Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, a few months after I turned 25, I embarked on my first overseas trip, one that, without my knowing it, would set the course of my entire life. I was heading to Berlin for what was then a little-known gathering: the very first conference of parties on climate change, COP1. History was being made, and I was lucky enough to be in the room. Like many of my peers at the time, I was setting off for the old world with my backpack, but unlike them, I was not going to be backpacking across Europe. Instead, I slept on a gymnasium floor with 600 young people from all over the world in what had, a few years earlier, been East Berlin. We had a common goal: to convince governments around the world to agree on an ambitious plan to tackle climate change. The experience made me realize not only how crucial the climate crisis and, as I would later discover, the nature crisis are, but also how important international collaboration is to finding solutions to these complex issues. Over the next two decades, I channelled this conviction into environmental work with NGOs, advocating for change, mobilizing support and building bridges between science, civil society and public policy. It was this experience that ultimately led me to politics. In 2019, then prime minister Justin Trudeau asked me to join the Liberal team to help accelerate action on climate change. When I became environment minister, my mandate included developing Canada's first comprehensive climate plan to meet our international obligations. We also developed the country's first comprehensive adaptation plan to prepare and protect Canadians from the dangers of a changing climate, changes that we can no longer avoid, and those plans were working. These plans, through policies, regulations and legislation, have been designed to ensure that Canada makes its fair contribution to reducing pollution and protecting Canadians from the devastation we are already seeing in communities from coast to coast to coast. Before making the final decision to run, there was one thing I asked: the ability to distance myself from the decision by the government to purchase the Trans Mountain pipeline. As an environmentalist with deep understanding of the scientific consensus on the urgency and need to rapidly reduce heat-trapping gases, I had opposed a number of oil and gas projects and had criticized the Trudeau government for moving ahead with the purchase of TMX. Many of my political opponents have used these positions to try to portray me as anti-development. That has always made me smile a little, because throughout my professional career, I have championed numerous development projects across the country, such as wind and solar projects, public transit and active mobility initiatives, the electrification of our public transit system, including boosting sales of electric vehicles, and, more recently, the high-speed rail project. I was onstage in Edmonton in 2015 when then NDP premier Rachel Notley announced her climate leadership plan. Again I was roundly criticized by some environmentalists for doing so, but I have always believed in collaborating with provinces within the framework of the scientific reality of climate change. Much has changed since then. Just 10 years ago, for every dollar invested worldwide in fossil fuel production, another dollar was invested in clean and renewable technologies. Today, that ratio is two to one in favour of renewable energy. Last year, global electric vehicle sales reached nearly 23%. There are not many reasons that lead people to enter politics. In my case, it was a desire to pursue my quest for a better environment, for the fight against climate change, and for nature protection. These intense, demanding and deeply meaningful seven years have been among the most formative of my life. I leave proud of what we have accomplished together. After nearly seven years serving as the member for the beautiful riding of Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, the time has come for me to seek new avenues to continue my life's work. I will therefore be resigning my seat in the House later this summer. I am profoundly grateful to my children, family, friends, staff and constituents, as well as volunteers, many of whom have come to Ottawa today to be with us and who have made this work possible. They gave me far more than I can ever give back. Mr. Speaker, I will not mention the fact that some of them may be here in the House, because you would tell me I am not allowed to do that. The journey that began in Berlin more than 30 years ago is not over. It is simply continuing in another direction, with the same urgency and renewed hope. The fight for our planet is the struggle of our generation, and I fully intend to keep fighting. It has been the honour of my life to represent my community and my country.

