Bill C-9

Combatting Hate Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda, hate crime and access to religious or cultural places)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create an offence of wilfully promoting hatred against any identifiable group by displaying certain symbols in a public place;
(b) repeal the defence based on the expression of opinions on religious subjects or texts in relation to the offences of wilful promotion of hatred or antisemitism;
(c) create a hate crime offence of committing an offence under that Act or any other Act of Parliament that is motivated by hatred based on certain factors;
(d) create an offence of intimidating a person in order to impede them from accessing certain places that are primarily used for religious worship or by an identifiable group for certain purposes; and
(e) create an offence of intentionally obstructing or interfering with a person’s lawful access to such places.

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[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.

Government Business No. 13—Proceedings on Bill C‑22

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague is arguing for this motion or against it. This is about scrutiny on this and any piece of legislation in the House. We are never going to be for turning off cameras and shutting down debate the way that this programming motion has, being brought to the floor of the House of Commons. It has not happened in 15 years, except for the last piece of legislation that they did it with, Bill C-9.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is yet another erosion of the rights of Canadians. The same that we see in bills like this, in Bill C-11, Bill C-18, Bill C-9, Bill C-8 and Bill C-34 to some extent, although we are still studying it. This is an erosion of democracy, and it limits the participation of many in democracy. We hear every single day from our constituents, asking why we cannot do something about it. It is because they shut down debate, they shut off the cameras and they shut down committees.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, before we can even talk about this bill in Parliament, we have to talk about whether members of Parliament are even allowed to talk at all anymore. That is what the motion is about. A government that claims to defend Canadian rights is using every tool at its disposal to make sure those things cannot even be debated on the floor of the House of Commons. That is what people are seeing tonight. The Liberals are pushing the House to ram through legislation in its current form that nobody asked for, nobody wants and nobody thinks is a good idea, according to the testimony at the committee that they have just shut down.

Let me be clear about what this debate is actually about, because it is not about the bill. It is about whether lawful access matters. It does. Lawful access is a tool that every police officer in this country needs, and we are ready to give them that bill, but Bill C-22 would not stop there, and that is exactly where the government has lost the plot on all this.

Tonight, instead of a serious debate on a serious bill, we are listening to the Liberals mount an obnoxiously loud defence of the indefensible. They want to debate whether we should ignore the rights of the House, the will of our constituents and the basic principles of good governance that everybody came here to carry out. The government abandoned those a long time ago, but I know a lot of members of the House come here every day to scrutinize the very legislation that the Liberals are trying to ram through tonight.

Let me say this to anybody watching at home at this late hour: The Liberals' argument in this debate is completely disingenuous, and they know it. I appreciate the police chief of York Regional Police. We have an enormously good relationship, a great one. I have also met with the commissioner of the OPP and with the Toronto police chief. They have all asked us to help pass lawful access, and we told them we would. Everything they asked for was in part 1 of the bill. We support that and are ready to pass that today. We were ready to pass that long ago. It is the Liberals who said no.

However, not one of these police chiefs asked for the unprecedented expansion of government surveillance powers, secret ministerial orders, no oversight and a massive erosion of Canadians' privacy protections. That is all in part 2, and that is exactly what the problem is. The Liberals' trying to ram it through is a disgrace to the House.

The Liberals say the police are demanding it, and I think that is as much of an insult to the police as the last 10 years of their leadership on this file has been, full stop. I do not think they can find anybody who says they need every provision in this bill, because it is just not true. We came to the government with a straightforward proposal: Pass part 1 now, give the police chiefs what they are asking for, and we will support it through the House, every part of it; then take time to properly fix part 2 instead of programming a motion that would ram it through the House without any debate.

We want to fix it by hearing from the civil liberties advocates who raised concerns in committee, from the private companies and from ordinary Canadians who have every right to be heard by every member of Parliament, every member of the House, because the legislation would affect them directly. They all sounded the alarm bells at committee. Making this go away would not protect Canadians. It would protect the Liberals.

