Bill C-30

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) modifying the Labour Mobility Deduction for eligible tradespeople by increasing the annual limit on expenses that can be deducted and by reducing the distance threshold for eligibility;
(b) making permanent the capital gains tax exemption for the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust or a worker co-operative;
(c) extending the repayment grace period under the Home Buyers’ Plan;
(d) providing temporary immediate expensing for eligible greenhouse buildings; and
(e) improving the interaction of the Electric Vehicle Affordability Program with existing tax rules.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to temporarily set the excise tax rate on gasoline and aviation gasoline to $0.00 and on diesel fuel and aviation fuel to $0.00 for the period beginning on April 20, 2026 and ending on September 7, 2026. It also amends the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 to implement an additional two-year extension of the 2% cap on the annual alcohol excise duty inflation adjustment, and of the 50% reduction on excise duty rates for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada, effective April 1, 2026.
Part 3 amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Bank Act to provide that the Investment Canada Act does not apply in respect of certain transactions made by foreign banks or entities associated with a foreign bank if the transactions are subject to an approval under the Bank Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act or the Insurance Companies Act .
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Bank of Canada Act to combine into a single Act the Bank of Canada’s powers, duties and functions related to the recovery of costs incurred by it for or in connection with the administration of certain Acts. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Payments Act to provide immunity for the Canadian Payments Association and certain individuals from any civil liability, other than in contract, for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties conferred under that Act.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) extend, until October 7, 2028, the duration of the measure that increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers;
(b) remove the description of the regions in which the workers must be ordinarily resident to be eligible for the increase;
(c) provide that those regions are established by regulation; and
(d) provide that paragraph 12(2.3)(b) of that Act is repealed on November 7, 2027.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan to reduce the contribution rate for employees, employers and self-employed persons for the year 2027 and each subsequent year.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Canada Transportation Act to require certain individuals and entities to provide the Minister of Transport with information that that Minister considers necessary for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties and functions of that Minister or for the development of transportation policies. The Division also amends that Act to specify the individuals and entities to whom such information may be communicated.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and authorize the Governor in Council to, in certain circumstances, exempt persons, things or activities, or classes of persons, things or activities, from the application of provisions of certain Acts of Parliament, or regulations made under those Acts, that are administered or enforced by the Agency. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act .
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Pest Control Products Act to, among other things,
(a) require the Minister of Health to consider, as appropriate, national economic security, regional economic security or national food security, for the purposes of that Act;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to, by order, after that Minister has decided that they do not consider the environmental risks of a pest control product to be acceptable, register or amend the product’s registration to permit its use in the emergency control of a seriously detrimental infestation, or amend, reinstate, or both reinstate and amend the registration of the product, if the Governor in Council considers it necessary to do so to protect national economic security, regional economic security or national food security; and
(c) provide that the Governor in Council may establish conditions in the order.

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[Eleanor Olszewski, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I will just let you know that I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.

I am pleased to rise today to debate Bill C-30, which is an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28. It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. It has a number of very important economic measures that would help workers, Canadian families and industries get through what we know is a bit of a challenging time for our country.

Before I get into a lot of the measures here, I find it necessary to point out that, in the finance committee last week, the Conservatives unfortunately expended 25 hours of parliamentary resources filibustering the bill. We saw them move subamendment after subamendment on the one amendment they had provided. They were not translated, which means that this was used as a stall tactic to hold up the bill. The bill, as I have said, has a number of economic measures that are important for Canadians. We also heard Conservatives in that filibuster talk about everything from elephants and Spider-Man to FIFA security and trees falling in the forest. There were many irrelevant points, and I had to call many points of order to keep us on track.

As such, when members opposite stand up to complain about not having enough time to debate important bills and legislation, as they did yesterday, maybe they should prioritize committee time, which is designed specifically to study those bills and get into those debates, not to waste those parliamentary resources and then complain about it afterward. We found out at the end of that filibuster that, in fact, the stall tactics they had used were not actually about Bill C-30.

All of it was under the cover of wanting to debate clauses and provide subamendments, but we found out, on the record, when one of the Conservative members finally stated it, that this was actually about holding our committee hostage to extract and force out of the government concessions on another bill, Bill C-22, which is related to lawful access. Lawful access is obviously something that we all, on this side of the House, want to provide to law enforcement so it can do the important investigative work to crack down on organized crime in this country.

Bill C-30 has measures that are important for us to get through before the House rises. It includes suspending the excise tax on fuel and extending that to aviation fuel. It includes a cap on the excise tax for alcohol, wine, spirits and beer. Craft brewers have been asking for this. Obviously, it would be capped at 2% of the escalator on the excise tax on alcohol.

We would also extend the grace period for repayment of RRSP withdrawals for Canadians who access their RRSPs to purchase their first home. We would be making permanent the capital gains exemption for employee ownership trusts and workers' co-operatives for businesses that are owned and operated by individuals who want to sell to their employees. This is a really great measure, something I have advocated for strongly.

We would also be lowering CPP contributions by 40 basis points, which members opposite had time to talk about in committee. I could speak at length to that. It is a small but important measure to help workers to lower those contributions in a way that would not compromise the Canada Pension Plan in any way, shape or form, so that would be good.

The labour mobility tax deduction would also be enhanced through the bill. It would move from $4,000 per year to $10,000 a year. Skilled trades workers who travel for work would be able to write off expenses of up to $10,000 in a single year, so that is significant support at $6,000 more per year. Basically, they would have more of those hard-earned dollars to spend how they choose.

We would also extend EI support for seasonal workers. We have offered immediate expensing for greenhouses. If colleagues remember, immediate expensing was a feature of budget 2025. It is very important, I would suggest, because it would allow businesses, in a time of great uncertainty, to invest and make capital investments in improving their businesses at a time when there is a lot of uncertainty, which would not happen otherwise.

We have moved forward with a number of immediate expensing measures, which include research and development, IP protection, new IT technology and other forms of energy efficiency measures that businesses can implement. It includes new equipment and machinery as well. We have also extended it to greenhouses. Obviously, this would help. It is integrated into our national food security strategy as well as a measure to help growers and producers in Canada to build more greenhouses and then be able to write that off as a business expense in year one.

The immediate expensing measures have already had an effect in the economy. We see business investment in two categories rising at a pretty steep rate, over 10%, both in new machinery and equipment and in IP protection. Those two categories are specifically covered under the immediate expensing measures that we are now enhancing for greenhouses.

We have also made some changes to the Bank Act and the Canada Transportation Act. Both of these measures are small but significant. Under the Canada Transportation Act, the minister would be able to request information from airports and allow better policy development.

This is a list, at a high-level overview, of the measures in Bill C-30 that I think would be very meaningful for workers, families and Canadians. They are part of our plan to get the Canadian economy through a challenging period while we step up to support in multiple ways.

Obviously, the world order is a bit fractured right now. There is lots of uncertainty, but our government is grounded in trying to support greater self-sufficiency, domestic resilience and strengthening the economy. We can handle the upheaval that is happening around the world and get the Canadian economy through a challenging time. Bill C-30 is a part of that plan, and I will mention, in a little more detail, some of the measures that are in it.

One of the measures I mentioned in Bill C-30 is the temporary suspension of the federal fuel excise tax to effectively zero cents per litre on gasoline and diesel fuel nationwide. This would provide a savings of 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel from April 20, 2026, through to Labour Day. The bill would also extend the suspension of the excise tax to aviation fuel over the same period to help mitigate the very high costs of jet fuel.

I will take a minute here before my time runs out to speak to the labour mobility tax deduction. Again, this is a key measure for our skilled trades workers.

We see the Canadian economy being more resilient than was anticipated by anyone who did projections. We saw 88,000 new jobs in the last labour market survey that was done. That is good news for Canadians. Of those jobs, 27,000 were in the construction industry, which is great news for the Canadian economy, especially when the construction season is under way and we want to build Canada up. There is a lot of work in developing the infrastructure, housing, defence capabilities, etc. that the country needs.

Having a labour mobility tax deduction is good news for many of those workers who may need or want to travel to contribute to Build Canada Strong. As we build that infrastructure, there will be more jobs for Canadians, and we will see those jobs increase, I am sure, in the months ahead. It is good news to be able to write off another $6,000 of travel and living expenses due to having to travel for work. It is a great measure that would keep more money in their pockets.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his speech and actually admitting in his words that we are in “a bit of a challenging time for our country.” His terminology for this may be a little bit off when we have seniors having to live in their vehicles because they cannot afford rent. We have record numbers of working people and young families relying on food banks just so that they can survive because of the ever-increasing cost of living over the last 10-plus years.

I would like to ask the member if he would like to clarify for this House, and for Canadians, which government has been in power for the last 10, now almost 11 years, I guess, and is responsible for this challenging time, as he put it.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the member opposite lives exactly or what world he is living in, but to say that global shocks to the Canadian economy that put challenges on Canadian families are the government's fault is just lunacy, since he asked me.

I think Canadians out there know the reality is that the world is going through a number of global shocks. Every single country that I have talked to at the OECD is going through exactly the same things. Our government is stepping up to help Canadians, to meet them where they are at, to offer affordability measures and supports while we boost the Canadian economy with new investment within our fiscal capacity, which is the responsible thing to do.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary is a friend, so when I say a friend, it is not just rhetoric, but I am disappointed. When Bill C-30 was first tabled, I asked the hon. parliamentary secretary for finance if it would not be wise to remove division 8 from an omnibus budget bill, so that the pesticide provisions would not just be studied by the finance committee, but go to the appropriate committee of environment or health. At the time, he said he would get back to me. I do not blame him that he did not have time and, certainly, I know those decisions are not necessarily made by the parliamentary secretary for finance at all.

However, does he now not regret, having heard how significant the concerns are from across this country that this bill was not properly studied, that division 8 received no expert review at all?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I definitely sympathize with the member's predicament. The motion that was used to program our time at the finance committee came from the Conservatives. We agreed to a programming motion.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is the truth, which is that the motion that we agreed to to program our time at the finance committee to study Bill C-30 was proposed by the Conservatives.

The committee came to consensus on how many hours it was going to spend on how much witness testimony, what ministers were going to come. That is exactly what we followed through with.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. We spent many hours together at the Standing Committee on Finance. I would like to hear his opinion, because things move very quickly here and sometimes we do not have time to discuss things.

I would like to know how he felt during all those hours when we were unable to move the bill forward, when we could not make any progress because of the opposition's filibusters. We know what families and seniors are going through right now, and that is why we want to move forward. That is why people elected us.

What was my colleague feeling during all that time?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be honest, I felt sort of embarrassed for the Conservatives because they were on camera in public meetings, embarrassing themselves as they were filibustering a bill and wasting parliamentary resources. They then stood up in this House and claimed they needed more time for debate as those bills had not been studied.

Again, the programming motion was from the Conservatives. We agreed to the time frame and the process of how we were going to study Bill C-30, and then they wasted 25 hours of time to block Bill C-30 in times—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The member for Vancouver East, we have time for a very brief question.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous peoples harmed by Canada's colonial systems. They were promised by Indigenous Services Canada that they would receive confirmation for their two-year funding by mid-May. Today there has been no action and their funding ends on July 1.

Can the parliamentary secretary explain why?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to get back to the member opposite on that particular question, but I know our minister has spoken to this in question period and answered the member's questions.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is the last time I will be speaking in the House before the summer, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to those we typically see less of, and without whom our work here would quite simply be impossible.

Every day, behind each of our speeches, debates, votes and committee proceedings, there are hundreds of dedicated professionals who ensure that this institution runs smoothly. I am thinking of the clerks, analysts, interpreters, translators, pages, security personnel, technicians, IT staff, administrative support teams and employees in catering, maintenance, transport and communications, as well as all the staff of the House of Commons Administration.

I am also thinking of all the civil servants and employees in the various departments and agencies who work diligently, with professionalism and impartiality in the service of the Canadian people. Their work is often behind the scenes, but it has an immense impact. Thanks to their expertise, patience and commitment, we are able to fulfill our mandate of representing our citizens and making progress on the issues that matter to Canadians. On behalf of all MPs, I would like to express our deep gratitude. Their dedication contributes to the vitality of our democracy and the strength of our institutions every single day.

