Taleeb Noormohamed

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Pickering—Brooklin. I rise today in support of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. I want to begin with a word that I think sits at the heart of the debate, or at least should sit at the heart of the debate for all of us, and that is the word “trust”. It is not trust in any one government or trust in a political party, but trust in our institutions, trust that our processes work, trust that when Canadians participate in these processes, their voices matter, and trust that government is capable of making good decisions in a timely fashion. When I think about the conversations that I have had over the course of the last summer with businesses, workers, indigenous partners, community leaders and families, I find that most people are asking for exactly the same thing. They are asking for predictability. They are asking for stability. They are asking for clarity. Perhaps most importantly, and I think this demonstrates the popularity of our Prime Minister, they are asking for competence. Canadians are reasonable people. They understand that governing is complicated. It is not something that one does on social media or on Twitter in a hundred and something characters. It is done through hard work. They understand that major projects have consequences. They understand that consultation can and should take the right amount of time. They expect good decisions to be made. They expect these decisions to be fair, and they expect decisions to be made in a reasonable amount of time. That is why this legislation deserves the consideration and support of the House. At its core, this bill is trying to answer a question that is increasingly important to the future of the country in an incredibly unstable global environment: Can Canada move with the speed and certainty required to build the future we want in a way that respects the urgency of the moment and the need to preserve and protect that which we care about? The world around us continues to change at a rapid pace. Supply chains are shifting, investment is moving and countries are searching for reliable partners. Workers are looking for security. As new markets are opening and new infrastructure is being built, Canada is being presented with a once-in-a-century opportunity, but opportunities do not become outcomes on their own. They require decisions. They require institutions to have the trust of investors, have the trust of workers and have the trust of Canadians. The reality of that trust is in people understanding how decisions will be made. Workers deserve that confidence. Communities deserve that confidence. Indigenous partners deserve that confidence. Investors deserve that confidence. Government must earn that confidence. People may not always agree with the outcome; that is the nature of democracy, but they should know that there is a process that can be trusted and relied upon, that their voices will be heard and that they will get answers in a timely fashion. In my view, this is one of the most compelling arguments underpinning the legislation. We must give people answers, and those answers should demand high standards. High standards should not mean endless uncertainty. A thorough review should not mean permanent delay. It should be very clear that if projects do not meet the standards that Canadians expect, government should have the confidence and capacity to say no. As the Prime Minister has said, if a project does not meet the standards that Canadians demand of it, government should have the capacity to say no. If the project does meet those standards, government should be able to say yes. To say no quickly and to say yes on time should not be hard. That does not mean we compromise on the things we care about. It does not mean that we compromise on our standards, not one bit. We must make sure that this conversation does not meet the fate of so many others. We must not look at things as binary, as if there is one right answer and one wrong answer, as if we cannot do two things at once and as if we cannot chew gum and walk at the same time. Canadians expect of governments today the ability to do many things at once, to do them well and to do them properly. That is why this legislation matters for building the country strong. It matters for protecting our workers. It matters for protecting our environment. It matters for protecting the investments people are making in the country. It matters for protecting the things that we need to do in this moment. We have heard from many of our colleagues that these are challenging times. We all know that the trade war has shifted how we look at things in the country and what we are called upon to do. As we diversify trade, as we expand new markets, as we do all of the heavy lifting Canadians expect all of us from all parties to do, we have to protect our supply chains. We have to protect our projects. We have to accelerate our projects, but we have to protect safe workplaces for our workers and continue to protect our natural environment. The thing that seems to be lost in this conversation is the fact that a tremendous amount of consultation has gone into this process, into the refinements and into what we are seeing in this legislation today. Spring and summer were spent listening to stakeholders and responding. Whether it was with unions, employers or indigenous partners, the conversation was about worker supports and the labour relations framework, and those inputs have directly framed how this bill is in front of us today. We all know that about 95% of disputes in federally regulated workplaces are resolved without a work stoppage. Knowing this, most of the stakeholders we spoke to cautioned against broad structural changes that would undermine a process that works well in most cases. We recognize that it does not work in all cases, and we will come to that, but as Canada works to build a stronger economy to advance major projects and strengthen the infrastructure we all know we need, and that I know the opposition certainly should care about as well, we also need a labour framework that can meet this moment and that protects Canadian workers so they can thrive and prosper. Bill C-39 proposes to put forward a balanced approach that would add tools and supports to ensure that more parties were able to reach agreements at the table, creating a more transparent process for the few disputes that remain difficult to resolve. These changes underpin Canadians' request to us: get things built, protect workers and do not backtrack on our standards. This is why dispute resolution is important. In this bill, we are proposing mandatory dispute resolution remediation for parties that have experienced a work stoppage or had a binding method of resolution imposed on them. Doing so within six months of reaching a collective agreement would help mend relationships and reduce the risk of future labour disruptions. The code does not currently prescribe when parties must begin direct bargaining. It allows parties to start their negotiations as early as four months prior, but the start date is really up to them. This bill now proposes that those conversations must begin six months before the collective agreement expiry, and be supported by federal mediators, increasing the odds of resolving differences before positions become entrenched. There is a provision that discusses conciliation. When there is an impasse at the table, the government may now appoint a federal conciliator to work with them for 60 days. This bill proposes to extend that to 90 days. Perhaps what is most important is addressing where there is concern, and that is around section 107. One of the misperceptions is that this bill would somehow incentivize the use of section 107, but it is quite the opposite. Section 107, as we know, has been in effect for approximately 50 years in this country. It is used on an exceptional basis. For the first time, this bill would put guardrails on the use of section 107. It would ensure that, for the first time, there would be requirements placed upon the use of this provision, and that is particularly important to workers in this country. It is about making sure that the right to strike is never taken away from workers. It is about ensuring that their rights are protected, but it is also about making sure that we are bringing forward solutions quickly. What it seeks to do is simply clarify section 107 by adding the two guardrails that are important. The first is the appointment of a special mediator and the subsequent report submitted to the minister. The second is a national impact assessment following the special mediator's engagement and report. Together, these would strengthen workers' rights and strengthen certainty. Ultimately, they would ensure that when we are looking to build big things in this country, how it all comes to pass, what goes into it and what people can expect on the other side would be certain and clear. By setting down clear rules, we would be enabling ourselves to build this country strong. We would be protecting workers. We would be protecting the rules and regulations that matter to Canadians, but we would also be making sure Canadians, businesses and workers know that decisions come quickly, they come responsibly, and they come with two things top of mind: building our country and protecting workers. This is what Canadians care about.