The government said no to us, because the minister presenting the bill cannot even defend it. If we put him in front of a microphone, we will see. He would be blundering all over the place, not answering questions, and giving entirely wrong answers, because he does not know the contents of the bill. If he did know the contents of the bill, he would admit that it is part 1 that police officers were asking for to protect people. When the Liberals stand up and say that Conservatives are blocking lawful access, that is simply false. Every member of the House should know that. The culprit is the government's own stubbornness, its refusal to listen to anyone outside of its caucus, and, of course, it is the minister who is incapable of defending his own bill.

What is the Liberals' response to that refusal? It is a motion to cut off debate, to limit how long the bill is discussed, to limit committee study and, in an unprecedented move, to retroactively pass the bill through committee without ever hearing the remaining amendments that were in committee. That has never been done in this place except with Bill C-9, the last bill the government passed through the House. My colleague mentioned that she had never seen that happen in her 15 years in this place, which is longer than I have been here.

This is not procedural housekeeping, but that is what the Liberals are going to make it sound like. It is a very real, very clear threat to the rights and freedoms of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast. The government has heard this loud and clear. That is exactly why it is ramming this bill through, because its members cannot go off on a summer break and have Canadians raise the alarm bells on it. They want to get it through the House.

One of the members opposite supporting this motion, and we need to talk about this, is the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong. In a previous life, she sat on this side of the House as the Conservative shadow minister for civil liberties. She participated in nearly every civil liberties debate in this chamber. Every single time, she told Canadians the truth, which was that the government could not be trusted with privacy. I agreed with her then, and I agree with her now.

This is what we are talking about. This is a bill that would lower the constitutional bar. This is where it gets serious. It would create secret ministerial orders with no sunlight. It would open back doors for bad actors who would mandate metadata retention as a direct precursor to AI-driven mass surveillance, and it would weaken the encryption that protects Canadians' private communications, even with their financial institutions. That is the problem. I think this bill deserves to be debated and the House should give it that. Instead, the Liberals have rammed it through with what is called the programming motion to sweep this away right before they take their summer break.

Let us go back to the member for Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong. She also told the House, and I remember it, that members of the Liberal caucus wanted to see her jailed over the views that she held on these exact kinds of topics. Now she is voting with those same people. She is handing them unprecedented power to conscript private business as instruments of state surveillance and potentially break the encryption that millions of Canadians rely on every single day.

This is not hyperbole. Signal, NordVPN and DuckDuckGo have all publicly said that this kind of bill would force them to leave the country entirely. With that kind of testimony at committee, does anybody in this place not think that this deserves more scrutiny and more study? That is not a talking point. They actually said that. That is a business decision that they are planning to make because of this legislation, and that tells us everything we need to know about how deeply flawed part 2 is and how it strikes at Canadian privacy rights.

Normally, I might wonder out loud what the people of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong think of all of this, but in this case, I already know because I went there. Just like Canadians across the country did not vote for the construction of a surveillance state, the people of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong did not vote for her to erode their rights in this place. Police unions and police chiefs did not ask for their members to be handed these broad, sweeping powers; they asked for lawful access. We are ready to give it to them in part 1 of this bill. We asked for that and the Liberals said no. That is the conversation today.

We are not prepared to write a blank cheque to the government. I do not think that anybody is. We, the members of the opposition, certainly are not prepared to do that as we watch the government of the day erode not only the rights of Canadians but also the ability to debate those rights in the House and the ability to scrutinize a bill that is deeply problematic. This is a bill that civil liberties associations, social media platforms and all kinds of private companies have raised the alarm bells on. We are certainly not going to do that with no debate, no witnesses at committee, no ability to propose amendments, no oversight mechanisms and no answers from the people who will actually be responsible for implementing the legislation.

