Debates of Dec. 3rd, 2025

An Act to Implement the Protocol on the Accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we proceed to questions and comments, I have consulted with the Table, and there was one small procedural error made. We were supposed to seek unanimous consent for the minister to be able to speak to the bill. There is a procedural reason for that.

This is going to sound odd, but I would ask if we could have unanimous consent for the minister to make a speech so we can complete questions and comments afterward. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the hon. members. I wanted to make sure that I did not interrupt the minister's speech so he could complete it before we went to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noted that the Minister of International Trade was talking about great things to come.

I want to take him to things as they are right now. We have trade agreements in place, but they are not being enforced. For example, chicken producers in my riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies are asking why the government continues to allow the U.S. to send 115% of its spent fowl production to Canada. Part of that 115% is mislabeled, shipped to Canada, relabelled and then sold as broiler meat, which is in competition with Canadian producers.

Why is this allowed to happen?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his advocacy for farmers in his region. That is something that I am happy to follow up on with CFIA and Health Canada.

Speaking of the agriculture sector, the agreements I have spoken about will unlock new opportunities in markets around the world. We look at the CPTPP trading block, which consists of over 500 million potential consumers. When I am sitting down and talking to those in the agriculture sector, they are excited about the potential that these opportunities create. That is exactly what the government will do. We will continue to be out there opening doors for our farmers and our workers.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset a few weeks ago, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill even though it will oppose investor-state dispute settlement during clause-by-clause consideration, since we have always been against that. My question will not be on the substance of the agreement, which is good for everyone.

My colleague and I once served together on the Standing Committee on International Trade. He knows how long it takes to conduct in-depth studies on agreements that are sometimes very lengthy. In this case, the government did not abide by Canada's official policy on tabling treaties in Parliament, which is available on the website. There is supposed to be a 21-day period between the announcement of an agreement and the tabling of the legislation. In this case, it was 15 days.

Why did the government not follow its own official policy?

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hope to answer my colleague one day in French, as I am learning. I do miss my time on the trade committee with the member opposite.

We are in a crisis today, and the Prime Minister has been very clear about this. This is not a speed bump. This is a rupture in the current trading environment.

I spent 13 years in international trade prior to politics, facilitating trade for hundreds of businesses. If I were asked back then, I would have said that businesses were not ready to look at global markets because of the conditions that existed at that time with the U.S. Twenty-five years ago, 90% of our trade was with the U.S. It is now around 75%, and we have to move fast. That is exactly what the government is doing.

We are moving quickly because we want to make sure that these trade agreements are in place. This is what stakeholders are asking us to do. This is what Canadians are asking us to do. As we sort this out and have those discussions with the U.S., we need to continue opening new markets.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify for the member for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies that it was actually this government that established an MOU between CFIA and CBSA to tackle spent fowl. The minister may or may not know that, but that is work that we are doing. I will remind the Conservative Party that it had nothing in its electoral platform for farmers.

Speaking of farmers, I have a large apple contingent in the Annapolis Valley. The Nova Scotia fruit growers have a tradition of over one hundred years of growing quality Honeycrisp apples. One of their growth markets is in Vietnam.

I am wondering if the Minister of International Trade would talk about the work he is doing in the Indo-Pacific, what the government is doing to help create export markets, and maybe, explicitly, whether he and I could work together with those Nova Scotia fruit growers to create more markets in Vietnam and beyond in the Indo-Pacific.

[Maninder Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would like to thank the member for his incredible work on the trade file and for representing his constituents so well.

We have been talking about our farmers, and I was in different regions across the country, talking to farmers who grow fruits. Of course, the member mentioned Vietnam. It has been a huge market since we signed the CPTPP back a few years ago, in 2018. When we look at what we are doing with Vietnam and the trade numbers, there are incredible opportunities there and we are investing.

There is now an agri-food office in Manila in the Philippines to help facilitate even more trade for our farmers, for those who are involved in agriculture and agri-food. There are plenty of opportunities. That is exactly what we are exploring, as I mentioned, with many of the agreements we have talked about today.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a bit of a heavy heart. I want to take a moment to acknowledge the passing of Cardigan fire chief Tony VandenBroek.

