Thanks.
I violently agree with Mr. Sawatzky, as usual.
All my colleagues on this side, I think, are trying to put their best feet forward and express to colleagues across the way how reasonable we're trying to be, essentially saying that this motion Mr. Garon put forward is a reasonable request with one slight hang-up, a minor detail, which is a date that's embedded into it. We know that the minister cannot appear by that date, which is this Wednesday. It's two days away.
It's pretty well known around here—and I don't want to insult my colleagues at all by suggesting that they haven't been around long enough to know this, but they literally have—that ministers often take a little longer than two days to clear their calendar, prep and come to committee. It's just professional courtesy, as someone said, and I think that's a good term for it.
With high-profile ministers, such as the Minister of Finance for Canada, you can imagine that the minister has been all over Canada and the world. Right now, obviously, Canada is at a pivotal moment. There's a lot at stake for our economy. We see our country being subjected to unjustified tariffs from our southern neighbour, who had been our most trusted ally and trade partner for many decades. We're now in this moment where we really need to defend our economy.
You've seen the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and other ministers who have key portfolios travelling the world and demonstrating very publicly their commitment to shoring up and strengthening relationships and economic ties with other countries, such that we can replace some of the demand for our exports with other trade relationships. That could be very beneficial for Canada.
I think those conversations are really at the forefront of the government's approach to strengthening and building the strongest economy in the G7 in Canada, which is our commitment. It's what we won the last election on. It's certainly a message that's resonated across Canada in every pre-budget consultation that I have had the opportunity to host and facilitate. Canadians are stepping up and are interested in feeding into the federal budget-making process. That was clear from the hundreds of conversations we had over the summer.
It would be great if this committee would hear from some of those witnesses, because there are so many thoughts, suggestions and ideas. Some of them are not even costly, which is something that I really appreciate, especially at this moment in time. Yes, we're going to be making generational investments in housing, defence and infrastructure, but we also see Canadians coming forward with proposals and ideas for how we can do things better, how we can tweak programs, investment tax credits or the indigenous loan guarantee program, so that these things can be more successful. There's a recognition that some of these things work well, but if only we had these small regulatory or even legislative changes in some cases, we would get further faster. We would enable the partners and strategic relationships across the country that we already have to move faster, be more effective and get more results for Canadians. I have many examples of these conversations that I've had.
To me, it's technical things associated with some of our investment tax credits. For example, if we were to tweak or change those ever so slightly, there would be some technology or application of green technology for mining, for the nuclear industry, for the battery storage industry or even for the petroleum producers, who have said that those investment tax credits are key for them to decarbonize their operations.
These are tweaks to pre-existing programs and tax credits that could be very, very useful. Again, it's another example of how, if this committee chose to use its time to hear from those witnesses instead of being stuck on a very unreasonable timeline for the minister to appear, we could actually hear from key witnesses who are making suggestions that would directly impact the budget implementation act.
For all the Canadians who are watching—I know there are not that many, but if you are watching—the budget implementation act is the bill that goes along with the federal budget. It's usually a fairly significant document, full of all the details. They're often small legislative changes. Sometimes they can have a big impact, but there are often lots of small changes made to tax law and other acts. This committee will be responsible for debating and moving through and getting it back to Parliament when the time comes. We could be hearing from some of the witnesses who have key suggestions. There are 940 or more. I think the list is probably growing.
I don't know, Madam Chair; have we received any more briefings to the committee other than the 940?
There are 940 groups. Some of the briefs were jointly submitted, so there actually could be three or four groups in each case who prepared or took the time to submit a brief. I'm sure many of them are from Quebec as well. I see the Université de Sherbrooke in here. It would be great to have some of them come before the committee to make their submissions in public, here at a committee hearing. I know that many of them expressed the desire to do so.
There's the Black Opportunity Fund. There's Food Secure Canada. I've known that organization for a long time. The Conservatives mention food insecurity regularly in question period. It would be great to hear the thoughts and views of the national organization that studies and has been advocating for policy change for decades. That's Food Secure Canada. It's a fantastic organization in Canada here that can talk about how to end food insecurity in Canada.
There are so many groups on this list that I would love to hear from. Breakfast Club of Canada is a great advocate for the national school food program. They probably have good advice for us on how we could continue to roll out and improve the delivery of that essential program, now that our government has made the commitment of $1 billion over five years to feed over 400,000 more kids per year.
In terms of inputs and suggestions, Summerlunch+ is another organization that I know well. The Growcer is another one. They've started essentially vertical grow operations in shipping containers. They're expanding across Canada. They've actually been able to decrease the price of food in northern and remote communities. There's a solution for food insecurity, but committee members here don't seem to want to hear from those witnesses. They would rather get stuck on a two-day timeline, when it's completely unreasonable for a minister to appear within two days, than hear from potentially 940 groups. It's actually more than that, because many of these, again, are group or joint submissions, so you could have three or four groups.
There's also Thrive Impact Fund, Purppl and Scale Collaborative. These groups I actually know from out in the B.C. area. They're doing fantastic work in food insecurity and using unique financial models and innovations to scale up solutions to food insecurity. I mean, these would be great to hear from. There are so many others here that would be really helpful for us to hear from. I would really value their input.
I want them to know, if any of them are watching, that on this side of the table, we really value those witnesses and what they have to say. We'd love to make time in this committee, if the opposition members are willing, to study some things. We would love to hear from some of these witnesses. I think we're wasting an incredible opportunity here to hear from witnesses who could feed directly into the budget implementation act. Consideration of that is still ongoing, I assure you.
Co-operatives and Mutuals Canada has an event on the Hill tomorrow. Credit unions like Desjardins, Vancity, Meridian and many of the others do incredible work, a lot of it in community finance. It really excites me to see them on the forefront and to see how we could work in collaboration with them to ensure that many of our rural communities can benefit from some of the investment they need, I think, so that while we're focused on these big major infrastructure projects, we ensure communities right across Canada will get access to capital and to help in growing their enterprises.
Agriculture is a topic that I'm really interested in, to see how we can do an even better job of working with our credit unions. They do a lot of the lending to our agricultural and agri-food businesses. They do a lot of the lending within the smaller communities along those main streets. We need thriving business environments for our towns and hamlets in all the areas across Canada, which should not be forgotten in this federal budget.
It would be great to hear from the credit unions on what they think are the big opportunities for this budget and how we can ensure that while we build big infrastructure, we can simultaneously scale up small and medium-sized enterprises and have them trade with some of the diverse trading partners whose relationships we're strengthening every day, as our Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for One Canadian Economy—Minister LeBlanc, who I think has another portfolio now—are doing internationally to strengthen those relationships. The work they're doing is incredible. I note that the Prime Minister was in conversations with some of the countries in Africa just recently—I think I saw a notice about that—which is another set of very important trading partners for Canada to continue to diversify.
I really hope that the committee can get back on track, that we can have a reasonable timeline and that my colleagues across the way will come to their senses and merely accept a reasonable request to have the minister appear, which we're more than willing to pass and move forward on. I hope we can see some sign of progress on the other side. I hope our colleagues will be reasonable and work with us to ensure that this committee can do valuable work on behalf of Canadians.
I'll stop there for now, Madam Chair, though I do have more thoughts on this subject.
