Nature Centre, and by people such as Abby Bushby, those of the Dundas Roncesvalles Peace Garden, and young spiritual elder Philip Cote, who has enriched my understanding of these issues significantly. This bill would create the legal underpinning of the values we all espouse, a further legal underpinning to follow from the charter, the Constitution and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which has been adopted by the House and reflected in the calls to action and recommendations. These emerged from the commissions for which indigenous peoples, along with allies, fought for tirelessly to establish and were eventually recognized in the House through really significant and important reports on missing and murdered indigenous women and on the disaster of residential schools. This bill creates part of the legal underpinning to live our values and respond to some of that advocacy, to those stories, to what we heard in those reports, and to build on what we committed to, whether it was in 1982, in 2006-07 or decades or centuries ago, or whether it is with new treaties that are going to follow. It strengthens the nation-to-nation relationships that are essential to Canada's future. For that reason, I am pleased to support Bill C-10 at third reading. I encourage all members of the House to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very good question. We create these structures to drive accountability. The existence of officers of Parliament is a very important structure to create accountability. The existence of the Department of Indigenous Services has helped in responding to some of the issues that were identified, especially those around clean drinking water, something that I recall working on when I was working in the Premier of Ontario Kathleen Wynne's office, knowing that the response was not fast enough and that we needed some pressure, yes, from the inside but also from the outside to respond. It is that combination of institutions, along with the commitments we make in Parliament when we decide to endorse a piece of legislation like this, that is part of the solution.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely would agree. As my friend so well knows, these are not commitments that are made and then forgotten. We continue to make new commitments, and we continue to attempt to honour the commitments already made, including those structures that my hon. friend has pointed out, as well as the commitments we make in this House and the commitments we make in debate by drawing attention to the treaties. In my riding, it is the Williams Treaty and the Dish with One Spoon Treaty. There are some very specific treaties that are involved that, even centuries later, we have to be attentive to. There are new treaties, as my colleague points out, that result in real commitments and real benefits. To have a lens on that with an outside voice that is commenting on this to parliamentarians is really critical.

Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague across the way, but regarding Bill C-5, we will have to agree to disagree. There is text right there in Bill C-5, which is now the law of the land, that is explicit about the recognition of indigenous rights and treaty rights in a variety of ways. It is a sign of our commitment on this side of the House that we put that into one of the very first pieces of legislation. On heeding the work of the commissioner, that is something we would all have to attempt to do in the most committed way possible upon the establishment of this office.

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated my colleague's speech. He made a very important point that I am going to ask him to elaborate on now, which is that this bill has the prospect of not only improving our treaty relationships and improving the likelihood of really good adherence to treaties, but also creating more economic certainty. If we have adherence to treaties that have an economic dimension, that means an accountability function through Parliament allows more potential certainty with respect to the underlying economic relations of the treaty. I am wondering if my colleague could elaborate on that.

Mr. Speaker, we know that small businesses do well when consumer spending is up, and that is why we have made investments like the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. Wages are increasing faster than inflation, and we have cut taxes through measures like the superproductivity deduction to make it easier for businesses to invest. We are taking the right approaches during this time of tariffs, which we never hear about on the other side. We are making investments in small businesses and the people who spend money with small businesses.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the continuing work of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the leader of the Green Party, on issues related to contaminants and leakage. I also want to thank her for the interventions regarding the work of the late Dr. David Schindler, who raised some of these issues, as she mentioned, in the decades and years past. These were issues I covered for some time in my previous life as a journalist. In terms of the issues that the hon. member has raised, we take these concerns regarding oil sands, tailings and related infrastructure seriously. The impacts of tailings pollution on water, ecosystems and community well-being continue to inform federal action. It is something we take very seriously, as we do the protection of the health of communities and the integrity of Canada's water and ecosystems. It is a core responsibility of the current government, and, I would say, of government, both now and for future generations. We need to address risks associated with tailings management in a way that gives sustained attention and brings solutions grounded in sound science. Environment and Climate Change Canada is advancing work on oil sands mining effluent through structured, ongoing engagement with indigenous communities, the Government of Alberta and the Government of Northwest Territories, industry, environmental NGOs and other governmental departments. The hon. member referred to the Crown-indigenous working group. That work continues, with Environment and Climate Change Canada and indigenous groups working together through that working group to develop long-term, science-based solutions that will form recommendations to the minister. I think the hon. member knows that Environment and Climate Change Canada also co-leads the oil sands monitoring program with the Government of Alberta, together with indigenous communities and industry. The program, for the interest and knowledge of people watching at home, seeks to enhance the understanding of the effects of oil sands development activities through ambient environmental monitoring in the oil sands region. Monitoring data and reports are publicly available on the oil sands monitoring program portal. I would add that, with some of the investments we have been making in science and research and some of the advances in technology, we hope this work can continue to accelerate and to inform policy-makers, government and hon. members in an even more timely fashion. In conclusion, the Government of Canada will continue to work with all partners, stakeholders, indigenous communities, and provinces and territories to support ongoing reconciliation efforts, ensure sustained environmental protections and uphold public trust.