Tony is gone way too soon. Chief Tony was a dedicated leader and committed volunteer in his community. His decades of service reflect his courage, compassion and unwavering commitment to keeping others safe.

I also want to express my appreciation for the important discussions I had with representatives of the Canadian Volunteer Fire Services Association this week in Ottawa. Its support is crucial to supporting firefighters, such as Tony, who protect our communities.

I say to Chief VandenBroek's family, his fellow firefighters and everyone else who is feeling the loss, my thoughts are with them. May Tony rest in peace.

I rise today with pride to speak about the importance of international trade to the people of Prince Edward Island. Ambition, creativity and determination span this province from tip to tip. This is something that may be a bit of a challenge for me because I came from the supply-managed sectors, and all the trade deals, although they bring common good to the country, have carved away some of my industry, but I support free trade. That is why I am standing here today to speak to it.

Islanders know the value of hard work. It is their love of the land and the sea that lays that foundation. Whether it is running tractors through the fields in eastern P.E.I., hauling traps in Morell or serving customers at the local shops in Georgetown, farmers, fishers and manufacturers are producing traditional world-class commodities with care and ingenuity. They are not just feeding families on the island; they are also feeding Canada and the world. They are not just crafting goods; they are creating excellence that stretches far beyond our red shores to all corners of the globe.

Islanders understand that trade is not an abstract policy. It is more than just numbers on a spreadsheet or lines on a ledger. Trade is about people. It is about the hands that haul the lobster traps, the families who farm the potato fields and the innovators who turn local knowledge and creativity into a global opportunity. In today's fast-changing global economy, for Islanders to be competitive and to succeed, P.E.I. businesses need further access and expansion across the global industry.

Trade diversification is not just a government policy priority, but a necessity for economic sustainability. Too often smaller economies, like ours in Atlantic Canada, become vulnerable when we rely too heavily on one or two export destinations. We have seen, time and again, how a single border delay, a newly imposed tariff or an unexpected policy shift can ripple across an entire province and significantly impact an entire industry.

That is why agreements like the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, or CPTPP, and Canada's vast network of trade agreements are so vital for Prince Edward Island's future. The CPTPP opens doors to fast-growing markets across the Asia-Pacific region in countries such as New Zealand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and now, with this legislation, the United Kingdom. It provides clarity in trade rules, lowers tariffs and offers fair access for our exporters. It gives our potato growers, seafood processors, bioscience innovators and small business producers the pathways and tools to reach new customers.

Islanders are proud of what we make and produce. We farm responsibly. We fish sustainably. We innovate with excellence. The world is noticing. There is a growing demand for P.E.I. seafood, our world-famous potatoes, our bioscience, technology and research, and the creativity of our local artists, storytellers and musicians who perform for audiences from all over the world.

However, global demand alone is not enough. We need agreements that open doors and the infrastructure and policies to help Islanders walk through them. That is where our Prime Minister's announcement comes in. It is a bold, transformative goal to double Canada's non-U.S. exports over the next decade. Doubling our non-U.S. exports means diversifying where we sell, what we sell and how we sell it. This means a pathway to resilience, growth and independence, and with agreements, such as with the U.K. accession, being strengthened, we would have the tools to make that vision a reality.

For decades, our island economy, like much of Canada's economy, has relied heavily on a single market. That partnership with our friends and neighbours to the south will always remain important to us, but if we want to secure our long-term prosperity and independence, we must broaden our reach. It means finding new customers for island seafood on other islands around the world, like Japan or Singapore. It means showcasing our clean tech and bioscience innovations in the U.K. and Australia. It means putting P.E.I. products on tables and in markets around the world. The CPTPP is one of the key tools that would help us achieve that goal.

When we talk about doubling the exports, we are talking about creating new markets for our producers, reducing risk and building resilience. That is what this legislation is about. It is about building the future of communities on Prince Edward Island.

