Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, as summer comes to an end, I want to recognize the wildland firefighters who spent another season on the front lines protecting our communities. Unfortunately, this year, we saw devastation across the country, including in Summerland, where hundreds of homes and properties were lost, and near Thunder Bay, which became the largest wildfire ever recorded in Ontario's history. Closer to home, the Signal Hill wildfire was barely a kilometre away from the community of Pemberton and reminded us just how quickly a fire can grow and put lives, homes and entire communities at risk. For most of us, when we see a wildfire approaching a community, we watch in horror at the devastation it can leave behind. Wildland firefighters do the opposite. They run toward it. They work through extreme heat, smoke and dangerous terrain, often spending weeks away from their families, and the risks that they take can follow them long after they leave the fire line through the lasting health impacts of repeated exposure to smoke and other hazards. Today, I want to recognize every wildland firefighter who stepped forward this summer, and every summer, when communities needed them the most. I thank them for their courage and their sacrifice in protecting communities across our great country.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country to speak to Bill C-30, the spring economic update implementation act. At a time of global uncertainty, our government is focused on what we can control here at home: building a stronger, more resilient economy, making life more affordable and creating opportunities for the next generation. This is exactly what Bill C-30 would advance. Canada is already emerging as one of the world's most attractive destinations for investment. Foreign direct investment reached nearly $97 billion last year, which is the highest level in almost two decades. Surveys of global investors are showing that Canada is the most attractive place for infrastructure investment. We will need that investment, as our government understands that Canada cannot be overly dependent on one market. For decades, roughly 70% of our exports have gone to the United States. Bill C-30 is part of a broader effort to strengthen Canada's economic sovereignty by diversifying trade, supporting domestic industry and investing in Canadian productivity. Since last year alone, non-U.S. exports have increased by more than 40%, while exports to Europe continue to grow significantly. Importantly, this legislation recognizes that economic growth matters only if Canadians can actually feel it in their everyday lives. That begins with housing. Across my riding, housing affordability remains one of the defining issues that people raise with me. Young Canadians are wondering whether they will ever be able to buy a house in the communities they grew up in, while families are struggling with rising rents and housing shortages. The spring economic update responds by providing more than $7 billion in low-cost financing through the apartment construction loan program to accelerate the building of thousands of low-cost rental units across the country. Since 2019, this program has already financed over 300 below-market units in the Sea to Sky region alone. I have heard countless stories of how this has changed people's lives, from allowing people to live closer to work to allowing low-income workers to save money for their retirement for the first time. The homes and the infrastructure Canada needs do not build themselves. If Canada wants to build the housing, infrastructure, transportation and clean energy projects we talk about so often, we need skilled workers, and many more of them. This is why one of the most important components of the spring economic update is the investment in skilled trades and apprenticeships. The government is launching a nationwide effort to recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers by 2031 through the team Canada strong program. This creates a direct pathway for young Canadians into rewarding, well-paying careers while helping address labour shortages that are delaying projects across the country. This will support Canadians through the entire process, from discovering the trades to apprenticeship opportunities, completing the technical training and ultimately achieving Red Seal certification. It is also about reducing barriers by simplifying and accelerating the certification pathway so more Canadians can enter this workforce faster. Bill C-30 would also improve labour mobility for tradespeople by increasing the labour mobility deduction from $4,000 to $10,000, lowering the threshold to access it and making it easier for workers to go where their skills are needed most. For workers who spend weeks away from home helping build critical infrastructure and housing, this matters. This legislation also contains targeted affordability measures that would make a meaningful difference for Canadians. Between mortgage payments, rising living costs and uncertainty about the future, many young Canadians are feeling stretched thin even after reaching the major milestone of buying a new home. Measures in Bill C-30 like extending the repayment grace period under the homebuyers' plan would provide relief to homeowners to ease pressure during those early critical years of home ownership. Bill C-30 would also reduce the CPP contribution rates beginning next year, helping workers and businesses keep more money in their pockets. While individually these changes may seem modest, in combination with recent measures like cutting Canadian income taxes, cutting the GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers and the groceries and essentials benefit, together they would help lower the pressure on Canadians who are already facing high costs. This legislation would also expand support for volunteer tax clinics that help vulnerable Canadians access the benefits they are entitled to. I want to give a special shout-out to Louis and the volunteers behind the local tax clinic on the Sunshine Coast, whose work helps over 3,000 residents each year access benefits and support they might otherwise miss. Their work is a powerful example of community service in action and demonstrates how local volunteers can make a difference in people's lives. At a time when global instability has contributed to rising fuel prices, Bill C-30 temporarily removes the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until Labour Day. This is already saving Canadian drivers about 10¢ a litre and providing direct relief at the pump for the families and businesses already dealing with many pressures. In places like Sea to Sky and the Sunshine Coast, residents continue to face inexplicably high gas prices. At all times, but especially right now, the Competition Bureau should be keeping a very close eye on anti-competitive behaviour and potential price manipulation in regional fuel markets like this one, because Canadians deserve fairness, transparency and confidence that they are not paying artificially high fuel prices. Bill C-30 would support Canadian brewers by extending the 50% reduction on excise duty rates for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada. That is an amount that covers the full production for over 94% of breweries in our country. For small brewers in my riding, like Coast Mountain Brewing, the Persephone Brewing Company and Backcountry Brewing, this provides meaningful savings that can be reinvested into local jobs, equipment, expansion and community events. This legislation recognizes the importance of investing in coastal communities and marine infrastructure. Our government is investing nearly $1 billion in small craft harbours and critical infrastructure that supports fisheries, transportation, tourism and local economies. I have heard first-hand from many harbours, including the Gibsons Landing Harbour Authority, about the growing pressures facing them and the need for upgrades to support increased commercial fish harvesting and future transportation demands. At Gibsons Landing, this includes the planned electric passenger ferry service that could help provide much-needed relief for Sunshine Coast residents. At the same time, economic development must go hand in hand with environmental stewardship. Bill C-30 includes more than $160 million over five years to continue protecting Canada's whales and marine habitats on all three coasts. This would build on Canada's broader $3.8-billion nature strategy and the commitment to protect biodiversity and marine ecosystems for future generations. Last month's announcement of a new marine protected area in British Columbia the size of Prince Edward Island reinforces the importance of stewardship of our oceans while maintaining access to sustainable fish harvesting and tourism opportunities. My constituents understand that protecting marine ecosystems is not separate from economic prosperity, but essential to it, because healthy oceans support fisheries, tourism, recreation and coastal livelihoods. Food security is another key priority addressed in this legislation. As the Prime Minister said in Davos, food security is national security and, “A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options.” In an increasingly unstable world, shaped by supply chain disruptions, climate pressures and geopolitical instability, Canada must strengthen its domestic food production capacity. Bill C-30 and measures in the spring economic update would support that goal through supporting food production and distribution networks and, importantly, by providing immediate expensing of new greenhouse infrastructure. I have already seen how this is making a difference in my riding. The Líl̓wat Nation broke ground on a greenhouse at one end of it. On the Sunshine Coast, projects like Swiya Farms in Sechelt are focused on building large-scale, sustainable local food systems and supporting community-driven agriculture and long-term food resilience, including a large-scale greenhouse that is being planned. These are measures we are building on with last week's announcement of Canada's national food security strategy, which will increase competition to lower grocery prices, boost domestic production year-round and help local products get onto grocery shelves. I also want to highlight the investment in sports and recreation in the spring economic update. In my riding, we know first-hand the lasting impact sport can have on communities. The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games left a legacy that extends far beyond infrastructure. They inspired participation, strengthened community pride, supported tourism and created opportunities for young athletes right across the region. We have seen world-class athletes emerge from our communities, including Marielle Thompson and Trinity Ellis, but the true legacy of sports goes beyond medals. It inspires young people to get active, build confidence, develop teamwork and resilience and connect with their communities. That is why the spring economic update has a historic $755-million investment in Canadian sport that would strengthen communities and new sports programs to support national sports organizations and athletes, improve safe sport initiatives and help Canada host major sporting events. I can see my time is running short, so I will say Bill C-30 is ultimately about building a more resilient, affordable and self-reliant Canada. It would invest in housing, workers, infrastructure, affordability, coastal communities, food security and environmental stewardship. Together, we can build confidently, deliberately and together.

