Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, my empathy goes out to Justin and all families that may be struggling with the cost of living across Canada. Our government has been committed to ensuring that Canadians can keep more of what they earn. We cut income tax for 22 million Canadians. We eliminated the consumer carbon tax. We extended relief at the pumps through the suspension of the fuel excise tax, which is now extended to January 2027. We enhanced the GST rebate, called the groceries and essentials benefit, and introduced the largest deduction of new business investment in 50 years. My question is this: Why do Conservatives keep voting against tax relief?

Mr. Speaker, I know the member opposite is slightly preoccupied with the words he sees in his hand and the lines he is given by his party, but it is a news flash perhaps to him, and not to anyone else in this House, that we are in a trade war. The Strait of Hormuz has been blocked. The oil price shocks that Canada is experiencing are consistent with those in every other country in the world. What our government is doing is suspending the fuel excise tax. We did it over the summer, and now we have extended it by another five months. That is significant support at the pumps for Canadians. We are doing this while investing, making generational investments in our economy to grow our economy, which we will stay focused on every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, we know that all of Durham region is benefiting from the work our government is doing to create a stronger economy in Canada, while supporting a strong social safety net that we take pride in protecting. We are creating jobs because good-paying jobs are the best way to address affordability. In our region alone, the Pickering nuclear plant refurbishment is over 30,000 jobs, and the new nuclear project at Darlington makes that number over 50,000 good-paying jobs in Durham region. That is jobs for our youth and for workers coming out of our auto plants who may need new work. That is good news.

Mr. Speaker, Canada is entering a decisive period in its history, as we can all appreciate. Around the world, economies are adapting to new realities, supply chains are being rapidly reshaped and countries are competing to attract investment, talent and innovation. In this environment, Canada has a clear choice to make. We can move with confidence and seize new opportunities or we can allow lengthy approval processes to slow our progress. Our government has chosen to move forward with urgency. Today I rise to speak about legislation that would help Canada build major projects and many other projects more efficiently, modernize key elements of our transportation and trade systems, and strengthen the foundations of productive and fair workplaces. Together, these measures would help create jobs, attract investment, improve economic resilience and position Canada for long-term success. Canada begins from a position of strength. We are a country rich in natural resources, home to a highly skilled workforce and supported by strong public institutions. We have the rule of law, we have a great social safety net and we have a strong and stable democracy. We are recognized around the world as a reliable trading partner and a stable place to invest, but strengths alone are not enough. Canada is unfortunately known for quite lengthy regulatory reviews. To achieve the growth and prosperity we all aspire to, we must be able to turn our potential into results. Throughout our history, Canadians have demonstrated what is possible when ambition is matched by action. Generations before us built projects that transformed our country, things that captured the imagination of the nation. The national railway connected communities and established Canada as a truly continental nation, the Trans-Canada Highway linked regions and strengthened economic ties from coast to coast, and the St. Lawrence Seaway expanded trade opportunities and connected Canadian businesses to global markets. These are great accomplishments, but they did not happen by accident. They required vision, co-operation, investment and a lot of determination. Above all, they required people who understood that building for the future often means overcoming challenges in the present. That same spirit is needed today, and that is the spirit of this legislation. The projects that will define the next generation may look different from those of the past. They may include critical mineral development or supporting emerging technologies. They will include energy projects that enhance economic and energy security. They will involve ports and transportation corridors, electricity transmission, advanced manufacturing facilities, telecommunications infrastructure or other strategic investments that strengthen Canada's economic future. Whatever form they take, these projects will help create opportunity, increase productivity, help us diversify trade and support good-paying jobs across Canada. The question before us is whether our systems are equipped to deliver those outcomes in a world that is quick-moving. For too many years, in fact, project approvals in Canada often involved lengthy and complex federal processes. Delays can create uncertainty for workers, communities, indigenous partners, businesses and especially investors. In some cases, projects have waited years before receiving the decisions needed to proceed. In a competitive global economy, time matters. At the investment summit the Prime Minister hosted recently, which I participated in, I heard from investors who talked about how they wanted to deploy money in Canada and wanted to invest in Canada, as they saw Canada as a great place, but they all expressed the fact that we had this reputation for slower approval processes, which we needed to address. This bill really would address those issues. When decisions take too long, investment opportunities can be lost. Jobs that could have been created here may be created—

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that. I was timing myself to make sure I stay on time. I have removed the device from the desk. I apologize to the interpreters. As I was saying, when decisions take too long, investment opportunities can be lost. Jobs that could have been created here may be created elsewhere. Communities that are counting on major economic development projects may be forced to wait, and I believe strongly that right now Canada simply cannot afford to fall behind or wait. That is why our government is proposing significant reforms designed to improve the efficiency and predictability of federal decision-making. Our objective is straightforward: to provide federal decisions on all projects within one year while maintaining high standards of environmental protection and respecting the rights of indigenous people. This approach is not making Canada a jurisdiction of low standards. It in fact says that we can do both: have high standards and speed up the process. It is not about reducing scrutiny. It is about improving coordination and eliminating unnecessary duplication. Moving from consecutive to concurrent review processes is the key. Canadians should not have to choose between economic growth and responsible development. We can achieve both together. Strong environmental stewardship and efficient government are not mutually exclusive. A process can be both rigorous and timely. We need to get to a yes or a no faster, and that is exactly what we intend to do with this legislation. Over decades of experience, Canada has developed significant expertise in environmental assessment and project review. We have learned valuable lessons about how reviews can be conducted more effectively, how technology can support better outcomes and how governments can work together more efficiently, like between provinces and the federal government, for example. Our goal is to ensure that projects are reviewed carefully, decisions are based on evidence, consultations are meaningful and outcomes are achieved within a predictable time frame. Predictability is key if we want to see the global capital we are competing for get deployed in Canada and really get to work in our communities. It needs certainty in order to flow, and that is exactly what we are trying to provide. Indigenous partnership remains central to this effort. We recognize that indigenous communities must play an important role in shaping projects that affect their lands, rights and futures. Better coordination and clearer processes can support more meaningful engagement while providing greater certainty to all participants. In fact, a modern project review system should advance economic opportunity, support reconciliation and protect the environment at the same time. We believe Canada can accomplish all three. Building a stronger economy also depends on our ability to move people and goods efficiently. Transportation networks are the arteries of our economy. Railways, highways, ports, airports and marine corridors connect producers to customers, and communities to markets. They help businesses grow, support jobs and enable trade throughout Canada and around the world. When goods move efficiently, costs are reduced, competitiveness improves and consumers benefit. That is why this legislation includes measures to strengthen transportation systems and improve Canada's trade infrastructure. Our objective is to support modern, reliable and efficient supply chains that can meet the demands of a changing economy. By reducing administrative barriers, simplifying processes and encouraging investment in key infrastructure, we can help Canadian businesses reach new markets and expand existing opportunities. These efforts are also important to Canada's broader economic security. As the global environment becomes more complex, transportation systems face new risks and challenges. Supply chains must be resilient and capable of adapting to evolving threats. Secure transportation networks are essential for protecting trade, attracting investment and maintaining public confidence. The measures before Parliament in this bill, Bill C-39, would help ensure that federal authorities have modern tools to address emerging risks while maintaining transparency, accountability and predictability for workers, communities, indigenous partners and industries. A stronger transportation system means a stronger Canadian economy. Economic growth also depends on people. Behind every construction project, every shipment and every investment are workers whose efforts make Canada's success possible. Ensuring that workers have safe, fair and productive workplaces is therefore a fundamental part of building a prosperous country. Canada's federal labour relations system covers more than one million workers and thousands of employers across key sectors of the economy. In most cases, collective bargaining functions effectively and agreements are reached through constructive negotiations. That success should be recognized and celebrated. However, there are instances where disputes can become prolonged and where disruptions in federally regulated sectors can have consequences that extend far beyond the immediate parties involved. Our government's objective is to strengthen the conditions for successful bargaining while maintaining a balanced and effective labour relations framework. The legislation before Parliament includes measures to modernize federal labour protections, improve workplace health and safety, support fair treatment of workers, and address issues such as worker misclassification, wage theft and much more. Before I wrap up, I move: That this question be now put.

