Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that, and this is certainly true on this side of the House, all members of Parliament know the important work that Canadian farmers do across the country. That is exactly why we have eliminated the excise tax on gasoline and diesel. It is why we have increased business risk management programs. It is why we have introduced the national food security strategy, which is over three billion dollars' worth of targeted support to the agriculture sector and the agri-food sector across the country. We have a plan to help support farmers in the country. That member is from farm country. What should be a little embarrassing to the Conservative Party is that, a year ago, when they had the opportunity to present their plan, there was nothing for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, we have been focused on lowering costs for farmers. That is exactly why we have an action plan for reducing regulatory tape with the CFIA and the pesticides regulatory directorate. I do not know if the member shared that with the farmers in his constituency. I certainly have in my neck of the woods in Canada. The member talks about the importance of market access. I do not ever hear the Conservatives talking about the seven billion dollars' worth of agriculture and agri-food market access that the government established in China or the work we are doing to establish market access around the world, whether that is in Europe or the Asia Pacific. The Conservative Party does not even talk about the work that the government is doing to support farmers across the country.

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries just made it absolutely clear. Notwithstanding all the theatrics we have on that side from the member, we will always stand up for the Canadian fishery. We will stand up for the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador, and we already have. I wonder if the member has told fishermen in his community about the $1 billion that this government has put into small craft harbours. I wonder if the member has actually engaged his constituents and talked about the $10 billion that our government put into Churchill Falls as part of the agreement that will create 23,000 jobs in this country, including a lot in his province. Is he doing his work to share the work that this government is doing in his province?

Mr. Speaker, the member can stand up in this House and talk about the Prime Minister undermining our sovereignty, but it is fundamentally not true. As I have already put on the record, the Minister of Fisheries, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister of this country are making very clear that we will not be shedding one single element of the sovereignty of our fisheries in Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, let me go on the record again and remind the member that there was one billion dollars' worth of small craft harbour investment. Under the Conservative government, our harbours had deteriorated. We are investing in the fisheries. We are investing in processing through the national food security strategy. We will be there for Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be back. I hope you had a great summer with your constituents in the Montreal area. I had the opportunity to engage with the people I have the privilege of representing, and it is great to bring their voices to Parliament. I hope all of my colleagues had an opportunity to do the same throughout the summer months. I will be splitting my time this morning with the hon. member for Davenport. Today, we are here to talk about the building Canada strong act, but I would be remiss if I did not take 30 seconds, given the fact that I was in my constituency this summer, to recognize some tremendous young athletes from my community. I am a former fast pitch softball player. I do not know if any members in the House have played fast pitch softball. It is a sport played mostly in smaller and rural communities across the country. I want to put into the Hansard that Nova Scotia had four medals on the men's side in four different categories. At the under-17 level, the Brookfield Elks, with a number of athletes from my riding, won the Canadian championship. At the under-20 level, the Brookfield Elks won a bronze medal. At the under-23 level, the Nova Scotia team, again, composed of many athletes from Kings—Hants, won a silver medal, and at the top level of senior men's softball, East Hants won a bronze medal. I want to make sure that is on the record. We are proud of our athletes and certainly proud of the work they are doing at the national level. On to more important things, we were elected as a government to focus on building a more resilient economy. We know there are headwinds and challenges globally. We are facing tariffs from the U.S. administration, which is changing its trade policy, but the focus of the Prime Minister and the government has been to focus on controlling what we can control as a country. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport have made very clear that the building Canada strong act is the most important piece of economic legislation the government has introduced to date to really focus on driving projects that matter in the national interest of the country, such as the modernization of key trade corridors, including ports, across this country, and to also look at our supply chains and the way our labour context works in this country. Generally, collective bargaining has worked very well, but in some key strategic areas, we want to ensure there are additional measures and initiatives that can ensure that both the employer and the union representing workers can get to a deal that is fair for parties. We feel it is incumbent on the government to actually establish the initiatives and supports to help make that happen. Those are the three pillars of this very important piece of legislation. I will take us through why that matters, and I am going to start on the regulatory permitting piece. Many members of the House would agree with me that Canada has what the world needs. We are an agricultural superpower in our ability to help feed the world. We have a major potash industry that is, in fact, the largest in the world. It is global in nature. We need to get that supply to the world. We have the energy the world needs. We have the ability to fuel the world. Again, whether that is in pipeline access or the ability to get energy to world markets, we have to have the supply chain to make that happen. We have to be willing, particularly at this moment when Canada is being called upon by countries around the world, to be even more of a secure energy supplier. We have to work on the major projects that help drive our economy forward. We can talk about critical minerals, whether from the perspective of a military application or of clean energy. As one of the younger members of the House, I think about the future that I would like to leave for my future family, our constituents and people around the world. Critical minerals are going to be a really important part to our clean energy future. However, Canada has an outsized role globally to make sure those critical minerals are available to our allies and that we have alternative supply chains. That requires us, as parliamentarians, and certainly as a government, to make sure the regulatory conditions are in place so we can drive that process forward. What the government is proposing is essentially one window, one regulator and a one-year review once the proponent has submitted all the necessary information to the federal regulator. Members of Parliament will remember that our government introduced Bill C-5 for this type of principle on major national projects. There have been 17 major projects that have been referred to the MPO. While I am on my feet, I would like to recognize the work of Dawn Farrell, someone who has great experience in the private sector and who is doing very important work to lead that agency and help ensure that we can advance projects that are in the national interest. Some members of Parliament have rightly asked if that is a good principle for major national projects. They have asked about how we take those principles and how we could ensure that perhaps mid-sized projects and projects of more local or regional interest could also have the same principles applied regarding the rigour in which we are trying to move processes forward quickly without shortcuts. I think it is important for Canadians at home to understand the values that underpin not only how we want to ensure environmental safety and participation with indigenous groups in this country, but also the desire to make sure we can create certainty for businesses to invest in this country. We are trying to reconcile all that and to do so on a more expedited timeline, and that is exactly what we are proposing today. What that looks like is that as opposed to having multiple line departments, such as Transport Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, perhaps ECCC or, of course, indigenous engagement through Crown-Indigenous Relations, we should find a way to have it under one federal project review. While there could be a multitude of federal departments that would perhaps under current legislation have a role and responsibility, and we do not want to take away that expertise or that understanding of why those elements are important for projects, we have to be able to find the way to make it under one federal project review, not multiple ones, which is just challenging for the proponents trying to advance them. It is also challenging for indigenous communities. I have the privilege of representing three of them. One piece of feedback I have had in the seven years I have been involved in Parliament is that if we have ongoing consultation through multiple line departments, this does create a capacity challenge to ensure that indigenous communities are actively participating and have the resources to make sure they can share their perspective, as per our constitutional requirements in this country. Therefore, one thing this legislation proposes is a Crown consultation hub. This is the idea that in consultation, the multitude of federal departments that may have a say on a federal permitting decision could actually go through one body to engage with the nation in question to be able to provide the multitude of different perspectives we may need, as opposed to a series, a multitude, of departments playing that out over time. This is what we would, I guess, refer to as common sense. We think this is something that would reconcile the interests of ensuring that indigenous communities are engaged and we are meeting our constitutional requirements, with, at the same time, providing the proponent and a federal regulator with the ability to make that happen. Instead of a multitude of departments, it would be the Canada Energy Regulator, the Canada Nuclear Safety Commission or the Impact Assessment Agency. One of those three agencies would have the purview to make all the federal decisions, with engagement from federal departments, with the goal of having a one-year decision once all applicable information is submitted. That is incumbent. We as parliamentarians across the House, I hope, can recognize that is important. It is something we have to be able to push forward. On supply chain certainty, we have heard, and I have heard, commentary outside the House that the bill is trying to limit the ability to strike in this country. Let me say that this is simply not the case. What the bill is proposing is to put additional measures in terms of mediation support, such as a special mediator when there are complex cases between an employer and labour. I go back to the point I made, which is that we have what the world needs, we have an obligation and we are in a critical moment for this country. We as a government feel it is absolutely incumbent to ensure that we are putting all the resources possible to be able to get to a resolution between the employer and the union. We understand the importance of labour in this country. At the same time, we are putting critical provisions around the utilization of section 107, which is held by the Minister of Jobs. We feel that is an appropriate balance to make sure we are protecting the constitutional rights of workers and at the same time trying to ensure we are putting the resources to get the best deal at the table. When we look at the legislation and the proposals from the government, we see there is actually a proposal to put 100 additional resources, this being full-time equivalents, to the Canadian Industrial Review Board. Again, this is a mechanism where, if parties get to an impasse, we could be trying to provide assistance to ensure that there is good-faith bargaining and that we could get to an outcome that matters for employers and also matters, most importantly, for the workers and the people who drive our economy across this country. There is a lot in the bill, and I wish I had more than 10 minutes, but last is a modernization around port governance. Ports play an extremely important role in our country, and the provisions in the bill would allow for additional discretion for port boards in their capacity to make regulatory decisions, which we think is streamlined and the right way to go. At the end of the day, the bill is about building Canada. I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, we have a new government under a new Prime Minister, and it is a government that is deeply focused on economic growth across the country. I would remind the hon. member that the oil and gas sector did grow under the last 10 years of the Liberal government, at the same time as we also reduced emissions in the country. The last government certainly sought the balance between economic growth and environmental protection. The current government will endeavour to do the same. The last government built a pipeline to the Pacific coast. The current government, through the work of the Prime Minister and certainly by engaging Premier Smith, is open to another west coast pipeline, because it knows that being able to move the product to Asian markets is extremely important. Our ability to move liquefied natural gas off the B.C. coast to ensure that countries in the Pacific do not have to burn more coal in their energy grid is actually part of a global emissions reduction strategy. We are proud of the work we are doing here, and I know that members of the member's home province are proud of the current government as well.