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes, we hear concerns from members on the other side about government spending. They seem to forget that many of the factors contributing to the affordability challenges in Canada have to do with external factors, like the trade war we are in right now. I can tell the member that our investments, including the investments in this spring economic update, like the apartment construction loan program, are making a meaningful difference. They are making life more affordable and they are tackling the main issue driving affordability challenges, which is housing.

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I did indeed say a great deal about nature. I believe my riding is the most beautiful riding in the country. I spoke about the significant investments being made to protect whales and about the measures set out in the nature strategy. I know there are other points my colleague raised regarding pesticides, and I hope that, in committee, we will have the opportunity to investigate this properly to see if there are measures that can help mitigate the difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, certainly, the groceries and essentials benefit is going to be a major benefit for Canadians. It is up to $1,890 for a family of four. This is going to help with the high price of groceries right now, while we roll out our national food security strategy. This gets to some of the more underlining, foundational things we need to change, like more competition in the sector and giving more resources to the Competition Bureau to allow that, and making sure that we are building up our domestic supply chains to ensure that we can get more local products on the shelves.

Mr. Speaker, I will always support more funding going to our ferry system in British Columbia, but I think we need to remember that one is an interprovincial system and one is an intraprovincial system. There is federal jurisdiction to go in between provinces, and there have been significant investments in buying new ferries in the last couple of years. That works out to a benefit of over $700 million, which is actually more than Marine Atlantic is getting for its infrastructure. I think those things need to be kept in mind, but I will always support more money to make sure that we have a better ferry service in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, June is National Indigenous History Month, a time to celebrate the histories, cultures, languages and contributions of first nations, Inuit and Métis people across Canada. In my riding of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we live on the ancestral and unceded territories of the Squamish, shíshálh, Líl̓wat and N'Quatqua nations. Archeological evidence from B.C. shows that indigenous peoples have lived on these lands for more than 14,000 years, representing one of the longest continuous human histories anywhere in the world. This month, communities across our region are coming together to celebrate indigenous history and culture. Whether attending syíyaya Days on the Sunshine Coast, joining National Indigenous Peoples Day celebrations at the Squamish Lil’wat Cultural Centre or learning about indigenous history from a guided Talaysay Tour in West Vancouver, there are many opportunities to learn from and celebrate the first peoples of these lands. I encourage all Canadians to take this opportunity to listen, learn and celebrate the rich indigenous heritage that continues to shape our communities and our country. [Member spoke in Ucwalmícwts]

Mr. Speaker, the spring economic update has some important new measures on the housing front: a $7-billion investment in the apartment construction loan program to build below-market rental units, and changes to the homebuyers plan. Just yesterday I met a couple: Jack, a civil engineer, and Sophie, a youth counsellor. They just bought a new home, and they are very realistic about the costs that they are facing right now with some affordability pressures. I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister could speak a bit more about the measures in Bill C-30 and the spring economic update on housing, and how these are going to improve the outlook for young Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petition 451-00927. The petitioners, including constituents of mine from the Sunshine Coast, want to draw attention to the fact that long COVID affects approximately 1.4 million Canadians, causing significant health and economic burdens. The amyloid microclot test is supported by global research. It can identify clots linked to long COVID, enabling targeted therapies. The test has not yet been approved by Health Canada, delaying access to critical diagnostics due to regulatory and validation barriers. The petitioners state that Canadians deserve equitable access to diagnostics to address long COVID's impact. The petitioners call upon Canada to prioritize the validation and approval of flow cytometry of amyloid microclots as a reference test, to consider funding a pilot program and to implement regulatory reforms to streamline the approval process for lab-developed tests addressing unmet medical needs like long COVID.

Mr. Speaker, Canada has what the world wants to experience: stunning coastlines, dramatic mountains and natural beauty on a massive scale. From coast to coast to coast, it is not just landscapes; it is food, culture and distinct local experiences in every region. But what truly sets Canada apart is the spirit of its people: kind, welcoming and easy to connect with. From Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, a strong tourism industry powers communities across our country. In West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, tourism is woven into the fabric of our life. Whistler's world-renowned mountains and the Sunshine Coast's stunning landscapes provide an unforgettable backdrop for visitors from across the globe. Tourism is about more than just welcoming visitors. The industry helps support one in 10 Canadian jobs and contributes over $44 billion a year to Canada's economy. Coming off the best tourism year in our history, we realize that there is more to do for tourism to reach its full potential, and that is work for all members of the House to do together. With that, I would like to wish all members a happy National Tourism Week.

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary, in his speech, talked about affordability and gave the real-world example of filling up his car just a week ago and how much that cost has increased. We have seen the price of a barrel of oil go up to almost $120. Given that Canada has what some describe as the least fuel-efficient fleet in the entire world, we are seeing that cost right now. As part of the motion from the Conservative Party, the Conservatives are talking about making sure that we align our tailpipe standards with those of the U.S. Looking at this right now, in B.C., the average price of gas is over two dollars a litre, and that is costing people over $18 to drive 100 kilometres. If we had the European standard, it would be below $10 for that same run, and if people were driving an EV, it would be two dollars. I was hoping the member could speak to why we should maybe not go down the route of aligning our tailpipe standards with those of the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, three reports of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. First is the committee's fourth report, entitled “Marine and Coastal Protections”. The next is the fifth report, entitled “Equal Opportunities for Coastal Communities: Attribution of Redfish Quotas and Exploratory Lobster Fishing Licenses”. Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the fifth report. Last but not least is the sixth report, entitled “Main Estimates 2026-27: Votes 1, 5 and 10 under Department of Fisheries and Oceans”.

Mr. Speaker, I also represent a rural region and my riding is also experiencing a labour shortage. I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to put an end to the temporary foreign worker program. In my riding, it is really important to bring in people from different parts of the world to offset the labour shortage. My colleague spoke of a grandfather clause for people who are already here. I would support that. I want to know what my colleague would do to address the labour shortage in his riding through the measures set out in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think we are talking about two different things here. The member opposite mentioned the need to speed up housing writ large and to address a lot of the barriers that are at the municipal level. In fact, we have programs that are doing just that. One called the housing accelerator fund is helping municipalities speed up their permitting systems, and I have seen its impact across my riding. Today, we are talking about Build Canada Homes, which is an agency to build below-market units. We have a major need for this right across the country. I know the leader of the official opposition has called this Soviet-style housing, which he does not support, but this agency is meant for things like supportive or transitional housing for low-income folks. I am wondering if the member agrees that this is a need across the country and something that the federal government should be involved in supporting.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I want to recognize the profound loss being felt by the community of Tumbler Ridge. All members of the House grieve with the families who are mourning. We stand with the students, staff and first responders who are carrying the weight of this unimaginable tragedy. In times like these, we are reminded that in sorrow, we are united as a nation. Canada will hold them in our hearts, not just today and in the years to come, but always. I want to thank all of the members who have participated in this debate on Bill C-244, the clean coasts act, for their local leadership and for sharing the all-too-familiar stories that I am hearing in my riding as well. This bill is grounded in a simple principle. Canada's marine environment is not a dumping ground, and coastal communities should not be left carrying the cost of pollution that others create. In coastal regions across the country, residents see the impacts first-hand: abandoned and derelict vessels leaking fuel into harbours and marine infrastructure left to decay, spreading plastic pollution and releasing toxins into sensitive ecosystems. These are not abstract concerns. They affect navigation safety, local economies, indigenous food security and the health of our oceans and waterways. Bill C-244 proposes two practical solutions to address these problems. First, it amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to clarify that marine dumping is a strict liability offence. Because of how this legislation has been interpreted to date, liability is limited to cases where the prosecution can prove that this dumping was intentional. That leaves a troubling loophole where pollution from reckless or negligent behaviour goes unaddressed. The clean coasts act addresses this gap. Second, the bill strengthens the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act by addressing a well-known tactic. Too often, owners avoid their disposal responsibilities by transferring an end-of-life vessel, typically for a nominal amount, to someone that they know cannot dispose of it properly. That is how vessels become hazards in our waterways. Some members have raised fair and important questions about how these measures would work in practice, and I would like to respond directly to those. One question has been about seller liability. Let me be clear: This bill is not about punishing good-faith sellers or ordinary Canadians making responsible transactions. The intent is narrow. Liability rises only where a vessel is transferred knowingly or recklessly to someone who lacks the ability or intention to manage it responsibly. Related to that is the question of how a seller can assess whether a buyer is fit. This bill does not require intrusive measures like interviews, credit checks or financial investigations. It requires reasonable care, not a guarantee of the future behaviour of an owner. The objective is to create clear, practical expectations that are not onerous for good-faith sellers while discouraging bad-faith transfers to avoid disposal costs. I just want to recognize that these were questions that came from the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and the member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay. Members have also raised questions about enforcement and ownership tracking. We have good news. Since this debate started, Transport Canada has announced a modernization of the pleasure craft licensing system by introducing a five-year licence validity, a nominal fee for applications and renewals, and a requirement for owners to update their contact information within 30 days. However, the responsibility to report these transfers remains with the buyer. This has been a vulnerability that has been addressed by a number of members, including the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, and it needs to be addressed. While these licensing changes are a step forward, we need to make sure that there are sustainable long-term resources to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels where we cannot identify the owner. For that, we need the long-awaited vessel remediation fund, which will have a small user fee and will finance the removal and proper disposal of abandoned and sunken vessels. I just want to note that the member for Courtenay—Alberni brought this up as a need. I look forward to working with him. There is also the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. These vessels should never linger in these places for five years or more. Lastly, there was a concern brought forward by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley about the wording of the new strict liability offence. I just want to confirm that this will not affect people that would observe marine dumping. This is only for those who would lead to that by their acts or omissions. I would just say that all legislation improves through study. If this legislation proceeds to committee, members will have the opportunity to hear from experts, examine the provisions carefully and propose amendments as they see fit, including any measures that are necessary to clarify some of the measures in this act. With that, I know this is a problem that all members know exists. I urge all members to support this legislation being sent to the next stage at committee.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Long Range Mountains for her speech and for supporting Bill C-19. The member opposite mentioned being honest about the impact of government policies. We have seen in the last year that gas prices have actually been reduced in Canada by about 17% to 20%. At the same time, we have seen grocery prices increase by about 5%. Does she really believe that by reducing the industrial carbon tax, it is going to have a significant impact on reducing the price of groceries in Canada? We have already seen that the price of gas going down in Canada has not had that effect.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the extraordinary life of Vi Roden, who recently passed away at the age of 102. A World War II veteran, mother, friend and tireless community activist, Vi believed that if we see injustice, we must act, and she lived by that principle. In 1978, after learning of abuses in the women's prison system, she famously phoned the Attorney General at home and made it clear that she would go to the press if action was not taken. He called back and listened, and a royal commission was launched, leading to meaningful reform. In 1980 Vi raised the funds to establish British Columbia's first counselling centre for sexually abused children. That initiative grew into Act 2 Child and Family Services, which is now a $25.5-million non-profit serving Vancouver and the Fraser Valley. Even in her later years, Vi never slowed down. At the age of 101, she volunteered during the federal election campaign, as she had throughout her life, making hundreds of calls because she believed participation mattered. The world needs more people like Vi Roden. May we honour her life by carrying her compassion forward.