Mr. Speaker, there are two things the member opposite must remember. First, there will now be an opportunity at committee for him to add these important questions, to put them on the table. This is an important reality of Parliament. There is an opportunity at committee for the member to raise those issues. I would suggest the member remember that the Premier of Alberta said there has never been a better time to be a Canadian and to work with the government. These are things that the Government of Alberta and governments across this country from coast to coast are recognizing: that our government is working to ensure these problems are solved and that we work with provinces to ensure that it is not just the Prairies but the entire country that benefits from what we are trying to put forward today.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that this is a difficult time for Quebec and Canada. It is a very dangerous time for our country and for Canadians and Quebeckers. Of course, there are things we need to do right now, but Bill C-39 contains measures that protect workers, protect the environment and even protect the rights of Parliament. We believe we must work together to protect the citizens of our country. To say that this limits or curbs Parliament's powers is inaccurate, and furthermore, it creates uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, the consultations were widespread, with unions, big and small businesses, indigenous communities and investors, folks who are helping to build this country. Those consultations, whether in small or large groups, were ones that mattered. They are reflected in this bill. That is a really important consideration because as we go through these processes, making sure those voices are heard and the feedback is reflected is a reflection of how this place works and should work.

Mr. Speaker, I respect my hon. colleague and the organizations working hard to protect our natural environment and to ensure that our natural environment is well protected. Part of the provisions in this bill do put the guardrails that are required to ensure that ministers would not be using provisions without due consideration. In fact, if we look at the provisions that have been made in British Columbia to protect our natural coast, the tanker ban and other provisions that are being made to protect whales and salmon are provisions that are going to ensure that our natural environment on the west coast that I know she loves, as do I, will continue to be protected.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-209 and the government's work to protect young people from online harms as technology evolves in front of us. I also want to begin by thanking and recognizing Senator Miville-Dechêne for bringing this initiative to Parliament and for her continued work to better protect children online. I remember the previous iteration of this bill in the last Parliament. I enjoyed very much trying to see how we could learn from what she was seeking to put forward in that bill and how that might inform the work that we were doing. It is very clear that ensuring young people are safe online is a priority we all share in the House. It is an important thing for us to keep top of mind. As the father of two young boys, it is something I certainly think about every day. Let me say first that the government supports the objectives of Bill S-209. Children should not be able to access content, including pornographic content, that is inappropriate for their age online. Period. At the same time, our government understands that protecting children from pornographic content is not just about separating it from the protection of their personal information. Bill C-34, the safe social media act, and Bill C-36, the protecting privacy and consumer data act, seek to address both of these critical concerns thoughtfully and place them in the hands of a regulator that would be empowered to protect Canadians online. Indeed, much of what was in Bill S-209 previously has inspired some of this work. Digital platforms play an important role in the lives of many young Canadians, helping them stay connected to family and friends, access educational resources and discover new interests. At the same time, young people are sometimes exposed to online content that is inappropriate for their age. Recognizing both the benefits of digital technologies and the need to better protect children online, the government introduced Bill C-34, the safe social media act, and Bill C-36, an act to enact the protecting privacy and consumer data act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other acts, in June 2026. Together, these initiatives establish clear rules that promote online safety, strengthen privacy protections and increase accountability and trust across the digital ecosystem. Bill C-34 addresses directly the risks when children are exposed to pornographic content online. It would require operators of regulated services to implement age assurance measures to mitigate the risk that children would be exposed to adult content on their service. Bill C-34 would also put strong protections in place to ensure that children's personal information is safeguarded, that it is destroyed once it is no longer needed and that any age verification or estimation measures do not unreasonably or disproportionately limit users' freedom of expression. Young people can be harmed not only by the content they encounter online but also when their images are misused to create harmful deepfakes. We all know that generative AI has made this material easier to create and spread without consent. Our government is tackling this emerging threat by strengthening protections for victims and holding those responsible to account. Our government has already taken strong action to address these issues through Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which expands the Criminal Code definition of an “intimate image” to include sexualized deepfakes and ensures that those who generate, distribute or threaten to distribute such content are held accountable. Bill C-34 seeks to build on this work by tackling these issues at their source before they have the chance to spread online. Under this bill, operators of regulated chatbot services would be required to put measures in place to mitigate the risk of a chatbot communicating harmful content, which includes generating non-consensual intimate images and content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor. As technology continues to evolve, online safety and privacy are becoming increasingly interconnected. Protecting young people requires us to address both. That is why, along with Bill C-34, the government introduced Bill C-36, which represents the most significant modernization of Canada's Privacy Act as it applies to the private sector in over 25 years. Bill C-36 would strengthen individual protections, specifically by recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, strengthening children's privacy and creating a strong right to delete or vanish, to protect the privacy and reputation of Canadians online. These are all challenges that did not exist when the current privacy legislation was enacted. For children, this matters. Age verification generally relies on the use of personal information. Bill C‑34 sets out privacy safeguards that age verification measures must respect. Bill C‑36 strengthens protections for children's personal information more broadly. Together, Bill C‑34 and Bill C‑36 would also create a permanent digital safety and privacy commission. The commission's mandate would be to promote online safety in Canada while protecting Canadians' personal information in the marketplace. Bill C‑34 and Bill C‑36 set out these protections, which are backed by robust enforcement regimes. For example, under the protecting privacy and consumer data act proposed in Bill C‑36, the commission would have the authority to issue compliance orders or impose substantial administrative monetary penalties on regulated entities that fail to meet their obligations to protect Canadians' privacy. The bill also requires the regulatory body to consider the best interests of children in all policy and enforcement decisions. This means stronger protections for children's data, clear rules for organizations that target or serve young users, and an ongoing commitment—

The fact is that the work done in the context of Bill S‑209, as well as the work that was done in the context of Bill S‑210 in the previous Parliament, is represented in these bills. If she had read both bills, she would know that, but such is life. We believe that this model, that is, enforcement regimes grounded in expertise within a common digital regulatory body, provides a more effective way to address complex and cross-cutting issues involving privacy and digital safety, including age verification, the proliferation of synthetic content in digital spaces and the safety of children online, all of which are closely linked to the objectives of Bill S‑209. The strengths of the government's approach become clear when we consider age assurance. Parliament's consideration of Bill S-209, to my colleague's comment, and its previous iterations has consistently highlighted the real privacy concerns associated with age verification and age estimation measures, especially when children's personal information is involved, which I am certain the member must care about. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has stated that age assurance can further the goal of creating a safer, more privacy-protective online environment for kids, but that careful attention must be paid to determining the most important appropriate means of verification. Every age assurance requirement involves trade-offs. The more reliably a measure establishes a user's age, the more sensitive the information is that it tends to collect. Whoever sets and enforces that requirement is making a safety decision and a privacy decision at the same time. Bill S-209 would recognize that and require cabinet to ensure that any age assurance method it prescribes protects users' personal information. I would submit the member opposite would be very happy to see this in our legislation, but those conditions would be applied by regulation and enforced by an existing federal institution that the bill does not designate, so I am curious how the member opposite would think this would actually be enforced. Under Bill C-34 and Bill C-36, these decisions would sit within a single body. The commission would have oversight of whether an operator is effectively protecting children, while also meeting the strong privacy protection requirements set out in Bill C-36. Bill S-209, Bill C-34 and Bill C-36 all share a common concern to ensure that children are kept safe online. The government plan includes strong privacy protection and a robust plan for actually carrying these measures out. Bill S-209, while well intended, would leave it to cabinet regulation and an institution yet to be named to iron out all of these details. It is almost as if the opposition wants to put all that trust into cabinet, which is curious given its position on most anything. Bill C-34 and Bill C-36 together are a strong plan for protecting our kids and their data online, and that has already been laid out.