Mr. Speaker, certainly in our system, there is cabinet, which is made up of members of Parliament who sit in the House. The member, in his remarks, his intervention, talked about tariffs. I do not know if there was a substantive piece where he disagrees with the policy that the government has introduced of countervailing duties to protect Canadian industry, to protect Quebec businesses, to protect Quebec workers, I should say. The member has the privilege and honour, as a member of Parliament representing his constituents, to stand in this place and to be able to take a position if he disagrees with the elected government and its utilization of our policy to protect Canadian workers. Let us be very clear that we do this reluctantly. We believe in free and open trade. We recognize the importance of the commercial relationship we have had with the United States, but the executive stands behind the decisions it has made to protect Canadian workers at a time when, if we do not respond, we will be hurting Quebec businesses as well.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have the opportunity to work together, and I know we share an interest in the port of Halifax. If Parliament is to bring this forward, the bill itself would allow for additional governance for the port of Halifax or other ports across the country, which would centre around regulatory decisions, trade corridors and the ability to work together on how best we get to the outcomes around both importation and exportation of products across the country. This is what the ports were calling for. This would give additional flexibility for governance in that area.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be encouraging the members in his party. I think he would make a tremendous leader of the official opposition. He mixes important oratory skills with the ability to point to where the government is moving in the right direction, while keeping his obligation to the loyal official opposition to continue to push the government to do more. I would like to point out to my hon. colleague that this government is an action-focused government. This is not about symbolism; it is about delivering concretely. The bill before Parliament is of the nature of things that I know former prime minister Stephen Harper would support. I know Jason Kenney, who sat on the side of the House that Harper did, is supportive of the work the government is doing. The Sisson mine, Darlington new nuclear and the Nova Scotia-New Brunswick intertie are projects that are actively under way, creating good jobs. Will the member at least recognize that these projects are happening? Is he going to support this bill?

Mr. Speaker, our message to Margaret and to individuals across this country would be that we have a concrete plan to build housing in this country. The Minister of Housing, through this government, has been working to build affordable units from the east coast of Canada all the way through to British Columbia. What I hope the member has the time to explain to Margaret is why, at every single turn, he and his party have voted against the affordability measures that matter for Margaret and the people she cares about in this country. He has voted against national child care. He has voted against the food and essentials rebate that we put out to 12 million Canadians. The member has voted against those measures at every single turn.

Mr. Speaker, I will give the Conservatives credit. They are now talking about actual measures that could support affordability, but I would ask them where they have been for the last number of months and years. I have been a member of Parliament for seven years in the House, and it does not matter if it is the Canada child benefit, national child care, the national school food program or the tax measures we have put in place, consistently, the Conservatives vote against these measures. We appreciate that they are finally talking about affordability, but we would ask them to actually support the measures the government consistently puts at the front to help support Canadians across the board. It is good that they are now talking, but why do they not get on board with some of the initiatives that we have had for years now?

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there are challenges across the country. That is exactly why we cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. It is why we have put in the groceries and essentials rebate. It is why we have doubled down on social programs that matter for everyday Canadians. However, we reject the premise of the Conservatives' question, that the government's policies have resulted in the challenges that Canadians are facing. We are facing a trade war from our largest trading partner: 75% of our goods and services go to the United States. There is a war in the Middle East and a war in eastern Europe. We are dealing with the circumstances and putting forward an economic plan to build this country and support Canadians at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully ask why that member votes against the measures that support the good people of Oshawa and the people across this country? As we said in the last answer, we are here fighting for Canadian industry and business. That member has voted against tax cuts for Canadians. That member has voted against strategic financing to support the auto sector in this country. The Minister of Industry is working with that sector to support members. That member stands up and does not recognize that we have created 88,000 jobs in the last month alone. We have a plan to help build the country strong and support Canadians who are facing vulnerability at this time.

Madam Speaker, we know the challenges for certain sectors in the Canadian economy on aluminum, on steel, on auto and forestry. Our Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade and our ambassador in Washington, Janice Charette, who has been appointed, are engaging with the U.S. administration. The member talked about jobs. I do think it is important to recognize that there were 88,000 jobs created in the Canadian economy. We know that there are challenges in particular sectors and that is why the Minister of Industry has been helping, with targeted programs to support workers and those industries being impacted. At the same time, we are focusing on building the Canadian economy across the country.

Madam Speaker, what I find quite remarkable is that in the Conservatives' questions there is never a recognition that the U.S. administration has imposed tariffs on some of our key sectors in this country. We are continuing to make the case to try to remove them. The member blows right by the fact that 88,000 jobs were created in May, primarily in the private sector and primarily in construction, with 150,000 net jobs this year. We have a AAA credit rating. We have a lower deficit. We have the strongest fiscal position in the G7. We have strong fundamentals and are focused on building major national projects, including in that member's province, to build Canada strong, to build this country strong. We will continue to focus on those plans.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the crowd is in high anticipation for my remarks today on the opposition day motion. I will remind the hon. chair of the House of Commons agriculture committee that I look forward to his questions after my 20-minute remark here. Mr. Speaker, you will know from my seven years as a parliamentarian that I thoroughly enjoy opposition day motions. Obviously I have had the privilege of sitting on this side of the House since 2019, but opposition day motions are an opportunity for opposition parties to put forward their policy prescriptions, their ideas on how to solve issues for Canadians, and rightfully so. Today we are talking about affordability and the cost of living. I dare say we could not find a member of Parliament, at least I hope not, who does not believe that the work we have to do to support greater affordability for Canadians and to tackle the cost of living is an important public policy measure. Where we differ is on the prescriptions with which we go about doing that work. I want to start by saying that, when I look at the opposition day motion, I humbly believe that the policy prescriptions the Conservative Party is putting forward are actually too narrow. The motion is looking too narrowly at the way in which we have to address affordability in this country. I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia. I have a lot of constituents who do not have the same ability to rely on public transit, who have to drive longer distances and who, I know, watch the price at the pump. The motion would be a really important measure. However, when I look at the opposition day motion, I see that it contains no recognition of why Canadians are dealing with higher costs at the pump right now. There is no recognition that the war the United States is waging against Iran and the impacts from what is happening at the Strait of Hormuz are having a major impact on the cost of living, the cost of fertilizer and the cost of fuel. Furthermore, nowhere in the opposition day motion does the Conservative Party recognize that the government has already, for the next four months, suspended the federal excise tax on gasoline. That is 10¢ a litre. It is a small but important measure with respect to the ability to fill up one's gasoline tank, but it is a sizable investment. This is almost $3 billion that the Government of Canada has committed to supporting affordability across the country. As I have said in the House before, it is a time-limited measure, until just after Labour Day in September, and we think that this is fiscally prudent. We hear the Conservatives talking out of one side of their mouth in the House of Commons about Canada's fiscal position, which I will cover in my remarks here today, but in the same breath they talk about spending even more on removing the GST on gas, which is for important public policy spending for social programs that matter to Canadians across the country. The Conservatives are playing a little on both sides. I guess that is the nature of opposition day and opposition parties, but at the end of the day, we think this is a reasonable measure that we have put in place for the next four months. There is no mention of it whatsoever. I think about how we go about tackling the question, and we see affordability not only through the lens of the price at the pump. I would remind hon. members and Canadians at home that the first act of the Prime Minister and the government was to eliminate the consumer carbon price. That was 18¢ a litre. Yes, there were rebates tied to that. Mr. Speaker, you will know that as a member of Parliament I was a strong advocate of making adjustments and was deeply supportive of the Prime Minister's work to eliminate the consumer carbon price, on the premise that there would be more ability to tackle climate and the environment and to reduce emissions. However, that policy was challenging for Canadians in rural areas who do not have the same ability, particularly with transportation, to change their policy. The government has already reduced the cost of gasoline by 28¢ a litre in the past calendar year. Never do we hear the opposition recognize that point. Never do we hear the Conservatives talk about this as something that the government is moving, in their view, in the right direction. The government believes there is a slippery slope around the GST. The GST, as we mentioned, notwithstanding the spring economic—