I would also like to highlight the exceptional work of our constituency and parliamentary office employees. They are the ones who answer calls, greet constituents, help people navigate their dealings with government departments, organize our meetings, prepare our files and enable us to be present both in our ridings and in Ottawa. They are often the first to hear constituents' concerns and the last to leave the office when an urgent matter needs to be resolved. Their dedication, compassion and professionalism improve the lives of thousands of Canadians in very real ways.

Although our debates sometimes pit us against one another, we all share the good fortune of being supported by competent and committed people who work behind the scenes to move things forward. I would like to sincerely thank all of the women and men who serve our democracy with discretion, integrity and dedication. In particular, I want to thank Nancy, Souraya, Nicholas, Aboubacar and Myriam. I am proud to work with them.

I rise today to speak to the economic update from a perspective that hits home for me, especially as a father and grandfather, and that issue is youth. Current and future generations are the ones building our country's future amid an uncertain, unprecedented and constantly changing environment. Young Canadians embody what is best about Canada: its openness, vibrancy, curiosity, diversity and ambition. They have ideas, opinions and talents and are unafraid of challenges. They want to contribute, build, create and innovate. They want a country that gives them a real chance at success. More than anything, they want to contribute and do their part. Well, this spring, the government reaffirmed the need to invest in them and to ensure that no young person in this country feels abandoned by the government when it comes to rising to the challenges of current, potential or future issues. This is exactly what this economic update is proposing through a host of important measures.

First, let us talk about the team Canada strong initiative, an ambitious plan to recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 young skilled tradespeople by 2030. One of the best ways to support the younger generation while ensuring Canada's prosperity and resilience today and for years to come is to invest in jobs. Team Canada strong provides Canadian workers with paid work placements that lead directly to essential jobs building homes, modernizing infrastructure and strengthening our security. With paid internships, up to $10,000 in grants per apprentice and a $5,000 bonus upon Red Seal certification, we are equipping young people to specialize in an exciting trade while building the Canada of tomorrow.

Then there is education. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada has the most educated population in the world. That is an immense asset, but it is meaningless if even one young person is left behind. No one in Canada should go without an education because they cannot afford it. That is why we are extending the increase in scholarships and interest-free student loans. More than 570,000 students will receive increased support, and more than 420,000 will have access to subsidized loans. That is a direct investment in young people, allowing them to reach their full potential and contribute to our country's growth and economic development.

I am also thinking of young families who have been facing significant increases in the cost of living in recent years due to international upheaval and conflicts beyond our control. The economic update accelerates the construction of rental housing and reduces construction costs. It also includes a national school food program that will provide 400,000 children with access to healthy meals and save parents nearly $800 a year. In addition, it provides for an increase in the Canada child benefit and the Canadian dental care plan, as well as a reduction in child care costs.

This economic update is not just a financial plan. It is a commitment to Canada's youth and a message of hope, confidence and responsibility. We cannot predict Canada's future. We must build it with our young people. Earlier, I spoke about the Red Seal. The Red Seal represents Canadian excellence in many trades. It certifies that a worker has met the highest standards of skill recognized across the country. Whether they are an electrician, welder, industrial mechanic, carpenter or work in one of the many other eligible trades, Red Seal holders can practise their profession from coast to coast to coast, knowing that their qualifications are recognized everywhere. This certification allows workers to seize opportunities wherever they arise and gives employers access to recognized expertise, no matter where in the country they are located.

The Red Seal is more than just a certification. It is a symbol. It serves as a reminder that excellence is not limited to boardrooms and research labs. It can also be found in our workshops, on our construction sites and in our factories. In my riding, Beauport—Limoilou, and throughout Quebec and Canada, many business owners are talking about how hard it is to recruit skilled workers, who are essential to our economy. They are essential to our ability to build faster, produce more and innovate. That is why we continue to promote skilled trades among young people, individuals in the process of changing careers and newcomers who want to contribute to our economy.

Lastly, Canada has what the world wants. We are a true energy superpower, in both clean energy and conventional energy. We also have immense reserves of the critical minerals that are essential to the global energy transition and the technologies of tomorrow. We enjoy privileged access to international markets through free trade agreements with countries that represent more than 1.5 billion consumers. We are already beginning to see the results.

In just 12 months, Canada has developed more than 20 new economic and defence partnerships with international partners. These efforts have helped to bring in nearly $97 billion in foreign investment to our economy. This is just the beginning. In September, our government will be hosting the first-ever Canada investment summit. This event will bring together investors, businesses, institutional partners and decision-makers to showcase the unique opportunities that Canada has to offer.

We have the resources, the talent, the institutions and the economic and political stability that investors around the world are looking for. Now, we also have a clear plan to turn this advantage into growth, into well-paying jobs and into lasting prosperity for future generations.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Ping Beaton. She was a devoted wife and mother. I give my deepest condolences to her husband, Lawrence, who taught me in high school, and her daughter, Geralyn. May perpetual light shine upon her.

With the greatest of respect to my colleague, I have to say that sounded like a speech that was provided by a bureaucrat. He talked about the Canada investment summit. Can he tell us where that is taking place, please?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the Canada investment summit will be held in Canada. I talked about the $97-billion investments earlier. Those are investments that Canada already has. Every week, billions of dollars continue to be added because of our economic and political stability.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand. Bill C-30 suggests that the government would open the door to the privatization of certain airports, and that it even intends to go ahead with this plan.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that. For example, if a decision were made to privatize the Quebec City airport, would he be okay with that?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the first part of his question.

He mentioned la-la land. What I find funny is that I get the impression he was talking to himself. Here is what I took from the Bloc Québécois after watching them during the debate on Bill C-30: They spent all their time complaining, but made no proposals. The Bloc Québécois did not table any amendments during consideration of Bill C-30. It did not table any amendments, yet spent all its time voting against the measures. It voted in favour of some measures and against others, but it voted against the final outcome. It did not put forward any proposals.

We, on the other hand, are in the real world. We have put forward proposals. We have even tabled amendments which the opposition voted for.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on my friend's comment that we live in the real world. The real world is looking pretty good in terms of where Canada has been since the last federal election. We have a Prime Minister who has been out and about, attracting literally billions of dollars in commitments of investment. We have 20 trade and defence agreements. We have passed trade bills. We have passed all sorts of substantive legislation, not only to be able to deal with building a strong economic Canada but also to deal with other aspects of building a stronger Canada.

I am wondering if there has been, over the last years, anything the member would like to highlight from his perspective.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I entered into politics, I wanted to do the same thing I did in the private sector. I wanted the money to be spent here at home. I am from Quebec City. Beauport—Limoilou is in Quebec City. The important thing is that the spending happens here.

Now I work at the federal level. The money needs to come back here and be spent here. I am pleased to see the government investing here, in our infrastructure, for the future of our children.

We need to plan for short-, medium-, and long-term investments. That is what we are doing. There are announcements regarding the long term. There are announcements regarding the medium term. There are announcements regarding the shorter term.

I am thinking of the Quebec City tramway. That is $2.75 billion invested right here at home, which will also lead to billions of dollars in housing investment. In fact, $2 billion have already been earmarked. Government investments attract private investment, and that is how we build Canada.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-30 contains proposed new provisions under the Privacy Act and the Canada Transportation Act to assess the full value of our publicly owned airports. Rumours in British Columbia dictate that part of the new security agreement with China would allow Chinese companies to buy airports in Canada.

Can the member confirm or deny this?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my colleague look at the final vote on Bill C-30 to see how many of the Conservatives' amendments were adopted. The answer is a big fat zero. Not a single amendment proposed by the Conservatives was adopted.

Their amendments were designed for the sole purpose of obstructing the process. In fact, when it came time to vote, the Conservatives withdrew them all.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to start off by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

It is with great honour that I rise in the House to speak on behalf of the hard-working folks of Elmwood—Transcona. My speech today will centre on the spring economic statement, with a specific focus on the updates regarding trades and labour. Before becoming a member of Parliament, I worked as a construction electrician. My last day on a ladder was actually March 21, 2025, just two days before the election was called, and I am still the sitting vice-president of my local, IBEW Local 2085 in Winnipeg.

When I reviewed the spring economic update, I was thankful to see some efforts that would benefit Red Seal tradespeople through a plan to recruit and train 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trade workers by 2030, with a 50% reduction in time. To do this, the Liberal government wants to give Red Seal tradespeople a national registered apprenticeship number. However, the major problem that would arise is that different jurisdictions have different rules in place that would need to be addressed before any interprovincial harmonization could take place.

Furthermore, following the implementation of this plan, the Liberal government wants to have more training and exams be online, but as we learned during COVID, online training is not really effective for the trades. Trades training requires real-life scenarios and hands-on instruction. These critical classes must continue to be taught in person so apprentices can receive training in real-world environments and so they can become comfortable with the powerful equipment they will be operating.

Right off the bat, the online testing plan and secure credentials would have adverse effects on trade workers who are trained under the current system. As I said, different jurisdictions have different certification processes and training requirements. According to the Liberal government, its goal is to build one Canadian economy instead of 13. The unintended consequence of this is that a national registered apprenticeship number would force a top-down standardized system that would not have automatic buy-in from the provinces. Extensive consultation would be required with all the provinces to get their buy-in on a national apprenticeship system. It is a bit of a “cart before the horse” thing.

Furthermore, several active federal apprenticeship grants were shut down by the current Liberal government without justification. Just one year ago, in 2025, the apprenticeship incentive grant, the apprenticeship incentive grant for women, and the apprenticeship completion grant were all shut down. In addition, in 2024, the apprenticeship service program was shut down. All these programs, which were designed to support apprentices through their education, were very important to young Canadians looking to break into the trades. They were supports I relied on when I was an apprentice, yet they were all closed by the Liberal government.

Now the Liberal government has decided to enact the build Canada apprenticeship service, with a new announcement of the same apprenticeship grant it cancelled just one year ago. The government is essentially trying to take credit for creating a program exactly the same as the one it shut down. While the Liberals are patting themselves on the back, many apprentices who relied on that funding left their journey in the Canadian trades because the government turned its back on them. The cuts undoubtedly had significant impacts on apprentices who were already in the training program.

In a 2025 article, the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada pleaded for the government not to abandon apprenticeship supports, explaining that 70% of apprentices used the original apprenticeship incentive grant to cover the cost of training expenses such as tools, and 32% of apprentices used part of the grant for general living costs. We need to support Canadians who are eager to build. The last thing the Liberal government should be doing is turning its back on them.

In 2024, I read a Global News article titled, “Manitoba stakeholders concerned as federal government tosses apprenticeship grants”. This article predicted the very concerns that trade workers had with the government's decision to cut the apprenticeship grants. Darryl Harrison, director of stakeholder engagement with the Winnipeg Construction Association, was interviewed in the same article and said, “the removal of this grant seems like a backward step to us.”

Many apprentices counted on receiving the grant from the government and not needing to get a loan. Curtis Haines, an electrical apprentice at the time, stated that losing the apprenticeship incentive grant may have been a deal breaker for many of his peers and colleagues who had other financial responsibilities such as bills and young families. When I started in the electrical trade, I was a late bloomer in the trade, with small children. I needed every dollar of support I could get. Those grants helped me make ends meet, and many of my classmates at the time relied on those same supports.

Another piece of worker policy in the spring economic update that I want to address is the Liberal government's promise to quicken the process of training new Red Seal skilled trade workers by 50%. Rushing the training of Red Seal trade workers can have negative impacts on their education, especially when it comes to their safety training. It is clear to me that the Liberals want to treat workers as inputs on a spreadsheet, to get workers certified as quickly as possible so they can get each unit under way, regardless of the risk. In reality, it is important for apprentices to have the quality education and training that prepares them for the job site. Job sites can often be a dangerous workplace.

Another major issue that the spring economic update fails to mention is that there has not been any additional funding for seats in post-secondary institutions that provide training. For example, in Manitoba, Red River College Polytechnic, a post-secondary institution offering many skilled trades programs, has been forced to temporarily shut down certain programs because of inconsistent messaging around support from the federal government

On top of program cancellations, post-secondary institutions have had to reduce seat capacity and cut the number of students accepted into the programs. Many instructors have been laid off due to course cancellations. Many programs have waiting lists but cannot expand capacity because the spring economic statement expanded funding to only a portion of the training journey of an apprentice. Red River College Polytechnic is hardly the only one. Many trades colleges across Canada have faced similar issues.