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be back in this place with my colleagues after an important summer of conversations in our communities. One of the conversations that came up quite often was from young people from different parts of the country who were in my riding of Vancouver Granville and from some of my constituents who had been travelling across the country over the summer. The theme that kept coming up, particularly from some of the folks in the skilled trades, was that they would love to be able to work in other parts of the country. In fact, I was speaking to a young man from Montreal who said that he would love to be able to work in British Columbia for four or five years, but his credentials are not recognized. This is something that a lot of us hear in our communities from Canadians from coast to coast to coast who want to work in different parts of the country and be able to use the skills they have obtained and the education they have. This is what my friend from Richmond East—Steveston aims to solve through his private member's bill. This bill is really about three things. It is about modernizing, harmonizing and streamlining credential recognition across this country. We spend incredible amounts of time training people in this country across the provinces in the skills and trades we need from coast to coast to coast, yet barriers created through regulations sometimes make it difficult for folks to take advantage of that and truly celebrate being able to work anywhere in this country. We know there is a need for qualified professionals to work where their skills are needed, and this bill would help to deliver on our commitment to break down internal trade barriers and recognize that Canada can give itself, as the Prime Minister said, “far more than anyone else can take away.” When we think about this moment for Canada, we recognize that we are being challenged by our neighbours to the south. We have opportunities presented to us through global partnerships, through increasing trade and through looking at how we develop our sectors here at home. One of the most important elements of that is ensuring that Canadian workers have the ability to work in whatever part of this country they desire, using the skills and knowledge they have and ensuring that their credentials are recognized across this country. It seems very simple, and indeed it is. It is a concept about which any of us who are proudly Canadian would ask, “How we can make sure that skills obtained in British Columbia are transferable to Quebec, Ontario or Atlantic Canada, and vice versa?” If we are serious about economic development in this country, increasing productivity, building the infrastructure we need and competitiveness, it is private members' bills like this one and decisions like this that will help propel our economy forward. We all know that improved labour mobility ensures that skilled labour shortages, particularly in the housing and infrastructure sectors, can be addressed. For those who have concerns, this bill is not about overreach, but rather about coordination and collaboration. As the member for Richmond East—Steveston has said, this bill would help allow a young person trained in Ontario to be part of the national shipbuilding strategy in Vancouver, or vice versa. When we think about what we are doing, we are spending time, effort, energy and resources to ensure that we are training workers from coast to coast to coast. We announced that we would be modernizing and boosting apprenticeship training in this country to expedite Red Seal certification, with over $330 million in funding over five years. We are digitizing the Red Seal program, introducing online exams and digital logbooks and securing credentials to reduce certification timelines, including by creating a single national registered apprenticeship number. We are also expanding union training and innovation programs to enable union-run training centres to upgrade facilities, expand capacity and invest in modern equipment. These are all steps that require us to work together across the federation. These are all steps that work toward building a Canada strong. When we look at the future of this country, we know there is an imperative right now to build our east-west economy. We know there is an imperative to be able to trade across this country, to have workers move from any part of this country to another to work, and to ensure that what is getting built in one part of the country benefits the country regardless of whether it is in one province or another. That happens by ensuring that when we are building a one Canadian economy, the workers who reside at the heart of that one Canadian economy have the mobility they need, and the time and effort that have been put in and the investments that have been made through tax dollars so these workers are well-trained are put to good use in the parts of the country that need those workers the most. That mobility must be as seamless as possible, and the flexibility of movement must be there for Canadians. It should not be easier for a Canadian from British Columbia or Quebec to move to a different country. It should be easy for them to move across this country to do the work they want to do in helping to build this country and build our economy strong. The realities workers face right now are real. Workers across this country, whether they are working in the softwood lumber industry, in manufacturing in Ontario or in smelters, are challenged. They are looking for ways for government to step up and make their lives easier. One of those ways, I believe, is for them to find and get work anywhere in this country and use the credentials they have without the onerous process of being certified again. People have put in the time, effort and energy to train up. It is not their fault if through tariffs an industry or a sector is hit hard in a particular part of the country. It should not be their fault that they cannot move to another part of this country where a job is available, only to know that their credentials will not be recognized because of a system that prevents that. This bill would enable those barriers to come down. It would enable those workers to take on more, to serve this country through their work, to be taxpaying citizens, to help boost the economy and to build the things we need in this country. This is on us. We have powers in this legislature, in this place, to make these changes and make the lives of Canadians better. The changes that are being proposed are real. They are meaningful, and they are a process of collaboration. They are about collaboration and working together. They are not about overreach. They are not about taking power away from provinces. They are not about diminishing regions. They are not about minimizing anybody's ability to feel like their province or region matters. It is quite the opposite. They are about ensuring that the regions, provinces and territories that need workers can attract those workers, that those workers can thrive, that those workers have mobility and that they have the freedom in this country to truly participate in the economy. That is not a lot to ask. It is not a lot for workers to ask. It is not a lot for Canadians to ask of us, and it requires us to come together. It requires us to work with labour unions. It requires us to work across jurisdictions. It requires us to hear one another through that process. What it boils down to is doing the thing that Canadians have asked of us, not just of this government, but of all parliamentarians. It's about doing the things that are required to build a strong economy, to reduce the barriers that currently prevent workers from doing the things they need to be able to do, to promote businesses' ability to hire, to enable businesses to contribute to the economy, to reduce the barriers and friction that businesses are currently feeling and, most importantly, to ensure that we are building a truly east-west economy in this country and that workers are at the heart of it. We know that the north-south economy right now, with our partners to the south, is hard. It is difficult. Relations are strained. We all know that, but it is an opportunity for us to make sure that moving across this country east to west or west to east