Mr. Speaker, treaty rights are sacrosanct to this government, as are the regimes that we have in place, including the regimes for non-compliance and the environmental damages penalties that we have under the legislation. Incidents such as the recent spill at Cold Lake are taken very seriously. Federal officials are in contact with their provincial counterparts and indigenous leadership to ensure that appropriate response and oversight measures are in place. If there is non-compliance with federal legislation, there is enforcement action that is available and will be pursued. This shows why the work to strengthen oversight of tailings and mine water is so critical. How do we do that work? We do that work through indigenous partnership, through transparency and through rigorous scientific work. Canadians expect strong environmental protection, informed, in part, through the advocacy of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. That is precisely what we will do to guide our actions.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and thank Young Voices Toronto on its 40th anniversary concert at Runnymede United Church. Founder Ann Cooper Gay grew up in Palacios, Texas, came to Canada during the height of the Vietnam War, started teaching music here and founded what was then called the High Park Choirs in 1986, yet another example of the contribution of immigrants to our country. Since then, this remarkable organization, now led by artistic director and conductor Carole Anderson, has helped young people find confidence, friendship and a sense of belonging in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park and beyond through the timeless power of song. The anniversary concert last month was a celebration of Canada, featuring Canadian composers and featuring a stirring opening rendition of O Canada, one that sets a new bar for us as we plan to sing the same anthem here tomorrow. To all the voices at Young Voices Toronto, past and present, and their families, I thank them. In this era of doomscrolling, when we lift our voices together we are stronger. We are better.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have very promising results with incoming investment, the highest investment in over 18 years in foreign direct investment into Canada. It is very good to have very strong Canadian companies that are both exporting their products and finding trading opportunities elsewhere. I think we should celebrate and talk up these strong Canadian technology companies instead of running them down.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and the concern of the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley. I want to acknowledge the deeply troubling circumstances that have prompted this debate and, I think rightly, his concern. The seizure of a significant quantity of fentanyl near Swift Current is a stark reminder of the lethal impact this drug is having on communities across Canada. I have seen it even in my riding in west Toronto. I recognize the anguish and anger that people in Canada feel when organized crime exploits communities and fuels violence. As organized crime is evolving, our legislative frameworks need to address emerging forms of advanced, online and globalized crimes while protecting our communities. We have been doing this with a series of pieces of legislation through reforms designed to enhance community safety and increase confidence in the criminal justice system. Our proposed reforms aim to strengthen bail and sentencing for violent repeat offending, improve protections for victims and modernize lawful access and other Criminal Code tools to better address serious and organized crime. We have been part of the debate in this House on Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. The hon. member referred to criminals who are out on bail. That is a central part of our government's efforts to improve community safety and keep criminals off the street. We campaigned on this in the election campaign. Our proposed reforms would amend the Criminal Code to strengthen bail and sentencing responses to serious and organized crime, including those connected to the production and trafficking of illicit drugs. The bill would make bail more difficult to obtain in certain cases, including for individuals involved in organized crime, through a very important new measure, new reverse onus provisions, something the party on the other side has been calling for. This is a critical step forward. In these situations, detention would be the starting point, and the onus would be on the accused to demonstrate why they should be released. Reforms would also require police and courts to place greater weight on public safety, victims' needs and witnesses when making bail decisions, and would mandate closer scrutiny of bail plans, including in cases involving random or unprovoked violence, again, making bail harder to get. Bill C-14 would also create tougher sentencing provisions for organized crime offences, ensuring that sentences better reflect the serious harms caused by the illicit drug trade, while discouraging others from participating in these activities. We also have Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which would further strengthen the Criminal Code so that dangerous offenders are held to account and victims are better protected. Notably, it would create a new offence for recruiting youth into crime, directly targeting the way organized crime draws young people specifically into drug trafficking and other serious offences. Finally, a subject of great interest to the House, Bill C-22, the lawful access act, would modernize Canada's lawful access framework so law enforcement has the tools it needs to investigate serious organized crime networks, including those that drive the fentanyl trade. Taken together, these measures, the strongest set of criminal justice bills proposed by the party on this side of the House in generations, demonstrate a very strong commitment to public safety by dismantling organized crime and addressing the significant harms caused by drug-related offending in communities across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the investments that we have made, including those commitments of 1,000 RCMP officers and 1,000 CBSA officers, have the promise to really make a dent into this. I had the pleasure of touring a CBSA facility last summer in the Windsor area and hearing from the frontline leaders of the CBSA. They told us how important this was and how the advanced scanning available through the CBSA is making real inroads. Those operational things, reforms and those things happening on the ground, combined with the legislative reforms I mentioned earlier, reflect the government's determined and balanced approach to protecting community safety while bolstering confidence in the criminal justice system.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands' concern about this and her long-standing advocacy for evidence-based approaches to public policy. With respect to the chief science officer, she is somebody I engage with and the Minister of Industry and her department engage with regularly. That is where the chief science officer is based. Also, she has significant engagement with parliamentarians, including through the Standing Committee on Science and Research. I want to join my colleague in paying tribute, which I think we have each done in different forms in the last few months, to the late Kirsty Duncan, who had a significant responsibility in helping with the existence of the Standing Committee on Science and Research. When we think about the ways to honour her, it is by continuing the ideals and principles for which she stood, and I see those quite well reflected in the recent actions of this government. In the 2024 budget, we made historic investments in the tri-council agencies, which are the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, as well as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. They are the federal government's main mechanisms for driving scientific discovery all the way from the discovery phase to the application phase. We made historic investments, making up after a significant period of relative underinvestment, with billions of dollars of investment going to those agencies. We followed up on that in 2025 with another new major set of investments toward the impact+ research chairs program. We just announced almost 700 new doctoral and post-doctoral fellows coming from outside of Canada to help support the next generation of scientific research. These funds, as well as our forthcoming impact+ research chairs program, are not only crowding in other private and philanthropic funds, but generating excitement around the prospect of doing leading-edge research in science that has the translational piece, results in policy advice and helps inform government in very significant ways. Those investments in the 2024 budget and the 2025 budget are informing Canada, Canadians, the public policy community and parliamentarians with new information to help tackle some recent challenges. I will also note a number of our new major strategies, whether it is the national food strategy, which was launched today; the AI strategy, which was launched last week; our critical minerals strategy; our national electricity strategy; or a number of other strategies. They place at the centre evidence, research and the innovation that derives from that research. Sprinkled across a number of different recent actions of this government, we see investments in science. The hon. member is a champion of a particular set of institutions that are very important. We are very proud on this side to be hosting the Our Ocean Conference in 2027. I know the health of the oceans is of particular concern to the member, and we have committed, through our nature plan, to protecting 30% of Canada's lands and waters by 2030. That, too, is evidence-informed, evidence-based and scientifically informed. We believe in the investments we have made. Yes, there is some attention to be paid to government-direct research, but if the member looks at the full set of research in which we are investing and the full set of science in which we are investing, we are the place to do this scientific research. I think the results with respect to the interest of those outside of Canada wanting to come to Canada to do this work speak for themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention. Although I cannot speak to the circumstances of that specific committee, I know that as a government we try to resource all the activities we say we are doing as effectively and efficiently as possible. I want to reiterate that the status of science for this government is the status of science as represented by the investments we are making, the status of science as represented by the image we are projecting to the world of the kinds of investments we are seeking, and the status of science in the public spirit that we are trying to share, whether it is with the Artemis mission or with some of the leading work being done by some of our leading scientists, whom we try to elevate on this side of the House. That speaks very strongly to the status of science overall for this government.