Mr. Speaker, what I can say about this bill is that it is going to speed up approval processes in this country, from an average of about five years to one year. I think we can all agree that ambition is something that we share, that this country needs to build much faster, that regulatory review processes have lagged, and that the international best practices and standards in this country have weighed down on the possibility of Canada really putting capital to work and competing for global capital. That is really what we are focused on. I know that the bill also contains measures in terms of improving labour relations and ensuring that the 5% of cases that do not make it through a collective bargaining process have additional responsibilities and layers built in to ensure that the process can be successful for all parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. colleague and I served together on the finance committee for some time previously and I always enjoyed the debates we had. In this bill, we are not seeking to water down environmental protections. In fact, we are just trying to ensure that we uphold a high standard while moving a lot faster. A timely process really matters when it comes to building big projects in this country, projects like the member opposite would know well, with the agreement between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. For example, the largest clean energy investment in North American history is sizable, and I am sure the member opposite will agree with me that those clean energy projects are sizable, whether they are transmission lines that cross interprovincial boundaries or new electricity generation through hydroelectric or other renewable sources. In my province, it is nuclear, but these are sizable projects. They need regulatory reviews that are timely so that we can get those big things built in this country.

Mr. Speaker, we will always protect the constitutional right of workers to strike. We are putting in place measures that have been consulted on. There have been over 26,000 submissions and 78 different engagements that have taken place over many months to ensure that we get this right, which is to really look at those 5% of cases where collective bargaining does not reach an agreement at the table and where there is then risk of the federal government having to step in when there is a strike and use section 107. The key here is to get parties working together and to find ways to get agreements at the table—

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, and I share the ambition that I think permeated through his remarks today, but some things he got factually wrong. As to the Major Projects Office and the projects that have been referred, quite a number of them have shovels in the ground, like the north coast transmission line and Contrecoeur, Quebec. For Darlington's SMR project, I can verify that for a fact. I have seen first-hand with my own eyes the construction there. I have actually seen people working on the site. It is incredible. If someone looks, they will see that these projects are moving forward and shovels are in the ground. We have also seen record business investment and more foreign direct investment than in 20 years. Does the member understand that the—

Mr. Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan and I have enjoyed some good partisan sparring, which is part of the sport of the House. I know that the member opposite is a good sport in that regard. We have had many disagreements, but we both respect one another at the end of the day, and I appreciate him for that. Our government understands that we are strongest when we take care of one another and we ensure that everyone has a chance to get ahead. That includes our seniors, but it also includes all of the population, and our government is really working to make life more affordable for all Canadians. I cite the groceries and essentials benefit that is helping 12 million Canadians with payments. It was the GST rebate, as members will note, but it has been significantly increased. It pays out an average of $1,890 for a dual-income family, the average family, so that is not insignificant support. It is actually quite significant for many families. The amount to be paid is going to increase 25% over five years, beginning in July, and the top-up is indexed to inflation. This means payments will go out every year to match future increases in the consumer price index. This is just one of many things we have done. There is also the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit, the guaranteed income supplement and many more. The member opposite mentioned dental care. We also increased OAS by 10% for our seniors in a previous iteration of our party. Those are significant changes that have improved the social safety net in Canada and helped families right across the country. Let us talk about tax cuts. The first thing the government did under the current Prime Minister was an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians. We eliminated the consumer carbon tax. We suspended the fuel excise tax over the summer, and just recently we tabled legislation to extend that for another five months until January 2027. I am sure the member opposite can agree that those are tangible, cost-saving measures. I know that his constituents did not send him here to vote against those types of measures and then stand up the next moment and claim that the Liberals are not doing enough for vulnerable people in this country. Can the member opposite explain to his constituents why he votes against every affordability measure that enhances support for seniors, for families, for single mothers and for all Canadians, with broad-based measures that are cutting taxes for Canadians? It seems to me that tax relief is something the Conservatives have advocated for. We have only eliminated, suspended, cut and reduced taxes under the Prime Minister's leadership. Why would the member opposite oppose tax relief for his constituents?