The reality is that there seems to be a disconnect between what the Liberal government plans on doing and the situation we are currently facing on the ground. The Liberals are claiming that they want to add a significant number of new Red Seal trained trade workers, yet educational institutions no longer have the resources nor the capacity to welcome new students. The Liberals have no plan to address these shortages, and the longer they continue to ignore what is happening on the ground, the more unrealistic their targets will become. This sounds familiar.

Their plan also fails to explain how they will make sure that skilled trade workers will continue having good-paying and reliable jobs available to them in Canada. In the spring economic update, the Liberal Party claims that, with the team Canada strong plan, they would be creating clear pathways for young Canadians to get into good jobs. They are quite sure that these job opportunities will arise, yet they are simply ignoring the fact that, according to StatsCan, there are 207,000 unemployed Canadians in the trades right now.

How can Canadian workers have faith in the system when the system is not interested in looking out for them? The unfortunate reality is that after we worked with the Liberals to pass Bill C-5 nearly one year ago, giving them sweeping infrastructure powers with the development of the Major Projects Office, nothing has come of it. It is a shame that we are not building in this country. After 11 years of inaction, we have simply fallen behind globally.

For people who are not familiar with the trades, I will explain that apprenticeship training can be broken down into two main sections: technical training in the classroom and field hours on the job site. Field hours are the most important part of any apprenticeship training in the trades, and without adequate field hours, an apprentice will not secure their Red Seal certification. Simply put, apprentices need jobs in order to continue building infrastructure in Canada. With the lack of jobs, apprentices are having greater difficulty completing their training.

The Liberals can throw all the money at training and programs that they want to. However, if we want to truly support the workers of tomorrow, we need to get trades jobs flowing in Canada. The Liberals should be focusing on finding solutions to the problems they have ignored over the last decade. It is not enough to just encourage young Canadians who are looking to get into the trades as a possible future to get certified, only to find out that they will not be able to find job opportunities.

The road back from this mess starts with support for trades colleges, certainty that apprentice funding remains constant, a clear promise to never cut trades funding again, and a push to get major projects going and to get jobs flowing back into Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want the member to recognize the degree to which the Conservative Party always wants to talk down the economy. It brings me to yesterday, when we found out that thePrime Minister went to the G7 and that 13 new deals were signed off, with countries such as Japan, Italy, Denmark, France, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal, five billion dollars' worth of agreements.

Take a look at the major projects that are coming down the line, over $100 billion in the coming years. In terms of the export trade opportunities, foreign investment coming to Canada is reaching record highs. Investing in Canadians is something we are doing. That is going to expand the opportunities. We just brought in a housing component of $1.7 billion. Ontario's markets are—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, these are all things that are going to be coming, maybe, one day in the future. The spring economic statement, we are debating today. We are talking about tradespeople today, and those tradespeople do not have jobs.

[Jim Belanger, Conservative, Sudbury East—Manitoulin—Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as a tradesman himself, my hon. friend knows the importance of hands-on experience. With so much discussion about the Red Seal program and Bill C-30, would he speak to how essential access to jobs is for apprentices to complete their training and succeed in skilled trades?

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a crucial part of trades training. As an apprentice, one gets about 300 hours in school and 1,800 hours per level in the field. Without jobs, people are not going to have the 1,800 hours, and they will never complete a Red Seal.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am really impressed, hearing the member for Elmwood—Transcona talking about his personal background.

I have been impressed when travelling in Winnipeg, with the co-op work and housing and building using prison labour by Shaun Loney. I wonder if the hon. member, as someone experienced in the trades, thinks that holds promise for getting tradespeople into a field where we have a lot of skills gaps right now.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think supporting trades in any way that we can, and also supporting building homes, is always a good thing.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to share his views on the provision in Bill C-30 that gives the minister the power to approve the use of a pesticide that has been banned by Health Canada.

Does he not think that this is a slippery slope?

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be honest. I am a Red Seal electrician. I really do not know anything about pesticides.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I misspoke. The term “prison labour” has connotations that I did not intend. The projects I mentioned in homebuilding in Winnipeg involve people who have been convicted of crimes, have served their sentences and then avoid recidivism by building homes.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, business capital investment declined 0.7% last quarter, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline. This was reported by Statistics Canada on May 29. Would the member comment?

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in construction, the first thing businesses do when we enter a recession is stop building. They stop reinvesting, and when business investment declines, so does construction and, in turn, trades jobs, so this is definitely a big concern.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to deviate slightly from protocol, as I would like to speak about a colleague who is held in high regard by all. His zest for life is unmatched. I am, of course, referring to our colleague from Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, who suffered a serious medical emergency last week. I would like to commend his assistant, Lauriane, who acted with calm and composure. Without her, our colleague would probably no longer be with us today. I thank her for what she did.

On behalf of the member for Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, I would also like to thank all my colleagues on both sides of the House who have written to wish him a speedy recovery. It is clear that we can rise above our differences and move beyond party politics. This member is clearly held in high regard by all our colleagues in Ottawa. Finally, on behalf of all parliamentarians, I would like to wish my colleague a speedy recovery. May he get plenty of rest and return to us in fine form in the fall. Be well, my friend.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-30, spring economic update 2026 implementation act. As the parliamentary session draws to a close and members return to their communities, I want to take this solemn moment to offer a rigorous assessment of the past few months, an assessment that, unfortunately, can be summed up in a single word: respect. Actually, it is more accurately described as flagrant, persistent, calculated and insulting disrespect on the part of the Liberal government, day after day, toward Parliament, toward our democratic institutions, and toward all Canadians.

The Parliament of Canada is a sacred place. This is where 343 duly elected members gather to convey the voices, fears, hopes and needs of over 40 million citizens from coast to coast to coast. It is the beating heart of our democracy. What have the Liberals been doing throughout this parliamentary session, and particularly over the past two weeks? They have been stifling democratic debate. They have been shutting down debate over and over through heavy-handed closure motions on bills that are critically important to the future of our country. They shut down debate on Bill C‑14. They shut down debate on Bill C‑26. They shut down debate on Bill C‑20. They shut down debate on Bill C‑9. Finally, they shut down debate on Bill C‑30.

Elected officials did not have the time to study the legislation, question experts in committee or amend the clauses, which needed quite a bit of work. I have a simple question, one that millions of taxpayers are asking: How can Canadians trust the Liberals to manage their money? That is a fundamental question. The Conservatives are asking this on behalf of Canadians, who are still awaiting an answer.

This government's contempt does not stop there. The Liberals have shown that they have no respect for taxpayers' money. Day after day, Canadians send money to Ottawa and ask us to manage it wisely in order to deliver services. That is what we need to do. However, what the Liberals have done is add more bureaucracy and create a never‑ending financial fiasco.

Facts are facts. The Cúram software project had an initial budget of $1.75 billion. It ended up costing $6.6 billion. Instead of calling for an investigation, expressing outrage and saying that this is unacceptable, what did the Liberals do in the economic update? They added another $500 million to that project. Employees are telling us that what they need is not more money, but to be heard.

Employees working with the Cúram system have written to me and spoken to me over the phone. They say that the system is not working and that they are not being listened to, unfortunately. I reached out to the minister. I offered to meet with her and with the employees who use the Cúram system so that they can tell us what is not working so that she could fix it. She turned down my offer. Employees are willing to help us and to help the Liberal government fix this fiasco, but what did the Liberals do? They turned a deaf ear.

The situation involving Maritime Launch Services is a financial scandal. A private company is leasing a parcel of land for $13,500 and subleasing it to the federal government for $20 million a year for 10 years, for a total of $200 million. Then the government asks Canadians to send a portion of their hard-earned paycheque every Thursday, telling them that it is going to manage the money properly. It is embarrassing.

I asked the minister some clear questions. Who signed the contract? Who read the contract? When did the minister meet with that company? I did not get any answers.

For the past few years, we have been fortunate to have social media to keep us connected to the population. People are furious. They are writing to ask me whether the minister gave me an answer and whether he told me who signed the contract. They are asking why I am not allowed to know who signed the contract. This is a flagrant breakdown in transparency on the part of the government.

I asked the minister if I could go meet with the government employees who are telling us that things are not working right but that they are prepared to help us. They have been working with the system for years and are ready to help us because they know it inside out. I am asking the minister to let me go meet with these employees so that they can explain what is going wrong, because that is our role. The minister refuses to meet with them. This is no joke. People working for the government want to help us, but the government refuses to meet with them.

Canadians are frustrated about the way things are being handled, and opposition members are frustrated about how we are being treated right now. When I asked the minister a question about the lease, he said he would set up a meeting so I could get to know some astronauts. Quite frankly, that is embarrassing. I do not want to meet with the astronauts; I want to meet with the managers. Our role is to manage the money that Canadians entrust to us. We must manage this money the way good fathers and mothers do and, above all, the way good managers do. We need to use that money wisely. We must give Canadians services that are worth the money they entrust to us. That is our role.

However, right now, the government is operating by stifling debate over and over. The government is muzzling the opposition and working without respecting Canadians and the money they entrust to us.

We are getting ready to go back to our ridings, get back to our communities and see our constituents. I hope that my Liberal colleagues will also go out and meet with Canadians and listen to them.

I have had the privilege of serving at both the municipal and provincial levels, and now I have the privilege of serving at the federal level. I have always said the same thing: It is a great privilege to be the eyes, ears and voice of our constituents. I hope the Liberals will be the eyes, ears and voice of their constituents this summer, because they are probably going to be surprised by what they hear. Canadians are not happy that their public finances are being mismanaged. They do not like that.

In closing, I would like to share my hopes for when Parliament returns from the summer recess. I hope the government will respect Parliament and answer questions honestly, so that we get real answers. I hope the government will invest in the community rather than continuing to fund bureaucracy. I hope the government will manage Canadians' money in a responsible, disciplined and transparent manner. The people listening to us are probably thinking I am dreaming.

On this side of the House, we will always be there to stand up for Canadians and to ensure that their money is managed wisely.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, since the last election, just over a year ago, when Canadians voted for our current Prime Minister and a new government, we have been listening to the people of Canada. Members will see that listening in every aspect of our legislative agenda and our budgetary measures. People are genuinely concerned about the economy, tariffs and trade, and President Trump. They are concerned about crime. If members look at the legislative agenda and the budget, they will find a reflection of what Canadians were telling us during the last federal election and since then.

I wonder if the member could say the same thing about the Conservative Party, as the government has had a very difficult time getting its agenda through.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not need any lectures from my colleague across the aisle. This is the same member who said that nobody in his riding was calling him about Cúram, even though 48,000 seniors have been waiting for their money for eight or nine months. He was corrected by the government whip.

I will take no lessons from him.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I respect my colleague. He has a sharp mind. He is right to speak out against closure, because this situation is deplorable. It is plain to see that at this rate, the Liberal government will surpass the record set by Stephen Harper's Conservative government. His party apparently holds the record. He can correct me if I am wrong. I was just teasing. The question that I want to ask him is the same one I asked another member.

I am very concerned about the minister being given the power to approve a pesticide that has been rejected by Health Canada. The other member replied that he could not answer because he did not know anything about pesticides. What worries me is that that is the whole problem: The minister does not know either. That raises serious concerns for us.

What does my colleague think of this situation?

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, environmental issues are important issues. I can say that, at this point, Canadians do not have confidence in the current government's handling of many different files.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, all we hear from the Liberals is how great they are and that the government is doing so great. My question for my colleague is simple. If the government is doing so great, why are so many Canadian citizens struggling every single day?

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal government members should make the most of the summer by going into communities and meeting with Canadians, who will tell them exactly what my colleague just said: People are struggling and cannot afford the cost of either groceries or rent.

Just yesterday evening, a 53-year-old man wrote to me about how he recently moved back in with his mother. He has a job, but he cannot afford to pay rent.

It is time for the Liberals to get back out into communities and listen to Canadians.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we recall that the United Nations special rapporteur warned that Canada's temporary foreign worker program can create conditions resembling modern-day slavery. Last month, the San Group, a company operating in Port Alberni, was fined $429,000 and banned for two years for serious violations involving migrant workers.