Why does this matter so much to P.E.I.? It matters because P.E.I. is an export province. Over 90% of what we produce, we export. Our success depends on our ability to move products beyond our shores, whether it is by truck across the Confederation Bridge, by plane, by ship across the Atlantic Ocean or even by digital connection. By connecting our producers to new global customers, we would be taking concrete steps toward doubling our non-U.S. exports, strengthening both local jobs and Canada's presence on the world stage. When island seafood, farm crops or manufactured goods find buyers in Europe or Asia, that success flows back home. It means more young people choosing to stay to build their futures on P.E.I. and in Atlantic Canada.

Trade diversification is also about resilience. Through building relationships with multiple partners, we provide businesses with options and workers with stability. This is how we protect the prosperity that generations of Islanders have worked so hard to build and maintain. The CPTPP, especially with the inclusion of the United Kingdom, reinforces the kind of trade values Canada believes in, which are fair, inclusive and sustainable trade.

These values are also important to Islanders. It is trade that upholds high standards for labour, strong environmental protections and clear digital commerce rules, all areas where Canada and our province of P.E.I. can lead. Our exporters do not want to compete by lowering standards. They want to compete by raising them, by offering better quality, better sustainability and better reliability.

Now, what would this mean in practice for P.E.I.? It would mean new market opportunities for our seafood industry. It would mean a stronger platform for our agri-food producers, from potato growers to the entrepreneurs turning local ingredients into global products. It would mean momentum for our bioscience cluster, one of the fastest-growing sectors in Atlantic Canada, where firms are developing health solutions that are already reaching overseas markets. It would also mean a brighter future for our tourism and cultural industries because trade is not only about goods; it is also about ideas, creativity and people-to-people connections.

When the Prime Minister set the goal to double Canada's non-U.S. exports, the Prime Minister sent a clear signal that every province and territory has a role to play. We all need to step up our game, and I know we can. For Prince Edward Island, this is an opportunity to show what our island can achieve with big ambition. Now with the CPTPP and the inclusion of the U.K., we would have another framework and the improved access it needs to grow. This is how we will reach that goal, by combining national leadership with local initiative and global ambition with island pride.

This bill is about nation building through new partnership opportunities. By ratifying the United Kingdom's accession to the CPTPP, we would help ensure that Islanders can continue to make a substantial impact on the world stage. We would strengthen our ability to export sustainable and high-quality products, exactly what we do best. We would ensure that the next generation of Islanders inherits a strong economy, one that continues the legacy of quality products.

Let us support this legislation for the benefit of our national economy and for every Islander whose work, creativity and resilience deserves to be a strong player on the world stage. When P.E.I. succeeds, Canada succeeds and when Canada trades with the world, our communities become stronger.

Conservation Donations

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

moved:

That:

(a) the House recognize that,

(i) the Government of Canada has committed to conserving 30% of territory by 2030 in order to address biodiversity loss and strengthen the resilience of our ecosystems,

(ii) in the Eastern Townships, approximately 91% of the territory consists of private land, 63% is covered by forests, wetlands and waterways, and more than 130 endangered species have been identified,

(iii) the voluntary conservation of private land is a key lever for achieving this national objective,

(iv) the Ecological Gifts Program (EGP) has enabled many landowners to contribute to the protection of invaluable natural environments,

(v) recognized conservation organizations must finance their day-to-day operations and long-term stewardship costs that are generally not eligible for government programs (e.g., due diligence, legal and transaction costs, monitoring, restoration, reports, governance),

(vi) the increase in the number of projects multiplies these operating costs and creates a structural funding deficit, making philanthropic monetary donations essential to maintain and accelerate the pace of conservation,

(vii) tax parity between in-kind donations (land, easements) and monetary donations to recognized conservation organizations would ensure fairness among donors, secure operational funding, and stimulate large-scale protection of natural environments; and

(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should,

(i) recognize the importance of increasing the federal tax credit granted to financial landlords who make an ecological donation through the EGP,

(ii) recognize the importance of granting a tax credit equivalent to the monetary donations made to recognized conservation organizations to support the operating and stewardship costs of protected land,

(iii) consider amending the Income Tax Act to ensure tax fairness among the different types of conservation donations, with a view to reaching the biodiversity protection targets the government has already set.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to move Motion No. 15, a motion that is deeply rooted in our land, our forests, our mountains, our rivers and our communities. It is based on a commitment we all share, that of protecting nature, not in theory, but on the ground through meaningful and sustainable actions.