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that we are in a trade war. The country is facing significant headwinds, and we have used the fiscal capacity we have responsibly to invest in the Canadian economy, which is growing. There was 3.3% GDP growth in the last quarter, which is significant. The government diversified trade by signing 20 new trade agreements. Jobs have grown at twice the pace they have in the United States, with 217,000 net new jobs in Canada. Wages have outpaced inflation. We have had two consecutive months of real GDP per capita growth. That is not to mention the $500 billion in new commitments from Canadian financial institutions and pension funds to deploy their capital here in Canada to help that capital build the infrastructure and grow the economy that all Canadians need so they can have a better standard of living.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Riding Mountain for giving me a chance to reiterate the statement that the Minister of Health made on this topic in June. Since it was the last day before the House rose, he might have missed what she said, so I will repeat it now. She said: Canada Health Infoway (“Infoway”) was established in 2001 with a mandate to break down silos in our healthcare system, modernise health data infrastructure, and improve access, quality and productivity of care for all Canadians. While many Canadians have benefitted from Infoway's work, important questions have been raised in recent months about accountability and value-for-money. To ensure Infoway is best positioned to fulfill its mandate effectively and efficiently while delivering value to Canadians, the Minister of Health has directed the launch of a multi-phase review. The review will include an independent, third-party audit, complemented by a comprehensive strategic review of the organisation's governance structures and operations. Phase one will assess Infoway's compliance with the terms and conditions of its contribution agreement, followed by a wider strategic review that includes but is not limited to examining the organisation's funding model, program delivery, effectiveness, mandate, bylaws, corporate policies, governance framework, executive leadership and compensation practices, and reporting mechanisms. Stakeholder consultations will also be undertaken to provide insight on Infoway's strengths, opportunities for improvement, and role within Canada's health ecosystem. As our government works to break down silos in our healthcare system, this review will ensure that Infoway is adopting best practices and that all available steps are taken to build a modern, accountable, health data system that improves care for all Canadians. The review process will commence immediately and continue over the coming months. Upon completion, the Government of Canada will publish key findings and outline next steps. Is that enough? I will let the Auditor General respond to that, because just over a week after the minister made that statement, the Auditor General said, “We have been informed by Health Canada that they are planning a review of Canada Health Infoway. I am of the view that conducting a performance audit at this time would be duplicative and therefore of limited added value for Parliamentarians and Canadians.” Seeing as the member for Riding Mountain was a member of the health committee when it asked the Auditor General to look into the matter, I would hope that the Auditor General's response is enough for the member. There are third party reviews of the program taking place right now. We should allow this important work to take place free of the kind of political interference that the Conservatives are calling for and are known for.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that in the review taking place as we speak, there is a review of all the governance structures, the compensation packages, leadership, performance, etc. The Conservatives wanted the Auditor General to look into this matter. She has stated very clearly that she believes the measures announced by the minister are enough and that it would be duplicative for the Auditor General to do her own review. As the minister has said, the third party review and audit are under way. We look forward to seeing the results.

Mr. Speaker, as Canada faces growing uncertainty from a trade war that we did not start, our economic security and sovereignty can no longer be taken for granted. That raises a fundamental question: Who owns our economy and the businesses that comprise it? Sovereignty is not just about what we produce. It is about who controls our businesses, where decisions are made and who benefits from the wealth we create together. That is why co-operatives matter. By putting ownership in the hands of members, workers, farmers and consumers, co-operatives keep capital and decision-making rooted in communities here at home while building resilience for the future. This Thursday morning, which is tomorrow, I invite all members to join me for breakfast with Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada to explore how these models can strengthen our local economies. Remember that more collective ownership means a stronger, more sovereign Canada. I hope to see many of my colleagues there.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for the collaborative working relationship that we have had for quite a number of years. He is a great guy and a great representative for his community. I understand his question, and just for the record, I was not dragged here. I volunteered to stay to answer his question this evening. Our public health care system is a point of pride, that is for sure, for all Canadians, including all Albertans. Our government will always work to defend our health care system because we understand that access to care should be based on someone's need, not someone's ability to pay. Furthermore, we recognize that our universal health care system underpins our economic strength. To build Canada strong, we need healthy Canadians. However, at the same time, all of us can see that our health care system is under strain. While provinces and territories are responsible for delivering health care, we all know that the federal government plays a key role in supporting the provinces. All of us need to work together to make sure that Canadians have the strong health care system they need and deserve. We have seen how provinces and territories are responding to these challenges with new ideas and determination. They are finding new ways to bring care closer to Canadians, by expanding the roles of nurse practitioners, pharmacists and midwives; embracing virtual care; and even training the health care professionals we will need for the future. There is no doubt that this is important work, which is why we have taken a collaborative approach with all provinces and territories, including Alberta, that respects their jurisdiction to explore innovative ways to improve access and care while strengthening the public universal health care system that we all take pride in. That does not mean that provinces and territories have free reign to ignore the principles of the Canada Health Act. As the Minister of Health has said repeatedly, she has been in close contact with Minister LaGrange, as she has been with all her provincial and territorial counterparts, to talk about how we can best support Alberta in strengthening our health care system and not eroding it. Likewise, as the minister has noted, Health Canada officials are working closely with Government of Alberta officials to ensure that the principles of the Canada Health Act are fully respected. A collaborative approach between our government and the Government of Alberta has always produced stronger results, and we will continue to work in that direction to benefit all Albertans and all Canadians.

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his acknowledgement and respect for me as a member of Parliament, which I share with him and reciprocate completely. We can have disagreements in the House, but on this I do not think we disagree. In fact, what I am saying is that the Government of Canada is deeply committed to preserving the principles that are embedded in the Canada Health Act. We are working hand in hand with provincial and territorial partners to strengthen our health care system at a time when we know we need that strong health care system to lift Canadians up, to make sure that we can build a strong Canada and a strong economy, and to assert our sovereignty. It is essential to the country. We all take pride in the universal health care system. I have had many debates and issues with the Province of Ontario and how it manages our health care system. I share some of my colleagues' concerns about making sure that we uphold the Canada Health Act and ensuring that provinces and territories are accountable to that and accountable for the funding that is transferred from the federal government.