My office met with those workers, and they were terrified. They feared losing their jobs, their status and the money they had borrowed to come to Canada. It was NGOs, the Salvation Army's Michael Ramsay and Kim Tran, a local Vietnamese interpreter, who stepped up and helped out because the federal government was not there to support these migrant workers who were trying to get help. A two-year ban certainly is not enough. Exploited workers deserve timely support, open permits and a pathway to permanency.

Does my colleague agree that this program needs to be fixed and that there needs to be funding to support workers?

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our position is that temporary foreign workers must have decent workplaces that provide the quality of life every human being deserves. That is paramount in Canada.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in Parliament on what we sincerely hope is the last day before we rise for the summer. I would first like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my very gracious and delightful colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan.

To begin, I will also take a moment to offer some acknowledgements, as my colleague before me did. I want to thank everyone around us here, the House staff, especially the interpreters, but also the staff who work for us in our ridings. I want to mention Lyne, Dominique, Zachary, Victor and Thierry. Thierry works in both places. He is here in the whip's office with Carl, Paule, Steeve, Marilène, Marjorie, Michel and Benjamin. What a dream team.

I would be remiss if I did not speak to my constituents. I encourage the people of Berthier—Maskinongé to enjoy the summer and to rest, recharge their batteries and spend time with their families. I look forward to seeing them at our local events. I hope that they can enjoy everything our beautiful region has to offer, whether it is the Festival de la truite mouchetée de Saint‑Alexis‑des‑Monts in the coming weeks, the Festi‑Force de Saint‑Jean‑de‑Matha a little later, the Festival de la Galette de Louiseville in the fall, or other happenings in the magnificent Berthier—Maskinongé region.

I invite everyone to visit our farmers' markets. It is essential. The people at these markets are the ones who keep our regional economies going. We need to support them. First of all, we will eat better. It is good for our health and the food tastes better. What is more, it is not any more expensive and it brings incredible vitality to our regions. I go to all the markets. There is a good chance people will run into me and we can chat about all sorts of things if we are at the market at the same time. I would like that.

My task today is to discuss Bill C-30. That is not as fun because Bill C-30 took no account whatsoever of the Bloc Québécois' demands. In fact, we were not consulted at all. Bill C-30 was introduced at a time when the government had just cobbled together a majority behind the scenes through backroom deals. I do not know if bribes were paid. I cannot say that because we have no proof. However, there must have been some quid pro quo to convince several elected members to cross the floor, which changed the dynamics and altered the outcome of the election.

Negotiating and getting things moving is not an issue, but we are supposed to do that and work together over the long term. Personally, I belong to the school of politicians who believe that an election campaign lasts a month and a half, not four years. In between, we are supposed to work together—the Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc Québécois, New Democrats and all the independents—to move bills forward and work for the common good. Working together does not mean changing people's political allegiances overnight so that the government can make all the decisions without consulting the opposition. That is not the mandate the public gave this government. I am still condemning it, and I will continue to do so for as long as I can. The truth is, this grievance is not going away.

Bill C-30 includes a lot of problematic provisions, including those related to pesticides. I spoke about this in my questions to my two colleagues who spoke before me. Everyone knows that agriculture and agri-food matter a lot to me. The people who work in these industries are especially important to me. It is on their behalf that I am speaking today as the former agriculture and agri-food critic. We studied this issue extensively. We heard from farmers in committee, and there was one thing that they strongly objected to. They were not asking for the minister to be given the power to provide them with just about any product upon request or to stop hassling them about health and the environment. Never in my life have I met a single, solitary farmer who has said such a thing to me. However, that is what the government is doing today.

As for questions and comments earlier, it is rather mind‑boggling to see how the truth comes out in the House. I asked a colleague what he thought about allowing a minister to authorize pesticides that had been rejected by Health Canada. The colleague said he was sorry, but he did not know much about pesticides so he could not answer me. I appreciated the honest response, but it speaks volumes, because the minister does not know anything about them either. How are ministers appointed? They are appointed based on regional representation and based on whether they are a man or a woman. Cabinet needs to be gender-balanced. They are appointed based on a whole range of factors, and that is fine. That is part of politics. However, they are not microbiologists. They are not experts in the effects of crop protection products on the environment and on the people who apply them.

I am not just thinking of the environment, but also of the farmers who are going to apply these pesticides to their fields. If anyone can authorize anything and people fall sick in future years, we will be no better off. While I do not want to indulge in populism, I admit that it is a very tempting slippery slope. With bills like this, it would be easy to get caught up in populism.

I complained about the fake majority earlier, and I strongly criticize the fact that the opposition is being muzzled. My colleague who spoke before me talked about this: Time allocation has been moved on 10 bills so far, unless I am mistaken. This government is about to beat the Stephen Harper government's record. That is quite a feat. The Conservatives went down in history for that. I see members laughing, but mark my words, the Liberals are going to set a new record. They have made a good start. It is so appalling.

We basically have a Conservative Prime Minister dressed up as a Liberal. Is that not the case? We have a Progressive Conservative government and a Conservative opposition. When it comes time to vote on Conservative measures, not many of us vote “nay” anymore. That is my objective analysis of the current makeup of Parliament. What a mind‑boggling situation.

I want to come back to pesticides and herbicides. This is also true for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA. The bill would give it more authority and change its mandate so that it is not limited to food safety, but also includes an economic dimension. What does that mean? Does that mean that, if a certain product does not make people sick, then it should be approved because it would be good for the bottom line?

How are these statements supposed to be interpreted? I am not making this up. I read out parts of the bill earlier. It is completely ridiculous. I cannot imagine a bill like this passing.

What really surprises me is that there has not been much reaction from the media or the public. Perhaps that is because barbecue season is here and people are not paying as much attention to politics, but these laws are going to be implemented anyway. How long will it take before we see the negative impacts? How many blunders will the minister have to make when it comes to approving these products?

At the same time, I am not saying that the problems are not real. I exchanged letters with Alberta's minister of agriculture for some time over the past few years. She told me about a significant problem with rodent infestations in the fields and asked me to approve a product that I was unfamiliar with. I told her that we had to rely on the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, now known as the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, as well as on Health Canada and the experts.

I have made the following comparison in the House before, but this reminds me of the pandemic, when our Conservative friends were asking us to adopt motions to lift the health measures in place for air travel. Members will recall that Canada was one of the last countries to lift them. We agreed, but nobody here is an epidemiologist. We are elected officials with a wide range of backgrounds. What did we say back then? We said that we agreed in principle, but that we needed to add a phrase indicating that this needed to be done in accordance with public health guidelines. That way, we would not just be doing things willy-nilly.

We should add such a phrase to our Liberal friends' bill to say that the recommendations of the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate must be followed.

The problem is not that the analyses and scientists at these agencies are not good. The problem is that they lack resources and are inefficient. I will give a clear example. Just last week, I read that this agency has finally approved a pilot project to spray pesticides using drones. Spraying these pesticides by airplane from much higher altitudes has been authorized for years. They end up spreading everywhere, including places where they are not needed. It took five years for farmers to be granted permission to apply them in small doses using drones, targeting only the specific areas of the field where they are needed. That is what we were criticizing: inefficiency and, at times, a lack of consistency. We were not asking for just any minister to be given the power to make just any decision. That is utter nonsense. It needs to be changed.

We are at the end of the session, everything is being rushed through, and this is going to be passed in the next few hours. As a citizen who cares deeply about the environment and the health of my constituents, my duty is to protect the future of our children and grandchildren. I must inform the public about this. This is very serious.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated to a certain degree the member's comments when he made reference to the issue of the process. However, I would ask him to realize that, over the years, things have changed considerably. We saw time allocation used during Stephen Harper's government a record number of times.

If the opposition were to get its way regarding legislation, we would never, ever be able to pass important crime legislation and budgetary legislation without the use of time allocation. That is the simple reality of today.

I am very much interested in the member's thoughts about programming in general, whether it is private members' legislation or government legislation.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague enjoyed my speech. That is nice. However, I will tell him that the Liberals are going to beat Stephen Harper if they continue on this path. They are going to break the record.

That is not the way to do it. In my opinion, if, a few months ago, the Liberals had included in the calendar the bills they wanted to deal with on a priority basis for June instead of forcing us to deal with them two weeks before the end of the parliamentary session, forcing everyone to work until midnight and then get up at 6 a.m. to start all over, that would have made sense. We could have developed a work plan and worked together. They did not even talk to us about Bill C‑30 beforehand.

The government should talk to us before introducing bills, and we can make proposals to speed things up.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I asked a Liberal member a very simple question: Could he confirm or deny the rumours in British Columbia that, under the new security partnership between Canada and China and the government's desire to sell federal airport assets, Chinese companies would be able to buy those assets? He could not answer that question.

Does the Bloc Québécois agree that Chinese companies buying Canadian airports would pose security threats to Canada's security intelligence regime?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleague because, unfortunately, in a 10-minute speech, there is not enough time to cover everything, and this is an issue of the utmost importance. The fact that they want to sell the airports simply to improve the bottom line in six months shows that we are dealing with people who cannot see beyond the end of their nose and who figure they will deal with the problems later.

If we sell the airports to the private sector, it will increase costs for individuals. Some infrastructure must remain public. Not only do we oppose foreign companies from China or anywhere else buying these assets, but we also believe they should remain public. We must retain control of our strategic infrastructure. This is fundamental.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I particularly appreciated my colleague's comments regarding division 8 of Bill C-30. He addressed the issue of pesticides and said that reducing health and environmental protections in the agricultural sector is very serious. I just want to ask him if he has any further comments to add.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question because it gives me an opportunity to elaborate on my point, especially if any farmers are listening to us right now and wondering whether we are still working for them. Of course we are. We work for their best interest and in everyone's best interest. We must retain some control. This gives me an opportunity to explain that what we are criticizing is a lack of efficiency. We do not want to take control away. It is important to be guided by science. A whole lot of people in Parliament have been enjoying saying the words “science-based” all week long, but I am not sure whether 25% of them even understand what it means when they say it.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was slow to rise because I was delighted with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé's comments.

We just talked about another topic, infrastructure and airports. Obviously, I have a lot to say about Bill C‑30. I am thinking, for example, of the work done by my colleague from Jonquière on everything to do with the industry. In my riding, workers in the forestry and aluminum sectors need help. The industry also needs help, but the government is doing absolutely nothing. That affects us back home. Budgets, economic updates and supplementary estimates address a number of issues, but a lot of other issues are left out.

When I go back to my riding this summer and speak to people, they will not know what the government has done for them, all the more so because it has put their jobs at risk. The Prime Minister said he would come to the aid of all these industries ahead of the CUSMA negotiations, which are dragging on, yet nothing has been done. The suggestions we made—the entirely reasonable proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois—have fallen on deaf ears with the government. I do not even know if it has looked at them. As my colleague for Berthier—Maskinongé said, we were not consulted on what should be included in these supplementary estimates.

I see this as evidence of contempt on the part of government. An opposition is not there simply to oppose. Yes, that is what we are called, and we are on the other side of the chamber, but we also have proposals to put forward. We see what is missing and what is being done wrong. We see how the government is improvising. That is why we are here. We are also here to improve things, for our constituents, of course, but I think we can also help the constituents of the ruling party.

My colleague demonstrated this on the issue of pesticides: the government decided to shift its priorities. I do not even know if the economy is as important as public health or if it has become even more important. In my view, it is a truly dangerous practice to allow a minister to listen to lobbyists and ultimately decide that a once-banned pesticide is acceptable after all and can be authorized, regardless of the health implications. They can argue that this is truly more important for the economy, but there is also a connection to be made between the economy and security. This is very concerning.

Most of my colleagues have mentioned this, but it is very concerning. The public may not realize it, but it is our role to point out that this is concerning, that the public's health is being put on the back burner to accommodate certain lobby groups that are exerting significant pressure on the government. That is our job.