is easy, that we give Canadians the tools they need and that we give Canadians the types of decisions from this government and in this Parliament that allow them to move freely and work freely across this country. That is incumbent on all of us. This is the moment to put aside the “yes but” way of thinking about things and look at the world by saying “yes and”. Yes, we can do this, and we can protect workers. Yes, we can do this, and we can protect regional economies. “Yes and” is how big things are going to get built in this country, acknowledging that not everything we have in our path forward is perfect. We will build by working together, by reducing barriers across provinces and territories and by ensuring that workers from coast to coast to coast have the ability to be mobile and use the skills and credentials they have, whether it is in British Columbia, Quebec, Atlantic Canada, the Prairies or the north, and can move freely and work freely to build the country they want to build, to build here and to have jobs that pay well to put food on the tables for their families. This is something we can and must do, and I encourage all members of the House to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we all know we are living through one of the most dangerous and divided moments the world has seen in generations. We all know the pressure that is coming toward Canadians is not coming from just one direction, but all directions at once. We know our closest ally and trading partner has imposed tariffs at levels we have not seen in living memory. Wars are being fought in Europe and the Middle East. Supply chains that took decades to build are being fractured in real time. All of this is unfolding against a technological transformation that is defining what work and our economy will look like a decade from now and, indeed, in less than a decade from now. This is not a normal moment, and most Canadians know it. They feel it at the grocery till and at mortgage renewal. A young person feels it doing the math on a first home. We all understand that. We all understand the concerns and the risks, and we all understand that it is our job to figure out how to make it better. No honest account of how we got here points to a single villain or a single year. This has taken decades, across governments of every stripe in a country where it has become simply too hard to build, too hard to get major projects off the ground, too hard to keep our best talent, research and companies from leaving to go elsewhere and too hard to turn ideas into industry. These are not partisan accusations. They are an inheritance for every single one of us in the chamber from decades and decades of action. The question before the House is not whether the moment is hard. We all know it is. The question is what a serious government does about it. What this government has chosen to do is focus relentlessly on what is within our control. We have established a Major Projects Office to make sure that we can get nation-building projects built and that they do not die in a queue. We passed the One Canadian Economy Act to make sure that we tear down the internal trade walls that made it absurdly easier to trade with another country than with the next province over. Our productivity superdeduction gives businesses a reason to invest here and now. Build Canada Homes is already building thousands of homes. Through team Canada strong, we are putting $6 billion behind 100,000 new skilled trade workers, because we cannot build what we approve without the hands to build it. Here is the part that the members opposite will never mention, because it is not convenient: We are doing this with people, not against them. Premiers of every political stripe, Liberal, Conservative and New Democrat, and even Danielle Smith have found that this government is a partner with whom they can actually work. That is what governing in a time of crisis actually looks like. We put down the partisan cudgel, we pick up the tools and we work together. This brings me to the motion from the Leader of the Opposition that is before us today, because it was definitely not written in that spirit. It is not an offer to build. It is not an offer to think about how we might work together. It is not even an honest account of where we are. It is, yet again, performative theatre. I want to take a moment to focus on a single word that is at the centre of it. The motion does not say “a difficult quarter”. It does not say “a slowdown”. It reaches, in the very first line, for the biggest word available: “recession”. There is a body that all of us have recognized, whose entire job is to decide whether that word applies. It is the C.D. Howe Institute's business cycle council. Trusted by Conservatives and Liberals alike, it is the organization that has effectively been trusted as the organization that determines whether we are, in fact, in a recession, and it has not said that. It is not a Liberal organization. It is not a Liberal press release or a Conservative press release that gets to decide this. It is the council that called the 2008 financial crisis and the council that called the COVID downturn. When the real thing arrives, that council is the one that names it, not politicians. Three days ago, the council looked at exactly the same data the Leader of the Opposition is brandishing, and it refused to use his word. It found the decline so slight, at a fraction of a single per cent, that it does not even come close to any recession it has ever declared, and it warned in very clear terms that it is precisely this kind of label placed upon it by politicians and stapled onto numbers like these that causes further problems, because it is designed to sound official and frightening. The country's own referees, the people who called the 2008 recession and the COVID downturn, looked at this and would not go there. The Leader of the Opposition decided that it is his job to go and write a bigger word than theirs into a motion. Let us ask the question that the motion was built to stop anyone from asking: Why? Why would the Leader of the Opposition reach past the experts, as is custom for him, for the most frightening word he could find? Why does he need a slowdown to be a catastrophe? Why is it valuable for him to cast fear into the hearts of Canadians, who are already facing challenging times, which we all acknowledge? It is because, for him, the catastrophe becomes a permission slip. A slowdown asks the government to steady the ship and keep building, but a catastrophe is the only thing that could ever justify what this motion actually demands, which is to reverse the policies. We should say what is clearly hiding inside that intention. Reversing the policies means taking away the dental care that seniors are using right now. Taking away child care means telling the parents at Butterfly Kisses, a child care centre in his own riding that has brought fees down for working families, that those working families will no longer be able to access the subsidies that make it possible for children in his riding to access affordable child care. Reversing the policies means taking away the national school food program that feeds children before they sit down to learn. Whether they are in Carleton or Battle River—Crowfoot, Canadians are asking for the same things. They are asking for dental care, child care and certainty and stability in the government. They are looking for leadership that not only tells them that things will be all right, but shows them a path and takes the action to do so by building consensus. The Leader of the Opposition wants rubble he can stand in. That is what reversing the policies means once we start performing the word “recession” in pantomime or theatre in this place and start reading the fine print. They cannot rip the floor out from underneath people over a fraction of 1%. They can only do it if they first convince the country, as they are seeking to do, that the house is on fire. The Leader of the Opposition needs catastrophe. He needs the fire, but not because the data supports it. He does not. He needs it because without it, there is no excuse for what he is selling Canadians. Without it, there is little reason for toxic leadership from his side. That is the real divide in this chamber, and it could not be starker. One side is working to convince Canadians, alongside premiers, Conservatives, Liberals and New Democrats that it is time to work together and build things, and another side is saying the building we are trying to build together is condemned so that no one objects when they start tearing down the walls. On this side, we are going to keep building. That building is showing up in results where people live and in what they will experience. In B.C., which is my home province, the merger that created Anglo Teck has planted a new global mining champion headquarters in Vancouver, with thousands of Canadian jobs and billions of dollars in investment secured here at home. That is talent and capital choosing Canada at the very moment when the members opposite insist that Canada is collapsing. The OECD, which is by no means a Liberal agency, projects that this country will grow the second-fastest in the G7 this year and next—

