Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, Canada has an incredible opportunity to become a global leader in the resources that power modern economies. In Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, the communities of Elk Valley and Trail are helping make that possible. Elk Valley is home to a highly skilled mining workforce that produces world-class metallurgical coal, while Trail earned an international reputation in excellence in metal processing, refining and innovation. Steel is fundamental to energy infrastructure, transportation networks and national defence. The materials required to produce steel are therefore critical to the economic and industrial security. Met coal, also known as steelmaking coal, is recognized as a critical mineral in the United States, the European Union and India. Canada needs to formally recognize metallurgical coal as a critical mineral as well. As the global demand for critical minerals and steelmaking materials continues to grow, the workers, the families and the businesses of Elk Valley and Trail remain at the forefront of Canada's prosperity. I thank them for their hard work and invaluable contribution to our country.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, whom I have worked with. I appreciate victim services, after being in the RCMP for 35 years. I am thankful for what she has done. My question goes back to the issue of mandatory minimum penalties for individuals who commit crimes. Do you think there is enough accountability in our Supreme Court justices? Can we hold them to account so they will actually put people in jail who need to go there for those minimum penalties? I think we are a little bit weak on that. I just wonder if the hon. member, whom I loved working with, could answer that question, please.

Madam Speaker, coming from a rural area, when I go to the grocery store, people are telling me how expensive everything is, and it is a two-hour trip for me to go to a grocery store. Food prices are so high. Of course, fuel prices are high. I have had no one tell me they have never had it so good. I am wondering if the member can expand on that. Has he heard that? I cannot get out of a grocery store for two hours, because it is so expensive and people are blaming me for the food prices.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petition e-7104, with over 700 signatures. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to establish a comprehensive legal framework to protect minors from predatory drug dealers; to monitor social media, target online trafficking and require social media companies to implement policies to prevent it; to enact a federal law against child criminal exploitation based on the approach of the United Kingdom's crime and policing bill; and to empower and require police to thoroughly and effectively investigate all reports of drug trafficking and criminal exploitation involving minors, and to provide witness protection when needed. Sixty per cent of all illicit drug users in Canada are young people aged 15 to 24, and drug overdose is the leading cause of death among youth ages 10 to 18 in several Canadian provinces.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present petition e-6974. I want to recognize my constituent TJ Hagarty from Fernie, British Columbia, for his dedication in bringing forward this important issue. Mr. Hagarty's family experienced a significant hardship when they were unable to transfer their son's medical care to Alberta rather than Vancouver due to limitations of the current system. I am proud to present this petition, which has gathered more than 2,500 signatures from residents across my riding. Since elected in 2019, I have worked hard to support constituents within our health care system. It is my responsibility on their behalf to bring this to the attention of the House of Commons. Petitioners call on the Government of Canada to work with the provinces to address the barriers in accessing care across provincial boundaries.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that one of the highest paved roads in Canada, the Kootenay Pass, has no cell service. It is still, today, one of the most dangerous roads in Canada. However, my question is actually related more to credit cards. So many people are relying on credit cards and the interest payments are becoming unmanageable, so that people cannot even afford to make those payments. That is sort of what the government is doing. When we do not have solid economic growth, we end up having a hard time paying off debt. We have sawmills, for example, that are using a line of credit to pay their staff. That is not sustainable. They will have to shut down those sawmills. How do we move forward so that we do not have a credit card budget and are actually making some real payments and supporting Canadians?

Madam Chair, I want to start off by saying I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. I want to thank the great people of Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies for their support. For the last decade, Canada has been locked in the same exhausting, costly and frankly predictable dispute with the United States over softwood lumber. For a decade, it has been Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian communities who have been forced to shoulder the burden of the ongoing trade conflict. It is not a new issue and not a surprise. It has been staring at us in the face for years, yet somehow, despite all the warnings, all the promises and all the opportunities to act, the Liberal government has failed to secure a stable, lasting agreement, leaving the forestry sector to navigate the longest period in Canadian history without a negotiated settlement. It is not progress. It is not leadership. It is failure. Softwood lumber is not just another commodity. It is one of the foundational pillars of Canada's economy. It supports more than 200,000 direct and hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs. It sustains hundreds of rural, northern and indigenous communities. It feeds our domestic construction industry, fuels innovation and generates billions of dollars in exports. When the lumber sector thrives, Canada thrives, but when it is threatened the shockwaves ripple across the entire country. Right now, the sector is under threat. Punitive U.S. duties, which are unfounded, protectionist and arbitrary, continue to hammer Canadian producers. Nearly $10 billion in duties have now been accumulated. That is $10 billion that should be supporting workers, innovation and reinvestment here at home sitting instead in an international account. What has the Liberal government done in response? It has done nothing that has made any meaningful difference, nothing that has moved the needle for struggling mills and nothing that signals to Americans or Canadians that the dispute is being treated with the seriousness it deserves. Year after year, we hear the same lines from the government: that they are working on it, that talks are ongoing and that a solution is close. However, here we are 10 years later with less certainty, less stability and fewer tools to protect our producers than we had before. Let us talk about the past deals for a moment because history matters here. Previous softwood agreements, when they actually existed, provided at least a degree of predictability. They allowed producers to plan, invest and grow. The 2006 softwood lumber agreement provided clarity and protection, including caps, and prevented the kinds of disproportionate duties we are seeing today, especially for value-added producers who are now punished for simply selling higher-value finished products. That agreement did not happen by accident but because Canada had a government unwilling to accept endless uncertainty, a government prepared to negotiate with focus and determination, and a government that understood the needs of the forestry sector. What do we have now? We have a vacuum, a leadership gap, a government that appears more comfortable with reacting to a crisis than preventing them. Without an agreement, investment dries up, mills do not modernize, producers hesitate to hire, projects get shelved and opportunities vanish. Once the jobs are gone, once a mill closes, once a community loses its primary economic engine, it rarely comes back. We are seeing that risk at play across the country. British Columbia is already dealing with reduced harvest levels, wildfire impacts and fibre shortages. It must get more value from less wood just to survive. How can that happen in an environment where the federal government cannot secure predictable market access? From our fourth-generation sawmill, Kalesnikoff, Ken said that the softwood lumber dispute is beyond its control and that the current rates of 45% tariffs are unsustainable. He said that businesses are drawing on their lines of credit to pay payroll. At J.H. Huscroft, a 100-year mill, Justin said, “We need a plan for three years, just to feel secure” and he said that they have a million dollars in annual shipping bonds, but they don't have access to it.” At another small family-operated mill, Porcupine, Craig said, “The combined 45% plus tariff is a severe challenge to any business in the industry.” At the ATCO sawmill, with 70 years in business, Scott said that all mills rely on each other for success and that when one operation fails, everyone fails. At the logging contractor Hummers, Nick said that he had to lay off half their staff, that shipping to the U.S. was not economical and that Europe was slow as well. He said that even local mills have cancelled some of their orders. The question is simple: How long will they be forced to wait before the government finally delivers the leadership it has been promising for a decade?