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague and friend from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Repentigny, for his kind words, on his own behalf and, as I understand it, on behalf of his party. The political arena can sometimes be very difficult, but it is also a place where we can accomplish great things. When the United Nations approached us in spring 2022 to ask us to host COP15 in Montreal, a conference that normally takes a year, if not two, to organize, we had only six months to do so. On top of that, we had to work closely with China, which was presiding over the conference, a country with which our diplomatic relations at the time were rather limited. The prime minister at the time, Mr. Trudeau, supported in particular by our former foreign affairs minister and current minister responsible for economic development, did not hesitate to support me in embarking on this adventure with the entire Canadian community, including NGOs, indigenous peoples and many private-sector companies. In the span of two weeks, we succeeded in convincing 196 countries to protect 30% of the planet. Today, this is referred to as the “Paris agreement for nature”, the equivalent of the Paris climate agreement. People can achieve great things by getting into politics. I urge everyone watching who is wondering whether they should one day take the plunge to go for it, pursue their dreams and do everything they can.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government whip for everything he has done for me personally and professionally in the House. He has been an incredible ally, as have many people on both sides of the House. To answer his question, like I said in French a few moments ago, I would tell this young 25-year-old, wide-eyed Canadian going abroad for the first time to believe in his dreams. If I told him then that one day he would serve as a member of Parliament, that he would even be the minister of environment and climate change, I am not sure that 25-year-old would have believed that. We should believe in our dreams. Sometimes they come true.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. NDP colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his comments. He has been an incredible ally and friend in the House. He is right that we have worked closely together on a number of issues. I have always appreciated his dedication to environmental issues and to working together to find solutions, something that is not always necessarily easy in this place. For that I want to thank him. I want to assure him that the fight is not over. I will continue my battle for a greener, safer planet outside of this great House.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my long-time friend, the leader of the Green Party and member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her remarks. We have indeed known each other for a very long time. We worked together before we entered politics, although her political career began much earlier than mine. We have a lot in common, including our birthday, which is coming up soon, for those who are interested. I want to assure her that I will continue to be there for her and for everyone who wants to work on issues related to fighting climate change and protecting biodiversity. I will never be far away if they need me. I will always be happy to help.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ron Hallman on his retirement and thank him for his outstanding contribution to Parks Canada. Ron has been leading this iconic institution with vision and rigour since 2019, and he has worked hard to protect and promote our natural and cultural heritage. He has held a number of important positions throughout his career in the public service, and he has always been driven by a deep commitment to Canadians. His leadership has contributed to reinforcing conservation, enabling reconciliation with indigenous peoples and bringing Canadians closer to nature. As president and CEO of Parks Canada, Ron Hallman has demonstrated outstanding leadership and dedication to public service. His work has helped to protect some of our country's most treasured landscapes and historic sites for future generations. On behalf of all Canadians, I thank him, but also his family, for years of service and wish him a well-deserved retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this evening to my colleague's Motion No. 15. Before going any further, I want to address the many inaccuracies and falsehoods uttered by the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. In fact, I do not believe that a single thing he said in his speech would stand up to fact-checking, but I will come back to that. I want to start by talking about where we began. When the Liberal government was elected in 2015, Canada was not protecting even 1% of its coastal areas and oceans, which are necessary, especially for our essential fishing sector. Today, nearly 16% of our marine areas and 14% of our land areas are protected, all within the past 10 years. How did we get there? One way was to make historic investments of almost $16 billion in a host of conservation initiatives that my colleague across the way seems utterly unable to comprehend. I am going to give a few examples of the falsehoods he mentioned earlier. He said we were putting up a glass cage, a fence around these areas. Take for example the Saguenay–St. Lawrence Marine Park, an area co-managed by the federal government and the Government of Quebec. There is endless fishing in that park. There is commercial shipping and tourism in that area. There are plenty of commercial activities, but all of that is done first and foremost with conservation in mind. When my colleague across the way says that we are going to put a glass dome and a fence around all of that, he clearly does not know what he is talking about. We have invested $16 billion over the past 10 years. Of course, we heard the Prime Minister and some of my colleagues announce a historic investment of nearly $4 billion a few weeks ago, as part of the strategy called “A Force of Nature: Canada's Strategy to Protect Nature”. I would like to take a moment to talk a bit about what this means and what we have done so far. We have committed to creating new national parks. Last summer saw record visitor numbers. When my colleague says that this is preventing Canadians from accessing nature, that is completely false, once again, because last summer, record numbers of people visited our national parks. More and more Canadians want access to green spaces and to natural environments in Canada that are protected from unchecked industrial development. That is exactly what we are doing. We are creating conservation areas, and we plan to create 15 new national urban parks. We have already created Rouge