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I would like to begin where this motion does not. I will not begin with the numbers, but with the people this motion is supposed to be about. Somewhere, today, there is a parent at a kitchen table, running the math on a mortgage renewal for a second time because the first answer could not possibly be right. There is a young person in the same house who did everything they were asked to and is now looking at the cost of a home and wondering whether this country still has room for them. I am not going to tell either of them that these things are better than they feel. They are actually not, and we all know that. That worry is real, and it deserves a serious response, which is exactly what this motion is not, so this is where I part ways with the member who put this motion forward. The Conservative Party offers that family a story that all of this is the fault of one or two people, conjured in a single year, and that the cure, which the member just spoke about, is to simply tear things down. It is a tidy story. It asks nothing hard of the party that is telling it. It is a bid for power and a social media clip dressed up as an answer, but it is wrong. It is wrong about how we got here, and it is emptiest precisely where it ought to be the fullest, which is on what they would actually do instead. The members opposite are just about everything they are not and have no ideas about what we should be doing. Let us give that family an honest answer. The pressure did not arrive all at once. It built slowly over decades, through what successive governments of all stripes and at all levels chose to do and, far more often, chose to put off. There were too few homes built year after year, infrastructure was deferred and deferred again and productivity was left adrift while other countries pulled ahead. The one I know best is that, for decades, we let it become too hard to build big things in this country. Governments left the walls standing between our provinces so that it stayed easier to trade with another country than to trade with one another. None of it was inevitable. It was the accumulated cost of choosing not to act. The bill for everything that was waiting came up at the very moment the global economy was being torn up and rewritten. There are tariffs at levels not seen in generations and supply chains are fracturing under conflict in Europe and the Middle East. The Prime Minister has called this what it is: a rupture, not a transition. I did not come to this chamber as a political staffer. I did not grow up in politics. I came from building companies and creating actual jobs. I know what it takes to start something, to make payroll and to scale a business past the point that it is fragile. I know the patterns the members opposite never name. In this country, we generate world‑class research. We build competitive firms and then, sometimes, we watch the industrial scale, the intellectual property, the jobs and the talent migrate somewhere else. This pattern is not a law of nature, but a result of choices. This is a government that has finally made the other choice. It has chosen to back our champions, keep our IP here, keep jobs here, build talent here and let Canadian companies scale without having to leave Canada to do it ever again. We have made it easier to build big things again with the Major Projects Office so that nation-building projects stop dying in the queue. Ground has already broken on projects, like the port expansion in Montreal, which will move Canadian goods to the world for decades, and there are four major projects in my own province of British Columbia. The One Canadian Economy Act tears down the internal trade walls I just described. We have a productivity superdeduction so that businesses can write off investment right away and have a reason to make it here. We have a plan to unlock $1 trillion in investment over the next five years. We have $6 billion and 100,000 new skilled trades workers through team Canada strong so that we have the hands to build what we approve. We have Build Canada Homes, which is not another task force, but an actual builder with more than 7,500 homes already under way in this country. Here is how I know it is working. It is showing up in my own province. Anglo Teck is choosing Canada as its headquarters, bringing blue- and white-collar jobs to British Columbia. Torys is opening up a new office in Vancouver. Lululemon is keeping its headquarters in British Columbia. These are companies that could plant their flag anywhere on earth, and they are choosing here because they see what British Columbia and Canada have to offer. They are betting on our prosperity. They would not place that bet on a country in decline. The Conservatives are gleeful about the fact that there are challenges in this country. They propose no solutions and they continue to tear down, but what the rest of the world is seeing, through foreign direct investment, companies moving their headquarters here, talent coming to this country and researchers coming to this country, is that this is the place to build a future. That is because we have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on that, know what it takes to build big things and are prepared to do the heavy lifting to get it done. The wider proof is real. Wages have outpaced inflation every single month this government has been in office. Foreign investment, as I said, is flowing to us faster now than it is to any of our closest peers. It is at an 18‑year high. Canada has now surpassed the United States as the most attractive market in the world for infrastructure investment. Our economy is now projected to grow the second fastest in the G7 this year and next. To me, this is not the portrait of a country in retreat, but a country that has decided to build again. The member opposite asked the government to “immediately...reverse all the economic policies” that got us here. I would ask him to be honest about what that actually means. Does it mean reversing the Major Projects Office? Does it mean eliminating the superdeduction that rewards firms for investing in this country? Does it mean eliminating the work to tear down the walls between our provinces or the $6 billion for 100,000 new tradespeople? While he is at it, let him tell that family at the kitchen table which of their savings he means to take back. Is it the national school food program, which his own party has called “garbage”? Is it the child care that his party leader calls a “slush fund”, which has benefited people in his own riding? Is it the dental care that seniors in his communities are currently benefiting from? Are those the programs he would choose to roll back? To the Conservatives, the help that gets a family through the month is a line item that they sneer at. It is something to be looked down upon. To us, it is precisely the point. It is lifting families up so that they can build success. We cannot rip out the scaffolding and claw back what families are counting on and call that a plan to build. I understand the impatience. After this many years and decades of building too little, Canadians have every right to be impatient, but impatience is not a reason to stop building and tear out the scaffolding. It is a reason to build faster. A family having a tough time does not need a politician to name their fear