Madam Chair, that is for sure a complicated issue, especially after 10 years of the market, the lumber industry, slowing down and losing mills. I do not know how many mills have been lost in B.C., but it has been maybe 10 or 15. Once we lose them, it is really hard to get them back. For British Columbia, I agree that we need to work with the province as well for tenures for our logging, but it also takes leadership from Ottawa. We really need action, not words. We really need to see something produced, not just some comments about people being given money. Again, they are not looking for handouts; we all agree on that. They are looking for stability. They want to be able to predict what they are going to do in the next three years so that they can actually start to upgrade their mills and do more with the lumber they have. A lot of the mills now are actually really specialized and to do that, they need more equipment and it takes more investment.

Madam Chair, it is really about innovation and it is about our sawmills moving ahead. For example, one mill is building modular homes and is trying to work with laminate products. It is investing its own money in it, but when it sees there are 45% tariffs down south and how difficult it is, it has a hard time surviving. How does it continue to invest money when it is losing money? I brought up the example of a business that is actually using a line of credit to make payroll; that is not sustainable. We need to go back to that predictability. We need to know where we are going with softwood lumber across Canada, and we are not there.

Madam Chair, that is a really good question, but the answer certainly is twofold. It is Trump with the tariffs, but it is also 10 years of no action. We cannot go 10 years without dealing with the problem and expect everything to go smoothly. The lumber industry has been crying for the last 10 years. It wants a deal. It wants a softwood lumber deal. There is $10 billion in a bank account that it cannot get access to. Now we are closing mills across Canada that are likely not going to come back, so that increases production in the United States and means less for us. How do we build our homes without sawmills? Let us think about that for a second. Where is our strategy to build these homes if we do not have any sawmills?

Madam Speaker, I presented petition e-4474 on this matter, with 15,000 signatures from across Canada of individuals who were concerned with the new changes to natural health products. These changes would really impact a lot of our small and medium-sized businesses that provide natural health products. In Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, we have areas where a lot of people are proactive with their health care and are using natural health products. The member gave an awesome presentation of the bill. I think we are going to have success with this across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court's decision in this case is devastating: Two men were found with hundreds of images and videos of children, some as young as three years old. One had 317 images, mostly of little girls between three and six. The other had hundreds of videos of children between five and 10. These are not victimless crimes. Every image is a real child hurt, humiliated and forever changed. Those children deserve justice, not excuses, yet the court chose to focus on theory instead of the horrifying facts in front of them. Canadians know justice means protecting the most vulnerable among us. A future Conservative government will use the notwithstanding clause to overturn this ruling. We will restore mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual abuse material and ensure predators face the full weight of the law.

Mr. Speaker, in Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies, forestry is not just an industry; it is a way of life. From small family-run mills like Huscroft, Kalesnikoff, ATCO, Porcupine and Mardis in the Kootenays to the dedicated men and women working across the southern Rockies, the forest sector is the backbone of our local economy. However, once again, these hard-working Canadians are being left behind. The Liberal government has failed to secure a new softwood lumber agreement with the United States, leaving our producers facing uncertainty and unfair trade barriers. Despite these challenges, our small mills continue to push forward, investing, modernizing and finding innovative ways to stay competitive, but they are doing it without the support of the Liberal government, which should be standing up for them. They are not asking for handouts; they are asking for fairness, stability and leadership that will fight for their livelihoods. Conservatives will always stand by our forest families and the communities that depend on this vital sector.

With regard to government employees who were on "other leave with pay" (699) during the 2024-25 fiscal year, and broken down by department, agency, or government entity, and by month: (a) what was the total number of hours or days of "other leave with pay" utilized; (b) what is the total number of public servants who have utilized "other leave with pay"; and (c) what is the total number of employees who were on 699 leave and the total number of hours attributed to 699 leave, for reasons related to (i) work or technology limitations, (ii) the inability to work remotely while diagnosed with, experiencing symptoms of or self-isolating because of, COVID-19, (iii) caregiving responsibilities resulting from school or daycare closures, or COVID-19 illness or isolation requirements, (iv) the inability to work remotely while at high-risk, or while having someone in one’s care who is at high-risk, of severe illness from COVID-19?

With regard to the Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat: (a) since January 1, 2022, what is the total number of meetings supported by the Secretariat, and for each meeting, what are the details, including, the (i) date of the meeting, (ii) nature or subject of the meeting, (iii) total cost, broken down by type of expense (e.g., travel, accommodation, personnel, venue rental, etc.); (b) what is the detailed proof of the “significant cost efficiencies and economies of scale” referred to in the Main Estimates, 2025-26, and attributed to the Secretariat; (c) what is the annual budget specifically allocated for salaries at the Secretariat, since January 1, 2022; and (d) what are the details of any consulting or similar service contracts signed by the Secretariat, since January 1, 2022, to maintain and improve its services since its creation, including, for each contract, the (i) date it was signed, (ii) vendor, (iii) value, (iv) description of the goods or services provided, (v) manner in which the contract was awarded (sole-sourced or competitive bid)?

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, past and present, I rise today to pay tribute to the late Jim Gouk, a former member of Parliament who passed away on May 27 after a courageous three-year battle with cancer. Jim was first elected in 1993 as a Reform Party MP for Kootenay West—Revelstoke. He served for 12 years and four elections, later representing British Columbia Southern Interior with the Conservative Party. Before politics, Jim worked as an air traffic controller. His deep knowledge of Canada's transportation sector earned respect across party lines. A dedicated parliamentarian, he served on many committees and always focused on providing sound, informed advice to government. In his maiden speech, he said, “Those who are from there [the Kootenays] know how incredible it is. Those who are from other places are mistaken in believing that theirs equal it.” Upon retiring in 2005, Jim said it was time to enjoy life with his wife, Ann, and practise the three Gs: gardening, golf and grandchildren. Jim leaves a legacy of service, integrity and dedication. We extend our deepest condolences. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, having been involved in riots in the past in my law enforcement career, I can say that what happened in Montreal is certainly an awakening call for Canadians and to how disruptive some of the protests are. Getting back to SDTC, I wonder whether the member can answer the question as to why the government is reluctant to produce the unredacted documents. Is it because, first of all, only 60% of the files SDTC dealt with have been examined, or is it because the Liberals are just afraid somebody might end up going to jail?