I said I would talk about transportation, and I also spoke about contempt. I would like to remind members that I represent a huge riding. I cannot help that my riding covers 350,000 square kilometres and is mostly along the river, stretching 1,400 kilometres along its banks. It also includes remote areas, since it is a northern riding. Some of these areas are so isolated that they are almost like islands, and obviously do not have access to the services available to people in major urban centres. That is understandable, but with its bill, the government is threatening some of our hard-won gains. I say “gains”, although not everything is perfect.

Let us look at airports and ports. I know that airports are included in Bill C-30, but the government also added some ports that it wants to get rid of. In my region, on the north shore, particularly in the eastern part, on the lower north shore, there are 15 airports and ports that the government wants to divest itself of. That is a big deal to me. Yes, it is a big number, but it is also huge in terms of its significance and the message it sends to the people of my region.

The government says it has an amazing $25-billion sovereign wealth fund. We have no idea how it will be funded because the government does not have a surplus. What it does have is record deficits. Maybe it needs some ideas. What can it do? It can sell the furniture. It can sell its assets. It can try to squirrel away a little cash, then say that the sovereign wealth fund is funded and will make some amazing projects possible.

In regions like mine, this worries people. Some people may not know this because they are not familiar with every riding, but, in my riding, airports are the only link to the outside world. When we say they are people's only link, that means they are the only way to access health care. Anyone about to give birth or in need of medical care has to get on a plane.

If we want to get mail from Canada Post, for example, it has to come by plane. If we want workers, they have to come by plane. If we want food at times of the year when the supply ship cannot get through because of the ice, it also has to come by plane. I mentioned ice, but even in summer there are ports where food should be arriving, yet they are no longer in service. People are worried.

On the one hand, these are not major ports or airports, and private companies see no benefit in buying them. They really have no interest in doing so. What worries us is that the government wants to divest itself of assets. We are fine with that if it can make money from it, but, on the other hand, we have seen that the only way for the government to make money is to make cuts across the board. It is not creating wealth; it is scraping together a bit here and there, asking where it could find a bit of money, given that it cannot manage to create any. It is absolutely incapable of doing so.

That is what the government is doing right now, so we are wondering whether it is going to help us. For starters, this infrastructure is run down. Some of it is dangerous. We cannot even access some parts of the wharves, even though food is delivered using those wharves. People board boats there too. Their safety is already at risk, and the government is not putting enough money into this infrastructure to maintain it and keep people safe.

Now, the government is saying that it is going to try to sell that infrastructure. It is going to try to sell this rundown infrastructure to someone when it does not bring in any money. That does not work. What is the government telling people in my riding? It is saying that it is simply going to stop taking care of that infrastructure and just abandon it. It is going to close certain airports and shut down certain wharves.

I mentioned 15 ports and airports, but there are more. There is also the Wabush airport, which is going to be put up for sale. Wabush is next door to my riding, and the airport there provides access to some parts of my riding. It is actually in Labrador, but that is where I have to fly into, like many other workers, doctors, nurses and so on. That airport is critical for us.

I think it is contemptuous to turn up like that and make a big announcement saying that the government is going to find $25 billion by selling infrastructure without even telling the public about it. The government should reassure the public by saying that, even though the lower north shore is not profitable, the government will keep its ports and airports and make the necessary updates. The government is always saying that the north should be populated, that it is a strategic territory, that indigenous communities should be supported and that it should be developed.

These are communities of 200, 400, 500 and 1,000 people. By depriving these communities of key infrastructure and the funding that goes with it, the government is telling these communities to close their doors and towns and not engage in development. There would be thousands of square kilometres where absolutely nothing will get done, even though there is extraordinary potential there. What is more, people are already developing these regions. Imagine the effect of such news on these communities when no one calls the developers. Neither the Minister of Transport nor his parliamentary secretary has given an answer to these communities.

Are they supposed to wait on their development projects? We need wharves for development. We need an airport to attract residents. We are trying to develop our tourism industry, but no one will be able to get to our communities anymore, unless they come by rowboat, and they can only do that two weeks out of the year, because the water is too rough the rest of the time.

It is the opposition's job to speak out against this. It is my role as the member of the riding to say that this does not make sense. I have to ask the Liberals to answer our questions. I would really like for the minister to ask me questions about these airports and ports so that I can discuss the situation with him. However, this should not be done with contempt. The government should not be leading people to believe that it is going to make all kinds of money by selling infrastructure that is not sellable and that no private buyers will be interested in.

All of that is just part of what is in Bill C-30. That is the substance. It is unbelievable. As for the form, the government does not even want to discuss it in the House. This is an authoritarian government. I do not like using that word, but it is increasingly applicable.

Ten years ago, I would never have thought that I would have to say this. I spoke about arrogance and contempt. The government does not listen; it puts blinders on and does whatever it wants, even though the members sitting on my side of the House say on behalf of the people of Quebec and Canada that this is not what they want.

I would like the government to listen to us and to give us the proper amount of time to debate. The Liberals are setting a new record for the number of closure motions. Meanwhile, silencing members means silencing the people in my riding and in Quebec.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, when we take a look at this particular legislation, or any other piece of legislation or budgetary measures that the government has brought in since the last election, when Canadians elected a new Prime Minister and a new government, we will find that listening to Canadians is the top priority. Every measure we have brought in is a reflection of what our constituents and Canadians have been telling this government, for example the wealth fund, which the Bloc appears to be opposing. Many other countries in the world have a wealth fund. There is no reason not to be optimistic about Canada's wealth fund, which will enable Canadians to participate in the growth. Many initiatives have taken place, from trade to major projects. I think of the port of Churchill and the port of Montreal, all sorts of opportunities.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague's question in two parts.

First, when I hear that all Canadians have been heard, I would really like my colleague to come to the lower north shore. I invite him to come to the lower north shore and Minganie this summer to tell people that the 15 ports and airports that his government would like to sell off or perhaps even close is really what they asked for. They did not ask for villages to be shut down.

Then, on the subject of the sovereign wealth fund, we are told that all countries have one. However, my colleague is overlooking one small detail: The other countries that have such a fund are funding it with their budgetary surpluses. They are not selling off infrastructure to scrape together a bit of money to set up a sovereign wealth fund. That is the huge difference. Canadians did not ask to be saddled with more debt.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that all sectors of the Canadian economy need significant investment, including aviation, forestry, aluminum and other sectors. However, investment has declined over the past year. On May 29, Statistics Canada reported the following: “Business capital investment fell 0.7% in the first quarter of 2026, the fifth consecutive quarterly decline.”

Could my colleague comment on that?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is just one data point. That said, I will not defend the government. Things seem grim over there, and there is not as much spending as we would like to see to stimulate all sectors of our economy, particularly local ones.

I think a broader perspective is called for—a vision, even. I am sure my colleague feels that the government's current proposal lacks vision. The way I see it, creating a sovereign wealth fund without actually having the money suggests a lack of vision. They have no idea what they are trying to achieve, but they want to look good. It is meaningless. It is basically the same thing. What are they trying to accomplish? How are they going to fix the situation? What is the government's vision? Maybe that explains the figures we are seeing, but I hope this does not become a bad habit.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was packed with truth and clearly articulated. She spoke about indigenous peoples, who are often mentioned here in lofty terms, but who, in reality, still face many challenges. National Indigenous Peoples Day is coming up in a few days.

I would like my colleague to say a few words about that.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke about ports and airports, I was referring to indigenous communities. I am thinking of the Innu communities of Unamen Shipu, Pakuashipi, Nutashkuan and even Mingan and Ekuanitshit, which need this infrastructure to develop.

We are already aware of the needs in these communities, particularly when it comes to housing. We have also discussed infrastructure issues related to water and employment and all manner of issues. There are already a great many areas where we need to take action.

Now the government is saying that we might not be able to get out anymore. It is the same for the communities of Nutashkuan, Unamen Shipu and La Romaine. In short, this shows a lack of respect for first nations. It means the government is not listening to them, and it is certainly not consulting them.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the third time and passed.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act. As parliamentarians, our responsibility is to examine not only what the government has chosen to include in an economic update, but also what it has chosen to leave out.

Bill C-30 would implement selected measures announced in the spring economic update, but budgets and economic updates are not technical exercises conducted by the Prime Minister on his own or by his narrow circle of advisers. They are statements of priorities for all Canadians. This is the hope and vision of what our constituents expect of us: to take off our blind spots and look at the bigger picture. What we ask of the Prime Minister today is to review what the government values, where it is prepared to invest and whose needs it is prepared to postpone.

The question before us is not simply whether the measures contained in Bill C-30 should proceed. The question is whether this bill would respond to the realities Canadians are living every day. This is where my concerns lie, which is that this legislation does not not meet the moment of the challenges everyday Canadians face. It does not live up to the hype of the projected progressive Prime Minister that was portrayed during the election or what we have come to read about him. There is a dissonance between words and action, and therein lies the problem. In my constituency of Vancouver East and in communities across this country, the gap between policy and lived experience is widening, and the concerns around the centralizing tendency of the government are being noticed across the country.

In Vancouver East, constituents are facing housing insecurity, food insecurity, gaps in health care coverage. uncertainty in indigenous housing initiatives, delays in compensation programs and rising affordability pressures across every essential service. They are also increasingly concerned about federal priorities shifting toward expanded military spending while social programs remain underfunded or delayed. Across all these areas, a pattern is becoming unmistakable: announcements without delivery, commitments without timelines, programs without certainty sunsetting out of existence, and decisions increasingly centralized in Ottawa, far removed from the communities they affect.

Communities know what they need, municipalities know what they need, indigenous housing providers know what they need and frontline organizations know what they need, yet funding decisions remain concentrated in Ottawa while people on the ground continue to experience delays, uncertainty and shifting eligibility rules. This is not administrative complexity. This is a failure of delivery, and Canadians are living the consequences of this unfortunate reality.

I will begin with first nations education. In B.C., first nations education is supported through the BC Tripartite Education Agreement between first nations leadership, the province and Canada. At the centre of that agreement is the First Nations Education Steering Committee. This is not a symbolic structure. It is the core funding architecture for first nations education in B.C. It determines staffing, curriculum and infrastructure. It determines whether first nations children have stable access to education. It is in effect the backbone of educational stability for first nations students in this province.

Despite early assurances that a renewed long-term agreement would be included in the 2026 spring economic update, first nations partners were instead informed that only a one-year extension would be provided. A one-year extension does not provide for stability. It produces uncertainty, and uncertainty in education is not abstract. It affects staffing, planning and children's outcomes. The First Nations Education Steering Committee and first nations leadership have been clear: What is required is a 10-year renewal agreement that provides predictability, continuity and proper fiscal planning. Reconciliation is not achieved through short-term extensions, but is achieved through durable commitments that governments keep. Right now, that certainty is missing.

The same pattern is evident with support for survivors of residential schools. Many indigenous leaders, survivors and advocates have repeatedly raised stable funding for the Indian Residential School Survivors Society. For decades, survivors have carried the trauma inflicted by Canada's residential school system. They have carried grief, loss and intergenerational harm resulting from policies designed to erase indigenous identities, cultures and communities. Today, many continue to rely on the Indian Residential School Survivors Society for culturally appropriate counselling, crisis support and healing services.

In fact, for 30 years, the Indian Residential School Survivors Society has provided support to indigenous people harmed by Canada's colonial systems, the sixties scoop, the ongoing missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and 2S+ crisis, and more, yet despite repeated commitments to reconciliation, despite having been told by Indigenous Services Canada that the organization would receive confirmation for its two-year funding by mid-May, to date, there is still no action. The funding will end on July 1. This delay is going to have serious operational impacts for the people it serves. The organization continues to seek certainty regarding its long-term core funding.

Reconciliation cannot depend on year-to-year uncertainty. Reconciliation is not a slogan. It is not a press release. It is not a commemorative statement. Reconciliation requires action. It requires resources. It requires government to ensure that organizations serving survivors have the certainty necessary to continue their work. If the government can find fiscal room for subsidies for big oil, it can find the resources necessary to provide stable support to those serving residential school survivors.

Turning to housing, the “for indigenous, by indigenous” urban, rural and northern indigenous housing strategy was something that the Liberals committed to in the last Parliament. It was something that the NDP prioritized in the confidence and supply agreement. I fought for that. We fought for that and won interim funding of $300 million and long-term funding of $4 billion over seven years for FIBI URN, and an equivalent amount of $4 billion over seven years for distinction-based funding, yet the funding of the long-term component has yet to flow.