back to them, only louder. They have lived that fear. They do not need it performed as political theatre. The young person wondering if there is room for their future in this country does not need another performance of outrage from the members opposite, which has, sadly, become the only thing they seem to know how to do. Young people need us to build something worthy of their trust, and that is what our government has chosen to do. In times of crisis and in times of difficulty, Canadians expect us to come together and build big things. They expect us to put aside pettiness and all of the things we cannot do to focus on the things we can and should do. They expect us to show up with solutions. All of us who have kids know that when we have difficult conversations with them, a temper tantrum is not the way to a solution. Resolution comes through doing things together and showing by example. The Conservatives would have us believe that by ripping up the paper, tossing our toys and walking away, we are somehow going to build a stronger economy. That is not how economies are built. They are built by people who are prepared to invest in this country, which we are seeing now in record numbers. We are seeing that through workers who are prepared to be retrained today for the jobs of the future. That is what we are seeing. It comes with governments that are prepared to match the ambition Canadians have with what they need, which are the resources and the support to be able to get to those places. Danielle Smith talked about how working with this Prime Minister is a joy. David Eby talked about how working with this government is a joy. I am really curious to know how provincial governments, from Wab Kinew's and David Eby's to Doug Ford's and Danielle Smith's, look at this government and say this is a government they can work with, yet the Conservatives sit there and wonder why their poll numbers keep going down and Canadians refuse to return them to office. It is because premiers of all parties have recognized that this is a government that is prepared to work hard for Canadians, build things for Canadians and invest in the type of economy that Canadians want to see built in this country for a future their kids can look at and be proud of. Yes, we all know that times are tough. When times are tough, we work together. We are providing solutions to people to give them the supports they need to get through this period. We are showing them a path to a brighter future with the dollars, supports, commitments and, most importantly, the compassion and hope to be able to deliver on big things. We are doing that. We are backing it up by having the provinces and the private sector working with us. I encourage the Conservatives to stop the slogans and get to work for Canadians with us.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the question was. It sounded yet again like a litany of complaints and no new ideas, which is exactly what the opposition is devoid of. Perhaps I could tell them something they might be hopeful about. In my province of British Columbia, there are now four projects at the Major Projects Office. I understand that the Government of Alberta is looking forward to putting forward a proposition to be able to get energy resources to tidewater. It seems that the provinces, the country and the private sector are working together to ensure that we are building things. I understand the impatience on the other side. After all, the bill was passed less than a year ago. However, they somehow expect mines to spring out of the ground, mills to be built overnight and pipelines to randomly show up. People who have actually built things know that is not how things get done in this country, and it is not how we build real, resilient infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, if we look at the number of trade agreements we now have with countries around the world, we can see that countries are seeking to invest in Canada. Whether they are countries in the Middle East or Europe, or our partners in the EU, more and more countries are looking at Canada with confidence as the place to invest. Why? It is because there is a government they can trust and rely on. There are Canadian workers who have talent and are the best in the world. We have research and researchers in this country coming up with the ideas of the future today. They see the convergence of those three things as a recipe for success and a place where they can place a bet, and they know our word means something.

Mr. Speaker, in English, we say we should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We believe we need to work toward resolving the issue of U.S. tariffs. That is what we are doing. At the same time, we believe it is important to diversify our trade with other countries. That is why we have succeeded in establishing agreements with other countries for Canadian products, thereby creating opportunities for Canada to diversify—

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-264, and I will say at the outset what the central problem with this bill is. It is a one-line proposition dressed up as serious policy. It is a slogan in legislative form. It asks this Parliament to do something that the legislative record, the scientific record, the consultation record and the conservation record of this country have all decided against repeatedly over 50 years under prime ministers of every party. Perhaps we should take a walk down memory lane and look at history. In 1972, the House passed a resolution declaring that “the movement of oil by tanker along the coast of British Columbia...is inimical to Canadian interests”. It said “inimical”. That was the language of this Parliament in 1972. In 1985, a Conservative prime minister named Brian Mulroney established a voluntary tanker exclusion zone along the north coast of British Columbia. It was a Tory prime minister, a Tory cabinet and a Tory decision, and a good one at that. In 1988, that exclusion zone was formalized through coordination between the Canadian Coast Guard, the United States Coast Guard and the Reagan administration. A Conservative government and a Republican government worked together to protect the environment, imagine that. Now a Conservative opposition in Ottawa is working to undo exactly that. Let us think back to 1989. The Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound. Thousands of kilometres of coastline were contaminated. A herring fishery collapsed and is still not yet fully recovered. Marine ecosystems were damaged in ways that are still being studied today. That disaster reinforced what Canadian governments had already concluded: The risk on that coast is unique, and the consequences of failure are too great. Members from British Columbia, particularly, are concerned about this. While I appreciate the concern for the environment from our members from Alberta, this is a particular problem that affects British Columbia, but it should affect the sensibility of all Canadians. For 34 years, this voluntary moratorium held, through four Conservative prime ministers and four Liberal prime ministers. None of them moved to repeal it, and none of them tried. In 2017, our government introduced Bill C-48, the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, to give that 34-year consensus the force of statute. It passed the House with support from members of four of five parties represented. That is the history, and that is what this slogan, or this bill, proposes to overturn. The members opposite are not making a science-based case for repeal. They are not bringing forward new evidence about the risk on the north coast. They are not presenting a new technology or a new spill response capacity that changes that calculus. They are not pointing to a change in the vulnerability of that coast. They are bringing forward a one-line bill, with no consultation, no indigenous engagement and no environmental review, that asks Parliament to undo half a century of careful policy because it might look good in a social media clip. I want to make a point that I think the members opposite have not fully thought through, and I say this in the spirit of genuine concern for the credibility of debate in this institution. If the members opposite truly believe that a pipeline to the north coast of