National Urban Park near Toronto. People can take a train from downtown Toronto to Rouge National Urban Park, which is one of the most visited national parks in the country. Evidently, what we have done so far also stems from the targets we agreed on at COP15 in Montreal in 2022. Allow me to quickly remind my colleagues what COP is. It is the Conference of the Parties, and it grew out of the 1992 Rio summit, where countries made commitments jointly, willingly and in an informed manner to tackle desertification, conservation and biodiversity, and climate change. At the COP in Montreal, which took place in a difficult international political context, in a geopolitical situation that challenged us all, 194 countries jointly committed to protecting 30% of our lands and oceans by 2030. My colleague opposite says there is a 2050 target, and I would really like him to show me where that target is. I have been working on these issues for decades and I have never seen a 2050 target for Canada. I am sorry, but he is making up things that just do not exist. Experts have described this conference as an historic agreement, with some even going so far as to call it a “bet on nature.” For us, of course, conservation is extremely important, but it is also something we must do in partnership with local communities. This is work that Parks Canada has been doing in an exemplary manner for many decades. One need only look at what is happening in Banff National Park or Jasper National Park to see very concrete examples. For us, it is also a way of working toward reconciliation. My colleague, the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, mentioned the Northwest Territories as an example. I worked on this project along with 23 indigenous nations of the Northwest Territories in unanimous agreement. It was the first time in history this had happened. The Government of the Northwest Territories, the federal government and partners in Canada and around the world worked together to create this new conservation area, which, to the best of our knowledge, is set to be the largest indigenous-led protected area in the world, covering roughly one million square kilometres. That is how we are going to get there. I had the privilege of leading the creation of the first national park where everything, from start to finish, was done with indigenous peoples. I am referring to Pituamkek park in Prince Edward Island. This was the first time in our nation's history that we created a new national park in partnership with indigenous communities. In fact, they were the ones who approached us. Members of the Mi'kmaq community told us that they wanted this highly iconic and symbolic portion of their territory to be protected. They wanted to turn it into a national park, first of all to ensure that it was properly protected and conserved, but secondly, so that Canadians could go there and discover a part of their heritage and history. This brings me to the ecological gifts program, which directly contributes to the Government of Canada's land protection objectives. It is important to understand where the 30% figure comes from. Did we pull that number out of thin air, as some seemed to suggest? Of course not. It is important to look at the science. Numerous scientific reports have been produced that show us how to protect biodiversity. In case the Conservatives have forgotten, human beings are animals who need clean air and clean water to survive. We cannot live without those things, and we need a healthy terrestrial ecosystem. However, to achieve this, we need to protect at least 30% of our land and oceans, which is why we have set this target. It is not a ceiling, but rather a floor. That is where we need to start. The ecological gifts program plays a very important role because it enables conservation efforts on private land. In fact, the Conservative Party member did not once mention that the ecological gifts program relies on private landowners who commit to these projects entirely on a voluntary basis. These projects are essential pillars for achieving our goals. They help protect natural habitats on private land: forests, wetlands, and farmland. Some say that the land needs to stay completely untouched, but the program includes farmland. We are talking about voluntary conservation, and it is essential across the country. I would like to share a few examples of the benefits of this program. Since 1995, more than 2,000 ecological gifts have been made. This amounts to over $1.3 billion in donations and more than 252,000 hectares of permanently protected land, nearly half of Prince Edward Island. There are challenges associated with this program, and I believe the government can take steps to improve it, particularly with regard to ensuring tax parity between different types of donations, whether in-kind or monetary. In closing, protecting our precious natural environment is a necessity for our health, in terms of the water and air we need to live, but it is also our greatest ally in the fight against climate change and a celebration of Canadian identity.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this important issue. I think that we are basically dealing with two things here: what has happened in the past and what we want to do for the future. There are four related issues I would like to address. I will start with the issue of public consultations. Let us look at what happened in the past versus what is happening now. For the past few days and weeks, the Bloc Québécois has been trying to convince us that there will be no public consultations and no environmental assessments for the high-speed rail project. I would invite them to visit Alto's website, the company leading the project, since public consultations have already begun. People can attend in person, by video conference or online. The idea that there will be no public consultation, that the past predicts the future, is false. That is absolutely false. With regard to the issue of environmental assessment, I would humbly suggest that I have likely participated in more public hearings on the environment than any other member of this House ever has. Whether with the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement in Quebec, the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada or the Canada Energy Regulator, I have participated in dozens and dozens of assessment sessions on various projects in Quebec and across Canada throughout my career. As environment minister, I defended the Impact Assessment Act all the way to the Supreme Court, so if anyone here is concerned about and very interested in these issues, it is me. There will be an impact assessment. It has already been started by the high-speed rail consortium. I am among those who think that this is an excellent project in terms of both the