Madam Speaker, it is a real honour to rise today for the first time in the calendar year 2026 to speak on behalf of the constituents of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. I wish all members of the House a very happy new year. I am looking forward to working in a spirit of collaboration as we get this year under way. I very much hope things will be different this year. Certainly things started off the right way. I heard the shift in tone from the Leader of the Opposition in response to the seminal speech from our Prime Minister at Davos. I heard the very gracious words that he shared and the commitments to pass some very important pieces of legislation for Canadians. When I heard that the Conservatives wanted to speak on a sovereignty act today, I was very excited to see if we could have a real debate about some of the major issues we have to grapple with to deal with the rupture in the global order and, frankly, the threat we have coming from south of the border, including among other things how that changes how we deal with our national security when we may not be able to rely on the United States. How can we unite our nation? How can we work with provinces? How can we work better with first nations in a spirit of partnership? How can we build our ports to access new markets? How can we buy more Canadian products? How can we have a clear-eyed plan to drive prosperity not only today but also deep into the future? However, much to my disappointment, when I actually read what was in the so-called sovereignty act, I saw that rather than dealing with these very important issues, we are getting a rehash of the same tired Conservative policy playbook that encompasses no more than a wish list of the oil and gas industry to gut Canada's environmental protections. Rather than making Canada more sovereign and looking into the future, what the Conservatives are proposing would actually further shackle us to the United States and a world that no longer exists. Rather than working to unite the nation, what has been proposed is to bully and steamroll all who disagree with them. We know that this plan has failed before and would fail again, but now is not the time to be going down that same road and playing these fruitless games. I think it would be helpful to go through a number of points within the proposed sovereignty act to really point out what it means. Among other things, the act proposes repealing the Impact Assessment Act, which, for those who do not know, is a piece of environmental assessment legislation that rationalizes the work that Canada needs to do to ensure that projects are going to mitigate the environmental impacts they have. It allows for better first nations consultation and in fact imposes strict timelines on government reviews of those projects. Frankly, since this legislation was brought in, the reviews of those projects have improved not only in quantity but also in efficiency. This is because what it replaced was the CEAA 2012 legislation, which was so poorly written that projects, after getting approved, would just find their way into the courts and be hung up for years and years. When the Conservatives call the bill the “no more pipelines act”, I think it is really telling. They do not want to talk about what would replace it. If we do not have any environmental assessment legislation, how would we even look at any different projects? Would everything just get approved no matter what? Notably they do not talk about any of the other major projects we have that could really grow our prosperity. There is no talk of things like a national electricity grid and what that could do to open up prosperity in many parts of the country, reduce electricity costs and open up new sectors. The next act the Conservatives propose repealing is the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act. This piece of legislation, which was enacted in 2018, just formalizes what has been a half-century-long agreement of Canadian government after Canadian government. It is in place to do something very important; it is about making sure we are protecting some of the most dangerous waters in our entire country. When the Conservatives talk about why it needs to be repealed, they always bring up the northern gateway project, as if the act were the piece of legislation that caused that project not to proceed. In fact that project was so poorly put together, and the consultation with first nations was so deficient, that nine first nations challenged it in court and had it overturned. When Conservatives say that just removing these pieces of legislation would open up our economy and drive it forward, what they are really hoping is that if we do not consider the environment at all and completely put aside very real concerns that indigenous rights holders have, we can move ahead with these projects. The next thing the Conservatives propose taking out is the federal industrial carbon tax. This has been in place in many different forms throughout our country. The first to bring it in was the Province of Alberta. It has led to tens of billions of dollars in investments in projects that have decarbonized our economy in really important growing sectors, as well as to finding ways to make our products less carbon-intensive, in many cases at the lowest possible cost. To think that taking the tax away would make our economy more sovereign could not be farther from the truth. By getting rid of this type of mechanism, the country would face limited market access to the European Union as it brings in a carbon border adjustment because it wants its industries to be able to compete around the world. It has this new mechanism it is bringing in starting this year, and it is not the only country. The U.K. is proposing to bring one in. Australia, Taiwan and other countries are looking to do the same. What this would tie us to are countries that do not want to take action on climate. The Conservatives also propose getting rid of the oil and gas emissions cap, but this is not even currently in place. Next they propose getting rid of the federal electric vehicle sales mandate. This is a mechanism that was put in place to ensure that Canadians can access electric vehicles. We see around the world that the adoption rate of electric vehicles is going through the roof. In Nepal it is 76%. In China it was 50% last year. The big barrier we have in Canada is that people cannot access the types of electric vehicles they want to buy. This mechanism is about ensuring that those cars are available, which also leads companies to invest in the charging infrastructure that makes it better for everybody who has adopted the technology. It is also about ensuring not only that can we buy those cars here but also that more and more of those cars are manufactured here. It is a key part. We know that a key ask of several of the United States automakers is to scrap this program, but that would be a big mistake and would reduce the choice that a lot of Canadians are looking for right now. Next I want to talk about how the act would remove the federal plastics manufacturing prohibitions. It is important to call this what it is: It is about getting rid of the ban on certain single-use plastic items that were found to be harmful to the environment and to humans. These are things like plastic bags that are finding their way into our waterways, oceans and environment. How does it make our country more sovereign to have more and more waste in our environment? Next the proposed act talks about removing the federal regulatory restrictions that impede communication and advocacy by Canadian energy companies. Again, it is important to call this what it is: It is about removing the so-called greenwashing provisions, measures that every member of the House voted in favour of just two years ago. These are measures to ensure that when a company makes a claim about itself, it has to be able to back it up with evidence. Essentially this is to deal with false and misleading advertising. Again, I do not see how our country would be more sovereign if we give the ability to companies to lie about the products and services they are putting out there. All it would do is make our country less competitive and give an unfair advantage to companies not taking the action they say they are taking. There are many things I would like to talk about, such as how we can make our country more sovereign, how we can improve our national defence, how we can make sure we buy more Canadian and how we can improve our infrastructure. I look forward to questions from my colleagues to that effect.