Indigenous housing providers continue to face uncertainty about governance, timelines and implementation. Even as funding is referenced in the federal announcements, there remains no clear guarantee that delivery will remain indigenous-led in practice, nor a firm timeline for rollout. While policy frameworks evolve in Ottawa, indigenous communities continue to experience the highest rate of homelessness in Canada. In Vancouver alone, indigenous people represent a disproportionate share of those experiencing homelessness, despite being a far smaller share of the population. They are the predictable result of decades of underinvestment and policy delay.

Housing providers are ready to build. Friendship centres are ready to build. Indigenous-led organizations are ready to build. The problem is not capacity. The problem is execution. People cannot live in promises of affordability. They cannot sleep in frameworks. They cannot raise children in consultations.

Constituents are also increasingly concerned about rental assistance for co-operative housing members. Co-ops work. They provide stability. They provide affordability. They provide community-based housing that has proven effective for decades.

Phase 2 funding under the federal community housing initiative will sunset. This subsidy support is critical to co-op housing members whose household incomes would cause them to pay more than the current 25% rent geared to income. If this program is not renewed, more than 14,400 families across the country will lose their homes. Rising Star and China Creek, for example, in my riding, will be hit hard if the rental assistance subsidy is not renewed. The expiry of the FCHI phase 2 funding without a successor program or extension risks undoing decades of investment in this model and displacing established community members, including families with young children and seniors who depend on it. Access to rental assistance is necessary to enable co-ops to be a deeply affordable housing solution. FCHI cannot, and must not, sunset.

Aside from housing, Van East constituents continue to raise serious concerns about the Canadian dental care plan. I have written to the minister regarding applications for medically necessary procedures, including crowns, that are being rejected using template language that provides no meaningful explanation of what criteria were not met. Patients are left without clarity, providers are left without guidance, and appeals are effectively blocked.

Even more troubling are cases where some of my constituents were previously approved for the Canadian dental care plan, received care in good faith and are now being told that they are not eligible after all. In some cases, they are even being asked to repay benefits that they already received. These are often seniors who opted out of private dental care insurance years ago because premiums were unaffordable on fixed incomes. At the time of approval, they met eligibility criteria and were approved. They acted in good faith. They made irreversible financial decisions based on the government's approval. Retroactive reassessment after reliance undermines trust in public programs. A system cannot function if eligibility is uncertain at the outset and reversible after the fact. This is not fairness. This is instability.

Health care affordability is another glaring omission from this bill. Many Canadians welcomed the promise to establish an expanded universal pharmacare, yet constituents increasingly tell me that they worry that those promises are being quietly abandoned. They see that the Prime Minister is abandoning the provinces and territories that did not sign the pharmacare agreement prior to the last election. People do not care about talking points. They care about whether or not they can afford their medication. They care about whether they must choose between prescriptions and groceries. They care about whether universal pharmacare will actually become universal. The Prime Minister sent a clear message that universal pharmacare is not a priority for him when the spring economic update did not provide additional resources to this key initiative.

On affordability, Canadians are increasingly concerned about surveillance pricing. This is the use of personal data, behavioural tracking and algorithmic systems to charge different prices to different individuals for identical goods and services. It means two Canadians can stand in the same digital marketplace and see different prices based on what a corporation believes they can pay. Even when legislation such as Bill C-36 references algorithmic pricing risks, it does not actually prohibit surveillance pricing. It does not even name it. It does not stop it. Instead, it leaves Canadians exposed to opaque pricing systems that they cannot see and cannot challenge.

Premier Wab Kinew has taken decisive action in Manitoba to stop it. The Prime Minister and this government have refused to take a stand. What side is the Prime Minister on? Unlike the Liberals, who will always be on the side of big corporations, the NDP will stand on the side of the people. That is why I will be introducing a private member's bill this fall to ban surveillance pricing outright.

Food safety is also at stake. Proposed changes to pesticide regulation have raised concerns from environmental and public health organizations, including Ecojustice, which warns that reforms risk weakening scientific oversight and transparency. Canadians expect food safety to be grounded in independent science. They expect precaution where health is at stake. They expect transparency in regulatory decision-making. Anything less undermines public trust.

My constituents have also raised concerns regarding the Prime Minister's intention to privatize ports and airports. Even Stephen Harper would not dare to touch these critical assets. They are strategic national infrastructure essential to supply chains, trade and economic resilience. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission repeatedly flagged concerns over monopoly pricing, noting that user costs, passenger charges and parking fees surged dramatically. Airlines passed escalating landing fees directly to passengers via higher ticket prices when they privatized. The Shipping Australia industry association noted that private port operators prioritized maximizing shareholder returns, implementing heavy rent increases on terminal tenants that trickled down into standard freight and consumer goods. If Canada goes down this track, this is what Canada can expect.

This neo-liberal playbook seems to be from another era. A broad pattern is emerging. We are seeing the increasing centralization of decision-making in Ottawa from the Prime Minister. We are seeing delays in social program delivery and increased military spending, alongside constrained social investments. Budgets are about choices, and choices are about priorities. Canadians are asking, what does increased military spending mean for housing, for pharmacare, for dental care, for indigenous housing, for transit and for disability supports? These are not abstract fiscal questions. They are real-world opportunity costs, and Canadians deserve transparency about them.

In Vancouver East, the consequences are very real and very visible. Seniors are relying on food banks. Families are skipping meals. People are delaying medical care. Housing is increasingly out of reach. Affordability is being eroded not just by prices but by systems that are less transparent and less responsive. One constituent described losing weight because they cannot afford enough food. Another, a 77-year-old senior, said they are relying on a food bank for the first time in their life. These are not isolated cases. They are becoming systemic. As one constituent put it, on the issue of transit, we need our transit to green commutes more than we need another pipeline.

Every budget decision involves trade-offs. Canadians deserve transparency about those trade-offs. We are faced with deep drought conditions across Vancouver Island, the Okanagan, the Chilcotin and the South Thompson regions. Climate change is real. Instead of investing in transit, the spring economic update cuts it by $5 billion, while the Prime Minister signs an agreement with Alberta to build yet another pipeline. Canadians deserve to know why the Prime Minister would prioritize pipelines over funding for transit expansion, especially when B.C. faces the highest and most sustained fire risk in the country.

Similarly, Canadians deserve to know why billions of dollars can be found for military expansion when communities continue to be told to wait for desperately needed social investments. If the government believes military spending must increase, it should explain why the same urgency is absent when it comes to homelessness, poverty, housing and health care. Increased military spending is happening when there has not been a robust public debate on it, during the last election or thereafter. It was just announced by the Prime Minister as a fait accompli.

Many constituents have raised concerns regarding military goods and components exported to the U.S. that may subsequently be transferred elsewhere without the same level of scrutiny that applies to direct Canadian exports. Those concerns were reflected in proposals such as my private member's bill, Bill C-233, the no more loopholes act, which was defeated by the government. Canadians want robust risk assessments. They want transparency. They want accountability. They want assurances that Canadian-made military goods are not contributing to human rights violations or breaches of international humanitarian law. Economic policy and trade policy cannot be separated from human rights obligations.

Many constituents have also written regarding the humanitarian crisis facing the Cuban community. They have called on Canada to increase humanitarian assistance; support access to food, medicine and fuel; and pursue constructive diplomacy. They have urged Canada to work with international partners to ensure that relief reaches those in need and to maintain an independent foreign policy grounded in dialogue, co-operation and respect for self-determination. Canadians understand our international role and Canada's proud history of our commitment to peacebuilding, humanitarian assistance and international solidarity. It is not time to turn our backs on what has historically made Canadians proud.

Let me close with this, Mr. Speaker. This bill reveals clear patterns. Housing is delayed. Indigenous housing remains uncertain. Health care programs lack transparency. Dental eligibility is unstable. Survivors are waiting. Disabled Canadians are waiting. Families are waiting. Waiting has become the default policy, but Canadians cannot wait indefinitely. The crisis is before Canadians. It is time to act for the people, not for corporations.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for an extremely important review of the gaps between the spring economic statement and the reality for Canadians. I just wonder if she would like to expand on any of the points she has made, because they were excellent.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the people sleeping outside tonight cannot wait. The seniors choosing between food and medication cannot wait, and the constituents facing administrative collapse in a federal compensation program cannot wait.

Budgets reveal values, and this bill reveals them clearly. Canadians deserve an economy built on fairness, transparency and delivery, not on delay and indifference. They deserve a government that is willing to govern for all Canadians, not just for the hedge fund managers, the private equity CEOs and the finance bros who hang out at the Empire Club of Canada in downtown Toronto, such as the Prime Minister and his narrow circle of insiders. Everyday working Canadians deserve better.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, after the economic update was released, several unions praised our initiative to develop the team Canada strong initiative to recruit up to 100,000 new skilled workers. We implemented a series of measures to help these people, particularly apprentices, on their journey to certification.

I want to ask my NDP colleague whether she will support our efforts to help Canadian workers.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite interesting, actually. In this sitting, in these last two weeks, the government has brought down the guillotine for significant major legislation, including Bill C-22, and we are poised to rise, probably by the end of today, I suspect. What is left on the agenda, which was not actually a priority for the government to push through, is the bill on apprenticeship to support union workers, so there we go.

The Liberals are pretending they support unions, yet at the same time, they are ramming down back-to-work legislation. They are invoking section 107 to take away the rights of unions to strike. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg Centre, has a private member's bill on that. Will the government members support it? If they support unions, they will support my colleague's bill on actually banning the use of section 107.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I highlighted earlier, a Port Alberni company was fined $429,000 for its violation in its treatment of migrant workers, and it was given a two-year ban. Clearly, two years is not enough. The company operates other companies, and the rumour is that it actually has temporary foreign workers working for them as well. It took local people to help them out, because the government failed to be there. There is no funding in Bill C-30 to create more funding to support workers whose rights are violated.

I would like to hear the member's opinion, first, about the program itself and, second, about the importance of ensuring that when workers' rights are violated, they get the support they need.

Many people have filed complaints about employers who are abusing the program. There has been no follow-up and no feedback. Temporary foreign workers are often hired without the labour market opinion having been done in the right way. Workers who are looking for work are not getting hired. We hear in my riding about abuses of workers by employers, but there is no follow-up. There is nothing. When workers are in trouble, they are not supported. When people complain about workers being violated, they do not get support, and the workers they are concerned about do not get the help they need.

I wonder if my colleague can speak about the changes that are needed in the program.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his advocacy for his community. It is absolutely essential that all parliamentarians stand up for all workers. Migrant workers have been abused in this country. Frankly, both the Liberals and Conservatives, when it was convenient for them, brought in temporary foreign workers so they could bring down wages, suppress wages. In fact, the UN rapporteur actually said that Canada's temporary foreign worker program, with the approaches the Canadian government has taken, is equivalent to modern-day slavery.

Many migrant workers are subject to abuse and exploitation, and the member cited an example from his own community. Even when abuses are found, the penalty is so small, so minimal, that it is absolutely outrageous. What the government is doing is allowing those kinds of abusive practices, and sending a message that they can actually continue. What the government can do, and what the NDP has advocated for, is to have people get landed immigrant status upon arrival. They should get status so they can be protected and not be subject to exploitation.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the fact that, through the economic update, we are continuing to implement our action plan for official languages, with $4.1 billion to support the vitality of francophone communities everywhere outside Quebec. There are also various other investments that contribute to the vitality of our francophone communities.

I would like to hear what she has to say about the importance of our official languages and the investments we are making to support the vitality of francophone communities.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will give an example of the challenges that, in British Columbia, and in Vancouver more specifically, we are faced with. With the francophone community, particularly in the education sector, the federal government actually can ensure that provinces receive significant increases in funding to backstop this. Do members know what we are reduced to in our education system for children who want to have access to language training in French, in French immersion classes? We have to go in for a lottery draw. If someone is lucky enough, their name will be drawn, and then they can actually enrol in that particular school.