economy and jobs, and, of course, in terms of the environment and the fight against climate change. It will help significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. My colleagues probably know that transportation accounts for 25% of our greenhouse gas emissions. One-quarter of Canada's greenhouse gas emissions comes from the transportation sector. By 2040 or thereabouts, 24 million people will travel this corridor. It will be one of the busiest corridors in the country. It already is, but it will be even busier, as we heard a little earlier from my colleague, the Minister of Transport, not to mention ground transportation by car and air transportation, as we have often seen. This a very important solution for reducing both air and ground traffic, but also for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Earlier we heard the Minister of Transport say that the late Marc Garneau, former transport minister in 2019, had apologized to those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel. I am not sure where the Bloc Québécois was at the time. There was compensation. The Bloc Québécois is using old political tactics. We have seen it all before. Their tactic is to muddy the waters. They being up what happened a little over 50 years ago. The government handled things terribly, everyone recognizes that. The Minister of Transport acknowledged it here in the House earlier today. My colleague acknowledged it. We all acknowledge it. That is not the way to do things, and it is not the way things are done now. At some point, I want to hear the members of the Bloc Québécois on whether they agree with this project. It is very complicated to follow their logic. They are neither for nor against. In fact, quite the contrary. That is more or less the position of the Bloc Québécois on this project. It is one of the most promising projects in the fight against climate change. It is one of the most promising projects of Canada's history in the area of transportation. It will greatly benefit thousands of people, hundreds of businesses in Quebec and elsewhere in the country, as well as in Bloc ridings. I find it completely hard to believe that the Bloc Québécois is being so divisive with this project when it could be playing a constructive role. Honestly, I do not understand the position of the Bloc Québécois. I am very puzzled and very disappointed by the fearmongering campaign of the Bloc Québécois. In fact, they could be working with us, working with the municipalities, working with businesses and working with farmers. People are bringing up farmers a lot. When I was at Équiterre, an organization I co-founded, farming and sustainable agriculture were one of our main causes. For many years, we ran a program called the Family Farmers Network. The network included more than 130 firms supplying food to 50,000 people. We fought for land protection. We led a campaign on the issue of farmland protection and the Commission de protection du territoire agricole, Quebec's farmland protection commission. That cause is setting a precedent today in terms of farmland protection. This issue is very important to me, and we obviously want to minimize the impact this project will have. Even though it is a good project, it will have an impact nonetheless, in part on farmland. Discussions have already begun. It is true that we want to speed up the schedule. There is no hiding that, there is no doubt about it. Why do we want to speed up the schedule? I am one of those who believe that we can conduct good public consultations. They have already begun. We do not necessarily need a decade to carry out good environmental studies and good impact assessments. I was the environment minister, so I know very well what I am talking about. The proposed process can work if everyone pulls together, which does not seem to be the case with the Bloc Québécois so far. For all these reasons, I am very much in favour of the high-speed rail project. We have also acknowledged the wrongs of the past with regard to expropriations. In the case of high-speed rail, we are talking about a fraction of the land that was expropriated for the Mirabel airport. It is not 1% or 0.5%, it is far less. However, the Bloc Québécois is waging this campaign of fear among residents and farmers, and I find that extremely shameful. I invite the Bloc Québécois to follow our example. Of course, we must learn from the past, and that is what we are doing, but we must also look to the future. On this side of the House of Commons, we are firmly focused on the future, on one of the most promising and important projects in the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois would have us believe that everything it has said about the high-speed train project is included in today's motion. That, however, is far from the case. Social media is full of public comments by various Bloc Québécois representatives talking about high-speed rail in apocalyptic terms. Today's debate is limited to this Bloc Québécois motion, but the Bloc Québécois's actions over the past few weeks regarding this project are the antithesis of a healthy, constructive debate to move this project forward.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my speech, consultations began on January 15 and will continue until early March. There are various ways to take part in the consultations. The members on this side of the House, who represent the government, are committed. We have already started discussions with municipal stakeholders, people in the agricultural sector and Canadians to both talk about the importance of this project and listen to them. The Minister of Transport spoke about this earlier this morning. The goal of the consultations is to try to find the best possible route, given the requirements associated with the high-speed rail project, on the one hand, and the concerns of the local population, the farmers and the municipal officials, on the other. For example, I am thinking of where the stations will be located. We want to minimize the impact. That is the goal of the consultations we have already begun.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is clear how the Bloc Québécois operates. They are calling them pseudo-consultations. I wonder how many consultations my colleague has taken part in with the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement or the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada for him to say that these are pseudo-consultations. That is what they are calling them. People can attend the consultations in person, by video conference or online. This is a very good way to hold consultations, but once again, the Bloc Québécois is trying to scare people. It is telling people to look at what happened in the late 1960s and saying that we are going to do the same thing—