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for ensuring that we have proper decorum. I believe that my remarks here today have value, and I really look forward to engaging with my colleagues, particularly when we get to questions after the speech. Perhaps people were just excited to be able to see the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Kings—Hants, but we will never know. What I was talking about was that we see affordability through more than just one lens. We have done the work to reduce the price of gasoline by, on average, 28¢ a litre across the country. It may vary slightly across different regional realities. At the same time, that is not the only lens through which Canadians would view affordability. We have put a series of programs in place that I want to highlight to Canadians, and I would urge my Conservative colleagues to consider the ways in which we can expand the definition of how we put money back into people's pockets to support their ability to raise a family, take care of themselves or stay in their home longer, perhaps. This gives me an opportunity to talk about those. I am a proud son of a truck driver, and my mom is an administrative assistant back home in Kings—Hants. We come from pretty humble stock, as I say. We were a paycheque-to-paycheque kind of family. When some of my constituents ask about my trajectory, my involvement as a parliamentarian and why I chose the Liberal Party of Canada to stand for, I say that I was deeply proud of the work that the last prime minister was doing, particularly around the Canada child benefit. Previously, former governments had put in a flat-based type of incentive. Whether someone had a lot of different incomes to their name or they were relatively low-income, they received largely the same type of benefit to help support raising their children. My parents did not have a type of program like the Canada child benefit. I was fortunate that I had grandparents at home who were helpful and supportive and who were allowed to get me involved in organized sport. However, I still remember going to the grocery store and there being times when my mom would run the credit card, or the debit card, I guess, in that day, and not be able to pay for the groceries. I am proud to stand with a party that put social programs at the heart of our agenda, and with a new Prime Minister who has said and vowed that he will protect them. The Canada child benefit is one example. I was not here during the time it was implemented in the 42nd Parliament, but the Conservative Party voted against it, and the Conservatives do not talk about it as an important affordability measure that we can do to support everyday Canadians. For 50 years, Canadians talked about the importance of a national child care policy, not only as a policy to help support young people in their earliest years in terms of early education but also, of course, as a mechanism to support working parents who may wish to go back to the workplace to contribute to the economic side of the equation and in terms of the economy, to be able to get back into their pursuits that matter from a career side. The cost of child care had risen quite significantly. We came along, and under the last government and through a program that is continuing to be maintained under the current government, we supported a national child care policy with the objective of getting down to, on average, $10 a day. Never do we hear that mentioned in the Conservative opposition day motion. It is saving hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars a year for Canadian parents, and it is a key affordability measure. The Conservatives have wavered about where exactly they stand on this policy, but again, it is affordability. Yes, we want to save on the gas tank in terms of being able to get people to and from places in rural or urban communities across this country, but so too do we want to have the programs that matter for our youth and for affordability in terms of being able to get parents back into the workplace. That is good affordability policy. How about old age security increases and the guaranteed income supplement? A large proportion of the demographic in Kings—Hants is seniors. We have young, vibrant families and people of all ages, but we have a lot of seniors, especially in our rural communities. I am proud to stand with a government that increased the old age security by 10% for seniors 75 years old and up, and also increased the guaranteed income supplement for some of our most vulnerable seniors to ensure that they have more ability to pay the bills and keep a roof over their head. That is something that is key affordability, and we do not see this level of policy prescription from the Conservative Party. We are not seeing this type of thoughtful policy. I know it is the Conservatives' job to critique the government and hold the government to account. I completely understand and appreciate that function in our system, but it is also their job, I believe, to demonstrate that they have the ability to be a government-in-waiting. Fortunately, humbly and respectfully, I feel as though the way in which the member for Battle River—Crowfoot and the Conservatives have conducted themselves and purported themselves over the last year is actually helping and supporting our ability to say that we are the best choice for Canadians in that electoral context. This is important because better policy prescriptions from the Conservative benches, or all benches for that matter, although I obviously am talking today about His Majesty's loyal opposition, allow us and force us, as the government, to be even better in how we are putting together the programs and policy initiatives that matter. Last, I would say, is dental care and the groceries and essentials rebate. I have seniors in my riding who had not had the ability to get to a dentist in a considerable amount of time because, frankly, it would have cost more money than they could afford. That is an affordability measure that supports health care outcomes. It supports better access to care, not only in Kings—Hants but across this country. Never do we see many of the opposition politicians talking about what this means for their own constituents, even though these are, of course, national programs. The groceries and essentials rebate is an enhanced GST. The government has reframed it as a groceries and essentials rebate, but it will be up to $1,800, depending on income, and support 12 million Canadians. Again, it is a targeted benefit, trying to support those who may need the help the most. We think that is important. I do want to get to a point I have raised before. I had a coalition of agricultural groups from Saskatchewan in my office today: Sask Oilseeds, Sask Wheat and some canola representatives. We talked about the clean fuel standard. There are a number of different ways in which we can reduce emissions and make sure that for our next generation in this country, we are being thoughtful about balancing economic growth with also putting some emphasis on driving innovation and reducing emissions. I honestly believe the clean fuel regulation is one of the best policies. Members of the Conservative bench should be able to turn to it and say this is a policy that is using feedstock from farmers across this country, notably in prairie provinces, to reduce emissions. It has a minimal impact on the price of fuel, and it is helping to drive almost $30 a tonne's worth of canola benefit in the prairie provinces. In eastern Canada, it would be more the corn playing into ethanol blends. However, this is a policy that directly ties back to benefits on farms in rural communities and is driving innovation across this country. It has helped create Strathcona, a multi-billion-dollar investment in Alberta. The opposition party continues to signal that their way to affordability is tearing down a program that actually drives industrial benefit in this country, that actually supports Canadian farmers and that notably supports investment in the rural prairie provinces. That shocks me. In fact, I would love to get in this country, beyond partisan consideration, an ability for the two major parties to agree that this is a policy that has merit. We may have slightly different interpretations of the best way to go about it, but instead they just want to tear this thing down. They want to tear down a policy that has driven billions of dollars of industrial investment, notably in western Canada, and they want to create policy uncertainty in this space. I find that shocking. I find it unfortunate. This will not solve affordability for Canadians. I ask humbly, because the last platform of the Conservative Party, over a year ago, talked about tearing down the clean fuel standard and removing any form of industrial carbon pricing. They proposed to actually spend more taxpayers' dollars to get to a worse outcome on the environment. Conservatives need to come clean also with the policy prescriptions of the Conservative Party under the leadership of the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot. Their policy prescription, back in April 2025, was to actually spend more taxpayers' dollars, which ultimately has to come from Canadian pockets because we all pay taxes, to get to a worse environmental outcome. That is the thing we have to litigate in the House and ask questions about. I have great respect for many of the humble members on the other side, including the hon. member for Perth—Wellington, a great guy. I encourage those members, whom I feel have the right view about how to conduct and drive that party forward, to have these honest and hard conversations about how we find a pathway and how we make sure the Conservative Party actually has some policy prescriptions in this space. Right now, at least on this one, on the clean fuel standard, it is actually benefiting individuals in Conservative ridings across the country. It is driving industrial benefit. It is creating those opportunities. I want to take an opportunity to also talk about affordability through the lens of what we have done in the spring economic update, because, at its core, this motion is about affordability. I would point Canadians and hon. members to something I am proud of. I was the first in my family to get a post-secondary education. I obtained a law degree and a master's degree in public administration management. I am proud of that background. I also come from a background and a long history of individuals who did blue-collar work and worked in the skilled trades, and I am proud of that as well. There is $6 billion in the spring economic update to support, which is our hope as a government, and help train 80,000 to 100,000 Red Seal skilled trade workers. We are going to need the pipefitters, the plumbers, the electricians and the carpenters. The government is looking to catalyze $1 trillion of investment in this country over the next five years. We have a goal of building major projects in a variety of different fields, whether in renewable energy, clean energy, nuclear, conventional energy or the mining activities that we are going to need to help drive our clean energy future. We really want to see big projects and mid-tier projects get under way, but we also have to have the workforce and industrial capacity to deliver on that. We see that $6-billion investment as critical. That is supporting affordability for individuals who want to go through apprenticeship programs and have access to the means to do that, including an additional $400 to draw EI when individuals go back to that eight- to 10-week block as they continue to upgrade their education and build their skill set in the workplace. I would point to the work we have done to maintain the augment in the Canada student grants. Acadia University is in my riding of Kings—Hants. I just had the opportunity to be at a convocation and saw a lot of bright, young individuals who are doing great things today and I know will continue to do great things in the community and across this country. Education has become difficult and expensive. Part of that is tied to the ways in which some provincial governments have chosen to invest in post-secondary education. We want to make sure we are doing our part on the federal side, and we have increased the Canada student grant from $3,000 to $4,200. This was the type of programming that benefited me when I went through university and benefits lower-income students who may not have the means from their family to help pay for post-secondary education. We have also reduced the amount of money on a weekly basis that students who benefited from the federal loan program have to pay back after they are done their education. That is affordability in action. That is smart public policy helping support Canadians across the country. Again, I want to see more of this from the opposition benches because we can be more nuanced than to just tear down environmental policy. Yes, gasoline prices are important, along with fuel and housing. All of that matters, but these are some of the other elements we can do on affordability. Then there is the CPP rate reduction. It is small but meaningful. In the spring economic update, we announced the CPP rate reduction from 9.9% down to 9.5%. On average, this will save a worker with a T4 income around $70,000 just shy of $200 a year in savings. Again, I understand that may or may not move the needle for some who are dealing with a difficult situation, but I would humbly suggest what the Conservatives have put on offer today as a policy prescription would be less of an affordability measure than what we have just done with the CPP rate reduction. It is important not only for employees who pay into CPP but also for small businesses, which will benefit depending on the number of T4 employees they have. There is one last thing I am going to talk about. Members know I have been a strong champion in the House of the issues of farmers and agriculture. I have talked at great length about the need to be more agile in our regulatory structure. I think of the work and conversations I have had with the Nova Scotia fruit growers and the many different commodities across Kings—Hants. They talked about the government being more agile in using the science and evidence of other jurisdictions to inform our regulatory model in Canada to ensure farmers have the tools they need to do their job. I would point to the Prime Minister's work, when he was in Australia, with Prime Minister Albanese in terms of the joint communiqué that those two leaders released around regulatory co-operation between agencies in Canada and Australia. I would also point to the spring economic update. I give credit to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Health, who have focused quite intensely on the ability to have an economic lens around the decisions of what was formerly called the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and also of the CFIA. I know this matters for affordability and competitiveness, and it will have a translation in terms of the price of food. These are examples where the government is reducing red tape and moving forward its goal to not only drive projects but make our landscape in the business community more competitive. As it relates to agriculture, this is great public policy. I was told this morning that imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I know the hon. member for Bow River has put forward his own private member's bill that looks oddly similar to one I put together three years ago. I give him credit for that. I am proud of the work we did on our platform back in April, when, respectfully, the Conservatives did not have a whole lot to say. We are going to continue to implement that platform on things like this. I am glad the Conservative Party is joining the conversation, but we are on it and we are going to keep doing it for Canadian farmers.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is one I would put in the camp of the good ones whom I have a lot of respect for. I know he is framing this around $1,200. We are looking at a comprehensive view around affordability. We have already reduced gas taxes in Canada by 28¢ a litre. We believe that is important. The hon. member talked about, and I would reject the premise of his question, how the government has created a cost of living crisis. I would point to a lot of external events that are having impacts the government is seeking to respond to. I would go back to the Canada child benefit that his party voted against. I would go back to national child care, which his party has not made clear they would maintain if they were in government. I would go back to old age security and the GIS that his party voted against. These are prime examples of affordability. We are going to do our bit on gasoline, but we also want to support other broader affordability. We do not think getting rid of the clean fuel standard, which supports farmers, is smart public policy.