Many students did not get that chance, including my own children, by the way. When they were little, I submitted their names into the draw, but sadly, none of my children's names were drawn, and they could not get into French immersion. That is the reality Canadians are faced with. That is the reality British Columbians are faced with. That is the reality Vancouverites are faced with. I would call on the government members, instead of patting themselves on the back to say how swell they are doing, to look at where the problems are and to take action.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us back to a part of the conversation in which my colleague talked about the government's removing regulations on dangerous pesticides. Just last week, the Prime Minister announced his food security strategy, and the Liberals are removing important regulations that protect Canadians regarding pesticides. At the same time, the government is cutting public agricultural research capacity at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. These cuts would close research facilities, eliminate scientists and technicians, and end programs like the organic and regenerative agriculture research program.

I would like to hear from my colleague about whether, when food security and food sovereignty matter more than ever, my colleague sees the importance of the government's pausing its changes on these regulations, pausing these cuts and actually working with farmers to protect Canada's public agricultural research system?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is actually on top of so many of the issues, and he is absolutely spot-on. The Liberal government and the Prime Minister snuck into an omnibus bill, Bill C-30, a tiny sliver of reference that they would be taking away critical regulation and regulatory practices that ensure that our food system is safe with respect to pesticides. This is what the government is doing. Supposedly it is looking after Canadians and our health, but, my goodness, what it is doing is just trying to hide this information, and there would be absolutely serious consequences for Canadians.

The government claims that it supports science, but it would be gutting science. It is actually not relying on science, and it is putting in jeopardy our health and the scientific knowledge that is there. I would say that the government absolutely needs to pause this insidious action, do the consultation and reinstate scientific experts in every part of the department.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we continue with questions and comments, and we will have time for a very short one, I will say that there is a lot of noise in the courtyard, and people seem to be cheering. I do not know why they would be cheering. I do not think it is time for mirth or happiness just yet.

With that said, questions and comments, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a quick question for my colleague from the NDP. The federal government says it is doing so well and its policies are just great, and its members are always patting themselves on the back. If the government is doing so well, why are so many Canadians struggling across the country?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are patting themselves on the back and think they are doing so well, because their focus is all on the big corporations. It is about the CEOs. The government is shovelling support to all of them, but everyday Canadians are all being left behind. The fact is that the divide in wealth is becoming greater and greater between the haves and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour, not just a pleasure, to rise today to speak to Bill C‑30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026. We are told that this bill is absolutely necessary to implement the spring economic update.

Before I get too far into discussing Bill C-30, because it is my last chance to speak in this session of Parliament until September, I do want to acknowledge once again, and recognize, as I think we all do, that we are on and are honoured to be on the lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. We give them enormous thanks, a huge meegwetch, for patience and tolerance with us.

I do not get many opportunities to thank the people I need to thank the most. We are the only party in the House that does not receive a penny of support from the parliamentary budget, being both unrecognized and unfavoured. I am glad my colleagues from the NDP received funding to make up for what they lost when they ceased to be a recognized party. I have less money, but I am here, and I am not alone. We present more amendments on more bills than much larger parties do, not because we want to be meddlesome but because we want to do the work.

I particularly want to stop for a moment to thank my chief of staff, Debra Eindiguer, and my legislative director, Steven Parkinson. They work harder than any team, and they are non-partisan. I have never even stopped to ask the people on my staff team if they joined the Green Party or not, because our job is to work for the people who elected us and for the people of Canada.

In the same vein, I am very grateful to everyone on my MP team here in Ottawa, Michelle and Anna; and also, of course, in my Saanich—Gulf Islands constituency office. They all work very hard, and it is their work that allows me to stand here before us today to speak to the omnibus budget bill, Bill C-30.

I have two objections to the bill. There are reasons I find this process an offence to democracy, and reasons I find the bill offensive, but there are two big categories. The first is that it is an omnibus budget bill. I would suggest it is even improperly considered an omnibus budget bill. There is also the fact that it has been subject to bulldozer practices to accelerate it to the point that it has not been properly studied.

What is an omnibus bill? “Omnibus” is from the Latin. “Omni” means that it is a lot of things. An omnibus bill is a lot of things all at once in one package. It is the good, the bad and the ugly. It is all in one bill. This makes it difficult for members of Parliament, because inevitably and invariably, as is the case for me right now with Bill C-30, there are things that I like. I will call those the good, and I will discuss what those are.

Then there is the bad, and there is the ugly. What is really offensive in this kind of process is when the bill is not split up so it could be studied by committees with expertise. We do not actually have committees called the “we will study all the bad things committee” and the “we will study all the ugly things committee” so we could send the ugly things to the ugly committee. If there are changes to the environmental standards in this country or to health standards, from my point of view as a parliamentarian, those should go to the committees that have expertise in environmental health.

That is not the case here. Everything in the bill, whether it was about privatizing airports, getting skilled workers, getting rid of the excise tax or really drastically reducing protection from dangerous pesticides, went only to the finance committee, and the finance committee was given very little time.

How did the bill get to the committee? After first reading of the bill, which was on April 29, the day after the spring economic statement was tabled, there were only three hours of debate in this place before the government brought forward a motion for time allocation on May 25. I had not been able to get a speech in at second reading, and then the bill was passed on division. There was no recorded vote.

Off the bill then went to committee. Which committee did it go to? It went to the finance committee. I have nothing against the finance committee. I have spent a lot of time with it these last few weeks, hoping to be able to speak to my amendments. However, it was quite wrong, in principle, to send it to a committee that does not have any expertise and that did not have the time, because of the rush, to hear from a single witness in key areas where scientific knowledge, background and independent expertise could be brought to bear.

Let me just go back to the theme of the good, the bad and the ugly and take that apart. For the good, I was very pleased to see in the spring economic statement and in the funding, funding for endangered species, particularly the southern resident killer whale. My pleasure in seeing that in the spring economic statement was somewhat, or profoundly, undone by a May 8 discussion paper that suggested that the provisions of the Species at Risk Act would be lifted to allow the extinction of species. Particularly at threat are the southern resident killer whales because they are in the way of more tankers and pipelines and such, but it was good to see reference to whales in particular in the spring economic statement.

I am also relieved, having mentioned the May 8 discussion documents, and I will not mention them again, that the discussion period has been extended from June 7 to July 22. I urge Canadians who are concerned to get their thoughts in to the government. Let us hope that we do not see legislation in this place implementing anything that was in those discussions documents when we resume the sittings of the House in September.

Also good in the spring economic statement, which is also found in the legislation, is the re-establishment of incentives for electric vehicles. There are few things for which I would say, “Yes, I would certainly vote for that, and I am pleased to see it.” However, we do not see any details here. One line in the spring economic statement says, “Flexible pathways for automakers to meet Canada's climate objectives”. We have not seen any details on that yet, but we hope to.

There are other things. Certainly we are in favour of protecting auto workers with a worker retention grant and anything to do to help with housing, and that makes it difficult. We have to vote against Bill C-22 because the bad and the ugly are thrown into the same pot, and we have to vote on that one pot.

Now, I mentioned casually a moment ago that I do not think this is a legitimate omnibus bill. To be a legitimate omnibus bill, all the measures in the bill must relate to the budget in a fundamental way. I suggest that it is pretty sketchy that there is only one quite anodyne line to be found in the whole spring economic statement as a justification for the worst thing I have ever seen in an omnibus bill, which is the deregulation of pesticides. That is found on page 96 of the spring economic statement, and it only says, “Announces the government’s intention to amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include consideration of food security and cost of food”.

In reading that on that day, on April 28, I certainly did not say, “Oh my goodness, ‘consideration of food security and cost of food’ must mean that the government is about to put something in that will allow cabinet as a whole, with political consideration, to overturn a decision of the minister and the department responsible after they have done a study on the danger of a pesticide.” It does not leap out at one. In fact, it is hidden. Not only does it not leap out; it is hiding, as it is in Bill C-30 in division 8.

That is not the only thing I want to concentrate on, although I will take most of the time, and I am grateful for the chance to speak to this bill now, finally, in this place. Regarding the removal of the excise tax, I have asked before about this in question period. The excise tax, I realize, is announced as a way of alleviating pressure and helping Canadians with affordability. Greens really recognize the affordability crisis. We see it as absolutely connected to the climate crisis. The cost of food goes up when crops fail because of climate disasters and extreme drought here in Canada and around the world.

There is an affordability crisis. The cost of housing is increasingly out of reach. With respect to the cost of energy and electricity in our homes, we could have virtually free electricity once we install the infrastructure. It is easy to roll out solar panels, except that our provincial utilities get in the way. In any case, the cheapest source of electricity, reducing the cost for everyone, would come from focusing on renewable electricity. I do think there is some promise, although it needs a lot of work. There is a discussion paper out on an east-west electricity grid, but to build that out, we really need to shift off of fossil fuels and on to renewables.

Another point I want to make about the excise tax is that, and this goes back to 2009, former prime minister Stephen Harper took the gas tax, which it was then called, and decided to make that fund permanent and at the disposal of municipalities for transit and infrastructure. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities never ceases to point out that municipalities need predictable, stable funding. One of the best things Stephen Harper did was to say that the excise gas tax was a permanent source of funding for municipalities for transit and infrastructure.

Bill C-30 and the spring economic statement does away with that. The Liberals say, “We are going to have this municipal fund. We are going to help with infrastructure for municipalities.” I was just in Edmonton at the annual meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They do not find the pathway to be clear. There is no map. It is not an easy route to navigate for local governments to figure out if it really replaces what they had in the transit funding and how they get from here to there. While they are building housing, and by the way, we cannot build a house unless we can flush the toilets in that house, municipalities are crying out for predictable funding for water and waste water. I would love to have seen that clearly in the spring economic statement. We are getting rid of a predictable fund, created under Stephen Harper for municipalities for transit and infrastructure, and we have replaced it with press releases.

I really hope the government means it and the money will be there for municipalities. I also hope that the Liberals will very quickly start to recognize that the local orders of government are the strongest and best partners we are going to find. They are more reliable than the Prime Minister's friend Danielle Smith. They show up, they have shovel-ready projects, they are ready to go, and they keep their promises. I was in Edmonton. I cannot quote any mayor in particular, nor what I want to, as it would not be fair, but they certainly do not feel the love right now. They do not feel that they are engaged as partners, and they do not know where to find municipal infrastructure funding.

We will move along to division 8 of Bill C-30, which is the most hidden and ugliest part of this omnibus budget bill. It is the reductions of protection for Canadians' health and the environment in the regulations made under the Pest Control Products Act. All of this appears to rest on one unproven, untested assumption. There is not even a link in the language used within the spring economic statement, the budget itself or Bill C-30, but it clearly, by inference, rests on this assumption: More pesticides are going to reduce food prices and help the economy. That is a leap. Let us say that is wrong, based on the evidence, in two ways.

It is wrong on trade and on ecosystems. On trade, our partners and allies have stricter pesticide laws than we do. As a matter of fact, historically, Canada has the weakest pesticide laws of our allies. By the way, just as an example, we were the only country in the world, well, certainly the only country in the G20, that never banned Agent Orange. We never banned 2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, or 2,4,5-T, which was half of Agent Orange. It remained legal in Canada until there was an agreement between the U.S. EPA and Dow Chemical to not allow it to export it anymore because it was too dangerous. Canada kept saying it was okay, but Canadian buyers could not get any because Dow Chemical was not, by law, allowed to export its remaining stocks anywhere. I am thankful for this because we would have kept it registered forever, as far as I can see.

We continue to use glyphosate while the EU is restricting it. We also continue to use neonicotinoid insecticides. In terms of trade, it means that Canadian food exports, grain exports, have been rejected at the border in France and in other EU countries because the residues of pesticides that are legal in Canada on our food crops are not legal in the EU. We should strive to have the same high standards as the highest standards found around the world, so there would be no country where Canadian exports would be rejected at the border because they have too many toxic chemicals in the residues. That would be, I think, a good place to go to ensure that we are providing good trade links and reliable export markets for Canadian farmers, but we do not.

Of course, the reason Canadian beef is not allowed in many EU countries is that, years ago, the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, found that the hormones injected into Canadian beef increase the risks of human cancer. That is why we lose markets there. We should strive to ensure that we have reliable and certified organic markets for the growth and production of food products so that we have markets in countries that have stricter standards for health protection than we do. We are not doing that; we are going in the other direction.