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois leader's question might be more relevant if he had not authorized drilling on Anticosti Island, right in the middle of the St. Lawrence River, and if he had not allowed the reversal of pipeline 9B, which means that 50% of Alberta's oil is now being consumed in Quebec thanks to the leader of the Bloc Québécois. We applaud him for that. What is more, his speech might be a little more relevant if, during our budget negotiations, the Bloc Québécois had proposed a single measure to protect the environment. I am not talking about two, three or even four measures, just one. The members of the Bloc Québécois did not do that. They did not put forward any proposals for environmental protection as part of—

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my Bloc Québécois colleague, but the Bloc is acting like a pyromaniac firefighter on this issue. First, it is sounding the fire alarm and then it is adding fuel to the fire. The Bloc Québécois voted against a budget that would invest $38 million in local media and $150 million in CBC/Radio-Canada. That would help our media outlets across the country and help the production of local culture in Quebec and across the country. They voted against that.

Mr. Speaker, the budget presented by my colleague, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, includes tax credits for local journalism. They voted against it. There is money for a local journalism initiative. The Bloc Québécois voted against it. There is $150 million for our public broadcaster. The Bloc Québécois voted against it. It is the largest producer of culture in Quebec. The Bloc Québécois voted against it. My colleague has the audacity to stand up in the House and tell us that we are not here for journalists and culture. It is absolutely outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, the REM represents a milestone for sustainable transportation in Montreal and for Quebec as a whole. The opening of the Deux-Montagnes line will change the way more than 170,000 people, including families, workers and students, get around every day. The REM will generate major economic spinoffs, including the creation of 1,000 permanent jobs over time. It will also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 100,000 tonnes per year. This is an ambitious project that Quebeckers deserve and that is worthy of a strong Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the leader of the Bloc Québécois. We did not announce $500 million in the budget for arts and culture across the country. We announced $770 million, the largest investment in Canadian history. That includes $38 million for local media, and the Bloc Québécois voted against that. It includes $6 million a year for the Canada Council for the Arts, and the Bloc Québécois voted against that. It includes $150 million for Telefilm Canada, and the Bloc Québécois voted against that. It also includes $26 million for the National Film Board of Canada, the largest investment in decades for that organization, and the Bloc Québécois voted against that.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois was once the president of ADISQ. This budget provides $41 million for the music sector over the next three years, yet the Bloc Québécois voted against it. It provides $38 million a year for local media, and the Bloc Québécois voted against it. Quebecor is receiving millions of dollars under this budget, and the Bloc Québécois voted against it. The Bloc Québécois's position is outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the leader of the Bloc Québécois to read CBC/Radio-Canada's annual report and the strategic plan that was recently released, which states quite clearly that CBC/Radio-Canada will invest in opening local news stations across the country, including in Quebec. It is $150 million, and it is our first investment in CBC/Radio-Canada. Bloc members voted against the largest investment in culture for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois's position is frankly outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, our thoughts are certainly with the families and communities affected by these job losses. However, my Bloc Québécois colleague's question might have been more relevant if the Bloc Québécois had not voted against the most important budget in the history of the country, which includes funding for local journalism. The member opposite is rising in the House to say that what is happening is so unfortunate, while also voting against investments for local journalism in Quebec and across Canada. I cannot understand it.