Madam Speaker, that gives me the opportunity to correct the record on a myth that has been put out there by many, including the Conservative Party. For over 50 years, there has been a moratorium in place on the travel of tankers through the Hecate Strait. It has been in place since 1972. There are no American tankers going through that area. They go around Vancouver Island. Getting rid of the oil tanker moratorium would not mean that we would have more American—

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned some facts that are accurate. Most shareholders in many of the biggest oil companies are based in the United States. If we want greater sovereignty, we need to think about the interests being served by the companies we work with. However, I now know that we have a lot of opportunities to improve and diversify our economy. Our government has a plan to make this country a leader in clean energy. That is something we are going to do.

Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with the premise of my colleague's question. I think there are actually a lot of ways we can improve how the Impact Assessment Act operates and how it can be more predictable. Frankly, there were a lot of recommendations that came from the task force that looked into it, and I think we should be looking at those right now. The act has been in place for about five years. We are looking at reviewing the Fisheries Act. I think it might be time to do the same with the Impact Assessment Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Squamish Climate Action Network, Squamish CAN, on receiving the 2025 Edible Communities Sustainability Award for outstanding leadership in community-driven climate action. The network's impact is felt across the region. Its self-sustaining downtown school farm gives residents and students hands-on experience with regenerative agriculture, distributes fresh food throughout the community, and supplies healthy produce to local schools. Its edible school gardens and indigenous plant garden created in partnership with Squamish Nation elders deepen ecological learning in the classroom and embed cultural knowledge in the community. Through food-security programs, waste reduction initiatives, community education and strong policy leadership, Squamish CAN is reshaping local food systems and strengthening the region's resilience. I congratulate the executive director, Krystle tenBrink, and the entire Squamish CAN team for this well-deserved honour and for their continued work to build a healthier, more sustainable future for our community.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, and what it means for my constituents in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. First, I want to say a few things about budget 2025, a plan to build Canada strong. It comes at a time when Canada's economy is being deeply impacted by American tariffs. It is estimated that these tariffs are going to shave about $50 billion off our GDP, which works out to about $1,300 per Canadian. With this budget, we are focused on protecting the sectors that are most impacted by U.S. tariffs, including forestry, which is so important to my province of British Columbia. The demographic that is most impacted right now is young people, and this budget has investments that are going to create 175,000 jobs for young people. This is a budget that is designed to spend less on government so Canadians can invest more. This will be done by reducing spending on government by about $60 billion over five years to create the fiscal room to get investment in Canada from both the public and private sectors. The measures in this budget are geared to driving $1 trillion in investment over five years to build the infrastructure we need as a country to diversify our trade internally, building on our work to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, and externally, leveraging the 50-plus free trade agreements we have around the world. The budget has key investments, like $13 billion for Build Canada Homes so we have an agency to build affordable housing at scale using prefabricated and modular designs; $51 billion in spending for public infrastructure, with a focus on housing-enabling infrastructure; $6 billion in new trade infrastructure for things like ports; and an additional $10 billion for the Canada Infrastructure Bank so we are able to make important investments like, for instance, building out the pan-Canadian grid, which includes the investment that was announced last week for the north coast transmission line. Importantly, the budget makes buy Canada the default for any government project to ensure that Canadians and Canadian companies are going to benefit from it. In order to implement the budget, Bill C-15 changes a few dozen laws, and I want to use the remainder of my speech to discuss several of the key measures in this mix. First, Bill C-15 would get rid of a handful of populist measures that may have sounded good, but in practice were hurting our communities. Division 2 of part 3 would amend the Underused Housing Tax Act to end the underused housing tax in respect of 2025 and future years. The UHT has been in effect for three years and has the noble goal of taxing property owned by non-Canadians that is not being used productively and not being put into the long-term rental pool. To see houses empty during a housing crisis rightly causes Canadians to be angry. This measure is having an unintended impact on communities like Whistler, where the municipality has zoned certain areas to be short-term rentals and has required them to be that way by covenant. In fact, the municipality has sought foreign direct investment to build up the accommodation capacity to welcome visitors. The end effect is that we are taxing the investors we sought for an objective that could never be achieved. After several years of lobbying to get an exemption for this, including getting a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Finance, these measures have now been repealed. I want to say a special thanks to Barrett Fisher, Dave Brown, Louise Walker and so many others for making this a possibility. In the end, it was found that administering the program actually costs more than the revenue that it was bringing in. Thousands of Canadians were being caught in a filing requirement despite never being the target. By repealing it in its entirety, this is no longer going to be an issue. Second, Division 3 of part 3 would amend the Select Luxury Items Tax Act to end the luxury tax in respect of aircraft and boats. The luxury tax was brought in to put an additional tax on boats, planes and cars. Again, this sounds like a good idea, because why would we not want to tax luxury goods for the rich? It was clear from the beginning that this tax was going to be a disaster, and to no one's surprise, that is exactly what it turned out to be. Just as in other jurisdictions that tried this, people decided to purchase other items that were not subject to the tax, like an additional home; delayed the purchase of items; or just bought them from another jurisdiction. The end result was a huge amount of lost government revenue and a loss of jobs in Canada. This very much hit home in my riding given the number of individuals involved in the boat construction industry. It also hit the tourism industry, because we are seeing less investment in the purchases of new vessels for such things as whale watching tours, water taxis and others. Since the budget announced that this would be removed, we have seen hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments that have been promised and companies, such as those in the aerospace sector, promising about 600 new jobs that are directly tied to this change. Budget 2025 creates and extends a number of measures that would drive productivity growth in our economy, such as the removal of the ones I just mentioned, through incentivizing private sector investment. I want to mention just a few. By making some changes to the Income Tax Act and income tax regulations, we are bringing in what is called a productivity superdeduction. This temporary measure would allow businesses to immediately write off investments in such things as machinery, equipment, vehicles, digital systems and other productivity-enhancing technology at an accelerated rate. This is incredibly important right now because we are seeing lower investment in capital and equipment per worker in our economy than we are seeing south of the border, in the U.S. Especially with the tariff-induced uncertainty, we need to do all we can to drive investment in improving our productivity. Locally, in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we rely on small and mid-size businesses that depend on modern equipment. We are seeing that things like this can help support more snowcats and groomers for the tourism sector, more heavy machinery for the construction sector or more equipment for the clean-tech sector, which is a fast-growing sector in my riding. Further to that point, the budget makes changes to the SR&ED tax credits to provide tax incentives for companies doing research and development. I have heard how important this program is from constituents, and how those investments have helped many early stage companies, including in Squamish's clean-tech hub, to get off the ground. The changes in the budget implementation act would expand the eligibility for what these credits can go to, as well as the total amount. In the remainder of my speech, I would like to touch on an area in which I believe the government missed the mark, and that is with the proposed changes to the greenwashing provisions. Last year, through amendments that were brought forward and passed through the finance committee and that, in fact, were passed unanimously in the House, we expanded the false and misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act to cover the environmental claims that businesses make with respect to their operations in their entirety. These changes now require such companies to be able to substantiate these claims using one of the many internationally recognized methodologies that are out there. These changes were prompted in part by some things we are seeing in our society, such as bus ads in which we see advertising saying that, somehow, liquid natural gas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When this change to the law came into effect last June, we saw an immediate impact. We saw a number of companies putting disclaimers on their advertising. We saw other companies, such as the Pathways Alliance, taking down all of their communications, including such claims as that they are working to achieve net zero. In the budget implementation act, division 43 of part 5 amends these changes to remove the requirement that this substantiation be done in accordance with an internationally recognized methodology. It also removes the third party private right of action at the tribunal. I think both moves are a mistake, but especially the latter. While clearer guidance from the Competition Bureau on the acceptable methodologies would have been helpful, there are countless methodologies out there, such as ISO, ISSB, the GHG protocol and many others. If this measure is removed, it really puts the onus on government to finally finalize the long-promised sustainable finance measures, such as mandatory climate plans for companies and other climate-related reporting for businesses. Thankfully, the budget commits to moving forward in this. The latter is the most concerning. In recent years, we have given the Competition Bureau significant new responsibilities and tools to tackle them with. The Minister of Industry's recent statement that we will be hawkish on competition further speaks to this, but with all of these new responsibilities, the commissioner does not have the ability to enforce all of them. That is why the third party private right of action is key. Things can take years to go through this process, and they are very opaque. The private cause of action already has a high bar to meet to utilize it, including that it needs to be in the public interest. Litigants cannot get judgments, and they can have costs awarded against them. With that, I think it should be removed.

