Michael Barrett

Mr. Speaker, Brockville, Ontario, is home to outstanding businesses, organizations and community leaders. I want to congratulate the winners and recipients of the 67th Brockville and District Chamber of Commerce Awards of Excellence. I congratulate Wajahat Khaleeque, the business person of the year; Sheena Earl, the young professional of the year; Terry Wills, citizen of the year; and Dane Fellows, who received the President's Award. Congratulations also go to Rob and Kim Williams at Canadian Tire Brockville, the business of the year; Rick and Tanya Orr at the Butcher Shop, small business of the year; the folks at the Downtown Brockville BIA, which won the Tourism Award; the Brockville Rowing Club, which received the Community Excellence Award; and Jackie at Anthophile Café, who is the recipient of the Ben TeKamp Memorial Award. I want to congratulate all of the finalists, all of the nominees and everyone who took time to recognize them. I thank Pam Robertson and everyone at the chamber of commerce for helping us to highlight the excellence in Brockville that is seen across Leeds and Grenville. Congratulations to everyone.

Mr. Speaker, Northern Cables in Brockville sells about half its production in the United States, and it employs skilled Canadian workers. Trump's unjustified 50% tariffs have already cost the company new U.S. work and put future Canadian investment at risk. If Canadian countertariffs are going to drive up costs for Canadian families, they would like to know by how much. Our question for the government is simple: How much are these countertariffs going to cost Canadian families, and what are the Liberals going to do to bring down costs for Canadians to make up for it?

Mr. Speaker, what Canadians expect the government to do is two things at the same time: first and foremost, to always stand up for Canada, and second, to make sure that it is also saving money for Canadians. The countertariffs are already creating all kinds of knock-on effects in the Canadian economy. Canadians are losing jobs, including in my riding, such as at Invista, which has already closed its operation, putting more than 100 people out of work. What we want to know is which part of the Conservative plan that we have proposed to help bring down costs for Canadian families are the Liberals willing to adopt today.

Mr. Speaker, as Canada prepares to celebrate its 159th birthday, we have every reason to be proud of the country we call home. In Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, that story is written into our landscape. The Rideau Canal helped build a young nation. The Thousand Islands became one of Canada's great treasures. Our farmers have fed Canadians for generations. In every major conflict since Confederation, the men and women of our communities have answered the call to serve. Their story is Canada's story. It is a nation built with hard work by people who served when called and left a stronger country for the next generation. As we look ahead to July 1, may we celebrate the courage, service and sacrifice that built the Canada we are all proud to call home.