Protecting the environment is the reason I got into politics. Before coming here, I volunteered at Protégeons Bromont and worked as a municipal councillor. I then had the privilege of serving as the mayor of Bromont for eight years. I say this with great humility: It is by working together with citizens, conservation organizations, elected officials at all levels of government and landowners that we were able to take decisive action to preserve our natural heritage.

During my term, we carried out a major conservation project to protect the southern face of Mont Brome in Bromont. This ecologically valuable area is an essential link in the network of natural environments surrounding the city. Thanks to this project, we were able to preserve more than 17 hectares of woodlands, forested slopes and exceptional landscapes, while maintaining a balance between municipal development, recreational offerings and conservation.

We also contributed to a second major project: the protection of Mont Gale, one of Bromont's most iconic areas. It still sends a shiver down my spine when I think of how this area was once slated for residential development, but thanks to grassroots campaigning, the involvement of local communities, municipal leadership, and the vital work of conservation organizations, particularly Appalachian Corridor, the Société de conservation du mont Brome and the Nature Conservancy of Canada, it is now protected in perpetuity for the enjoyment of future generations. These partners played a critical role not only in preserving these lands, but also in integrating them into a sustainable vision of land use planning where conservation, responsible access, and ecosystem health are all taken into consideration.

The protected area today features scenic lookouts and a network of trails where families, hikers and outdoor enthusiasts can enjoy nature safely. With its lake, its forests and its peak, Mont Gale is an exceptional natural area. The conservation network that surrounds it ensures the protection of a diversified habitat for flora and fauna.

These achievements speak to a deep conviction that safeguarding nature is a long-term investment, not a barrier to development. It demonstrates that it is perfectly possible for quality of life, recreation and tourism, and respect for the environment to coexist. It takes vision, now and for the long term.

If I may, I would like to step back in time, to 1876, to be exact. In that era, no one had ever heard of climate change. In 1876, the City of Montreal commissioned Frederick Olmsted, one of the two architects who designed Central Park, to work on a design for Mount Royal Park, which features 423 hectares of natural areas protected in perpetuity. Who today would even think of destroying this natural environment?

When I talk about protecting natural environments, it is not a matter of ideology. It is a matter of taking responsibility and action. By defending these projects, we have taken concrete steps towards preserving the natural heritage of our region.

It is with these same values in mind that I am moving Motion No. 15 today to give citizens, landowners and conservation organizations the fiscal tools they need to protect even more territory before it is lost forever. Let us think of future generations. What do we want to leave to them?

Canada has committed to conserving 30% of its territory by 2030. However, one fact remains. In many regions, such as the Eastern Townships, more than 90% of the territory consists of private land. Without the voluntary participation of landowners, we will never reach our national conservation goals.

This is why ecological gifts play such an essential role. Since 1995, more than 220,000 hectares across the country have been protected through the ecological gifts program. However, the reality is that conservation organizations have ongoing responsibilities, including monitoring sites, restoring habitats, responding to ecological threats and ensuring long-term management. The truth is that they rarely have adequate funding to carry out these tasks.

Additionally, the current tax incentives for monetary donations, which support these responsibilities, are insufficient to encourage the environmental philanthropy we need to achieve our conservation targets. Motion No. 15 proposes that the government modernize its tax tools by enhancing incentives for ecological donations, creating a tax credit equivalent to the monetary donations made to conservation organizations and ensuring tax fairness among the different types of donations. In other words, it is about updating a 30-year-old tax framework to meet present-day needs and help us achieve our goals.

Protecting nature is not a cost; it is an investment. Wetlands prevent flooding, forests filter our water and healthy soils reduce heat islands. The latest analyses show that every dollar invested in nature yields up to $20 in benefits for the community.