Madam Speaker, today I rise in the chamber to discuss issues that speak to the heart of Canadian democracy: the responsible use of public funds, the ethical governance of our institutions and the accountability of elected officials. The recent scandal surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada, SDTC, is not just about mismanagement; it also represents a betrayal of the trust Canadians place in their government. The matter is too important to be relegated to committee rooms or buried in bureaucracy. It is the business of the House of Commons to shine a light on a troubling case and to demand answers on behalf of Canadians. The Conservative Party of Canada is unwavering in its commitment to bringing the issue to the forefront, because the problems are deeper and more systemic within the current NDP-Liberal coalition government. The matter is not an isolated case of a single program veering off course; it represents a troubling pattern of governance marked by a blatant disregard for ethical standards. The scandal surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada underscores a broader failure to uphold the principles of transparency, accountability and integrity, principles that are the bedrock of public service and democracy. The pattern is not new. Canadians have seen time and time again how the government prioritizes its political allies over the needs of the people it was elected to serve. Whether it is through mismanagement of public funds, or through conflicts of interest or lack of transparency, the actions of the government betray a troubling disregard for the trust placed in it by Canadians. Each new revelation adds to a growing sense that corruption and insider dealings have become the norm, eroding public confidence in government institutions and creating a sense of disillusionment, frustration and disappointment among the people. “Transparency”, “accountability” and “integrity” are not mere buzzwords or lofty ideals; they are practical, essential principles, pillars that guide how a government should function. Transparency ensures that the public has access to the information it needs in order to hold its leaders accountable. It allows for Canadians to see how their tax dollars are being spent and whether those expenditures align with the public interest. Without transparency, the government operates in the shadows, free from scrutiny and unburdened by the consequences of its actions. Accountability goes hand in hand with transparency. It is a mechanism by which leaders are held responsible for their decisions and actions. In a democratic system, accountability ensures that no one is above the law, and it provides a safeguard against abuse of power. For the government to refuse to release unredacted documents despite a direct order from Parliament is to undermine this critical pillar of democracy. Such behaviour sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that the government is willing to disregard its obligations to the public and to the institution of Parliament itself. Integrity, the third pillar, is about more than following the rules; it is about doing what is right, even when no one is watching. It is about prioritizing the public good over personal gain or political expediency. The scandals that have plagued the current government reveal a profound lack of integrity. When public servants approve funding that benefits their own ventures, when conflicts of interest go unchecked and when leaders refuse to admit fault or take corrective action, they compromise the very foundation of trust upon which governance is built. That is why the Conservative Party of Canada is determined to bring the issue to the attention of every Canadian. It is not just about recovering the misused $400 million or addressing the 186 documented conflicts of interest. It is also about sending a clear message that the days of unaccountable governance must come to an end. It is about restoring faith in our democratic institutions and proving that elected officials can and will be held to the highest standards of conduct. This moment is an opportunity to reaffirm what good governance looks like. It is a chance to remind Canadians that they deserve better than corruption, secrecy and mismanagement. They deserve a government that respects their hard-earned tax dollars, governs with honesty and fairness and holds itself accountable to the people who elected it. The Conservative Party is ready to lead by example, offering Canadians a government that places transparency, accountability and integrity at the heart of its agenda. This is a commitment. It is a core value that will guide every decision, every policy and every action. Canadians deserve nothing less than a government they can trust, a government that serves them, not itself. Let us revisit the purpose for which SDTC was established. Launched in 2001, the initiative was intended to position Canada as a leader in clean technology. Its mandate was ambitious but clear: to fund projects that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality and water quality and promote sustainable resource use. By supporting early-stage innovations, SDTC aimed to drive environmental processes while fostering economic growth. At its best, SDTC represented the kind of forward-thinking policy Canadians expect from their government. It was instrumental in supporting breakthroughs across various sectors. In the energy sector, it facilitated advancements in renewable energy, energy storage and efficiency. In agriculture, it championed projects that improved sustainability, reduced emissions and conserved water. In transportation, it promoted innovations that reduced the carbon footprint of public transit and supported the transition to electric mobility. Beyond providing the funding, SDTC acted as a bridge between diverse stakeholders, industry, academia, researchers and government agencies. By fostering collaboration, it accelerated the development and commercialization of technologies that benefited not just Canada but also the global community. This collaborative approach was essential for turning ambitious ideas into practical solutions. However, under the government's watch, SDTC strayed far from its noble purpose. Instead of being a model of innovation and environmental stewardship, it became a glaring example of mismanagement and ethical lapses. The Auditor General's recent findings reveal a shocking misuse of nearly $400 million in taxpayer funds. This is not merely an administrative failure. It is an ethical crisis that demands immediate action. The Auditor General's report details a pattern of conflicts of interest that would be unacceptable in any organization, let alone one funded by public taxpayer money. Of the $400 million allocated, $334 million went to projects linked to board members with clear conflicts of interest. Nine board members were implicated in a staggering 186 conflicts. They were using their positions to approve funding for projects that directly benefited themselves or their associates. One particularly shocking case involved a board member who, at the same time, ran a venture capital firm. This individual approved $114 million in funding for companies her firm had previously invested in, directly enriching herself and her business. Such blatant self-dealing is not only unethical, but it also undermines public confidence in the very institutions designed to serve the public good. The systematic nature of these abuses is further underscored by the Auditor General's findings. Of the 405 transactions approved by SDTC's board over five years, the Auditor General reviewed 226. Of these, 82% involved conflicts of interest. That is 82% of the 226 that were reviewed. This staggering figure reveals a governance structure riddled with ethical lapses and a lack of oversight. The mismanagement does not stop there. The Auditor General found that $58 million was allocated to projects that did not meet the program's qualifying criteria. These funds were disbursed without proper contribution agreements, which is a clear indication of administrative negligence. The Liberal government's industry minister, who is tasked with the oversight of SDTC, failed to implement the necessary checks and balances. This oversight failure enabled nearly half a billion dollars to be mismanaged. When confronted with these findings, the government's response was not to accept accountability or implement corrective measures. Instead, it chose to obstruct efforts to uncover the truth. Despite a parliamentary order requiring the release of unredacted documents related to SDTC, the government has refused to comply. Departments, such as Finance Canada, the Treasury Board Secretariat, and Innovation, Science and Economic Development, have withheld critical information, either redacting key details or refusing to produce the documents entirely. This refusal is not just an administrative oversight. It is a direct challenge to parliamentary authority and, by extension, to the Canadian people. The Speaker of the House has ruled that the government's actions violate parliamentary privilege, yet the obstruction persists, raising serious questions about the government's commitment to transparency and accountability. The consequences of this scandal are not limited to the financial mismanagement of SDTC. They extend to the broader economic and social challenges facing Canadians today. The misuse of public funds comes at a time when families are struggling to make ends meet. Inflation has driven up the cost of living, making it harder for Canadians to afford basic necessities such as food and housing. The cost of groceries has skyrocketed, with the average family expected to spend an additional $700 this year compared to 2023. Food insecurity is on the rise, with Stats Canada reporting an increase from 11.6% in 2018 to 15.6% in 2022. Visits to food banks have surged by 50% since 2021, highlighting the growing number of Canadians who cannot afford to feed their families. The Cranbrook Foodbank Society has had so many people needing its services. It used to provide three bags of groceries to people, and now, with the increase in demand, the huge numbers of families and individuals needing help, it can only hand out one bag. Housing affordability has reached the crisis point. Families are living in cars because they cannot afford rent, and young Canadians are staying at home longer because they cannot afford to buy a house. Rising crime rates add to the sense of insecurity and frustration felt by many communities. These challenges are amplified by the government's policies. The carbon tax, for example, has increased costs across the supply chain, affecting farmers, ranchers, truckers and consumers alike. Economists have warned that this tax imposes a significant burden on families already struggling with inflation. Meanwhile, the inflationary spending of the government has driven up prices across the board, eroding the purchasing power of Canadian households. The $400 million that was misused in this scandal could have been directed towards addressing these pressing issues. It could have funded affordable housing projects, supported food security initiatives or enhanced public safety programs. Instead, it was squandered on projects that served the interests of a privileged few, enriching Liberal insiders at the expense of ordinary Canadians. This scandal is not just about money. It us about trust. Canadians expect their government to act in their best interests, to manage public funds responsibly and to uphold the highest ethical standards. When those expectations are not met, the very foundation of our democracy is called into question. The Conservative Party of Canada believes in a different approach. We believe in transparency, accountability and fiscal responsibility. Canadians deserve a government that respects their tax dollars and invests them wisely. They deserve leaders who prioritize their needs over political self-interest. The refusal to release the SDTC documents is not just a bureaucratic failure; it is a morale failure. It delays justice, obstructs accountability and prevents Parliament from addressing the real issues that affect Canadians. Parliament must act decisively to address the systematic issues that allowed this scandal to occur. The government must comply with the Speaker's order and release the unredacted documents related to SDTC. Canadians are watching closely, and they expect their elected representatives to rise to the occasion. The call for transparency and accountability is not about political parties or ideological divides. It transcends partisanship because it speaks to the very essence of good governance. These principles form the foundation of a healthy democracy and are critical to maintaining the trust between citizens and those they elect to serve. When public trust is undermined, so too is the legitimacy of our democratic institutions, making the restoration of that trust not only necessary but also urgent. In this chamber, we hold a profound responsibility, a responsibility to act in the best interests of people who have entrusted us with their votes. This means ensuring that every dollar of public money is allocated ethically, spent effectively and accounted for transparently. This means recognizing that the people of Canada deserve more than big assurances and cloudy processes. They deserve a government that is forthright, principled and unafraid to confront its own failures. The issue before us is not simply about numbers or stats. It is about values. Mismanagement of public funds erodes more than just the financial health of our nation. It erodes confidence in the very system that is meant to serve the public. When scandals emerge, such as those surrounding Sustainable Development Technology Canada, they do more than waste resources. They weaken the belief that the government operates in the interests of all Canadians, not just a select few. The House must rise to meet this moment by reaffirming its unwavering commitment to transparency and accountability. These are not optional virtues. They are the cornerstones of democracy. Without them, the ties that bind citizens to their government fray, leaving space for cynicism and disengagement to take root. Canadians must see that their representatives are united in their determination to uphold these principles, no matter how difficult or politically inconvenient it may be. The people of Canada are looking to us to restore trust, and trust cannot be demanded. It must be earned. It requires us to demand answers when questions arise, to push for the investigations when irregularities are discovered, and to ensure consequences for those who express outrage. We must deliver outcomes. That is what accountability looks like and that is what the people of Canada deserve. By taking a firm stand now, we can demonstrate that Canada's democracy is resilient. It is strong enough to withstand scrutiny, bold enough to demand answers and principled enough to hold even the most powerful leaders accountable. The strength is not given. It reflects the collective will of the House to act in the interests of the nation rather than the interests of political expediency. This moment is an opportunity to prove that our institutions are worthy of the trust placed in them. It is a chance to reaffirm the democratic values that define us as a nation and to show Canadians that their voices matter. The House must seize the opportunity not just to address the issue at hand but to send a broader message that the integrity of our democracy is non-negotiable. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect and uphold the principles that underpin democracy. This is not just about recovering lost funds or addressing specific incidents of wrongdoing. It is about preserving the integrity of our system of governance for generations to come. Let us take a moment to recommit ourselves to that duty and show Canadians that we are worthy of their trust. On July 10, the elected House, representing the will of Canadians, ordered the government to release all relevant documents tied to the green slush fund. That deadline has come and gone, and 166 days later, we are still waiting. This blatant disregard for parliamentary orders shows how little respect the Liberal government has for the institution. Canadians deserve transparency and accountability.