British Columbia is the future of Canadian energy, passage of this bill would be the worst possible way to pursue that future. The moment that this bill comes to a vote, it would galvanize every coastal first nation, every B.C. municipality, every environmental organization, every one of us who is concerned about the environment and every legal team in the country who has spent decades preparing for exactly this fight. It would guarantee injunctions. It would guarantee litigation. It would guarantee gridlock. If I were being cynical about it, I might encourage members opposite to proceed and encourage us to vote for it, to tie that up in the courts. Passing this bill would be the single most effective way to ensure that no pipeline ever gets built to the north coast of British Columbia, because the legal and political response that this bill on its own would trigger would be exactly that. That is not how to build big things in this country. That is how to make sure they never get built, and the proof of that is the years of Conservative government when not a single pipeline was built and no progress was made in protecting the environment, all at once. It was quite remarkable. Let us talk about the substantive case for why this moratorium should stand. First is the nature of the coast itself. The waters from the northern tip of Vancouver Island to the Alaska border are some of the most biologically productive seas on the planet, habitat for over 25 species of marine animals and spawning grounds for salmon runs that sustain ecosystems. This is not any ordinary coastline. The second is the nature of that risk. Crude oil tankers are vessels carrying volumes of persistent oil that, in the event of a failure, cannot be cleaned up. A herring fishery collapsed after the Exxon Valdez, and as I said earlier, it has still not recovered. The Nathan E. Stewart tug ran aground near Bella Bella in 2016. There was a diesel spill, and the Heiltsuk Nation is still measuring the consequences of that a decade later. The third is the obligation to coastal first nations, something that seems like an inconvenience to members opposite. The Coastal First Nations alliance has made its position clear, repeatedly, for decades. They are rights holders whose constitutional position is at the centre of it. Those nations have spoken loud and clear, and I would encourage members opposite to speak to them directly to hear their voices. The fourth pillar is, of course, the alternatives. There is already a pipeline to tidewater in this country, TMX. Expanded and operational, it is moving Canadian energy to global markets through the port of Vancouver, where the safety architecture, the spill response capacity, the marine traffic management and the indigenous consultation frameworks are all built around that infrastructure. Canadian energy has access to the Pacific. It has access to the markets that it needs to be going to, and we are working hard to ensure that, in the cleanest, greenest way possible, we continue to make that possible under the right conditions. It does not need access at the cost of a coastline that this Parliament, 50 years ago, declared inimical to Canadian interests to put at risk. Unless every single box is checked and all of the criteria are met to the satisfaction of all parties involved, there is no reason for a new pipeline to go through the north coast. If the science has changed, if science tells us something different and if indigenous consultations tell us something different, then we should all be having that conversation, but a one-line bill that proposes to change history just because it would look good is not how serious governments should make decisions. This is a government that believes in evidence. It is a government that believes in science. This is a government that believes in building a strong economy and protecting a healthy future for our environment. We believe these are not opposites. Quite the opposite, in fact, we believe they are part of the same future. We have demonstrated that. We have ensured Trans Mountain's viability. We signed a Canada-Alberta memorandum of understanding, which put a $130-per-tonne price floor under industrial carbon pricing in Alberta. We have secured an agreement in principle for a 75% reduction in methane emissions from Alberta's oil and gas sector by 2035. We have launched a joint electricity working group with Alberta to build a net-zero grid by 2050, including transmission interties that will finally allow British Columbia to export clean hydroelectric power eastward. Let us also look at the facts. From 2014 to 2025, bitumen production in this country grew by 63%. Alberta's royalties from 2021 to 2025 totalled $58 billion, nearly four times what they were in the previous seven years combined. At the same time as this happened, under a Liberal government, we were also able to preserve and protect 6,700 square kilometres on the north coast of British Columbia, larger than the size of P.E.I., in a nature reserve. That is how intelligent, managed, evidence-based energy policy works. It looks like signing an MOU. It looks like pricing carbon, cutting methane, respecting indigenous rights and our natural environment, and protecting our coast. It looks like building big things and protecting what no amount of private sector intervention can replace. What it does not look like is a one-line bill repealing 50 years of conservation policy because it polls well in a fundraising email for Conservatives. We owe Canadians better than that. We owe the next generation better than that. My son is in the lobby watching this speech today. I owe him better than that. We all do. We owe the coastal communities of British Columbia better than that. The case for repeal has not been made. I will be voting against Bill C-264. I urge every member of the House who has a conscience, who cares about the coastline of British Columbia and who cares about our environmental future and about building a prosperous economy to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I attended the blessing ceremony of Sen̓áḵw, a housing development in my riding of Vancouver Granville. When complete, Sen̓áḵw will bring more than 6,000 rental homes to Vancouver open to everyone, including much-needed affordable and below-market housing units for families, workers and newcomers alike. However, Sen̓áḵw is more than a housing project. It is a homecoming. More than a century after Squamish families were forcibly removed from their ancestral village, the Squamish nation gathered once again on their land. They gathered with elders. They gathered in language, in song, in ceremony and in strength. I was honoured to be a witness to that ceremony, that blessing, as the first tower prepares to welcome families into 333 new homes. It is high-quality housing. It is affordable housing on prime land in Vancouver. Above all else, it is reconciliation in action. Sen̓áḵw reminds us that when we work with first nations, when first nations lead and we partner, we do more than build homes. We build trust, we restore belonging and we build the future.

Mr. Speaker, yet again, it is either misinformation or disinformation coming from the Conservatives. Either way, Canadians need to understand the facts. The facts are that the government is appealing the Cowichan decision in the courts today and that the government has stood up for the rights of private property owners. It is also important that Canadians understand that not a single Canadian has ever lost any private property in any agreement with an indigenous community. Conservatives are spreading misinformation, risking substantial economic growth in British Columbia and putting at risk true reconciliation and economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I noted that in the member opposite's comments, he expressed that somehow these Musqueam agreements were secret. If he would like, I am more than happy to share with him the links online, where they are available to the public. He also spoke about the need for true reconciliation, which he alleges his party believes in. Does that strategy of true reconciliation include condemning the comments of the member for North Island—Powell River, who said indigenous people “asked for” residential schools and there was no indigenous genocide?