I will give a few concrete examples from our region. In Lac‑Brome and Sutton, two recent ecological donations have helped protect nearly 20 hectares located in the Montagnes‑Vertes ecological corridor, a cross-border corridor that is critical to the survival of many species. Another example is the Brière forest between Sutton and Potton. This 540-hectare area was to be subdivided for housing development. An ecologically valuable forest the size of 1,000 football fields could have been turned into a housing development. The housing that would have been built in this bucolic environment would not have been affordable housing. It was a development that would have brought in $7.4 million in revenue. However, the owner, Guy Brière, chose to make an ecological donation. This visionary gift protected more than 250 species of plants, 53 species of birds, critical habitats for black bears and bobcats, and part of a water source used by thousands of people.

These examples are not just anecdotes. They are proof that Canadians take extraordinary action when they are given the right tools. However, the fact is that conservation projects are costly. Before the land is even acquired, biologists, surveyors, appraisers, notaries and lawyers must be hired and paid. Then there is ongoing work to be done in perpetuity. Monetary donations are essential to financing this work, but the current incentives are insufficient.

However, we can draw inspiration from a model that has proven successful in Quebec, namely, the additional tax credit for a first major cultural donation. This measure has increased cultural philanthropy by nearly 30%. Why not offer a similar tool to support conservation organizations? Some will say that these measures benefit the wealthiest. That is not the case. The majority of donations come from families who have been established in our region for generations. They are woodlot owners, people who voluntarily give up part of their inheritance for the common good and who are often much richer in land than in money. The cost to the government is relatively modest, $25 million to $35 million per year, according to official data. The return, however, is immense.

Motion No. 15 is not partisan. It is part of Canada's 2030 nature strategy, our commitment to 30x30, and the global biodiversity framework for 2020-30. It reflects our best qualities: generosity, co-operation and shared responsibility.

By protecting nature, we protect ourselves. We protect the water we drink, the air we breathe and the landscapes that define us. I therefore invite all my colleagues from all parties to support Motion No. 15 in order to encourage generosity toward nature and strengthen the tools we need to preserve our natural heritage.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting. We have the opportunity, with slots for private members' bills, to put forward a bill or a motion. The member has chosen to put forward a motion, not a bill, and the motion is asking the government to consider amending the Income Tax Act.

I just want to ask the member, if he has specific recommendations with respect to a program, why he did not just put forward legislation to make the change he wants. Does he think it is maybe a bit lacking in ambition to put forward a motion to ask the government to consider doing something, when he has the power, as a member of Parliament, to actually put forward legislation to do that thing he is asking the government to consider?

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I chose to move a motion because, as a private member, I cannot introduce a bill requiring the expenditure of funds. I therefore chose to move a motion.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his initiative, which we will support. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie for acting on conviction over the past few days. He stood his ground, showed courage, and decided to resign from cabinet because of the marked retreat from, not to say abandonment of, the fight against climate change. The hon. member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie even said that it would be dishonest to say that Canada will meet its 2030 climate targets.

Knowing that climate change is the greatest threat to biodiversity, I would like to know if his hon. colleagues will also stand up and denounce the government's dangerous backpedalling.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, personally, I am doing what I need to do, as the representative for my riding and as a Liberal member, to advance the environmental cause.

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during COP15 in Montreal, the parties adopted the global target of protecting 30% of their territory by 2030. How would this motion help achieve that goal?

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the target of protecting 30% of our territory by 2030, which was adopted in Montreal at COP15, requires us to mobilize every resource at our disposal. In Canada, one critical tool that is too often underestimated is the voluntary conservation of private lands.

In many areas of the country, including my own, the Eastern Townships, over 90% of the land is private. This means that we will simply not be able to meet the 30% target without encouraging more landowners to protect their land and without providing better support for the conservation organizations that help them.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, respectfully, I have a follow-up to my previous question.

What the member said about the rules of the House is not correct. Members are able to propose private members' bills that spend money; they simply need a royal recommendation, which is the support of cabinet, in order to proceed. The member could have proposed legislation to do this. It might have required a royal recommendation, although, in this case, the concept the member is talking about is not a new expenditure but a change in tax treatment. I do not think that a reduction of taxes without new expenditures even requires a royal recommendation anyway.