Madam Speaker, I can say that, when I go back to Kootenay—Columbia, when I talk to the people of Kootenay—Columbia, they cannot afford to buy groceries. I am not too sure where that member is shopping or where they are getting their prices. Prices have gone up so much that they cannot afford to buy everything they need. We need to start to do something about that. Right now, we are not doing anything other than spending money that we do not have.

Madam Speaker, yes, that is absolutely correct. What we are talking about here is $400 million and 186 ethical violations, yet, from across the road, we are talking about historical issues and things that are not even relevant to the $400 million. If that $400 million was sent to Kootenay—Columbia, we can imagine what we could do with that money, how we could help people. We need to find out where that money went and to ensure that all of the ethical violations are followed up through an investigation, so that we do not have this happen again.

Madam Speaker, trust is something that has to be earned, and that is not happening in the government today. Trust has to be earned by one's actions. When the government is not accountable and is not giving the unredacted documents that have been asked for regarding the $400 million, that tells Canadians the government does not care. Where are they? Why are they not unredacted? What has happened to our government that it is not producing those documents?

Mr. Speaker, the NDP-Liberal coalition is back. I am sure members remember when the leader of the NDP said, “the Liberals are too weak, too selfish and too beholden to corporate interests to fight for people.” Today, the NDP leader announced confidence in the Liberals. The NDP-Liberal coalition will continue in quadrupling the carbon tax to 61¢ a litre. All of this is while the Cranbrook Foodbank Society is struggling with food supply coming up to the holiday season. There is an enormous increase in people, resulting in handing out one bag instead of three bags of groceries. The Conservatives will axe the carbon tax. Will the Prime Minister call a carbon tax election?

Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day and also Day on the Hill for Ronald McDonald House Charities Canada. Ronald McDonald House helps families struggling with life's toughest and most unexpected moments: caring for a sick child. Last year its 16 houses and 19 family homes provided comfort and care to over 18,000 families across Canada when their child received treatment. Ronald McDonald House is joined today by Lindsay Williamson, a dedicated mother and advocate for her son, Mason, who was born with a rare genetic disease. It has been a lifeline for their family that has provided a place of comfort, rest and normalcy amidst the chaos of multiple hospital visits. As Lindsay has said, “Strong families are essential building blocks for strong communities.” I could not agree more. Let us welcome Ronald McDonald Houses from across Canada and help them to deliver the care and comfort so families can also heal.

Mr. Speaker, after nine years with the NDP-Liberal government, taxes are up, costs are up, crime is up and time is up. Police departments are slamming the Liberal-NDP gun policies. Toronto police report shootings are up 45% and gun-related homicides are up 62% compared to the same time period last year. They also report that 85% of guns seized by the police are sourced in the United States. After nine years, violent gun crime is up over 100%. Will the Prime Minister stop working against the police and reverse his crime wave policies?

Mr. Speaker, in debate in the House of Commons today, I would like to take a few moments to highlight why the Conservative Party of Canada is determined to have the matter in the business of the House of Commons, in the chamber, for all Canadians to see and hear. We do not want another committee established. It is House business, and this is where the matter must be debated. It always seems to be the same thing with the current NDP-Liberal government: Who can get away with what at this time? Upon researching SDTC, I found it interesting to see its initial purpose. It was a vital initiative launched by the Canadian government to foster the development of clean technologies. Its primary goal was to help innovators address some of the most pressing environmental challenges, while driving economic growth. At its core, SDTC provided funding and other resources to projects that focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving air quality and water quality and promoting sustainable resource use. The support was critical for early-stage projects, particularly those that might struggle to secure private investment due to inherent risks of pioneering new technologies. One of the most defining features of the SDTC was the broad scope of sectors it covered. From energy to the agriculture and transportation sectors, the organization played a key role in helping innovators across industries. In the energy sector, for instance, it supported clean-energy solutions such as renewable power, energy storage and advancements in energy efficiency. In the agriculture sector, SDTC backed projects that focused on sustainable farming practices, reducing emissions from food production and conserving water resources. In the transportation sector, SDTC helped drive innovations aimed at reducing the carbon footprint on public transportation and at promoting electric mobility. Beyond just financial support, SDTC fostered a collaborative ecosystem. It connected industry players with academia, researchers and government agencies, and it encouraged partnerships that accelerate the development of these technologies. By bringing together diverse stakeholders, SDTC not only helped ideas become a reality but also ensured that clean technologies reached the market faster and more effectively. Sustainable Development Technology Canada was essentially turned into a slush fund by Liberal insiders. The Auditor General of Canada uncovered that $400 million in taxpayer funds was misused. Nine board members are linked to 186 conflicts of interest. The situation has escalated due to the refusal of the Liberal government to comply with a parliamentary order demanding the release of documents related to the scandal. This has resulted in a halt to parliamentary business for two weeks. SDTC was originally established in 2001 to fund green-technology initiatives. Instead it became an open channel for insiders' dealings by the Liberal government. The Prime Minister appointed numerous board members implicated in the scandal. The Auditor General's findings uncovered numerous serious issues of misappropriation of funds and conflicts of interest. Despite the Auditor General's findings, the government has refused to release documentation requested in the House of Commons. The reluctance of the Liberal government to share the documents raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability. This has created a very clear picture of a deep web of political insiders. The refusal to release the documents is a scathing misuse of public funds. The House must respect the seriousness of the situation. The House and the taxpayers of Canada need to know what is in the documents, and a refusal to release the documents does not respond to the seriousness of the situation. The concerns we have raised highlighted a deep dissatisfaction within the current NDP-Liberal government, particularly regarding the recent scandal involving Sustainable Development Technology Canada and the alleged misappropriation of the $400 million in taxpayer funds. That is taxpayers' money. Taxpayers are the people who are providing money for Canada, and the government is spending it without any accountability. The Speaker's ruling indicating that the government violated a House order by refusing to turn over evidence to the police only adds to the perception of a cover-up, especially when the Auditor General's findings revealed 186 conflicts of interest involving Liberal appointees directing funds to their own companies. The situation is exacerbated by the real economic struggles Canadians are facing. There are rising housing costs, food inflation and increasing crime rates, which many feel the government is failing to adequately address. The argument that the NDP-Liberal coalition has paralyzed Parliament by focusing on damage control instead of solving these pressing issues resonates with those who believe that government corruption is not just a political issue but one that directly affects the ability of Canadians to meet basic needs, such as the need for food, housing and energy. Government is being called to stop the cover-up and provide the necessary documents for a criminal investigation. This would be a step toward restoring integrity and allowing Parliament to refocus on the real problems the country is facing. For critics, the solution lies in a change of leadership, with the common-sense Conservatives being presented as a party that will end corruption, deliver answers and focus on reducing costs for Canadians. In terms of the misallocation of funds, $58 million was allocated to 10 projects that did not meet the eligibility criteria; this goes against the fund's intended purpose. These funds were disbursed without contribution agreements, indicating a lack of oversight and due diligence. The Auditor General found that $334 million was given to projects in which board members had conflicts of interest. Specifically, 186 conflicts of interest were identified among nine board members, including cases where the individuals approved projects that financially benefited them. In other words, they were approving money that was going to their own companies. In the board transactions audit, the Auditor General reviewed 226 out of 405 transactions approved by the board over a five-year period and found that 82% of them involved conflicts of interest. We can imagine what would be found if they reviewed all 405. This indicates a systematic ethical lapse within the governance of the fund. One striking example of conflict of interest involves a board member who runs a venture capital firm, Cycle Capital. Her firm reportedly received significant government grants, up to $250 million, while she was on the board. Even while serving on the board, there was $114 million of funding approved for companies she previously invested in, which directly benefited her firm. This apparent self-enrichment highlights the gravity of the governance failure. In terms of the failure of oversight by government, the Auditor General attributes a large part of this scandal to the Liberal government's industry minister for insufficiently monitoring the contracts and ensuring that proper checks and balances were in place. Despite managing nearly a billion dollars in public funds, the Liberal government seemed lax in its oversight, contributing to the lack of accountability and fiscal responsibility. The above is clearly a serious lapse in both ethical standards and financial oversight. How can we possibly be confident of the management of taxpayers' dollars when we have a lapse in judgment? If there is no accountability, where