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak about my colleague from Beaches—East York. I come to this place as a relatively new MP, but I had the privilege of collaborating with the member in my former life, leading a think tank at Toronto Metropolitan University. I greatly appreciated that we had the chance to engage on a number of the ideas he mentioned in his speech, particularly competition policy and responsible technology. What I especially appreciate about our departing colleague is his ability and commitment to attach thoughtful policy to committed politics. Our colleague is a person of ideas and he is deeply committed to the underlying change that can happen with more attention to those issues. We collaborated for a brief time on the industry committee. In fact, we had an exchange at the industry committee yesterday with a representative of one of those mega-platforms, which I think summoned the spirit of our departing member for Beaches—East York. In that time, I had the chance to understand his commitment to deep engagement on the issues and why and how it matters to get the details right, to get deep into the weeds of an issue, to call those involved in that issue to account and to be responsible, and to engage more broadly in how these big systems that are so removed from people, on the face of them, actually touch our constituents in all kinds of ways. These issues include affordability, protection online or those precious creatures that do not have their own voices in this place. I deeply appreciate my colleague's commitment to bringing those system-level issues and questions and bringing them down to our constituents, not only in his riding but on behalf of those who care about similar issues across Canada. Our colleague represented an area east of the Don River. I represent an area west of the Don River. In the Toronto caucus and in some of the political engagements we had, I learned a lot about the way we can have committed politics and attach them to thoughtful policy. With that, I wish my colleague the best in his new venture and new adventures. I know this place and our country have been stronger because of his service.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands. I will be opposing the motion. We have a comprehensive plan. I am seeing in my travels across the country and in my riding that the plan is starting to deliver results. If we take an honest look at the full set of strategies the government has announced, the measures as early as June, with the income tax cut and the delivery of the Major Projects Office, forward to the budget in the fall, with major measures to prime our economy, through to the spring economic update and the strategies we have announced during and since then, we see a plan that is starting to work and to have impacts on the ground. I want to refer to a couple of these strategies because they provide important context when the official opposition is calling for a plan. The plans have been presented and are starting to land, I think, quite positively with Canadians. I will give the example of the national electricity strategy, which we announced just recently, with an intent to double our capacity by 2050. We know that electricity is a key competitive advantage for Canada and that we have abundant and relatively clean electricity. This is an area where Canadian ingenuity, workers and opportunities coast to coast are available to develop the kinds of technologies that help lower costs and emissions, and help to prime and benefit industries at home, but also lead in some cases to an exportable technology. I know there are a lot of innovators in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park who are working on businesses and innovations that are delivering, whether that is a more efficient grid, solutions that are putting power back into the grid or, indeed, solutions that are using previous internal combustion engine-based or fossil fuel technologies and converting them into cleaner technologies. The national electricity strategy is a very prominent example of one of the plans that exist in our broader plan to deliver economic well-being to Canadians. I would also refer to the critical minerals strategy, which is, again, a key competitive advantage for Canada. We need to have the processing capacity and to identify the specific minerals that are available to us. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and other ministers have taken a leadership role in creating buyers' clubs by bringing companies, countries and investment funds together to identify real opportunities and then using the Major Projects Office to deliver opportunities to get those projects under way more quickly. A critical minerals strategy is key to our economic plan. I would also refer to our auto strategy, which I, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, have some considerable involvement with, as it is the Minister of Industry's strategy. She is working very hard to protect access to the American marketplace and to protect the investments that exist in Canada but also to attract not only new investments around electrification and electric vehicles but also related investments in software and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. I am very proud to see that some of these sectors, which previously were confined to southern Ontario, are now spreading across the country. I had the pleasure of going to the electric vehicle and charging expo recently in Toronto. It was such a pleasure to see companies from coast to coast to coast delivering innovations, including electricity charging for vehicles at apartment buildings in Vancouver, all-in software solutions out of Quebec and even the first green hydrogen heavy truck vehicle, developed by Elemental Trucks out of Rexdale. There are so many innovations coming out of Canada, from Canadians, out of this opportunity and this excitement around the kind of economy we are building. We are seeing it in the numbers. My colleagues the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance and the chief government whip have already referred to some of these statistics and some real benefits that are coming from these strategies. I will also refer to an area that I spend a bit more time on, the research and science portfolio, where we are seeing people coming by the hundreds from around the world, some of the most talented scientists, who are attracted by our impact+ research chairs program and our impact+ scholars program, to say that Canada is the place to do science. We just recently announced 658 doctoral and post-doctoral researchers. The best and brightest in the world are choosing Canada in part because, first, this is the place to do science and research, a place that is not going to be corrupted by politics, and second, there is economic opportunity and the hope that comes from the ability to do this work and deliver these innovations in Canada, for Canada and for Canadians. I see the benefits of our economic strategy starting to take root in places like the University of Calgary, where I recently had the chance to visit a Genome Canada‑funded project. This is one of the great stories, and I am seeing so many of these stories coast to coast now, where we have eastern and western Canada coming together to deliver the kinds of innovations that are going to grow our economy. The specific project I saw was a project to make underground energy storage safer by using tiny underground microbes. This is a set of University of Calgary researchers collaborating with a Newfoundland and Labrador start-up, Triple Point resources. Again, there is confidence. This is a Canadian start-up out of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is investing its precious capital in innovation toward a carbon-reducing solution, collaborating with scientists out of the University of Calgary. This is the kind of national economic spirit that we are seeing more and more of, that this Prime Minister, with this government, is delivering. We know that this has been the year for space in Canada. I was recently in Longueuil, Quebec, at the Canadian Space Agency headquarters, as part of the Horizons conference co-developed by the Canadian Space Agency and Space Canada, a government agency and an industry association working very closely together to ensure that the future space economy is one that Canada can depend on and benefit from. It is in this year of science, when we have not one but three Canadian Space Agency astronauts intimately involved in some of the key missions that have captured the globe's attention: Jeremy Hansen, Jenni Gibbons and, soon to go to the International Space Station, Joshua Kutryk. The Canadian inspiration around that has resulted in more interest and more investment. I meet a number of young people now who are starting rocket clubs, who are excited about participating in this sector and who often can get support through our research funds to then develop that kind of science and innovation. This is part of our economic strategy as well. I see this locally as well, with companies like TransPod, out of my riding, which is developing a high-speed transportation solution between Calgary and Edmonton. Again, this is a Canadian company in eastern Canada working collaboratively with those in western Canada. I see it with a company like Beachman industries, again, in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, which is one of the first companies in decades to get certified by Transport Canada for motorcycle manufacturing. It is Canada's only electric motorcycle manufacturer. The co-founders have big ambitions to take this innovative technology and to grow it into the transportation space, delivering transportation solutions. They are Canadian innovators in auto manufacturing, and in this case, it is happening right in the heart of downtown Toronto. What I also appreciate about our economic strategy, though, and I do not hear much about it from the other side, is that the economy is not just the GDP. It is the GDP per capita, so I do want to compliment my colleague the parliamentary secretary, but it is about much more than any one statistic. It is about the kind of community we create that makes it possible to have economic activity. It is about the kind of community we create that gives people the confidence, the support and the resources to participate productively in the economy, like national child care and the PSW tax credit. I had the pleasure of speaking at the SEIU excellence awards, the first-ever awards event that the Service Employees International Union put on for its health care workers, Local 1. I saw those PSWs, mostly women, mostly educated in other countries, say that, yes, because of the work done together and because of the government recognition of that work, there is going to be a tax credit that is going to recognize their specific efforts during the pandemic and beyond. That is going to put aroun $1,100 in those workers', mostly women's, pockets. Members can bet that is going to help the economy in those households because those families, those women, are going to be spending that money out in the economy. I even see it in places like the many business improvement areas that we are blessed to have in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, which is the home of the original business improvement area, in Bloor West Village. We are hearing from them that, yes, public safety is really important, and there is some appreciation for the new provisions around bail legislation, and that public safety and the public realm as well as supporting people at different levels of the economic scale and different income levels are key to having a strong economy. In Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, we are very appreciative of the opportunity to see that. Finally, in my riding, I see it in the housing we are building, whether it is social housing, supportive housing or some of the co-operative or private sector housing that I will be happy to talk about in future months in the riding. The kinds of housing opportunities we are creating in the riding create an opportunity to participate economically in a much more productive way. It is a kind of investment in housing that, unfortunately, I hear regularly criticized by the other side. We have an economic plan that is starting to land with Canadians, and I look forward to questions on it from my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I had the chance to visit Saskatoon in January or February of this year, and I had the pleasure to visit the facilities and the labs that are being funded at the University of Saskatchewan, in particular the VIDO vaccine facility, a world-leading facility, as well as the cyclotron facility. They are world-leading major research facilities that are, again, attracting scientists from around the world, as well as SAIT. SAIT and the University of Saskatchewan have a really strong collaboration that brings research together, at both the college and university levels.