First of all, the member could have put forward the motion either way if he had the government's support. Secondly, I do not think this even needs a royal recommendation. The fact is, doing it this way, asking the government to think about something, looks like a desire to send a signal of sympathy without actually making a change. I wonder, if the member had the courage of his convictions, why he did not actually propose the change that he wants to put forward.

[Louis Villeneuve, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the politics lesson. What I need to know is whether he supports the substance of the motion. The idea here is to advance the environmental cause and not spend our time arguing about things that, in my opinion, are not important.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Motion M-15. It is not a private member's bill. It is not a pathway to anything specific in terms of legislation or regulation or policy. It is basically a suggestion from the colleague across the aisle.

Before I start my comments, I would like to acknowledge something that happened in the House not more than an hour ago. Bill C-225, Bailey's law, was passed, and Bailey's family was here to witness it. It was a lot of hard work from a lot of our colleagues on this side of the aisle in the Conservative caucus, led by the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. It drained a lot of emotion out of a lot of members on this side of the House, so I really commend and thank all those people and parties that made it happen. It was historic. After 10 years, I think we can see light at the end of the tunnel for the victims and maybe put some real teeth back into our justice system.

Motion M-15 brings me back. It is amazing how much the activities in the House bring me back to my earlier days. I was part of the Haisla Nation Council, which participated in a lot of conservation measures, not knowing that it was somehow attached to a global entity that was proposing an initiative like 30 by 30, which is the idea that we should conserve 30% of the land base by 2030. This is not a made-in-Canada initiative.

When I was chief councillor of Haisla Nation, a small little native band, we did not take our direction from external entities. We did it based on what we needed, what we wanted and what we wanted to achieve. We never took anybody's lead. I often wonder why Canada does this. Why does it look to the World Economic Forum or the United Nations for direction? Members are elected for a reason. We should know what the country needs and what direction we should be going towards. Why do we need direction from somebody else? We are all capable people here, and I hope we are all capable leaders. If anything, we should be thinking about initiatives by Canadians for Canadians.

It took me a while to figure this out as a councillor and then as chief councillor for Haisla Nation Council, but we had the same objectives in mind: We wanted to conserve sensitive areas in our territory. I was a part of an organization called Turning Points, which changed its name to Coastal First Nations. There is confusion in the media about what the term “coastal first nations” means. Coastal First Nations is an official, non-profit organization. I think people get it confused with the first nations that live on the coast, which is a different term altogether.

I did not know at the time that taking funds from American funders to conserve land was an issue. In fact, the funds we received at that time were funnelled through the David Suzuki Foundation. By the time I left and took my band out of that organization, the talk was to eliminate the David Suzuki Foundation as a funnel for the funds coming from American funders. We left because we had a difference of opinion in terms of comments we were told about that had been made toward the LNG industry.

I agree with the concept of protecting ecologically sensitive areas. I read what Prime Minister Harper did at the time, but he did not commit to 30 by 30; he committed to protecting 70% of the land base. That is a good thing now, given what is happening today. It was timely, because we do want to protect ecologically sensitive areas. In fact, we already do, through a number of different measures.

I do not understand why we need this. We protect ecologically sensitive areas within environmental assessments, for example. Not only that, but we actually repair ecologically sensitive areas within the environmental assessment through the environmental offsets initiative. Canada is already doing a good job at protecting ecologically sensitive areas. I do not see why we need a foreign body or an international body to dictate what we should or should not with our land base.

It is timely to have this discussion now because we have not really figured out what the Cowichan court case means in terms of private land. I think we are putting the cart ahead of the horse until we figure out exactly what that means. The federal government may intend to argue on behalf of private landowners, and the B.C. government may intend to do likewise, but it is unclear what the argument is going to be. Until we figure that out, we should think carefully about this, because we might have to undo this and we might have even more chaos in terms of what we are seeing right now in Richmond, B.C.

The other thing, in terms of timing, is that everybody acknowledges that we are in a housing crisis, but this motion is proposing to take even more private land out of the land base and sterilize that land, so we cannot build more houses. It is not the time to talk about private land being taken out of the land base, out of municipalities or regional districts for that matter. We are going to need land if Canada ever decides to live up to its promise of building 500,000 houses per year. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already pointed out that the Liberals are not going to reach that target, ever. At best, they will do 5,000 houses.