is the money going? If it is not our money, and it is taxpayers' money, where is the confidence from the people who elected us to be here? Every person in the House, I am sure, is elected to represent not only their constituents but also people in Canada or abroad who are Canadians. If we do not have any accountability in terms of the money they provide us, then where is confidence within our government? Canadians' tax dollars are missing here. Political connections and insider connections cannot be seen as a pathway to financial gain. Parliament's role is to hold government to account, and the Liberal government is protecting those involved at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. How can we possibly allow this critical matter to go unresolved? Taxpayer dollars have been wasted. Without exception, Conservatives will hold the Liberals to account. The hardships described are painting a stark picture of the economic challenges many Canadians are facing today, with food insecurity being one of the most pressing concerns. According to recent reports, food prices have indeed soared, with families expected to pay $700 more for groceries this year compared with 2023. The increased reliance on food banks, with a 50% spike in visits since 2021, just underscores the scale of the struggle for many Canadians to meet their basic needs, yet here we are today with $400 million that is unaccounted for. The government has been ordered by the Speaker to produce documents as to where the money went, and we are still arguing about that. There are people going to the food bank wondering why we are doing that. StatsCan reported on food insecurity, showing a jump from 11.6% in 2018 to 15.6% in 2022. This just illustrates a growing financial strain under the current NDP-Liberal government. The surge in food insecurity, exacerbated by inflation and policies such as carbon tax, is leading to further economic stress. Food Banks Canada’s 2024 poverty report card indicates that nearly half of Canadians feel worse off financially compared with last year, with one in four experiencing food insecurity. Critics of the government point to its inflationary policies, such as increased spending and the carbon tax, as contributing factors. The carbon tax in particular has been criticized for raising costs throughout the supply chain, going from farmers, ranchers and truckers to consumers. This has made food and other essentials more expensive for families. This burden is compounded by inflation. It is seen by many as a direct result of the government's approach. Economists have highlighted the significant cost burden the carbon tax imposes on the food industry, further validating concerns that these policies are driving up costs for ordinary Canadians. The Conservative position focuses on reversing these policies, specifically by axing the carbon tax, fixing the budget and implementing measures to bring down costs for consumers. In a letter tabled in Parliament on October 21, the House of Commons law clerk told MPs that he recently received new documents from three government departments relating to Sustainable Development Technology Canada. In all three cases, information was withheld. Testifying to MPs at the public accounts committee on Monday, the law clerk said that three departments are still failing to comply with an order by the House of Commons. According to one article, the law clerk “wrote to [the Speaker] about Finance Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development and the Treasury Board Secretariat” that “[a]ll three government institutions provided documents containing redactions and/or withheld some pages purportedly relying on the Access to Information Act”. He also testified that “only eight government organizations had forked over all their unredacted records on SDTC. The vast majority of others (22) had either withheld documents or redacted them.” He went on to say, “We're talking about documents, sometimes hundreds of pages, that have been withheld, and redactions that are not only about personal information, but also solicitor-client privilege or other motives under the Access to Information Act”. The scrutiny and accusations surrounding SDTC, particularly when it comes to allegations of conflicts of interest, are significant. The claims that Liberal appointees funnelled $400 million to start-ups with ties to senior SDTC management and that 82% of the reviewed projects had conflicts of interest raise serious concerns about governance and transparency. Conservatives' concerns about the mismanagement of $400 million in taxpayer money through Sustainable Development Technology Canada resonate with many Canadians, especially in light of their current economic struggles. With inflation rising, rising costs and many people living from paycheque to paycheque, the perception that public funds are being misused or awarded to connected insiders can be deeply frustrating for citizens. Many Canadians see the government's handling of the Sustainable Development Technology Canada issue as emblematic of larger problems. The refusal to turn over documents related to the green slush fund has fuelled accusations of a government trying to hide potential corruption and conflicts of interest. The lack of transparency shows contempt for Parliament and, by extension, for the public, the taxpayers supporting the government. The claim that Parliament has been paralyzed because of the government's refusal to co-operate adds to the urgency. At a time when Canadians are facing crises in housing, food security and public safety, the perception that government is prioritizing a cover-up over helping citizens exacerbates frustration. With the cost of living skyrocketing, crime rising and affordable housing in short supply, many Canadians are looking for leadership that is focused on addressing these immediate concerns. The demand for the government to finally turn over the documents is about more than just the scandal: It is about restoring trust and allowing Parliament to get back to addressing the critical challenges that everyday Canadians are facing. The lack of action is seen as preventing the government from making meaningful progress on issues that directly affect the quality of life for millions. It is deeply concerning when public trust in government institutions is undermined by allegations of mismanagement and self-dealing, as appears to be the case with the green slush fund. The fact that we are discussing this issue speaks to a broader problem with accountability and transparency, things that should be fundamental in any democratic government. The Auditor General's findings that the Liberal government allegedly turned SDTC into a slush fund for insiders and that nearly $400 million in contracts were inappropriately awarded only fuel the frustration felt by many Canadians. When a government initiative designed to foster sustainability and clean technology becomes embroiled in allegations of corruption, it raises serious questions about the governance and integrity of those responsible for overseeing public funds. The troubling part is that such a situation should not require the lengthy debates of a prolonged effort to bring the truth to light. Ensuring that public funds are managed transparently and ethically is a basic expectation, and the need to debate such a clear-cut issue reflects how far things have gone astray. Citizens rely on the government to act in the public's interest, particularly when it comes to something as critical as environmental and economic sustainability. For the government to restore any sense of trust, not only does it need to release the documents that detail these conflicts of interest, but it also needs to take decisive actions to rectify the situation and prevent it from happening again. Earlier this year, through her report on the SDTC, the Auditor General revealed the shocking truth of the extent of Liberal corruption. This showed that the Liberal government had turned the organization into a slush fund. for organizations connected to Liberal insiders. In total, contracts worth $123 million were found to have been given inappropriately, and $76 million was given to projects where there was a connection with Liberal friends appointed to the roles within SDTC. At this point, keeping the current government accountable seems to be an unattainable task or a bad joke. We have Canadians living in their cars because of unaffordability, food bank attendance at record highs and kids living at home because they cannot buy a house. Nevertheless, the Liberal government is playing games with how much money it can distribute without getting caught. Continued delays will only further erode public confidence. Pressing issues such as affordability, crime and housing need to be addressed. In the end, all we are asking for is transparency and accountability. The government should present the requested documents to this chamber immediately and answer to the taxpayers of Canada. With $400 million spent and 186 ethical violations, it is time to present the documents.