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat familiar with the challenges my colleague is talking about. I am from Bathurst, New Brunswick, which is right across Chaleur Bay. I am therefore very familiar with the challenges and issues facing the forestry industry. We have been hit hard by U.S. tariffs for decades. We are working very hard. We are in close contact. As for my colleague's suggestions, I know that, on our side, we have supported the industry through the strategic fund and other support measures, but we are always happy to continue the conversation with him.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this motion today because it gives us an opportunity to really celebrate the cultural productions, the musicians, the directors, the TV producers, the workers and the makeup artists, all the people who participate in this rich cultural economy that we have in Canada. I will also speak to what is happening in Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park. The motion also gives me an opportunity to speak to some trends I have been seeing in the party opposite, over my time in this chamber of just over a year, when it comes to trade issues and to cultural issues. With respect to trade, there really are two kinds of things that we generally see. There is the misread of the trade situation, whereby the party opposite either wants to go back to some historic past that does not exist anymore, as in the encouragement to bring back the auto pact in its complete form in a way that is not resonant with the current state of negotiations, the current state of the auto sector, or wants to capitulate. In this case, I know the party opposite was opposed to the Online Streaming Act, but it is recommending that we simply give up the real gains that we have made through mechanisms like those in the Online Streaming Act and through all the kinds of things that we need to do to build ourselves and our sovereignty up in this moment of real challenge for Canada. I believe there is a misread of the trade situation, but there is also a misread of culture and the way culture is generated in Canada. Artists do not just emerge fully out of whole cloth, ready to take on the world without any support whatsoever. I noted that my colleague from York—Durham made mention of Lucy Maud Montgomery, and I appreciated my colleague from Hamilton's very spirited embrace of Lucy Maud Montgomery and her work, but it is also important to note that Lucy Maud Montgomery was writing at a very different time, when cultural communications travelled differently, when books travelled differently and when curricula were designed differently. We are now in an era of very rapid digital communications. We need to change with the times, and we need to have the cultural assets that we have built up and convert them for a new generation. I would just add regarding Anne of Green Gables, Lucy Maud Montgomery's work, that it has continued to prosper in Canada in part because of the mechanisms we use to support digital culture. There is both the 1985 CBC series of the novels and the later Anne with an E series, which ran for three seasons. I know my daughter and my family were very big fans of that. Those cultural products, which came out of a place of strong Canadian culture, were generated from the kinds of supports that have been embraced and furthered on this side of the House, whether it is support for the CBC or, indeed, supports through mechanisms like those, if not in that particular case, in the Online Streaming Act. Artists do not emerge out of whole cloth, ready to take on the world. Artists are nurtured by community, and taxpayer funds are important for that. Also, where we can, the benefit of a policy that has large American multinational companies play their role in supporting this production is very important. Indeed, the mechanisms that we have in place are working. I want to quote from the CEO of the Canadian Media Producers Association, Reynolds Mastin, on the release of its recent annual report on the state of media production in Canada. He said, “The Canadian production industry has established itself as a great partner for foreign production, and with the promised investments from the Online Streaming Act, we'll see a boost in Canadian content production, reversing the downward trend of recent years”. In the report, CMPA also referred to foreign production activity, a set of activities that we are being told by the Conservatives is at constant existential risk, as actually being up 9.8% in 2025. The value of film and production in Canada, from the CMPA report, was $10.2 billion, and the industry is responsible for 181,360 jobs. This is a sign of a growing sector, a sector that is already mature and a sector that has excellence. This is a sector that not only produces original content but also produces a whole set of workers and capacities that producers and investors, including American investors, want to participate in. I was recently at the launch of The Testaments. It is a new Hulu series that is being filmed based on the work of Margaret Atwood, a great Canadian cultural producer and a great Canadian author from Toronto. At that launch, the producers, both American and Canadian, lauded the capacity, expertise and talent that exists in Canada to put on this production, including the makeup artists, the costumers and the builders of the film production sets. I have to add Mrs. Huizenga thrift shop to that list, which is in Toronto's Junction area of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, which was featured in The Testaments tv show. The story that the Conservatives are telling is representative of neither the current state of affairs nor the excitement that Canadians feel about the cultural productions that are being produced here. It is a misread to say that artists emerge whole cloth, ready to take on the world without any of the kinds of supports that we, on this side of the House, know are necessary. We know that different kinds of artists need support, for example, if they come from different identity groups or speak different languages. We know that Canadian companies need to grow and to have the opportunity to play on an equal playing field. We know that Canadian producers want to partner with American companies, but we also need that opportunity to have the resources come in to do that work. In this era of streaming, there is an increasingly complex dynamic between streamers and creators. There is a whole set of intermediaries who have now been displaced from our arts and culture sector, including the A and R people, many independent producers, local television stations and even video stores. The intermediaries, who help create those connections between artists and the very large producers, are starting to be displaced and are starting to adapt. Creators are having to take on more of the work themselves, of managing their careers and building up their resources, so they are playing the role of not only part-time artist but also part-time business person. Creators are ready and willing to do that work, but they do need some help and some support. The Online Streaming Act, like the Online News Act, is a very important part of the mechanism that gives the creators in Canada the opportunities to participate with revenues from very profitable companies that Canadians embrace and that Canadians subscribe to by the millions. This allegation that it is a tax on Canadians is purely fictional. It is an imaginary assertion. The payments that are being made under the Online Streaming Act and have been made under the Online News Act go to real benefits and to real creators who are creating products. Those subscriptions that I talk about have not changed. I want to talk about some of the beneficiaries of the complete set of funding mechanisms that we have in Canada in my riding of Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, including through vehicles such as Telefilm Canada; the Canada Media Fund; Canada Council for the Arts; CBC, which is constantly denigrated on the other side of the House; and yes, some of the revenues from the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act. There are the creators like Kunsang Kyirong, who created 100 Sunset, which won the Discovery Award at the Toronto International Film Festival and was filmed in my riding. There are creators in west Toronto like Matt Johnson, the creator of Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie and, of course, the very beloved movie, BlackBerry. On the TV side, we have tons of workers and unions, like IATSE, which is supported by its international vice-president, John Lewis in my riding. I have heard from so many cultural workers in my riding about the real and essential need to support Canadian cultural producers through mechanisms like those in the Online Streaming Act. There are musicians like Charlotte Cornfield, who has launched her recent album to great acclaim, and musicians like Daniel Lanois, who has a studio in my riding. They are all part of an ecosystem where some are internationally renowned. Some came up through America, and some through Europe. Many came up through Canada. They all benefited from the connections and resources we have created through the CBC, through the revenues that we help them get attached to with things like the Online Streaming Act and through resources like Telefilm, the Media Fund and the Canada Council for the Arts. It is part of an entire ecosystem that supports creators. If we are really here to support creators, to say that creators are essential to telling Canadian stories and that those stories are essential to Canadian sovereignty, then we need to have a way of bringing them from where they are to where we know they can shine on the world stage. That is done through mechanisms like this. It is not done by denigrating the real work that comes out of funds like this. For that reason, I will be opposing the motion.