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with many of the pretexts of the member from Sarnia—Lambton's question. For such things as the consumer carbon tax, it is one of the most economically efficient ways of reducing emissions. It is also a measure that was actually a Conservative climate measure. Unfortunately, it was politicized by the Conservative Party. Frankly, that is too bad for our country. In the budget, there are major investments made to increase the productivity of our country, which is incredibly important given the economic uncertainty we are living in right now. We need to make sure we are creating opportunity for Canadians of all stripes, and particularly Canadians in my generation. The budget does exactly that, with investments in public infrastructure and in the kinds of industries that are going to drive our growth going forward.

Mr. Speaker, softwood lumber is a very important industry in British Columbia, too. Before the budget, we announced programs worth $1.2 billion to support this sector. It is very important to find new markets and to have new products that we can use in Canada and sell to the world. I think this evening's debate is a good way to look at how we can do more. However, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has already said that there will be more measures soon. I think these measures will make a big difference to British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick and the other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly need to invest in our trade infrastructure. There is a deepwater port in my riding in Squamish, and we need to make sure we can access these new markets, get more free trade agreements and find alternative markets to the U.S. That is really critical. As we are building these relationships, it is not just selling to new markets, but it is also making sure we can bring in new tourists. The new change to have group travel coming from China is massive, because that is one of the biggest markets for our country, with some of the biggest spenders. That will be really critical for our local economy.