Mr. Speaker, in the budget that the Bloc Québécois voted against, there is $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada, Quebec's largest cultural producer. The Bloc voted against that. There is $26 million for the National Film Board of Canada, which is located in Montreal, and the Bloc voted against that. There is $127 million for the Canada Media Fund and $48 million for the Canada Music Fund. The Bloc voted against all these cultural initiatives in Quebec and across the country. That is outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, in the face of global uncertainty, it is vital that we protect our identity and our cultural sovereignty. That is why budget 2025 invests historic amounts in culture, identity and media, including $38 million for local media across the country. The government made a strategic choice to strengthen our cultural and media sectors by investing $150 million in CBC/Radio-Canada. This sector accounts for $65 billion in GDP and nearly 670,000 jobs. To invest in our cultural sovereignty is to invest in our future and preserve the stories told—

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Conservative member across the way is a bit confused. If he wants to be less confused, all he has to do is ask his colleague seated next to him the question. She was a member for the Quebec Liberal Party and she voted in favour of the carbon pricing system in Quebec. Quebec's carbon pricing system is not the federal system. All the member has to do is ask his colleague seated next to him.

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers voted for 44 Quebec MPs to sit on this side of the House. People may recall who the president of ADISQ was in 2003. It was the leader of the Bloc Québécois. Does anyone know what ADISQ said about our budget? It welcomed the government's budget. This is the most significant investment in culture in the history of Canada. The leader of the Bloc Québécois is going to tell all his members to vote against investments in culture in Quebec for film, television, music and homegrown artists. He is going to say no to all that. He is going to tell them to stand in the way of all these investments.

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am a bit surprised by the Conservative member's question because, when she was an MNA for the Liberal Party of Quebec, she voted in favour of carbon pricing. She should be in a very good position to know that federal industrial carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec, since she voted for a program that is uniquely Quebec-based. There is a a great deal of hypocrisy on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow's budget will include major investments in infrastructure and technology that will create jobs across the country, including all across Quebec. The question is what the Bloc Québécois wants to do. Does the Bloc want to help the people of Quebec? Is the Bloc willing to work with us in these hard times, or will the Bloc choose to force us into an election? That is the question for the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to correct what my hon. colleague just said. More than 28,000 people participated in the pre-budget consultations. We have had many conversations with the opposition parties, including the Bloc Québécois. I had some of those conversations myself. Several of my colleagues, including the Minister of Finance, have had them as well. We have worked with all parties in the House. There will be significant investments in a number of areas in tomorrow's budget. The question is what the Bloc Québécois will do. Will that party vote to support Quebeckers and all Canadians, or will it vote against them?

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians went to the polls a few months ago, and the people of Quebec elected twice as many Liberals as Bloc Québécois members. I knocked on hundreds of doors and spoke with hundreds of people on the phone, and no one asked me for a referendum. People said that they want life to be more affordable, that they want a budget to build Canada, and that is exactly what we are going to deliver next Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to hear the Bloc member talk about all peoples when the Quebec government just tabled a draft constitution without even consulting Quebec's indigenous peoples. Quebec did not even have the decency to sit down with the first nations and ask if they could talk before tabling a draft constitution. That is not how collaboration works. On this side of the House, we believe that Canada is stronger when it is united. We believe in reconciliation with indigenous peoples. We consult with indigenous peoples on all of our environmental legislation. That is how we will move our country forward.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. Just last Friday, my colleague from Les Pays-d'en-Haut and I visited the Crête Group plant in the Laurentians to discuss federal assistance. The Business Development Bank of Canada is providing $700 million, and another $500 million is available for business modernization. Softwood lumber is a key sector all across Canada. We will be there to support it during these difficult times.