The reason that we are talking about this motion in the House is because of the public safety minister's inability to defend his own legislation in here, out there, at committee and everywhere else across the country. The government is programming this motion to save that minister, and Canadians deserve better than that. They deserve a debate, and they deserve scrutiny on this legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really do appreciate the question. I think it is best answered by recounting what one of our senators said in addressing the bill. She talked about having a wonderful dinner at home and then going for a walk, during which she was harassed by some people in a truck who were saying some fairly harsh things. They actually had a noose in the truck.

In order to really appreciate the hatred that, unfortunately, is still out there, we have to understand the impact of something of that nature. I do not deny the fact that the noose sends all sorts of strong, negative messages. It hurts people to the core. It is time that we actually do something about it, and Bill C-9 addresses that particular issue and a whole lot more.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

No, I am not kidding. It is true.

Mr. Speaker, we see that, and I will give a good example. Last week, the Conservatives finally, after years, agreed that they would sit late. A few hours later, they moved a motion to adjourn the House, and it was not the first time. It is not about wanting more time to debate. It is more about preventing the legislation from passing.

I can say to the members opposite that, whether it is this Prime Minister specifically, the government as a whole or every Liberal member of Parliament, we are prepared to use the tools available to the government in order to pass the legislation. This is what Canadians expect and want, and this government will deliver. It was part of our election platform. It is what communities want to see happen.

If we look at lawful access, yes, the Conservatives were destructive. They are in opposition to it.

Let us look at what we had to do for Bill C-9. That was really a grassroots movement that we witnessed in the last federal election, and we made it a part of our platform to deal with the issue of hate. We brought in legislation and set up new aspects to the criminal law that would deal with hatred directly. Not only has the Conservative Party voted against it, but it continues to spread misinformation in regard to it. It is so unfortunate, because racism hurts to the core. The Conservatives had the opportunity to stand up and do something on the hatred file to fight racism.

If we look at Bill C-14, the bail reform legislation, once again, much like Bill C-22, we have law enforcement officers across our nation saying they want it. We have prosecutors who have been demanding bail reform. I have been holding this piece of paper in my hand, which is a press release from 10 municipal cities in Manitoba saying that they want bail reform legislation, as did the mayor of Winnipeg. I only highlight these cities because they are in my home province.

I can assure members that of the law enforcement agencies in every region, province, municipality and rural community, and the many different people we all represent, I cannot point to one who has told me we do not need bail reform. Our constituents want a government that is going to deal with the issues before us. When we talk about building Canada strong, that includes bringing in legislation that is going to make our communities stronger, healthier and safer, yet we see resistance.

Yes, we are trying to push Bill C-22 through. The Conservatives cannot try to tell me they have not had enough time to debate the issue. It has been there since September 2025 in one form or another. That is the reality, but the Conservatives have made the decision that they do not want this legislation passed because they have a divided caucus, and the extreme right within the Conservative Party, the ones who wear the tin hats, are saying they do not want it. We say to them that it is time they look at what past Conservatives would say about it. There is no reason whatsoever that today's Conservative Party should be in opposition. We are the only Five Eyes country that does not have lawful access.

National Framework on the Durability of Electronic Products and Essential Home Appliances Act

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the whip drawing attention to the entire Liberal caucus rejecting efforts to remove Bill C-9 from the orders of the House.

Bill C-9—Time Allocation Motion

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen many incidents. We have seen 2SLGBTQI+ groups be discriminated against and an extreme rise in violence against them and the transgender community here in Canada. It is important to protect all communities. Whether it is a member of a faith group, a student on campus who wishes to go to a prayer room, or a young kid trying to attend a religious camp or a Jewish school, it is important for them to be able to live their lives. Canada is a place where all people should be free to practise their faith and to go to school without fear and intimidation. That is what the law is all about. Bill C-9 is about giving Canadians the safety they deserve while being who they are.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, everything has been said about this bill, including with regard to the religious exemption. Committee proceedings began last October, and in the end, it took time allocation to get it passed. I find that truly deplorable because this is an important bill. Hate is a societal cancer at every level.