moved that Bill C-244, An Act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee. Mr. Speaker, as one of the 5.5 million Canadians who has the privilege of living on Canada's coast, I know it is not just where we live; it is part of who we are, from learning about the life cycle of salmon as a child to fishing in our rivers and oceans and experiencing the incredible feeling of seeing a whale in the wild. It is what brings residents and visitors together, drives our economy and puts food on the table. Today, these same coastlines face mounting pressures from marine pollution and abandoned and derelict boats. Coastal residents see these impacts every single day. They have written letters, raised petitions and met with every level of government, saying the same thing: Our laws and policies are simply not getting the job done. They want us to do something about it. They know that our oceans are for the common benefit, but they are not a common dumping ground. They are frustrated because they see what happens when governments act too late when a vessel sinks, fuel leaks and community bears the cost of a problem that should have been prevented. That is why I am honoured to rise today to speak to my private members' bill, Bill C-244, the clean coasts act. The legislation strengthens Canada's ability to prevent and respond to marine pollution by closing two critical gaps in our laws: First, it clarifies that marine dumping is a strict liability offence under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and second, it amends the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to prohibit the transfer of vessels to individuals the seller knows does not have the means to maintain or dispose of them safely. Together, these two measures will deter the reckless behaviour that endangers our coasts and ensure that those who pollute our oceans, not the public, are responsible for cleaning up their waste. These amendments respond directly to challenges that coastal communities, particularly in British Columbia, face every day. Coastal residents see the cumulative impact of marine pollution, derelict vessels and infrastructure that is breaking down. Nowhere is this happening more than in Porpoise Bay, where long-time residents, such as Angelia, have watched this decline unfold over their lifetimes. She grew up swimming and digging clams with her family, but today, she does not believe she will ever swim there again. The bay, where her neighbour's grandchildren now play, is scattered with derelict boats and floating debris that leach oil, fuel and waste into the water. What was once a clear, healthy inlet has become clouded with pollution and garbage from decaying vessels. The same children who may have spent their weekends searching for shells now spend their time picking up plastic and broken foam that washes ashore For Elaine, who runs a small waterfront bed and breakfast that was once featured in The New York Times as one of Canada's most scenic coastal getaways, this has become an economic issue as much as an environmental one. Guests no longer see a pristine bay; they see a flotilla of abandoned boats and improvised structures. Tourism suffers, and all the local businesses that depend on it do as well. When governments are slow to act, people like Don McKenzie, a 90-year-old marina operator, take matters into their own hands. Don has spent years pumping water out of sinking vessels at his own expense because he knows that once they go down, the cost is 10 times greater to deal with them, which ultimately falls to taxpayers. I thank Don for all that he does. Beyond derelict boats, other forms of marine pollution are also taking a toll. Along the coast, we see styrofoam from decaying docks and aquaculture facilities that are breaking apart into thousands of small fragments that spread across beaches and into fragile habitats. Community groups, such as the West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society, Átl’ka7tsem/Howe Sound Marine Stewardship Initiative and the Sunshine Coast Conservation Association, as well as their volunteers, dedicate countless hours to cleaning up what stronger laws could have prevented from entering the ocean in the first place. Cleanups across British Columbia's coasts can cost thousands of dollars per kilometre. These are costs borne not by polluters but by local residents and volunteers. These are not isolated frustrations; they are symptoms of a system that reacts only after the damage is done. While communities such as Gibsons, Sechelt and Bowen Island see these impacts up close, the same legal gaps are evident on a larger scale. When pollution reaches the ocean, the effects ripple far beyond one bay or harbour. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA, is the most important environmental law in Canada. It protects people and the environment from toxic substances, but given how the court has interpreted the marine dumping provisions of CEPA, only intentional discharges into the ocean are now prohibited. This means that even when careless acts, omissions or poor maintenance lead to dumping in our oceans, individuals or companies can escape responsibility. The 2015 Marathassa oil spill in Vancouver's English Bay makes this very clear. A newly built bulk carrier leaked more than 2,700 litres of bunker oil into the ocean, coating nearby beaches, marine life and shoreline habitats. The cleanup costs were in the millions of dollars. It took weeks and involved volunteers, municipalities, first nations and the Coast Guard. Even after all these efforts, we know that the oil spilled continues to have a long-term impact. Despite dumping oil into the bay for days, the ship's owners were ultimately acquitted of all charges. This case revealed a critical flaw. It placed the burden on the public to prove intention rather than on the polluter to demonstrate responsibility. The clean coasts act would correct that imbalance. It would establish a strict liability framework that would shift the onus of proof from the Crown to the polluter. Under this model, if a vessel releases pollution into the marine environment, the owner or operator must prove that they took all appropriate steps to prevent it. They must do what a reasonable person would do in the same situation and simply act responsibly. This is what was always intended by the act, and this bill clarifies that that would be the case going forward. This is not about criminalizing accidents. It is about ensuring that those who operate in our waters meet the highest standards we expect of them. It would encourage better maintenance, safety protocols and planning, saving both money and our oceans. By placing accountability where it belongs, on those in control of the vessels that could cause harm, the clean coasts act would make prevention the rule rather than the exception. The Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, or WAHVA, passed in 2019, was an important step forward. WAHVA made it an offence to abandon a vessel, rather than what someone should be doing in these cases, which is properly dispose of it. Incredibly, this was not prohibited before then. In creating this new prohibition to abandon a vessel, we created an incentive for people to avoid it. Some vessel owners now try to sidestep accountability by transferring boats, usually at the end of their useful life, to people who they know cannot maintain them. These transfers are easy to find. Residents have shared screenshots of online listings on platforms like Craigslist, where boats are offered for a dollar or free to a good home. In some cases, the same sites advertized “off-grid moorage” or “tie-ups on makeshift floats”, inviting others to live on the water without proper facilities, order, permission or oversight. Some might ask who would voluntarily take on this type of liability. Too often, it is some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as the unhoused simply looking for a roof over their head. They have more immediate things to worry about than the cost of properly disposing of a vessel. Some might ask why this is a problem. These vessels are often not seaworthy and are at risk of sinking. In Porpoise Bay, that danger became real when a man who was living on an unseaworthy vessel tragically lost his life when trying to reach the shore in a small dinghy. Beyond the danger to human life, these vessels pose ongoing navigation hazards and increase the risk of waste being dumped into coastal waters, factors that degrade the water quality in the surrounding region. In speaking with organizations like the Coastal Restoration Society, which has removed over 100 derelict vessels from B.C.'s coastline since 2017, I have heard first-hand how costly it is to remove these vessels once they have sunk. Safely removing a single 45-foot wooden vessel can cost upward of $40,000, costs that small port authorities and boat owners simply cannot afford, and this is on the cheaper side. Without accessible disposal options, many vessels are stripped for parts and then left to deteriorate in the water, leaking pollutants into the nearby ecosystem. The clean coasts act would close an important loophole. It would prohibit the transfer of a vessel to anyone the seller knows lacks the means to maintain it safely and would ensure that accountability follows a vessel throughout its life cycle so ownership cannot be off-loaded to avoid responsibility. The clean coasts act would build on progress that Canada has already made in oceans protection. It would strengthen existing tools rather than creating new ones. Through the oceans protection plan, we have improved spill response and habitat restoration and have provided funding to remove sunken boats through the abandoned boats program. This is about getting ahead of the problem and dealing with it in a much cheaper way, but those efforts can succeed only when the laws that underpin them are enforceable. The clean coasts act would provide that clarity, ensuring that both CEPA and WAHVA work effectively. This is not a radical reform but a practical fix that would deliver results on the water and better value for taxpayers. Protecting our oceans is not just a national duty; it is a shared responsibility across every level of government. Right now, responsibility for derelict and abandoned vessels is scattered. Transport Canada oversees navigation safety, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages small craft harbours, Environment and Climate Change Canada responds to pollution, and the Coast Guard steps in during emergencies. Provincially, jurisdiction extends over the inshore seabed and shorelines, and municipalities are left managing the impacts within their boundaries. The result is too often a finger-pointing exercise, with no single body clearly accountable for prevention and enforcement. Communities like Sechelt have seen what happens when this patchwork approach fails: Pollution worsens, vessels sink and coastal communities and taxpayers bear the cost. The clean coasts act is about ending that cycle. It focuses on prevention, ensuring that responsibility could not be passed from one owner, one jurisdiction or one ministry to another. There has already been strong leadership from local organizations and from volunteers who are stepping up to do the work that should not fall to them. Groups like the Dead Boats Disposal Society show that Canadians are ready to act. They need the federal government to back them up with the right tools. I would also say that the issue is not partisan. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in its bipartisan report on abandoned and derelict vessels, offered important recommendations to address the issue, including thoughtful suggestions in the Conservatives' supplementary report. I want to recognize the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, the Conservative Party critic for fisheries, for his work in this space and particularly for the recommendation that I deeply agree with and that the government should adopt: to require boat sellers rather than boat buyers to register the transfers of boats. I would also like to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for seconding the bill and for his long-standing advocacy on dealing with the issue of derelict vessels, which absolutely plagues his riding as well. We would not have the WAHVA framework were it not for the private member's bill that former fisheries minister Bernadette Jordan brought forward. More locally, the former MP for my riding, John Weston, has also long been a champion of this issue. We all care about clean coasts and know that the bill alone will not solve the problem. We need a modernized vessel registry system so we can effectively identify vessel ownership, and we need a sufficient and sustainable source of funding through the vessel remediation fund to remove and dispose of vessels for which we cannot identify the owners. These two regulations are long overdue, and I call on the government to act urgently to finalize them. Furthermore, on the west coast, there is still no dedicated facility for dismantling or recycling end-of-life vessels. We need to change this. We need to make it both easy and affordable for boat owners to properly dispose of their boats. Pairing this with legislative reform, we can make a lasting difference of addressing the root causes of marine pollution rather than only its much more costly symptoms. In conclusion, I want to add that a recent poll by Glacier Media shows that nearly 97% of respondents are in favour of stricter regulation of marine dumping and derelict vessels. The clean coasts act would respond to exactly that, so I invite all members to support this pragmatic step, to stand with coastal communities, to honour the people who have been calling for action for years, and to ensure that our oceans remain clean, healthy and productive for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, it is an important question. With the changes proposed in the bill, there would be an obligation for the seller to take steps to ensure that they are not selling to someone who they know does not have the means to maintain it or properly dispose of it. There are a lot of ways that one can do that, such as properly disclosing the current condition of the boat and ensuring that the seller can also provide in written format how they can maintain it as well. This is one way of dealing with the loophole that is there. Subsequent to that, the seller of the boat would have no responsibility beyond that, because of course, what could they do at that point? This is really addressing a critical loophole that was created when we introduced the prohibition of abandoning boats. This is something that we need to do to close that loophole.