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. We believe that it is possible to support creators, filmmakers and musicians while at the same time ensuring that the American giants make good corporate citizens. This policy helps creators and artists secure more funding for their creations and ensures that Canadians and Quebeckers can access this information and these programs. They often have access to these creations through American companies like Netflix or Spotify. A policy like this one will help ensure that creators, Canadians and businesses can all do well.

Mr. Speaker, we are here to defend Canadian sovereignty, whether by including cultural exemptions in our free trade agreements or by supporting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation through historic investments. During the 1990s, I spent several years in Quebec, in Montreal. Back then, I appreciated the measures and the level of commitment with which Quebeckers defended their culture. We are very familiar with these policies, not only in Quebec but across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to talk to my colleague about his involvement in that file, which actually resulted in a bipartisan consensus in Ontario, whereby both Progressive Conservatives and Liberals supported the policy of supporting production, not only by Canadian companies, but also by international companies. That policy has led to results, including the one that I quoted. I believe that we are getting the balance right here. We want to continue to attract foreign investment. I do appreciate the hon. member's work, particularly in his community with the great cultural productions coming out of that place, which then potentially lead to film, TV and musical productions. I am very much looking forward to working with him on this file.

Mr. Speaker, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, I want to commend the minister for making historic investments in science and research under budget 2024. I commend the bill we are debating today. I want to ask particularly about employee ownership trusts. I was at an event that celebrated the 25th anniversary of Social Capital Partners, a very important organization that led the charge for the movement to support employee ownership in Canada. I want to ask the minister about his role in furthering employee ownership in Canada and about how the bill would assist with that.

Mr. Speaker, before I came to this place, I taught undergraduate students for 15 years, and I know the number that COVID did and now the trade war is doing on them. What do we do when a number is being done on young people? We build them up and help them with hard skills and soft skills. That is why we have the team Canada strong plan with 100,000 apprenticeships. This summer we have 32,000 jobs with Statistics Canada in the census, a project that the party opposite would be first to cancel. That is how we build up the skills to get the kinds of careers that our students want and need, and that is why we are there for them.

Mr. Speaker, we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have the highest foreign direct investment in this country in 18 years, at almost $100 billion. We have the highest exports on record, including a 31% increase in exports to Europe. These are signs of our resilience and the strength of our economy. Our plan is starting to work, despite the trade action that is being launched. We really seek the other side's support in getting on board with these investments that can create jobs for young Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, our plan is investing in jobs and is supporting those private sector innovators that are bringing jobs, including to places like York Region in the member's region, where AMD has a major facility and is centralizing its innovation supports in York Region, in Markham, bringing thousands of jobs. I recently visited the University of Toronto's Master of Science in applied computing program, and every single one of its graduates now has a job in that program. It is because of the work our government is doing in supporting the post-secondary system, and supporting not only the industrial side but the technology side. We are very proud of our record.

Mr. Speaker, we know that tariffs are affecting the industry globally, but we also know that we have a very strong plant in Alliston, with 4,100 workers. They recently rolled off their 11 millionth car, making the popular CR-V and Civic brands. We also know that we need to be there for our sector, which is why we are investing in workers. We are embracing a sustainable future, and we are attracting new investment, which I will be happy to get into in the supplementary.

Mr. Speaker, the head of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, on Monday, at committee, said that the rebate policy was a good policy and that it embraced the purchases of the kinds of vehicles Canadians want. In terms of EVs and other kind of investments, the good news is that there is new investment coming, the PowerCo plant in St. Thomas, the NextStar facility, which has rolled off one million battery cells. We have new investments in Cambridge, Oshawa and Oakville. There are investments in St. Catharines. Investments in our sector are happening with the government's support and because there is confidence in this industry. It is a coast-to-coast sector, with concentration in southern Ontario, and we will continue to be there for that.

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech and that of my colleague from Joliette—Manawan . My colleague talked about Quebec businesses. As a member from Ontario and parliamentary secretary, I am more concerned with businesses in Ontario, but I know that the minister and my colleague, the parliamentary secretary and member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, are very involved with Quebec businesses. I also appreciate my colleague's comments on specific businesses. My colleague from Joliette—Manawan and I heard about them at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Now, I have a question for him. We know that the government has just made major investments in the port of Contrecoeur. Will these investments help the companies he is talking about?