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about the $400 million, the 186 ethical violations and SDTC. Let us start with SDTC. Its funding allocation was created to provide funding support to innovative projects that have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and drive sustainability forward. However, being lax in how funding is distributed means we will not meet any of the goals we want to meet, and here we are today. SDTC, in 2001, was there for a reason. It was doing what it needed to do to support new companies that were trying to do innovative things, whether through oil and gas or through renewable energies. Now all we are asking for are the documents so we can see where the $400 million went and who is responsible for the 186 ethical violations. Then we can move forward and get SDTC back on track.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the NDP-Liberal government is ignoring the $400 million that has gone somewhere and the 186 ethical violations. However, we can back up and go to the WE foundation. We can go back to ArriveCAN. Where is the money going? The Liberals are not worried about that. They should provide the documents so we can move forward. We do not need to be standing here discussing what is important. What is important for the people I talk to? They want to know what is happening with taxpayer dollars. If taxpayer dollars are not accounted for, where are they going? They are concerned about that.

Mr. Speaker, SDTC had such a great purpose in promoting innovation in Canada. We have a lot of smart people in Canada who can help us in developing greener solutions in all sorts of industries. If we do not follow the money and cannot find out where the money went, there is no accountability, which is the problem. There is no accountability today, and without accountability, we do not know where the money went. How do we address future individuals who are looking for funding from SDTC? It is shut down until we can figure out how we are going to get accountability. If the documents are produced, we will follow up from there and the RCMP can follow up. Then we can move forward to government business.

With regard to travel expenses incurred by the government for travel by a minister’s exempt staff member, that was not disclosed through proactive disclosure, since January 1, 2016: (a) what are the details of all such expenses, including the (i) title of the traveller, (ii) origin, (iii) destination, (iv) date, (v) total expenditures, broken down by type (airfare, accommodation, etc.); (b) why was the expenditure not reported through proactive disclosure; and (c) do any exempt staff members of ministers have certain travel expenses, such as trips home to see family, included as part of their employment agreement or contract, and, if so, how many staff members have this benefit?

Madam Speaker, today I would like to highlight a group local to Nelson, B.C., the N2 Neighbourhood Network. Heading up this group is Tanya, a local business owner who is passionate about keeping Nelson safe and prosperous for future generations. Although local to Nelson, the N2 Neighbourhood Network has travelled around Kootenay—Columbia and B.C. to listen to business owners and communities alike regarding the increasing crime and drug use in our areas. By listening to folks, Tanya and the group can bring awareness to situations that are, frankly, getting out of hand: needles in playgrounds, graffiti on public and private spaces, and damage to and theft from our small business owners. They meet publicly, with all welcome, to discuss solutions to bring these ideas to the authorities. It is appreciated to have such passionate community contributors openly trying to better our communities, seeing that public drug use and blatant disregard for property and people's safety are getting out of control. I look forward to supporting this group and seeing how it grows for a better future.

Mr. Speaker, after nine years, the NDP-Liberal Prime Minister is not worth the hunger and homelessness. The Salvation Army report showed that 75% of Canadians face challenges managing limited financial resources, poverty and food insecurity worse in every corner of the country. Twenty-five per cent of Canadians eat less so their children and other family members can eat. It is staggering. Twenty-six per cent of Canadians skip or reduce the size of a meal because they cannot afford to buy groceries. I was just at the food bank in Cranbrook. I was talking with a young couple and their two children. I have known them for many years. They were regular contributors. They were embarrassed as they told me they were there at the food bank to pick up some groceries for their family. The NDP-Liberal government hiked the carbon tax 23% last month, driving up the cost for food, gas and heating, especially hard-hitting in rural Canada. Only common-sense Conservatives will cap spending, axe the carbon tax, and bring home safe streets and powerful paychecks for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I have a community that relies on hospitality and tourism: Revelstoke. It just applied for $50 million in accelerator funding for new housing in a very busy area, but it was told it was too far advanced. It has done too much, and the money will go to communities that are not ready yet. I always tell communities to be shovel-ready. If the funding comes, they should be ready to use it. I am sure the minister knows where Revelstoke is. Can he explain to me how a community like Revelstoke could be refused funding for building homes that are so needed, especially in hospitality and tourism areas?