Mr. Speaker, in celebration of Seniors Month, I was pleased to join with MPP Steve Clark to host our first annual Seniors Expo. This week at New Hope Church in Brockville, in partnership with Senior Support Services Lanark, Leeds & Grenville, we welcomed more than 160 seniors and dozens of exhibitors. We heard from great presenters, including the Leeds Grenville Paramedic Service, the Brockville General Hospital's hospital-to-home program, the Brockville 50+ Activity Centre, the Stroke Network of Southeastern Ontario, Rideau Community Health Services dental programs and many others. Complete with fitness breaks and lunch, this event was open to seniors at no cost. It was a wonderful way to bring our community together, share helpful resources that support seniors and their families, and recognize the incredible contributions of our seniors. I want to take this opportunity to thank the men and women who built our country and built our community. Happy Seniors Month.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to share my time with the hon. member, who so well articulated why this is an opposed item for His Majesty's loyal opposition. I would like to start my remarks with a quote from the installation speech of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Louise Arbour, the 31st Governor General of Canada. This is a quote from the speech she gave in the other place this morning to assembled guests and dignitaries, as well as to all Canadians. She said: Humanity has always sought to go further, to push the boundaries. And to go higher, as our Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen did on his mission into space. How could anyone be anything other than awestruck by the thought that he set his eyes on places no other human being had ever seen before? I say this with confidence: let us not slow our momentum toward progress out of fear of differences. Extreme polarization is dangerous—but so is extreme consensus. It is through our differences, and our fundamental right to express them, that we will nourish critical thinking, creativity and innovation. It is through our differences that we will build our common future. As Canadians, we have the extraordinary privilege of living in a mature democracy. We benefit from strong institutions that allow different views to be expressed. I offer that excerpt from the remarks of Her Excellency because it is regrettable that some who are new to this place do not know and some maybe have forgotten what it is that we are to do here and who we are doing it for. The act of opposition exercised by His Majesty's loyal opposition, and, in fact, by all members who are not in government, which is not the people in the governing party but members of the executive, is accountability. However, this discussion and debate, particularly around this $20 million annually or $200 million over 10 years, has been framed by some people, when Conservatives raise legitimate questions, as being an act of disloyalty, so let us get a couple of things clear. Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil. That is a legitimate objective. Canada has a proud history in space, as noted by Her Excellency, in the recent successful journey of Colonel Jeremy Hansen, but there are also the Canadarm or Canadarm2; Marc Garneau, who was the first Canadian in space, in the year I was born, I would note; Roberta Bondar, who was the first Canadian woman in space; Chris Hadfield, a Canadian astronaut who commanded the International Space Station; and many men and women who have made extraordinary contributions to humanity's continued reach for the stars. The Canadian Space Agency says that a commercial launch is “a natural evolution” for Canada's space sector, and I agree with this objective. The question is not whether Canada should pursue sovereign launch capability, as my hon. colleague noted previously. The question is whether taxpayers got good value for money in this $200‑million deal over 10 years, and we need to be clear about that. It is not about sovereign launch capability. When Conservatives vote against, for example, a budget that includes spending on national defence, we hear the cries from Liberal members, “They hate the military,” and, “Why don't they love Canada?” That is an awful thing to hear. I believe the Liberals actually know better. We all ran and were elected to serve the people of this great country, and there are more than a few of us who have put on the uniform to serve our country. I thank the men and women who came before us, and the men and women today who serve, not the least of whom are those who paid the ultimate sacrifice. This is not about disloyalty to Canada. In fact, it is quite the opposite. It is about us exercising our responsibility to get accountability for taxpayers. We are the representation for that taxation, and we have asked very simple questions about the $20 million. The government announced a 10-year, $200-million agreement to lease one dedicated launch pad for a spaceport in Nova Scotia. The government says it is going to support DND, the Canadian Armed Forces, the wider Government of Canada, our allies and our partners. It said the pad must reach its initial operational capability by the end of 2026 and that 90% of the funds must be spent in Canada. Those are important promises, but they raise basic accountability questions. Number one, how was the $200-million price tag determined? Number two, was there a competitive process, or was this a sole-source deal? Number three, what did taxpayers receive for the first year, given that Maritime Launch says the agreement is retroactive to April 1, 2025? It is being paid $20 million per year, and the first payment of $20 million was due before March 31, 2026. Number four, what milestones, holdbacks, clawbacks or cancellation rights protect taxpayers if the site is not ready by the end of 2026? Number five, what due diligence was done on Maritime Launch's financial position? Its 2025 annual filings refer to the spaceport as “under construction” and note that depreciation begins when the spaceport is available for use. I am not here today to say that the project is bad or that the—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just came in, and he was not paying attention. He misses the entire point. He is the kind of person who comes in here and starts screaming about people being disloyal for doing their job of holding the Liberals accountable for $20 million. We love Canada. That is not something that they hold a licence on. We love this country. The hon. member, who put on a uniform for this country, knows better, and he should act better. I would not say that this project is bad, but I would say that the Liberals have to demonstrate basic due diligence to Canadians. That is their responsibility. Parliament has to make sure that the money was handled properly. If everything was done properly, the government and the company should be able to show that. We invite them to do it. I would welcome them to do that, but they have not. With that in mind, I move: That the motion be amended by replacing the amount of “$17,968,133,395” with “$17,948,133,395”.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have woken up the parliamentary secretary from his nap, but he missed the part of my speech where I said, “Canada should be able to launch Canadian payloads from Canadian soil.” That is a legitimate objective. He completely missed the entirety of the point of what we are doing here. The guy has been here a long time and does not seem to understand what we are supposed to do. We have to hold you guys accountable. We keep catching you giving Liberal insiders money. Time and time again, we have caught these guys greasing the wheels with Liberal insiders. We support our Canadian Armed Forces. We support sovereign launch capabilities. They have got to show us receipts, not just hand $20 million out the door.