Mr. Speaker, naturally I cannot explain the political views of the Conservative Party. However, as far as our government is concerned, I am very proud of the work we are doing with the Government of Quebec, particularly on major projects like the Contrecœur project and the Nouveau Monde Graphite project, as well as the investments that are being made. There is some good news for Airbus and AirAsia, as well as a major investment and a partnership with an Asian company. We are here for Quebeckers, together with the government of Premier Fréchette, always in the interests of Quebec and the entire country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say, first of all, on the record that I am proud of the work of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. Even when she sat on that side of the House, the opposition side of the House, I thought she litigated in a way that was respectful. She would engage respectfully. We are very happy to see her on the government benches helping to support the public policy of the government. The way the member framed the question, at the end of the day, is what I am hoping to see from the Conservative Party. The reason and the rationale as to why we have seen four members of Parliament from the Conservative Party now say that they are more at home under the leadership of the Prime Minister and a government with that type of party and style are that we are offering thoughtful policy. The idea of just killing the clean fuel standard, which actually supports Saskatchewan, Manitoban and Albertan farmers, with no thoughtful alternative as to how to tackle those issues, is a type of politics that is not offering practical solutions for Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for being such a strong advocate in Parliament for farmers across the country and especially in Quebec. With regard to the clean fuel regulations, there are a lot of options available to the affected parties to ensure compliance, and that includes the use of biofuels. There are farmers in western Canada and Quebec who grow corn and who have the opportunity to sell their crops to produce biofuels here in Canada. The Conservatives want something else. They are looking to kill that program, to cut that program, and it actually would have a direct correlation with the ability of farmers in Quebec and in western Canada to get a good market price. This is about supporting farmers at the farm gate using their feedstock to support cleaner fuels in the country. The comparison would be saying we should put lead back in our gasoline because it might make our gas slightly cheaper. That is, essentially, the Conservative proposition.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say is that this differential existed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister as well. There are a number of factors in the way in which Canadians create the revenue that supports social programs. At the end of the day, what the hon. member is suggesting in today's motion is to take away the funding of GST that supports broad government programs in that member's riding and all across this country. I have a question for the hon. member, and maybe he can take a thoughtful dynamic in his own party. Essentially, the Conservative position on eliminating the clean fuel standard would be like suggesting that we should put lead back in gasoline because it would actually make fuel slightly cheaper. The members laugh, but I am sure that if we looked at it, if we did not actually take lead out of the gasoline process, which Brian Mulroney did in the 1980s, it would make gas slightly cheaper. That is the same principle that the Conservatives are pushing today. Why not just go all the way and say that we should put lead back in gasoline instead of supporting Canadian farmers, clean energy solutions and industrial investment across the country?

Mr. Chair, it is a privilege to be able to join today's debate on the estimates and be able to put good questions on behalf of the good people of Kings—Hants to the Minister of Finance. I want to start by saying, having served for seven years as a member of Parliament, I appreciate the work of the hon. member from Shawinigan. I appreciate his work in his capacity in a variety of files. I have had the chance to see his leadership first-hand. I want to start by talking about renewable energy. In Nova Scotia, we have seen a tremendous and successful growth of wind power generation. This government has made important decisions around protecting Canada's steel industry, notably putting a surtax on fabricated wind towers that are generated outside of Canada. I know Marmen, for example, in Quebec is a great example of that leadership in Canadian fabricated wind towers. I have had proponents in Nova Scotia come to me to talk about projects, particularly those that are already under construction or those that have a power purchase agreement. The ability to pivot at this point in the game is quite difficult. They are certainly looking at using Canadian supply chains now that we have the surtax in place. I want to give compliments to the minister. We have a remission order for fabricated wind towers that were already under construction. Some proponents have suggested an ability to use proponents that already have a power purchase agreement would be a reasonable balancing to make sure that some of these projects can go forward. I know it is a difficult balance. Is the minister aware of this? Is it something that he could at least consider in the days ahead?

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the attention to that matter from the minister. Yes, we do have a great working relationship, and I know that will continue. We have a lot of small businesses in Kings—Hants. When we talked today in the House about affordability, I chastised some of the Conservative positions in the opposition day motion as being too narrow and not looking at broader affordability measures. Yes, we have already reduced gasoline prices by 28¢ a litre, but I talked about some of the social programs we have put in place, and I also talked about the CPP rate reduction. In the spring economic update, the government, through the Minister of Finance, is proposing to take the rate reduction from 9.9% down to 9.5%. This is going to save a T4 employee in the economy about $170 a year, which is important. That is more money back in people's pockets. Of course, there is a corresponding connection to the employer not having to put that CPP contribution in, and that can be multiplied by the amount of T4 employees that it has. Would the minister care to comment on that CPP rate reduction being a small but meaningful policy to move the needle for small businesses and employees across the country?

Mr. Chair, I represent the largest agricultural riding in Atlantic Canada. Kings—Hants is home to a whole series of different commodity groups and one is the wine sector. We have an emerging grape and wine sector in Kings—Hants. The hon. minister had an opportunity to visit the riding. I know he is a great friend to the agricultural community across the country. One program that is of deep interest to the wine and grape sector is the wine sector support program. The hon. minister was part of the cabinet in the last government that helped put this program together. I compliment him on his leadership. This program does not sunset until the next fiscal year, but some of the wine growers in the community that I represent have highlighted it as a great initiative of the federal government being involved in agriculture under a trade-compliant program. I do not expect the minister tonight to have an answer about the future of that program, but he knows the importance of the wine sector across the country. I am wondering if the minister might talk about that industry, whether it is in Niagara, the Okanagan, Kings—Hants or areas of Brome-Missisquoi. Maybe he could share some of his experience as a member of Parliament in seeing that first-hand and what it means across the country.