This brings me back to my days in the B.C. legislature, where we thought that the B.C. NDP promise of building 114,000 houses in 10 years was unachievable. It was; it was proven. A Tyee article said that a lot of the houses that they reported were policy-created. There were no new houses built.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I appreciate that hon. colleagues have the ability to try to weave in a lot of different elements, but this is in relation to the particular motion that is before the House. I hope that you can provide guidance to my hon. colleague to try to keep reasonably within the bounds. I know there is a lot of latitude, but it is starting to feel a bit far away from the motion at hand. That is just what I have observed from this side of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister for the reminder. I am sure the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley was returning to the matter at hand, so I invite him to continue speaking with that in mind.

[Ellis Ross, Conservative, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thought private land was the discussion, and to the best of my recollection, most of the houses being built in Canada are built on private land. If we are going to talk about private land, we also have to talk about the plan to take private land out of the land base. I think it is totally directed. In fact, of all the promises we are talking about here, I think housing should be addressed if we are talking about taking private land out of the land base. I think it is totally related.

As a first nation, when we were trying to conserve land, all these promises were made by telling us that if we conserved land, a whole different economy was going to be brought to us. There would be tourism. Everybody would get a job. Everybody was going to have a house of their own. First nations would be well off. Kitlope was protected in the same manner as we are talking about here. Who got wealthy and benefited under that? The environmental organizations did. Their offices got bigger. They hired more staff. They had offices in San Francisco and Vancouver. I visited them. One in particular had 150 staff members.

What did my band get? For all the work that we did to preserve land, we got nothing. All we got was a $30,000-a-year funding option from the B.C. government. That was all we got. It was not even enough to hire anybody. It was good enough for administrative purposes, but that was it. I think the timing of this motion is not right, considering all the different pressures Canadians are facing, as well as the housing crisis and many other issues, but I am running out of time, so I will sit down.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as mentioned, the Bloc Québécois supports Motion No. 15. This motion concerns ecological gifts. Among other things, it proposes that the House recognize certain principles regarding the importance of conserving private land to protect biodiversity, and that the government consider tax measures to promote this type of conservation.

The public issue that we are discussing is the preservation of biodiversity, which actually refers to the variety that exists among living organisms, including genetic, species and ecosystem diversity. One thing the motion proposes is that the House recognize the importance of voluntary conservation, which is the conservation by property owners of ecological features found on their land. These may include waterways, marshes, buffer strips, wetlands, habitats, vulnerable species and endangered species.

It must be noted that the federal government does not have jurisdiction over land that it does not own. It is important to keep that in mind. Supporting private conservation initiatives is a valuable tool that the federal government can use to promote land-based conservation, and the Bloc Québécois supports that.

The Bloc Québécois would also like to point out that, currently, conservation organizations play a key role on the ground. These are stakeholders who often work on a voluntary basis and are involved in the conservation of private lands, particularly in Quebec. Members should keep in mind that we are talking about 8% of our land that is private, primarily in southern Quebec. These areas have some of the richest and most diverse natural environments. The southern regions have unique ecosystems, but they also have some of the most significant interactions between people and nature.

By supporting Motion No. 15, we wish to renew our commitment in favour of legal conservation measures, like tax breaks, because we should work toward encouraging donations of land to conservation organizations so they are able to protect more land. In southern Quebec in particular, it is important to do this and to protect this land in perpetuity. This would result in significant benefits for the ecosystems in question, as well as for the people who get to enjoy these ecosystems.

Another avenue to consider, and the one we feel is the most important, is for the federal government to plan to take concrete action to protect nature, particularly by enhancing the nature agreements between the provinces and the federal government. That is one of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois proposed, during the 2025 election campaign, that the federal government triple its share of the funding for the Canada-Quebec nature agreement, increasing it from $100 million to at least $300 million, in order to help Quebec, which is taking action to protect nature.