Mr. Speaker, it is the question that my hon. colleague has raised. This is what we have asked the government to demonstrate, and we are opposing the $20 million for this year's use because it has failed to do that. It is not about the aspiration. It is about the execution. What is the value for money that taxpayers are getting here? We are in lockstep with Canada's continued reach for the stars, but we have to see what we are getting for $20 million. Canadians expect that of us. In fact, it is not $20 million. It is $200 million. Are there improvements being made to the site? What continued services do we get for that money? Is it an investment for Canadians or is this an investment in a private company, which is going to have the equity, and not Canada? These are assurances that we need. We need to understand why and how, and for some reason, the government is refusing to demonstrate that to the House and to Canadians. That is why we oppose the expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, what we are looking to reconcile, of course, is how the government prioritizes its expenditures and how we could support sectors like our forestry sector if the government was not spending money on what it cannot demonstrate to us is not the rewarding of well-connected insiders, which is a pattern that we have seen with the Liberals. We want the receipts. We want them to support Canada's wonderful natural resources sector and also to support our military and launch capabilities.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the Liberal government's response to the housing crisis in our country, I believe that Canadians are looking to see steps that the government can take to immediately address this acute housing challenge without creating additional bureaucracies. Within the current remit of existing agencies, what additional powers do they hope to glean, at great additional expense to the taxpayer, that will more quickly resolve the very acute housing challenge that Canadians are facing?

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague could share her thoughts on what it tells us that, for the last 11 years, we have had the same Liberal government but the housing situation has not improved. In fact it has worsened, and the evidence of that is clear in my community and the communities of all members of this place. Why is another housing bureaucracy not the answer to getting homes built and getting dignity for Canadians?