I support Bill C-9, the Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-9 and we will vote in favour of Bill C-9. However, regarding the question raised by our Conservative colleagues as to whether we should grant them more time to discuss it, I am not opposed to that.

Personally, I believe there was a lot of unnecessary filibustering in committee since last fall. Despite that, if our Liberal colleagues agreed to drop time allocation and give the Conservatives more time, we would be willing to agree to that. By the end of the week, we could all come to fully understand Bill C-9 and pass it unanimously.

If our Conservative colleagues intend to conduct a good-faith review of this bill, I support them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not happy to rise to my feet, but I do have an interesting question about Bill C-9. The Liberals talk about all the hate and mistreatment of other people.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that the secretary of state just admitted that the government is thinking of this bill as a limit on freedom of expression. That means we are actually just debating whether it is reasonable. That is a very important concession, and it is the first time we have heard section 1 of the charter from the government in the context of Bill C‑9.

I will note that the secretary of state put on notice her intent to seek closure 12 minutes after the debate on this bill began. She and her colleagues have no interest in listening to Canadians, and there are a lot of them. For example, 4 My Canada, led by Faytene Grasseschi, shares that there have been 194,000 phone calls; 1,000 organizations that have signed a declaration against Bill C‑9, representing 1.4 million Canadians; and 240,000 pieces of mail.

When the secretary of state says that this is all Conservative misinformation, is she saying the United Church of Canada, the Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Council of Canadian Muslims are misinforming, or is it just anyone they disagree with? This is a very important point, and the Liberal government has refused at every stage to listen to Canadians. Will it start now?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, many religious groups have expressed concern about Bill C‑9, in particular about the removal of a long-standing good-faith religious expression defence. Now that the Liberals have decided to dismiss these very legitimate concerns, could the Liberal member clearly explain where the line now falls between the lawful expression of sincerely held religious beliefs and a criminal offence?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the House what the religious exemption that is eliminated by Bill C‑9 refers to, because I am hearing things from our Conservative colleagues and I cannot believe what I am hearing. There was never any question of prohibiting people from reading the Bible, the Torah, the Quran or any other religious text.

What is prohibited is spreading hate based on a religious text. Some people use that as an excuse to spread hate, and that is what is being prohibited. That is the defence that will be removed from the Criminal Code. Reading the Bible, the Quran and the Torah is allowed, it always has been, and I hope it always will be.

[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.

Here we have the same Liberal playbook yet again. There has been so much opposition to Bill C-9, and now the Liberals are insisting on using their majority to, again, ram it through. It is a majority they got not at the ballot box but through floor crossers.

We have heard from so many groups, including from His Eminence Frank Cardinal Leo from the Archdiocese of Toronto. I am wondering what the hon. secretary of state would say when so many faith groups are opposing Bill C-9. Should the Liberals not be taking a step back on this?

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, no. We do not have to agree to it. The opposition parties are guaranteed those 26 days, which do not include the many days when the Conservatives brought in concurrence motions.

Here is why it is important. If the Conservatives follow along, they will better understand why there is time allocation. Let us look at the legislative agenda. There is Bill C-3, the Citizenship Act; Bill C-4, the carbon tax cut; Bill C-8 respecting cybersecurity; Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act; and Bill C-9, the combatting hate act, a piece of legislation I know the minister responsible for crime is very keen on.

We have Bill C-10, the commissioner for modern treaty implementation act; Bill C-11, the military justice system modernization act; Bill C-12, the strengthening Canada's immigration system and borders act; and Bill C-13, respecting trade in Great Britain. We also had Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, and Bill C-20. Bill C-14 is the bail and sentencing reform legislation. I was just speaking about Bill C-16. There was filibustering even on that legislation.