Mr. Chair, I agree with the hon. minister. He may have been referencing the hon. member for Peterborough and her experience in working in the agriculture sector. Let me go on the record in seconding the minister's belief that the member for Peterborough is a great champion in this House, along with the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. We have a whole host of leaders in that agricultural space. There is one thing I want to ask the minister. In the spring economic update, there is an intention from the government to change the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, CFIA, and also the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, the former PMRA, to put an economic lens on the decisions. Of course, I know all members of this House would agree that environmental and health safety are paramount, but so too is food security and economic decision-making around the regulators. The minister has a very big portfolio, but this is part of the work that the government is doing around red tape. Whether they are in Peterborough or Kings—Hants, farmers have pointed to this government leadership as being a great example of trying to look at regulatory agility. Would the hon. minister be able to speak to the CFIA and PRD amendments specifically, or talk more broadly about regulatory reform and agility and how it is part of our economic growth agenda?

Mr. Chair, the hon. member for Waterloo is a great colleague. She and I have talked a lot about Canada's fiscal position. We have a AAA credit rating. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have a strong fiscal position. I do not want the minister to take a whole lot of time, because I only have two minutes, but does he have quick comments on Canada's fiscal position and how he would message that to Canadians?

Mr. Chair, I am sorry I had to cut the minister off. He is great, but I have to get in one last question. I see the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets, who has done great work on China, on the file around lobsters and working with the government to remove tariffs. I see the hon. member for Labrador and the member for Avalon. I can say that it is fisheries that matter in Atlantic Canada. It is the base of our economy. I would be remiss as a member from Nova Scotia to not ask the minister in the time we have remaining to talk about small craft harbours and a generational investment. Why does the hon. minister not take us away on that happy note?

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to have the opportunity to debate motions tabled by the opposition parties. Today, our hon. colleague from Joliette—Manawan moved a motion about the challenges posed by the U.S. tariffs, particularly for our manufacturing sector. I appreciate the way the Bloc Québécois has presented this motion today, because I think the wording of the motion is relatively fair. I have friends on the other side of the House of Commons, among the Conservatives. However, I find that there is always some sort of catch in how the Conservative motions are worded. That said, I feel that the Bloc's work presents an opportunity for MPs from all parties to discuss a crucial issue, namely the impact of the U.S. tariffs, particularly the section 232 tariffs. This is important for communities across the country, including those in Quebec, of course, as well as in southwestern Ontario and in my riding. I am pleased to have the opportunity to present the perspective of my constituents in Kings—Hants, as well as my own as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. I think everyone here understands that the situation is difficult. There are four aspects to the Bloc Québécois motion. Point (a) condemns the imposition of the new U.S. tariffs that came into force on April 6, 2026, as contrary to the principles of free trade. We agree with that aspect of the motion. It is important to remind all Canadians that we have the best agreement with the United States, CUSMA. More than 85% of our goods and services trade is tariff-free. This is very important for our national economy. However, it is true that, for the sectors affected by the section 232 tariffs, things are very difficult. Things are difficult for the steel industry, for the aluminum industry and for the forestry sector. Now, with the revised tariff structure, it is no longer simply a matter of a tariff on certain non-U.S. products, but rather a tariff imposed on the full price of products in general. This increase stems from a decision by the U.S. administration. In some cases, there was a tariff of 2% or 3%, and it has now risen to over 20%. There are many examples. Our colleagues have mentioned some today. We agree with the first part of the Bloc Québécois opposition motion. Point (b) says that the application of additional tariffs on the full value of products containing steel, aluminum or copper is affecting a growing number of businesses, particularly SMEs. We agree on that. As I mentioned, it is how the U.S. administration decided to expand its section 232 policy. That is a problem for our SMEs across the country. We generally agree, but we have some reservations about point (c). It is not that it is problematic, but rather that we are already taking corrective action and helping our businesses. Point (c) of the motion expresses concern that this new trade environment could have irreparable effects on our manufacturing sector and the employees who depend on it. Yes, we understand that the situation is very difficult, but I believe that now is the time to help the sectors affected by tariffs and, at the same time, build a resilient economy. I would like to raise some important points about our government's approach to addressing the challenge posed by tariffs for the affected sectors, as well as for the economy as a whole. First, we will be our own best customer in the steel, aluminum and softwood lumber sectors. That is why the minister responsible for procurement here in Canada is focused on how to buy more from our SMEs and our industries in general. I am proud of the products made by our local companies, I understand them better and I know that Canadians are now proud, too. With the government's purchasing power, we have an opportunity to support our businesses across the country. When it comes to helping businesses, the next focus will be on agriculture and agri-food. We have a lot of farmers, especially in Quebec, but also in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. Based on certain aspects of U.S. policy, I think it is also important to help farmers, especially our small-scale farmers, with a buy local policy. The national school food program provides an opportunity to buy local products. That is one aspect of our national policy. With the goal of being our own best customer in mind, I am thinking of the Irving Shipyard in Halifax. We likely have more than 4,000 local workers, skilled workers, who have the opportunity to build and repair Royal Canadian Navy ships. This is a good example of our investment in the defence sector. It will be an opportunity not only to support members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but also to create good jobs across the country. There are other examples, such as the Davie Shipyard in Quebec City, CEI in Montreal, and Bombardier. There are many examples across the country. Now is the time to help these sectors. It is also important to find other markets. We agree with the proposal to continue our long-standing good relationship with the United States and recognize the importance of that market for our industries in general. That said, we must find other markets to support our businesses and diversify our free trade relationships around the world. I am very proud of the work done by our government to open new markets and create export opportunities for our products. There are many different sectors in that context, but it is very important in Europe, in South America, in the Asia-Pacific region, just as it is in India, Indonesia and China, in some cases. I am aware of the impacts on some of the manufacturing sectors, but new markets are very important in certain areas. When it comes to supporting workers involved with the EI extension and the specific funding initiatives for companies impacted by U.S. tariffs, we have invested over $5 billion in a program called the strategic response fund in order to help companies in the auto, steel and forestry sectors withstand the impacts of the section 232 tariffs and the tariffs imposed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. We recognize the importance of finding a way forward in the context of free trade with the U.S. administration. However, at the same time, we are here. We are here for workers in Quebec, in Ontario and across Canada. In the Atlantic, we have other products that are targeted by the U.S. tariffs. We have programs in place. I am also proud to highlight the importance of the funding allocated to Canada's regional development agencies. There are various agencies across the country, and there are funds dedicated to helping affected companies, but funds are also being distributed to provide regional support in Atlantic Canada, Quebec, the Prairies, and western Canada. My colleague from Winnipeg North is familiar with the programs available in western Canada. There are two other important aspects to consider when building a resilient economy. One is major projects. The opposition motion we are seized with today was moved by my Bloc Québécois colleague from Joliette—Manawan. I am going to talk about major projects in Quebec, such as the Port of Montreal project in Contrecoeur, which is very important. It is very important for Montreal, for Quebec, but also for Canada. This is an example of a major project aimed at benefiting many sectors, such as the sectors affected by tariffs, including steel and aluminum, as well as workers, who face various challenges because of the tariffs. Nouveau Monde Graphite is a good example of a critical mineral project in Quebec. It is a good example of innovation in Quebec and Canada. Alto is also important when it comes to transportation and Canadian procurement. This is an opportunity to support that industry. In Nova Scotia, there is the Wind West transformation project, which is important for energy in Atlantic Canada. There is the Bay du Nord project in Newfoundland and Labrador. From what I understand, the premier of New Brunswick wants to implement a nuclear project in the province. We therefore have many opportunities to strengthen our economy in general. I also think that we need to invest in major projects to increase our export capacity. I mentioned the Contrecœur port, but the Minister of Transport has over $5 billion to invest in railways, ports, airports and logistics hubs through the trade diversification corridors fund. There are many important investments that can act as catalysts for private sector investments. That is another reason why it is important to get to work and focus on what helps us to be masters in our own house. We recognize the importance of finding a path forward with the U.S. in the context of CUSMA. That being said, as the Prime Minister noted, it is impossible to control the President of the United States, Mr. Trump. What we do have control over is our regulations, our initiatives here in Canada and our economic vision for the future of our communities and regions. I think this aspect is absolutely crucial in the context of what is to come. Now that I have gone over the first three points of the Bloc Québécois motion, I will read the last one, point (d): (d) call on the government to take all necessary measures without delay to mitigate the impact of these unjustified tariffs, including providing direct support to affected businesses and workers in Quebec and Canada, until a trade agreement with the United States is restored. We still have free trade with the United States, but we like the idea of charting a path forward in a context where tariffs are reduced or eliminated for the affected sectors. As I mentioned, we have more than $500 billion set aside specifically for companies, sectors and industries directly affected by the U.S. tariffs. We believe in the importance of these sectors and our workers in this context. The repercussions are known, and they affect not only Quebec and Ontario, but the entire country, given our continental economic integration with the United States. That is why we are going to seek out other markets. We are going to continue to help businesses, SMEs and workers affected by the tariffs. We understand that the situation is very difficult and that companies have little room to maneuver. We will also continue to invest in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have invested billions of dollars to buy more equipment and provide homes for our soldiers, for Canadian Armed Forces personnel. We believe that these investments are crucial for protecting our sovereignty, but also for our industrial capacity across the country. That includes Quebec companies. I see that I am out of time. It was a pleasure to have the opportunity to highlight the federal government's measures in general and to share some personal insights at the same time. I am ready to answer questions from my colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the forestry sector is important in Canada. My riding is home to companies such as Elmsdale Lumber and Ledwidge Lumber. In Nova Scotia, the forestry sector is absolutely crucial to our rural communities. I think that we can place greater emphasis on all the ideas put forward by members of the House of Commons to ensure that we have specific programs in place to help the sector as a whole during these very difficult times. We have over $1.5 billion earmarked for the forestry sector. Things are tough right now due to the conflict with the United States, but we need to focus on this sector to ensure it has a future. Solid wood construction is also more important in the context of Build Canada Homes.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my use of French here in the House of Commons. Of course I speak English too, but I will not apologize for speaking French. To address the member in his own language, he talked about the work that this government is doing. We are focused on building, and maybe he did not hear because he was not listening very closely through the translation about the work that the government is doing to build up energy and natural resource projects in the country. That is exactly what we are doing. We are engaged, and we are at the table. We will take no lessons from the Conservatives. We see the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North going down and engaging. He is not in a mandate to actually do that. I will remind my hon. colleague that before his time in the House, in the last NAFTA renegotiation, the Conservatives suggested that the government should fold and try to get a deal at the time. We are going to make sure that the deal we make is in the best interest of Canadian industry and workers. When we are at that point, we will have more to say on that.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on introducing her bill regarding the importance of cellular service in rural areas. I am very proud of her and her work because this is a very important issue in the riding of Compton—Stanstead, in my riding of Kings—Hants as well, and in many rural communities. In the agricultural sector, we are going to introduce a national food strategy that will be particularly important to farmers in both of our ridings. I could give many examples, but I do not have much time. That said, we are paying particular attention to agricultural issues in general.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, we have a lot of funding programs available to support sectors currently affected by the U.S. tariffs. I think and I imagine that the hon. Minister of Industry is open to suggestions from all the parties in the House of Commons. I will pass these ideas on to the minister. I know that it is important to the minister that they be brought to the government's attention. All options are on the table, because we understand the importance of supporting our workers affected by the U.S. tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the Canadian people to decide whether or not the Prime Minister and the government have the vision they are looking for. I would remind my hon. colleague that according to basic statistics right now, almost 70% of Canadians approve of the general direction of the government. It is not for me to say and perhaps not for him to say. We obviously wear different partisan-coloured shirts in the House, so to speak, but I believe, in the context, and I have travelled across this country, that Canadians believe in the vision the Prime Minister is putting forward. We obviously understand that right now this is a difficult context of sectors that are being impacted, and I would suggest that it is through no fault of the government. We did not walk in wanting this. We are dealing with the circumstances. When I think about businesses in London, I think about the defence sector and the investments we are making that can help support business in London and help support people who are being impacted. With respect to affordability, I would ask the member to support the programs we are putting in place for some of the most vulnerable people. Accordingly, it is important for him to jump on board to support the government for some of the people who are being impacted.