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for South Surrey—White Rock. I rise this afternoon to speak about a court decision that has caused real worry in my province and to speak directly to the Canadians, particularly British Columbians, who have been watching this debate and wondering what it means for them and for their homes. Let us begin with the facts, because the facts have been in short supply in the debate by members opposite. The fact is that the government has fundamentally disagreed with, and continues to disagree with, the British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in Cowichan. The fact is that we appealed that decision on September 8 of last year. The fact is that the Prime Minister of Canada has stood in this House and stated clearly to all who would listen that private property rights are fundamental, that this government will protect them and that federal agreements, including agreements about aboriginal title, have always protected and will always protect private property. These are the facts. They are on the record. They are not in dispute, except by those who find facts inconvenient to the story that they would prefer to tell, a story that leads to mistrust, anti-indigenous racism and, perhaps most importantly, instability in British Columbia's economy. I want to speak directly to the homeowner in Richmond who read a headline and felt their stomach drop. I want to speak to the family in my riding of Vancouver Granville who have spent 20 years paying down a mortgage and are now wondering whether the ground beneath their home is as solid as they believed it to be. I want to speak to the small business owner who has been asking their bank for financing and getting questions they have never been asked before. These concerns are legitimate. A home is the largest investment most Canadians will ever make. When a court raises questions about the relationship between aboriginal title and fee simple ownership, people are right to ask for clarity. They deserve a serious answer, not a slogan or a sound bite, so allow me, if you would, Mr. Chair, to give them one. Three principles guide this government's response to the Cowichan decision. First, we believe in the security of private property. Canadians who hold title to their homes and their land must be able to rely on that title. This should not be a partisan position. It is the foundation on which families plan their future, on which businesses make investments and on which our economy functions. Second, we believe in the principles of reconciliation. Reconciliation is not a slogan, and it is not an obstacle to be managed. It is a constitutional and moral obligation that this country has been working through for generations, and we continue that work patiently, lawfully and in good faith. Third, we believe in building shared prosperity for homeowners, for workers, for businesses and for indigenous communities who have for too long been excluded from the economic life of this country. These are not competing goods. They are connected goods. I want to be honest with the House and with the Canadians watching. The legal questions raised in the Cowichan decision are genuinely complex, and the clarity that Canadians deserve is going to come from where it should come from in our system: from the courts on appeal, with all viable arguments tested and all parties heard. That process is under way. It will take time, and none of us should stand in this place and pretend otherwise, because Canadians deserve, as I said before, a serious answer, not a slogan. They deserve facts, not fearmongering. The Conservative motion before the House asks Canadians to choose between the first principle and the second. It asks them to believe that property rights and reconciliation cannot exist in harmony. This is false and has always been false, and the people advancing that false choice know it is false. Let me say something very clearly. The legal questions we are working through in Cowichan are not questions that indigenous peoples created. They are the product of decisions made by the Crown over generations in a province where most of the land was never covered by treaty. The Crown made those decisions, the Crown bears responsibility to resolve them, and no responsible government should allow any ordinary homeowner to be made afraid, or indigenous peoples to be scapegoated, while that work is carried out. Here is what is being missed in the noise: Almost every party to this litigation has gone to the Court of Appeal. The Government of Canada is appealing. The Province of British Columbia is appealing. The City of Richmond is appealing. Musqueam is appealing. Chief Wayne Sparrow has spoken publicly about Musqueam's deep concern with the decision that declared aboriginal title in what they assert is their own traditional territory. Tsawwassen First Nation is appealing alongside Musqueam on similar grounds. The Cowichan themselves are appealing on different grounds. This is not the picture of settled judgment. This is the picture of a decision that has satisfied almost no one, that produced a clarity that almost no one was looking for and that is now being worked through by our courts exactly as our system is designed to handle it. This is also not the story of homeowners on one side and indigenous peoples on the other. It is the story of a serious country with a serious legal system doing serious work. This includes first nations that are using that very system to seek the clarity that each and every one of us needs and deserves. It is the story that members opposite are refusing to tell because it does not serve a political agenda. The cost of that political agenda and of this misinformation is real and is being paid right now in my home province of British Columbia. Just yesterday, the Business Council of British Columbia released a survey of its members. About 74% of respondents are decreasing investment plans in B.C., one in three are reducing hiring, 41% report harder access to external financing, and 80% of those same business leaders say they continue to support reconciliation as an important goal. Why are they reducing those investments? They are reducing those investments because of misinformation and uncertainty that is being spurred on by people who would like to use the Cowichan decision as a political cudgel. In this House, in this Parliament, we must ensure that does not continue, for the security of the economy in British Columbia and for preservation of the principle of true reconciliation. The people who are supporting reconciliation are very clear. This is a business community that is pro-reconciliation and is exhausted by uncertainty. They are not asking us to choose. They are asking us to lead. The damage is not abstract. Homes are not being built. Jobs are not being created. There are workers waiting for projects that have been paused while financing is renegotiated. There are businesses across B.C. that are delaying decisions; holding back on investment; watching the noise around this case created by politicians, not by the courts; and concluding that the cost of moving forward is too uncertain to bear. That is what irresponsibility looks like in practice, and it is being done deliberately for the political gain of the party opposite. The seriousness of this moment is not lost on the political leadership of British Columbia. The Premier of B.C. has spoken at length about the impact of legal uncertainty on his province. Mayors have spoken. The City of Richmond is in court. There is broad cross-partisan recognition in B.C., not from one party and not from one ideology but from across the political spectrum of my province, that resolving this matters and that the work cannot wait. The only people who seem to disagree are the Conservative members opposite, who have decided that uncertainty and a parliamentary committee are more useful to them than actual resolution of the problem. The Conservatives know exactly what they are doing. They know that the Cowichan decision is under appeal. They know that the Government of Canada, the Province of B.C., the City of Richmond, Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nation have all gone to the Court of Appeal precisely because the legal questions need to be resolved. They know that the Prime Minister has committed, clearly and repeatedly, that this government will defend private property rights. They know the historical record across this country is that modern treaties and negotiated agreements have always protected private property. Not one Canadian has lost their private property as a result of a negotiated agreement. They know this, and they are choosing every day to tell their constituents the opposite because fear is more politically useful than the truth. It is not leadership but a calculation, and the people paying for that calculation are the homeowners they claim to defend. I want to close with a story about what is possible when we get this right. This Friday in my riding of Vancouver Granville, I will be at the blessing ceremony of the opening of Sen̓áḵw. Sen̓áḵw sits in Squamish territory at the foot of the Burrard bridge, where it has always been, in the land, in the stories and in the people. What is new is what is being built there: 6,000 rental homes in a city that is desperately in need of them. This is true reconciliation, where rents to 30% below market are being provided by the Squamish Nation in partnership with the Government of Canada. The Squamish Nation is moving toward economic independence and helping Vancouver provide the housing it needs. Property rights will be respected, indigenous rights will be honoured, homes will be built, and jobs will be created. For the Squamish Nation, there will be prosperity, and for the city that I represent, 6,000 families will be able to call Sen̓áḵw home. That is reconciliation, that is prosperity, and that is what is possible when we refuse the false choice being put upon us by the opposition. That is happening in real time in my riding. To the homeowners in my riding and across B.C. who have been worried, the government has appealed the Cowichan decision. We are advancing every legally viable argument to defend the security of fee simple. We have been clear, from the Prime Minister on down, that protecting private property is fundamental to who we are as a country, and we will always stand for that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for yet again, like his colleagues, making light of what is a very serious situation for folks in Vancouver and across British Columbia. There are people who listen to the debates in this Parliament and expect serious discussion and serious debate. What they hear is misinformation, which leads to market uncertainty. Market uncertainty leads to builders not wanting to build affordable homes and to jobs not being created. The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. They should be asking themselves what they will tell their constituents when they ask if the government is going to stand for property rights or not when the answer is yes.

Mr. Speaker, I think the simple answer is no. I would invite members opposite to read beyond the first line of the directive because they would see there is substantial depth there. They should choose to look at the facts. I know my hon. friend here, who is a lawyer, has read the entirety of the decision and would understand why we have to read the whole thing, not just the headlines.