Madam Speaker, it is great to be here tonight to answer my colleague's question. Let us put this in perspective. Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. It has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio. It has a AAA credit rating, which only one other country in the G7 enjoys, which is Germany. This gives it a relatively low debt service cost. The IMF has confirmed that Canada is projected to have the second-strongest growth in the G7. When the current government came into power under the Prime Minister's leadership, we launched a comprehensive expenditure review, which found $60 billion in savings in terms of optimizing operational budgets and looking for ways to optimize the way the government operates. It was a significant savings exercise. We are focused on a capital budgeting framework, which we developed, and capital formation in the economy is really why the government has moved forward with generational investments in housing, infrastructure and defence, as well as innovation- and productivity-boosting tax measures. This is all to create a virtuous circle within the economy of investment, higher growth and additional tax revenues, which can move us down the path toward reducing our deficit. An “investment supercycle” is what TD Bank has called it recently. I think RBC also called it the same, which is a positive feedback loop of additional investment. We are seeing that working. Canada has added 217,000 jobs, which is twice the rate of the United States. We have had 3.3% second-quarter growth of GDP, the fastest in the G7. Per capita GDP grew by 3.9% in Q2 as real GDP increased and population continued to decline in Canada. Business investment grew at 8.9%, and foreign direct investment is at a nearly 20-year high at $97 billion. We also saw, out of the Prime Minister's investment summit just recently, that our government attracted from domestic investors, our major financial institutions and pension plans, commitments of almost $500 billion of new investment. Obviously now we have to work to ensure that there is a project pipeline of viable, bankable projects that can be financed by domestic and global investors, but these signs are good news. At the investment summit, as I am sure the member opposite can agree, the Prime Minister announced that we are reducing, cutting in half, our marginal effective tax rate on new business investment, making Canada the most tax-competitive advanced economy in the entire world. That is from a 13% marginal effective tax rate to a 6.4% marginal effective tax rate. That is 10% lower than in the United States, one-third of the OECD average and one-quarter of the G7 average, and it now will apply from 15% of capital assets to 65% of capital assets in our economy. That is going to bring more investment into this country and allow, again, that investment supercycle in Canada to take place. This is responsible fiscal management from our government. I understand the member opposite's concerns, but I think we have this.

Madam Speaker, Canadians elected our government with a mandate to take bold action and build the strongest economy in the G7. That is exactly what we are up to. That is exactly what we are focused on. Budget 2025, of course, delivered on that mandate, and our government's next budget will do the same. It will strengthen our plan to build the strongest economy in the G7 by making generational investments, while preserving Canada's strong fiscal advantage. We are investing in the workers, businesses and nation-building infrastructure that will drive economic growth and strengthen Canada's competitiveness, building the strongest economy that we can build and realizing our full potential. At the same time, we are ensuring that those investments are made responsibly, laying a clear path toward long-term prosperity and sustainability for our country. Canadians want the standard of living in this country to go up and that is exactly what we are focused on. That is why seeing real GDP growth in this country per capita for two quarters in a row is significant progress.

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I will just let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou. I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-30, which is an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28. It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. It has a number of very important economic measures that would help workers, Canadian families and industries get through what we know is a bit of a challenging time for our country. Before I get into a lot of the measures here, I find it necessary to point out that, in the finance committee last week, the Conservatives unfortunately expended 25 hours of parliamentary resources filibustering the bill. We saw them move subamendment after subamendment on the one amendment they had provided. They were not translated, which means that this was used as a stall tactic to hold up the bill. The bill, as I have said, has a number of economic measures that are important for Canadians. We also heard Conservatives in that filibuster talk about everything from elephants and Spider-Man to FIFA security and trees falling in the forest. There were many irrelevant points, and I had to call many points of order to keep us on track. As such, when members opposite stand up to complain about not having enough time to debate important bills and legislation, as they did yesterday, maybe they should prioritize committee time, which is designed specifically to study those bills and get into those debates, not to waste those parliamentary resources and then complain about it afterward. We found out at the end of that filibuster that, in fact, the stall tactics they had used were not actually about Bill C-30. All of it was under the cover of wanting to debate clauses and provide subamendments, but we found out, on the record, when one of the Conservative members finally stated it, that this was actually about holding our committee hostage to extract and force out of the government concessions on another bill, Bill C-22, which is related to lawful access. Lawful access is obviously something that we all, on this side of the House, want to provide to law enforcement so it can do the important investigative work to crack down on organized crime in this country. Bill C-30 has measures that are important for us to get through before the House rises. It includes suspending the excise tax on fuel and extending that to aviation fuel. It includes a cap on the excise tax for alcohol, wine, spirits and beer. Craft brewers have been asking for this. Obviously, it would be capped at 2% of the escalator on the excise tax on alcohol. We would also extend the grace period for repayment of RRSP withdrawals for Canadians who access their RRSPs to purchase their first home. We would be making permanent the capital gains exemption for employee ownership trusts and workers' co-operatives for businesses that are owned and operated by individuals who want to sell to their employees. This is a really great measure, something I have advocated for strongly. We would also be lowering CPP contributions by 40 basis points, which members opposite had time to talk about in committee. I could speak at length to that. It is a small but important measure to help workers to lower those contributions in a way that would not compromise the Canada Pension Plan in any way, shape or form, so that would be good. The labour mobility tax deduction would also be enhanced through the bill. It would move from $4,000 per year to $10,000 a year. Skilled trades workers who travel for work would be able to write off expenses of up to $10,000 in a single year, so that is significant support at $6,000 more per year. Basically, they would have more of those hard-earned dollars to spend how they choose. We would also extend EI support for seasonal workers. We have offered immediate expensing for greenhouses. If colleagues remember, immediate expensing was a feature of budget 2025. It is very important, I would suggest, because it would allow businesses, in a time of great uncertainty, to invest and make capital investments in improving their businesses at a time when there is a lot of uncertainty, which would not happen otherwise. We have moved forward with a number of immediate expensing measures, which include research and development, IP protection, new IT technology and other forms of energy efficiency measures that businesses can implement. It includes new equipment and machinery as well. We have also extended it to greenhouses. Obviously, this would help. It is integrated into our national food security strategy as well as a measure to help growers and producers in Canada to build more greenhouses and then be able to write that off as a business expense in year one. The immediate expensing measures have already had an effect in the economy. We see business investment in two categories rising at a pretty steep rate, over 10%, both in new machinery and equipment and in IP protection. Those two categories are specifically covered under the immediate expensing measures that we are now enhancing for greenhouses. We have also made some changes to the Bank Act and the Canada Transportation Act. Both of these measures are small but significant. Under the Canada Transportation Act, the minister would be able to request information from airports and allow better policy development. This is a list, at a high-level overview, of the measures in Bill C-30 that I think would be very meaningful for workers, families and Canadians. They are part of our plan to get the Canadian economy through a challenging period while we step up to support in multiple ways. Obviously, the world order is a bit fractured right now. There is lots of uncertainty, but our government is grounded in trying to support greater self-sufficiency, domestic resilience and strengthening the economy. We can handle the upheaval that is happening around the world and get the Canadian economy through a challenging time. Bill C-30 is a part of that plan, and I will mention, in a little more detail, some of the measures that are in it. One of the measures I mentioned in Bill C-30 is the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax to effectively zero cents per litre on gasoline and diesel fuel nationwide. This would provide a savings of 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel from April 20, 2026, through to Labour Day. The bill would also extend the suspension of the excise tax to aviation fuel over the same period to help mitigate the very high costs of jet fuel. I will take a minute here before my time runs out to speak to the labour mobility tax deduction. Again, this is a key measure for our skilled trades workers. We see the Canadian economy being more resilient than was anticipated by anyone who did projections. We saw 88,000 new jobs in the last labour market survey that was done. That is good news for Canadians. Of those jobs, 27,000 were in the construction industry, which is great news for the Canadian economy, especially when the construction season is under way and we want to build Canada up. There is a lot of work in developing the infrastructure, housing, defence capabilities, etc. that the country needs. Having a labour mobility tax deduction is good news for many of those workers who may need or want to travel to contribute to Build Canada Strong. As we build that infrastructure, there will be more jobs for Canadians, and we will see those jobs increase, I am sure, in the months ahead. It is good news to be able to write off another $6,000 of travel and living expenses due to having to travel for work. It is a great measure that would keep more money in their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member opposite lives exactly or what world he is living in, but to say that global shocks to the Canadian economy that put challenges on Canadian families are the government's fault is just lunacy, since he asked me. I think Canadians out there know the reality is that the world is going through a number of global shocks. Every single country that I have talked to at the OECD is going through exactly the same things. Our government is stepping up to help Canadians, to meet them where they are at, to offer affordability measures and supports while we boost the Canadian economy with new investment within our fiscal capacity, which is the responsible thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I felt sort of embarrassed for the Conservatives because they were on camera in public meetings, embarrassing themselves as they were filibustering a bill and wasting parliamentary resources. They then stood up in this House and claimed they needed more time for debate as those bills had not been studied. Again, the programming motion was from the Conservatives. We agreed to the time frame and the process of how we were going to study Bill C-30, and then they wasted 25 hours of time to block Bill C-30 in times—