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to be able to join this afternoon's debate to talk about the opposition day motion. Those who know me know that, over my seven years of serving as a member of Parliament, I love opposition day motions because it is an opportunity for members on the government side of the House to critique the text and the policy ideas that are being put forward by the opposition members. Of course, today is no exception to that. I want to start by giving an opportunity to Canadians at home to understand what the government announced this week, because it is a core element of what the opposition has put forward. In its view, what we have put forward is not a good policy idea. I think the role of Canadian parliamentarians is to explain the policy positions and the ways in which we would handle government, and let Canadians decide who they think is best able to handle the current circumstances. This week, the Prime Minister announced the Canada Strong fund. This is Canada's first national sovereign wealth fund. It is an initial allocation of $25 billion from the government. Canadians at home might ask what a sovereign wealth fund means and what is the intention of the government in trying to move forward with this policy initiative. First, I think it is important to understand that the government has an intention of catalyzing a trillion dollars' worth of investment spending in this country over the next five years. I will repeat that: The government has an intention of spending and catalyzing private sector investment to $1 trillion. That is a large amount. I dare not doubt that for many people, parliamentarians in this House or Canadians at home, it is hard to understand the quantum of what that is, but that is a large investment in Canada's future. Of course, we have seen that reflected in the government's work to help establish the Major Projects Office, to look at identifying major projects of national interest and look at the work we can do to remove some of the regulatory barriers to be able to streamline processes, get shovels in the ground, draw in global investment and make that happen. I have observed, and I am on the record in my time as a member of Parliament since 2019, that as the government looks to incentivize the private sector to come and spend in the country, as we are putting public money on the table, Canadian parliamentarians on all sides of this House have identified that there is an important mechanism about public interest return. We can become equity stakeholders, and by “we”, I mean the government, as in Canadians. The beneficial economic derivatives of these projects can be used to support social programs and to support the types of national interest projects that we may wish to advance as a country in the days ahead. Of course, when we invest in projects, for example if we build what Enbridge is committing to do in British Columbia, a $4.4-billion natural gas pipeline, that comes with intrinsic benefits in terms of wages, which would support Canadian households. There is taxation on that, which would then support social programs that the government puts on. We could look at the construction jobs. We could look at the economic imports or perhaps royalties in terms of natural resources that are being developed in Canada. That is a broad macroeconomic benefit that would support the country. However, if the Canadian government were to invest or be an equity partner in these types of projects that return important revenues and economic benefits, not only for private stakeholders but for the government, there would be an opportunity to grow the wealth that the country has overall. Many Canadians would point to Norway as a prime example, the way Norway has been able to use its natural resource endowments to create a fund that is larger than $1 trillion. I do not have the exact figure, but I know it is north of $1 trillion. That is because the Norwegian government, back in the 1980s, decided that it would be an equity stakeholder in projects of national interest in its country. Now Norwegians, as a country and as a society, have a sovereign wealth fund that is over $1 trillion. We believe that the government here in Canada can do the same thing. We believe that we can draw in investments. We believe this Canada sovereign wealth fund can be a mechanism to take small but meaningful equity shares in projects that are going to matter to the country, that are going to create an economic return, and that Canadians themselves can participate in. Canadians can essentially be bondholders. They can take out an equity stake and invest in the Canada sovereign wealth fund themselves. That way, Canadians across this country, from coast to coast, can help build a country that they are proud of. If they have some additional disposable income, they can put it into the sovereign wealth fund. Of course, as the parameters are established, the fund would allow for Canadians, if they were to pull out their investment from the sovereign wealth fund, to have an interest-bearing benefit in terms of that time. As the sovereign wealth fund grows and the projects bring back economic revenues, this fund that Canadians could draw upon to invest in ourselves and our people is something we could move forward on. It has been interesting to hear the Conservatives take such a narrow and negative view of the benefits of what this type of fund could create. For example, the text of the motion says, “sovereign wealth funds must have wealth that comes from budget surpluses and resource revenues.” We certainly have resource revenues in this country. I point to the examples of perhaps some of the most successful wealth funds in the world: in Norway, the United Arab Emirates or some of the gulf countries. Every single one of those sovereign wealth funds started with the same principles as the Government of Canada is using today. They allocated and put in an initial ability to put money up front, and then they built out their fund as they continued to invest in economic projects around the world. We have a tremendous opportunity to do the same. Canadians watch what the government is seeking to accomplish. We have had the one-year anniversary since the mandate of our new Prime Minister in his seat. We are focused on delivering for Canadians, but it must be said with pride, regardless, so to speak, of the colour of jersey we wear in the House, that Canada has what the world wants. I have had the opportunity, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, and as all parliamentarians have, to engage with diplomatic leaders from other countries, including ambassadors and high commissioners who are in Ottawa representing their country. Across the board, when we sit down with diplomatic representatives such as high commissioners or ambassadors, they say that they want more of what Canada has. We can look at what is happening right now in the Middle East, with all the uncertainty created by the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Countries want what Canada has from an energy perspective. We are focused on building out Canada's energy sector and being able to get product to international markets. That is one way in which Canada can continue to fuel the world. We talk about agriculture. I represent Kings—Hants in the Annapolis Valley, the largest agricultural riding in Atlantic Canada, though we may be small potatoes, so to speak, compared to the larger, sometimes prairie-heavy ridings, where we know a lot of the export focus in this country happens. I have enjoyed the working relationship I have with the Premier of Saskatchewan and have spent a lot of time in Western Canada. I believe in what prairie farmers mean to our Canadian economy and identity, and in what they do to feed the world every single day. We are proud of that. We also think about critical minerals. Again, whether seen through a lens of defence or one of clean energy, Canada's critical minerals are going to be what help shape the economy of today and tomorrow. That is what the government is focused on. The Canada Strong fund will allow Canada to take those equity positions I am talking about, help advance major projects across this country and create long-term benefit for Canadian people. The Prime Minister said that this “will be [the] people's fund.” This is an opportunity to invest in Canadians individually and our country and society as a whole. Of course, the Canada Strong fund is one of the many measures that the government introduced in the spring economic update. I would be remiss if I did not take some time to highlight the connectivity between the Canada Strong fund and the other initiatives we are putting on the table to help make our economy more resilient in the days ahead. First I will give some facts, because we can look at the text of the opposition day motion. The House leader, in question period earlier today, highlighted that essentially there were 33 questions of the exact same ilk from the opposition benches. There was no deviation from the type of questions. Let me take a moment to say as a parliamentarian, taking my parliamentary secretary hat off for a moment, that I think this is troubling. Yes, there should be a national line of questioning from opposition members. Perhaps the first two or three rounds ought to be about the macroeconomic issues of the day and holding the government to account, of course. However, when do individual members of Parliament from His Majesty's loyal opposition stand up to talk about the issues that might matter in their constituency? I cannot remember the last time there were actually questions on specific, directed issues that were being asked of government ministers. It is very rare or does not happen.