Mr. Speaker, last summer, the Canada Strong Pass allowed families to discover our incredible country while making it affordable to do so. It was a huge success. Over 200,000 children received free admission to the national museums, which saw a 15% increase in visitors. Provincial museums saw a 26% increase in young visitors. Some Parks Canada sites saw a 20% increase in use. In addition, Canadian families saved $6 million on VIA Rail. Given this enthusiasm for the program, we are very pleased that the Canada Strong Pass is returning this winter and in summer 2026 so that families can continue to discover the most beautiful country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure my honourable and kind colleague. No one on this side of the House is slapping anyone around. The Prime Minister, the House leader and the Minister of Finance all met with the leader of the Bloc Québécois. I also met with him to hear about what the Bloc Québécois wants to see in the budget. There are measures on housing and affordability in the budget. The Bloc Québécois will have plenty of time to help us help Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, when a member opposite asks a question like that, I have to wonder whether they have even read the Food Banks Canada report. Let me quote four of the recommendations I have here from that same report. What does the report propose to help with affordability? It proposes "finalizing the Canada Disability Benefit [or CDB]". The Conservative Party and the member voted against that. The report proposes "rolling out the Canadian Dental Care Plan [or CDCP]". The Conservative Party and the member voted against that. The report calls for "launching a national school food program". One of the member's colleagues referred to that as "garbage". Finally, the report proposes "updating the National Housing Strategy". The Conservatives have already told us that they are going to vote against that. There is a lot of hypocrisy on the other side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, just last Friday, I was with my colleague from Les Pays-d'en-Haut to meet with representatives from one of these companies to discuss the measures that the federal government has put in place: $700 million in liquidity supports through the Business Development Bank of Canada and $500 million to modernize these businesses. We are supporting the sector. We will be there for the softwood lumber sector from coast to coast to coast. I am from La Tuque. I know exactly what is at stake. We will be there for workers, and we will be there for communities.

Mr. Speaker, I think I am going to ask you to help me because I am having a very hard time understanding the Bloc Québécois's position. A meeting was held between the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and me. The Bloc Québécois presented us with a series of demands and then said that it would not vote in favour of the budget. I have a hard time understanding that. Are the Bloc members ready to negotiate? If so, we are ready to negotiate. If not, then they are not ready to negotiate, but they cannot just sit on the fence like that.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois seems to change his mind as often as he changes his shirt. After the election, he told us that he was prepared to work with the government and that he wanted to give us time so that we could help Canadians and Quebeckers. Now what is he saying before he has even read the budget? He is telling us that he will not vote in favour of it. I would like to know, and I think that everyone in the House would like to know, where the Bloc Québécois stands. Will the Bloc members at least read the budget before saying that they will not vote for it?

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons met with the leader of the Bloc Québécois to talk about the budget. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue met with the leader of the Bloc Québécois to talk about the budget. The Prime Minister met with the leader of the Bloc Québécois to talk about the budget. I myself met with the leader of the Bloc Québécois to talk about the budget. Even before the budget was made public, the Bloc Québécois told us that it was not interested and that it would not vote for it. The Bloc members will not vote for measures that will allow millions of Canadians to save on their taxes. They will not vote for a budget that will help build hundreds of thousands of housing units. To me, the Bloc Québécois's position is unacceptable.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague opposite, he knows full well that our government did more for official languages than any other government in the history of this country with the reform of the Official Languages Act. We have invested $2 billion in official languages. For the first time in the country's history, we are set to meet our targets for francophone immigration outside Quebec. Not only that, but we are going to double or even triple them by the end of the year. We are the first government to have done that. We are also making investments like this for francophone communities outside Quebec. What the member is saying is patently untrue.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with what my Bloc Québécois colleague just stated. Our intervention before the Supreme Court is intended to defend Canadians' rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No part of our intervention before the Supreme Court of Canada will prevent the provinces from continuing to use the notwithstanding clause if they so desire. However, when using the notwithstanding clause results in the violation of Canadians' rights, we want the courts to be able to adjudicate on that.

Mr. Speaker, I have a little news flash for my colleague across the aisle. We are the government that has done the most for official languages in Canada. We modernized the Official Languages Act and, as part of the process, made a historic $4-billion investment in our official languages across the country. For the first time in the country's history, we met our target of 4% for francophone immigration outside Quebec. We are at 7%. We are going to hit 8% and then get to 12%. This is historic. It is unprecedented. That is my little news flash for my colleague across the aisle.