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. This amendment seeks to correct a problem created by a court decision. The penalty and the prohibition were always intended as a strict liability offence. The court's interpretation of the law altered its application. This amendment restores the original intent: Any act committed deliberately or by negligence will henceforward be prohibited.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that this is something that requires multiple levels of government jurisdiction to address. The province has taken some actions, as well, to deal with marine pollution. It is very much something that we can work together on. We all realize that this is an issue. If it is in the water, it is typically the federal government's jurisdiction. When it washes ashore to land, we engage the provincial jurisdiction. We need to work closely together. This is about getting ahead of those problems and stopping the issue from getting worse, stopping more and more derelict vessels from being out there. It is also about making sure that we are holding the folks and companies that are causing marine pollution responsible. That is something that all levels of government and all members of the House should be able to agree to, because this is about a core value, personal responsibility, and ensuring that the polluter pays for actions.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Guelph. I rise today to speak to Bill C-14, the bail and sentencing reform act. This bill would amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act to improve public safety, strengthen accountability for repeat violent offences and serious property crime, and modernize procedures that affect victims, police and the courts. Across the country, Canadians are calling for a justice system that better protects communities, supports victims and holds repeat and violent offenders accountable. That is why our government is acting through our three-pillar approach to strengthen public safety and confidence in the justice system. Pillar one is about strengthening our legal frameworks, including the bail and sentencing reform legislation we are talking about today. Pillar two is about increasing the capacity and resourcing on our front lines by adding 1,000 new RCMP officers and 1,000 new CBSA officers and, importantly, by creating the financial crimes agency to pursue complex, financial and organized criminal offences so we can follow the money. Pillar three is about supporting a continuum of care through social and mental health supports, addiction services and supportive housing and by working with local organizations that provide prevention, outreach and rehabilitation programs to help people avoid entering or re-entering the criminal justice system. Strong laws, strong enforcement and strong community supports are what are needed to tackle both the causes and consequences of crime. The bill we are debating today would strengthen Canada's justice system by ensuring that repeat and violent offenders face greater accountability and would make it harder for individuals with serious or repeated charges to receive bail. It would also tighten sentencing for organized and repeat property crime and would prioritize community safety while maintaining fairness and rehabilitation. While Bill C-14 would make 80 amendments to the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act, I want to focus on a few key areas that are highly relevant to my constituents in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. They include creating tougher bail conditions, with judges having to consider both the number and the seriousness of an accused's outstanding charges when deciding when bail is appropriate, making it harder for repeat offenders to be released back into the community. The bill would also create a new reverse onus for break and enters so that the accused would have to demonstrate why they should be granted bail, rather than the current onus, which has the Crown proving why bail should be denied. The bill would also create stronger sentencing for organized property crime. Organized retail crime would be treated as an aggravating factor in sentencing, and courts would have to prioritize deterrence and denunciation when sentencing for repeat break-ins and property offences. Together, these reforms would target repeat and organized offenders, strengthen deterrence and help increase public confidence in the justice system. Residents across Canada, including in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, want a justice system that keeps people safe, supports victims and remains fair and efficient. On the Sunshine Coast, and particularly in Sechelt, concerns about crime have become one of the most pressing issues for residents. Recent RCMP reports have shown that violent crime in Sechelt has risen by 26% this quarter, with increases in uttered threats and weapons-related offences. Property crime and break and enters continue to affect families, seniors and small businesses, particularly in certain regions, and these incidents are often the subject of community meetings and local news stories. I want to acknowledge the understandable frustration when people see the same individuals cycling through the system and not seeing meaningful deterrence or accountability. People deserve to be safe and feel safe in their neighbourhoods and to know that repeat offenders are being held to account. I have personally participated in community meetings and town halls on this matter, and I want to let the community know that I hear these concerns and they are being acted on. Bill C-14 would directly respond to them by strengthening bail for repeat violent offenders and introducing tougher sentencing for serious and organized property crimes. These reforms would help ensure that those who repeatedly endanger public safety face real consequences while we maintain fairness and rehabilitation where it is due. The bail and sentencing reform act would strengthen public safety by tightening how bail and release decisions are made. It would clarify that the principle of restraint does not require release when detention is justified. I can tell that this principle has been the subject of a lot of misunderstanding, particularly in this House, but it is important to clarify that this principle of restraint in bail decisions was not created by legislation. It came from Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. A previous government codified this principle, but even if it were repealed, it would remain good law because of court decisions that have interpreted the Charter Rights and Freedoms accordingly. Bill C-14 would provide clarity by ensuring that restraint does not mean automatic release. It would also direct peace officers and judges to tailor release conditions to the actual risks posed by the accused, ensuring detention remains appropriate for repeat, violent or organized offenders. This would strengthen public confidence while maintaining fairness and, importantly, charter compliance. Reverse-onus provisions would be expanded to cover a broader range of serious offences, including extortion involving violence; breaking and entering a dwelling house; human trafficking; smuggling; alleged choking, suffocation or strangulation; and when an accused faces a serious violent charge with a weapon and has been previously convicted of a similar offence within 10 years. These updates build on reforms introduced last year through Bill C-48, which expanded the reverse onus to include repeat violent offenders using firearms and those charged with serious offences involving weapons. Bill C-14 would extend these provisions to cover serious and organized property crimes and other offences that have caused growing concern in communities in my riding and across the country. Courts would be required to impose conditions when folks get bail for offences such as break and enters, including geographic restrictions, curfews and prohibitions on break-in tools. For violent and organized crime offences, mandatory prohibitions on firearms and other weapons would apply unless safety considerations make that inappropriate. To strengthen accountability for repeat offending, judges would also be required to consider both the number and the gravity of an individual's outstanding charges when determining whether detention is necessary to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The bill would also expand the circumstances under which release documents can be cancelled and would modernize arrest and review procedures for breaches of bail conditions, ensuring the justice system remains responsive, consistent and focused on protecting public safety. These changes matter for communities like Sechelt, where residents and small businesses continue to feel the effects of repeat and organized crime. Bill C-14 would help ensure that release decisions reflect real risk and that accountability is built into every stage of the process, giving law enforcement and communities stronger tools to keep people safe. Bill C-14 would also strengthen sentencing to ensure that penalties reflect the seriousness of repeat and organized crime. It would direct courts to treat as aggravating factors repeat violent offences, crimes against first responders, organized retail theft and fraudulent return schemes, and interference with essential infrastructure. It would also introduce consecutive sentencing for repeat break and enters and violent crime offences, with clear guidance to prioritize deterrence and denunciation for repeat and organized offences. Conditional sentences would be restricted for sexual assault and other sexual offences, particularly those involving victims under the age of 18. The bill would also restore driving prohibitions for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm, would increase penalties for contempt and would improve fine-enforcement tools by working with provinces and territories. Locally, the Sunshine Coast RCMP, the Sunshine Coast Community Services Society and others play key roles in prevention, early intervention and support for victims and vulnerable individuals. Their work very much complements Bill C-14's goal of accountability by addressing the root causes of repeat offending through mental health supports, domestic violence prevention and community policing initiatives. Bill C-14, importantly, would accomplish all of these measures in compliance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It would maintain judicial discretion and focus on the highest-risk patterns that affect our communities, including repeat violence, serious offences with weapons, organized criminal activity, as well as the repeat property crime that undermines community confidence. In closing, I can tell members that this legislation responds directly to the concerns I have heard in my riding. It would target repeat violence and serious property crime, support first responders and victims, and strengthen confidence in our justice system while remaining fair. However, nothing in this bill will matter unless the work is done in partnership with provinces and territories, including the British Columbia government, to ensure the system is properly funded so it can be administered properly, to ensure there is proper training for all justices of peace and to ensure we have capacity in our jail system. It is critical that the prosecution service in each and every region understands the community interests that are at sake in the decisions being made at bail hearings. Bill C-14 would help give them the tools to do their jobs properly. I encourage all members of the House to support this important piece of legislation to get to committee.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that there has been a mischaracterization of what the principle of restraint is, as well as of the impact of the inclusion of it in Bill C-75. As I also mentioned, this is a principle that was well articulated in the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, and it simply was legislated through that legislation. The Conservatives talk about how the principle of restraint is the source of all issues, any issue we see in the commission of criminal activity across the country, but in getting rid of it, we would still have the principle that is established through the jurisprudence. Through the legislation before us, we would actually be helping to further define the principle so it could be best utilized to ensure the best and proper administration of justice at each level.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill makes good progress in the fight against organized crime. As I said in my speech, we announced the establishment of a new financial crimes agency. We have made a lot of changes to our laws in recent years, we have a new registry for companies, and I know that, if we can work together with the provinces and all members of the House, we will come up with even more ideas to better address this difficult problem.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the principle of restraint was established through the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence in interpreting how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply to bail hearings. We are very committed to making sure we would be passing legislation that is compliant with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There has never been a federal government that has promised to invoke the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively, for legislation. It is a very dangerous idea to go down that road. It is there to protect some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and it is important that the highest laws of the country are respected. There is a way to do both. There is a way to make sure we are strengthening our criminal justice system while respecting those fundamental rights. I believe that the piece of legislation before us would do exactly that.