Mr. Speaker, I like that my colleague from Beauce shares stories about businesses in his riding, including the ones we heard at meetings of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I think that all of us on both sides of the House agree that we want the best deal possible. On this side of the House, we believe that a bad deal is worse than no deal. My colleague called on us to propose concrete measures, so I have a question for him about two concrete measures that we have proposed. First, there is the buy Canadian policy and second, there is the additional $500 million for the regional tariff response initiative. Are these concrete measures not a response to the challenge mentioned by my colleague?

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House that our government's focus remains clear and disciplined. We are controlling what we can control, which means maintaining fiscal sustainability while making targeted, high-impact investments for Canadians; maintaining our fiscal anchors; and ensuring that every dollar spent on behalf of Canadians supports growth, resilience and improving the well-being of Canadians. That is the direction we need right now, and it is in the context of global changes we are witnessing, which are sudden and, I would say, unprecedented. Global economies are more than a year into a profound rupture, characterized by the trade decisions made by the U.S. administration. Economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition are increasingly shaping investment, trade and financial decisions. Of course, the recent conflict in the Middle East, which has disrupted key shipping routes and damaged energy infrastructure, has pushed energy prices higher, underscoring the fragility of global supply chains and adding to already elevated uncertainty. Despite this environment, the government is delivering an $11.5‑billion improvement in the projected 2025-26 budgetary balance. This strength carries into future years, improving the budgetary balance relative to last year's budget by an average of $10.7 billion per year from 2026-27 to 2029-30 before new measures. I will note that, in addition, our deficit-to-GDP ratio, one of the key fiscal anchors, is well below the G7 average, as shown on page 12 of the spring economic update. Fortunately, this fiscal room allows the government to improve affordability and raise Canadians' standard of living through targeted and responsible policy measures, particularly in the areas of fuel, food and housing affordability. This is a move that started in budget 2025 and indeed, before then, with some income tax cuts for which we were happy to get the support of the other side. It marked a strategic shift in the government's management of public finances, focusing on expanding federal capital spending to mobilize investments while maintaining fiscal responsibility. Our budget 2025, as members know, set out a clear plan to build the strongest economy in the G7. We are moving toward that with very strong growth rates projected in relation to other G7 countries, and again, the strongest fiscal position in the G7, in particular with a debt-to-GDP ratio well below that of our G7 peers. Our plan remains rooted in fiscal responsibility, not for its own sake, but to create the capacity to invest our long-term economic strength and greater self-reliance. I want to mention again that there are two fiscal anchors, which are balancing operating spending with revenues by 2028-29 and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio, both of which we are obtaining. We also remain committed to the disciplined implementation of budget 2025 efficiency measures, including the comprehensive expenditure review, which, together with other measures in budget 2025, total $60 billion in savings and revenues over 5 years. We are now in the implementation phase. The focus is turning toward targeted, ongoing reviews, beginning with efforts to rein in spending on external management and other consulting services. These are not easy decisions; they are challenging but necessary actions. We will continue to support our objective of spending less to invest more. In these serious times, with these serious geopolitical headwinds, it is important to make targeted investments, control what we can control, maintain our fiscal anchors and attend to the affordability and economic needs of Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, in case the Hansard did not pick it up, I want to make sure it is heard that it is the deficit-to-GDP ratio that is declining. The debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7 by some considerable margin. The deficit-to-GDP ratio and balancing operating spending with revenues are two of the key fiscal anchors that we are achieving. Again, I refer my colleague to page 12 of the spring economic update for some more context. I would invite him to reflect on which of the investments and key supports we are bringing in on the affordability and business support side that he would cut. Would it be the groceries and essentials benefit? Would it be national child care, which is supporting thousands of people in my riding and, I know, in his riding? Would it be the Canada dental care plan, or the investments we announced yesterday to support the steel, aluminum and copper sectors, which are struggling because of the tariffs? I think Canadians know that these investments are the right ones.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek for her concern and her engagement on this, and I want to convey, on behalf of the government, that we do take those questions seriously. I want to address how the system is working at ESDC and issues around the accuracy of payments. I also want to clear up some misinformation surrounding program costs. Let us start at the beginning of this journey. In 2010, the Auditor General noted there was a high risk that in time, the IT infrastructure would not be able to support the delivery of core programs like OAS, EI and CPP, based on systems that were decades old. We knew an upgrade was essential. Since 2017, we have been investing in benefits delivery modernization because Canadians deserve functional, responsive and dependable services. We knew that any interruption to accurate and on-time payments could significantly affect recipients' ability to meet their daily needs, such as buying food or paying rent, needs that are addressed significantly by those supplements and benefits. We also knew that this would be an incredibly complicated task and that doing the job correctly would require significant investment. Between 2017 and March 31 of this year, the federal government spent $1.8 billion on the benefits delivery modernization program. The recently completed old age security on benefits delivery modernization project was delivered as planned and under budget. The total cost, however, has evolved, and that is due to what we now understand and what we are learning about some of the evolving threats and changes in the information technology space. Current estimates have evolved over time as we have gained a greater understanding of the complexity of unravelling 60-year-old systems. The 2023 Office of the Auditor General report acknowledged the department's commitment to revising estimates, as I think is appropriate. The program's long-term estimate of $6.6 billion now covers the completion of four main projects by 2031: the full transformation of benefits delivery for all old age security, employment insurance and Canada pension plan payments, as well as modernizing all of ESDC's call centres. What is different from when the estimates were first generated? Well, the cybersecurity landscape in 2017 was much less complex than it is today. Fraud and cyber-threats have been increasing in speed, scale and sophistication. This impacts the complexity and cost of the modernization. In other words, the threat environment raises the cost of keeping Canadians secure, and we are responding proactively, ultimately to protect the financial health of the program and the interests of Canadian taxpayers. Of the $473.4 million announced in the 2026 spring economic update, $176 million over two years will be used to increase OAS processing capacity and for OAS system maintenance and support. In terms of some of the questions the member has raised regarding the selection of proponents, we are fully transparent and we follow standard practices. Every contract includes clear deliverables. All contracts are competitively awarded and proactively disclosed in accordance with the rules in place. In terms of the beneficiaries, of who is benefiting from this transformation and the hard work that has been done by hard-working public servants and others, 7.4 million old age security clients were migrated to the new platform last year. Each one continued to receive payments as planned. The new system is currently providing 7.7 million seniors with pension benefits every month, many of whom rely on OAS as their primary or only source of income. The system is operating correctly, and 89.6 million payments have been issued with a value of nearly $84.7 billion. The number of clients waiting beyond their first month for payment has declined, and the department continues to ensure that these cases are processed and that clients have access to the benefits to which they are entitled.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue of missed payments. Some seniors have waited longer than they should. These delays were operational issues for files largely involving new applications or changes to payments. The department has worked to improve processing times with an OAS action plan implemented to improve service delivery, which has led to a 41% decrease in the inventory of new OAS applications. It is important to compare the question that the hon. member asks with the cost of not acting quickly. If we had not acted quickly, millions of OAS, EI and CPP recipients would have been stuck with an old system that would have potentially led to much worse outcomes for them. We are very proud of the transformation that is happening, which is taking place in a responsible and transparent manner, in a series of well-planned and prudent phases within the appropriated budget.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the incoming governor general, the Hon. Louise Arbour, who is a voice for human rights, a voice for women in the law, a voice for official bilingualism and a voice for many of the values we hold sacred in this country. I want to congratulate her on her appointment. I also want to share my resonance with the values the hon. member is identifying. I am the son of two physicians who were immigrants and chose Canada over the United States because of their belief in providing health care regardless of the cost and regardless of someone's ability to pay. Indeed, my first interest in politics came from hearing their stories about their bedside conversations about what was happening in the hospital where they were working and their concern that medicare was maybe under threat. The hon. member and I are just two of the millions of people who care passionately about our universal public health care insurance system and share our commitment wholeheartedly, something that has become key to our national identity. It is one of our defining nation-building achievements, reflecting who we are and what we value as a nation: a simple, enduring principle that access to medically necessary care can be based on need, not the ability or willingness to pay, and something that has a strong cross-partisan consensus. The Canada Health Act, an achievement of previous Parliaments, puts that principle into action, safeguarding universal access to medically necessary hospital and physician services without financial barriers, and setting the standard that provinces and territories must meet in order to receive their full share of the Canada health transfer payment. As guardian of the Canada Health Act, and of those payments, the government will uphold it with resolve and care. When a province or territory allows patient charges for medically necessary services, dollar-for-dollar deductions are made from that jurisdiction's Canada health transfer payment, as I think Canadians would expect. Since 2015, those deductions have totalled more than $329 million. Deductions are not taken without some serious consideration of the potential violation that is involved. I think that is evidence of the federal government's steadfast commitment to the values at the heart of medicare, values that are a shared duty, a shared responsibility, if we are going to protect them. Our health care system is strongest when governments at all levels work together to ensure that Canadians can receive the services they need without financial barriers. This shared duty guides how we enforce the act. Our goal is not to penalize provinces and territories at the first sign of non-compliance but to uphold the principle of medicare through collaboration, through connection and through communication. When issues arise, we reach out. We listen. We gather the facts and share information openly. We work with our provincial and territorial partners to resolve challenges, as I know the minister is doing. We apply the act fairly and consistently, always mindful that co-operation, not confrontation, has kept medicare strong for generations. This approach has actually delivered results. Since 2018, more than $227 million has been returned to provinces and territories after they took action to eliminate patient charges for medically necessary services. This shows how collaboration protects access to care based on need, how the collaboration we do results in a reaction by the governments we are engaging with. We bring that spirit of collaboration to the work before us today. We will remain engaged, reviewing proposals in good faith, asking questions early and keeping lines of communication open. Where adjustments are needed to respect the Canada Health Act, we will work together to ensure that they are made. That is how we protect patients. That is how we keep medicare's promise.