Mr. Speaker, I could not be more proud that Durham College is helping shape Canada's future through innovation, talent and technology. Under the leadership at Durham College's centre for innovation and research, its AI Hub and Mixed Reality Capture Studio are helping Canadian businesses adopt emerging technologies, improve productivity and bring new products to market. As members of Tech-Access Canada, these centres connect small and medium-sized businesses, including those in my riding of Whitby, with specialized expertise, equipment and applied research support. Through our government's AI for all strategy and renewed financial support for the college and community innovation program in the spring economic update, which funds the Tech-Access centres, Durham College will be able to support hundreds of Canadian companies in adopting artificial intelligence, commercializing new technologies and competing globally. I want to say, on behalf of all members on this side of the House, congratulations to Durham College for all the work it does to ensure that Canadian innovators succeed.

Mr. Speaker, it is good to be here in the very last moments before the House rises for the summer. I know that there are a large number of farms in the member opposite's riding. There are farm succession plans all across this country, and farmers do struggle with succession, so I understand the issue the member is speaking about. We have done some things recently, in the spring economic update implementation act, on this front with capital gains exemption. It applies only to employee ownership trusts and worker co-operatives, but I think it highlights where the government is open to looking at options for succession to make it easier to hand down businesses. In this case, the one I am referencing is employee ownership trusts, which is a model I have advocated for. Worker-owned co-operatives will get the same tax treatment. It is a measure I have supported from day one because it offers owners of businesses that are small- to medium-sized, or they could be larger, the opportunity, when they want to sell the business, to protect those businesses and also to hand them down to workers. This creates wealth-building opportunities for frontline workers in a grocery chain, for example. There are many examples in the U.K. For example, Waitrose is a company run by John Lewis Partnership. It is a good example of how employee ownership trusts can create a shared equity model where frontline workers get to participate in the proceeds of the company. I think it is similar to a model that could be applied to farms in this country, although I do not know of any workup of the details on that at this point. I thank the member for bringing this up. I think it is an important consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that it has become apparent in the House, through question period and many of the proceedings, that the Conservatives claim that they are about protecting and supporting vulnerable people, but in fact, they just seem to use those people's hardship for political gain. They see them as a political opportunity, whether it is young people, seniors or other vulnerable people. We have seen them not support measures such as the groceries and essentials benefit. They mocked the Canada summer jobs program, which offers 100,000 jobs. They just voted, again, against Bill C-30, which is offering skilled trades apprenticeship supports of $31,000 in total for each apprentice. We have cut taxes in a number of areas, including income tax and the consumer carbon tax. We have suspended the excise tax on fuel. We have cut the tax on first home purchases. We have offered enhanced tax deductions for businesses in research and development and for buying new machinery and equipment. If the hon. member really is for tax cuts, why did he just vote against seven new tax measures that will help with affordability for Canadians? It does not make sense to me. That includes Bill C-30, this afternoon at third reading, which the member voted against.

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the police chief of Durham Regional Police Service, as well as to members of the association that represents the frontline officers, and they have all supported our government's legislative agenda on public safety, including lawful access, bail reform, combatting hate, the protecting victims act and more. The member has pointed to all those bills. What I find really challenging is that members of the Conservative Party on the finance committee wasted 25 hours of committee resources to block key economic measures that Canadians are relying on us to deliver. By their own admission, they did it to block lawful access. They admitted that on camera, on the record. Can the member speak to the obstruction that we have seen in the House by the Conservative Party?

Madam Speaker, I know the member. She and I share a border, being from Oshawa and Durham region, respectively. I know that our chief of police and the Durham Regional Police Service have been asking for lawful access. This is a tool that our government was elected to give police officers, police forces and law enforcement agencies across Canada to be able to do the investigative work they need to do. If the member opposite is truly tough on crime and listens to our police force and law enforcement, then what I want to say is that obstruction is not the same as scrutiny. What we have seen from the Conservative Party is obstruction. I witnessed it on the finance committee just last week, with 25 hours of time wasted, only to be told that it was really about another bill in another committee. The Conservatives held us hostage for ransom. If the member opposite was so concerned about time for debate, then what does she have to say about the waste of time that her colleagues have perpetrated in other committees?

Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the components of Bill C‑22 were in a previous bill that was debated in committee and studied, just as Bill C‑22 was, which was also studied for at least eight or nine hours in committee. As I have mentioned in the House today, I have not gotten one clear answer from any Conservative on why they chose to filibuster a spring economic update implementation act, Bill C‑30, which includes key economic measures, at a time when Canadians need the tax deductions and the support. Why would the Conservatives hold up progress on the economy to block a bill that would give police officers and law enforcement agencies the tools they have been asking for to crack down on organized crime? It does not make any sense to me. Maybe the member can enlighten me.

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying how much I respect the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her patience but also for her attempt, always, to operate in good faith. I recognize that with bills like this, it is about striking the right balance, and I think the member mentioned that in her speech. I feel like we are getting the balance right. Maybe she does not feel that way. What was not part of her speech and her story was how much obstruction has become normalized. The hon. member saw it in finance committee. She admitted there was a filibuster going on for 25 hours by the Conservatives, which she sat through and witnessed, just as I was there witnessing it, because they wanted to hold a bill hostage to extract out of the government some compromises on Bill C-22 to limit lawful access. My dad was a police officer for 30 years, and I know they investigate crimes. It is important that we give police the tools to be able to access information in a digital age that can help solve some of these tough crimes. We all want to get criminals off the streets and crack down on organized crime. Can the member opposite at least speak to the obstruction we have seen? That is why the government has to use programming motions, closure and these types of tools in order to get things done for—

Madam Speaker, who here does not believe that all Canadians should live free of hate? I cannot fathom how the Conservatives cannot support this legislation, how they can position freedom of expression and freedom of religion against combatting hate, as if this bill would not defend and protect people's charter-protected rights to freely express themselves. Hate is the very thing that has people afraid to express themselves, to worship the way they choose to worship. It is unfathomable to me that the Conservatives have taken the position that they have, that they are somehow opposed to combatting hate. It is just deplorable I wonder if my colleague, who made a great intervention in the House, would speak to just how shocking and appalling it is.

Madam Speaker, although I disagree with much of the speech of the member opposite, what I wanted to know from her is, since this bill proposes a stand-alone hate offence in the Criminal Code, which essentially doubles up on other offences, if someone in her community were to commit a theft, for example, of a convenience store, but they did it based on a hate motivation, does she believe that person should have a tougher sentence? This is what I want to know from the member. Is she tough on crime? Does she believe a hate-motivated crime should be a tougher offence?

Mr. Speaker, I come from a community in the Durham region, which has Chabad, a Jewish community centre. It has active members of the Jewish community who exercise their faith, go to their synagogue and have their own community centres and places of worship. They have asked for this legislation. In fact, they have supported it from day one, because they have experienced acts of hate in our community throughout the Durham region. They have asked the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to offer more protections so that they can express themselves, worship the way they choose to worship in their community and feel protected and safe. We also have CIJA, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and B’nai Brith Canada, which have all supported this legislation. I can read the quotes. Does the member opposite not believe that anything those organizations—

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's support of this bill. I know that all members on this side of the House take this bill very seriously. In my community of Whitby, we have seen acts of hate, including a swastika burned into the playground lawn in a local park behind a school. We saw a woman wearing a hijab almost get set on fire in a local library. These acts of hate are things that our government is seeking to address through this important legislation. Definitely, we had requests from the Jewish community at the outset, but also from many other communities that are impacted by hate. Could the member opposite speak to how important it is to get this legislation done?

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank the member opposite for his years of dedication and service. My father was a police officer for Peel Regional Police for 30 years, and I deeply respect our members of all police forces. The law enforcement leaders in our communities on the front lines have been asking us for additional tools. The tough-on-crime agenda the Conservatives purport to support every single day in this House is all predicated on this idea that if only we had tougher laws and tougher penalties for serious crimes, everything would get better. The member opposite seems to lay blame at the feet of the forces that he was once a part of. It sounds to me like he does not care about changing the law and thinks that having tougher penalties does not matter. Can he speak to whether he thinks—

Mr. Speaker, there are many examples of legal experts who say this bill would not do what the member opposite claims, such as chipping away at religious freedoms or others. In fact, this bill would step up, and the government is acting to enhance the Criminal Code to ensure that communities are safe, to ensure that people can express, can worship the way they choose to in their communities. This is exactly what I have heard in my community. I understand that we may disagree on this fundamentally, but what I want to know is, can the member cite an example of the religious defence being used in a case where an individual was accused or charged with a hate-motivated crime?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's speech, although I fundamentally disagree with some of his arguments. The previous Conservative member who spoke in the House could not cite an example of the religious defence's being used. I wonder if this member could. What I do not understand is that the Conservatives talk a lot about wanting to protect communities and protect people's rights, but here they are with an opportunity to step up and support a bill that would amend the Criminal Code and would allow new tools to be given to law enforcement and to our criminal justice system to really protect people's rights to be able to worship and to express themselves in the way they see fit. Is that not fundamental enough? Does the member not believe that harsher penalties should come with hate-motivated crimes?