Mr. Speaker, money laundering, fraud and financial crimes fuel organized crime, undermine confidence in our financial system and contribute to serious challenges, such as the opioid crisis and rising housing costs in British Columbia. Our government has taken decisive action in recent years through major legislative reforms, but the sophistication of these crimes means that we must remain vigilant and we must do more. Can the Secretary of State for the Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions update the House on how our government is strengthening enforcement to better detect and disrupt financial crime?

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to present e-petition 45-1, initiated by one of my constituents, Ms. Jenny Perez, a passionate advocate for children's online safety. This petition has garnered the support of nearly 2,000 Canadians, including parents and concerned citizens from coast to coast to coast. The petitioners draw attention to the growing concern that smart phones are becoming a gateway to harmful content for Canadian youth. They note that the majority of children now own a device by the age of 12. They further raise concerns about algorithm-driven social media platforms, which are designed to maximize user engagement, often in ways that can be addictive and detrimental to the emotional and mental well-being of young people. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to raise the minimum age for social media use to 16 through mandatory age-verification systems and meaningful enforcement measures, similar to recent actions taken by countries like Australia, and to strengthen the privacy rights of minors under the age of 18 by ensuring that social media companies are prohibited from collecting, storing and sharing personal data from youth, including data gathered through age-verification technologies.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-244, An Act to amend The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 and the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to introduce the clean coasts act. This bill takes two important steps to better protect our coastal environment, boaters and coastal residents by proposing to amend key federal laws. First, it would amend the marine dumping provisions of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to clarify that marine dumping is a strict liability offence. This is critical to prevent incidents such as the 2015 oil spill in English Bay, when the MV Marathassa leaked oil for nearly 24 hours, without consequence. Second, it would amend the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act to require pleasure craft owners to take reasonable steps to avoid transferring their vessel to someone who is unable to maintain it, which is often a tactic used to avoid disposal costs. This would help address the growing problem of abandoned and derelict boats along our coasts. Together, these two changes would strengthen accountability and better protect Canada's marine environment and coastal communities from pollution. I urge all members of the House to support this important piece of legislation. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, this month, Whistler turns 50. What started in 1975 as a gravel road, a few cabins and the bold dream of pioneers like Nancy Greene and Franz Wilhelmsen has grown into a world-class destination. From the first gondola at Creekside to the rivalry between Whistler and Blackcomb mountains and partnering with the Squamish Nation and Líl̓wat Nation to host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Whistler has always been a place of possibility. If we could ski it, if we could hike it, if we could bike it or if we could build it, we did. Today, Whistler is Canada's premier year-round tourism destination and a vibrant community where visitors' energy blends with the hearts of the residents, families, workers and volunteers who make it special. Whistler has always had a special place in my heart since I started skiing there at age three, and I am confident it will meet the next 50 years' challenges like climate change, housing and reconciliation with the same spirit that made it what it is today. Happy 50th, Whistler.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in opposition to the opposition day motion today, which, at the heart of it, is simply disinformation: disinformation about climate policy and disinformation about an affordability policy that, quite frankly, gives me flashbacks to the last government, where it seemed that week after week, the Conservatives would have a similar type of motion that they would bring forward. Here the Conservatives are making the claim that Canada has a plan to completely ban gas-powered cars and that this would somehow drive up the cost of vehicles by $20,000. That is simply untrue. It is about a regulation that will progressively increase the number of light-duty cars that dealerships sell, which are zero-emissions vehicles in Canada: to 20% in 2026, 30% in 2030 and then up to 100% in 2035. What they fail to mention is that there are exemptions built in that allow for the purchase of plug-in hybrid vehicles for those parts of our country where electric vehicles are not as well suited. Why do we have the regulation in the first place? Contrary to what Conservatives say, it is actually about choice. It is about having the choice to find an electric vehicle if someone wants one. It is no mistake that the provinces that have the highest adoption rate of electric vehicles are the ones that have had a standard for the purchase of electric vehicles, including Quebec and British Columbia, where sales were over 30% and 22%, respectively, last year. With those types of regulations, car dealerships will actually show the models on the floor to meet the demand that is there. If the standard is not there, they are going to prefer to have things on their lot like gas-powered cars, particularly SUVs, where we know the margins are much higher for them. However, we also hear opponents of electric vehicles suggest that they are somehow a luxury product, but the facts again show otherwise. Over the lifetime of ownership of an electric vehicle, they will actually be much cheaper, because a Canadian driver today will save thousands of dollars each year at the pump. While gas prices will fluctuate, sometimes very wildly due to global instability, which is entirely outside of Canada's control, EV drivers are charging at a fraction of the cost. To put it into context, at today's prices, the average Canadian driving 20,000 kilometres per year spends about $2,800 on gas. The same distance in an EV costs about $500 in electricity, so that is a saving of over $2,000 every year. That is before we even talk about maintenance. Anyone who owns a gas-powered car knows the cost of oil changes, engine repairs, exhaust systems and transmission issues, none of which actually apply to electric vehicles. Studies show that electric vehicles cost 40% less to maintain and repair than their gas-powered counterparts. When we combine the fuel and maintenance savings, a typical Canadian family can expect to save about $20,000 over the lifetime of their vehicle. The PBO just released a report that confirmed that over the first three years of ownership, the higher initial purchase price of an electric vehicle, even without any incentives, will be made up on the operational savings. I can speak to this very personally as someone who was able to purchase an electric vehicle just under two years ago. It is a very nice feeling knowing that I do not have to worry about what the prices at the pump are going to be, whether this is the time that the summer gasoline blend comes in, or whether whatever type of conflict is happening in the Middle East could jack up the prices. I know I can charge my vehicle in the comfort of my home rather than having to plan for those types of stops. I can do just about any round trip in my 13,000-square-kilometre riding in one charge on my car. The other reason that it is important to move forward with this is that we are living in a climate crisis. Just in one community in my riding alone, the district of Squamish, has had three wildfires so far this year, and we are only in mid-June. We know that transportation accounts for about a quarter of Canada's emissions, so if we are serious about reducing our emissions in Canada and protecting our communities, then transportation, particularly light-duty vehicles, has to be part of the equation. We know that electric vehicles emit about 80% less over the lifetime of the car than gas-powered alternatives do, even when we account for such things as battery manufacturing and Canada's current electrical grid. As our grid gets cleaner and we find more sustainable ways of mining and processing minerals and manufacturing vehicles, those emissions reductions are going to grow even more significantly. We also know that less pollution means healthier communities. It also means fewer respiratory illnesses, fewer hospital visits and a better quality of life for our kids and grandkids, so this is also about public health. None of those benefits actually matters if Canadians cannot access electric vehicles in the first place. That is why the government introduced these regulations, to ensure that manufacturers actually bring EVs to the Canadian market. For too long, Canada was a dumping ground for gas vehicles while EVs were shipped elsewhere. Canadian consumers were left with long wait times. I can speak personally. I waited over a year and a half to be able to purchase an electric vehicle. There are limited options, and we have inflated prices. Therefore, our regulations simply ensure that automakers prioritize Canada when deciding where to sell their electric vehicles so that Canadians are not left at the back of the line. I want to be very clear. These regulations do not ban gas-powered cars; they simply create a level playing field in which Canadians can choose from a wide range of affordable, high-quality electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, many of which are now being built right here in Canada. That gets me to my next point. This transition is not only good for consumers and the environment, but it is good for our economy. Canada is increasingly becoming a global leader in electric vehicle manufacturing, battery production and clean technology. We are seeing historic investments in plants, battery factories and the mining of critical minerals. This is something for which there are opportunities from coast to coast to coast to create thousands of well-paying jobs in our country. However, we do have challenges to seeing higher adoption of electric vehicles. With the depletion of the federal incentive for electric vehicles, and with its elimination in my home province of British Columbia as well, we are seeing a slowing of that demand. Therefore, it is really important that this gap be addressed so that we are able to continue to encourage people to adopt electric vehicles. Our government has made the commitment, as we reform the industrial carbon price, to ensure that big polluters in Canada are going to pay for incentives for individual Canadians to make those greener choices. The other challenge we have is that, in Canada, we do not have a lot of the affordable models other countries have access to. We made the decision to bring in a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles for understandable reasons, but we can also look to what other jurisdictions have done, such as the European Union, which has a smaller tariff geared more toward the specific impact of some of its unfair subsidies, as well as to protecting the nascent market it has there. There are a lot of affordable electric vehicles that are manufactured in some of our value-aligned countries but are not available right now in Canada. I think of places like Europe, Japan and South Korea. One thing we could do is find a way of harmonizing our vehicle certification standards so that vehicles approved for use there are available in Canada as well. This would have the impact of ensuring that we see a lot more of those EVs on the lower-cost end, which is where we are seeing some of the biggest challenges with adoption. We have seen what happens when supply is limited: higher prices, long delays and frustration for families trying to do the right thing. The government believes Canadians deserve better. By leaning into this transition, we are securing Canada's place in the clean economy of the future while making sure that Canadians and communities benefit. Opponents of these measures often talk about freedom of choice, but what choice do Canadians have if the vehicles they want are not available? Not all Canadians have the ability to buy EVs, because they are not available in all provinces. The ZEV availability standard is what is needed to make sure Canadians are able to have that choice. We see that the demand is there in metro Vancouver, where almost 70% of residents want an electric vehicle to be their next choice of vehicle. In my riding, the district of Squamish has the highest adoption rate of any metropolitan area in the country. The district of West Vancouver may have the highest adoption of any municipality. We see that the demand is there, but we need to make sure the supply is there. That is what these regulations are all about.

Madam Speaker, that is a really important question that we need to consider as we see lower revenues that go to fund some of those things. There are ways that we can think of things. Perhaps, with public charging stations, there may be some of that tax that could go to fund some of those same things. Some jurisdictions have put a small tax on the registration for electric vehicles. I am thinking of Alberta. There are a lot of ways that can be done. This is an overwhelmingly positive thing for our communities that we need to find ways of supporting rather than putting up roadblocks. We do need to find ways of ensuring that the infrastructure is going to be well supported and maintained for the long term.

Madam Speaker, I am one of those people who waited for an electric vehicle during the pandemic, so I am very familiar with this situation. We need measures like this so that the vehicles people want to buy are actually available for purchase. Continuing to improve how these vehicles are produced in Canada is one way to accelerate the transition. What is clear is that people want these vehicles, and we must do everything we can to make them available.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me another opportunity to speak French in the House. We do know that this is the direction that the world is heading in. There are already countries such as China where it is cheaper to produce electric vehicles than gas‑powered ones. When everyone adds to the number of vehicles produced, prices will be even lower. Technology will also improve. We have to be ready for that. We want to see these vehicles made in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize all those who put themselves in harm's way to fight the Dryden Creek wildfire in Squamish and keep the community safe. Despite dangerous conditions, thanks to the skill and determination of Fire Chief Aaron Foote, Squamish Fire Rescue, Whistler Fire Rescue, BC wildfire crews, Mayor Armand Hurford, the district of Squamish Emergency Operations Centre and the Squamish Nation, the fire is now being held, and the evacuation alert has been lifted. Beyond the fire lines, the community came together. Businesses offered help, students delivered meals and neighbours supported one another, so much so that officials paused donations due to overwhelming generosity. This wildfire, the third in Squamish this year, reminds us of the growing risks of climate change and the need to be prepared. We must all follow FireSmart guidelines and sign up for local emergency alerts. Everyone who fought the fire, supported neighbours and stood together showed us what Squamish is truly made of.