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, the shared commitment to medicare, as expressed through the Canada Health Act, is a very strongly held commitment. We are very fortunate to have a minister who is a fierce guardian of that commitment. The exact way in which we engage with any one situation, again, relies on those principles that I mentioned around collaboration to ensure that access to medically necessary care remains based on need, not on the willingness to pay a loan. Enforcement is one tool, yes, but there are other tools we can use to engage provinces and health care providers constructively in this conversation. I know that commitment, on this side of the House, is very firm, and it comes from a very deep place of commitment to our values as a party and to national identity.

Mr. Speaker, 67 years and one month ago, Toru-Hagiwara, the Japanese ambassador to Canada, presented 2,000 Somei Yoshino sakura to the citizens of Toronto for their support of Japanese Canadian refugees after the Second World War. Tomorrow, we will reap the fruits of that gift and other gifts, which are a living testament to the friendship between our two nations and a reminder of one of the many hidden benefits of being a Canada that welcomes refugees. High Park, the beating heart of our riding, will wake up. The flora and fauna will shake off winter, and High Park little league baseball will hold its opening day at Ernie Keith Field. The sakura cherry blossoms will be in full bloom, thanks to the hard-working public workers who help keep High Park safe and moving, as well as organizations, such as the High Park Nature Centre and the Bloor by the Park Business Improvement Area, that get our community excited about the sakura. I ask people to join us in High Park this weekend and to bring their families, their friends and their cameras. They will join thousands of people in the renewal that spring brings and bask in the beauty of the sakura cherry blossoms.

Madam Speaker, when the Conservative Party was in power in the 1990s, Canada was a fiscal basket case, with a debt-to-revenue ratio of over 30%. By contrast, we have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have the second-best growth rate in the G7. We are responding, but when it comes to tariffs, we know that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and that manufacturing needs some help. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry have been very clear that help is on the way.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to make a brief comment on this opposition day motion, which is part of a pattern of opposition day motions that seem intended to tear down or attack things that are working to support the most vulnerable in our society, like the interim federal health program for refugees or now, with this motion, to tear down something that we are in the process of building. We know that sovereign wealth funds take generations and years to build up and to provide benefits. I want to ask my friend from Kings—Hants, what are the projects in his riding and his region that he thinks could ultimately benefit from that investment, from this fund?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Calgary Centre, who has a lot of economic credibility and expertise, which is why I am a bit confused by his critique of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. Presumably, if there is a critique of the bank, then there is a critique of the projects in which the bank is investing. I am curious about whether the member is supportive of, or opposed to, the CIB's investment in the port of Montreal's Contrecœur terminal, the Peace Hills Trust, the Mersey River wind project or the north coast transmission line early works project. Are these not the kinds of projects that we should be investing in through a vehicle like the Canada Infrastructure Bank?