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to take part in the debate on private member's bill, Bill C‑269. I thank the member for Calgary Centre for putting it forward. I appreciate all members' private member's bills. They are an opportunity for us to work on projects and ideas and bring things forward. I appreciate the hard work that goes into that. As we know, the bill proposes a set of amendments to the Income Tax Act to establish a new, permanent 30% non‑refundable investment tax credit for certain heat recovery equipment, which would be available as of January 1, 2026. In short, the intent of the bill is to support the adoption of certain heat recovery equipment, including waste heat-to-power technology. I should make it clear from the outset that this is an objective that our government considers very worthy. For example, waste heat-to-power technologies capture heat that is typically lost during industrial processes and converts it into electricity. Common applications include energy‑intensive industries such as oil and gas refineries, steel mills, cement kilns and many others. By utilizing energy that would otherwise be wasted, this process can improve energy efficiency while also helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions are, indeed, the sorts of objectives our government supports, and these are the sorts of technologies we would like to see adopted to help achieve these objectives. That is why we already have measures in place to support the adoption of energy‑efficient technologies, which are helping us meet our goals of improving energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Let me clarify. With budget 2025's productivity superdeduction, for example, we have reinstated the accelerated investment incentive, as well as immediate expensing for manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment for clean energy generation, energy conservation equipment and zero‑emission vehicles. The productivity superdeduction also provides for immediate expensing for productivity‑enhancing assets and capital expenditures for scientific research and experimental development. It introduces immediate expensing for manufacturing or processing buildings and it includes the reinstatement of the accelerated capital cost allowances for liquefied natural gas facilities, but only for those that are low‑carbon liquefied natural gas. Together, these measures that form the productivity superdeduction would lower costs, spur investment and reduce Canada's marginal effective tax rate to 13%, reinforcing Canada as the most tax‑competitive country for new business investment in the G7 and supporting the adoption of cleaner and more efficient technologies. I would add that we see numbers going up for investments in this area. Business investment has gone up by over 10% for new machinery and equipment. It has also gone up about 13% in IP protection, which is also included in the immediate expensing measures we put in budget 2025. These measures are already starting to take some effect in the economy, and we are seeing business investment where we have not seen it in past years. Of course, a cornerstone of our new economic plan is an exceptional and unprecedented suite of clean economy investment tax credits, which will help attract investment from here in Canada and from around the world through tens of billions of dollars in incentives. These clean economy investment tax credits are providing businesses and other investors with the certainty they need to invest and build in Canada. They are already attracting major job‑creating projects, ensuring that we remain globally competitive, from new carbon capture projects that will decarbonize heavy industry to new clean electricity projects that will provide clean and affordable energy to Canadian homes and businesses. These new clean economy ITCs would put Canada on track to achieve a net‑zero economy by 2050. I appreciate that one of the intentions of this private member's bill, Bill C‑269, is to address a perceived gap in the design of those clean economy investment tax credits. However, as I have already noted, certain energy-efficient equipment generally already benefit from the immediate expensing measures that are part of the productivity superdeduction. Therefore, Bill C‑269 is aimed at a target that is already being hit by some of these other measures. Moreover, in the way the bill is currently structured, it would hit more than just the intended target. That is because the eligibility under the proposed tax credit is defined very broadly and could include not only waste heat‑to‑power technology, but also a much wider range of equipment used in industrial heat recovery and energy generation processes. While a narrowly focused tax credit for waste heat‑to‑power technology could cost roughly $70 million per year ongoing, the proposed tax credit would be available to other types of heat recovery and energy generation equipment, and its fiscal impact is expected to be significantly higher. Opening the door to energy‑efficient technology could create a significant new precedent in this regard. The proposed new tax credit in the bill also has several inconsistent features that would introduce significant new policy precedents and irregularities into the investment tax credit regime. The proposed tax credit would be permanent, for example, while existing clean economy investment tax credits are time‑limited to encourage investment in the short and medium term. The proposed credit also lacks certain integrity rules that apply to many of the other clean economy ITCs. For example, eligible capital costs under the proposed credit would be reduced by other government assistance received or unpaid amounts, as is generally the case with the clean economy investment tax credits. It is also the case that Bill C‑269 proposes a non‑refundable tax credit, while all of the other ITCs are refundable, which is another inconsistency that I would point out. This would result in the lack of a tax refund and it would be used only to deduct from taxes owed, which is a significant inconsistency with the other ITCs that we have offered. These are all important facts that should be taken into account when considering Bill C‑269. Having done so, our government cannot support the bill in its currently structured form. Changes to tax laws are ideally considered as part of the budget process so that all relevant facts can be taken into consideration. The budget process also ensures due consideration of the potential fiscal costs of proposed tax measures to ensure that they are consistent with the fiscal framework and overall coherence of the tax system. I believe we have a responsibility, as parliamentarians, to maintain these standards outside of the budget process. I also believe Bill C‑269 does not meet these standards for the reasons I have outlined today. While the bill is laudable in its intent, and I give the member opposite credit for including the technology he is proposing to support, which I believe in, I believe it is duplicative in that there are existing tax supports for investments in certain heat recovery equipment, it is not appropriately targeted and it may have costly, unfair and unintended consequences. To conclude, I would accordingly urge that Bill C‑269, unfortunately, not be given the support of the House. I appreciate the opportunity to make this case today.

Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the hypocrisy that we are hearing today from members opposite, who complain about debate being contracted here in the House when they wasted almost 30 hours of time in committee, filibustering with eight subamendments just on lowering CPP contributions. That kind of behaviour is a waste of time, taxpayer money and the resources of this House, which are valuable in committee and could have been used to debate this legislation. Here we are in the House, having to move closure. Why? It is because Conservatives are not serious about getting legislation done, and when they have the opportunity, they waste it. Could my colleague speak to the hypocrisy that we experience here in the House?