Unfortunately, what we see in the latest budget is that the protection of nature has been completely left out, even though it is a recurring theme with this government. There were zero additional dollars in the latest budget for the protection of nature, for the protection of biodiversity, even though the government has committed to reaching some fairly ambitious targets by 2030.

Action is in fact urgently needed. In our view, the government has to show some consistency here, because humans are dependent on biodiversity in many respects. We depend on what it does for us, whether that is in terms of food, medications, air quality improvement, water quality improvement, or mitigation of the effects of climate change, such as droughts and floods.

The loss of biodiversity is one of the most urgent global emergencies, along with pollution, climate change and others. Even the World Economic Forum has identified biodiversity protection or biodiversity loss as the third most pressing global risk along with disinformation and misinformation, the return of state-based armed conflict and the climate change crisis.

The loss of biodiversity is a crisis. Additional measures need to be taken to protect biodiversity from threats posed by habitat and ecosystem loss and degradation resulting from human activiy. This is why it is so important to protect private lands and encourage protection by individuals and organizations. Obviously, urban sprawl and industrial overdevelopment come at a cost. The problem extends across the globe.

That is why the Convention on Biological Diversity, a global convention, was put in place in 1992. It eventually led to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, ratified in Montreal in 2022, which set ambitious targets and was signed by the Canadian government. The most ambitious of the 23 targets is to protect 30% of Canada's land, inland waters and coastal and marine areas by 2030. This means protecting 30% of our territory by 2030. That is Canada's goal.

The Canadian government needs to get to work, because Canada set a target of protecting 25% of its territory by 2025. This target will obviously not be met. The previous government used to say that the goal of protecting 25% of Canada's land and waters would be met by 2025, but the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development was very clear in his latest report: As with the fight against climate change, Canada is not on track to achieve its area-based conservation targets, and there is currently no plan, road map or pathway for reaching its target of protecting 30% of its territory by 2030.

It is now 2025, and it is obvious that the Liberal government has missed its target. Today's figures show that 13.8% of Canada's terrestrial area, including land and freshwater, is protected and 15.5% of its marine territory is protected. This is a far cry from the 25% and 30% targets that would need to be met to halt and reverse biodiversity loss and to respect Canada's international biodiversity protection commitments. When we look at Canada's 2030 nature strategy, we realize how fortunate it is that Quebec itself made commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It is not waiting for the rest of Canada to develop and implement strategies, because Canada is still way behind.

It is important to understand that Quebec territory does not belong to the federal government, but to Quebeckers. Quebec assumes its own responsibilities for protecting its territory and protecting the natural environment. The environment is protected by Quebec's environmental legislation, not the federal government. Quebec is a party to the Convention on Biological Diversity and managed to protect 17% of its territory by 2024. By way of comparison, Ontario has protected 10.9%. Quebec is doing its part and contributing to the goal of protecting 30% of the territory. Once again, Quebec has invested nearly $908 million in its nature plan, while the federal government has contributed only $100 million.

We need to look at the big picture, and what we see now are other significant rollbacks from the federal government that would more than cancel out its initiatives, including the initiative in Motion No. 15, which is important and which we support, as I said. How can Canada hope to meet its targets when what we are seeing now is a rollback of environmental protections? Areas are being opened up to more oil and gas development, regardless of the consequences. There are plans for new pipelines that would have serious repercussions. There is even talk of lifting the west coast oil tanker ban that has been in place since 1972, which would allow oil tankers to enter this ecologically valuable territory.

We want to move forward and see more measures like this being proposed. The government needs to enshrine this into law, if possible, to facilitate ecological donations. However, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room. It is the government's failure to protect biodiversity. It is the lack of a plan. It is the zero dollars in the latest budget for the protection of territory, biodiversity and parks. On the contrary, we are seeing rollbacks, while the Liberals have billions of dollars set aside for oil companies.

True, today's motion is a good initiative, but let us not forget that this government has a disastrous record when it comes to the environment, as stated by the former minister of Canadian identity and culture, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

Order Paper Questions Nos. 461 and 470

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order brought forward earlier by the member for Tobique—Mactaquac. I wish to confirm to the House that when Order Paper Questions Nos. 461 and 470 were signed by the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the member was a minister.