Mr. Speaker, I know I am getting a rise out of the opposition because they know it is true. I hope the leader of the official opposition and the empowered and enlightened members on the other side, including the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, who has a lot to say and whose questions I look forward to, should have a conversation inside their blue tent and ask if they are doing the best for the people they represent and are asking the hard questions. I think they should be doing a better job of holding the front bench to account by talking about the things that actually matter in their riding. We never hear that. Here are some facts. We have heard, even in the opposition day motion, about the idea of a credit card debt dynamic. I do not know about anyone else, but when my wife and I bought our first home in Nova Scotia, we did not have the money to buy it outright. Maybe some members of the House had that ability, had some savings and bought a house outright. We had to borrow to buy an asset that we felt was fundamental. I would argue that when many Canadians buy a home, they do not have the money to buy it outright. What do they do? They borrow the money to build a brighter future for their family, and in many cases that primary residence becomes a retirement fund. When it is time for Canadians to retire, they sell their primary residence. Over the time they have held that property, its value will usually be greater than the original investment they made. Governments are very similar. Governments are exactly the same when they have to make decisions. They consider whether they are going to take a longer-term view of making an investment that will create long-term economic prosperity. While the Conservatives will stand and talk about so-called reckless spending, and I will get to this a moment, the most important metric is our overall debt with respect to the size of the economy and our propensity to repay. What we never hear is that level of nuance. What we never hear from the opposition benches is that the International Monetary Fund has reaffirmed that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. If the Conservatives would like to say that this is no longer a proper measure for how Canada and elected officials ought to be looking at our fiscal situation and that we need to go further, then we can have that conversation. Maybe the Conservatives would like to take the test pool of countries and go wider, and that is a fair thing for them to do, but we never hear about the fact that we have the best position. We never hear that we have the best net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, the amount of debt that Canada holds as a proportion of our economy. That is fact. We do not hear the members of the Conservative Party talk about that. They can talk about the fact that they would like us to be even stronger, that we should be even better. We are of the view that we are making important investments, including in our Canadian Armed Forces, and making the investments that matter for infrastructure in our communities. At the same time, the spring economic update showed $11 billion less in the size of the deficit. That is important, because we believe now is the time to invest. I have great respect for Mr. Harper. I may not have agreed with every decision he made, but he served this country as prime minister. I will remind Canadians that when Mr. Harper left office, in his last years of government, the Conservative Party had taken defence spending below 1% of GDP. I would submit to the House that for far too long, both Conservative and Liberal governments had not taken the question of defence spending in the way they ought to have. I am proud that the government has gotten to our target of 2% of GDP on defence spending, with an ambition to get up to 3.5%, according to what is being asked of our NATO partners. My question for the Conservative Party is this: Will it not recognize that part of that spending, being able to take on debt, is an investment in our men and women in uniform and an investment in our communities, and that, as part of our procurement to give the equipment needed to our men and women in uniform, those are true investments in our communities all across this country? There is no recognition of this at all, and I think it is important. Here is something else important. We will never hear this from the opposition benches, so my message to Canadians living in Conservative ridings, who will not find this in householders, on clip media or on social media, is that Canada has the strongest amount of foreign direct investment in the world on a per capita basis. That was in 2025. It is because countries want to invest in Canada. I can tell the member for Regina—Lewvan that this is absolutely the truth. I am happy to give him the statistics. He has to get beyond the social media talking points. It is an absolute fact. It is the job of the official opposition to push and to move. At the end of the day, investment is coming in, and it is a result of the conditions and culture the government is creating, saying we want investment in the country, the $1 trillion I just talked about. Connected with these major projects, connected with the sovereign wealth fund, we have to have the ability for the women and men of this country to build this country. This is why we have $6 billion committed to skilled trades. We want to help support 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal trade professionals in this country over the next five years. We are putting forward investment to support our young, new entrants into the trades. We want to encourage people to join. Again, I would ask the Conservative members to at least make sure this is being made known in their community, to share the fact that those programs are happening. As was mentioned in question period, there is almost $1 billion to support small craft harbours across this country. This is extremely important in Atlantic Canadian communities. The CPP reduction for small business employees is modest, but it is important. It reduces the amount that employees and employers have to contribute towards CPP savings, depending on their income and the amount of the deductions that would happen. Again, these are important measures that we are trying to take to support small businesses. The Conservatives ought to like this one. Bill C-273 was introduced by the member for Bow River, in Alberta. The bill is an identical mirror image of the bill I introduced three years ago. I have good news for my Conservative friends. If they have read the text of the spring economic update, and I give credit to the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, they will have seen that we are going to be amending the legislative statute of the CFIA and what is now called the pesticide regulatory directorate. This is going to ensure that we have an economic lens and can make more agile regulatory decisions. In fact, the Minister of Health confirmed today, publicly, that we are going to be using trusted science from other jurisdictions to expedite the available tools for farmers. The Conservative Party ran on a platform in April 2025 with absolutely nothing for farmers, no specifics about the programs, no specifics around AgriMarketing, nothing for business risk management and certainly nothing on this type of regulatory piece. It was good to see the Conservatives steal my homework, but guess what. It is not needed, because we are actually moving forward as a government. We appreciate that the Conservatives are going to continue to support it. I expect, or really hope at least, that when these measures come back in the budget, if the Conservatives do not agree with all elements of the spring economic update, they will actually create a separate vote and support that element of what may come through. We think it is extremely important. We believe we have an ability to create a Canada sovereign wealth fund that will create benefit for Canadians in the days ahead. This will be an important way for us to be able to invest in public interest stakeholders and major national projects that will return a type of fund that can be reinvested for Canadians and generations to come. We reject the premise that this type of spending in long-term national economic and productivity-building investments is somehow going to draw and increase inflationary pressures. We would submit that the inflationary pressure we are seeing around the world as a result of global consequences, such as the Strait of Hormuz closure, the impacts of climate change, and the impacts of trade relationships that are being dislocated in a world that is increasingly pulling away from elements of free trade, is a larger driver of that inflation than anything the government is doing. We would also suggest, as I have already made the case and the Prime Minister has made clear, contrary to the idea that the fund cannot be used as a way to support everyday Canadians, everyday Canadians will be able to invest in the Canada sovereign wealth fund as a way to contribute to their country, to invest in the country they believe in and in the people who are helping build these projects. We have a positive view on what we can get done in this country, and I wish the Conservatives would join us. The last piece is around affordability, because fuel is referenced, along with food. Again, there was nothing in the Conservatives' platform, in their last election opportunity, that spoke for farmers. As it relates to affordability, we have been rolling out a series of measures to support Canadians. Whether it is the groceries and essentials rebate, the Canada child benefit, the national school food program or dental care for seniors, there is a plethora of programs we think are important for everyday Canadians. At every single turn, notwithstanding the fact that these programs benefit their own constituents, the Conservatives vote against them. I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate.