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the fall economic statement for the constituents of Kootenay—Columbia and for Canadians. After nine years, the Prime Minister has repeatedly demonstrated a concerning lack of regard for the best interests of Canadians. The pattern is unmistakable and is underscored by a persistent tendency toward overspending that has become all too familiar. Instead of prioritizing the needs and concerns of Canadian citizens, the Prime Minister has consistently favoured overspending, disregarding a balanced budget essential for economic growth. The irresponsible approach not only undermines the trust and confidence of Canadians, but also jeopardizes the long-term economic stability and prosperity of our nation. It is our duty, as representatives of the people, to hold our leaders to account and to demand accountability for their actions. We must ensure the government's spending is aligned with priorities and the values of Canadians, promoting transparency, efficiency, effectiveness and accountability at every turn. The Prime Minister's track record of overspending serves as a stark reminder that he refuses to acknowledge the role in Canada's massive debt, which has grown to a staggering $1.2 trillion. It is an absolutely unfathomable amount. Along with that debt comes interest. The interest is $54 billion. To put this into perspective, $54 billion is more than what we spend on a Canada health transfer to support provinces and territorial health care. It is deeply disturbing and downright offensive to Canadians that the NDP-Liberal government treats our constituents' hard-earned money this way. The level of management is unacceptable and undermines the fundamental trust between constituents and elected officials. We owe it to our constituents, frankly, to do better. It is not just about fulfilling our duties as elected representatives, but also about honouring the trust and confidence our citizens have placed in us to steward our nation's resources wisely and responsibly. There is a profound expectation for us to make decisions that will foster prosperity and progress for our country, to build a Canada that Canadian citizens are proud to call home. Regrettably, what I am hearing from my constituents paints a different picture. The country's debt has a ripple effect that touches every aspect of our society. One area where we see this impact is in housing. The cost of housing has skyrocketed to the point where many young families in their thirties are realizing that their dream of owning a home may never become a reality. They have resorted to renting from homeowners who are also experiencing record-breaking interest rates on their mortgages, which is forcing higher rent increases. At the same time, our population is growing rapidly, but we are not building enough homes to accommodate everyone. The imbalance between supply and demand is inflaming the housing crisis and is making it more difficult for people to afford housing. Those who try to help are denied. Stephen from Revelstoke reached out to me regarding his grant application, which is approximately $15 million over the course of a few years to a housing accelerator fund that he and his organization had been denied. Realizing that the lack of housing and affordability is the number one issue in Revelstoke, the same as in many other communities, especially those in the hospitality and tourism industry, Stephen was curious how the communities would keep up with demand. They were shovel-ready, yet they were told they were too organized, so they would not be getting the funding. Another area where we see increases is with taxes. Allan from Kimberley wrote to me quoting the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance saying that the budget is “to help Canadians.” However, in his words, he said that it would not help his granddaughters, aged 3 and 14, and that they would be the ones to pay for the federal debt when they start work. Brenda from Creston is frustrated and wrote to say that surely it is understood that burdening the already overly burdened public with yet more taxes is unfair, while those in office take liberties with how they spend money. She said that she was adding her voice to those who have already asked that steps be taken to reduce spending and that the Government of Canada identify with its citizens during these expensive times. In other words, they are asking that the Government of Canada be accountable to the taxpayers. Rick from Cranbrook said that he just wanted to drop a quick email to state his opposition to the budget. He said that it does nothing and provides no benefit for Canadians other than the privilege of paying a rapidly increasing proportion of their taxes to service ballooning debt. Again, it is $53 billion. My constituents are fed up. They are fed up with the financial stress, the limited financial flexibility due to higher interest payments, the lack of economic growth and the certain intergenerational burden the government has brought upon us. A question asked by many is about how such a resource-rich country is in so much debt. With the minerals, forestry and energy, we should be global leaders and well into the black. The lengthy permitting process for new mines in Canada can take up to 25 years to get approval. This is a significant challenge for the mining industry and hinders the timely development and export of critical minerals. To address these challenges, it is essential for the government to allocate the necessary resources to expedite environmental reviews and permitting processes. The government has to recognize the need to accelerate the permitting processes and the production of the critical minerals that are essential for a variety of industries, including technology, renewable energy and defence. However, these permitting policies continue to undermine Canada's attractiveness to mining, investments and others. Trail has critical minerals, and the Elk Valley has steel coal, a critical mineral for steel. Yesterday, KC Recycling came to Ottawa to talk about how it recycles 95% of lead-acid batteries, yet we are still shipping batteries from Canada to third-world countries instead of recycling them here. The ongoing U.S.-Canada softwood dispute has placed Canadian manufacturers in a prolonged period of uncertainty with no negotiated settlement in sight. The extended period of instability has a significant impact on the forest industry, limiting its ability to generate revenue and to contribute to the economic growth of our country. Canadian lumber producers are burdened with punitive tariffs that impede their competitiveness and that hinder their ability to thrive in the global market. The imposition of tariffs has not only undermined the profitability of Canadian lumber exports, but also exasperates the existing challenges faced by manufacturers, including the rising production costs, supply chain interruptions and market unrest. Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding softwood lumber stifles innovation within the industry, hindering long-term capability. Canada has an abundance of natural gas, especially in British Columbia and Alberta. Exporting liquefied natural gas to the EU presents a fantastic opportunity to tap into a new market and potentially to boost our economy. Selling LNG to the EU could play a critical role in diversifying Canada's energy exports. Right now, we rely on the U.S. market for energy exports, which leaves us vulnerable to shifts in its energy policies and market conditions. By expanding our reach to the EU, we could spread out our risk and could ensure a more stable income stream for our natural gas industry. Moreover, exporting LNG to the EU aligns with global efforts in the transition to cleaner or more sustainable energy sources. Natural gas is a cleaner alternative to coal and oil, and supplying LNG to the EU could help it reduce its carbon emissions and meet its energy needs in a more environmentally friendly way. This can strengthen Canada's reputation as a responsible energy producer. Additionally, fostering strong economic ties with the EU through energy trade can enhance our diplomatic relations and co-operation with other countries. It is a win-win situation that benefits both Canada and the EU. With the basic examples provided, it is absolutely a disservice to Canadians for the NDP-Liberal government to not try harder to keep the debt down and balance the budget. Every family knows that if they spend more than they bring in, they go into debt. The main difference is they realize they have to pay back their debt, while the Prime Minister tries to pay back his debt by increasing taxes on Canadians. When will the Prime Minister own up to his financial failings, admit we need to do better and balance the budget?

Mr. Speaker, the thing about rural Canada is that we have to drive. We have to drive our families to events, whether it is for school events or whether it is for a hockey game, and some of our driving is 300 kilometres, sometimes further. Our seniors have to drive to go to medical appointments, which could be in hospitals that are 200 to 300 kilometres away. Where it gets difficult is with the rising price of the carbon tax for our people who use vehicles. We do not have transit systems like downtown Toronto. It is very disproportionate, and it makes it very hard for those on a limited budget, like seniors, to be able to afford to go get the help that they need.

Mr. Speaker, the member and I have travelled together, and I have a lot of respect for him. With natural gas, I do believe that the government already had some funding to fix the leaky wells. I believe it was in budget 2017, 2018, 2019, somewhere in there. The thing is that there is a lot of money to be made by selling our LNG to places like the EU, which is just a start. If we start doing that and start getting the tax dollars, because the government has no money and the only money it has is what it gets from taxes, that will, in turn, help us to be able to fund, like the member said, leaky wells and other issues that we need to fund, because we do not have any income coming in, and it would help our GDP.

Mr. Chair, I totally agree. It is very challenging through the Rocky Mountains, through all our mountain passes, for rail. That is so much different from Europe, for example. We do need to be able to open the door to be more effective and efficient in our cross-border trade with the United States as well. I have one sawmill that has its own train, which can go down into the U.S. right through Deer Trail. We do have one of those, but for the rest, we have one line. We only have CP in the southern part of the province, so to actually improve how we deliver the product will also keep the cost of our product down, which makes us the most competitive internationally.

Madam Chair, I just have a quick question on forestry management, which, of course, in British Columbia is a significant question. I have been talking with the provincial party about forestry management, because it affects all of our forestry industry. Would the member agree that perhaps a solution that has not been used, and should be, is all of the small, especially very small, generational sawmills, the four-, five- or six-generation sawmills? The people who work in those sawmills know forestry management better than anyone. They are there to make sure that their families can take over the business that has been going for years. They understand forestry management, yet they are not brought to the table. Does the member think this is something that could be explored to help us with forestry management?

Madam Chair, I thank the member for his speech. I recognize that you just got into town and that it has been a busy and hectic day for you. It has been eight years, and I know for myself, personally, in the last four years, I have been asking for updates because it is so important for people in Kootenay—Columbia, for all the workers and for the forestry industry, which is one of my biggest industries. Do you think that the time we have been waiting now is excessive, especially in the last eight years? Also, can you tell us how we would go to the people who are in this industry and say that it's just going to take a few more years?