There is Bill C-20, the Build Canada Homes act, which the Conservatives were criticizing in the speech before mine. There is Bill C-21, the Red River Métis self-government recognition and implementation treaty act, and Bill C-22, the lawful access act. When we brought in Bill C-2 regarding lawful access, the Conservatives said, “absolutely not”. They were going to oppose it, and there was no way they were going to let it pass. We had to bring in Bill C-22, and they are still opposing it.

There is Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Do members remember that one? I just made reference to it. Everyone agreed to it, yet the Conservatives still made the bells ring because they really did not want to debate, apparently.

Bill C-26 would authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. Conservatives talk a lot about housing and affordability, even though the average cost of a house has gone down since the new Prime Minister was elected. The average cost of rent has gone down since the Prime Minister was elected. However, we would not know that if we listened to the Conservatives.

The list goes on. Bill C-28, one I really like, is the Canadian space launch act. There is a whole industry, and there is industry potential. Thousands of jobs could be created. However, all the Conservatives say is that they do not like it and do not want it. We have to force legislation through.

That is not to mention the Senate bills. I can say that the Government of Canada, headed by our newly elected Prime Minister, has a very aggressive legislative agenda because we want to and will, despite what the Conservatives continue to put in our way, continue to fight and bring in legislation that is going to make our communities safer and stronger. As the Prime Minister says, we want a strong Canada for all Canadians. That is what we are striving for. We are saying we are going to build the strongest economy in the G7.

All one needs to do is look at the actions that the government and the Prime Minister have taken since the last election. All I made reference to was the legislation. In that legislation, there are a number of initiatives that complement the legislation. That is all part of the budget process and what the bill we are currently debating, Bill C-30, the spring economic update 2026 implementation act, is all about. It is the next step in supporting Canadians and building a stronger Canada, but the Conservatives still want to filibuster.

Let us look at what took place at the standing committee. On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more time. They had 30 hours. From what I have been told by many of my colleagues and have heard from across the way, it was a filibuster show, with no discussions back and forth that could have taken place. That is a decision made depending on the motions that are brought forward. I know how standing committees work. When there is collaboration, good ideas and a willingness to work together, a standing committee can be very productive. I know that because there was a day I participated in standing committees. There is so much potential for all of us to work more collaboratively together on a wide spectrum of budgetary issues and legislative issues.

In fact, with respect to legislative issues, the first thing we did when we formed a majority government, contrary to what the Conservatives will say, is that we actually passed Conservative opposition private members' bills through to different stages. I suspect there is a real chance that under the Prime Minister since we have been a majority, in eight, nine or 12 weeks, whatever period of time it is, we have probably passed more opposition initiatives than Stephen Harper did in his four-year mandate. It would not surprise me if this is in fact the case.

I challenge members opposite to show me what private members' initiatives from the floor of the House of Commons actually passed when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, when the leader of the Conservative Party sat around the table, and contrast that to what we have done in eight weeks. There is no surprise there, because we have a Prime Minister who is committed to collaboration. Where there is a willingness to collaborate, we collaborate.

Let us take a look in terms of all the provinces. Let us talk about the major projects. Let us talk about Bill C-5, which I made reference to. That was possible only because of the collaboration between provinces and Ottawa under the Prime Minister. There is a reason we had the King of Canada make the throne speech. The King of Canada came in a historic moment and delivered the throne speech here. It was a significant time in Canada's history.

I think that, coming out of the election, we all need to recognize what was taking place prior to the last federal election. Canadians were concerned about our economy. They were concerned about what I classify as the three Ts: President Trump, the issue of tariffs and the issue of trade. We have consistently taken actions to address the issues Canadians have faced and will face yesterday, today and, obviously, looking forward into tomorrow.