Mr. Speaker, I will start on the way back. I have respect for my hon. colleague as well. We have done great work together. At no point in my speech did I make light of anything, as that member just said, related to the Humboldt Broncos. I absolutely respect the statement he made. In fact, I would like to hear the Conservatives make more of them. That was the point I was making in my entire remarks because, notwithstanding a few occasions, whether it was the member for Regina—Lewvan or a few others of a similar nature, we had just heard 33 straight questions in the House of Commons on the exact same comment. I would like to see more mixing in of local, regional and riding priorities. The member should not suggest at all that I am trying to disrupt what he said the other day in the House. On Norway, again, whether or not it is surplus, whether or not it is a government choosing to make the investment, that is what we are continuing to do, and that is the principle we are focused on.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen this member for one year now sitting in the House of Commons, and I do not think there has been one single issue other than the issue that he continues to raise, on which he is trying to get the government in these gotcha positions, about investing in our natural resource sector. Why does he not look at the way the government is investing in Quebec on grand projects like Contrecoeur? Why do we not talk about Nouveau Monde Graphite and the projects and natural resources that are available in Quebec? We are going to invest in a variety of different projects across the country, including in Quebec. He has one focus. I have to assume the people in Repentigny would like to see a member of Parliament actually bring a broader spectrum of representations to this House and would encourage the types of investments that governments can do to support projects all across this country, including in Quebec, to drive our natural resource sector but also to drive renewable projects that we are going to need, because we are going to need all of it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a whole host of opportunities in Atlantic Canada related to energy. Obviously, the one that the Premier of Nova Scotia has talked about is Wind West and the idea that we have one of the best capacity factors in the world in terms of offshore wind opportunities. This is an opportunity for Nova Scotia. This is a national opportunity, though, because we have an opportunity to bring clean electricity into our grid across Canada, five gigawatts of opportunity. There is an industrial ability to either work with a partner like Hydro Québec or work across the Atlantic region. This type of sovereign wealth fund is a way that Canada could have an actual public interest equity stake in a major project, such that Nova Scotians and Canadians in the days ahead could benefit from this type of economic thinking. That is but one example. I would agree with the way my colleague framed this. The opposition needs to start coming up with ideas to challenge the government, as opposed to just trying to tear everything down and not really offering a whole lot of original thought about how to move forward.

Mr. Speaker, I will try to help my hon. colleague here. The principles are exactly the same. Whether it is taking royalty revenue and putting it into a sovereign wealth fund, taking a national surplus and choosing to put it into a national fund or debt financing being put into a national fund, the entire objective here is taking equity positions in major national projects. In Norway's case, it is around the world. In our view, we want to focus on Canada. The idea here is that the fund would be used to create equity positions in major national projects or resource projects in this country, such that there will be a long-term benefit in the public interest to Canadian taxpayers and to Canadian citizens. Canadian individuals can invest in the sovereign wealth fund and get a return, and this money would be used to help catalyze private sector funding. The position is very similar. It is taking equity positions to create long-term public interest. That is about as simple as I can make it.

Mr. Speaker, nowhere in my interventions today did I deny that the government has work to do, that we have to continue to support the reduction of emissions and that we understand the impacts of climate change. I sit with the member for Repentigny on the build Canada committee, and I observed him trying to get a yes-or-no answer from the CEO of the Major Projects Office when he asked whether or not a major national project that involves some type of fossil fuel could create an environmental benefit. Of course, Dawn Farrell went down a pathway of trying to explain, whether it was low-carbon natural gas, or bitumen, perhaps, going into vehicles that ultimately would become electric vehicles that reduce transportation. He did not want any of it. It was yes or no, a gotcha type of politics. We have to be more thoughtful than this. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is quite thoughtful at times. We may not always agree. That is the type of politics I want to see in this place.

Mr. Speaker, I would put Calgary Centre ahead of Regina—Lewvan in those remarks, but I do respect the way in which the member has brought his issues forward. I see a more optimistic future for the country, including for Saskatchewan. I look at BHP and the Jansen mine. I look at the work that we are doing to support the Foran mine. On a personal level, I am proud of the work that I did alongside his premier, Scott Moe, in working to support prairie farmers and Saskatchewan farmers of canola and peas. Notwithstanding that I know it is the job of the hon. member to hold the government to account and to highlight what he sees as flaws, would the member at least recognize on the floor of the House of Commons that it was some good work at a federal and provincial level to resolve tariffs and to reduce tariffs that matter for farmers and for the folks in his province?

Mr. Speaker, greetings to all my colleagues. I am pleased to rise today to speak to and debate Motion No. 9, which seeks to make changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons now that the Liberal Party has the majority of the seats in the House of Commons because some members changed their party affiliation and because of the three victories our party secured in the by-elections. The Westminster parliamentary tradition is absolutely clear. The composition of parliamentary committees must reflect the number of seats that the different parties hold in the House of Commons. Therefore, with 174 seats, the Liberal Party now holds a clear majority. We have four more seats than all the opposition parties combined. It is important to recognize that there is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, which is what Motion No. 9 put forward by the government House leader seeks to accomplish: to change the Standing Orders. How did we get here? I think that is important. Right now, the Prime Minister is governing the country in a very difficult and uncertain world. When I talk with my constituents, I find that they have many concerns about world events: the war in the Middle East, issues related to free trade between Canada and the United States and the relationship between our two countries in general, as well as the importance of fostering economic growth here in Canada. However, for most of my constituents, and I say this to all my colleagues, the Prime Minister and his government are positioned in the centre of the ideological spectrum, and Canadians, in general, are encouraged by the government's current performance. The proof is in the pudding. We have talked about the fact there is a long-standing tradition that in Canada, and frankly in any jurisdiction where there is a Westminster style of government or Parliament, voters elect members of Parliament. I have heard a lot of narrative from the Conservatives about how Canadians elected a minority Parliament. Yes, with the 343 members of Parliament at the time, that was the case. However, members of Parliament have always had the ability to determine where they are best placed in the composition of the House. I think that is important. We have had a lot of conversations about the role of party leaders and party discipline in the country. If we are going to get into a situation where we are going to take away the inherent right for members of Parliament to choose their party affiliation, we are consolidating even more a leader's prerogative with particular political parties. I think MPs should have the ability to make their own judgment and their own calculation. These decisions do not come easily, and they are relatively rare. In fact, with respect to what we have seen in Canadian history, this is quite unique, but it is a moment when I think the Prime Minister is governing a big-tent coalition. That is evidenced by the fact that members of Parliament who have previously been affiliated with the NDP or with the Conservative Party have made the choice to join the Liberal Party under his leadership. There were three by-elections: in Terrebonne, University—Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest. All three resulted in the election of new members of the House, who are here with us today. They were sworn in this morning. This is a positive result for us, and I would like to welcome my new colleagues. The government has outlined the privileges available to the Liberal caucus for amending the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It is instructive as well that the government whip took us down a bit of a path of history about Bill C-306. At the time, it would have been a bill before the 42nd Parliament, I believe, where a number of members of Parliament, some of whom still sit in the House, made their decision about whether to support that bill, which was around putting an automatic by-election if a member of Parliament were to cross the floor. The government whip I thought did a great job highlighting the fact that former prime minister Stephen Harper felt at that time it was not necessary, that this was not a major public policy concern in our system. I would agree to this day that this still, as I have already asserted, should be the role of a member of Parliament, and I know no one takes those decisions lightly. The Conservatives have kind of talked about this idea of backroom deals. I can be a prime example. It started with a conversation at Shooters Bar & Grill with the hon. member for Acadie—Annapolis. There have been a number of disparate conversations that Liberal members have had. Again, I think it is a reflection of when members of Parliament go back into their ridings and the Prime Minister and his government have an approval—

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy the banter I have with the hon. member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington. I will remind the hon. member, first of all, that we do have a trade deal with the United States. It is called CUSMA, and 85% of our products go into the United States tariff-free. We are continuing to make the case to the U.S. administration that we feel section 232 tariffs are unjustified and are against the spirit of that agreement. However, I am glad the member mentioned the immediate expensing for greenhouses. I would suggest to him, humbly, if I look back over time, that this may be one of the most significant federal policies to that member's riding in the sense that Leamington is the heart of the greenhouse sector in North America. These are major capital expenditures, and we think this is a policy that will help support his communities in the days ahead. I know he will be sharing this with his constituents.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to have 6.2 members per committee. Tradition dictates that the composition of committees reflect that of the House. For example, if the Liberal Party holds a majority of seats here in the House of Commons, then of course it is possible to have a majority vote. Parliamentary committees need to reflect that reality. That is why we need seven Liberal members on each parliamentary committee and not six. That will also enable the Conservatives to maintain the same level of representation at committee.