Madam Speaker, a husband wakes up in the night to find that his wife of 50 years has left the house. A daughter goes to visit her father in his apartment but sees that he is gone. Immediately, police, volunteers and neighbours begin searching woodlots and side roads and checking behind buildings. Every minute counts. Canadians know that when a child goes missing, every minute counts. The lives of vulnerable people matter. This is true for children, and it is true for vulnerable seniors. Bill C-263, the silver alert national framework act, would create the opportunity for us to help protect vulnerable seniors. Right now there are growing numbers of seniors across our country. By 2030, just four years from now, there are expected to be more than a million Canadians living with dementia. When people with dementia go missing, the risks to them of bodily injury and death are great. A silver alert is a notification system that people would be familiar with for its similarity to an Amber alert, but in this case, instead of an alert for a missing child, an alert is issued when an adult, typically a senior living with dementia or another cognitive impairment, goes missing or is at risk. The establishment of a national framework would be done in partnership with all the provinces and territories. This collaboration is so important, as we are part of a larger community. The lives of seniors at risk in all provinces need to be protected. While there are individual programs and different alert mechanisms in different parts of the country, there is not a national standard. For example, a really great program in my community is Project Lifesaver. The Brockville Police Service, along with the Alzheimer Society of Lanark Leeds Grenville, has deployed Project Lifesaver to address this very situation: Someone with a cognitive impairment goes missing. The project participants wear a wristband, and the tracking signal it emits becomes life-saving technology in that instant. They go missing; their caregiver calls 911, reporting that their loved one is at risk; and specialized tools are then deployed by highly trained teams to mobilize and find them. The average time of a rescue with the technology in Project Lifesaver is 30 minutes. That is incredible. We are going to have a tough time getting a wristband on all one million Canadians whom I referenced who will be living with dementia four years from now. What can we do as a community when we see an alert on a highway sign, our mobile phones or the news ticker on TV that a vulnerable senior is missing in our community? How are we left to feel when we could have been in the same place, running our daily errands, living our lives, taking our child to dance practice, going to get groceries or on our way to work, had we known that the individual in the red jacket, wearing slippers, moving down the sidewalk on the other side of the street was actually a senior who had wandered off when seconds turn into minutes, minutes turn into hours, and the risk went up? On our way to live our lives, we are not on the lookout for just anyone wearing a red jacket and maybe wearing slides on their feet, but that national alert, that standard, would let us know that their loved ones are looking for them, that this individual suffers from a cognitive impairment and that they are in grave danger if they do not receive assistance or are not returned to the safety of their home. It really exemplifies who we are as Canadians. I know we have all had the experience of receiving an Amber alert and immediately memorizing the description of the car or the first four digits of the licence plate. It does not matter that it was first reported four hours before. My community is along North America's busiest highway, the 401. People can get there pretty quick from some of the most-populated areas in Montreal or Toronto. My attention to a push notification on my phone could save a child's life. It is incredible. To be able to do that for seniors as well speaks to our compassion. That speaks to who we are, and it would not be at a great cost. The technology exists. It does not require the physical deployment of those very effective and innovative tools like they are using with Project Lifesaver. I encourage folks living in Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes to contact the Alzheimer Society if a loved one in their family could benefit from participation in that program. What can we do as Canada's Parliament, as federal legislators? When we look at those minutes that count, we can make our time here count. During the progression of, for example, Alzheimer's, which is a disease that affects a great number of Canadians, 60% of individuals will wander away from home at least once. Those are staggering numbers. By those statistics, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people wandering away across this vast, complicated country we have. What can we do? Bill C-263 is inspired by a very moving story from my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul, and we should reflect on the opportunity that we have to honour seniors. The month of June is Seniors Month, so let us do right by them. They have done right by us by building our country up and raising all of us, and now we need to look out for them. That is why I think this is the least we can do, and I very much look forward to supporting this important legislation.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Veterans Well-being Act. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be introducing the service dogs for veterans act to help ensure that service dogs are available to every veteran who needs one, regardless of where they live in Canada. This bill would make it so that service dogs are an eligible form of rehabilitation support under the Veterans Well-being Act. It would create a national training and certification standard for service dogs in coordination with the provinces and territories. This bill was inspired by a meeting I had with a great veteran, Cindy Weir, and her service dog, Gracie, who are here with us on Parliament Hill today. Cindy is the founder of Veteran’s Elite Canines, a non-profit based in Brockville, Ontario, supporting veterans living with PTSD and operational stress injuries through their expertly trained service dogs. There are other incredible organizations like Veteran's Elite Canines, people like Cindy, and the extraordinary dogs, like Gracie and Ghost, who are both here today, that have been working to establish national standards for trainers, handlers and dogs to support the veterans community. I look forward to members hearing about the life-changing impact service dogs have for veterans. I encourage them to vote in support of the service dogs for veterans act. I want to thank my colleagues, the hon. members for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, Airdrie—Cochrane and Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, for their support. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, in a September letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance said that he would be in a conflict of interest if he participated in discussions, decisions, debates or votes related to Alto. We now know he went on to do those things anyway. What we have learned this week is that the minister's department hired an executive from Alto to write his budget speech and budget presentation. Why?

Mr. Speaker, as a surprise to no one, the government House leader is lowering the decorum in the House at the same time that he is also unleashing devastation on communities across Ontario and Quebec, as well as the expropriation of farms, homes, businesses and the destruction of environmentally sensitive land like the Frontenac Arch Biosphere, with a program that will cost more than $90 billion, while they let atrophy Canadian infrastructure and services like Via Rail, which services the same communities that Alto will pass by while destroying. Why will they not invest in Canada instead of destroying it?

Mr. Chair, on September 10, 2025, the minister wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, saying that if he were involved in any decisions, discussions or debates related to the Alto project, he would be in a conflict of interest. Is that correct?

Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna. The question is about the letter the minister wrote in September 2025. Will the minister table that letter in the House, and at the ethics committee when he appears on June 11?

Mr. Chair, this evening the minister has the opportunity to inform Canadians and the House about the conflict of interest he said he would be in if he participated in votes, decisions, discussions or debates on Alto. This is why the minister put in place a conflict of interest screen. Is that not correct?