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the over 30 hours that the Conservative members of the finance committee spent filibustering Bill C‑30, which offers a number of affordability measures, economic measures that would help Canadians. For example, there is the labour mobility tax deduction, which is being enhanced from $4,000 to $10,000 for a skilled trades worker who would have to travel for work. Could the member speak to the fact that he is standing here in the House, claiming that we are ramming something through, when his members wasted 30 hours of parliamentary proceedings and resources at the finance committee?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28. We are debating the government motion today, which is very important. It is unfortunate that we needed a government motion to program committee business to ensure that the bill gets passed, but it is the direct result of Conservatives filibustering. They moved eight subamendments, for example, on one amendment, which was their amendment. It is quite unfortunate, when we think about parliamentary procedure, that the Conservatives had amendments that did not include the subamendments that they then proposed. They then successively filibustered the committee on an aspect of Bill C-30 that they had actually advocated for, to lower CPP contributions, knowing that the pension plan was healthy. It is very unfortunate that we are here today, but I am also proud to work on behalf of Canadians and get key affordability and economic measures passed in the House before the House rises for the summer. Our government delivered the spring economic update 2026, “Canada Strong for All”, in April, as Canadians felt the too real effects of geopolitical turbulence well beyond the country's borders. That deep uncertainty persists as the world continues to undergo a series of fundamental shifts at a speed, scope and scale not seen in generations. This fragmented world is more complex, more volatile and, for many, more costly and unpredictable. Our government continues to focus on what we can control, which is building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our trade partners abroad, delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses. Our objective is clear: to build a stronger, more resilient and more affordable country. There is no doubt that Bill C-30 is a big part of this effort. Allow me to begin with the rising cost of food, which is understandably a concern for Canadians. Our government is focused on bringing down the high food prices that are putting significant pressure on Canadian household budgets. For example, to support those most affected by food costs, in January we announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to help more than 12 million Canadians afford day-to-day essentials. On June 5, the first cheques went out to over 12 million Canadian families to help them with the cost of groceries. That is an average of $1,890 for an average family of four, which is a considerable increase from the GST rebate, which was boosted by 50% this year and 25% for another four years after. Our plan also includes immediate assistance for food banks via the local food infrastructure fund, which was boosted by our government as well. Bill C-30 is proposing additional measures to help ease the financial pressures of food bills. The passage of Bill C-30 would help growers supercharge domestic food production in Canada with temporary tax changes to allow the immediate expensing of eligible greenhouse buildings. These provisions would allow producers to fully write off the cost of building new greenhouse facilities in the year incurred rather than spreading it over time. This incentive is designed to help expand greenhouse production and strengthen Canada's year-round domestic food supply. The measure is projected to provide $41 million in tax relief over six years. The bill has so much more in it. Bill C-30 includes a number of other measures. Before I mention those measures, I will also make mention of June 11, when the Prime Minister launched Canada's first-ever national food security strategy. I am quite proud of this as I fed into the process. The national food security strategy will boost domestic food production and break open the market for independent food retailers in Canada. It will support resilience, regional supply chains and infrastructure that those supply chains need to thrive, and it will ultimately build a stronger, more independent, more affordable food system where there can be more competition, which we know is the key to bringing down prices. The strategy is backed by over $3 billion in investments over 10 years. To help deliver on this important objective, Bill C-30 would amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include the consideration of food security and the costs of food. To implement this change, the government proposes to provide $24 million over four years, and $9 million per year ongoing, to support Health Canada in expanding its economic analysis capacity to optimize the review processes for pest control products. These costs will be fully recovered through annual fees. The government is also working tirelessly to help address housing affordability concerns. It is clear that the high cost of housing is putting significant pressure on household budgets, especially for younger Canadians. Our government recognizes that many Canadians who have recently purchased their first home, or who are planning to do so, continue to face significant affordability challenges and could benefit from a boost to their cash flow. That is why Bill C-30 proposes extending the grace period during which homeowners are not required to start repaying their homebuyers' plan withdrawals from their RRSPs. The proposed extension is from two to five years. This extension is designed for homebuyers making a first withdrawal between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2028. This extended grace period already applies to withdrawals made between 2022 and 2025. The bottom line is that this change would provide cash flow relief of up to $4,000 per individual, per year, for the three years over which they are not required to repay the amount into their RRSP. The passage of Bill C-30 would also make an important change to Canada pension plan contributions to ensure Canadians can keep more money that they otherwise would have been compelled to contribute to the Canada pension plan. Indeed, the CPP is foundational to Canada's retirement income system, providing stable, predictable pension income to millions of Canadians. Considering the affordability challenges faced by so many households in Canada, Canada's ministers of finance unanimously agreed in April to reduce the contribution rate for CPP. The change would lower the contribution rate by 40 basis points, from 9.9% to 9.5%, effective January 1, 2027. That reduction to the CPP contribution rate will translate into annual savings of about $133 for an employee earning $70,000 a year, with the equivalent savings for their employer. The change will do this while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the plan. We listened to Conservatives go on and on in committee for 10 or 11 hours about the health and sustainability of the Canada pension plan, which I recognize is a concern, but when the chief actuary has tabled a report in Parliament and has done the analysis to say that the Canada pension plan is healthy and solvent for the next 75 years, and when Conservatives have actually advocated to decrease Canada pension plan contributions themselves, decreasing it by 40 basis points, leaving a 30-basis point buffer in the plan, is certainly a smart move. It makes sense for Canadians. Considering the fact that finance ministers from our provincial and territorial counterparts across Canada all agreed to this unanimously, agreeing that it just made sense, I cannot see why Conservatives would be kicking up a fuss proposing eight subamendments in the finance committee. Anyway, tax relief has been supported by our government. We moved forward with many tax measures, including an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians, suspending the fuel excise tax over the summer until Labour Day and offering new benefits such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. We cut the consumer carbon tax. We have done many, many things to support Canadians with many of the costs that they experience. In Ontario, I am quite proud to say that the HST on new home purchases is being waived with an agreement we signed with the Ontario government. That includes up to almost $200,000 of relief. It is a 50% reduction in development charges and 13% off the purchase of a new home. That is significant support for Canadians. No one can argue otherwise. Last, I will just say that Bill C-30, as I have cited, would enhance the labour mobility tax deduction for skilled trades workers when they travel for work. As we are boosting the economy, we are seeing more construction jobs, 27,000 of them, in the last labour statistics. We can see that those skilled trades workers can have an enhanced deduction of $6,000 more —

Mr. Speaker, the cost of food is definitely something that Canadians are concerned about. The Conservatives do not seem to understand causation. They do not seem to understand how food prices are affected by global factors such as oil price shock, wars in Europe or a trade war where tariffs are being placed upon Canadian companies. What is interesting is that, when we step up to offer immediate relief and support, whether it is with the Canada child benefit to lift thousands of kids out of poverty, the national school food program to help feed hungry kids in schools, the groceries and essentials benefit to help ensure that Canadians can get by on a monthly basis or, now, a national food security strategy with $3.2 billion of investments to build a stronger food system, they are still complaining.

Mr. Speaker, we have stepped up time and time again to offer packages of support for tariff-impacted industries, whether it is with liquidity or for companies to pivot, change direction and modify their business models to essentially still thrive in the economy. We have offered support. We have diversified our trade. We are building the infrastructure we need to ensure those industries can survive and thrive in the future. I do not agree with the member opposite. Yes, I am combative sometimes because I have a meter for things that are untrue. I like to call members out when I have the chance, and that is what this place should be about. God help us if we ever lose the pursuit of truth in the House of Commons and in our Parliament. Our government has stepped up time and time again. We have offered immediate support and been fiscally responsible. We have the strongest balance sheet in the G7, and we are using it to make strategic investments, including our national food security strategy.

Mr. Speaker, it is great to have my colleague aboard the team asking so many good-faith questions in the House. As I responded to the previous member's question, our government has stepped up. We do recognize that tariff-impacted industries are where the concentration of job losses has been most persistent. That is why we have stepped up with supports and packages, while we are in ongoing engagement and negotiations with the United States, with the hope that we will eventually have a deal.