It is astonishing to me that, when we think about food security, we are not talking about indigenous communities. Food security often means being able to access food off the land. I will use as an example the Tsleil-Waututh Nation in Burrard Inlet in Vancouver, which has been doing extensive work on restoring the ecosystem health of Burrard Inlet. It has been planting eelgrass and doing much work in what had been an industrial setting to get it clean and healthy enough to produce shellfish that can be harvested for human consumption, which is a right the Tsleil-Waututh Nation has.

Quite casually, we keep hearing from government ministers, both in British Columbia and Ottawa, that we can dredge the Vancouver harbour. This has been thrown about as if it were a great idea, without any consideration. They have not talked with the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. If we dredge the Vancouver harbour, we are going to stir up 100 years' worth of heavy metals and toxic chemicals. It is not going to be possible to harvest shellfish from an area where 100 years' worth of industrial waste was stirred up so we could move bigger tankers loaded with dilbit, which is a mixture that cannot be cleaned up if it is spilled. This is all madness. It is not food security for first nations if we keep contaminating the territories where they harvest their food.

I will come back to the ecosystem issue. I think it is nonsense that this would help food production because food production in agriculture needs pollinators. The reason the EU has reduced neonicotinoid insecticides is that the insect pollinator population is going down, which is related to the use of pesticides like neonicotinoids. Bill C-30 has now gone through clause-by-clause and has received all of the amendments it is going to get. It says that, if the government agency decides it is too dangerous for the environment to use this particular pesticide, and it does not set out the criteria but gives the vaguest of language, cabinet, if it decides in its political discretion to “protect national economic security, regional economic security or national food security”, would allow a dangerous pesticide to be used.

So be it. There is no appeal. That is it, and an extension can last up to nine years. I am incensed that this is happening.

If people think there has never been a time in Canada where anyone would ever put the economic interests of an industry ahead of human health and safety, let me quote from 1976 and the then minister of natural resources for the province of New Brunswick, Roland Boudreau. When it became clear that children were dying of Reye syndrome in New Brunswick because of forest aerial spraying by the forest industry. He stated, “I don't like to see people dying. This is one of the things I really wouldn't like to see. But at the same time, knowing the forest as it is, my decision will have to be with the forest and with the future of New Brunswick.”

We are opening the door and going backwards. Is there any other country on earth going backwards on pesticide regulation? Members have guessed it. It is the Trump White House. This story is from the New York Times on May 7. It states, “Trump Administration Lifts Ban on ‘Cyanide Bombs’ on Public Lands”. It did that so it could kill coyotes. In this country, even without Bill C-30, the PMRA reversed itself to allow for liquid strychnine to kill gophers on prairie lands.

We need more protection for human health, not less. If the government tells us that it wants to build Canada strong, then it must stop and think twice. It is killing the precautionary principle and running the risk of killing Canadians. This is not hyperbole. It has happened in the past. The government and the right hon. Prime Minister are opening the door to the most regressive policies Canada has ever seen to protect human health and the environment. It is not even helpful for the economy, but they do not bother doing the studies. They just make the assumptions and issue the press releases.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 12:45 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 15, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #173

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is rising on a point of order.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we prepare to adjourn for the summer, I would like to express my gratitude to a few people.

I want to extend my personal thanks to everyone here on Parliament Hill. Let me start with the amazing House leadership team who work with me every day on the multitude of details that must be addressed hour by hour to make this place work: the deputy House leader, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, the whip, the deputy whip and all of our staff, who are incredible public servants who deserve our thanks.

I would also like to thank each and every one of my colleagues in the Liberal Party of Canada caucus who have backed me and offered me their support throughout this parliamentary session.

I want to thank my colleagues, the 174 proud and committed Canadians who serve their people proudly every day.

I do not want to overlook the contribution made by the other parties.

They will not admit it, but we have a very healthy and productive working relationship with the House leadership teams of the Conservative Party of Canada, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democrats and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands in the Green Party. Behind the scenes, we certainly do not agree all the time on substance, but we can agree to be agreeable, and that is what we do almost all of the time. I want to thank my colleagues in all corners of the House for their co-operation.

We have come here to Ottawa with different solutions to the challenges we currently face, but let us be very clear: We are united in this chamber by our love for the Parliament of Canada and for Canada itself.

We are in love with our country, in love with our democracy and with this Parliament, and we are united on that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you.

I would like to thank you, fellow Quebecker. I hope you will forgive us for not always making life easy for you, but you have served, and will continue to serve, as Speaker with distinction and dignity.

We want to also thank all of the Table officers, the clerks, the pages, the Parliament Protective Service and obviously all of the people who work very hard, whether it be the cafeteria staff or the Clerk's staff.

It is a small community here in the Canadian Parliament. Many of us come from the right side of the river—the Quebec side—and we are very proud to serve our country in this way. It is both a pleasure and an honour to come to work every day and be greeted by a resident of Gatineau.

May everyone have a restful time over the summer. I look forward to seeing everyone in the fall. I thank all of my colleagues.

I would like to thank everyone for the great work we have just completed.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government House leader for his words. It is a pleasure, some days, to work with him. It has truly been a privilege to serve our constituents in this place, each and every day.

To begin with, Mr. Speaker, thank you for your dedication to this institution, but more importantly to Canadians. You have served in your role very well and with dignity, and you have brought esteem to the chair, and so I want to thank you for that.

We thank the clerks and the House officers for their dedication and commitment to this institution as well. They serve us in this place, but really they are serving Canadians. As they preserve this institution and the democracy that Canadians depend on, we thank them for that.

To all the long-suffering House of Commons staff, we thank them for their dedication as they deal with members of Parliament who work long and sometimes unexpected hours. We are thankful for their flexibility and dedication to their posts and to Canadians as well.

To our pages, this will be our last opportunity to thank them, as they will be heading out. We want to wish them many blessings in their years ahead. We have seen the character and the dignity that they have demonstrated in this past year. We want to thank them for their service to us and to Canadians. We wish them well as they head out. We know that Canada has a bright future when we see young people who look exactly like them.

To the interpreters, we could not do this without them. We have a difficult time understanding each other at the best of times, never mind when we are speaking different languages. We thank our interpreters for continuing to translate our words, so that we might understand each other and understand Canadians from coast to coast.

To my colleagues across party lines, I want to thank them for their commitment to this country. Specifically to my colleagues on this side of the House, I serve as the whip and they have to put up with me, so I want to thank them for their commitment, not just to our team but to the constituents they represent. Every day, they come to this House to fight for the freedom and opportunity of generations to come. My colleagues do not show up here because of personal ambitions, but because they truly want to serve Canadians. Every day, in every way, they fight for a more affordable Canada and a Canada that will remain the freest place in the world. I want to thank each and every one of them for their steadfast commitment to Canadians. As we continue to focus on Canadians, we are stronger as a team, and I thank them for that.

On behalf of my colleagues, I want to express our thanks to our staff who work in our offices, both here on Parliament Hill and in our constituencies, for their dedication to the folks we represent. We thank them for their service.

Finally, we could not do any of this without our families. Our families, our children and our spouses, stay at home and make massive sacrifices so that we can serve Canadians and be in this place. On behalf of myself and on behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank our families at home.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now it is my turn to wish my colleagues safe travels back to their ridings and a summer filled with sunny days, BBQs and corn boils. This session, we saw opposition members crossing the floor almost as often as we saw the Prime Minister crossing the Atlantic.

We now have a majority government and a Prime Minister with a whole lot of air miles. That caused a lot of upheaval and so it is time to step back and take a little break.

I want to thank all those who help us to do our jobs as parliamentarians, starting with the indispensable interpreters and the entire translation team, who remind us that we are not the only ones who take French seriously in Ottawa. I want to thank them.

I also want to sincerely thank the entire team of clerks, law clerks and analysts who help us to be as effective and well-informed as possible in both the House and committee.

I would like to thank the pages, the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service, the wonderful cafeteria staff and the maintenance crew, without whom we would never be able to use the parliamentary elevators, although I do not often take them, and the IT technicians, without whom we would never be able to unlock our phones after changing our password for the 40th time in three weeks. Did I put three exclamation points or four? I forget.

I want to thank the entire Sergeant-at-Arms' team, the shuttle drivers and all the House staff I may have unintentionally overlooked.

I would also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, as well as those who occupy the chair in your absence. You are all outstanding in this role. We greatly appreciate your impartiality, most of the time, indeed nearly all of the time. We are grateful for your work.

I thank my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois and in all the other parties, as well as the independent members. The government House leader and the Conservative whip will surely allow me to point out that we are working for the common good, but in the meantime, we are also preparing the country of Quebec. That is an important clarification.

I thank the ministerial staff, the staff working in constituency offices and our assistants on the Hill.

At the same time, I would like to say a quick word of acknowledgement for my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, who has decided to move on to explore new horizons. Our esteemed comrade-in-arms will be missed.

I want to thank our constituents for the honour of allowing us to represent them. I also want to thank our family members, who sometimes miss us when we are not around, but later realize that our absence can be a refreshing experience too.

On behalf of myself and the Bloc Québécois, I wish all Quebeckers a wonderful national holiday. I also wish all of our brothers and sisters in francophone minority communities across Canada a very happy Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day. Lastly, to our first nations brothers and sisters, have a wonderful June 21.

I hope everyone has a great summer, and I look forward to seeing my colleagues again in September.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a moment, on behalf of New Democrats, to thank all the people who make the work that we do in the House possible. We all often come here thinking that we are the most important people in this place, and after just a very short amount of time here, we all realize that it is, in fact, all of those who do not stand in the House of Commons, all of those who do the work behind us, who make this place run so very well.

We are all so grateful for the work that they do, to everyone at the table, to the clerks and to our incredible pages. We are going to have to get our own water all summer. It is a hardship that we are going to have to bear.

To the Journals and the Hansard staff, I do not understand how they keep their decorum and make us sound much smarter than we sometimes deserve. To the security personnel, to the Sergeant-at-Arms, I thank them so much for keeping us safe in this moment, when times become much more dangerous as we go.

To the food services staff and the cafeteria staff who keep us fed, we are so grateful for that. I thank them. I thank the maintenance and client service personnel, the legal staff who keep us out of trouble, and the Library of Parliament staff, who make us sound smarter than I know we all are. I thank the tech staff, the IT staff who keep our phones running and keep our technology going for us. I thank the Speaker and the Speaker's office, and of course our incredible interpreters, who ask us so gently and kindly to send our notes, and we only sometimes do. I want to thank them very much as well.

On my end, I also want to make sure that I thank the New Democrats' staff. It has been a difficult year for many of us. I am so very grateful for Blake, Christine, Jen, Peter and every one of the staff, who have been with us and who have done the important work.

I would like to echo the thanks we have heard from other parties. Our families endure an awful lot while we come to do our work in this place. I also want to thank our families.

I want to take this moment to encourage every one of us to go back to our ridings and to reflect on the great privilege that we have in serving in this place, and to come back in September perhaps kinder, perhaps more forgiving and perhaps more interested in rolling up our sleeves and getting to work for Canadians.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleagues have thanked everyone already. I hope that no one was left out. I would like to send everyone my best wishes for the summer. May they all take good care of themselves and stay united for Canada.

We will be back in September. Let us stand united across party lines. This country is a country that has more in common than in difference. What makes this country the best place in the world to live in is that we take care of each other and love our neighbours. No matter what may be going on around us, know that we are blessed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Dear colleagues, as we prepare to focus on our families and our constituents, I too wish to take a moment to thank all those who have made it possible for us to do our work here in the House of Commons.

On behalf of all members, I want to sincerely thank the administration employees who make our work possible: the interpreters, the IT team, the maintenance staff, clerks and pages, the broadcasting team and the Parliamentary Protective Service staff who are there day in and day out to keep us safe.

I also want to thank Library of Parliament staff and food services employees. Their service is an inspiration to us, and we are forever grateful to them.

To all, I wish a wonderful summer and, especially, a safe summer. I wish for everyone to be safe.

Take care everyone.

Before we say our goodbyes after question period, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised this afternoon at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment; the hon. member for York—Durham, Taxation.

Sitting Suspended

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 1:48 p.m.)

(The House resumed at 2 p.m.)