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, and I want to commend the member for Bourassa for introducing this bill and for speaking so powerfully about this major challenge. I would like to commend him for his speech, in which he outlined the benefits that workers will enjoy if the measures outlined in the bill are implemented. I want to thank the other participants in the debate, too, including the member for Peace River—Westlock, who I think has a lot of experience and knowledge to share in the very particular matters that this bill covers. I want to commend the comments made by the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj and the member for Repentigny. I commend the Bloc Québécois for supporting this bill and recognizing the work done by the member for Bourassa. I, too, would like to commend the efforts made by the Province of Quebec and by the people of Quebec to be leaders on this issue. I also want to thank the member for Scarborough—Woburn, who, in previous parliaments and in Ontario, has been a very strong champion of the right to repair. We are standing on the shoulders, as has been said, of the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba and the European Union. Ontario is making steps. When we think about the idea of the right to repair, it may not be a human right, but repair is fundamental to all that is human, so this piece of legislation is a very human endeavour that puts humans back in control of technology and of the things that are increasingly governing us. I want to thank our friend from Bourassa for shining a light on this and for making a very strong statement that it will stop; that we are working in the opposite direction, where humans are going to be in control of technology; that we have, as humans, this intimate connection with the things around us; and that we have a right to repair. It brings to mind a recent book that has come out by Stewart Brand called Maintenance: Of Everything. Stewart Brand has always been on the cusp of the latest thinking about technology, human connectedness and the great ideas of our time. I want to quote from Maintenance: Of Everything at some length because I think it captures the humanity that the member for Bourassa captured so well in his speech and the thing that is driving all of us, and is driving the frustrations behind and benefits from this legislation. The frustrations have been articulated by my colleagues across the way, as well as the benefits that this legislation could bring. Mr. Brand writes in his book: Maintenance is what keeps everything going. It’s what keeps life going. Every living thing spends a great deal of time and toil in maintaining its own life and the life of the systems it depends on. Plants tend the life of the soil they grow in. Beavers maintain their dams and thereby the pond that protects them. Humans maintain their bodies, their vehicles, their homes, and their cities, along with much else. Nearly everything worth maintaining is nested in something larger even more worth maintaining. But so much of doing maintenance is tiresome. Brush the damn teeth, change the damn oil. They are unrewarding chores—repetitive, boring, often frustrating, and endless. Since that part of maintenance is a pain, we shirk it, defer it, fail to budget time or money for it, let it drop to the bottom of the priority list. That’s easy to do because the necessity of maintenance accumulates invisibly and gradually. Then suddenly one day the thing breaks, the system falters, and everything stops in a turmoil of disruption, expense, and blame. A number of us have experienced this with our mobile devices. I was just in conversation with my wife, who shared her frustration about the latest mishap with her phone. I will go back to Stewart Brand: The apparent paradox is profound: Maintenance is absolutely necessary and maintenance is optional. It it easy to put off, and yet it has to be done. Defer now, regret later. Neglect kills. What to do? What I so appreciate about our moment in the House is that the member for Bourassa has asked, what to do? What to do about this paradox, where maintenance is important? We delay it, but we are nested in even greater systems that are worth maintaining, which, for Stewart Brand, is ultimately the entire earth. The member for Bourassa's response is that we are going to do something about this. We are going to take inspiration from those who care about maintenance and who have the connectivity to their devices and appliances, as so well described by the member for Peace River—Westlock, harkening back to perhaps a time when there was a more intimate connection between the manufacturers' devices and those who used the devices. Now too often the manufacturers of devices are far away from us. The beneficiaries of the economy in which maintenance is devalued are often outside of Canada, but we can do something about this. We can pass this bill. As far as I can tell, and it has been articulated by some of my colleagues across the way, the bill would have three main benefits: environmental benefits, customer savings and economic activity. The environmental benefits of maintenance and the cost of not investing in maintenance are very clear. I have data from Equiterre, which published a survey eight years ago. We have with us in the House the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who has close ties to this very important non-governmental organization. A growing number of electronics and household appliances are becoming obsolete every year. In 2016, 44.7 million tonnes of electronic waste were generated worldwide. Five years later, the increase in the amount of waste was estimated at 17%. Home appliances and electronics generate 44.7 million tonnes of waste worldwide. This is an eight-year-old figure. Canadians know about this and they are frustrated by this. In fact, too many Canadians and too many people around the world have given up because they assume that we cannot do anything about this. In a 2018 survey, 86% of respondents indicated that they believe home appliances and electronics are deliberately designed with short lifespans, and 80% of respondents reported that they purchased their devices new. In an economy that has all these devices around, people are having to buy these new devices, specifically electronic devices, because they do not last long enough. The planned obsolescence issues, as noted, are key. In the survey, 61% of Canadians kept their electronic devices for less than five years. When it came to home appliances, it was 45%. There is something we can do about this. We can attend to the environmental benefits. This piece of framework legislation, and let us bring it to committee as soon as possible, would allow Canadians down the road to have the ability to, we hope, attend to their devices in the way that Stewart Brand described and not send them as quickly to the scrap heap. Customer savings are clearly key in this time when Canadians are concerned about affordability. Again, we are sending money to device manufacturers and appliance manufacturers, too often, overseas. The member for Bourassa spoke so passionately about the kinds of people he sees every day who are facing choices about what to do with their piece of technology that has broken too quickly. The customer savings that are possible if we implement this legislation successfully, I think, are very promising. Then there is the economic activity. This piece of legislation could create a new set of industries, a new set of apprentices, and we have learned a bit in the spring economic statement about the upcoming apprenticeship benefits. Imagine a new generation of young workers who are working in shops on their main streets locally, doing this kind of repair at a fraction of the cost that it takes to buy a new device, keeping that money home, creating economies across Canada. Wherever we have a device, whether it is urban or rural, we need someone to repair that device. It brings to mind, for me, in my riding, the Parkdale People's Economy, an effort that really shined a light on how we need to do some of our economic activity differently. As the member for Bourassa said so clearly, the right to repair may not be a human right but it is fundamental to what it means to be human. Let us bring this legislation to committee. Let us reclaim a bit of what makes us human. Let us say that these technologies, these devices, do not rule us but that we rule them, that we are in partnership with each other and that we can have a better quality of life. We can experience the benefits of being in a community by having a relationship with these devices, with these appliances and with these technologies that is more human and more in line with the rest of the economy and the rest of the community in which we find ourselves. Pass the bill. Let us take inspiration from the member for Bourassa. Let us take inspiration from Stewart Brand. Let us take inspiration from the European Union, Quebec, Manitoba and elsewhere. Let us send the bill to committee.