All one needs to do is take a look at the actions we have actually taken. Shortly after the last federal election, numerous meetings took place between the Prime Minister and premiers, with the idea, as we said to Canadians in the last election, of building one Canadian economy. Based on what was taking place with President Trump in the United States, and to address the anxiety and the concerns Canadians had, the Prime Minister was working hand in hand with provinces.

By doing that, we were able to build a consensus. We were able to bring in the legislation. We were able to take down the federal barriers, interprovincial barriers that the federal government is responsible for, which enabled us to be able to talk and continue the dialogue with provinces to take down those provincial barriers that prevent the trade between provinces. We have had some success in doing even that. We continue to have dialogue with provinces.

All one needs to do is take a look at a province such as Alberta. In the province of Alberta, we are now implementing an MOU that was signed by the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta. The Conservatives can criticize that, but I believe that the Premier of Alberta is right in her assessment, as is the federal government, of the way in which we can in fact build Canada and make Canada a superpower when it comes to energy.

All one needs to do is to look at the consensus building that we have been able to bring together by working collaboratively through major projects from coast to coast to coast. There have been serious investments in things such as wind power and the expansion of energy opportunities on the east coast, as well as something I often talk about, which is the expansion of the Montreal port. We can take a look at Ontario and how we are enhancing the nuclear industry in Ontario through major projects.

In my home province of Manitoba, the Premier of Manitoba is NDP, but we work with all political entities. The people of Manitoba have realized that, for the first time in generations, there is now opportunity to have hope in regard to the port of Churchill and the potential of its becoming a port where things such as, potentially, LNG and certain minerals could go through, let alone other opportunities through agriculture. These are very tangible and real in my home province.

In Saskatchewan, we could talk about copper investments through the major projects. On the canola front, the Prime Minister was able to deal with it, at least in part and far more than what we saw when the leader of the Conservative Party was seated around the caucus table. We could talk about Alberta and B.C., the two of them together, whether it is on the issue of coming up with agreements on pipelines, LNG and other fossil fuels, or mining.

We could talk about northern Canada. It was not that long ago that the Prime Minister, was in, I believe, Yellowknife in northern Canada. I am not 100% sure it was Yellowknife, but he made the announcement about how we are going to protect Canadian sovereignty by investing literally billions of dollars. We have great potential, major investments, coast to coast to coast.

The government recognizes that building a stronger infrastructure, improving our economic corridors, if I can put it that way, through trade, means a great deal to our nation. It is where our future is in terms of jobs, tens of thousands of jobs. We have a Prime Minister who goes out and looks for investment. We have commitments for billions of dollars of foreign investment to come to Canada. In fact, foreign direct investment coming to Canada in the last 12 months, if it is not number one in the G7, which I believe it is, it could be as high as number one in the G20 countries. That factors out some of the commitments that were also made.

There is reason for us to be optimistic, because we have a government that understands the importance of investment, of bringing and building our infrastructure. We have a Prime Minister who is committed to enhancing where we can and being patient with the United States in regard to the trade file. We are not going to capitulate. We will continue to advocate for the very best deal for Canadians, and where we need to, we are assisting industries that are being hurt by the negotiations and what is taking place in the United States.

Let us recognize this: We have had 20 trade and defence agreements, and we have agreements in the making. I often talk about how important the United States is, and everyone should recognize that. I recognize that, but let there be no doubt that we have a government and a Prime Minister committed to expanding our trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S.A. border. That is where we got the 20 defence and trade agreements, and we also have had formal trade agreements not only signed off but brought into the House and passed as trade legislation.

I could also talk about the trade potential between Canada and India, two great nations. I would welcome and love to see a formal agreement signed off this year. The Prime Minister has met with the prime minister and the president of two great nations.

The opportunities are real and tangible, which is why there have been 17%, I believe, export increases to non-U.S.A. locations. Our government continues to work, day in and day out, at expanding opportunities for businesses, small, medium and large alike, because we realize the real beneficiaries from those are the citizens of Canada, and they are who we will continue to work for every day.